Agenda of Council - 12 December 2011

Council 12 December 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 5 December 2011

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Petitions

5 Minutes of Lord Mayor

6 Public Forum

7 PETITIONS

8 Economy and Development

8.1 306 Church Street, Parramatta
Lot 10 DP 65743

8.2 582 - 588 Woodville Road, Guildford
(Lot A DP 405940 and Lots 3 -5 DP 128860) (Woodville Ward)

8.3 165 Clyde Street, South Granville
Lot 1 DP 1055972

8.4 37 Midson Road (Former Eastwood Brickworks) Eastwood (LOT 10 DP 270605) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

8.5 258 Railway Terrace, Guildford
Lot 2 DP 848089

8.6 20-22 Belmore Street, North Parramatta
Lot 4 HCP 237 and Lot 11 DP 758788

8.7 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots 37 & 38 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.8 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots 37 & 38 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.9 44 Elizabeth Street, Granville
Lot 5 Sec 2 DP 277

8.10 45 George Street, CLYDE NSW 2142
LOT 19 D P 612994 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.11 223 Woodville Road, Merrylands
(Woodville Ward) (Lot 96 DP 926)

8.12 6 Third Avenue, Epping NSW 2121
(Lot 58 Sec 3 DP 10048( (Lachlan Macquarie Ward))

8.13 Variations to Standards under SEPP 1

8.14 63 Victoria Road, Parramatta
(Lot 1 DP 997613) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.15 Re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal regarding rezoning/reclassification of 25 Council owned sites

8.16 Creation of Easement to Drain Water over Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 432573, Fred Spurway Park, Carlingford

9 Environment and Infrastructure

9.1 Trial of Free Harris Park Bus Service

9.2 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 24 November 2011

9.3 Parramatta Traffic Committee Minutes of meeting held on 24 November 2011

9.4 Clyde Street, South Granville – Request for a Pedestrian Crossing

9.5 Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service

9.6 Barry Wilde Bridge Fountain

10 Community and Neighbourhood

10.1 Draft Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management

10.2 Adoption of Parramatta Street Tree Plan

10.3 Smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas

11 Governance and Corporate

11.1 Delegation of Authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer During the Christmas/New Year Period

11.2 Adoption of Changes to Council's Ward Boundaries for Exhibition

11.3 Investments Report for October 2011

11.4 Report of the Code of Conduct Sole Reviewer - Allegations of a Failure to Appropriately Manage a Conflict of Interests

11.5 Report of the Code of Conduct Sole Reviewer - Allegation that a Councillor made inappropriate comments at a Council Meeting

11.6 Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer - Conduct Reviewers

12 Closed Session

12.1 Tender No. 16/2011 - Supply, Implementation and Support of a Library Management System

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.

12.2 Tender 20/2011 16 Buckleys Road, Winston Hills – Stormwater Drainage Works

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

12.3 Tender 22/2011 Loftus Street Bend, Merrylands – Pavement Adjustment, Landscaping and Traffic Management Improvements

12.4 Tender 24/2011 Epping Town Centre Upgrade – Stage 1 – Corner of Beecroft Road, Bridge and High Streets Epping - Footpath Pavement Upgrade

12.5 Riverside Advisory Board

12.6 Tender for the Provision of Local Advertising Services (Tender No. 26/2011)

13 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

14 QUESTION TIME

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT 306 Church Street, Parramatta
Lot 10 DP 65743

DESCRIPTION Alterations & additions to a heritage listed building including fitout and use of the first floor as a restaurant, works to the roof top to accomodate the restaurant seating, a roofed bar area and fitout of part of the ground floor as a cafe with associated signage.

REFERENCE DA/566/2011 - Submitted 16 August 2011

APPLICANT/S Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd

OWNERS C16 Pty Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 15^th November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal involves structural works to a heritage item.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations & additions to a heritage listed building including the fitout and use of the first floor as a restaurant, works to the roof top include a dining area and bar including a deck with vergola over for use in association with the first floor restaurant, together with the fitout of part of the ground floor as a cafe to the east of the access stair and erection of signage

The hours of operation proposed by the applicant are:

· Ground floor café: 6.30am-9.00pm seven days per week

· First floor restaurant: Monday to Sunday 12noon - 2.00am

· Roof top terrace: Monday to Sunday 12noon – 12Midnight

· Dome (mezzanine) level: Monday to Sunday 12noon -2.00am

The hours proposed are considered to be inconsistent with surrounding development, and it is recommmended that the following hours of operation be approved:

· Ground floor café: 6.30am-9.00pm seven days per week

· First floor: Monday - Saturday 12noon – 12midnight, Sunday: 12noon – 10pm

· Roof top terrace and Dome (mezzanine) level: Monday to Saturday 12noon – 12midnight, Sunday: 12noon -10pm.

The proposed seating capacity for the development is:

First floor: 94 seats

Roof deck: 70 seats

Dome mezzanine: 24 seats

The café is a shop front only, therefore there is no seating proposed.

Total: 188 seats

The proposed use of a portion of the ground floor as a café and the use of the first floor, roof top and mezzanine as a sushi bar/restaurant are defined as “restaurant” under Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 and are permitted with consent in the B4 Mixed Use zone.

The proposed signage is ancillary to the use of the site and is defined as business identification signs under Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

The site is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The proposed works to the heritage item are considered sympathetic to the external fabric of the building whilst the works are of a modern and contemporary design, it is considered to contribute to the uniqueness of the building. The proposed use of the building as a restaurant and café are considered satisfactory adaptive reuses of the heritage item, ensuring the item is maintained and available to the public. The proposal complies with PLEP 2007 and DCP 2007 and has been supported by Councils Heritage Officer and Urban Design Team.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 566/2011 for the alterations and additions to a heritage listed building including fitout and use of the first floor as a restaurant, creation of a roof top terrace and bar area including an access stair, deck and vergola, and works to the ground floor to facilitate access to the first floor on land at 306 Church Street, Parramatta subject to conditions contained within Attachment 1.

Michael Tully

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	S79C Report	28 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	9 Pages

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT 582 - 588 Woodville Road, Guildford
(Lot A DP 405940 and Lots 3 -5 DP 128860) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a two storey residential flat building complex containing 16 units over basement carparking

REFERENCE DA/309/2011 - Submitted 12 May 2011

APPLICANT/S Aslan Properties Pty Ltd

OWNERS Aslan Properties Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

17 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination due to the down zoning of the site from Mixed Use 10 to R2 Residential under Parramatta LEP 2011. Residential flat buildings are not permissible in this zone.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a two storey residential flat building containing 16 apartments over basement carparking. The proposed development is a “residential flat building” under Parramatta LEP 2001 and was permitted with development consent when the application was lodged in accordance with the Mixed Use 10 zoning that applied to the land.

The subject site is located on the western side of Woodville Road. Nearby development comprises of detached dwellings to the north and north-west, industrial development to the north-east, Council’s golf course to the east and Sydney Water supply pipelines to the south and west of the site. This section of Woodville Road between the Sydney Water pipeline and Rawson Road contains a mixture of 3- 4 storey mixed use developments, two storey industrial buildings and single dwellings.

Parramatta LEP 2011 was gazetted by the Minister on 7 October 2011. The LEP includes a savings provisions in the form of clause 1.8A as follows:

1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications

If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had been exhibited but had not commenced.

This provision enables the application to be determined, regardless of whether Parramatta LEP 2011 is made at the time of determining the subject application. The proposal satisfies the definition of a “residential flat building” and is permissible under the Mixed Use 10 zoning applying to the land at the time of the lodgement under the Parramatta LEP 2001.

The proposed development is similar in bulk and scale to the industrial buildings on the eastern side of Woodville Road and has a height compatible with two storey dwellings in the area. Woodville Road also has a number of constructed 3-4 storey Mixed Use developments that are of a greater bulk and scale than this development.

The proposal has been assessed against Parramatta DCP 2005 and it has been found to be generally compliant with the exception of minor matters regarding unit mix and building width. These concerns are discussed in the attached section 79C assessment report.

The application was advertised and notified for 21 days and 3 submissions were received. The issues raised in submissions do not warrant refusal of the application.

The development is compatible with the mixed character of the area and given the majority of Council’s requirements for residential flat buildings are met the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a)That Development Application No. DA/309/2011 for demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building development containing 16 dwellings over a basement carpark on land at 582 - 588 Woodville Road Guildford be approved subject to the recommended conditions as outlined in Attachment 1.

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

Brad Delapierre

Team Leader –Development Assessment

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	72 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	6 Pages
4 View	Surroundling Landuses Map	1 Page
5	Confidential Internal Residential Floor Plans	2 Pages

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT 165 Clyde Street, South Granville
Lot 1 DP 1055972

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) modification to an approved 3 storey mixed use development containing ground floor retail space and 14 residential units above and basement level carparking.

REFERENCE DA/230/2008/C - Submitted 18 August 2011

APPLICANT/S Alexsandar Design Group Pty Ltd

OWNERS Joey Constructions Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 18^th November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This Section 96(2) application is referred to Council as the development application to which the modification relates was originally determined by Council.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 96(2) application DA/230/2008/C seeks approval for modifications to an approved 3 storey mixed use development containing ground floor retail space and 14 residential units above over basement level carparking. The proposed modifications involve:

· An additional storey (level 4) comprising 5 additional apartments, 3 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units.

· Provision of an accessible ramp within one of the ground floor retail tenancies (facing Clyde Street).

· Additional basement level and parking spaces. The proposal provides 61 spaces which is broken down into 37 residential (increase of 15 spaces) and 24 retail spaces (no change) over 2 levels of basement carparking.

· Changes to the finished floor levels within the basement and residential component of the mixed use development.

The applicant also indicated they are seeking to embellish the adjacent park to the north of the site, being the Roy Godfrey Reserve, which will provide an amenity benefit to their development.

The embellishment works to the park was discussed with Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Officer who welcomed the offer made by the applicant.

The applicant is prepared to undertake $50,000.00 worth of upgrade works to the Roy Godfrey Reserve. A condition of consent has been imposed requiring the $50,000.00 to be paid prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

The proposed modifications are not considered to create excessive bulk or scale nor detrimentally impact upon the streetscape. The transition from three storeys to four storeys is sympathetic to the surrounding neighbouring dwellings of Mona and Clyde Streets, providing an appropriate address to the neighbouring reserve via a cascading form of the additional storey, varied balcony sizes and a disjointed roof form which amplifies the effects of light and shading. The proposal is considered to present a satisfactory bulk and scale and is appropriate for the location. The development does not result in any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood or the streetscape. The proposal is of good design, activating the street corner providing public and private benefits.

Council approved the Section 82A review of DA/230/2008 at its meeting of 19^th October, 2009.

Works have commenced and are ongoing including partial excavation for the second basement which the subject application is seeking approval for.

Four objections were received in response to the notification of the application which are discussed in the S79C report attached.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable as it is consistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 65, Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, Development Control Plan 2005 and Development Control Plan 2011. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority and in accordance with Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, grant its approval to modify Development consent No. DA/230/2008 for an approved 3 storey mixed use development.

The modifications include:

· An additional storey (level 4) comprising 5 additional apartments, 3 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units.

· Provision of an accessible ramp within the ground floor retail tenancy.

· Changes to the finished floor levels within the basement and residential component of the mixed use development;

on land at 165 Clyde Street, South Granville.

(b) That Council notify all objectors of Councils decision.

Michael Tully

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	S79 C Report	27 Pages
2 View	Locality map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	13 Pages
4 View	S82A Review 79CReport DA/230/2008	48 Pages
5 View	S82A Review DA/230/2008 Approved Plans	9 Pages
6 View	S96(1a) 79C Report	5 Pages
7 View	S96(1a) Approved Plans	2 Pages
8	Floor plans (confidential)	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.4

SUBJECT 37 Midson Road (Former Eastwood Brickworks) Eastwood (LOT 10 DP 270605) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Stage 2.3 -Construction of 10 dwelling houses on proposed lots 14 to 23.

REFERENCE DA/633/2011 - Lodged 15 September 2011

APPLICANT/S AVJBOS Eastwood Developments Pty Ltd

OWNERS AVJBOS Eastwood Developments Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

17 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the application seeks variations of greater than 10% to Clause 38, Clause 39 and Clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and the application is accompanied by an objection under SEPP 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the construction of 10 dwellings on lots 14-23. The site forms part of the former Eastwood Brickworks housing estate.

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

The dwellings have been designed taking into consideration the design principles of the Master Plan and achieves consistency in streetscape and are compatible with dwellings previously approved for the site.

In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP the application was notified to adjoining properties for 21 days and no submissions were received.

Despite the non compliances with the floor space ratio, allotment size and height requirements of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 the proposal is consistent with the 2A Residential zone objectives and the Eastwood Brickworks Master Plan.

The subject site is now zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Parramatta LEP 2011. The proposed development is permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.

The proposed development is consistent with the Master Plan 2003 and has been assessed against the relevant sections of Section 79C of the EPA Act 1979.

The total floor space ratio across the site to date equates to 0.285:1 which is below the maximum permissible FSR of 0.6:1 under the Masterplan.

Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 38, Clause 39 and Clause 40 of PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1.

(a) Further, that Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/633/2011 for construction of ten dwellings on proposed lots 14-23 at 39A Midson Road (former Eastwood Brickworks) EASTWOOD for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1.

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	34 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	4 Pages
4 View	SEPP 1 Objection	13 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.5

SUBJECT 258 Railway Terrace, Guildford
Lot 2 DP 848089

DESCRIPTION Construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 10 units over basement carparking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

REFERENCE DA/308/2011 - 12 May 2011

APPLICANT/S Railway Terrace Wholesale Pty Ltd

OWNERS Railway Terrace Wholesale Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 18 november 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination due to the nature of the development (affordable rental housing under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the construction of a residential flat building containing 10 units over basement carparking under the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

The proposal has been submitted as an infill housing development. The proposed development was made prior to the amendments to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (ARHSEPP) and therefore the provisions under the ARHSEPP as originally gazetted have been applied in this assessment. The subject site is zoned 2C Residential under the provisions of Parramatta LEP 2001 which has an equivalent zoning to Zone R4 High Density Residential which permit residential flat buildings. As such, the proposed in-fill (3 storey residential flat building) affordable housing development is permissible.

The subject site is ideally located in terms of its zoning, proximity to public transport and Guildford Town Centre. The development form is sympathetic with the current development patterns as there are various Residential Flat Buildings within close proximity to the site. Despite some non-compliances such as building frontage, side setbacks, solar access and landscaping, the proposed development is considered to be compatible with the local context for the following reasons:

· The development is well below the density allowed by the ARHSEPP and PLEP 2011 at 0.86:1.

· The development is well below the height controls under PLEP 2001 and PLEP 2011 at 9.4 metres.

· The subject site is located to the periphery of the Guildford Town Centre where higher density developments are appropriate.

· The proposed front setback maintains consistency with the prevailing front setback patterns of the street ensuring the development is sympathetic to the streetscape.

· The diversity in the unit mix proposed results in a variety of residential options to suit a range of lifestyles.

· The architectural style which includes the proposed skillion roof and external materials creates visual interest whilst contributing to the amenity of the streetscape.

· The rear setback allows for appropriate landscaping and a common area for occupants of the development to use for recreational activities.

· The development is supported by the Design and Review Panel.

· The proposal complies with the aims and objectives of the 2C Residential Zone under PLEP 2001 and the R4 High Density Residential under PLEP 2011.

The development application was advertised and notified to adjoining residents in accordance with the Notification DCP and 2 individual submissions were received and 1 confidential submission The main issues that have been raised in the submissions are demolition works, waste generation, biodiversity, overlooking and security and safety. Upon the receipt of amended plans, the amended proposal was re-notified to adjoining residents and in response, 2 individual submissions were received. However, one confidential submission was resubmitted and contained similar concerns. The remaining submissions however raised the following concerns; the character of the area, overlooking into adjoining properties, overdevelopment, definition of affordable housing and future management of the site. These issues have been fully considered in the S79C report attached.

Given the above, the development application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. DA/308/2011 for the construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 10 units over basement carparking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 on land at 258 Railway Terrace, Guildford be approved subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.

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

Denise Fernandez

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	89 Pages
2 View	Location Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevations	18 Pages
4	Confidential Plans	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.6

SUBJECT 20-22 Belmore Street, North Parramatta
Lot 4 HCP 237 and Lot 11 DP 758788

DESCRIPTION Section 82A Review of Council's previous refusal of DA/203/2011 (demolition, tree removal and construction of 2 townhouses and 2 villas with strata subdivision).

REFERENCE DA/203/2011 - 7 April 2011

APPLICANT/S JS Architects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Mr L Hijazin and M Hijazin

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 18 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council as it is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Section 82A Review application seeks Council’s reconsideration of its refusal to grant consent for the demolition, tree removal and construction of 2 townhouses and 2 villas with strata subdivision.

The original development application was refused at the Council Meeting on the 25 July 2011 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the PLEP 2001 and Draft LEP 2010 as insufficient information has been submitted to assess the potential hydraulics and flood mitigation impacts of the proposal.

2. The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. The development does not comply with the design standards for stormwater management and flood mitigation.

3. The proposal is not in the public interest.

Additional and amended information was received with the Section 82A Review including:

· Revised architectural plans increasing the overall height of the development by 100mm to reflect the recommendations of the Revised Flood Impact Report

· Revised Stormwater Plans

· Revised Flood Impact Report

The amended plans and supporting information satisfactorily address all of the grounds for Council’s previous refusal.

No submissions were received following notification of the Section 82A Review.

For the reasons outlined in this report and Attachment 1, it is recommended that Council overturn its previous decision and approve the Section 82A Review application for demolition, tree removal and construction of 2 town houses and 2 villas with strata subdivision subject to conditions of consent.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council overturn its determination and grant consent to Development Application DA/203/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of 2 townhouses and 2 villas with strata subdivision on land at 20-22 Belmore Street, North Parramatta subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

Denise Fernandez

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment Team

Attachments:

1 View	Section 82A Review and 79C Report	59 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Section 82A Review Plans	7 Pages
4 View	Original Section 79C Report	36 Pages
5	Section 82A Review Confidential Plans	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.7

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.7

SUBJECT 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots 37 & 38 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Occupation of level 1 of an approved building footprint as a food court containing 3 food/drink tenancies and a seating area.

REFERENCE DA/376/2011 - Lodged 7 June 2011

APPLICANT/S Mr Franz Boensch

OWNERS Mr Franz Boensch

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

18 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

A previous report on this application was considered at the 12 September 2011 Council meeting.

Council resolved at this meeting to defer the matter and provide the applicant 30 days to lodge the requested information. Additional information was submitted to Council on 25 September 2011.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF DA//376/2011

The proposed development relates to internal works and a change in use of a portion of a 4 storey building at 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere.

The proposal is for the fit out of level 2 with the approved building envelope for the purpose of 2 refreshment rooms and an associated seating area (food court) for an unspecified number of persons (plans indicate 11 tables).

HISTORY

A previous report on this application was considered at the 12 September 2011 Council meeting. Council at this meeting resolved “that consideration of this matter be deferred and the applicant be given a period of 30 days to lodge the requested information”

On 25 October 2011 the applicant submitted the following additional information to Council:

· Operational Management Plan dated October 2011 (assessed under DA/377/2011)

· Acoustic Assessment dated 18 October 2011

· Social Impact Assessment dated October 2011 (assessed under DA/377/2011)

· An addendum to the Statement of Environmental Effects

In addition to the information submitted to Council on 25 October 2011 an assessment has also been carried out of the information that was submitted to Council on 29 August 2011 which comprised the following:

· Amended plans including:

· Additional 12 parking spaces and one loading bay on the ground floor and two car parking spaces on the first floor. The development will contain a total of 14 car parking spaces and one loading bay.

· The removal of one mechanical workshop bay on the ground floor.

· Inclusion of a lift within the building.

· Reduction of a refreshment room on the first floor from three to two refreshment rooms.

· Internal modifications to the residential apartment on the first floor.

· An additional two car parking spaces within the front entry on the ground floor.

· The reduction in boarding rooms on level 2 and 3 from 24 rooms on each floor to 20 rooms on each floor.

· Amendments to the external appearance and to the internal floor layout on level 4.

· A Preliminary Air Quality Assessment dated 12 August 2011

· A written response to the issues raised in Council’s letter dated 10 June 2011.

· An Initial Acoustical Investigation Response Letter dated 15 August 2011

An assessment of the information submitted on 29 August 2011 was not previously carried out as the information was submitted after the assessment report for the DA had been prepared. An assessment of both the information submitted to Council on 29 August 2011 and 25 October 2011 is included in Attachment 1.

Following the review of the additional information and plans submitted in August, it is still the opinion of Officers that the development is unacceptable and approval of the application would not be in the public interest.

Accordingly, the previous recommendation to refuse the application has been maintained.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application 376/2011 for occupation of level 2 of an approved development as a food court containing 2 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 is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The development that this application seeks approval for warrants the submission of a new development application for the entire building.

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

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Addendum to Assessment Report	3 Pages
2 View	Section 79c report	25 Pages
3 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
4 View	Architectural Plans	2 Pages
5	Confidential internal floor plans	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.8

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.8

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 2 & 3 for boarding house accommodation.

REFERENCE DA/377/2011 - Lodged 7 June 2011

APPLICANT/S Mr Franz Boensch

OWNERS Mr Franz Boensch

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

22 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

A previous report on this application was considered at the 12 September 2011 Council meeting.

Council resolved at this meeting to defer the matter and provide the applicant 30 days to lodge the requested information. Additional information was submitted to Council on 25 October 2011.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF DA/377/2011

The proposed development relates to internal works and a change in use of a portion of a 4 storey building at 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere.

The proposal is for the construction of a new floor between level 2 and level 3, and the fit out and use of level 2 and level 3 as a boarding house with 40 rooms. Each floor will accommodate 20 x 15m² single occupancy rooms with a communal area to the centre of the building.

HISTORY

A previous report on this application was considered at the 12 September 2011 Council meeting. Council at its meeting resolved “that consideration of this matter be deferred and the applicant be given a period of 30 days to lodge the requested information”.

On 25 October 2011 the applicant submitted the following additional information to Council:

· Operational Management Plan dated October 2011

· Acoustic Assessment dated 18 October 2011

· Social Impact Assessment dated October 2011

· An addendum to the Statement of Environmental Effects

In addition to the information submitted to Council on 25 October 2011 an assessment has also been carried out of the information submitted to Council on 29 August 2011 which compromised the following:

· Amended plans including:

· The removal of one mechanical workshop bay on the ground floor.

· Inclusion of a lift within the building.

· Reduction of a refreshment room on the first floor from three to two refreshment rooms.

· Internal modifications to the residential apartment on the first floor.

· An additional two car parking spaces within the front entry on the ground floor.

· The reduction in boarding rooms on level 2 and 3 from 24 rooms on each floor to 20 rooms on each floor.

· Amendments to the external appearance and to the internal floor layout on level 4.

· A Preliminary Air Quality Assessment dated 12 August 2011

· A written response to the issues raised in Council’s letter dated 10 June 2011.

· An Initial Acoustical Investigation Response Letter dated 15 August 2011

An assessment of the information submitted on 29 August 2011 was not previously carried out as the information was submitted after the assessment report for the DA had been prepared. An assessment of both the additional information submitted to Council on 25 October 2011 and plans submitted to Council on 29 August 2011 is included in Attachment 1.

Following the review of the additional information and plans submitted in August it is still the opinion of Officers that the development is unacceptable and approval would not be in the public interest.

Accordingly, the previous recommendation to refuse the application has been maintained.

RECOMMENDATION

(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 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the boarding house is prohibited development under the zoning of the land.

2. The proposed development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

3. 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.

4. The proposed development will have unacceptable amenity impacts for future residents as the development fails to provide an area of communal open space.

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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The development that this application seeks approval for warrants the submission of a new development application for the entire building.

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

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

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Addendum to Assessment Report	7 Pages
2 View	Section 79c report	41 Pages
3 View	Locality Map	1 Page
4 View	Architectural Plans	2 Pages
5 View	Social Outcomes Referral	8 Pages
6	Confidential Internal Residential Floor Plans	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.9

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.9

SUBJECT 44 Elizabeth Street, Granville
Lot 5 Sec 2 DP 277

DESCRIPTION Demolition and construction of a 19 room boarding house development comprising 2 x 2 storey buildings.

REFERENCE DA/1039/2010 -

APPLICANT/S Daniel Hobeiche

OWNERS Sarkis Nicolas Hobeiche

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 22 NOvember 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council as it proposes a Boarding House.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the construction of a 19 room boarding house development comprising 2 separate 2 storey separate buildings.

The proposed development is permissible with consent under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. It is noted that the application, however, is lodged under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP and is therefore subject to its provisions. The proposed development remains permissible under LEP 2011 where the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

The application was submitted to Council prior to amendments being made to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 in May 2011. The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the character of the surrounding local area. This process has found that the building form when viewed from the street and surrounding properties is compatible with the existing and likely future built from, having regards to the range of residential land uses and building heights/ types in the area.

In response to the initial notification period 12 individual submissions and 1 petition with 22 signatures. The submission of amended plans required its re-notification and in response, 1 petition with 28 signatures was received. Further amended plans were received and consequently re-notified which attracted 1 petition with 5 signatures. The issues raised within these further submissions are similar to the issues raised during previous notification periods.

Due to the number of submissions received, an on-site meeting was held on 19 March 2011 at 3.00pm. This meeting was attended by 20 residents, the applicant and architect for the proposal, the Team Leader of Development Assessment and a Development Assessment Officer. The issues discussed at the meeting were lack of parking, the increase in social problems as a result of the development, other options for the provision of affordable housing, on-site management, the overburdening of existing utilities, loss of privacy, decrease in property values, increased residential acoustics and concerns with stormwater disposal. Notwithstanding the level of community interest in this application the issues raised in the submissions are not considered to warrant refusal of the application. The issues have been discussed in detail within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives contained within Parramatta LEP 2001. The building has a satisfactory design, bulk and scale. The proposed development is appropriately sited to minimise the impacts on adjoining properties in terms of privacy and overlooking.

At the time of lodgement, clause 29 of the SEPP indicated in part that a consent authority cannot refuse a boarding house application if not more than one parking space is provided for each 10 boarding rooms or part thereof. The provision of no off-street parking satisfied this clause.

The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 and if this application was lodged now, Council could not refuse the application if 0.2 carparking spaces were provided for each boarding room. Accordingly a total of two carparking spaces could be required under the current SEPP (2 spaces are required for the 19 boarding rooms proposed). It is noted that the applicant has amended the proposal to provide 4 off street parking spaces which exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the SEPP.

Following comments received from Council’s Community Crime Prevention officer and Social Outcomes officer both of whom were concerned with on-site management, a condition is recommended for inclusion in the consent requiring the appointment of an on-site manager. It is also noted that a revised Plan of Management was submitted which addressed the majority of Council’s concerns regarding the implementation of house rules.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions contained in Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 1039/2010 for the demolition and construction of a 2 storey boarding house comprising 2 separate buildings with a total of 19 rooms on land at 44 Elizabeth Street, Granville subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.

(b) Further that the persons who lodged an individual submission and head petitioner be advised of Council’s determination of the application.

Denise Fernandez

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	49 Pages
2 View	Location Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevation	4 Pages
4	Confidential Plans	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.10

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.10

SUBJECT 45 George Street, CLYDE NSW 2142
LOT 19 D P 612994 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(AA) application to modify a Development Consent issued by the Land and Environment Court (alterations to existing premises for use as a brothel and associated outcall/escort services). The modification includes the rewording of condition 2 which refers to a trial period for the use.

REFERENCE DA/484/2009/A - 12 August 2011

APPLICANT/S Top One Pty Ltd

OWNERS Smartspace Consultants Pty Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

23 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The Section 96 application has been referred to Council for determination as the application seeks to modify a Development Consent relating to a brothel and the consent was issued by the Land and Environment Court.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought to modify a Development Consent issued by the Land and Environment Court. The Court issued consent to alterations to a building and its use as a brothel and for associated outcall/escort services. The Section 96(AA) application seeks to modify Condition No. 2 to allow the 2 year period to commence from the date in which the use commenced rather than the 2 years from the issuing of the consent (which is how the current condition reads).

In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners and occupiers of surrounding properties were given notice of the application for a 14 day period between 24 August 2011 and the 7^th September 2011. In response, 211 submissions were received (including 1 confidential submission). 210 of the submissions were all the same pro forma letter. The public submissions are considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The request to modify the consent as proposed by the applicant is reasonable and appears to be consistent with the judgement handed down by the Land and Environment Court on the 4 May 2010 where the Commissioner stated that the reasoning behind the conditioning of a “trial period” was to ensure that there be a sufficient period of operation to enable a proper assessment of impacts to be made. The wording of Condition No. 2 as it currently exists on the consent would appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the Court and the proposed rewording of Condition No. 2 would bring it in line with the Courts initial intention for the 2 year time limit. The proposed modification would also be consistent with the trial periods provided to other brothels in the Parramatta LGA.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent No. DA/484/2009 in the manner outlined in attachment 1.

(b) That the original objectors to be notified of Council’s decision.

David Little

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79c Report	12 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Land and Environment Court Judgment for Original Development Application	23 Pages
4 View	Land and Environment Court Conditions of Consent for Original Development Application	11 Pages
5 View	Statement of Environmental Effects	5 Pages

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.11

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.11

SUBJECT 223 Woodville Road, Merrylands
(Woodville Ward) (Lot 96 DP 926)

DESCRIPTION Construction of a mechanical workshop/tyre repair shop at the rear of the site to be used in conjunction with the existing motor showroom.

REFERENCE DA/586/2011 - 24 August 2011

APPLICANT/S Mr J Tannous

OWNERS CAD Nominess Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 24 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The proposal is referred to Council as a “Vehicle Repair station” is a prohibited land use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval to the construction of a single storey building located at the rear of the site that is to be used as a “vehicle repair station”. The applicant has stated that the vehicle repair station will be used to service cars sold from the site and that members of the public will not be able to use the vehicle repair station.

The application was advertised for a period of twenty one (21) days. No written submissions were received, however Council received a phone call concerning unauthorised works on the site. An inspection revealed that a garage and shed have been demolished (which was initially part of this application. Unauthorised works were also carried out to the existing building. The application before Council does not propose changes to the existing building.

Further investigations are being carried out by Council’s Regulatory Service Unit (CRM 35755).

The application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer, Landscape Officer and Environmental Health Officer who all did not raise objections to the application subject to conditions of consent.

The proposal complies with Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and most of the controls of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. In particular, the proposal satisfies the key development controls of FSR, height and front setbacks.

A rear setback of 3m is proposed, whilst DCP 2005 requires a 10m rear setback to be provided. A variation of 7m is acceptable as there will be overlooking or shadow impacts caused by the building to the neighbouring residential dwellings; this is further discussed in the S79C Assessment report attached.

A side setback of 0.3m along the Southern boundary is also proposed and DCP 2005 requires a 6m side setback. This is considered adequate considering the adjoining property is a Caltex Petrol Station with vehicle access point adjacent to the southern boundary. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001 and that any adverse impacts are unlikely.

The site zoned R2 Low Density Residential by Local Environmental Plan 2011. The application was lodged prior to PLEP 2011 being gazetted on 7 October 2011 and Cl 1.8A (Savings Clause applies).

The overall building massing on the site is low with the building having an FSR of 0.26:1 which includes the existing building and the proposed repair station which is similar to the bulk and scale of a dwelling. The building is considered to be a satisfactory transition development from the existing dwelling at the front of the site, the adjoining Caltex petrol station to the south of the site, and the surrounding residential amenity. By designing the vehicle repair station as a single storey building the proposal will be consistent with the surrounding residential developments.

In addition the bulk of the building will be softened when viewed from adjoining residential premises by significant tree planting within the side and rear boundary setbacks. Thus it is considered the bulk, scale and density of the development is consistent with that envisaged by PLEP 2011 and does not warrant refusal of the application.

Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 586/2011 for the construction of a single storey vehicle repair station to be used in conjunction with an existing motor showroom at 223 Woodville Road, Merrylands, subject to conditions as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report.

Denise Fernandez

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	29 Pages
2 View	Location Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevations	7 Pages
4 View	Previous Consent (DA/447/2006)	8 Pages
5 View	Previous Approved Plans under DA Consent 447/2006	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.12

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.12

SUBJECT 6 Third Avenue, Epping NSW 2121
(Lot 58 Sec 3 DP 10048( (Lachlan Macquarie Ward))

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision

REFERENCE DA/532/2011 - 3 August 2011

APPLICANT/S Champion Homes

OWNERS Mr S Wijayakumar and Mrs T Wijayakumar

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 24^th NOVEMBER 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application relates to land which is partly owned by an employee of Council and an independent planning consultant has assessed the application.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision.

Both dwellings within the development comprise a single garage, entry area, home theatre family room, dining room, kitchen, laundry and bathroom on the ground floor. The first floor of each dwelling comprises 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a front balcony.

A Pittosporum (Native Daphne) located within the rear yard of the site is proposed to be removed to accommodate the development.

The site proposes an On-Site Detention (OSD) system consisting of an above ground OSD storage basin at the rear yard of each lot. The outflow from the OSD control pit is proposed to be discharged, via proposed a 900mm wide drainage easement through the downstream neighbouring properties onto the kerb & gutter on Second Avenue .

The development is consistent with the objectives of the 2A Residential zone and comply with the relevant controls of LEP 2001 and DCP 2005.

The development is also permissible and consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential under Parramatta LEP 2011.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy for a fourteen day period between 11 August and 25 August 2011. In response 1 submission was received which raised concerns in respect to loss of sunlight and potential overlooking from the first floor west facing balcony and the front entry area.

Amended plans were submitted to Council which proposed landscape changes, details of floor levels, changes to stormwater details and minor changes within the front setback of the development.

The development has a satisfactory design, bulk and scale. There is sufficient landscaping and deep soil provided and the proposal is appropriately sited without unduly impacting the streetscape or amenity of adjoining properties.

The application is recommended for approval subject to a deferred commencement consent requiring the submission of appropriate documentary evidence that the creation of a drainage easement has been registered with the NSW Department of Lands and submission of an amended stormwater plan indicating stormwater pipe details within the proposed drainage easement and details of the emergency overflow escape route up to the street system is submitted to Council.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant Deferred Commencement consent to Development Application No. DA/532/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision at 6 Third Avenue, Epping subject to the conditions in Attachment 1.

(b) Further that the persons who lodged a submission be advised of Council’s determination of the application.

Natalie Richter

Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	53 Pages
2 View	Location Map	1 Page
3 View	Elevations and Site Plan	3 Pages
4 View	Shadow Diagrams	1 Page
5	Confidential Plans	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.14

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.14

SUBJECT 63 Victoria Road, Parramatta
(Lot 1 DP 997613) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal, retention of the existing heritage listed building and construction of a 2 storey infill affordable housing development under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 over basement car parking with strata subdivision into 15 lots

REFERENCE DA/40/2011 - 1 February 2011

APPLICANT/S Benjamin Barrak

OWNERS Barrak Corporation Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 25 November 2011

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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal, retention of the existing heritage listed building and construction of a 2 storey infill affordable housing development under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 over basement car parking with strata subdivision into 15 lots.

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

The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the character of the surrounding local area. This process has found the development to be compatible for a number of reasons, particularly as the local area contains a variety of differing land uses and building forms.

In response to the initial notification of the application 4 submissions were received. Following the receipt of amended plans, a further notification resulted in 5 submissions being received. In total, 6 submissions were received objecting to the proposed development. The main issues raised in the submissions included the impacts upon the park, overlooking, overshadowing, setbacks, suitability of the site, excavation impacts, parking, social and heritage impacts. The public submissions are considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The application is recommended for approval subject to a deferred commencement consent to ensure there are no adverse impacts upon the trees or landscaping area within the adjoining Bill Thompson Reserve. The proposal is considered to be acceptable as it complies with the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and is generally consistent with the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. DA/242/2011 for the demolition, tree removal, retention of the existing heritage listed building and construction of a 2 storey infill affordable housing development under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 over basement car parking with strata subdivision into 15 lots on land at 63 Victoria Road, Parramatta be approved subject to conditions of consent as outlined in Attachment 1.

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

Kate Lafferty

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment Team

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	87 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages
4	Confidential Plans & Elevations	3 Pages

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.15

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.15

SUBJECT Re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal regarding rezoning/reclassification of 25 Council owned sites

REFERENCE F2009/02710 - D02184644

REPORT OF Project Officer-Land Use

PURPOSE:

To present to Council the results of the re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal to rezone/reclassify twenty-five (25) Council owned sites and to seek Council’s endorsement prior to being forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure for finalisation and notification.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council consider this report, its attachments, addendum and the submissions in accordance with section 57 and 58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

(b) That Council consider the memo dated 12 December 2011 regarding the Public Hearing report presented as an addendum to this report.

(c) That Council adopt and forward the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure for finalisation and notification.

(d) Further, that authors of submissions be advised of Council’s decision.

BACKGROUND

1. At its Meeting on 23 May 2011, Council considered the results of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal including the public hearing and the recommendation of the independent chairperson.

2. Council subsequently resolved to adopt the Planning Proposal as amended with the deletion of 4 of the subject sites.

3. The revised Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on 13 July 2011. The Department subsequently advised that they require re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal prior to its finalisation so as to provide further information regarding the discharge of interests and development standards that currently apply to the sites under the new Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

CONSULTATION

4. The revised Planning Proposal including additional information was exhibited from 5 October until 4 November 2011. Council was notified of the re-exhibition by way of a memo dated 27 September 2011 published in the Councillors’ Information Booklet. The information exhibited included the revised Planning Proposal and the additional information as follows:

a. The details of interests to be discharged and interests to remain. “Interests” refers to affectations on title such as trusts, caveats, covenants, public reserves, rights of carriageway, easements etc… Further details are provided in the detailed report;

b. A revised site reference table which includes existing and proposed development standards being maximum height, maximum floor space ratio, minimum lot size for subdivision and minimum lot size for dual occupancy development;

c. Amended maps for site no. 13 which removed No. 300 Railway Terrace, Guildford; and

d. A revised site reference table which includes 2 parcels of land within site no. 14 (Bartlett Park) which are owned by the Roads and Traffic Authority and are under the care, control and management of Council.

5. Two submissions were received being from the NSW Heritage Council and Chris Young Planning on behalf of the Ermington Gospel Trust.

6. At the time of the preparation of this report, a second Public Hearing was scheduled to be held on 7 December 2011. The report of the independent facilitator will be provided to Council under separate cover by way of a memo as an addendum to this report prior to the Council Meeting.

ISSUES

7. The submission from the NSW Heritage Council raises concern regarding the need for height controls to assist in view preservation between site no. 17 (1A Morton Street, Parramatta) and “Broughton House” and site no. 21 (12 Brodie Street, Rydalmere) and the “Former Female Orphan School”. In this regard, Section 2.4.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 contains provisions relating to the preservation of views and vistas, including particular reference to “Broughton House” and the “Former Female Orphan School”.

8. The submission from Chris Young Planning on behalf of the Ermington Gospel Trust raised similar issues to their original submission received in relation to the first public exhibition in September/October 2010. They object to the Planning Proposal in relation to site no. 14 (Nos. 4-6 Wharf Road and No. 661 Victoria Road, Melrose Park) which is adjacent to their existing Place of Public Worship at No. 15 Hughes Avenue. Primarily, they note that the Trust dedicated two of the subject parcels (Lots 2 and 3 DP 588575) to Council free of cost in the 1970s.

9. The Trust has requested that the two parcels be returned to the ownership of the Trust at a fair and reasonable cost and be rezoned to SP1 (Place of Public Worship) or a combination of SP1 (Place of Public Worship) and RE2 Private Recreation. The Trust also objects to the proposed B4 Mixed Use zoning and the proposed height and floor space ratio controls and is concerned development will be out of character with the area and will have negative impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area. They are also concerned that they will lose part of their car park which is located within Lot 2.

10. Several of the issues raised by the Trust were raised in their previous submission and at the original Public Hearing held on 28 February 2011. The report from the Public Hearing noted that the issue of ownership and return of the land to the Trust is a separate matter from the reclassification of the land. Further, in order for Council to transfer any land to the Trust, the land must first be reclassified in any event.

11. With regard to Lot 2, it is noted that the lot contains an electricity transmission easement and part of the Trust’s car park. It is anticipated that Council may enter negotiations with the Trust regarding Lot 2 considering the encumbrances on site and current use of the land. The concerns raised by the Trust regarding potential amenity impacts from redevelopment of Bartlett Park are able to be addressed during the assessment of any future development application having regard to the relevant provisions within Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011. These issues are discussed in further detail in the detailed report.

NEXT STEPS

12. If adopted by Council, the revised Planning Proposal will be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure with a request that they draft the appropriate instruments to implement the objectives of the Planning Proposal and finalise the Plan. The Planning Proposal will require an amendment to both the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

Felicity Roberts Jennifer Concato

Project Officer Acting Manager

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Detailed Report	9 Pages
2 View	Site Reference Table	16 Pages
3 View	Schedule 4 Information	3 Pages
4 View	Amended Maps for Site No. 13	6 Pages
5 View	Addendum (memo dated 12 December 2011 regarding Public Hearing Report) UNDER SEPARATE COVER

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 8.16

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.16

SUBJECT Creation of Easement to Drain Water over Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 432573, Fred Spurway Park, Carlingford

REFERENCE DA/690/2010 - D02180867

REPORT OF Manager - Strategic Assets and Property Management

PURPOSE:

The report recommends Council to grant an Easement to Drain Water over Fred Spurway Park at 34 Mobbs Lane, Carlingford for a proposed dual occupancy development at 32 Mobbs Lane, Carlingford.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to create an Easement to Drain Water over Fred Spurway Park (Lot 1DP 432573) in favour of the property situated at 32 Mobbs Lane, Carlingford (Lot 1 DP 39354) on the terms as stated in the report.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The development site at 32 Mobbs Lane, Carlingford has development approval (DA/690/2010) for a dual occupancy residential development. See Location Plan at attachment 1.

2. A condition of the Deferred Commencement consent, that was issued on 11 April 2011, requires the developer to drain stormwater and to connect with Council’s stormwater system.

3. As such, the developer is required to lay pipes within the adjoining public reserve, being Fred Spurway Park, and also create an Easement to Drain Water in favour of the property situated at 32 Mobbs Lane, Carlingford (Lot 1 DP 39354). See draft Plan of Easement at attachment 2.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Fred Spurway Park is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, is classified as community land and subject to Parks Plan of Management adopted by Council on 28 February 2005. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Section 46 (1) (a1), Council may consent to the Easement to Drain Water over community land subject to the pipe work being laid under the surface of the ground for connection to a facility of the council.

5. An Easement to Drain Water approximately 92.5 m long and 0.9 m wide has been proposed. The total area required for the Easement to Drain Water is approximately 83.25 square metres.

6. A Section 47 LG Act public notification was conducted including an advertisement on the proposed Easement to Drain Water published on 15 October 2011 in the local newspaper. No representation or objection was received.

7. Council’s valuation consultant, F C Carrapetta and Associates have provided Council with an assessment of compensation for granting the Easement to Drain Water. For reference, a copy of the valuation report is at Attachment 3. The owner has agreed to the compensation payment, as recommended in the valuation report.

8. In addition, the owners have paid Council’s costs upfront. Those costs include an application fee, an advertising fee, legal and valuation fees.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. The Council’s Open Space & Natural Resources Unit has been consulted in the course of negotiations with the developer.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

10. Council will receive compensation payment for granting the Easement to Drain Water, if the matter proceeds.

Stephen Montgomery

Manager - Strategic Assets & Property Management

Attachments:

1 View	Location Plan	1 Page
2 View	Draft Plan of Easement	1 Page
3	Valuation Report- Confidential	18 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 9.1

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Trial of Free Harris Park Bus Service

REFERENCE F2011/02489 - D02172236

REPORT OF Group Manager City Services

PURPOSE:

Council has completed a trial of a free lunch-time bus service between Harris Park and Parramatta CBD. This report outlines this project, reviews the service results and options for the future. It is recommended that the service concludes on 23^rd December 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council discontinues the trial of the Harris Park Hop service;

(b) That Council makes representation to the State Government seeking an enhancement of the off-peak public transport services between Harris Park and Parramatta CBD;

(c) Further, that Council receives a report on opportunities to work in partnership with local businesses to further promote the Harris Park precinct.

BACKGROUND

1. When adopting the 2011/12 Operating Plan on 23 May 2011, Council resolved to allocate $25,000 for the trial of a free, lunchtime shuttle bus service between Harris Park and the Parramatta CBD.

2. The free shuttle bus service aims to improve accessibility by reducing walking times and providing an alternative to car travel. In particular, this lunchtime service specifically targets CBD workers to increase access to Harris Park’s many local eateries.

3. Following consultation on route options with various stakeholders including the proposed service operator, a circular, clockwise route was selected. This route enables patrons to access both Harris Park Station and the Parramatta Transport Interchange as well as the commercial district on the east side of the CBD (see Attachment 1).

4. The service times were established as Monday to Friday, 11.30am to 3.00pm which enables approximately fourteen full circuits daily and a service frequency of approximately 15 minutes.

5. The service operations have been arranged as a variation to Council’s existing contract with Veolia Transport Ltd for operation of the Parramatta Shuttle Bus service. Six dedicated bus stops were selected and the necessary infrastructure installed including branded plinths.

6. A variety of marketing activities were undertaken to launch the service including the design of promotional materials once the brand name, “Harris Park Hop”, was selected. Marketing activities leading up to and during the trial period have included:

· Branding on the sides of bus and bus stops

· “Footprint” advertising directing pedestrians to the bus stops

· Flyers printed and distributed around Parramatta CBD and through Harris Park businesses

· Lunchtime specials negotiated with local businesses and advertised on the Harris Park Hop website, newspapers and on the bus

· Other promotional merchandise including balloons and shirts produced for staff promoting service

· Launch event held in Harris Park with ribbon cutting etc

· Paid advertising in the Parramatta Advertiser on several occasions

· Featured in Lord Mayor’s column in newspaper

· Articles in Council’s e-newsletter, Parramatta Life and Leisure, which is emailed to approximately 4,000 Parramatta workers

· Media stories covered in both local newspapers with associated editorial comments

· Featured prominently on Council’s website and Discover Parramatta website

· Featured prominently on Council’s social media – Twitter and Facebook – for both PCC and Discover Parramatta

· Cross-promotion in the lead-up to Parramasla.

7. The Harris Park Hop free bus shuttle service commenced on Monday 29th August 2011.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. Three key sources of information have been gathered to assist Council in assessing the trial of the Harris Park Hop:-

· Service usage data from the operator (Attachment 2)

· Passenger surveys (Attachment 3) and

· Feedback from the Harris Park businesses

9. Passenger numbers have remained relatively constant throughout the trial period and average 463 passenger journeys per week.

10. The Smith Street stop, closest to the Parramatta Transport Interchange is the most popular for passengers both embarking and disembarking the service. The Wigram Street and Station Street stops, close to Harris Park shops and station are the next most popular. All three stops in the commercial district of Parramatta CBD attract low patronage.

11. The Harris Park Hop is most popular during the first hour of service with 33% of all passengers during this period compared to just 22% for the last hour of the service each day.

12. The average number of passengers is approximately 100 each day except for Mondays which are consistently lower and average only 72 passengers for the same service period.

13. A survey of passengers commenced from August 29^th to September 16^th and November 7^th to November 14^th with a total of 294 surveys completed.

14. The survey results suggests that about a quarter of the Harris Park Hop passengers intended to shop or eat in Harris Park and a similar proportion were traveling home, in any location. The largest group, however, indicated that they were using the Harris Park Hop to commute to the Parramatta CBD (37.8%) in order to connect with transport to a further destination.

15. The majority of passengers surveyed (75.5%) indicated that they utilize the service either daily or several times a week.

16. Eighty-seven percent of surveyed passengers indicated that they were either satisfied or extremely satisfied with the Harris Park Hop service.

17. Passengers were encouraged to provide general feedback on the Harris Park Hop service and these comments were generally positive and included requests for extensions of the route, service times and the trial period. Other common suggestions related to the layout of the bus for pram access and increased passenger comfort such as air-conditioning.

18. Feedback regarding the trial of the Harris Park Hop has been sought from Harris Park businesses and the community centre. This confirmed the findings on the popularity of the service for people accessing the Parramatta CBD, in particular, the Transport Interchange. The service is seen as being most popular with elderly residents and women with young children. A further discussion with members of the Harris Park business community is planned prior to Council considering this report.

19. While the participating restaurants were supportive of the lunch special promotions, the businesses did not report a noticeable increase in lunchtime trade as a result of the Harris Park Hop.

FUTURE SERVICE OPTIONS

20. Council could extend the current trial of the Harris Park Hop and seek the support of the Harris Park businesses to undertake more promotional activities targeting CBD office workers. For example, promotion of special lunchtime services could be used in a further launch of the bus service in mid-January 2012 and continue throughout the summer period. If the trial was extended for four months, further service evaluation could be undertaken and reported in March 2012, enabling Council to consider the future of the service during the budget process. Such an extension to the trial service would cost Council approximately $30,000.

21. The current Harris Park Hop service could continue indefinitely with the existing service model. The level of patronage may increase slightly over time as the service becomes better known, however, the cost per passenger would likely remain much higher than for other services such as the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus. The annual operating cost would depend on the ongoing contract arrangements secured and would likely be in the vicinity of $100k p/a.

22. Council could continue the service with specific modifications in response to issues identified during the trial period. For example, a larger bus with improved access for wheelchairs and prams could be hired for the service once modifications are made to the intersection of Charles and Hassall Streets. Council could also consider discontinuing the service on Mondays and/or extending the service hours to commence earlier in the day. All such modifications would have implications for the service costs and could be further investigated in consultation with the local businesses.

23. Council could discontinue the Harris Park Hop service with a short period of notice for the convenience of existing service users. While the service is meeting a specific transport need for a small number of residents, it has not achieved the desired outcome of improving patronage of Harris Park businesses and it is unlikely, therefore, to attract their financial support.

CONCLUSIONS

24. Following this assessment of the trial of the Harris Park Hop, it is recommended that Council discontinues the service. While the three month trial period concluded at the end of November, the service has continued to allow Council an opportunity to consider the future direction for the service. If Council determined not to extend the trial service, it is proposed that it would be continued until Friday 23^rd December to enable the regular passengers to be advised.

25. The trial service has highlighted the inadequacy of the off-peak public transport service between Harris Park and Parramatta which impacts most on residents with mobility issues such as the elderly and women with young children. It is further recommended, therefore, that Council makes appropriate representation to the State Government to address these needs through enhancements to existing rail and bus services in this vicinity.

26. While the Harris Park Hop has not had the desired impact on business activity in the Harris Park area, Council continues to work in partnership with the local businesses to develop strategies to promote the success of this precinct. It is recommended that Council receives a further report on these activities following further consultation with local businesses.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

27. A three month trial of the Harris Park Hop service commenced on 29^th August, 2011.

28. Consultation was undertaken with local businesses prior to the service launch and during the trial period. A further discussion with local businesses is being arranged prior to Council’s consideration of this report.

29. Service passengers have been consulted during the trial period through a survey process as outlined above.

30. It is recommended that the trial of the Harris Park Hop service is discontinued from Friday 23^rd December 2011.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

31. Operating costs for the Harris Park Hop to date have been approximately $24k with additional establishment costs associated with branding the buses, bus stops and other promotional activities. Additional operating costs of approximately $1,900 are incurred for each week of service.

32. No provisions have been made in Council’s Delivery Plan and Budget for the Harris Park Hop beyond the initial trial project of $25k.

33. Discontinuing the Harris Park Hop will obviously have minimal impact on Council’s ongoing budget other than a small one-off cost to remove the bus stop plinths.

34. The likely cost of maintaining the existing Harris Park Hop service is estimated at $100k p/a. Any changes to the existing service parameters including hours of service, route or type of bus would have financial implications which can be investigated with the service operator on direction from Council.

Sue Coleman

Group Manager City Services

Attachments:

1 View	Harris Park Hop Route Map	1 Page
2 View	Harris Park Hop Usage Data	2 Pages
3 View	Harris Park Hop Patronage Survey Results	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 9.4

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT Clyde Street, South Granville – Request for a Pedestrian Crossing

REFERENCE F2010/03204 - D02184355

REPORT OF Traffic & Transport Support Officer.Traffic and Transport

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with a report on what steps need to be taken to initiate the installation of a pedestrian crossing in Clyde Street, South Granville between Boronia and Byrne Streets.

RECOMMENDATION

That traffic and pedestrian counts in Clyde Street, South Granville, between Boronia Street and Byrnes Street be carried out in February 2012 after the return of school.

BACKGROUND

On 22 August 2011, Council considered a report from the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) and resolved, in part:

a) That the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 4 August 2011 be adopted with the exception of Item 1108B5 Clyde Street, South Granville – Raised Pedestrian Crossing.

b) That in regard to Item 1108B5, another traffic count be carried out in Clyde Street, South Granville and Councillor P J Garrard be notified one week in advance of when the count is to take place. Following the traffic count, the matter be referred back to the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group for further consideration.

On 6 October 2011, the TEAG considered a follow up report, which noted that the traffic counts were undertaken, and it appeared that they were affected by the local community being aware that they were being undertaken. The TEAG recommended to the following:

1. That Council note the Australian Standard 1742.10 - 2009 states the following in regards to installing pedestrian crossing (time separated facility) in locations with low pedestrian volumes:

It needs to be established that there is a realistic demand for a pedestrian facility. Facilities that are used infrequently may, in the case of time separated facilities, come to be ignored, or in the case of physical facilities, become an unnecessary obstruction in the roadway.

2. That Council note that Austroads Guide to Road Design also states the following in regards to installing pedestrian crossings in locations with low pedestrian volumes:

It is desirable to ensure that such control devices are only provided where sufficient pedestrian demand exists, as drivers who use the route regularly will tend to ignore the presence of a device if they never see it used.

3. That Council note that there is a disproportionately high number of collisions involving pedestrians at the pedestrian crossings in Clyde Street

4. That further traffic and pedestrian counts in Clyde Street, South Granville, between Nobbs Street and Byrnes Street be carried out.

On 7 November 2011 Council considered the TEAG recommendations and resolved the following:

That in relation to Item 1110 B4, the Service Manager – Traffic and Transport bring forward a report on how a pedestrian crossing could be initiated in Clyde Street, South Granville, between Boronia and Byrne Streets so as to comply with conditions as set down by the Australian Standards.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS - INSTALLATION OF A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

The first step in the analysis and assessment of whether a pedestrian crossing should be installed in a locality is to carry out traffic and pedestrian counts.

The Austroads Guide states that for marked pedestrian crossing warrants to apply pedestrian usage must be in excess of 20 to 60 per hour over a number of hours each day and for traffic volumes to be in excess of 500 vehicles in each corresponding hour. The guide goes on to state that the product of these two numbers must be sufficiently high to justify the installation of the marked pedestrian crossing.

The Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) practice for numerical warrants for Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossings are:

(a) Normal Warrant

A pedestrian crossing should be considered for approval where:

(i) The product of the measured pedestrian flow per hour (P) and the measured vehicle traffic flow per hour (V), PV is equal or greater than 60,000; and

(ii) The measured flows, P and V are equal of grater than 30 and 500 respectively; and

(iii) The measured flows apply for three periods of one hour in any day.

(b) Special Warrant

In certain circumstances where the product of PV is equal or greater than 45,000 (but less than 60,000) and P is greater than or equal 30 and V is greater than or equal to 500 then consideration can be given to a potential marked foot crossing site. In such circumstances Council should justify why this location is in need of special consideration.

In cases where the crossing is to be used by children, the aged or physically impaired pedestrians a separate warrant applies and is as follows:

Crossings used by Children: in two hours of one hour duration immediately before and after school hours P> 30 (the crossing being predominantly used by school children) and V>200.

Crossing for the aged and physically impaired: during three periods of one hour in anyone day P>30 (of which 50% using the crossing are aged or physically impaired) ad V>200, and PV >60,000.

It is recommended that pedestrian and traffic counts be carried out in February 2012 (after the return of school). To maintain integrity in the counting process it is not suggested that the local community be made aware of the likely dates and times when counting will be carried out. This will help to ensure that the counts are reflective of ‘normal’ circumstances.

The results of the pedestrian and traffic counts will then be analysed by staff in Traffic Services against the RMS warrants and Austroads Guide. A report will then be presented to the Parramatta Traffic Committee or Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group for their advice and recommendation.

In the event that the pedestrian and traffic counts demonstrate that a pedestrian crossing could be installed, it is open for the Traffic Committee PTC to recommend that the pedestrian crossing be installed. A report would then be presented to Parramatta City Council for endorsement or otherwise.

In the event that the Traffic Committee/ TEAG recommend that a pedestrian crossing not be installed, one option for Council is to approve the installation of a pedestrian refuge island at the intended location. Past experience would suggest that the installation of a pedestrian refuge in a location attracts more pedestrians and with greater usage, the warrants for the installation of a marked pedestrian crossing may be achieved.

Funding is not currently available in 2011/12 for the installation of a pedestrian refuge island. However, it is open to Council to approve a change in the Pedestrian Projects List ranking so that the project would be placed higher in the priority list and thus more likely to receive funding in 2012/13.

If funding was to become available the nest stage in the approval process would be the design phase, public exhibition and granting of the final approval.

Richard Searle

Manager Traffic Services

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 9.5

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

SUBJECT Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service

REFERENCE F2004/08730 - D02184946

REPORT OF Group Manager City Services

PURPOSE:

This report advises Council of the recent operation of the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service. It is proposed that Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to commence negotiations to establish longer term arrangements for the continuation of this service with the full financial support of NSW State Government.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note the successful ongoing operation of the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service.

(b) That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to commence negotiations to secure the long-term financial support of the NSW State Government for the provision of the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service on the terms outlined in this report.

(c) Further, that Council considers a further report on this matter on the outcome of these negotiations prior to the finalisation of any agreements.

BACKGROUND

1. Parramatta City Council introduced a free bus service in the Parramatta CBD in late August 2008. The service aims to increase pedestrian accessibility in the CBD by reducing walking time and distances, improving access to other public transport and providing an alternative to car travel within the CBD.

2. Council paid for the purchase of three vehicles to support this new service and contracted with Veolia Transport NSW as bus operator. Service patronage increased steadily over the first few years and now averages approximately 73,000 passengers per month. Customer research has shown satisfaction with the service to be consistently very high.

3. In February 2011, Council entered into a funding agreement with Transport NSW to support the service. Service hours are now 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 4pm Saturday and Sunday.

4. The agreement with Transport NSW provides significant financial relief to Council with Transport NSW paying Council approximately $674k in the first year. This is greater than previous annual service costs due to increases in operator charges from September 2011 and provision for Sunday operations. The agreement allows for the funding level to be adjusted according to actual costs which may vary depending on factors such as fuel and vehicle repair costs.

5. Anticipated annual service costs under the current agreement include provision for Council to be paid for vehicle hire as detailed below:

Contractor costs $ 533,209

Vehicle Hire $ 117,879

Other vehicle costs $ 12,920

Support services $ 9,996

TOTAL $ 674,004

6. Since the agreement with Transport NSW commenced, the operation of the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service has continued with minimal changes other than re-branding consistent with other State Government services and expansion to include Sunday services. Passenger numbers remain steady and customer complaints are rare. Council extended the operating contract with Veolia Transport NSW Pty Ltd in July 2011 for a further twelve months and Council officers have reported quarterly to Transport NSW on these operational matters.

7. As part of this funding agreement, Council also resolved in February 2011 to seek to negotiate longer term arrangements for continued funding of the free bus service including different options for provision of the buses. Preliminary discussions have been held with officers of Transport NSW with a view to formalizing arrangements prior to the conclusion of the current funding agreement.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. Three main options have been identified to maintain the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service beyond the current funding agreement.

9. The existing funding agreement with Transport NSW concludes in March 2012 and Council could seek to resume full responsibility for provision of the service. Under the terms of the current agreement, Transport NSW would be responsible for reinstating the Loop service branding and Council would need to determine whether to maintain the existing service levels including Sunday operations. Depending on service levels and future arrangements with the operator, Veolia Transport, Council could expect maintaining the service to cost in the vicinity of $520k p/a plus depreciation.

10. A second option would see Council seeking to extend the funding agreement with Transport NSW and maintaining an ongoing role in the delivery of the service. The current arrangement with the operator, Veolia Transport, expires in August 2012 and Council would need to re-tender for this contract. Ideally, it is proposed that Council would seek to maintain similar terms to the existing funding agreement but with a longer commitment such as three to five years. This would provide greater security to Council in its financial planning and contractual arrangements with a service operator.

11. A third option is to negotiate with Transport NSW to assume full responsibility for provision of the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus Service without any ongoing role for Council. Transport NSW have existing bus operator contracts in place that could accommodate the service in a seamless transition. Council would no longer be required to provide the three buses and these could be sold through an appropriate asset disposal process. As the buses were funded through old Section 94 Plans for parking and traffic facilities in the Parramatta CBD, any proceeds from the sale of these assets would be returned to the relevant reserve for Council to determine suitable future capital expenditure.

12. It is proposed that Council officers seek to negotiate with Transport NSW to secure the third option whereby the State Government assumes full responsibility for provision of the Parramatta Free Shuttle Bus service. All the other free shuttle bus services in New South Wales are directly managed by Transport NSW in this way. The NSW Government including the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, MP have consistently expressed strong support for the provision of the Parramatta Service. This option removes any future financial burden on Council to maintain the service and releases capital invested in the three buses for other purposes.

13. It is further proposed that the second option which seeks to secure renewal of the current funding agreement for an extended period is pursued through negotiations if the preferred option is not successful. This would provide greater security to Council in its financial planning and contractual arrangements with a service operator.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

14. The current funding agreement with Transport NSW commenced on 14 March 2011 and is for a period of twelve months. After the initial trial period expires, either party can give 3 months notice of termination of the funding agreement.

15. It is proposed that Council receives a further report on the outcome of the proposed negotiations with Transport NSW early in 2012.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

16. The financial implications of each of the three main options outlined above vary significantly.

17. Option 1 involving Council resuming full responsibility for provision of the service would cost in the vicinity of $520k p/a plus depreciation. This would have a negative impact on Council’s annual operating result.

18. Option 2 involving a longer term funding agreement with Transport NSW would enable Council to fully offset these operating costs as well as receiving payment of approximately $120k p/a for providing the three buses.

19. Option 3 eliminates any financial obligation on Council to maintain the service and releases the capital invested in the three buses for other purposes consistent with the original s94 Plans.

Sue Coleman

Group Manager City Services

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 9.6

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.6

SUBJECT Barry Wilde Bridge Fountain

REFERENCE F2010/02284 - D02185324

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer – Environmental Outcomes

PURPOSE:

To report on investigations into additional animation (lights and water) of Barry Wilde Bridge Fountain.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council proceeds to build the Barry Wilde Bridge Fountain as previously agreed in the 7^th November 2011 Council meeting.

(b) That a full Expression of Interest process for contractors to investigate methods of enhancing the Bridge Fountain with additional lights and water animation be undertaken simultaneously with construction of the Bridge Fountain.

(c) Further, that the results of the EOI be reported to Council for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

1. On 7th November 2011 Council endorsed construction of a Bridge Fountain at Barry Wilde Bridge, at an estimated cost of $350,000 – the “Baseline Project”.

2. Council also resolved to investigate further improvements to the Bridge Fountain, as follows:-

“Further that this matter be the subject of an Expression of Interest, such EOI to be inclusive of the exploration and animation of lights and water.”

3. A full EOI process would add significantly to the proposed timeframe for the construction of the baseline project and so preliminary investigations were carried out prior to proceeding to an EOI.

4. These investigations found that it would be possible to build the Baseline Project at the same time as conducting an EOI, and then retrofit animation and moving water jets at later date if required, after the results of the EOI become available.

5. Informal discussions were held with potential suppliers about costs and timeframes for adding animation of lights and water to the Baseline Project. These are summarised below.

Baseline project – jets of water every 60 cm, shooting out at fixed angles, with lights surrounding each jet capable of rapidly changing colour according to pre-programmed patterns.

· Cost = $350,000

· Projected completion date of April 2012

· Fixed angle of water projection, cannot project images onto fountain

Baseline project + moving jets of water – as for the baseline project, but with the jets of water moving up and down through a range of angles.

· Cost = approximately an additional $100,000 to $250,000 compared to the Baseline Project

· Would take an additional 5 months to design and construct compared to the Baseline Project

· Would introduce motion into the fountain for enhanced viewer enjoyment

· Not clear at the moment which budget could be used to pay for the additional cost of adding moving jets to the fountain

· Increased maintenance cost in comparison to “Baseline Project”

· Unable to display images on fountain

· Moving jets could be retrofitted to the Baseline project at a later date e.g. “Stage 2”

Baseline project + moving jets of water + screen of water for projecting upon + laser + image display equipment

· Cost = approximately an additional $550,000 to $950,000 compared to the Baseline Project

· Would take an additional 8 months to design and construct compared with the Baseline Project

· Would allow maximum flexibility for utilisation of Bridge Fountain for all types of River Foreshore activation

· Would be the most visually spectacular of all options

· Not clear at the moment which budget could be used to pay for the additional cost of adding moving jets + screen + laser + image display equipment to the fountain

· Increased maintenance cost in comparison to other options

· The Barry Wilde Bridge Fountain site might not be the best location to have a water screen / laser / projected image combination as these work best when the audience is predominantly at right angles to the screen. For the Bridge Fountain site people would mostly be watching the screen from along the river bank, at a smaller angle than 90 degrees to the screen

· Moving jets + screen + laser + image could be retrofitted to the Baseline project at a later date e.g. “Stage 3”

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. Building a “Baseline” Bridge Fountain followed by other Stages at a future date would allow evaluation of the operation / success of the Baseline option, plus would allow more time for State or Federal funding to be sought

TIMEFRAME

7. If construction of a Baseline Bridge Fountain occurs simultaneously with an EOI Process then the Fountain could be built by the end of April 2012.

8. A separate, standalone EOI Process would add about 3 months to the timeline for construction of a Bridge Fountain.

Financial ImpactS

9. No financial impacts are anticipated if the construction of the Bridge Fountain is delayed whilst waiting for a complete EOI process to occur.

10. If moving jets of water are added to the Baseline design then this will add between $100,000 and $250,000 to the capital cost of the Bridge Fountain.

11. If moving jets of water plus lasers plus projected images are added to the Baseline design this will add between $550,000 and $950,000 to the capital cost of the Bridge Fountain.

Paul Hackney

Senior Project Officer

Environmental Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View

Report to 7th November 2011 Council Meeting on Bridge Fountain

4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 10.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT Draft Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management

REFERENCE F2007/01973 - D02129723

REPORT OF Open Space & Natural Area Planner

PURPOSE:

To seek Council endorsement of the draft Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management to be submitted to the relevant Minister for adoption under the Crown Lands Act 1989.

RECOMMENDATION

a) That Council endorse the draft Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management as amended.

b) That an additional ‘Environmental Protection’ purpose be assigned to Lake Parramatta Reserve under the Crown Lands Act 1989.

c) That Council restrict non-motorised bikes within Lake Parramatta Reserve to the main visitor precinct and to the existing eastern fire trail.

d) That the endorsed draft Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management be forwarded to the Minister for Primary Industries for adoption under the Crown Lands Act 1989.

e) Further, that the respondents who provided submissions during the public exhibition period be advised of Council’s decision and thanked for their efforts in providing valuable input into the development of the Plan.

BACKGROUND

1. Lake Parramatta Reserve is a popular 90 hectare bushland reserve located in North Parramatta. It comprises of Crown Land reserved for public recreation and includes the water body formed through the damming of Hunts Creek. Parramatta City Council has been appointed as Trust Manager and has the responsibility for the care, control and management of the reserve as provided for under the Crown Lands Act 1989.

2. The current Plan of Management for the reserve was adopted in 1999 and required review to reflect actions undertaken to date and to investigate the development of a new larger café and restaurant incorporating a function room to cater for various events or meetings. This facility is to be sited within the existing kiosk, meeting room and cottage footprint to minimise environmental impact on the reserve.

3. The Minister for Lands consented to the preparation of a new draft Plan of Management for Lake Parramatta Reserve under section 112 (2) of the Crown Lands Act 1989, and Council subsequently engaged consultants to prepare a draft Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management (LPPOM). The draft LPPOM provides prioritised objectives, actions and performance measures to guide the future planning and development of the reserve (Attachment 1).

4. A report outlining the draft LPPOM was considered at the 23 May 2011 Council meeting. At this meeting Council endorsed the draft LPPOM to be placed on public exhibition inviting public review and comment.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. The draft LPPOM has been prepared in accordance with the Crown Lands Act 1989 and other relevant legislation including State Environmental Planning Policy 19 (Bushland in Urban Areas), Dam Safety Act 1978 and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. It is consistent with Parramatta Twenty25 and other Council strategic documents including the Biodiversity Plan, Open Space Plan and Parramatta River Foreshore Plan.

6. To reflect the significant natural and cultural heritage of the reserve, the draft LPPOM recommends that an additional ‘Environmental Protection’ purpose be assigned under the Crown Lands Act 1989. This additional purpose would exclude the main visitor precinct and is consistent with the Aboriginal cultural heritage interpretation and bush regeneration activities undertaken in the reserve.

7. The draft LPPOM identifies the significant values and issues impacting upon the reserve. It outlines key strategies for future management and development through a prioritised action plan that will improve visitor recreational opportunities whilst conserving and enhancing this unique bushland environment. The key strategy themes include;

I. Enjoying the Reserve;

II. Getting to and around the Reserve;

III. Conserving the Reserves environment, heritage and character;

IV. Looking after the Reserve and buildings.

8. Jenny Rand & Associates were engaged to undertake a commercial feasibility study for a café / restaurant / function centre at the reserve as part of the development of the draft LPPOM. The key findings of the study included:

· High competition / low demand exist for a large restaurant / function centre;

· limited parking / public transport / reserve capacity;

· high risk operation / limited profitability (patronage is highly weather dependent / premises lack flexibility);

· minimal public support exists for a restaurant / permanent function centre (however there is significant support for kiosk upgrade);

· a large function centre / restaurant is unlikely to be supported by the Minister as these are considered to be incompatible with reserve ‘public recreation’ purpose.

9. The commercial feasibility study also identified the limitations of the current kiosk / cottage / meeting room facilities (particularly during peak periods). It recommends a maximum 120 seat capacity (60 indoor and 60 outdoor) facility to better cater for peak visitor periods and allow for small events. The facility is to be located within the existing footprint of the kiosk / meeting room / cottage and the design should have minimal visual impact on the reserve.

10. A significant number of submissions and a petition were received from cyclists and mountain bike enthusiasts who are concerned that the draft LPPOM proposes to ban bikes from all areas outside the main visitor precinct. The current 1999 plan of management allows bikes to use the existing fire trail on the eastern side of the reserve (known as Illawong Drive). In recognising the growing demand for mountain biking facilities, it is proposed to allow non-motorised bike access on the existing eastern fire trail ONLY. This trail is of sufficient width to provide for safe riding, reduced conflict with other users and minimal disturbance to endangered species and ecological communities within the reserve. It is not considered appropriate to allow bike access on other trails due to the compact nature of the reserve (75 hectares) in comparison to other commonly used mountain bike venues such as Manly Dam (375 hectares) and Glenrock State Conservation Area (500+ hectares).

11. The draft LPPOM proposes to increase recreational space and picnic facilities along the lake edge in the main visitor precinct. It also proposes carparking to be reconfigured away from the lake edge, with a new carpark to be constructed to the south adjacent to the existing playground. Submissions strongly support increased lake edge recreation space and picnic facilities; however some expressed significant concerns regarding the cost and environmental impacts of the new carpark. In recognising the need for additional carparking, whilst minimising cost and environmental impacts, it is proposed to alter the site of the additional carpark to the existing grassed overflow parking area located at the corner of Bourke and Lackey Streets. Additional bus parking to cater for increasing demand has also been included in the amended LPPOM masterplan (Figure 6.2) provided in Attachment 2.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. Environmental Partnership consultants conducted three separate consultation workshops including; community representatives (1 July 2010), Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee (24 August 2010) and Councillors and Executive Team (1 December 2010). These workshops involved identification of the key values and issues affecting the reserve and discussion of future priority actions.

13. The draft LPPOM was refined following these workshops and further considered by Council at its meeting on 23 May 2011. Council resolved to place the draft LPPOM on public exhibition and to receive a further report following consideration and assessment of the public submissions received.

14. The draft LPPOM was placed on public exhibition from 5 September 2011 until 7 October 2011. An advertisement was placed in the Parramatta Advertiser and Hills Shire Times inviting public comment. During the public exhibition period the draft LPPOM was available for viewing at Council’s Customer Service Centre, Parramatta City (central) Library, Carlingford Library and was also available from the Parramatta City Council and NSW Crown Lands Division websites. Members of the Lake Parramatta Reserve Committee, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee, Access Advisory Committee and Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council were also notified and invited to comment.

15. Ninety-six written submissions and sixty-eight petition signatures were received by Council during the public exhibition period. All written submissions have been reviewed and an assessment made of the issues raised, with amendments made to the draft LPPOM to incorporate the comments received. A summary of the issues raised and relevant amendments to the draft LPPOM is provided in Attachment 3.

16. All those who provided submissions have been thanked and advised that they will be informed of the outcome once this report has been considered and determined by Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

17. Actions arising from the adopted Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management will be funded on a staged basis over time through Council’s annual budget and capital works programs which are predominantly sourced from:

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

• Stormwater Management Service Charge (Stormwater Levy);

• Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.

18. There will also be an opportunity to seek grant funding towards implementing components of the plan through various Federal and State government departments. The implementation of the improvement works identified in the plan will be subject to obtaining appropriate ongoing funding.

Troy Holbrook

Open Space & Natural Areas Planner

Attachments:

1 View	Public Exhibition Submissions Issue Summary	4 Pages
2 View	Lake Parramatta Reserve Amended Masterplan	1 Page
3 View	Final Draft Lake Parramatta Reserve Plan of Management	93 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 10.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Adoption of Parramatta Street Tree Plan

REFERENCE F2011/00837 - D02104501

REPORT OF Open Space & Natural Area Planner

PURPOSE:

To seek Councils adoption of the Parramatta Street Tree Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the Parramatta Street Tree Plan.

(b) That copies of the adopted Parramatta Street Tree Plan be issued to all Council libraries and placed on Council’s website.

(c) Further, that the respondents who provided submissions during the public exhibition period be advised of Council’s decision and thanked for their interest, comments and valuable input into the development of the Plan.

BACKGROUND

1. Council manages over 36,000 street trees of various species, which are of differing stages of life (ranging from recently established to semi-mature and mature specimens). Our street trees are regularly assessed and maintained by qualified staff to best-practice arboricultural standards. Increasing urban densities and a changing environment are resulting in urban street trees experiencing significant environmental challenges which require a strategic management approach. The distinctive neighbourhood types throughout the local government area (LGA), from residential and heritage conservation areas to the city centre and industrial precincts, also present both challenges and opportunities to Council in the management of urban street trees.

2. Street trees are recognised by Council as an important feature of the urban landscape and contribute significantly to neighbourhood character and aesthetics. In view of the diversity of social, economic and environmental benefits they deliver to the community, the draft Parramatta Street Tree Plan (PSTP) has been developed to guide the strategic provision of street trees throughout the Parramatta LGA (Attachment 1).

3. A report outlining the draft PSTP was considered at the 23 May 2011 Council meeting. At this meeting Council endorsed the draft PSTP to be placed on public exhibition inviting public review and comment.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The draft PSTP aims to significantly improve and increase the health, longevity and number of street trees throughout the Parramatta LGA through a coordinated approach to their provision and management. It has been developed to complement Council’s Tree Preservation Order (1996) and aims to:

· foster increased knowledge and awareness of the importance of street trees;

· maintain and enhance the tree canopy throughout the LGA by selecting trees appropriate to site constraints and location characteristics;

· provide a transparent and accountable decision making process for tree planting, maintenance and removal assessments;

· guide private property owners, developers and Council in the selection, planting, establishment and maintenance of street trees.

5. A master species list has been included in the draft PSTP. This list has been compiled in consideration of existing street trees, locally indigenous species and species which perform well in an urban environment. It will be used as a basis for the development of detailed maps outlining the recommended species for each street throughout the LGA.

6. The practise by some property owners of naturestrip gardens is also widely recognised as providing a positive contribution to the amenity of local streetscapes. It is commonly accepted that property owners / residents maintain the naturestrip abutting their property. Council is committed to the development of attractive streetscapes and working with residential property owners to ensure that naturestrip gardens are appropriately estalished and maintained by the residential property owners. The draft PSTP provides guidelines to ensure that naturestrip gardens are designed and maintained to minimise potential safety risks and to ensure appropriate access and sightlines for pedestrians, road users and utility providers are maintained.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. The draft PSTP was placed on public exhibition from 8 June 2011 until 8 July 2011. An advertisement was placed in the Parramatta Advertiser and Northern District Times inviting public comment. During the public exhibition period the draft PSTP was available for viewing at Council’s Customer Service Centre, Council libraries and was also available from Council’s website.

8. Four written submissions were received by Council during the public exhibition period. All written submissions have been reviewed and an assessment made of the issues raised, with minor amendments made to the PSTP to incorporate the comments received. A summary of the issues raised and relevant amendments to the draft PSTP is provided in Attachment 2. All amendments are considered minor and do not warrant additional public exhibition of the document. The comments related to individual locations will be addressed in the preparation of detailed street tree species mapping as recommended by the PSTP.

9. A letter has been forwarded thanking all those who provided submissions and advising them they will be informed of the outcome of the plan once this report has been considered and determined by Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

10. The implementation of the PSTP will be funded primarily through Council’s existing annual City of Trees capital works project. This project has been funded since 1998 and involves extensive annual tree planting to enhance key gateway entrances to the LGA, provide additional street trees and shade planting for park playgrounds and sporting complexes. The current budget for 2011/12 is $140,000.

11. Council’s Parks Services section also have an annual operational budget of $740,000 for public tree maintenance. This funds staff to undertake safety audits, public tree inspections and the pruning and/or removal of trees by staff and contractors. This includes maintenance of street trees and trees in other open spaces such as parks and playgrounds.

12. Funding for the development of detailed LGA-wide street tree species maps can be funded within future City of Trees programs.

Troy Holbrook

Open Space & Natural Area Planner

Attachments:

1 View	Attachment 1 - Parramatta Street Tree Plan	57 Pages
2 View	Attachment 2 - Submissions Summary	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 10.3

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas

REFERENCE F2011/00112 - D02153349

REPORT OF Manager - Social Outcomes

PURPOSE:

To fulfill Council’s resolution of November 2010, by reporting on the results of community and business owner consultation undertaken to ascertain whether there is any support existing in the business and general community for a ban of smoking in alfresco dining areas owned or controlled by Parramatta City Council.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopts the updated Smoking In Public Places Policy November 2011, to implement a ban of smoking in outdoor dining areas on Council owned land thought-out the LGA, as well as the other areas already adopted as smoke free ( children’s playgrounds, aquatic centres, sports fields and facilities)- (Attachment 1).

(b). That Council actively support businesses and the community to adjust to and implement the ban by:

a. Ensuring a long 6 month lead time for implementation of the ban ( to commence on 1^st May 2012)

b. Developing a thorough implementation support program that includes:

i. A Communications Plan, including community education strategies,

ii Provision of resources for businesses,

iii. Financial incentives for businesses who implement the ban before the 1^st May 2012, and

iv. Monitoring processes, and

(c) Further that, Council write to the State Government to lobby for introduction of legislation that uniformly prohibits smoking:

c. Within 10 metres of children’s playgrounds

d. Within 10 metres of sporting fields

e. In public swimming pools and

f. In outdoor dining areas on public land

BACKGROUND

1. In November 2010 Council adopted the following:

(a) That the petition received from business owners and restaurant proprietors be received and noted.

(b) That the petition received from patrons be received and noted.

(d) That broad consultation be carried out over the next 12 months to ascertain whether there is any and, if so, what level of support existing in the business and general community for a ban of smoking in alfresco dining areas owned or controlled by Parramatta City Council such consultation to include:-

1 Face to face interviews and surveys carried out with restaurant proprietors;

2 Face to face interviews and surveys carried out with diners at both lunch times and dinner times in a large sample of restaurants;

3 Surveys conducted in Parramatta Park at the Residents Panel stand on Australia Day and/or any other appropriate time and place;

4. Surveys and interviews to be carried out across a broad age, social, ethnicity and other demographic sample.

(e) Further, that the costs of such consultation be taken from the City Centre Economic Development Levy and/or rentals and licence fees received from footpath leases and licences and/or any other appropriate budget.

2. This report provides a summary of the results of surveying undertaken at the 2011 Australia Day Event, as well as broader resident, diner and business owner surveying completed between July – August 2011.

3. COUNCIL’S CURRENT POLICY ON SMOKING

Council’s current smoking policy, adopted in May 2010, supports bans in children’s playgrounds, sports fields and aquatic centres.

4. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

Smoking in enclosed public places in NSW is regulated by the NSW Smoke Free Environment Act 2000. These laws make no provision for controlling outdoor smoking in places where people congregate such as outdoor dining.

Under the NSW Local Government Act 1993 Councils have the power to legislate in their own jurisdictions to protect their local community from the effects of second hand smoke.

5. EXTERNAL CONTEXT

· Health Context

· 19.7% of people in Parramatta LGA smoke. The majority of the population (80.3%) do not smoke.

· 82.3% of Western Sydney homes are smoke free

· The impacts of smoking on health have been well documented and state, national and international health service providers and agencies have all reported on the health impacts and costs of smoking on the smoker as well as secondary smoking affects on non smokers.

· There is substantial scientific evidence linking exposure to second hand smoke with a range of serious and life threatening health impacts including heart disease, cancer, asthma and other respiratory problems.

6. Local Government trends regarding smoking

· There is an increasing trend for local councils to adopt smoke free outdoor areas policies.

· As at July 2011, 30 NSW councils had voted to adopt a 100% smoke free alfresco license policy. These include Auburn, Ku-Ring-gai, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Ryde, Manly, Mosman, Marrickville, Warringah, Willoughby, Waverley and most recently North Sydney.

· Attachment 2 shows Council’s surrounding Parramatta LGA in metropolitan Sydney who have banned smoking in outdoor dining.

7. PARRAMATTA’S SURVEY RESULTS

7.1 Australia Day 2011 Survey Summary

· A consultant was contracted to conduct short inception surveys during the 2011 Australia Day event at Parramatta Park. A total of 359 surveys were conducted.

· 80% of those surveyed were non smokers. This is reflective of the incidence of non -smokers in the Parramatta LGA population.

· The key findings are outlined below. The full report, including the sample’s demographic data, is in Attachment 3.

o There was strong support for a ban on smoking in outdoor dining areas within the Parramatta LGA (82% strongly or somewhat support)

o The strongest support for a ban on smoking in outdoor dining areas came from people who do not currently smoke

· I smoke daily (34.4% support)

· I smoke occasionally (50.1% support)

· I don’t smoke now but I used to (79.7% support)

· I’ve tried a few times but never smoked regularly (88.9% support)

· I’ve never smoked (91.1% support)

· Over a third (34.4%) of people who smoke daily supported a ban on smoking in outdoor dining areas

7.2 Resident, Diner and Business Survey Summary

· Council engaged a consultant and worked with them to develop 3 separate surveys for residents, diners and business owners of restaurants on Council owned land throughout the LGA. These were undertaken between June – July 2011.

· The sample included; 300 resident surveys (by telephone), 300 diner surveys (face to face) and 47 business owner surveys out of a possible 68 (by telephone). The other 21 businesses either refused to participate or were not contactable on the numbers provided. This sample size provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4% at 95% confidence.

· The full report including survey methodology, survey questions and sample demographics can be found in Attachment 4. The key findings are reported below.

Resident Data

Diner Data

Business Owner Data

% that support a ban

68% of residents are supportive to very supportive

(mean rating of 3.84)

60% of diners are supportive to very supportive

(mean rating of 3.46)

28% of businesses are supportive to very supportive

(mean rating of 2.32)

% that do not support a ban

22% are not very supportive or not supportive at all

30% are not very supportive or not supportive at all

64% are not very supportive or not supportive at all

Key reasons given for supporting a ban

Health concerns (27%)

Don’t like eating where people are smoking (12%)

I don’t like the habit (11%)

General themes – concern for health, preference for non smoking patrons

Key reasons given for not supporting a ban

Smokers need a place to smoke (6%)

Smokers have rights too (5%)

I am/was a smoker/know people who smoke (5%)

General themes – result in loss of business, patrons who do smoke will feel unwelcome

Correlation between smoking status and frequency of visitation to cafes/ restaurants in the Parramatta CBD each week

(Explanatory note: The following correlation measures show the relationship between visitation in the CBD and smoking category.

eg: 1.99 or less – low level of visitation

3.00 to 3.59 – moderate level of visitation

4.50 + - extremely high level of visitation.

This shows smokers visit cafes/restaurants more often than non-smokers.)

Never smoked = 1.02

Used to smoke but now non smoking = 0.87

Occasional smoker = 1.11

Daily smoker = 2.12

Not applicable

Correlation between smoking status and frequency of visitation to cafes/ restaurants in the suburbs each week

(Explanatory note: The following correlation measures show the relationship between visitation in the Parramatta LGA and smoking category.

eg: 1.99 or less – low level of visitation

3.00 to 3.59 – moderate level of visitation

4.50 + - extremely high level of visitation.

This shows smokers visit cafes/restaurants more often than non-smokers.)

Never smoked = 0.68

Used to smoke but now non smoking = 0.64

Occasional smoker = 0.95

Daily smoker = 1.28

Not applicable

Correlation between smoking status and amount spent at cafes/ restaurants at last visit

(Explanatory note: this shows that non-smokers spent more than smokers at their last visit.)

Never smoked = $39.21

Used to smoke but now non smoking = $35.54

Occasional smoker = $34.86

Daily smoker = $29.50

Not applicable

Correlation between smoking status and level of revenue provided to local restaurants and cafes each week

(Explanatory note: This shows that over a year non-smokers spend more then smokers.)

Non Smoker /Never smoked = $11,446 (53%)

Used to smoke but now non smoking = $3,897 (18%)

Occasional smoker = $ 1,140 (5%)

Daily smoker = $4,994 ($23%)

Not applicable

Level of impact of a ban on business

Not applicable

Major impact – 43%

Moderate Impact – 23%

Minimal Impact – 11%

No impact at all – 23%

Assistance required to adjust to a ban

Not applicable

No assistance required (21%)

Advertising (19%)

Would like to see what Council has to offer (14%)

Council would need to communicate to the community that they are the ones who have set the ban (9%)

Financial assistance (9%)

Provide signage (7%)

Other (5%)

Unsure (16%)

Survey Key Messages

· The majority of residents (68%) and diners (60%) support a ban of smoking in Council owned outdoor dining areas

· Overall, businesses do not support a ban of smoking in Council owned outdoor dining areas. 28% are supportive.

· The reasons given in support of a ban are more strongly supported that the reasons given not to support a ban

· Smokers visit cafes and restaurants more often than non smokers and cite drink only as the main purchasing behaviour

· Non smokers spend more at each visit to a café/ restaurant

· 66% of businesses feel there will be a major to moderate impact on their business if a ban is implemented

· The majority of businesses report they would require assistance to implement the ban. Advertising, communications, and provision of resources are identified as important supports.

8. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

8.1 Regulation

· Council is empowered, under the Local Government Act, to control activities such as smoking by erecting notices. Examples of such notices already exist in many of Council’s public areas where activities such as riding motor bikes and unleashed dogs are not permitted.

· Under the Act, Council has the power to:

o Erect notices under S.632

o Service penalty notices under S.679

o Demand details from offenders under S.680 and

o Remove offenders from community land under S.681

· Enforcement can also be undertaken under the Protection of the Environment Act, with on the spot fines imposed for littering in public areas.

· It is intended that a key mechanism for compliance is peer pressure from the community, who in the majority support implementation of a ban, as demonstrated elsewhere in this report. While some initial low level rejection and non compliance can be anticipated, community support can be encouraged through consistent messaging explaining the improvements to health and reduction in littering that can be achieved, supported by the physical presence of signage and supplementary educational material.

8.2 Implementing a ban with businesses

· In implementing a ban Council would need to place restrictions on users of the Council leased areas through updated Council leases.

8.3 Supporting businesses if Council was to implement a ban

· Surveying of local business owners shows that the majority are concerned with a ban affecting loss of trade. It also shows that the majority require and expect support from Council if they had to implement such a ban.

· The Heart Foundation reports that all independent studies of actual dining trade worldwide shows neutral to positive impact from going smoke free. None show a downturn. They also highlight that in metropolitan Sydney, dining businesses from smoke free Councils like Manly and Mosman report no loss of trade even though they initially expressed concerns about ‘going broke’.

· A thorough implementation program is required to ensure a smooth transition for businesses, residents and workers. A period of 6 months is suggested for an implementation program to support stakeholders to be ready to action the ban. This would need to include:

· Communications and Education Plan – targeting residents, businesses, general public and using the local media, resident publications, websites etcetera.

· Provision of resources to business – Council will consult with businesses and prepare relevant resources for businesses including an information kit, as well as posters, flyers and drinks coasters to assist with advertising.

· Development of evaluation and monitoring processes

· Further, it is recommended that a financial incentive be provided to businesses who implement the ban before the proposed 1^st May 2012 deadline. This could involve a 3 month lease holiday if the following conditions were met:

· Restaurants must not have any arrears (in outdoor dining fees) to take part

· Restaurants will need to:

1. Erect signage to say they are taking part in the incentive/ trial

2. Remove all ash trays/ butt receptacles

3. Place no smoking signs/ stickers on all tables (Council to provide resources)

4. Provide Council with data reporting on sales figures (before, during and after trial)

5. Agree to random inspections of site

· If the above conditions are met in a report card style format, the lease holiday would be provided for the first 3 months of the new financial year (Jul – Sep 2012) and would be issued as a credit note (see Section 9 for financial implications).

· Council will investigate the possibility of highlighting restaurants taking part in the dining guide.

8.4 Possible implications for Council in not implementing a ban

· Going smoke free will help protect dining businesses and the Council from the increasing risk of expensive legal actions from patrons and staff whose health is harmed by second hand smoke in venues.

9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

· The income generated from outdoor dining restaurants in the Parramatta LGA in one year is approximately $193,300.

· Based on the above, if every restaurant currently trading wanted to take part in the incentive, it would cost approximately $48,300.

· If a quarter of the restaurants trading took up this offer it would cost Council $12,075.

· If half of the businesses trading took up this offer it would cost Council $24,150.

10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

· The health impacts of second hand smoke to non smokers are clearly defined and very serious, including heart and respiratory system impacts.

· More and more local Councils in metropolitan Sydney (30 as at July 2011) are imposed bans on smoking in outdoor dining including North Sydney, Lane Cove, Marrickville, Willoughby, Auburn, and Ryde. Evidence shows there is no long term financial impact to small business.

· By not implementing a ban Council is open to the potential risk of legal actions from staff and patrons of venues whose health is harmed by second hand smoke.

· Repeated surveying of local residents and diners in Parramatta shows strong support for a ban of smoking in outdoor dining. This finding is replicated nationally and internationally in community surveys.

· Surveying of local businesses shows the majority are concerned that a ban will negatively affect their business and that if a ban was to be implemented that support from Council is expected and required in order to manage the transition.

· Therefore, it is recommended that Council go ahead and implement a ban of smoking in outdoor dining on Council owned land. Further it is suggested that the implementation of the ban be staged over a 6 month period and that Council put in place processes and resources to support businesses and the community to make this transition as easily as possible (see Item 2.0).

11. REFERENCES

· Smoke Free Outdoor Areas : A Resource Kit for Local Government

· Social and Health Profiles: SWAHS and its LGAs, NSW Department of Health December 2010

Megan Dephoff

Social Outcomes Manager

Attachments:

1 View	Draft Smoking in Public Places Policy 2011	5 Pages
2 View	Diagram of Metropolitan Councils who have adopted smoking bans in outdoor dining	1 Page
3 View	Australia Day Survey Summary	8 Pages
4 View	Community and Business Survey: Attitudes Toward Banning Smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas Report	72 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

· Smoke Free Outdoor Areas : A Resource Kit for Local Government

· Social and Health Profiles: SWAHS and its LGAs, NSW Department of Health December 2010

Council 12 December 2011 Item 11.2

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT Adoption of Changes to Council's Ward Boundaries for Exhibition

REFERENCE F2005/02508 - D01958660

REPORT OF Group Manager- Corporate

PURPOSE:

To seek approval for the public exhibition of proposed changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That plans of the following changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries (as identified in Attachments 3 and 4 to this report) be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in the Parramatta City (Central) Library, branch libraries, Council’s Customer Service Centre and website from 6 January 2011 and such exhibition be supported by appropriate advertisements in the local papers:-

1. Four (4) CCDs be transferred from Arthur Phillip Ward into Caroline Chisholm Ward (transferring 1,778 electors)

2. Five (5) CCDs be transferred from Elizabeth Macarthur Ward into Woodville Ward (transferring 1,121 electors).

(b) That submissions in relation to the proposed changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries be accepted for 42 days from the date of the initial exhibition date.

(c) That a report be brought back to Council addressing public submissions and including a recommendation for adoption.

(d) Further, that it be noted that correspondence has been sent to the Electoral Commissioner seeking an extension of the period permitted for final ward boundary changes until 28 February 2012.

BACKGROUND

1. Section 211 of the Local Government Act places an obligation on Councils to keep their ward boundaries under review. A maximum variation of 10% is permitted between the wards with the highest and lowest amount of electors.

2. Council at its meeting held on 23 November 2009 considered Service Manager Council Support (Copy appended as Attachment 1) recommending that Council undertake a review of its boundaries as a greater than 10% variation existed between Council’s Arthur Phillip and Woodville Wards.

3. In considering this report, Council resolved to note its obligations and to hold a workshop to discuss this and other constitutional issues such as number of wards, councillors in each ward and the possible pursuit of a popularly elected Lord Mayor.

4. The requested workshop was held on 2 March 2010, the results of which were reported to Council on 22 March 2010 (Copy of report minus attachments appended as Attachment 2).

5. Council subsequently resolved on 22 March 2010:-

(a) That Mr Gerry Holmes be appointed to undertake a review of Council’s ward boundaries to comply with Section 211 of the Local Government Act.

(b) That funds in the amount of $5,000 plus GST be allocated from account number 10.1260.712.620210 to undertake the required works.

(c) That no further action be taken in relation to the election of a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor.

(d) That no further action be taken in relation to the holding of a constitutional referendum in relation to the reduction in Councillor numbers or changes to Council’s ward system.

(e) That as Council has resolved not to undertake a constitutional referendum, no further action be taken to notify the Electoral Commission and Department of Local Government.

(f) Further, that correspondence be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government and Shadow Minister for Local Government seeking a 2 year term for the Lord Mayor.

6. Mr Holmes has subsequently held various meetings with the current and former Manager Council Support and various GIS staff members where mapping exercises were run on the modification of ward boundaries based on different factors such as expected growth, population, population per street and Census District Collections (CCDs).

PROPOSAL

Ward Boundaries

7. Following discussions with the Lord Mayor, the results of the mapping exercises were presented to a Council workshop held on 13 July 2011 where it was proposed by Mr Holmes that :-

· Four (4) CCDs be transferred from Arthur Phillip Ward into Caroline Chisholm Ward (transferring 1,778 electors)

· Five (5) CCDs be transferred from Elizabeth Macarthur Ward into Woodville Ward (transferring 1,121 electors).

8. Briefing comments provided to the workshop by Mr Holmes in relation to the proposed transfer included:-

“Proposed boundary adjustments

To achieve the required adjustments it is proposed to alter the ward boundaries as follows:-

· transfer four CCDs with a total enrolment of 1,778 from Arthur Phillip Ward into Caroline Chisholm Ward;

· this will reduce Arthur Phillip Ward to 18636

· at the same time it will increase the Caroline Chisholm Ward to an enrolment of 19.748

Concurrently, in regard to Elizabeth Macarthur Ward the following is proposed:-

· transfer five CCDs with a total enrolment of 1,121 from Elizabeth Macarthur Ward into Woodville Ward Caroline Chisholm Ward;

· this will reduce Elizabeth Macarthur Ward to 20013 enrolments

· at the same time it will increase Woodville Ward to an enrolment of 20424

Subject to the above it is not proposed to make any boundary adjustments to Lachlan Macquarie. See Table 3 below for a summary of the proposed changes. The maps indicating the ward boundary alterations are distributed under a separate cover.

Table 3 Enrolments and Variations as Proposed

*Ward*	*Enrolled Electors*	*Proposed changes CCDs*	*Change to Enrolments*	*New Total*	*Number of Enrolments below largest ward*	*Variation* *(%)*
ARTHUR PHILLIP WARD	20414	-640 -505 -329 -304	1778	18636	1788	8.75
CAROLINE CHISHOLM WARD	17970	+640 +505 +329 +304	1778	19748	676	3.31
ELIZABETH MACARTHUR WARD	21,134	-456 -276 -204 -185	1121	20013	411	2.01
LACHLAN MACQUARIE WARD	19303	No Change		19303	1121	5.49
WOODVILLE WARD	19303	+456 +276 +204 +185	1121	20424		0
*Total*	*98,124*	N/A

9. Maps of the proposed changes as presented to the workshop are appended to this report as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively.

10. The workshop subsequently agreed to the proposed changes to the ward boundaries as presented and to the commencement of the consultation process subject to further investigation occurring on the possible extension of the boundary between the Elizabeth Macarthur Ward and Woodville Ward along Parramatta Road.

11. It was noted that the possible extension of the boundary between the Elizabeth Macarthur Ward and Woodville Ward along Parramatta Road would require the splitting of a Census Collection District. Further discussions have been held with the Electoral Commission in relation to the permissibility of such action and Council has been notified that boundaries should follow “where practical” CCDs and further that it preferred no splitting of CCDs without a strong supporting case.

12. Council’s consultant, Mr Holmes advises that there is no requirement for the NSWEC to review the adopted proposal which Council intends to display as part of the consultative process for the ward boundary adjustment. Mr Holmes advises that this is a courtesy and not a prerequisite.

13. The NSWEC have subsequently advised Mr Holmes that it has no issues with Council’s proposal nor with the provided maps although have requested formatting changes to the manner in which the submission was made to the NSWEC.

14. Mr Holmes notes, however, that the NSWEC has suddenly implemented a deadline of 30 December 2011 and it will not be possible to meet this deadline.

15. Council has contacted the responsible officer at the NSWEC who has suggested that Council write to the Electoral Commissioner seeking an extension of the deadline to enable preparation to be made by the Mapping & Demographic Analyst around the new deadline requested. A suitable request has already been forwarded.

16. Accordingly, Mr Holmes has suggested that Council be requested to adopt the changes as adopted by the July Workshop and appended to this report as Attachment 3 and 4 for consultation. Depending on any changes required, Council will then be in a decision to adopt a final document at the February 2012 Council Meeting.

CONCLUSION

17. It is proposed that Council exhibit the planned changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries, as identified in Attachments 3 and 4, in accordance with the requirements of Section 211 of the Local Government Act.

18. Parramatta’s Notification DCP for development applications and planning matters requires that such matters not be exhibited for the period 19 December 2011 to 5 January 2012. Although not strictly related to exhibitions on ward boundaries, it is suggested that the proposed exhibition, as recommended, occur from 6 January 2012 onwards.

19. Subject to the adoption of this report, appropriate exhibition of the proposed changes to the ward boundaries will be undertaken and the matter again reported to Council at the end of the submission period.

Greg Smith

Group Manager Corporate

Attachments:

1 View	Proposal for Review of Ward Boundaries - Council Report of 23 November 2009	3 Pages
2 View	Constitutional Referendums - Report of 22 March 2010 minus attachments	4 Pages
3 View	Proposed Boundary Change between Caroline Chisholm Ward and Arthur Phillip Ward	1 Page
4 View	Proposed Boundary Changes Between Elizabeth Macarthur Ward and Woodville Ward	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 11.3

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.3

SUBJECT Investments Report for October 2011

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D02171826

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for October 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 October 2011 was $85.4M (Previous Month $85.5M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $84.1M.

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

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.79% 9.48%

Funds Managers 2.27% 27.31%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.40% 4.81%

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 investment portfolio outperformed the UBSA Bank Bill Index by approximately 4.61%. The recovery of Councils managed Funds particularly CFS Global was the major reason for the short term outperformance. Driving the fund’s outperformance was the renewed hopes of a proposed solution to Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. Spreads narrowed sharply during October allowing some of the underlying securities in the fund to outperform bank bills comfortably (mark-to-market basis). Over the long-term, the fund has performed well returning around 10% p.a. over 3 years, or over +550bps over bank bills. Going forward, the fund will continue to outperform strongly should markets stabilise or spreads contract due to its high running yield.

7. As reported in September, the annual forecast for investment interest was reduced by $1M. The recovery in managed funds for October although hopeful, does not assure continued positive returns in the short term volatile market. Investment Income will be reassessed at the Dec 2011 quarterly review and it is hoped that global sentiment will be clearer at that point.

8. Term deposits make up approximately 59% of total holdings and have interest rates ranging from 5.84% to 7.40%. These favourable fixed term investments together with interest premiums received from some floating rate notes has helped balance the overall diversification of the portfolio and has also contributed towards maintaining positive returns during market volatility. It is anticipated that any new funds that may become available will be invested in floating rate notes or cash given the drop that has now occurred in short term deposit rates.

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

Graph – Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance

Graph – Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index

Graphs – Investments and loans interest compared to budget

Summary of investment portfolio

10. The Certificate of Investments for October 2011 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

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

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

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

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

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 11.4

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT Report of the Code of Conduct Sole Reviewer - Allegations of a Failure to Appropriately Manage a Conflict of Interests

REFERENCE F2011/02757 - D02182450

REPORT OF Coordinator Investigations and Probity

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

(b) Further that Council, having considered the findings of the sole reviewer as contained in Attachment 1, make a finding as to whether the Code of Conduct has been breached, and, if relevant, any decisions about sanctions, in accordance with the process outlined below titled “Making a Determination”.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s current conduct review panel was established by way of Council resolution on 15 June 2010, in compliance with the requirements of the Division of Local Government Model Code of Conduct, and subsequently, section 12 of Council’s Code of Conduct. Council currently has a pool of 3 appointed conduct reviewers

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

3. In a letter dated 12 August 2011, Council received a formal complaint under the Code of Conduct from a Parramatta resident. The resident alleged that a Councillor had failed to appropriately manage a conflict of interests on at least two occasions.

4. The matter was referred to a member of Council’s Conduct Review Panel, Barbara Armitage OAM, for investigation.

5. A final determination has been provided to Council. The report includes findings that the Councillor failed to “appropriately address his interest” in an item on 2 occasions, and that this amounted to a breach of sections 7.16 and 8.4 of the Code. The report further finds that despite the above, the Councillor “acted to remedy the situation” and “acknowledged his conduct was not in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Code of Conduct”. The report recommends counselling on the requirements of the Code with regard to conflicts of interest as an appropriate means of redress.

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

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

8. To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act and the Guidelines to the Model Code of Conduct, the conduct reviewer sought the views of the complainant about the inclusion of his name in the conduct reviewer’s report. The conduct reviewer has advised that the complainant has asked that his name be included in the report.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

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

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

MAKING A DETERMINATION

No Breach

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

Breach

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

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

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

c. Counsel the Councillor or CEO

d. Make public findings of inappropriate conduct

e. Prosecute for any breach of law

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

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

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

16. Council is under no obligation to impose sanctions should the Council feel that sanctions are not necessary, or that the breach has already been appropriately resolved.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

17. Describes the results of any consultation that has taken place within and outside Council. Include any committee advice, if relevant.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

18. Provides a discussion on any financial implications for Council in regard to the development.

Erin Lottey

Coordinator Investigations and Probity

Attachments:

1 View	Code of Conduct Review Report	25 Pages
2 View	Annexures to Code of Conduct Review Report	46 Pages
3 View	Code of Conduct	33 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 12 December 2011 Item 11.5

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.5

SUBJECT Report of the Code of Conduct Sole Reviewer - Allegation that a Councillor made inappropriate comments at a Council Meeting

REFERENCE F2010/03056 - D02182620

REPORT OF Coordinator Investigations and Probity

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the report from the sole reviewer, which is to be provided to Councillors under separate cover on Monday, 12 December 2011.

BACKGROUND

3. In verbal conversations with the CEO following the meeting, and in e-mails dated 6 December 2010 and 16 December 2010, a complaint was made under the Code of Conduct. The complaint alleged that a Councillor had made inappropriate comments at the Council meeting of 22 November 2010 about a number of Councillors and a person speaking at public forum.

4. The matter was first referred to a member of Council’s Conduct Review Panel, Mr John Boland, for investigation. In September 2011 this investigation was terminated and the matter was referred to an alternative member, Mr Malcolm Brammer, to perform a review.

5. A final determination is due to be provided to Council on 12 December 2011. The final determination report will be referred to Councillors for their consideration as soon as it is received. The report is to be provided under separate cover to ensure that the resolution of the matter is not delayed by the Christmas break.

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

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

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

MAKING A DETERMINATION

No Breach

Breach

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

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

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

c. Counsel the Councillor or CEO

d. Make public findings of inappropriate conduct

e. Prosecute for any breach of law

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

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

16. Council is under no obligation to impose sanctions should the Council feel that sanctions are not necessary, or that the breach has already been appropriately resolved.

Erin Lottey

Coordinator Investigations and Probity

Attachments:

1 View

Attachment 1 - Report of Code of Conduct Reviewer - To be provided under separate cover

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Code of Conduct

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

1 View	Traffic Engineering Advisory Group minutes of meeting held on 24 November 2011	7 Pages
2 View	Traffic Engineering Advisory Group reports of meeting held on 24 November 2011	29 Pages

1 View	Parramatta Traffic Committee minutes of meeting held on 24 November 2011.	9 Pages
2 View	Parramatta Traffic Committee reports of meeting held on 24 November 2011.	49 Pages