Agenda of Council - 27 February 2012

Council 27 February 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council - 12 December 2011, Council (Development) - 13 February 2012

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Petitions

5 Minutes of Lord Mayor

6 Public Forum

7 PETITIONS

8 Economy and Development

8.1 Parramasala

8.2 17 York Street, Oatlands
(Lot 11 DP 217963) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.3 27 Stewart Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150

8.4 10 - 12 Hutchinson Street, Granville
(Lots 29 - 30 DP 976382) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.5 58 O'Connell Street - Parramatta NSW 2150
Lot 1 DP 900803 ( Arthur Phillip Ward)

8.6 Preliminary rezoning concept for land at 2 Factory Street, Granville

8.7 Submission to the inquiry into the utilisation of rail corridors

8.8 Planning Proposal for land at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part 2A Darcy Road Westmead

8.9 Heritage Listing of Items in Epping

8.10 Auto Alley and Parramatta City

9 Environment and Infrastructure

9.1 Wildlife Protection Areas in Core Bushland

9.2 Parramatta Traffic Committee Minutes of meeting held on 9 February 2012

9.3 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2012

9.4 Environmental Upgrade Agreements (EUA's)

9.5 Public exhibition of the Draft Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for the Duck River Catchment

10 Community and Neighbourhood

10.1 George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan

10.2 Carlingford-Dundas Lions Memorial Garden Naming Proposal

10.3 Housing NSW Strategic Partnership Minutes

10.4 Proposed Free Aquatic Centre Entry Passes

10.5 Access Advisory Committee Minutes 20 December 2011

10.6 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 22 November 2011

10.7 Minutes of the Western Sydney Local Area Health District and Parramatta City Council Steering Group Meeting - 8 September 2011

11 Governance and Corporate

11.1 ParraConnect Advisory Committe

11.2 Audit Committee Minutes

11.3 Audit Committee Annual Report

11.4 Adoption of Changes to Council's Ward Boundaries

11.5 Investments Report for November 2011

11.6 Investments Report for December 2011

11.7 Delivery Program and Operational Plan – Quarterly Review December 2011

11.8 Review of Parramatta City Council Investment Policy

11.9 2012 Real Estate Conference

12 Notices of Motion

12.1 Staff Organisational Structure

12.2 Noise Abatement near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads

12.3 Broadband Access

13 Closed Session

13.1 Tender 28/2011 Parramatta Valley Cycleway – Section 22 Part B – Construction of a New Boardwalk Structure with Concrete Deck and Landscape Works.

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

13.2 Management of Paid Car Parking Facilities within the City Centre.

13.3 Fire Safety Reports from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW)

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (e) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

14 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

15 QUESTION TIME

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Parramasala

REFERENCE F2009/02982 - D02181329

REPORT OF Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

PURPOSE:

The 2011 Parramasala event was held between 30 October and 6 November 2011. This paper reports the outcomes of the event against the predetermined strategic objectives and seeks Council’s approval to continue the sponsorship for another year and to extend the strategic partnership with Destination NSW and Parramasala Ltd for a further year.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the information contained within this report;

(b) That Council approve the continuation of the strategic partnership with Destination NSW and Parramasala Ltd for the delivery of the 2012 event by exercising the option in the Sponsorship Agreement that will extend the duration of the sponsorship arrangements for another year;

(c) Further, That Council give in principle support for the strategic partnership with Destination NSW through its involvement in the company Parramasala Ltd for a further year, so that planning for the future of the Festival beyond 2012 can be undertaken.

BACKGROUND

1. At the Council meeting of 14 December 2009, Council resolved to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Events NSW (ENSW) relating to the production and delivery of the Parramasala event. The MOU also outlined a governance structure that involved the formation of a company limited by guarantee which would be responsible for the Parramasala event. Under the proposed governance structure both Council and ENSW would be members of the corporation that would be known as Parramasala Ltd.

2. At the Council meeting of 2 June 2010, Council resolved to provide support and sponsorship of the Parramasala event by way of a sponsorship agreement. This facilitated work continuing on the Parramasala event pending formation of Parramasala Ltd.

3. Parramasala Ltd was incorporated in June 2010. Council became a member and Council-nominated directors were appointed to the Parramasala Ltd Board in October 2010.

4. Council entered into the Sponsorship Agreement on 20 October 2010. This ensured that the support and sponsorship Council had agreed to provide under the MOU was to be delivered under an appropriate contractual framework. The Sponsorship Agreement is contained in Attachment 1.

5. In July 2011, Events NSW (ENSW) became Destination NSW (DNSW). All commitments and relationships regarding Parramasala remain unchanged with this transition and a deed of assignment was prepared to reflect this.

6. The Sponsorship Agreement provides for the agreed support and sponsorship for the first event (held in November 2010) and permits both Council and DNSW to continue agreed sponsorship for 2 subsequent years by exercising an option to extend (see clause 10 for the manner in which these extensions are implemented).

7. The option to extend the Sponsorship Agreement for year 2 (2011) was exercised by Council through its resolution of 28 February 2011.

8. The agreed support and sponsorship under the Sponsorship Agreement is provided by way of a cash contribution and ‘value in kind’ support.

9. The cash contribution is summarised below:

· $200,000 (GST exclusive) in year 1

· $250,000 (exclusive of GST) in year 2 with the exercise of the first option

· $300,000 (exclusive of GST) in year 3 if the second option is exercised

10. The ‘value in kind’ contribution is listed in annexure C to the Sponsorship Agreement and includes providing marketing support, facilitating tenancies of office space, facilitating use of Council facilities and undertaking joint research. This short description is not exhaustive.

11. The option to extend the Sponsorship Agreement is exercised by both Council and DNSW giving notice. The Sponsorship Agreement requires Parramasala Ltd to provide Council and DNSW with a report about the Parramasala event to assist both Council and DNSW in deciding whether to exercise the option to extend.

12. The attachments to this report contain information and materials drawn from that report and other sources which are considered relevant to a decision about whether to exercise the option to extend the sponsorship arrangements for year 3 (2012).

13. The strategic objectives of Council’s investment in the Parramasala event are:

a. Economic Impact:

i. Provide a trigger for increased visitation to Parramatta, including from interstate and international visitors.

b. Strategic Marketing Impact:

i. Showcase Parramatta as a unique event destination;

ii. Illustrate Parramatta, and Sydney, as a vibrant, multicultural and creative centre.

c. Community/Social Impact:

i. Offer authentic cultural and artistic experiences, while challenging perceptions of South Asian culture and its place in a global context;

ii. Provide an inspiring and engaging event for a cross cultural audience;

iii. Provide a positive message for community relations to improve cultural harmony and understanding with the South Asian community.

14. The measures examined for each of the 3 strategic objectives of Council’s investment in Parramasala in 2011 were:

a. Economic:

i. Calculation of unique local spend and repeat visit benefits, using data collected via face-to-face and online methods, with trends accessed from comparable 2010 data sources.

b. Strategic Marketing:

i. Event perception using data flowing from customer and other surveys (including event awareness, brand awareness, perception change, community impact, community pride);

ii. Assessment of media received and monetisation of media coverage;

iii. Trend analysis using comparable data sources.

c. Community/Social:

i. Media Metrics – amount of “community generated” social media (i.e. social media content generated by individuals/groups excluding Parramasala Ltd, DNSW and Council);

ii. Data collected using both face-to-face and online methods, allowing inferred outcomes for both local and non-resident visitors, with trends accessed from comparable data sources each year;

iii. Comparison with results in Council’s former “Community Impact Surveys” – allowing inferred trendlines supported by comparable data sources.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

15. An assessment of the event has been undertaken considering the following:

a) All available post Festival evaluation data, along with any other supporting research and analysis;

b) The level of national and international promotion of the Festival;

c) The economic, strategic and community benefits of the Festival to the State of NSW and the Parramatta Local Government Area;

d) The success or otherwise, and the ongoing business case for the Festival;

e) Branding and acknowledgement for the Council and DNSW;

f) A review of the performance of the entity charged with producing and delivering the event.

16. Data collection and analysis undertaken by Parramasala Ltd, DNSW and Council has informed the assessment. This includes:

a. Ticket sales data and attendance estimates;

b. Face-to-Face and Online Surveys;

c. DNSW Community Tracker Results;

d. Media Monitors data

17. Assessment of achievement against Council’s Objectives and Key Performance Indicators has been undertaken. Details are provided in Attachment 2.

18. Based on this assessment, it is recommended that Council exercise the option to extend the sponsorship and thereby continue its participation in the strategic partnership with Destination NSW and Parramasala Ltd for the development, production and delivery of the 2012 event.

19. There are no changes proposed to Council’s roles and responsibilities contained within the Sponsorship Agreement, including the cash and in-kind contributions.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

20. Whilst the sponsorship contract was for an initial period of up to 3 years (and this concludes at the end of the 2012 festival), Councils engagement as a member of the company, Parramasala Ltd is not time limited. In this capacity, Councils is required to consider the planning for the future of the Festival beyond 2012.

21. Council’s involvement in the delivery of the Parramasala event is formalised through:

a. membership of Parramasala Ltd and participation on the Board;

b. participation in the Investor Group by Council staff (Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation);

c. through its representation on the Marketing and Media group; and

d. directly as an operational contact to the Parramasala Ltd staff.

22. Since the 2011 event was held a significant amount of consultation has been undertaken through formal survey processes. This has included samples of Parramatta residents and visitors, non-residents and non-visitors, and event attendees and non-attendees:

a. Face-to-Face Surveys - 399 respondents;

b. Online Surveys - 99 respondents;

c. DNSW Community Tracker Results

23. The internal cross-functional team, responsible for Council’s strategic objectives as well as the operational support group have met on a number of occasions to debrief and provide operational and strategic feedback.

24. The Board met on 25 November 2011 and discussed the Festival. Festival Director, Philip Rolfe, requested further feedback from the Board members via email following this meeting.

25. A series of formal debriefs have been undertaken by the Investors Group, represented by staff from DNSW and Council. These debriefs have included reviews of:

a. the Company structure and constitution;

b. the contracted deliverable of both DNSW and Council;

c. the PR campaign and media plans;

d. hospitality and VIP management;

e. potential benefits for Event Value Optimisation;

f. marketing and branding;

g. the working relationship between DNSW and Council;

h. the Sponsorship Agreement

26. Detailed feedback has been provided to the DNSW and Council Board Members by the staff representatives of the Investors Group.

27. Council Board members met for a formal debrief on Monday 23 January 2012.

28. All Councillors were invited to provide feedback through a short online survey.

29. The tri-partite group, represented by staff from Parramasala, DNSW and Council has also met to debrief and critically examine the report. A series of recommendations were made and these are included in this report as Attachment 3.

30. Parramasala Ltd has delivered reports required under the Sponsorship Agreement to representatives of Council and DNSW (known as the Investors Group) to inform the debrief discussions and a number of recommendations made by the Investors Group have been provided to the Parramasala Ltd.

31. The documents attached to this report seek to provide Councillors with all relevant information. Should Councillors seek further detail or clarification of the information provided, both Council staff and Parramasala Ltd staff are able to assist.

32. The next board meeting of Parramasala Ltd is scheduled for 9 March 2012. The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bide and the Chief Executive Officer are members of the Board and the Manager of City Culture, Tourism and Recreation is an invited observer.

33. The Board will undertake a comprehensive review of the purpose, market/audience, programming and marketing and media to ensure that the Festival in 2012 and onwards delivers the strategic objectives of both Council and DNSW.

34. DNSW has given Council a notice exercising the option to extend for a further year confirming its desire for the Parramasala event to proceed in 2012. This notification included a commitment from DNSW to provide the agreed level of funding for the 2012 event.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

35. A project proposal has been included as part of the 2012-13 Management Plan for a direct cash contribution of $300,000 for the 2012 Parramasala event.

36. The in-kind contribution articulated within Council’s roles and responsibilities contained within the 2010 Sponsorship Agreement, comprised of both one-off and ongoing contributions. The one-off contributions related to the set up of the Parramasala Ltd office were completed in 2010 and where real costs were incurred, these were reflected in quarterly budget adjustments.

37. Although modest in 2010 and 2011, the economic opportunities for the City presented by the Parramasala event will continue to grow.

38. In 2012, there will be a renewed critical focus on the delivery of outcomes of the event for the Investors (Council and DNSW). This focus will ensure programming that relates to key markets, and better marketing of these attractions.

39. It can be tempting to assess an event such as Parramasala without context, as a stand-alone program. In fact any event forms part of a larger cycle of events and activities which share broad strategy and objectives. Each component has both a specific role, and an impact much greater in potential than that specific role suggests. The economic value of Parramsala is found in its potential to mature as one of the key events on the City calendar. Longer term commitments can protect the investment already made and ensure that this potential will be realised.

40. The Board will undertake a comprehensive review of the purpose, market/audience, programming and marketing and media to ensure that the Festival in 2012 and onwards delivers the strategic objectives of both Council and DNSW.

Rebecca Grasso

Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

Attachments:

1	Sponsorship Agreement between Events NSW and Parramatta City Council and Parramasala signed by Council on 20 October 2010 (CONFIDENTIAL)	57 Pages
2	Response to Investors Objectives (CONFIDENTIAL)	9 Pages
3	Recommendations - Parramasala 2012 - Provided under separate cover (CONFIDENTIAL)	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT 17 York Street, Oatlands
(Lot 11 DP 217963) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Construction of a 3 storey dwelling with in-ground swimming pool.

REFERENCE DA/663/2011 - 23 September 2011

APPLICANT/S Mrs C C Daher

OWNERS Mrs C CDaher

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 1 February 2012

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as it seeks a variation of greater than 10% to the height and FSR controls within Clauses 39 and 40 of Local Environmental Plan 2001.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition and construction of a three storey dwelling house and in-ground swimming pool upon the subject site.

Although the proposed dwelling has 2 floors used for habitable purposes the proposed dwelling will comprise of three storeys as defined by the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The height exceeds the two storey height limit permitted under Clause 39 of PLEP 2001. The non compliance is a technical non compliance due to the definition of a storey under PLEP 2001. The definition includes any floor area greater than 1.2 metres above ground level as a storey. Part of the basement area of the dwelling protrudes above the natural ground level by a more than 1.2m and is a result of the slope of the allotment.

The proposed dwelling has an FSR of 0.547:1 which exceeds the maximum 0.5:1 FSR permissible in Clause 40 of PLEP 2001. The non-compliance to the FSR standard results in part of the basement level being defined as a storey with the area of the basement that is located more than 1.2m above natural ground level being included as floor space.

The SEPP 1 objections to both Clause 39 and 40 are supported as the design of the proposal in relation to bulk and scale will not to be excessive, responds to the slope of the site, is consistent in the locality and does not substantially impact on the amenity of adjoining properties thereby, satisfying the underlying objectives of the clauses.

Two submissions have been received in respect of this application. The issues raised in the submissions relate to loss of privacy, overshadowing, excessive bulk and scale and setbacks. These matters have been assessed and conditions of consent are recommended to address concerns about overlooking of adjoining properties.

The likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed and the proposed development is considered acceptable with respect to the standards and controls contained within Council’s PLEP 2001 and PDCP 2005 and will have no undue adverse impacts on the streetscape or adjoining properties in terms of privacy or shading, subject to conditions requiring a reduction in the ground floor deck and first floor balcony of the dwelling.

The development provides adequate landscaping and open space area and the design, bulk and scale of the dwelling are appropriate and consistent with development within the Oatlands locality.

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

(b) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to development Application No. DA/663/2011 for the construction of a 3 storey dwelling house and in-ground pool at 17 York Street, Oatlands subject to the conditions of consent contained in Attachment 1.

(d) Further that the applicant pay an additional $817.45 development assessment fee to reflect the amended estimated cost of construction.

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	43 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Elevation and Section Plans	1 Page
4 View	Shadow Plan	1 Page
5	Confidential Plans	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT 27 Stewart Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 4 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings over a basement carpark and strata subdivision. A SEPP1 objection has been submitted as the floor space ratio for the development is 0.846:1 rather than 0.8:1 required by Clause 40 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

REFERENCE DA/574/2011 - 19 August 2011

APPLICANT/S V Bilotta

OWNERS Mr M J Czyrkowski and Mrs J M McNamee

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

7 February 2012

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The development application has been referred to Council as the development may impact on a Heritage item.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal involves the demolition, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 4 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings over a basement carpark and strata subdivision.

A heritage item of Local Significance is located on both sides of Stewart Street. The item is identified as “stone edging to road carriageway” in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The Heritage Item may be impacted by the construction of the new driveways.

A SEPP1 objection has been submitted as the floor space ratio for the development is 0.846:1 rather than 0.8:1 required by Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The SEPP 1 objection is considered worthy of support, given that the numerical departure is small and will not result in the building having a bulk and scale that is dissimilar to the many residential flat buildings in the area.

In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised, with owners and occupiers of surrounding properties given notice of the application for a 21 day period between 31 August 2011 and 21 September 2011. In response, one submission was received. The submission raised the issue of the site frontage width not complying with the 24m control under the PDCP 2005. The issue raised in the submission has been assessed and does not warrant refusal or further amendment to the proposal as the parcel of land is an isolated parcel located between 2 RFB’s.

Given the location of the heritage stone edging at the front of the development that may be impacted on by the new driveway, Council’s Heritage Committee were given notice of the application for a 14 day period between 30 January 2012 and 13 February 2012. Councilors will be advised of any comments made by way of a memo prior to the Council meeting.

In addition to this, Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection subject to a condition requiring that the builder remove the sandstone blocks (should they be found), excavate underneath and reposition the stone blocks on lower level, in order to level them with the crossover and subsequently retain them in situ.

The proposal has been considered by the Design Review Panel and the proposal is considered to be of appropriate design quality.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives contained within Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. The building has a satisfactory design, bulk and scale given the isolated nature of the site. There is sufficient landscaping and private open space provided by the proposal. The proposed development is appropriately sited without unduly impacting on the streetscape or amenity of adjoining properties in terms of privacy or overshadowing.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 40 (FSR) of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1.

(b) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/574/2011 for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 4 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings over a basement carpark and strata subdivision at 27 Stewart Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.

David Little

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79c Report	66 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Architectural Plans	7 Pages
4 View	SEPP 1 Objection	9 Pages
5 View	Photo montage	1 Page
6	Confidential Architectural Plans	3 Pages

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.4

SUBJECT 10 - 12 Hutchinson Street, Granville
(Lots 29 - 30 DP 976382) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Use of heritage item as a community facility

REFERENCE DA/798/2011 - 15th November 2011

APPLICANT/S Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association Inc.

OWNERS Multicultural Disability Advocacy of SO NSW inc.

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

7 february 2012

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for internal fitout, construction of an internal deck and pergola to a heritage listed building, use of the building as a community facility and the erection of signage. The building was previously used as the Granville Police Station.

A site inspection indicates that the applicant has constructed an internal courtyard comprising a partially covered timber deck and the use has commenced without Council approval. In addition, the completed works do not reflect the plans submitted with the application, most notably the internal courtyard which indicates an existing landscaped area to be paved. This area has been taken up by the access ramps recently constructed. Whilst there are no town planning or heritage objections to the work that has been carried out without prior planning approval, it is recommended that an application for a building certificate be lodged for the unauthorized works. As these works have been constructed they cannot be considered under this application as retrospective approval for building works can not be granted. It is one of the recommendations of this report that the unauthorized building works be reported to the Regulatory Services Unit for the issuing of a Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN).

The building was constructed c. 1885 with major extensions c. 1907-1911, and remains an example of a Victorian style building that presents as intact when viewed from the street and strongly contributes to the streetscape values of the Granville Conservation Area, particularly when viewed in unison with other nearby historic buildings. The application has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who has advised that the proposal is generally in keeping with the Heritage DCP controls and has raised no objections to the proposal.

The proposed hours of operation of the community facility are:

Monday to Friday: 9am -5pm

Closed Saturday and Sunday

Staff: 12-15 employees

The community facility will run on an appointment basis only with up to 3 - 4 clients per day and will predominately advocate for clients on matters such as access to health services, hospitals, education, transport, accommodation, legal services, government services and financial support (eg. Centrelink, etc.). This is performed by correspondence and sometimes by accompanying clients to meetings with service providers and liaising with representatives of service providers.

The hours of operation and number of appointments per day are considered satisfactory, considering the nature of the proposal and the surrounding land uses which include a school, church and residential properties.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, Granville Conservation Area (civic precinct) and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Zone.

No submissions have been received in response to the advertising of the application.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/798/2011 for the use of the building as a community facility and the erection of signage at 10-12 Hutchinson Street, Granville NSW 2142 subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1.

(b) That as works have occurred and the use commenced without prior planning approval being obtained the matter be referred to Council’s Development Control Team for investigation including the possible issue of a Penalty Infringement Notice.

(c) Further, that the applicant be invited to submit an application for a building certificate for the unauthorized works to the courtyard.

Michael Tully

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	S79C Report	20 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	7 Pages
4 View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.5

SUBJECT 58 O'Connell Street - Parramatta NSW 2150
Lot 1 DP 900803 ( Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1a) application to modify condition 13 ( payment of a monetary contribution for mitigation of the loss of low rental bedrooms) arising from strata subdivision of the building.

REFERENCE DA/174/2011/A - lodged 14 December 2011

APPLICANT/S Byrnes PDM Pty Ltd

OWNERS Classy Business Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 6 february 2012

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Application seeks to modify a Development Consent determined by the elected Council and the condition being modified was subject to debate when Council previously considered the application.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council on 10 October 2011 granted consent to the Strata subdivision of a residential flat building at 58 O’ Connell Street containing 10 units. The provisions of SEPP Affordable Rental Housing (ARHSEPP 2009) were considered in the assessment of the application as the strata subdivision is going to result in the loss of affordable housing.

The Section 96 application seeks to modify condition 13. Condition 13 currently reads:

“A monetary contribution of $95,760 for mitigation of the loss of low-rental bedrooms is to be paid. The contribution is to be paid to the Chief Executive, Housing NSW, Department of Human Services. The evidence of such a payment is to be submitted to the Council prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.”

The applicant seeks to modify this condition by seeking to quarantine not less than three (3) of the two (2) bedroom units for affordable housing (low rental) for a period of not less than 5 years from the date of registration by way of a positive covenant. This would be in lieu of the payment of $ 95,760 to Housing NSW and is suggested by the applicant as they believe the strata subdivision does not result in any loss of low cost rental housing.

The application was been notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan and no submissions have been received.

The proposed modification would not comply with the requirements of ARHSEPP (2009) and contravenes the Ministerial directions issued under section 94G (3) (b) of the EP& A Act 1979. The request to modify the condition is also not supported by Council’s Social Outcomes group .The proposed modification is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

That Council not support the request to modify condition 13 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed modification does not comply with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

2. The proposed modification would not comply with the Ministerial directions issued under Section 94G (3) (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. The proposed modification is not in the public interest.

Sasi Kumar

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	15 Pages
2 View	Location Plan	1 Page
3 View	Section 79C report for DA/174/2011	30 Pages
4 View	Determination Notice for DA/174/2011	5 Pages
5 View	Ministerial Direction	1 Page

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.6

SUBJECT Preliminary rezoning concept for land at 2 Factory Street, Granville

REFERENCE RZ/10/2011 - D02261958

REPORT OF Project Officer - Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement to explore a planning proposal to rezone land at 2 Factory Street, Granville for high density residential uses and to proceed with formal negotiations to prepare a Voluntary Planning Agreement between Council and the applicant in relation to this planning proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council advise the applicant that it would explore a planning proposal, prepared by the applicant, to rezone land at 2 Factory Street, Granville for high density residential uses.

(b) That the planning proposal submitted to Council be accompanied by a range of studies including the following: Urban Design Structure Plan, Land Use Planning Report, Traffic Impact Assessment, Social Impact Assessment, Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment and Land Contamination Report.

(c) That Council proceed with negotiations for a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with the applicant in relation to the planning proposal.

(d) That delegated authority be given to the CEO to negotiate the VPA on behalf of Council.

(e) That Council advise the applicant of this decision, together with the matters to be addressed and the required studies to be submitted with the planning proposal.

(f) Further, that a report be put to Council on the assessment of the planning proposal and VPA.

THE SITE

1. The subject site adjoins the south side of Clyde Railway Station at 2 Factory Street, Granville (Refer to context and site maps in Attachment 1). The site is 10,700sqm in size. The site is currently zoned for industrial purposes and is occupied by a group of industrial buildings, generally of brick construction, 2 to 3 stories in height. Large vehicle parking areas are also located on the site.

2. The site is adjoined at the northern boundary by the Clyde Railway Station, and at the southern and eastern boundaries by the Australia Post International Mail Centre. To the north-west of the site across Factory Street is located an industrial building occupied by a Tabcorp call centre. To the south-west of the site across Factory Street are located low density residential dwellings.

BACKGROUND

3. In November 2011, Council received a preliminary rezoning concept (located at Attachment 2) for land at 2 Factory Street, Granville from Lockrey Planning & Development Solutions Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of the landowners MDM Pty Ltd.

4. The submission of a preliminary rezoning concept is a request to seek Council’s initial feedback and to determine if the proposed concept has merit for further investigation. Should Council be willing to explore the concept presented, the applicant would be invited to submit a planning proposal that addresses the issues and makes the amendments recommended in the assessment at Attachment 1 together with the requested studies for further assessment by Council.

THE PROPOSAL

5. The preliminary rezoning concept seeks to rezone the southern portion of the subject site from IN1 General Industrial to R4 High Density Residential under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 so as to permit residential flat buildings consisting of 176 apartments with associated car parking spaces (228). The development would have a predominant building height of 15.8m (4 storeys) and a maximum building height of 18.8m (5 storeys).

6. The residential development is also proposed to incorporate a 190sqm community centre with 12 car parking spaces.

7. The northern portion of the site is proposed to be rezoned to SP2 Infrastructure under Parramatta LEP 2011. The applicant has provided plans illustrating a four-level, 148 space commuter carpark (refer to figure 4 in Attachment 2). The applicant has shown interest in entering into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Council in relation to the dedication of this portion of land to Council for the purposes of a commuter carpark. The applicant has also shown interest in constructing the commuter carpark.

8. A proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.9:1 would apply to the residential component. The totalling of floor space across the residential component would theoretically achieve an overall maximum allowable floor space of approximately 17,400sqm.

PLANNING CONTROLS

9. The preliminary concept seeks a significant amendment to the current zone, height and FSR limits, for the subject site in the Parramatta LEP 2011.

10. The subject site is currently zoned IN1 General Industrial under the Parramatta LEP 2011. The proposal is to rezone the southern portion of the subject site to R4 High Density Residential and the northern portion of the subject site to SP2 Infrastructure to permit the proposed commuter carpark.

11. The maximum building height permitted for the subject site under the Parramatta LEP 2011 is 12m (3 storeys). The proposal is to apply maximum building height of 18.8m (5 storeys).

12. The maximum FSR permitted for the subject site under the Parramatta LEP 2011 is 1:1. The proposal is to apply a maximum FSR of 1.9:1.

ISSUES

13. Attachment 1 comprises an assessment of the preliminary rezoning concept which includes comments made by the following Council teams; Land Use Planning, Urban Design, Economic Development, Transport Planning, Traffic Services and Catchment Management. The following is a summary of the main issues.

Land Use Planning

(a) Loss of employment land

(i) The Factory Street industrial lands and the Clyde Railway Station are not currently regarded as strategically critical employment assets. The proposed rezoning of land would not represent a significant loss of employment lands (10,700sqm) and therefore does not represent an overly significant risk to Parramatta’s economic development future.

(ii) The existing industrial area at Factory Street is geographically constrained and isolated and unlikely to grow or intensify significantly. There is currently a low demand for existing industrial floorspace/property at the site.

(b) Suitability of site for residential development

(i) The preliminary rezoning concept meets the objectives of Council’s Draft Residential Development Strategy and the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 by encouraging the intensification of residential development around public transport infrastructure and encouraging a greater utilisation of public transport services. Residential development in feeder suburbs like Clyde that is well connected to the Parramatta CBD is supported.

(i) The proposed zoning would allow the construction of a high density residential development within an established industrial area. The proposed residential apartments on the subject site would be located to the south and east of the Australia Post site. Concern is raised with respect to the compatibility of the two land uses, given their close proximity to each other. Issues (design and ongoing) regarding the amenity (noise, visual and air) of future residents on the subject site and the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding existing land uses, particularly Australia Post will need to be further investigated in a planning proposal.

Urban design

(d) The following amendments are recommended to be made to the design of the development proposal, including:

(i) Increase building setback buffers to address the concerns of amenity and compatibility with the Australia Post site.

(ii) Reduce proposed height and FSR of development so as to better complement surrounding developments.

(iii) Provide greater building setbacks to allow for deep soil landscaping.

(iv) Provide for a high quality design of the development.

(v) Provide for safety and security of the development, including providing for well defined public and private areas, and incorporating shops into the commuter carpark area.

Social

(e) It is important to ensure a range of housing options are provided in the proposed development so as to accommodate a variety of persons. Affordable housing should be provided to accommodate for community workers, students and aged persons. Further information is required with the planning proposal outlining the proposed residential market segment and pricing structure the development is targeting.

(f) The increased population as a result of the proposed development may generate a demand for additional services and facilities. Further information will be required with the planning proposal investigating the need for additional services and facilities.

(g) Specific information is also required for the proposed community centre within the proposed development, such as the demand for the facility, and the proposed use and management of the facility. Consideration should be given to incorporating a shared community centre and child care centre in the development.

Traffic

(h) It is critical that a traffic impact assessment be prepared and lodged with the planning proposal to address the likely impacts on the road network from the proposed development. Without the presence of a detailed analysis and based on available information it appears that the traffic generated by the proposed development and commuter car park could be accommodated by intersections in the local area.

Flooding

(i) Future development of the site will need to comply with all relevant planning and development controls as outlined in Council’s Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy and the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011. The applicant must provide detailed analysis at the Development Application stage in respect to compliance with relevant flooding provisions, particularly as the development incorporates basement car parking.

VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT (VPA)

14. An indicative VPA offer has been made by the landowners for 2 Factory Street, Granville being the dedication of the northern portion of land abutting Clyde Railway Station of approximately 1,535sqm in size to Council for the purposes of a multi-storey commuter car park. The applicant has also shown interest in constructing the commuter carpark.

15. Council’s endorsement is sought to commence formal negotiations of the VPA, including the assessment of the suitability of the land to be dedicated for a multi –storey commuter carpark, details relating to the size, construction and funding of the commuter carpark, the public benefit value of this dedication, the potential for additional/alternate contributions for example the dedication of unit(s) to Council for affordable housing purposes and the timing of the contribution(s).

16. The public benefit of this contribution would provide for a much needed commuter carpark in the Granville/Clyde area.

17. Initial investigations have revealed that a commuter carpark at this location may be feasible given that it is adjacent to Clyde Railway station yet on the periphery of the Granville Town Centre, being 600 metres (approximately) to the Granville Railway Station. This would give commuters a choice of accessing rail services from Clyde station or Granville station. Many commuters who access Granville town centre already currently park a similar walking distance away from Granville compared to the distance between the Clyde and Granville Railway Stations.

18. Transport for NSW is currently reviewing the Commuter Car Park and Interchange Program to address the needs of the local communities to ensure appropriate prioritisation of work and to establish the program of work and associated funding. Initial investigations of this indicative VPA offer with Transport for NSW have revealed that although Clyde Railway Station is mid-ranked on the commuter prioritisation list, Transport for NSW is willing to review the prioritisation list and explore this proposal in greater detail in conjunction with Council given the offer of land dedication and construction of the carpark by the applicant (landowner).

19. There are potential planning and public benefits in the indicative offer that should be further explored. Accordingly, this report recommends that, as required by Council’s VPA policy, a formal resolution be made to proceed with negotiations and an appropriate officer be given delegated authority to negotiate the VPA on Council’s behalf. The draft VPA will also need to be reviewed by Council’s legal representative. It is recommended that delegation be given to the CEO of Council to negotiate the VPA.

NEXT STEPS

20. Should Council be willing to explore a planning proposal to rezone land at 2 Factory Street, Granville for high density residential uses the applicant would be invited to submit a planning proposal that addresses the matters in this report together with the required studies for further assessment.

21. The planning proposal must be prepared in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s ‘A guide to preparing a planning proposal’ and ‘A guide to preparing local environmental plans’. The planning proposal must be accompanied with the following studies:

(a) Urban Design Structure Plan

(b) Land Use Planning Report

(d) Social Impact Assessment

(e) Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment

(f) Land Contamination Report

22. Additional studies may be required following an assessment of the planning proposal.

23. A report will be put to Council following the assessment of the planning proposal and VPA. At this point, should Council proceed to support the planning proposal it will be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway Determination.

CONCLUSION

24. The preliminary rezoning concept seeks to rezone the southern portion of the subject site to R4 High Density Residential under the Parramatta LEP 2011 so as to permit residential flat buildings. The proposal seeks a predominant building height of 15.8m (4 storeys) with a maximum building height of 18.8m (5 storeys). The northern portion of the site is proposed to be rezoned to SP2 Infrastructure under Parramatta LEP 2011 to facilitate a 148 space multi-storey commuter carpark. The applicant has made a VPA offer to Council for the dedication of this portion of land to Council for the purposes of a commuter carpark. The applicant has also shown interest in constructing the commuter carpark.

25. The industrial uses on the land are reaching, or have reached the end of their economic life. The site is well located in proximity of the Granville Town Centre and would rejuvenate the locality. The loss of employment land can be justified.

26. More detailed technical studies and investigations are required to justify different aspects of a future planning proposal including traffic, amenity, building height and floor space ratio.

27. Council’s endorsement is required to further explore the concept presented by way of a planning proposal with the necessary studies submitted by the applicant that addresses the matters raised in this report.

Joel Carson Jennifer Concato

Project Officer Land Use Planning A/Manager Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Assessment of the preliminary rezoning concept for land at 2 Factory Street, Granville	12 Pages
2 View	Preliminary rezoning concept submitted by applicant	9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.7

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.7

SUBJECT Submission to the inquiry into the utilisation of rail corridors

REFERENCE F2011/03455 - D02261979

REPORT OF Project Officer - Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement of a submission to the inquiry into the utilisation of rail corridors prior to it being forwarded to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport and Infrastructure for their consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the submission at Attachment 1 to the inquiry into the utilisation of rail corridors and forward the submission to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport and Infrastructure for their consideration.

BACKGROUND

1. A Parliamentary Committee has been established by the NSW Government to conduct an inquiry into the utilisation of rail corridors.

2. On 30 November 2011 Council was invited to make a submission on the inquiry by 29 February 2012. The Parliamentary Committee will soon after report the findings of its enquiry to the NSW Parliament.

3. The terms of reference for the Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport and Infrastructure is to inquire into and report on the utilisation of air space above, and the land adjacent to, the rail corridor in the Greater Metropolitan Area of Sydney, including the Hunter and the Illawarra.

(a) Matters may include, but are not limited to, how rail corridors might contribute to:

(i) providing opportunities for mixed use property development;

(ii) generating income for funding future infrastructure projects;

(iii) facilitating sustainable urban renewal and development;

(iv) facilitation of transit oriented development schemes around railway stations;

(v) connectivity of communities either side of railway lines.

(b) Other areas of inquiry will include:

(i) the current planning and policy framework;

(ii) regulatory and policy barriers to implementing rail corridor projects;

(iii) issues relating to the financing and funding of such projects;

(iv) methods of assessing the compatibility of projects with the local community;

(v) examples of best practice from other jurisdictions.

Key Issues

4. The submission at Attachment 1 comprises comments on the key matters affecting Parramatta. These comments have been made by the following Council teams: Land Use Planning, Transport Planning, Traffic Services, Economic Development and Property Development.

5. The following is a summary of the key matters included in the submission:

(i) Rail corridors need to be identified and reserved with a view to a long term commitment to transport infrastructure. This needs to anticipate and integrate with future jobs and residential density to provide the certainty required by private industry to drive investment and economic growth.

(ii) Rail corridors provide an important role in the economic development of commercial and industrial areas within the Parramatta local government area, such as the Parramatta CBD, Westmead, Rydalmere and Camellia/Rosehill.

(iii) Rail corridor lands, particularly surrounding stations, are well suited to support increased commercial densities in strategic centres and increased residential densities in feeder suburbs to allow for increased public transport use. The intensification of commercial and residential development around rail corridors is consistent with the NSW Government Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036.

(iv) Infrastructure plans need to be integrated into the planning system and supported with funding. The system should enshrine a new whole-of-government approach to the provision and planning of transport infrastructure which is a fundamental component to the acceptability of increased densities in both residential and commercial development.

(v) Rail corridors provide greater viability to mixed use developments and encourage the undertaking of urban renewal.

(vi) Opportunities exist for the redevelopment of key sites around Granville, Guilford and Rydalmere Railway Stations, with some lands being Council-owned.

(vii) Lands adjacent to rail corridors provide opportunities for utilisation and intensification of public transport infrastructure such as cycling networks and bus stops, thereby improving the availability of public transport services and encouraging public transport use.

(viii) The location of commuter carparks must be carefully considered. It is preferred that commuter carparking is placed on the outskirts of centres and that key sites within centres are better utilised for commercial or residential uses instead of for carparking. Carparks within centres contribute to traffic congestion and are a wasteful use of valuable, developable land.

(ix) It is critical that the locations of proposed metropolitan rail corridors such as the Parramatta-Epping Rail Link be preserved, including the surface and sub-surface areas required for the integration of new rail lines with the planned Civic Place development at Parramatta, and the interfaces with Parramatta Railway Station.

(x) Development of airspace within rail corridors provides commercial opportunities and for connectivity across the rail corridor.

Conclusion

6. It is recommended that Council adopt the submission at Attachment 1 to the inquiry into the utilisation of rail corridors and forward the submission to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport and Infrastructure for their consideration

Joel Carson Jennifer Concato

Project Officer Land Use Planning A/Manager Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View

Submission to the inquiry into the utilisation of rail corridors

4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.8

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.8

SUBJECT Planning Proposal for land at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part 2A Darcy Road Westmead

REFERENCE RZ/4/2011 - D02262288

REPORT OF Project Officer- Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement of a planning proposal to amend the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 to rezone and apply a maximum building height and FSR on land at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part of 2A Darcy Road, Westmead. Subject to Council's endorsement, the planning proposal will then be referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration under the gateway process.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the planning proposal at Attachment 1 to amend the Parramatta LEP 2011 to rezone land at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part 2A Darcy Road, Westmead from SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to B4 Mixed Use and to apply a maximum building height of 48 metres and maximum FSR of 3:1 be endorsed and forwarded for gateway assessment by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(b) That on completion, the site specific DCP being an amendment to the Parramatta DCP 2011, be submitted to Council for endorsement prior to public exhibition.

(c) That subject to gateway determination, the planning proposal be publicly exhibited simultaneously with the site specific DCP.

(d) Further, that a report be put to Council following the public exhibition.

SUMMARY

1. The planning proposal seeks a change of zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to B4 Mixed Use with a maximum building height limit of 48 m (15 storeys) and FSR of 3:1 for the University of Western Sydney (UWS) site at 154 – 164 Hawkesbury Road and part of the Marist School site (being the access handle) at 2A Darcy Road, Westmead. The proposal is supported by an indicative concept plan for intensive mixed use (commercial and residential) development with the provision for open space and a town square.

2. The planning proposal is considered acceptable for reasons outlined below:

(i) A change of zoning is appropriate in that it will allow an intensive mixed use development in close proximity to public transport.

(ii) An FSR of 3:1 is consistent with the FSR of other large strategic sites elsewhere in the Parramatta Parramatta City Centre, along Parramatta Road and in Epping.

(iii) The maximum height limit of 48 m (15 storeys) will only apply to one building with detailed heights controlled by the site specific DCP, being an addition to Part 4 Special Precincts of the Parramatta DCP 2011. The proposed heights are consistent with maximum building heights in other specialised centres in Sydney and have been further refined in response to the heritage buildings of the site as well as to the appropriate physical scale of streets and spaces within and adjoining the site.

3. The indicative concept plan accompanying the planning proposal is generally in line with concept plans included in earlier strategic plans for Westmead, the proposal will help achieve Council’s vision of creating a vibrant world class medical precinct of high amenity values and the proposed development can accommodate generated traffic effects.

4. Concept plan details will be included in the site specific DCP and will continue to be refined through liaison with the proponent. Once completed, the site specific DCP will be submitted to Council for endorsement prior to public exhibition.

5. Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA) are encouraged with planning proposals for the provision of public benefits given the significant private benefits gained in upzoning land. UWS considers the social and urban design benefits offered by the planning proposal to the community are significant and do not believe it is appropriate to enter into a VPA with Council at this early stage. A VPA linked to the planning proposal could have funded certain studies to assist progressing the provision of specific infrastructure.

THE SITE

6. The subject site comprises approximately 4 hectares and is located at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part of 2A Darcy Road, Westmead (being the access handle).

7. The site currently contains buildings utilised by the UWS and its tenants for a variety of courses. Buildings on the site comprise; the four-storey St Vincent's Boys Home, a two-storey Victorian building, a two storey trades buildings and several low rise teaching and industrial buildings. A large modern brick building located on the northern half of the site was formerly occupied by NSW Police. The remainder of the northern part of the site is utilised for on grade commercially operated car parking generally used by hospital staff and the general public

BACKGROUND

8. In August 2006, following a request made by the UWS, the then Minister for Planning formed an opinion that the proposed mixed use development of the site met the criteria of the Major Projects SEPP and authorised the submission of a Concept Plan for the proposal under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. In June 2011, the NSW Government repealed Part 3A of the EP&A Act. As a result, the Major Project Application was removed from Part 3A and the Concept Plan application did not proceed. Accordingly, a planning proposal is now required for the rezoning of land under the ‘Gateway’ system.

THE PROPOSAL

9. In December 2011, Council received a planning proposal (located at Attachment 1) from City Plan Services, acting on behalf of UWS and with the consent of the Marist School (for the access handle) to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 by:

– Changing the zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to B4 Mixed Use.

– Applying a maximum building height of 48 m (15 storeys). No maximum building height currently applies under Parramatta LEP 2011.

– Applying a proposed maximum FSR of 3:1. No maximum FSR currently applies under Parramatta LEP 2011.

10. The planning proposal is supported by detailed studies: Survey Plan, Urban Design Analysis, Traffic and Access Report, Contamination and Hazardous Material Assessment, Draft Heritage Assessment/Archaeological Report, Geotechnical Report, Fauna and Flora Report, Site Condition Assessment and Infrastructure Services, Social Effects Analysis and Economic Effect Analysis. A summary of these studies, including background information and more detailed justification is located at Attachment 2.

11. For the purposes of the planning proposal an indicative development concept plan for the site has been prepared and is provided at Attachment 3 which allows for:

– Commercial and retail uses on the northern half of the site;

– Residential uses on the southern and western parts of the site;

– Landscaped public open space that retains existing mature trees;

– A town square;

– Retention and adaptive reuse of St Vincent's Boys Home as well as Bayley's Cottage;

– Activated frontages to Hawkesbury and Darcy Roads;

– A new street that plugs into Darcy Road at the existing signalised intersection; and

– A range of building heights from approximately 14 m (3 storeys) to 48 m (15 storeys).

12. It should be noted that the maximum building height of 48m (15 storeys) only applies to one proposed building in the south western corner of the site. More defined and lower heights for the site together with the land use mix will be controlled by the site specific DCP.

13. The site specific DCP, which will be an addition to Part 4 Special Precincts of the Parramatta DCP 2011, is currently being prepared and when completed will be submitted to Council for endorsement. It is proposed that it be exhibited at the same time as the planning proposal. The site specific DCP will deal with built form controls; such as distribution of height, maximum residential and non- residential floor space as well as setback and landscape provisions.

14. For the purposes of controlling the built form the site specific DCP will divide the site into five sub areas as shown below.

15. Each sub area will have a proposed maximum building height limit and maximum percentage of residential gross floor area (GFA). The theoretical resultant GFA will be a maximum of 85,000 m² of residential and 36,000 m² of non residential. The table below summarises the draft height and GFA breakup across the site which will be further refined and incorporated in the site specific DCP:

Precinct	Maximum building height	Range of building heights	Maximum percentage residential GFA
1	31m (9 storeys)	Location and form of buildings will be determined following detailed heritage advice and controlled in the site specific DCP	70%
2	31m (9 storeys)	Street wall height fronting Hawkesbury Road will be limited to a maximum building height of 14-16m (4 storeys) Street wall height fronting Darcy Road will be limited to a range of between 16m (4 storeys) at Hawkesbury Road rising to 27m (7-8 storeys)	40%
3	31m (9 storeys)	Street wall height fronting Darcy Road will be limited to a maximum of 29m (8-9 storeys)	35%
4	40m (12 storeys)	Building envelopes and podium heights require further testing and will be controlled in the site specific DCP	95%
5	48m (15 storeys)	Building envelopes and podium heights require further testing and will be controlled in the site specific DCP	100%

ISSUES

Land Use Planning

16. A change of zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to B4 Mixed Use is considered appropriate in that:

– A mixed use zoning was anticipated by the Westmead Precinct Implementation Plan. Whilst this plan was not endorsed by Council it is a useful guide given the extensive planning and urban design analysis that was undertaken.

– The proposal is consistent with the recent Council adopted concept proposals (28 November 2011) for incorporation in the draft Westmead Precinct Strategy.

– The proposal is consistent with the NSW Government's Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and the draft West Central Subregional Strategy objectives to locate increased residential density close to public transport and access to mature road networks and existing urban centres.

– Allows for the opportunity to create a transit orientated mixed use development with an appropriate distribution of land uses adjoining the Westmead Hospital and 50m from the Westmead railway station.

17. The FSR of 3:1 is appropriate, being consistent with the FSR for the site recommended in the Westmead Precinct Implementation Plan and other sites proposed for high intensity development elsewhere in the LGA including the city centre, along Parramatta Road and in Epping. It is an acknowledged that an FSR of 3:1 is inconsistent with the FSR of 1.5:1 applied to other B4 Mixed Use zones in Westmead. However, it should be noted that the Westmead Precinct Employment Land Study 2011 completed by Hill PDA recommended an increase of the FSR for the B4 Mixed Use zones in Mons and Hawkesbury Roads to 1.8/1.9:1. This concept of increased FSR was supported by Council on 28 November 2011 as part of the draft Westmead Precinct Strategy.

18. The application of a proposed maximum height of 48m (15 storeys) for the site in Parramatta LEP 2011, with detailed heights specified in the site specific DCP is considered appropriate, being based on a detailed design analysis. In particular:

– The height for a site in the Westmead specialised centre is consistent with proposed maximum building heights in other specialised centres with railway stations in Sydney including St Leonards (40m), Rhodes (84m) and Sydney Olympic Park (122m).

– The proposed heights are generally consistent, although slightly higher, with that proposed for the site in the Westmead Precinct Implementation Plan; 12 storeys in the south west corner adjacent to the rail line; 5 storeys to the north, and 4 storeys along the street frontages.

– Heights have been established in response to the heritage buildings as well as a considered approach to the appropriate physical scale of streets and spaces within and surrounding the site. Taller buildings on the southern edge of the site concentrate population closer to the train station whilst defining the edge of the precinct. Lower heights fronting Hawkesbury Road is consistent with heights of mature street trees while allowing appropriate sightlines to the St Vincent Boys Home (former dormitory). The height of future buildings to Hawkesbury Road also considers the relationship to existing buildings on this eastern side of Hawkesbury Road (existing 4 storeys and earmarked for high density and height).

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

Urban Design

20. The quality of the proposed indicative concept plan does not provide certainty of a quality design which will be necessary to help support Council’s plans for Westmead. This is a key site and a key development in defining the town centre for Westmead. Ensuring it works as a busy hub that complements the surrounds requires more detailed design work during the drafting of the site specific DCP.

21. The following additional information will be required during the drafting of the site specific DCP:

– More levels, both existing and proposed, including levels of surrounding streets so that the pedestrian connectivity can be properly assessed.

– A rationale for relationship of buildings to new and existing levels.

– A process for ensuring the public domain (streets, footpaths, open space) is provided in association with certain buildings/stages.

Traffic and Transport

22. A Traffic and Access study for the site has been prepared by ARUP consultants. The study notes that:

– The primary access to the site will be from Darcy Road via an existing signalised intersection for all vehicular movements. This intersection has the capacity to accommodate a reasonable level of site generated traffic.

– The secondary access will be from Hawkesbury Road at the existing driveway with the access being in the form of a left in/left out arrangement only.

– Site access points and car parking areas will be connected by an internal road network.

– Maximum parking rates are proposed based on the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. On this basis 1,400 parking spaces may be provided on site.

23. Council’s Transport Planning and Traffic Services Units have indicated that the proposals are generally acceptable although the following comments have been made, which will be addressed in the site specific DCP:

– It is not clear how the proportion of non-car trips will be increased. At the very least dedicated parking spaces should be included for public car sharing vehicles.

– The parking rate to be applied is to be the same as the Parramatta CBD, with the exception of studio apartment and car share which are to be based on the requirements set out in Parramatta DCP 2011.

– A travel plan is to be provided.

Planning Agreement

24. A planning agreement can be made under section 93F of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is a voluntary agreement between Council and the developer, under which the developer is required to dedicate land free of cost, pay a monetary contribution or provide other material public benefit, or any combination of these, to be used towards a public purpose. An additional public benefit beyond Section 94A development contributions is encouraged with a planning proposal given the significant private benefits gained in upzoning land.

25. However, the UWS has advised in a letter dated 1 February 2012 that the benefits offered by this project to the community are significant and considers it not to be appropriate to enter into a voluntary planning agreement with Council at this early phase of the project. UWS acknowledges that a future developer of the site may wish to enter into a VPA with Council at the development application stage. A VPA linked to this planning proposal could have funded certain studies to assist progressing the provision of specific infrastructure.

PROCESS – NEXT STEPS

26. The planning proposal and the supporting technical documents prepared by the proponent together with this report will be submitted to the DP&I for gateway determination should Council resolve to support and proceed with this proposal.

27. After referral of the planning proposal for gateway determination, Council officers will continue to liaise with the proponent to finalise details of the site specific DCP. This document will then be referred to Council for endorsement prior to public exhibition simultaneously with the planning proposal.

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

CONCLUSION

29. The planning proposal seeks a change of zoning to B4 Mixed Use with a maximum building height limit of 48 m and FSR of 3:1 for the UWS site at 154 – 164 Hawkesbury Road and part of the Marist School site at 2A Darcy Road, Westmead. The proposal is supported by an indicative concept plan that will allow an intensive mixed use ( commercial and residential) development with provision for open space and a town square.

30. The planning proposal is considered acceptable for reasons outlined below:

(i) A change of zoning is appropriate in that it will allow an intensive mixed use development in close proximity to public transport.

(ii) An FSR of 3:1 is consistent with the FSR of other large strategic sites elsewhere in the Parramatta City Centre, along Parramatta Road and in Epping.

31. The planning proposal is acceptable in that the indicative conceptual plan of development is generally in line with indicative concept plans included in earlier strategic plans for Westmead, the proposal will help achieve Council’s vision of creating a vibrant world class medical precinct of high amenity values and the proposed development can accommodate generated traffic effects.

Paul Kennedy Jennifer Concato

Project Officer Acting Manager

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Planning Proposal for UWS Westmead Campus Redevlopment	26 Pages
2 View	Background Information and More Detailed Justification	46 Pages
3 View	Indicative Concept Plan	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.9

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.9

SUBJECT Heritage Listing of Items in Epping

REFERENCE F2008/03734 - D02262705

REPORT OF Project Officer- Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

To rectify errors in the recommendations for the heritage listing of certain items in Epping.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council agree to remove 41 Kent Street and 51 Willoughby Street, Epping from the list of items to be added to the heritage schedule of Parramatta LEP 2011.

(b) That Council agree to include 17 Grandview Parade and 61 Kent Street, Epping in the list of items to be added to the heritage schedule of Parramatta LEP 2011.

(c) Further, that the planning proposal to amend the heritage schedule of Parramatta LEP 2011 be modified to reflect the proposed alterations in (a) and (b).

BACKGROUND

1. Council on 28 November 2011 considered a report on the comprehensive heritage review and resolved to add a number of items to the heritage list of Parramatta LEP 2011, including the following properties in Epping: 100 Midson Road, 23B Orchard Road, 2 – 14 Bridge Street, 41 Kent Street and 51 Willoughby Street.

2. The basis of the heritage listing of properties in Epping was a Council resolution of 28 July 2008 (resolution and report located at Attachment 1) following a study by heritage consultants Graham Hall (2005), Rod Howard and Associates (2007) and a review of these studies by the Government Architect’s Office in 2008.

3. Council specifically resolved at that meeting to proceed with the individual listings identified in the study by Graham Hall (2005) where in agreement with the Government Architect’s Office review. These properties included 100 Midson Road, 23B Orchard Road and 2 -14 Bridge Street.

4. Council also resolved at that meeting to proceed with individual listings identified in the study by Rod Howard and Associates (2007) where in agreement with the Government Architect’s Office review. These properties included 17 Grandview Parade and 61 Kent Street.

ISSUES

5. The properties recommended for heritage listing in the report to Council of 28 November 2011 do not accurately match the recommendations in the Council resolution of 28 July 2008.

6. In particular, 41 Kent Street and 51 Willoughby Street have been incorrectly recommended for listing because they are not supported by the Government Architects review. No. 17 Grandview Parade and 61 Kent Street should have been recommended for addition to the heritage schedule as listing is supported by the Government Architects review.

CONCLUSION

7. It is recommended that 41 Kent Street and 51 Willoughby Street, Epping be removed from the list of items to be added to the heritage schedule of Parramatta LEP 2011 whilst 17 Grandview Parade, and 61 Kent Street, Epping be added to the schedule. This rectification would accurately reflect Council’s resolution of 28 July 2008.

8. These proposed alterations will be incorporated in the planning proposal to amend the heritage schedule of Parramatta LEP 2011, which is shortly to be referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for gateway determination.

9. Letters will be forwarded to the subject property owners explaining the proposed alterations.

Paul Kennedy Jennifer Concato

Project Officer Acting Manager

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View

Council Resolution of 28 July 2008 and Report

14 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 8.10

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.10

SUBJECT Auto Alley and Parramatta City

REFERENCE F2011/02749 - D02262883

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer- Urban Design

PURPOSE:

To outline the importance of retaining a high percentage of employment lands in Auto Alley, located south of the Parramatta CBD.

To seek Council’s endorsement of a Vision and draft structure plan for Auto Alley for the purposes of public consultation.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That council endorses the following Vision for Auto Alley for Public Consultation.

The vision for Auto Alley is to be a distinctive southern gateway for the Parramatta CBD. It will become a major employment area with improved transport connections and a high quality public domain including a linked network of new public spaces that will mitigate potential flooding and revitalise the area.

(b) That council endorses Option 2B, at Attachment 4, for purposes of consultation with land owners and stakeholders.

SUMMARY OF REPORT

1. This report outlines recent work that has been undertaken by City Strategy regarding future development of the Auto Alley Precinct south of the Great Western Highway.

2. Extensive analysis work has been undertaken as required by the Parramatta City Centre Vision 2007 and also to provide sufficient understanding for Council to appropriately and comprehensively address a recently received Planning Proposal for land at, one of the largest landholdings in the area, Heartland Holden. This Planning Proposal proposes quadrupling of current FSR from 2:1 to 8:1 and increased heights from 12m to 120m and a predominantly residential development on land that is currently zoned for Business Development (which explicitly prohibits residential). The analysis work has led to the development of a proposed Vision and Design Options for Auto Alley.

3. Only 24% (less than a quarter) of the City Centre is zoned exclusively for commercial, (office and retail) uses. The capacity to provide a sizable sector of jobs and services is key to Parramatta’s ability to realise its vision as being a successful CBD for Western Sydney. Auto Alley currently contains a third of the land that is exclusively zoned for commercial (office and retail uses) in Parramatta City.

Four potential Options were developed for the future of Auto Alley. (1A, 1B, 2A and 2B). All four options shared the following;

· A Proposed Public Domain Structure Plan. Including new streets and parks. This will help to mitigate flooding and improve amenity, walkability and connectivity and provide more street frontage for the lots and buildings.

· Continuation of a predominantly commercial use for the entire area. The form anticipated includes new large floor plate buildings to support continuation of automotive sales and services and other complimentary businesses. This can provide employment without competing with the commercial towers envisaged for the central CBD.

4. In summary, the different options are as follows (further detail is included in the body of the report):

- Option 1A is a low change option – the zoning remains unchanged and residential is still prohibited. This option retains the existing FSR across the area and proposes some height increases. The amended heights provide for a greater range of commercial buildings, and the jobs potential remains similar to the current potential.

- Option 1B is a moderate change model. This option retains the commercial zoning and still prohibits residential development. It does increase FSR, allows taller buildings and a higher potential jobs yield.

- Option 2A is a medium change proposal. It retains commercial zoning along Church Street, retains the existing FSR across the area and proposes some height increases. This option allows some residential development to the west within a proposed mixed use zone (adjacent to the existing residential). It would result in a potential increase in jobs and residents.

- Option 2B is a significant change option. It retains a commercial zone (on both sides of Church Street) and proposes a mixed use zoning which would allow some residential to the west of the area. It increases to the FSR and heights, with taller buildings and a larger potential increase of jobs and residential dwellings.

- Options 1A and 1B are shown in Attachment 3. Options 2A and 2B are shown in Attachment 4.

BACKGROUND

5. Auto Alley contains one third of the commercially zoned land in the Parramatta CBD and so is essential to the City’s ability to meet the Metropolitan Strategy job target of 27,000 new jobs by 2036. Currently there are 1,701 people employed in Auto Alley and if fully developed the current planning controls allow for buildings that could provide between 5,000 and 7,000 new jobs. If the height and FSR controls were raised and the general amenity improved there is potential for 9,000 new jobs in Auto Alley. Should Auto Alley’s capacity to provide capacity for jobs be reduced it is unlikely that Parramatta will be able to reach the employment targets in the Metro Strategy. Attachment 5, Auto Alley and Regional Context shows the Auto Alley site.

6. Auto Alley is 13.2Ha, (one twelfth of the city land area, excluding Parramatta Park) and located south of the Parramatta Interchange along Church Street. It is characterised by its very large sites, in single ownership and a dominance of the car sale businesses. Auto Alley is surrounded by predominantly residential uses with some government and business uses in the commercial core area to the north east. Attachment 6 shows current site ownership and lot sizes in Auto Alley.

7. This part of Church Street is 6 lanes and connects to Parramatta Road, the M4 Motorway and the Great Western Highway with a high volume of traffic. The combination of high traffic volumes, with the absence of retail, other than car dealerships, the run down public domain, lack of shade and shelter and relatively low density of surrounding residential means that pedestrian volumes are low and it is not currently a highly sought after destination.

THE AUTO ALLEY URBAN DESIGN STUDY DEC2012

8. The Urban Design Unit, in consultation with Land Use Planning and other City Strategy Units has recently prepared an Urban Design Analysis and potential Options for Land Uses, Built Form and the Public Domain for Auto Alley. This work was undertaken; as required by Action 17 in the Parramatta City Centre Vision 2007, which requires Council to undertake further detailed urban design assessments for the future development of Auto Alley; and to assist in responding to a forthcoming Planning Proposal for the Heartland Holden Site. The Heartland Holden Site is a pivotal site in Auto Alley due to its size, corner location and close proximity to the rest of the city.

9. This work has coincided with recent interest in the area by the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority, (SMDA) who engaged the Architects Cox Richardson to assist with analysis and preparation of options. Officers from Holroyd Council also contributed in part to the project as the southern part of Auto Alley adjoins the Holroyd Local Government Area.

10. The Auto Alley Urban Design Study, Attachment 7 was an extensive review. The Key findings are summarised following;

LAND USE FINDINGS IN RELATION TO CITY CONTEXT

11. Auto Alley plays a key role in Parramatta’s image being strategically located as a Southern Gateway and along Church Street, the longest north-south street in the city.

12. There are 3 main zonings in the Parramatta CBD. B3 Commercial Core Zone and B5 Business Development Zone are the zones which promote employment by explicitly prohibiting residential uses. The B4 Mixed Use Zone allows residential uses. Only 24% (less than a quarter) of the city is currently zoned exclusively for commercial uses; these are the B3 and B5 zones. Auto Alley is currently zoned B5 and comprises a third of the city’s total commercial area.

13. New dwellings are not required in Parramatta City to meet its Metropolitan Target for 2036. There is more than enough residentially zoned land outside the city centre to meet the target. The B4 Mixed Use Zone comprises 76% (more than ¾) of the city’s land area and currently the market favours residential developments in this zoning. Once apartments are built on a city site, it is unlikely that the site would be able to be converted to offices due to strata titling of a high quantity of units.

14. Parramatta CBD has a vision of being a major business centre within Sydney and a high proportion of apartments along Auto Alley, along the main southern entrance street, could make the precinct less appealing as a location for commercial uses. The long term view for Auto Alley, supported by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and Council Officers, has been to retain the existing employment lands to support Parramatta as Western Sydney’s CBD. Under current trends, by 2050 Western Sydney will have a larger population than eastern Sydney, but proportionally less jobs.

15. The high volume of traffic in Church Street in Auto Alley is unsuitable for residences from an amenity (noise and views) perspective.

16. The sites in Auto Alley are some of the largest in Parramatta City and lend themselves to large footprints required for big office buildings. These sites are currently zoned for commercial uses only. The existing Zoning, Heights and FSR are working well in protecting future land for employment growth. The existing allowable zoning and heights are shown in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 respectively.

URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS FINDINGS

17. A portion of the land is subject to the 1:100 Year Flood around the Clay Cliff Creek Corridor and is located in the High Hydraulic Hazard Area. There is high air pollution, and few street trees resulting in a hot, barren environment along the main thoroughfares.

18. Nearly half of Auto Alley is within 5 minutes walking distance from Parramatta Station (the 4^th busiest station on weekdays in Sydney’s network) and Harris Park Station (the 131^st busiest station in Sydney’s network). This coupled with the close proximity to major roads means the area has high regional connectivity.

19. There is an existing well defined street grid that could be improved with new connections running north-south on the western side and east-west on the eastern side.

20. The predominance of open air car yards and large lots results in weak built form definition of the public domain and an indistinct character.

21. The area has extremely large consolidated sites with over 2/3 of Auto Alley being sites that are greater than 2,500 sqm. The largest land holding, in single ownership, of several sites is greater than 1.4Ha (half of Civic Place).

22. Significant public domain improvements are required coupled with increased density of buildings and a greater range of commercial uses to activate the area. A public domain plan comprising of strategically located new landscaping, parks, new local streets and lanes and improved setbacks and street tree planting along Church Street would help to mitigate the flood issues as well as rejuvenate the area and improve pedestrian access and street vitality.

A Draft VISION FOR AUTO ALLEY

23. The following Vision has been prepared based on the findings of the Urban Design Analysis

a. The vision for Auto Alley is to be a distinctive southern gateway for the Parramatta CBD. It will become a major employment area with improved transport connections and a high quality public domain including a linked network of new public spaces that will mitigate potential flooding and revitalise the area.

NEW OPTIONS FOR AUTO ALLEY

24. Four potential design options for the built form and public domain have been prepared for Auto Alley. These preliminary options are all subject to further design resolution and testing. The key aspects that need to be determined are; the future purpose of Auto Alley; the land use zonings; the maximum FSR and heights. These key aspects will have significant impact on the degree of certainty with which land owners can manage their sites and the built form outcomes for Auto Alley.

25. All the options took a revitalised public domain structure as the starting point as it was perceived that a coordinated area approach would be necessary to simultaneously resolve flooding issues, improve the ambience and ensure that this southern part of the city creates a suitable entrance for Parramatta City. The Four Options 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B share the following attributes;

· A Public Domain Structure Plan (including streets and parks) to mitigate flooding and create a revitalised ambience, improve walkability and connectivity and provide more street frontage for the lots and buildings.

· Retention of predominantly commercial uses for the entire area.

· New large floor plate commercial buildings that support retention of automotive sales and services and other complimentary businesses that can provide employment without competing with the commercial towers in the central CBD.

- Option 1A THE LOW CHANGE OPTION

This option proposes the least amount of change. The Gross Floor Area is nearly the same as the current yield, thus the same number of jobs is provided for plus the area is improved and the heights provide for a greater range of commercial buildings.

- The area would be reinvigorated with public domain improvements including new streets and parks and setbacks to Church Street. The Land Uses remain commercial B3 and/or B5. The FSR’s are retained at 2:1 generally and 4:1 in the north east section adjacent to Jubilee Park. The heights are increased somewhat to create a street wall 4 to 6 stories (18m to 28m) along Church Street and a predominantly maximum 6 storey (28m) built form throughout with a 20 storey (80M) maximum height adjacent to Jubilee Park and a 10 storey max. height addressing the new park in Church Street.

- Option 1B A MEDIUM CHANGE COMMERCIAL ONLY OPTION

This option provides for medium change with taller buildings and a higher potential jobs yield. The Gross Floor Area and potential jobs provided are increased by 180%.

The area would be reinvigorated with public domain improvements including new streets and parks and setbacks to Church Street. The Land Uses remain commercial; B3 and/or B5. The FSR’s are increased; existing 2:1 becomes 4:1 and existing 4:1 becomes 6:1. The heights are further increased to create a street wall 8 to 10 stories (34m to 40m) along Church Street and a predominantly maximum 10 storey (40m) built form throughout with a 30 storey (120m) maximum height adjacent to Jubilee Park and 20 storey (80m) max height addressing the new park in Church Street.

- Option 2A A MEDIUM CHANGE COMMERCIAL and MIXED USE OPTION INCORPORATING SOME RESIDENTIAL USES

This option proposes medium change. The GFA remains nearly the same as currently. However it is split into commercial and mixed-use so the potential jobs would be reduced and there would be potentially 538 new dwellings.

The area would be reinvigorated with public domain improvements including new streets and parks and setbacks to Church Street. The Land Uses are a mix of commercial; B3 and/or B5 with some Mixed-Use to the west of the new street parallel to Church Street. The FSR’s are retained as per existing 2:1 and 4:1. The heights are increased somewhat to create a street wall 4 to 6 stories (18m to 28m) along Church Street and a predominantly maximum 6 storey (28m) built form throughout with a 20 storey (80M) maximum height adjacent to Jubilee Park and 10 (36m) and 15 (54m) storey max height nearby the new park in Church Street.

- Option 2B A HIGH CHANGE COMMERCIAL and MIXED USE OPTION INCORPORATING SOME RESIDENTIAL USES

This option proposes the greatest change with taller buildings and a higher potential jobs yield plus some new residential uses. The GFA and potential jobs provided are increased by 180%. In addition to this there would be potentially 1.054 new dwellings.

The area would be reinvigorated with public domain improvements including new streets and parks and setbacks to Church Street. The Land Uses are a mix of commercial; B3 and/or B5 with some Mixed-Use to the west of the new street parallel to Church Street. The FSR’s are increased. Existing 2:1 becomes 4:1 and existing 4:1 becomes 6:1. The heights are further increased to create a street wall 8 to 10 stories (34m to 40m) along Church Street and a predominantly maximum 10 storey (40m) built form throughout with a 30 storey (120m) maximum height adjacent to Jubilee Park and 30 (100m) max height nearby the new park in Church Street.

PREFERRED OPTION

26. Option 2B is the preferred Option. This option provides for a balanced approach. It would provide sufficient commercial land to ensure the job targets are achieved for the city centre whilst providing for some high density residential uses to create a vibrant and amenable precinct and to act as leverage for commercial development. The main benefits of this Option are described following;

27. The public domain structure plan (Including streets and parks) will help to mitigate flooding and create a revitalised ambience, improve walkability and connectivity and provide more street frontage for the lots and buildings.

28. The retention of the majority of the Auto Alley for employment uses whilst allowing some new residences to be built along the western edge of the area abutting the surrounding residential.

29. The increased FSR will help landowners offset the costs of proving site area as new parks and streets and also allows for some tower developments toward the north, adjacent to existing tall apartment buildings.

30. The large commercial sites/buildings will be retained to both sides of Church Street thus preserving a commercial/CBD appearance for Parramatta’s southern gateway street. These large floor plate buildings up to 10 storeys provide for continuation of the automotive sales and services that are characteristic of the area as well as encouraging a variety of office and industry buildings that will extend the city’s commercial capacity.

PROCESS- THE NEXT STEPS

31. Council’s Land Use team is currently undertaking a review to the City Centre LEP and DCP with the Parramatta LEP and DCP 2011. It would be expedient to resolve future steps for Auto Alley and any resulting changes to the planning documents for incorporation with this and amalgamation. For this occur the following steps are suggested

· Council endorse the Auto Alley Vision and Option 2B

· Landowners and key stakeholders be invited to comment on Option 2B.

· A report is put to Council following community consultation mid year.

· The design is refined responding to comments and planning controls determined including DCP controls and a Public Domain Structure Plan for incorporation into the City Centre LEP and DCP amalgamation process with Parramatta LEP and DCP 2011.

CONSULTATION

28. The Auto Alley Urban Design Study and Vision and Urban Design Options have been developed in consultation with the City Strategy Unit including; Land Use Planning, Transport Planning, Environmental Outcomes, Social Outcomes and the Property Development Group and members of Holroyd Strategic Planning Team.

29. The Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority, (SMDA) and their consultants Cox Richardson have reviewed the Auto Alley Urban Design Study and provided input into the Urban Design Options. The findings of the Urban Design Analysis and the Urban Design Options have been presented to the Auto Alley Reference Group and the Auto Alley Board both convened by the SMDA.

CONCLUSION

30. The capacity to provide a sizable sector of jobs and services is key to Parramatta’s ability to realise its vision as being a successful CBD for Western Sydney.

31. As one third of the exclusively commercial zoned area of Parramatta City, Auto Alley is instrumental in retaining and expanding Parramatta’s jobs and services sector.

32. Whilst there are currently some under developed commercial sites in Parramatta’s commercial core, once these are developed, Auto Alley represents the sole area of commercial expansion available to the city within close proximity to the transport interchange.

33. It is recommended that, the Auto Alley Vision and the Auto Alley Option 2B would provide for a balanced approach including sufficient commercial land to ensure the job targets are achieved for the city centre whilst providing for some high density residential uses to create a vibrant and amenable precinct and to act as leverage for commercial development.

Kati Westlake

Senior Project Officer

Urban Design

Attachments:

1 View	Current Zoning in auto Alley-close up and showing City context	4 Pages
2 View	Current Heights in Auto Alley- close up and showing City context	4 Pages
3 View	Auto Alley Options 1A and 1B	4 Pages
4 View	Auto Alley Option 2A and Preferred Option 2B	10 Pages
5 View	Auto Alley the Regional Context	4 Pages
6 View	Auto Alley Site Ownership and Lot Sizes	4 Pages
7 View	Auto Alley Urban Design Study Dec 2011 (under separate cover)	152 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 9.1

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Wildlife Protection Areas in Core Bushland

REFERENCE F2011/03821 - D02183216

REPORT OF Open Space & Natural Area Planner

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit eight proposed core bushland Wildlife Protection Areas under the Companion Animals Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council place on public exhibition a proposal to declare Wildlife Protection Areas prohibiting cats under Section 30 (1)(b) of the Companion Animals Act 1998 in the following core bushland areas:

· Campbell Hill Pioneer Reserve & Waddangalli Woodland

· Duck River Bushland Reserve

· Edna Hunt Sanctuary

· Galaringi Reserve & Cox Park

· Lake Parramatta Reserve

· Quarry Branch Creek

· Upper Toongabbie Creek

· Vineyard Creek Reserve

(b) That Council seek to only permit dogs which are on a leash on formal tracks and pathways within declared Wildlife Protection Areas.

(c) That the proposed eight Wildlife Protection Areas be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in Council libraries, Customer Service Centre and website.

(d) That all property owners who adjoin the proposed Wildlife Protection Areas be notified of the public exhibition and notification signage be erected at formal track entrances to each of these identified core bushland areas.

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

BACKGROUND

1. Council adopted a Companion Animal Management Plan on 27 October 2010. The plan aims to encourage responsible pet ownership in accordance with the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 (CAA) and identifies that ‘many parts of Councils’ bushland area are home to a number of endangered and protected species and communities’ and ‘irresponsible behaviour of cat owners poses a major threat to the wildlife and public health within those areas’. A priority action in the plan is ‘greater protection for wildlife in our bushland areas’.

2. A recent 2011 Flora and Fauna survey observed cats and dogs in many of Councils core bushland areas. It recommended that Council consider declaring our identified core bushland areas as wildlife protection areas under the CAA to assist with the management of domestic animals, in particular cats.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Extensive research indicates the significant impact of stray cats on native Australian wildlife, particularly small mammals and birds. Predation by cats is listed as a Key Threatening Process under both the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Predatory behaviour by cats is opportunistic based on habitat accessibility, daily and seasonal prey availability. Research also suggests that in relatively undisturbed environments adjoining new residential developments, such as urban bushland, predation by cats may have a substantial impact on local native fauna populations.

4. The CAA enables Councils to prohibit cats and / or dogs from public places, or part thereof, where they have been declared by the local authority (Council) as a Wildlife Protection Area (WPA). This is defined in the CAA as ‘any public place or any part of a public place set apart by the local authority for the protection of wildlife and in which the local authority ordered that cats are prohibited for the purposes of the protection of wildlife and in which, or near the boundaries of which, there are conspicuously exhibited by the local authority at reasonable intervals notices to the effect that cats and/or dogs are prohibited in or on that public place for the protection of wildlife’.

5. Council manages over 300 hectares of native bushland, including ten identified Endangered Ecological Communities under the Threatened Species Act 1995, which predominantly consist of eight core areas including:

i. Campbell Hill Pioneer Reserve & Waddangalli Woodland

ii. Duck River Bushland Reserve

iii. Edna Hunt Sanctuary

iv. Galaringi Reserve & Cox Park

v. Lake Parramatta Reserve

vi. Quarry Branch Creek

vii. Upper Toongabbie Creek

viii. Vineyard Creek Reserve

Recently conducted flora and fauna surveys identified over 400 flora species (including three threatened) and over 100 fauna species (including ten threatened) throughout these eight core bushland reserves. The limited availability of habitat throughout the Parramatta local government area could justify all natural areas being declared as a WPA. However, this is not feasible in consideration of resourcing requirements for enforcement and signage. It is therefore considered appropriate to only declare Council’s eight core bushland reserves which contain the highest diversity of flora and fauna. (Attachment 1)

6. Cats are prohibited from WPAs under Section 30 (1)(b) of the CAA. The owners of a cat found to be in a WPA can be issued an on-the-spot fine of $110 with offenders liable for fines of up to $880. An authorised Council officer may seize a cat that is in a WPA for its own protection.

7. Council recognises that dog walking in natural areas is a popular recreational activity for residents and provides important opportunities for dog exercise. It is therefore considered appropriate to allow dogs on a leash on formal tracks and pathways in WPAs. However dog owners can be issued an on-the-spot fine of $220 with offenders liable for fines of up to $1100 under Section 13 (2) of the CAA if their dogs are found to be off-leash in a WPA.

8. The declaration of WPAs in core bushland areas is consistent with Council’s Parramatta Twenty25 Strategy (W3) ‘Reduce human impacts on Parramatta unique diversity of plants and animals’. It is consistent with actions in the Parramatta Open Space Plan (2004), Parramatta Biodiversity Plan (2003) and Council’s generic Natural Areas Plans of Management adopted under the Local Government Act 1993.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. Council’s Animal Management Officers have been consulted and fully support the declaration and enforcement of the proposed WPAs.

10. There is no requirement under the CAA for Council to conduct a public exhibition of proposed WPAs. However it is recommended that the proposed WPAs be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in Council libraries, Customer Service Centre and website. All properties adjoining the eight identified core bushland reserves should be notified of the public exhibition and signs should also be erected at formal track entrances to core bushland areas to notify reserve users of the proposed restrictions.

11. Following public exhibition a further report will be presented to Council. This will provide an assessment of any public submissions received and recommendations for Council’s consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. Council would be required to install appropriate signage at the formal track entrances to core bushland which would be funded from the annual Bushland Protection Project at a cost of approximately $200 per sign.

13. The regulation and enforcement of WPAs will be undertaken by Council’s Community Safety Officers (CSOs) in conjunction with Council’s Natural Resource Officers. Patrols of core bushland areas will be undertaken by CSOs in addition to community education and investigation of reported incidents of cats and off-leash dogs in WPAs. These functions can be undertaken within existing resources and will not require additional funding.

Troy Holbrook

Open Space & Natural Area Planner

Attachments:

1 View

Proposed Wildlife Protection Area Maps

9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 9.4

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT Environmental Upgrade Agreements (EUA's)

REFERENCE F2011/01590 - D02261801

REPORT OF Manger, Environmental Outcomes

PURPOSE:

(a) To stimulate significant investment in upgrades to commercial and industrial buildings, with strong economic and environmental benefits.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to offer Environmental Upgrade Agreement (EUA) services.

(b) That the Manager of Environmental Outcomes report EUA implementation progress to Council by 30 July 2013.

(d) That Council endorse the proposed EUA Schedule of Fees and Charges as shown at Attachment 3;

(e) That Council endorse the EUA Enforcement Procedure as shown at Attachment 4.

(f) That Council endorse the use of the EUA Template contained in Attachment 5 that has been prescribed by the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet under the Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2010.

(g) Further, that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to:

(i) negotiate the terms of EUA’s on behalf of Council;

(ii) cause Council to be bound by an EUA containing terms that are acceptable to the CEO and within the framework established by the Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2010;

(iii) amend the EUA Enforcement Procedure contained in Attachment 4 to the report as the Chief Executive Officer thinks fit from time to time;

(iv) amend the EUA Schedule of Fees and Charges contained in Attachment 3 to the report as the Chief Executive Officer thinks fit from time to time; and

(v) amend the terms of Schedule 1 to the EUA Template contained in Attachment 5 to the report as the Chief Executive Officer thinks fit from time to time.

BACKGROUND

1. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 28^th February 2011, Council resolved to ‘support initiatives under the NSW State Government Legislation, Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2010; to stimulate energy efficiency upgrades in commercial buildings’.

2. Subsequently Council’s Executive Team accepted State Government grant monies from the Office of Environment and Heritage to fully fund the following 2 phase program:

Phase 1: Undertake a feasibility study to assess Council’s capability in administering EUA services, and

Phase 2: Subject to Council approval, offer EUA services up until 30 June 2013 using grant funding to prepare and enable Council to enter into EUA’s.

3. The Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2010 (and Regulations made under the Act) establishes a framework to encourage environmental upgrades to non-residential buildings.

4. EUA’s are a voluntary agreement between a building owner, a finance provider and a local council within NSW where:

(a) a building owner agrees to carry out environmental upgrade works to their building; and

(b) a finance provider agrees to advance funds to the building owner to finance the environmental upgrade works; and

(c) a Council that puts a charge on the land as security against the loan, and collects loan repayments (passed through to the finance provider) using their standard rates processes.

5. The legislation also permits building owners to levy a charge on the tenant equal to the energy and other environmental costs they save as a result of the upgrades. This assists the building owner in repaying a proportion of the loan.

6. Council’s role is confined to:

(a) Placing a charge on the land for an amount equal to the loan provided by the financier;

(b) Collecting repayments for the loan using the standard rates collection systems, and

7. Attachment 1 diagrammatically represents this voluntary three-way agreement, and sets out the responsibilities of each party.

8. The Legislation permits EUA’s to be applied to:

(a) Non-residential buildings used for commercial, industrial or other non-residential purposes such as office buildings, shopping centres, industrial premises, serviced apartments, hotel and motel and backpackers and accommodation; and

(b) Strata buildings (residential or non-residential) that comprise of more than 20 lots.

9. At present, EUA’s cannot be applied to strata buildings (residential or non-residential). The Office of Environment and Heritage are currently resolving this aspect of the Legislation. Council Officers will continue to brief Council in relation to this issue, where it is hoped that in due course EUA’s will be available to strata buildings of >20 lots (residential or non-residential).

OPPORTUNITIES/ BENEFITS

10. The following opportunities and benefits have been identified through the implementation of EUA services in the Parramatta LGA.

11. More than 50% of office buildings in the Parramatta CBD are 20 years old or more, with a high probability of investment in upgrades.

12. Through EUA related upgrades to these buildings over an eight year period (to 2020) it is estimated that there is the potential to unlock significant financial, employment, environmental and urban renewal outcomes in the Parramatta LGA including:

(a) $150M of investment in building upgrades;

(b) 148 full time jobs (upgrade and supply chain labour);

(d) 472,000 tonnes of CO₂saved; and

(e) 1,400,000 kL of water saved.

13. Through the co-contributions permitted to be levied to the tenant under the Legislation, the EUA funding model reduces the direct costs of upgrades to the building owner by an estimated 30%.

14. In the longer term once the loan has been repaid tenants benefit from lowered energy and water costs, and possible increased amenity and comfort.

15. The investment in improving building stock in the Parramatta CBD provides opportunities for activating the CBD property market, and attracting new firms to Parramatta. EUA’s will help to decrease vacancy rates in the CBD, particularly for buildings graded B, C, and D. A 4.5 star NABERS rating is the required standard for government tenancy. Buildings that improve their rating to this standard will be eligible for consideration by this sector.

16. EUA implementation stimulates investment in improvements in the CDB area. As such there is alignment with the following Parramatta City Council strategies:

(a) Parramatta Twenty25

(i) Destination 3 – Businesses that are dynamic, prosperous and socially responsible.

(b) Parramatta Economic Development Strategy 2011-2016

(i) Strategy B - Business

(ii) Strategy D - Property

17. EUA implementation also aligns Council with the NSW State Strategy, NSW 2021 (Goal 5) target of ‘delivering high standard building retrofit programs so that 50% of commercial space achieves a 4-star NABERS energy and water rating by 2020’.

18. State Government grant monies (up until 30 July 2013) will enable Parramatta City Council, at no cost and using business as usual systems, to join other Councils already offering EUA services. Both the City of Melbourne and City of Sydney Councils have resolved to, and are currently offering EUA services. North Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and Lake Macquarie Councils are currently investigating options.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONCEQUENCES

19. Phase 1 (feasibility study) has been completed and confirms that Parramatta City Council is in a position to administer EUA’s in the Parramatta Local Government Area subject to the implementation of the recommendations in this Report.

20. To fulfil Council’s statutory obligations under the EUA legislative framework, the following business requirements will need to be adopted and implemented:

(a) An EUA Policy - setting the framework to determine under which circumstances Parramatta City Council will enter into EUA’s. See Attachment 2.

(b) A Schedule of Fees and Charges – detailing Parramatta City Council EUA service fees to cover the costs incurred by Council in entering into, or administering EUA’s. See Attachment 3.

(c) An EUA Enforcement Procedure – outlining Parramatta City Council’s processes for recovering outstanding debt and exercising its ‘best endeavours’ should the building owner fail to make loan repayments. See Attachment 4.

(d) The EUA Template as provided and approved by the Director-General – the legal agreement setting out the legally binding terms and conditions between the three parties. The EUA Template is provided in Attachment 5.

(e) An EUA Template amendment to meet Parramatta City Council requirements - additional conditions have been added to the EUA Template (Schedule 1) with provisions seen appropriate for Parramatta City Council. The Schedule 1 amendment is provided in Attachment 5.

(f) Delegation for entering into EUA’s, and making and amending EUA legislative requirements.

RISKS AND RISK MITIGATION

21. The following risks to Council have been identified, and risk strategies developed as detailed below. It is considered that the implementation of EUA services by Council pose no significant risk.

22. Legal Exposure - General Counsel has confirmed that there are no legal obstacles to Council entering into EUA’s subject to appropriate business requirements (as detailed in paragraph 20 above), and the recommended delegations being put in place. These policies and delegations will align with the framework established under the Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2010, and form part of the recommendations in this Report.

23. The main risk identified is the internal inability to deliver and co-ordinate EUA services. This risk is mitigated in the following ways:

(a) A comprehensive procedure manual documents in detail the internal responsibilities and processes. This procedure manual has been thoroughly reviewed by all departments, who have confirmed their ability and capacity to deliver.

(b) A dedicated Project Officer will manage the implementation of the EUA services including ensuring all responsibilities are met and appropriately co-ordinated.

(c) Strong relationships have been forged with City of Sydney Council who is currently implementing EUA services. This additional mutual support has provided extensive discussion and resolution of issues related to the delivery of EUA’s.

24. All obligations related to loan repayments remain between the building owner and the financial Institution. Council is however, under the Legislation, required to use its ‘best endeavours’ to recover any outstanding debt should the building owner fail to make payments.

25. If Council were to fail in this responsibility, the Legislation allows for the Finance Provider to take action against Council for damages. The financial impact of such action could be significant however it is an unlikely event and can be avoided by Council following the steps it has set out in its EUA Enforcement Procedure. It has been confirmed with the relevant Council departments that the EUA Enforcement Procedure can be strictly adhered to.

26. Under the Legislation Council is required to remit the building owner's payment to the finance provider within 8 days from receipt of funds. If Council were to fail in this responsibility the Finance Provider is permitted to charge interest until such time as the monies are transferred. This risk is assumed low as any interest costs associated with this event are minimal and would only result from a significant failure in Council’s systems or processes. It has been confirmed with the relevant Council departments that these defined requirements can be met.

27. The legislation permits building owners to levy a charge on the tenant equal to the energy and other environmental costs they are saving as a result of the upgrades. There is the risk that, should a building owner overcharge a tenant they may seek to take action against Council, being a party to the Agreement. To mitigate this risk, additional clauses have been added to Schedule 1 of the Template. These clauses add requirements for the building owner to declare, and justify, this claim with calculations provided by a suitably qualified person. This will provide for a third party to audit their claims should it be needed. Legal Counsel has provided advice that this offers sufficient protection to Council.

28. There is a risk to Council of negative publicity if an EUA application approved by Council does not achieve actual environmental benefit. This risk is considered low as the EUA legislation provides protection to Council as it requires the building owner to warrant that the nominated Works do achieve environmental benefit. Further clauses have been added to Schedule 1 of the Agreement Template. These clauses require the building owner to declare the environmental benefit, and justify this claim, with calculations provided by a suitably qualified person. Legal Counsel has provided advice that this offers sufficient protection to Council.

CONSULTATION

29. Officers from Parramatta City Council have consulted with external parties including; State Government, Local Government and Shires Association and Local Councils, property and industry groups, finance providers, and owner, tenant and strata management representative bodies.

30. Extensive internal consultation has taken place with the Executive Team, ICT, General Counsel, Finance Services, Development Services, Economic Development and Environmental Outcomes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

31. Current grant funding will cover all Council costs to ‘establish’ EUA services for the period up until June 2013 (Phase 2 of the program), including providing for a dedicated Project Officer through the period. Following this period, it is unlikely that Council will incur EUA service ‘establishment’ costs, or costs that require it to develop policies, procedures and testing of the administration of EUA’s.

32. Additional to grant funding, the EUA legislation permits full cost recovery for all EUA service fees provided by Council. These costs relate to the internal administration of EUA’s – pre-contract and post-contract work. For example, costs for establishing and amending agreements as well as for the issuing and processing of Environmental Upgrade Charge payment notices. The proposed fees and charges for the 2012/13 financial year are presented in Attachment 3.

33. As an incentive for early adoption, using grant monies, it is proposed to waive the EUA service fees detailed in paragraph 34 above, until it comes through as part of the 2012/2013 budget, or as grant monies allow up until June 2013.

34. The ‘Environmental Upgrade Charge’ is not considered part of council annual revenue. Council passes on the funds once received from the property owner.

TIMING

35. The following timing milestones are proposed:

(a) March 2012 - Commencement of EUA services delivery

(b) March to June 2012 - Development and delivery of promotion, communication and engagement strategy with building owners and relevant stakeholders

(b) March 2012 to 30 July 2013 - Delivery of EUA services

(d) August 2013 – Program evaluation.

(e) September 2013 – Report to Council with outcomes and any recommendations.

Helen Papathanasiou

Manager Environmental Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View	Diagram of the EUA three -way relationship, and the responsibilities of each party	3 Pages
2 View	EUA Policy	4 Pages
3 View	EUA Fee and Charge Schedule	2 Pages
4 View	EUA Enforcement Procedure	9 Pages
5 View	EUA Template - supplied by the Director General (under separate cover)	78 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 9.5

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

SUBJECT Public exhibition of the Draft Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for the Duck River Catchment

REFERENCE F2006/01343 - D02261959

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer – Environmental Outcomes

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement for the public exhibition of three documents related to Duck River Flood Management – 1) Draft Flood Study 2) Draft Floodplain Risk Management Study 3) Draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the exhibition of the Duck River Flood related documents 1) Draft Flood Study 2) Draft Floodplain Risk Management Study 3) Draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

BACKGROUND

1. The Duck River Catchment includes areas within the Woodville and Elizabeth Macarthur Wards. It also includes areas within the Bankstown and Auburn LGAs, and the Duck River Floodplain Management process has been carried out in close cooperation with these two Councils.

2. Three draft documents have been produced as part of the Duck River Floodplain Risk Management process, with partial funding assistance from the State Government, as follows:

a. Draft Duck River Flood Study – maps and a description of how a computer flood model was developed for the catchment

b. Draft Floodplain Risk Management Study – a review of the economic, social and environmental impacts of flooding, plus possible options for managing flooding

c. Draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan – the actions that Parramatta, Bankstown and Auburn LGA’s intend to carry out to reduce the effects of flooding in the Duck River catchment.

3. It is a requirement of the State Government’s flood management process that there is public consultation about flood related issues and plans. The community will be notified via letters sent directly to the affected property owners, newspaper advertising, public meetings, website content, displays in libraries. Included with these materials will be direct phone numbers for flooding staff to enable residents to discuss any issues with an expert.

4. The Duck River Floodplain Risk Management Committee, which includes representatives from the three Councils, SES, community, business and also Councillors Elmore and Lloyd, has also recommended that Council publically exhibit the Draft documents.

5. Some of the proposed management actions include community education, installation of retarding basins, and voluntary purchase of severely flood affected properties.

6. Any comments received from the public will be considered before finalised versions of the Flood Study, and Floodplain Risk Management Study and Floodplain Risk Management Plan are produced. These documents will then be subject to a further report to Council later in 2012, which will ask for final endorsement of the documents around August / September 2012.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

7. Raising the issue of flooding with residents and businesses could cause concern and disquiet. This is particularly the case given the recent widespread flooding in NSW and QLD. This concern may be reflected in more frequent calls from residents to Councillors and Council Officers following release of the documents. Residents and businesses may also have enhanced expectations that Council can reduce or “solve” flooding issues.

8. If Council does not follow the State Government processes for consulting with the community on floodplain management Council may

a. receive damages claims after any subsequent flooding in the Duck River catchment

b. not be eligible for future State Government grants for flood mitigation works.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. It is proposed to distribute the Draft documents to the community in April / May 2012. The documents will be then be finalised in June / July 2012.

10. It is anticipated that a report on the finalised Duck River Flood Study and Duck River Catchment Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan will be bought to Council in August / September 2012.

Paul Hackney

Senior Project Officer – Environmental Outcomes

N.B. Please note that these attachments have been provided under a separate cover to Councillors

Attachments:

1 View	Draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan	21 Pages
2 View	Draft Floodplain Risk Management Study	177 Pages
3 View	Draft Duck River Flood Study	182 Pages

Council 27 February 2012 Item 10.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan

REFERENCE F2010/02287 - D02146071

REPORT OF Open Space & Natural Area Planner

PURPOSE:

To recommend that Council adopt the George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan.

(b) That copies of the adopted George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan be issued to Parramatta City (Central) library, Ermington branch library, Parramatta Heritage Centre local studies library and be made available 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 efforts in providing valuable input into the development of the Plan.

BACKGROUND

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

2. Council engaged Pod Landscape Architecture to prepare a Masterplan for the park in recognition of GKRP as a significant recreation destination and key component of the Parramatta River open space corridor. The GKRP Masterplan outlines planning, design and management considerations to strategically guide the future management and development of the park over the next 15 years. (Attachment 1)

3. A report outlining the draft GKRP Masterplan was previously considered by Council at the 22 August 2011 meeting. At this meeting Council endorsed the draft GKRP Masterplan to be placed on public exhibition inviting public review and comment.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

· Additional passive recreation areas and picnic facilities;

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

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

6. Three written submissions were received during the public exhibition period. These have been reviewed and an assessment made of the issues raised, with minor amendments made to the draft GKRP Masterplan to incorporate the comments received. A summary of the issues raised and amendments made to the draft GKRP Masterplan is provided in Attachment 2.

7. The Tigers Baseball and Softball Club submission expressed concerns about the proposed future reconfiguration of the existing baseball fields. Currently the Club has use of 2 baseball fields with one set up to hold multiple junior games. The Masterplan proposes reconfiguring this space to provide 2 new soccer fields in addition to a single baseball field which can be used for multiple junior games.

8. The Club mostly holds junior games that can be accommodated within the proposed field changes, however, it is concerned that it will not be able to host two senior games concurrently as they require larger spaces. This requirement only affects a small proportion of game rounds each season. A review of the current Pacific Coast Baseball League summer season draw, for example, indicates that this will only occur on one occasion in the last 16 weeks of the season.

9. The proposed consolidation of existing baseball fields to provide additional soccer fields is consistent with State-level participation figures indicating high participation rates and significant growth in soccer versus a low level of participation and decline in baseball. The soccer participation rate increased from 5.7% to 6.5% between 2005 and 2010, with an increase of 301,000 to 370,600 in NSW. Contrastingly, the baseball participation rate has decreased over this period, with player numbers falling from 21,700 to 15,800.

10. Councils adopted Parramatta Sportsground Capacity Survey (2010) identified that the existing baseball provision is very high with fields experiencing low use (2 days per week) compared to fields used by other sports (up to 6 days per week). It also recommended the re-allocation of some existing baseball fields to a higher demand sport. The proposed re-configuration of the existing baseball fields recognises the trend of declining baseball participation whilst providing for additional facilities to cater for undersupply in Lachlan Macquarie Ward and for increasing participation in soccer.

11. Once the GKRP Masterplan is adopted, the Club can be provided with a minimum of three years notice of the proposed field changes to enable rescheduling of its senior games. This would also allow the Club sufficient time to explore with Council officers the possibility of using the existing baseball field at Upjohn Park in addition to the GKRP field whenever two seniors games are scheduled to be played concurrently.

12. Concerns were also raised in submissions regarding the proposed conversion of the two tennis courts into multi-purpose courts. To address these concerns it is proposed to retain one of the existing tennis courts and to convert the other into a multi-purpose court to cater for different informal sporting activity including tennis, basketball and netball. The existing synthetic courts have experienced significant vandalism and it is considered appropriate to convert the retained tennis court into a free hardcourt through the removal of synthetic surfacing and line-marking. This will minimise the potential for future vandalism whilst providing a free tennis facility for the local community.

13. Submissions also highlighted drainage problems which are affecting the existing northern sporting fields. A lack of suitable drainage infrastructure at the end of streets leading into the reserve is resulting in stormwater overflowing gutters. This causes significant erosion to the field embankment and ponding which will require investigation and installation of appropriate stormwater capture and dispersion facilities.

14. Sydney Environmental and Soil Laboratory (SESL) were engaged to undertake testing of the existing soil conditions in the park. This was due to the poor performance of past park plantings which is attributed to the former landfill operations. SESL provided recommendations to maximise the success of future plantings identified in the draft masterplan. These include measures to improve the soil profile and the use of species tolerant of the harsh soil conditions throughout the park. (Attachment 3)

CONSULTATION & TIMING

15. Pod Landscape Architecture conducted consultation with the local community at an open day held in the park on 5 December 2010. The George Kendall Park Committee / Bushcare group, Sydney Olympic Park Authority and local sporting user groups have also been consulted through surveys and discussions. A Councillor briefing session was also conducted on 11 July 2011 to discuss identified issues, constraints and opportunities for the future management and development of the park.

16. The draft GKRP Masterplan was placed on public exhibition from 21 September 2011 until 4 November 2011. An advertisement was placed in the Parramatta Advertiser and 3000 flyers were distributed to Ermington residents inviting public comment. The GKRP Committee / Bushcare group, Sydney Olympic Park Authority and sporting user groups were also notified and invited to comment. During the public exhibition period the document was also available for viewing at Council’s Customer Service Centre, Parramatta City (Central) library, Ermington branch library and was also available for download from Council’s website.

17. All respondents to the public exhibition have been thanked for their submission and advised they will be informed of the outcome once the Masterplan has been considered and determined by Council.

18. The GKRP Masterplan has been developed in consultation with Councils Recreation Facilities team who coordinate liaison with sporting user groups. A review of public submissions was undertaken in conjunction with relevant recreation staff that fully support the amended GKRP masterplan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

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

· Section 94A Development Contributions Plan;

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

· Stormwater Management Service Charge (Stormwater Levy).

The plan will also place Council in a better position to seek funding through various Federal and State government grants towards improving the park and implementing prioritised actions.

Troy Holbrook

Open Space & Natural Area Planner

Attachments:

1 View	Attachment 1 - Final GKRP Masterplan	37 Pages
2 View	Attachment 2 - Public Submissions Summary	1 Page
3 View	Attachment 3 - GKRP Soil Testing Report	14 Pages

Council 27 February 2012 Item 10.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Carlingford-Dundas Lions Memorial Garden Naming Proposal

REFERENCE F2011/03756 - D02191543

REPORT OF Open Space & Natural Area Planner

PURPOSE:

To seek Council endorsement of a proposal to name the garden between the main carpark and sporting field in Upjohn Park as the Carlingford-Dundas Lions Memorial Garden.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the garden between the main carpark and sporting field in Upjohn Park in Rydalmere be named the Carlingford-Dundas Lions Memorial Garden.

(b) That the garden be signposted accordingly with the new name.

(c) Further, that the Carlingford-Dundas Lions Club and any persons who responded to Councils invitation for submissions in relation to the proposed name be advised of Council’s decision.

BACKGROUND

1. Upjohn Park is a 15 hectare open space located north of Victoria Road between Ponds Subiaco Creek and Silverwater Road in Rydalmere. It features sporting fields, cricket nets, playground, barbeque and picnic facilities which are popular with the local community. The park also contains areas of significant native bushland, including Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, which is being restored though regular bush regeneration activities.

2. In 2000 and 2005 the Carlingford-Dundas Lions Club (CDLC) installed three small brass plaques adjacent the creekline in the central section of Upjohn Park to commemorate former members who had passed away during their service with the Lions Club. These plaques are now obscured by native vegetation and require relocation to a suitable area within the park.

3. The CDLC has requested Council name a garden in Upjohn Park in recognition of their association with the park as provided in Attachment 1. Members of this club provided a significant contribution to National Tree Day events previously held in the park.

4. It is proposed to name the garden between the sporting field and the main carpark off Kirby Street as the Carlingford-Dundas Lions Memorial Garden. The three existing plaques will also be relocated and incorporated into the garden as identified in Attachment 2.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. Council may formally name areas or features within a public park or reserve without reference to the Geographical Names Board of NSW. This may include areas or items such as ovals, sporting fields, playgrounds, amenities buildings or gardens.

6. Council has previously named features after persons with significant connections to the following parks and reserves:

a. Aldrick Gardens, Cox Park, Carlingford

b. Ray Price Field, Sir Thomas Mitchell Reserve, Dundas

c. Richie Benaud Oval, Belmore Park, North Parramatta

7. Whilst Council does not actively promote the naming of gardens and other features within parks and reserves, the current proposal has been assessed and is supported. The proposal is consistent with Councils Commemorative Works and Memorials Policy and is appropriate based on the clubs long-term involvement with Upjohn Park.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

8. Letters inviting comment on the naming proposal were forwarded to the Parramatta and District Historical Society, Upjohn Park sporting user groups and residents in the nearby local area. Two submissions were received during the consultation period which are supportive of the proposed name (Attachment 3).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

9. Council would be required to install an appropriate name sign which would be funded from the 2011/12 Parks Improvement Program.

10. The Carlingford-Dundas Lions Club have also confirmed that landscaping improvements and a sandstone memorial could be funded through their members volunteer labour and donation of plants and landscape materials.

Troy Holbrook

Open Space & Natural Area Planner

Attachments:

1 View	Location Map	1 Page
2 View	Carlingford-Dundas Lions Club Naming Proposal Letter	1 Page
3 View	Public Consultation Submissions	2 Pages

Council 27 February 2012 Item 10.3

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Housing NSW Strategic Partnership Minutes

REFERENCE F2004/05977 - D02229778

REPORT OF Manager - Social Outcomes

PURPOSE:

The Housing NSW and Parramatta City Council Strategic Alliance met on 22 November 2011. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Housing NSW and Parramatta City Council Strategic

Alliance meeting on 22 November (Attachment 1) are received and noted.

(b) Further, that Council note there is no request for additional expenditure in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. The aim of the Housing NSW and Parramatta City Council Strategic Partnership is to facilitate collaborative information sharing to better support improved housing and community wellbeing for housing needs groups and for neighbourhoods within the Parramatta LGA. The Partnership Steering Group continues to meet on a bi-annual basis in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the partnership.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

2. Dr Robert Lang, Parramatta City Council, CEO, provided a strategic update of Council business, including a brief overview of Civic Place developments, River Foreshore Project, Innovation Discovery Workshop, Better Neighbourhood Program, Cycleway Update, Healthy Communities Grant, E-Parramatta and Parra Connect.

3. Ken Bone, Housing NSW, General Manager, reported Housing is now part of Department of Family and Community Services. Housing NSW assets will now sit with Department of Finance and Services. New Ministers are Greg Pearce Finance Services and Pru Goward Family and Community Services.

4. Ken Bone also reported the housing market is tight and rental assistance has increased by 40% over the past 3 years. Affordable Housing is critical and they welcome an announcement from Planning Minister allowing the delivery of affordable housing on smaller lots of 250sqm.

5. Ken Bone also reported all government stimulus developments are almost completed, 4500 dwellings have been built to date.

6. Louise Kerr, Parramatta City Council, Manager Development Services Unit reported the LEP was gazetted on 7 October 2011. Affordable housing is an issue with a large number of applications from private developers. A number of Affordable Housing SEPP applications for group homes appear to resemble boarding house style accommodation.

7. Ray Brincat, Housing NSW, Area Director reported all the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Program work in the LGA was completed 3 months ago, totaling 24 developments containing 358 dwellings. These properties are managed by Community Housing Providers with the majority in Parramatta area with Bridge Housing and a small number with St George Housing.

8. Nick Graham, Housing NSW, Project Development updated the steering committee on the current status of the Wentworthville Project, funded by FASCIA, under the Commonwealth’s Housing Affordability Fund (a Wentworthville Masterplan will be developed). Community and Agency consultation sessions have been occurring since May 2011. The master plan has new road connections, rationalized open space, with improved pedestrian access and mix of passive and active areas open space. A 30:70 ratio (social/private) with flexibility around bedroom types and seniors living/aged care is envisaged, 250-400 dwellings with building heights ranging from 2-5 storey with a mix of housing types. Further consultation will be occurring with stakeholders in 2012 to refine the plan to meet HNSW and PCC requirements.

9. Vicki Haddock, Housing NSW, Project Development reported on the Telopea Re-development. Stage 1 construction of 152 units over 3 buildings commenced November 2010 with completion expected early 2012. Community Housing Provider, Hume CHA was appointed for stage 1 of the social housing developments. Next steps include establish community information groups and engage external stakeholders, finalising part 3A approval and continue engagement with private sector developers. The private sector construction is projected for 2013/2014. Councilors and staff will be offered the opportunity to tour the development at an upcoming open day.

10. Megan Dephoff, Parramatta City Council, Manager Social Outcomes reported the Homelessness Policy and Implementation Plan is to go to Council on 28 November. There are a growing number of homeless people in Parramatta and Council is considering implementing a range of options to assist including; affordable housing, local sector support, public space management and advocacy for long term regional planning. Council is keen to undertake a homeless street count again next year.

11. Alison Shearer, Housing NSW, Director Service Improvement updated the partnership on the Greater Western Sydney Regional Homelessness Committee. Alison reported membership is currently being refreshed and Centrelink is now onboard. A service mapping project for Western Sydney and Central Sydney will be commencing soon.

12. Megan Dephoff advised that PCC’s Affordable Housing Policy implementation is focusing on 3 areas – secondary dwellings, the use of Council’s own assets where appropriate, and the development of an Affordable Housing Bank. It was reported that a number of D A’s are coming through under the Affordable Housing SEPP 2009.

13. Renee Wirth, Housing NSW, Centre for Affordable Housing reported a number of different programs to promote supply of affordable rental housing these including; Social Housing Growth Fund, National Rental Affordability Scheme and Boarding House Financial Assistance Program.

14. Debbie Killian, Parramatta City Council, Manager Community, Library & Social Services raised the need to renew the Telopea/Dundas Community Centre in partnership with Housing NSW. Further discussions will take place on a possible option of a land swap as HNSW advised that they were unable to provide a cash contribution for community facilities.

15. HNSW identified that there were a number of properties now occupied with the Save our Suburbs signs. Council advised that Council staff are in the process of removing the signs and the signs are now being removed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

16. There are no financial implications for Council.

Megan Dephoff

Manager Social Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes of the Strategic Partnership Meeting with Housing NSW and Parramatta City Council

11 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 10.4

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.4

SUBJECT Proposed Free Aquatic Centre Entry Passes

REFERENCE F2004/05927 - D02236901

REPORT OF Service Manager Recreation Facilities and Programs

PURPOSE:

To advise Council of the response to the recent public notice provided on proposed changes to its Schedule of Fees & Charges to introduce a “Free Single-Use Aquatic Centre Family Pass” and a “Free weekly Aquatic entry for seniors and disability card holders and their carers”.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council amend its Schedule of Fees & Charges for the remainder of 2011/12 to include a “Free Single-Use Aquatic Centre Family Pass” and a “Free weekly Aquatic entry for seniors and disability card holders and their carers”;

(b) That, the draft Schedule of Fees & Charges for 2012/13 also include the “Free Single-Use Aquatic Centre Family Pass” and a “Free weekly Aquatic entry for seniors and disability card holders and their carers”;

(c) Further That, these arrangements be trialled for a period of one year and an assessment provided to Council following this period.

BACKGROUND

1. At its meeting of 14 March 2011, Council resolved;

“That a report be issued to Councillors for consideration in conjunction with the Delivery Plan and Budget for 2011/12 examining the introduction of a free family pass for residents once a year and free pool entry for seniors on one weekday each week”.

2. A discussion paper was prepared and presented at a Councillors’ budget workshop held on 21 March 2011. No changes were made to the draft fees prior to public exhibition of the 2011/14 Delivery Plan and Budget which was subsequently adopted by Council.

3. Following consideration of a Notice of Motion by Clr Maitra, Council resolved at its meeting of 28 November 2011;

“(a) That Council consider the introduction of a free single visit family pass for residents each year and dedicates one day each week for free entry for seniors who are eligible for Senior's Card under NSW Government's scheme and disability card holders and their carers to Council's aquatic centres.

(b) That Council places the proposed fee changes on public exhibition and receive a further report ASAP.

(c) That Council receive an assessment report on these fee changes following a trial period of one year.

(d) Further, that operational matters to be decided by the CEO or his nominee.”

CONSULTATION

4. The following notice was placed on public exhibition from 15 December 2011 to 3 February 2012:

“Council proposes to introduce the following for families residing within the Parramatta LGA and for seniors and disability card holders and their carers:

a. Free Single-Use Aquatic Centre Family Pass

i. A single-use free aquatic centre family pass is to be distributed within the Parramatta Local Government Area to provide families with a single-use of either of Councils Aquatic Facilities for one day

ii. The current approved fee for this service is $15.00 and this fee will remain relevant for this service other than when the Free Single –Use Family Pass is redeemed.

b. Free weekly Aquatic entry for seniors and disability card holders and their carers

i. Council is to dedicate one day each week for free entry for seniors who are eligible for Senior's Card under NSW Government's scheme and disability card holders and their carers to Council's aquatic centres.

ii. The current approved fee for this service is $3.70 and this fee will remain relevant for this service on days other than that one day per week that is dedicated to this free entry.

An appropriate communication strategy will be determined by Council Staff following the period of public notice.”

5. Public Notices were placed in the Northern District Times, Parramatta Advertiser and Auburn Review on 15 December 2011.

6. Notification was also placed on Council’s website within the ‘On Public Exhibition’ section throughout the seven week exhibition period.

7. During this period, Council received nil submissions from the public regarding the proposed fee changes.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. Council may seek to move immediately to implement the proposed fee changes by amending the 2011/12 Schedule of Fees and Charges. Council officers will develop the administrative arrangements necessary to support the new fees and commence appropriate promotional activities including the distribution of the Free Family Pass in an upcoming Council publication.

9. It is proposed that the arrangements will apply to the remainder of this financial year and that the draft Schedule of Fees & Charges for 2012/13 will also include the “Free Single-Use Aquatic Centre Family Pass” and a “Free weekly Aquatic entry for seniors and disability card holders and their carers”.

10. This will enable the new arrangements to be trialed for a period of one year including a full summer season. An assessment would then be provided to Council to be considered as part of its deliberations on the draft Operational Plan and Budget for 2013/14.

11. Alternatively, Council may prefer to defer introduction of the proposed fee changes and consider the proposals with the draft Delivery Plan and Budget for 2012/13, including fees and charges, which is currently being prepared for public exhibition in April 2012.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

12. The discussion paper on Free Access to Aquatic Centres prepared in March 2011 considered the likely financial implications of different proposals including the current fee changes being considered.

13. Based on the experience of another council, it is estimated that the introduction of a Free Single-Use Aquatic Centre Family Pass will cost approximately $38,000 p/a in lost revenue with a small additional cost for production and promotional activities. This impact could be partially offset by additional revenue if families who would otherwise not have visited the aquatic centres make further, paid visits as a result of the free entry experience.

14. The existing revenue likely to be foregone as a result of providing free entry on one day a week for seniors and disability card holders and their carers has been estimated at less than $10,000. This impact would also be partially offset if the experience of the free visits encourages patrons to make more frequent, paid visits also.

Nick Wright

Service Manager Recreation Facilities and Programs

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 10.6

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.6

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 22 November 2011

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D02250231

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 22 November 2011. This report provides a précis of the decisions made at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of 22 November 2011 be received and noted.

(b) That Council notes the Committee’s support of archaeological salvage excavation at the Endeavour Energy site in Macquarie and Harris Streets, Parramatta.

(b) Further, that Council note there is no request for additional expenditure.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 17 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 22 November 2011. This report provides a précis of the decisions of the Committee.

MAIN AGENDA ITEMS

3. Committee member Doug Desjardines introduced a former employee of Council to Committee members. Mr Desjardines had invited the former employee to provide details of his experiences during his employment with Council and the circumstances of his being medically retired from Council.

The former employee explained that he believed that his medical retirement was affecting his life and would affect his family financially. Accordingly, he sought a letter of support and perhaps some direction from the Committee.

The Committee expressed its concern at what was reported to them and requested a comment from the relevant Council staff on the possible rehabilitation of this worker.

Officers Comment:

This request was forwarded to Council’s Human Resources Unit. A Council Officer has since contacted the former employee responding to the information they related to the Committee and providing further information and advice.

4. The Committee was briefed by Council Officer Michelle Desailley, Arts and Cultural Project Officer, on the proposal from Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee requesting interpretation and storytelling related to Governor Phillip’s Campsite at the head of the Parramatta River. The Heritage Committee was particularly interested in discussions with the Aboriginal community regarding stories that could be shared from an Aboriginal perspective.

The Committee decided that a walk of the proposed site would be organised by the Council Officer for 10 December 2011 and that the stories collected would be sent to the Committee for its consideration regarding the best way to communicate the stories.

5. The Committee were briefed by Jillian Comber, Comber Consultants Pty Ltd regarding archaeological works in Parramatta:

Endeavour Energy’s work regarding network distribution from Macquarie St to Guildford may mean certain cables will go through Parramatta Sand Terrace. This would mean that a major archaeological dig would be carried out near Robin Thomas Reserve. The dig, whilst not completed, has found many artefacts some of which tentatively indicate the area may have been occupied during the ice age.

The Committee was also advised that discussions were being held with the Department of Environment and Heritage to consider ways of carrying out salvage archaeological testing rather than just monitoring.

The Committee supported the carrying out of archaeological salvage excavation rather than monitoring in Macquarie and Harris Streets Parramatta, discussed members being invited to future digs and invited Ms. Comber to attend the February meeting of the Committee to provide an update on digs in Parramatta.

6. The Committee discussed a number of items of General Business including the University of Western Sydney’s appointment of Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory. The Committee were concerned that local people had not been appointed and recommended that Council Officer Maggie Kyle, Community Capacity Building Officer seek further information regarding this matter.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

7. There are no financial implications to Council.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Minutes 22 November 2011

7 Pages

Council 27 February 2012 Item 10.7

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.7

SUBJECT Minutes of the Western Sydney Local Area Health District and Parramatta City Council Steering Group Meeting - 8 September 2011

REFERENCE F2004/10350 - D02259852

REPORT OF Manager - Social Outcomes

PURPOSE:

The Western Sydney Local Health District (formerly known as Sydney West Area Health Service - SWAHS) and Parramatta City Council Strategic Partnership met on 8 September 2011. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the WS LHD and Parramatta City Council Strategic Partnership meeting on 8 September 2011 (Attachment 1) are received and noted.

(b) Further, that Council note there is no request for additional expenditure in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. The aim of the Strategic Partnership is to improve the health of the population, create healthy environments, enable individuals and communities to make healthy choices and reduce differences in the health status that exists between groups. The MOU establishes effective ways for both organisations to work together.

2. The partners aim to share knowledge of the environmental, behavioural, and social factors that have an effect on the community’s health, address health issues by joint planning and to coordinate services to achieve better health outcomes.

The three Councillors representing Council are:

· Lord Mayor John Chedid

· Councillor Chiang Lim

· Councillor Andrew Bide.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

3. Dr Robert Lang, CEO provided a strategic update of Council business, including a brief overview of Civic Place developments and the River Foreshore Project.

4. Sue Weatherley, Group Manager Outcomes and Development, updated the partnership on the draft LEP and DCP, Review of the City Centre LEP and other projects including neighbourhood centre upgrades and Cycleways in the Parramatta LGA.

5. Megan Dephoff, Manager Social Outcomes, informed the Steering Committee on the progress of the Smoking project and the Healthy Communities Grant.

6. Christine Newman provided strategic updates on the structural changes at NSW Health. The Health Reform Transitional Organisation has the following:

(a) NSW Department of Health becomes the NSW Ministry of Health

(b) Operational activity will move from being centralised to localised

(d) Further information will be provided as the changes take effect.

7. A Federal Agency, known as the “Preventative Health Agency” has been established. A State level agency also to be established.

8. Christine Newman explained the Healthy Children’s Initiative which is currently being rolled out in public schools and will be expanded to Catholic and Independent schools. The successful Munch and Move initiative is also being extended to long day care and family day care.

9. Christine Newman reported that the Stepping on Program for Older People which targets those at risk of falling in the 75+ age group has now received funding.

10. Christine Newman outlined the Work Places, Healthy Workers Initiative is due to start in 2012. Research is currently being conducted in Lithgow with Parramatta to follow in the near future.

11. Christine Newman reported that Western Sydney Medicare Local has been established. The aim of the Medicare Local is to strengthen the local primary health care system by working with the people who deliver health services to the public to help keep communities well and out of hospital.

MOU PROJECT UPDATES

12. Kay Tennant, Manager Healthier Environments Program reported the Health Survey Data / Resident Panel Data is now complete, and the Health Data will be presented to Council staff in early August 2011.

13. Christine Newman, Manager Health Promotion provided an update on the Increased Healthier Food Choices Project (Menu Labelling). The consultation, analysis and a draft report are now completed, and the next stage is consultations and engagement with businesses to occur in early 2012.

14. Victoria Edghill, Project Officer Social Outcomes advised that they are currently scoping and drafting a project brief for the Bicycling Promotion Project.

15. Victoria Edghill, Project Officer Social Outcomes also advised that the Planning Policy for Healthier Food Choices Project is currently being scoped.

GENERAL BUSINESS

16. Christine Newman was asked to explain the approach Westmead Hospital site takes to no smoking.

17. Council was asked how it responds to the NSW State Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

18. There are no financial implications for Council.

Megan Dephoff

Manager Social Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes 8 September 2011 SWAHS and PCC Strategic Partnership Meeting

6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 27 February 2012 Item 11.4

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT Adoption of Changes to Council's Ward Boundaries

REFERENCE F2005/02508 - D02239877

REPORT OF Group Manager- Corporate

PURPOSE:

To seek adoption of the proposed changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries following a recent exhibition process.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the following changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries, as exhibited, be adopted:-

1 Five (5) CCDs (1332807, 1330404, 1330403, 1330410 and 1330405 be transferred from Arthur Phillip Ward into Caroline Chisholm Ward (transferring 2311 electors).

2 CCD number 1330711 be transferred from Elizabeth Macarthur Ward to Arthur Phillip Ward (transferring 330 electors).

3 Three (3) CCDs (1331410, 1331412, 1331407) be transferred from Elizabeth Macarthur Ward into Woodville Ward (transferring 936 electors).

(b) That the mapping error incorporating parklands bounded by Spurway Street and Silverwater Road in Elizabeth Macarthur Ward instead of Lachlan Macquarie Ward be corrected.

(d) Further, that a letter box drop be carried out of affected residents advising of the subject changes.

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 12 December 2011 considered a Group Manager Corporate Report (Copy appended as Attachment 1 minus attachments) recommending exhibition of certain changes to Council’s ward boundaries to address Section 211 and resolved:-

“(a) That plans of the following changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries (as identified in Attachment 1 to Group Manager Corporate Services Memorandum dated 12 December 2011) 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 Five (5) CCDs (1332807, 1330404, 1330403, 1330410 and 1330405 be transferred from Arthur Phillip Ward into Caroline Chisholm Ward (transferring 2311 electors).

2 CCD number 1330711 be transferred from Elizabeth Macarthur Ward to Arthur Phillip Ward (transferring 330 electors).

3 Three (3) CCDs (1331410, 1331412, 1331407) be transferred from Elizabeth Macarthur Ward into Woodville Ward (transferring 936 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.”

3. In accordance with Council’s decision, appropriate maps were prepared (copies forwarded to Councillors on 21 December 2011), exhibited and advertised in accordance with Council’s resolution, with interested persons being permitted to make a submission for a period of 42 days from 6 January 2012 (ie until 17 February 2012). Copies of the final maps as exhibited and which are placed before Council for adoption are appended as Attachment 2 (AP to CC), Attachment 3 (EM to AP) and Attachment 4 (EM to W) respectively.

4. In addition, advice of Council’s decision of 12 December 2011 was forwarded to the Electoral Commission who has advised:

· An extension of the deadline for the ward boundary alterations to 28 February 2012 has been granted;

· The proposed boundaries are acceptable;

· A slight pre existing discrepancy exists in the old ward boundaries between the Lachlan Macquarie and Elizabeth Macarthur Wards resulting in the splitting of a CCD which is not the preferred course of action by the Commission. The area in question is a park currently positioned in the Elizabeth Macarthur Ward and no electors are affected. The Commission has confirmed that this error can be amended in the final adoption of the boundaries and the area in question should be included in the Lachlan Macquarie Ward.

PROPOSAL

5. At the time of writing this report, no submissions have been received in response to Council’s proposal to alter its ward boundaries. Should any submissions be received prior to the Council Meeting to be held on 27 February 2012, such submissions will be addressed under separate cover.

6. A map incorporating the minor change required in response to the mapping error as detailed in paragraph 4 has been prepared and is appended as Attachment 5.

CONCLUSION

7. That Council adopt the proposed changes to its ward boundaries as resolved on 12 December 2011 and appropriately exhibited and correcting the slight discrepancy between Elizabeth Macarthur and Lachlan Macquarie Wards.

8. Bearing in mind the upcoming local government election, it is considered appropriate to advise, via letter box drop, affected residents of the adopted changes.

Greg Smith

Group Manager Corporate

Attachments:

1 View	Group Manager Corporate Previous Report (minus attachments)	5 Pages
2 View	Proposed Ward Boundary Changes - AP to CC	1 Page
3 View	Proposed Ward Boundary Changes - EM to AP	1 Page
4 View	Proposed Ward Boundary Changes - EM to W	1 Page
5 View	Map amending discrepancy between Lachlan Macquarie and Elizabeth Macarthur Wards	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 11.5

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.5

SUBJECT Investments Report for November 2011

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D02215318

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a report setting out details of all money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

2. The report must include a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and the investment policy of Council.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The closing balance of Council’s investment portfolio as at the 30th November 2011 was $86.9M (Previous Month $85.4M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $87.1M.

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

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.30% 3.62%

Funds Managers -0.24% -2.96%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.41% 4.88%

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 underperformed the UBSA Bank Bill Index by approximately 1.26%. The underperformance was driven by the credit fund of CFS and the growth fund of T-Corp. Equities suffered another correction in November thus having negative impacts on Councils managed funds. Further volatility can be expected in the short term.

7. Term deposits make up approximately 55% of total holdings and have interest rates ranging from 5.80% to 7.40%. Council’s exceptional average deposit yield of 6.66% p.a. (average duration of 1.9 years) as at the end of November will continue to fall as existing deposits mature – there are now no deposits available in the market that can support the current yield. Council should take comfort in that it has extended the average duration of the deposit portfolio over the past 12-24 months. This will soften the impact of a reduction in income over the next financial year as markets adjust to a lower interest rate environment and support further outperformance.

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

Graph – Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance

Graph – Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index

Graphs – Investments and loans interest compared to budget

Summary of investment portfolio

9. The Certificate of Investments for November 2011 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

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

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

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

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

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 11.6

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.6

SUBJECT Investments Report for December 2011

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D02240554

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for December 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 December 2011 was $85.8M (Previous Month $86.9M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $90.1M.

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

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.59% 7.09%

Funds Managers 0.79% 9.44%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.40% 4.85%

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 2.24%. This outperformance can be attributed the CFS Global Credit Fund (13.49%) which was assisted by a rally in the credit and fixed interest market.

7. Term deposits make up approximately 60% of total holdings and have interest rates ranging from 5.80% to 7.40%. These premium rates will soften the impact of a reduction in income over the next financial year as markets adjust to a lower interest rate environment. However Council will still be subjected to some rollover risk as funds mature and reinvestment options become limited.

8. Finance in cooperation with CPG Research & Advisory is currently developing an updated investment policy. The key focus will be to update the various counterparty limits which set limitations of the total amount invested with any single institution or rated agency. The policy will also reset realistic performance targets within each investment type to more accurately reflect current global market events. CPG believe that the proposed changes will reduce the risk profile of council’s portfolio. The opportunity to increase counterparty limits and maturity duration mitigates rollover risk from a falling interest rate environment. This will be presented to Council at it is March meeting.

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 December 2011 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of December 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 27 February 2012 Item 11.7

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.7

SUBJECT Delivery Program and Operational Plan – Quarterly Review December 2011

REFERENCE F2011/01567 - D02254937

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To provide the December 2011 Quarterly Review of the 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2011/12 Operational Plan.

Section 404 of the Local Government Act requires the General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) to provide progress reports to the Council, with respect to the principal activities detailed in the Delivery Program, at least every 6 months.

Clause 203 of the Local Government Regulation requires the Responsible Accounting Officer to prepare and submit to the Council a quarterly budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimates of income and expenditure set out in the Operational Plan, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for the year.

The budget review statements and a revision of estimates within the Operational Plan must be reported to Council within two months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter).

The Responsible Accounting Officer is also required to report as to whether or not he believes the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the Chief Executive Officer’s December 2011 Quarterly Review of the 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2011/12 Operational Plan. (Attachment 1).

(b) Further, that Council adopt the Responsible Accounting Officer’s report on the financial position of the Council and the revised estimates of income and expenditure as detailed in Attachment 1

BACKGROUND

1. New requirements for Quarterly Budget Review Statements

In December 2010 the Division of Local Government (DLG) issued a set of minimum requirements for the Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS). Council has implemented these requirements commencing with the September 2011 Quarterly Budget Review. The DLG’s minimum components of the QBRS are:

ü Statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer (Manager Finance) on Council’s financial position at the end of the year based on the information in the QBRS

ü Income and Expenses Statement Budget Review

ü Capital Budget Review

ü Cash and Investments Position Budget Review

ü Key Performance Indicators Budget Review

ü Contracts, Legal fees and Consultants Costs Budget Review

2. Proposed variations to full year budgets

In reporting on proposed variances to full year budgets in the QBRS, the Division of Local Government has recommended that Councils should determine the parameters for what constitutes a ‘substantial’ or ‘major’ variance as it would not be feasible to explain all proposed variations.

Council currently approves and reviews budgets at the Service level within a Pillar. For example, within the Pillar - Community and Neighbourhoods there is a Service - Town Planning & Urban Design.

To comply with the DLG guidelines Council has adopted the following as the parameters for budget variance explanations:

Where Services budget variations are greater than +/- 10% of the current budget or greater than +/- $100,000 of the current budget, these are required to be explained

3. The attached December 2011 Quarterly Review contains the Chief Executive Officer’s progress report on the principal activities contained within Council’s 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2011/12 Operational Plan. The Review is presented under the Four Pillars format adopted by Council.

· Environment & Infrastructure

· Community & Neighbourhoods

· Economy & Development

· Governance & Corporate

4. The Review details in the Operating Statement the actual income and expenditure results for the year to September compared to the budget previously adopted by Council and revised forecasts for the full year. The Responsible Accounting Officer’s Report in the Review, includes an analysis of the year to date result and the reasons for the major variances from the previously adopted budget. Explanations for major variances are in line with the parameters noted above.

5. The December 2011 Quarterly Review was considered at a workshop on 20 February 2011. Any proposals from the workshop will be incorporated as an addendum to this document to be considered at the Council meeting.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. Relevant issues/options/consequences are noted within the Quarterly Review document.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. Consultation has taken place with all relevant staff that have Delivery Program, Operational Plan and budgetary responsibilities.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. Details of the financial implications are contained within the Review.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

1 View

Draft December 2011 Quarterly Review 2010/2014 Delivery Program & 2011/12 Operational Plan – copies previously circulated for Councillors’ workshop

0 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 11.8

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.8

SUBJECT Review of Parramatta City Council Investment Policy

REFERENCE F2004/07423 - D02257096

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek council’s support for the adoption and implementation of the updated Parramatta City Council Investment Policy which will replace the current policy adopted in 2009. The intention of the Policy is to establish a framework of principles which can be applied to the investment of council funds.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Council receive and note the Finance Manager’s report

(b) Further, that the revised Investment Policy attached to this report be adopted

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s current Investment Policy was last reviewed and adopted in September 2009.

2. The Investment Policy is intended to increase the resources available for Council to achieve its goals, while at the same time protecting public funds and assuring the community that their assets are being responsibly managed

3. In conjunction with CPG Research & Advisory (Councils Investment Advisor) Finance has undertaken a review of the current policy with the following key objectives in mind.

i. To update the policy to allow flexibility to manage current global economic events.

ii. To Review credit rating tolerances and counterparty limits. I.e. How much of the total portfolio can be held within a certain credit rating or within any single institution.

iii. To rewrite the policy to conform to Parramatta City Council formal policy guidelines.

iv. To simplify investment performance targets within each investment product type.

v. To remove the investment strategy from the policy document.

vi. To update all regulatory references as specified by the Division of Local Government guidelines and circulars.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The current policy is restrictive in both investment terms and amounts invested with institutions. Events like the current European Debt Crisis which has seen the official cash rate drop and has caused major volatility in global credit markets which has proven to restrict Council’s options. E.g. Allowing more flexibility through the length of the investment term, and expanding the credit rating will allow Council to proactively manage the downsize of such events.

5. CPG and Finance have reviewed tolerance and counterparty levels which provide guidance in regard to the total amount that can be invested within a particular rating category or with any single institution. CPG recommends that Counterparty investment limits in BBB rated institutions increase from 5% to 10%. Council predominately invests in term deposits, this increase will allow council to take further advantage of attractive rates with Australian institutions that have strong capital structure and are well regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). These institutions include Building Societies and Credit Unions. This is in line with investment policy in other councils.

6. Individual counterparty limits in higher rated institutions have also increased as follows

(a) AAA from 20% to 40%

(b) AA from 15% to 30%

7. The new policy has fewer performance targets for each investment product. Targets can change rapidly depending on market movement. This adjustment therefore allows council to be more flexible and to take advantage of current market premiums rather than being limited by historical targets that may not be relevant or attainable in the current market. The performance benchmark for most investments will be the UBSA bank bill index. This is a 90 day average of all maturing market bank bills as reported in the monthly investment report presented to council.

8. Council’s investment strategy is to maximise returns within the guidelines set out in the policy. Although the portfolio is monitored on a daily basis, CPG will conduct a formal overall review every quarter which will incorporate market analysis, policy and counterparty health checks and investment recommendations.

9. It is important to highlight that although the proposed policy aims to provide flexibility in terms of counterparty limit and duration, it does not increase the risk of the portfolio. The policy still states that if desired, hypothetically council could invest 100% AAA and AA rated institutions with a maturity less than 3 months.

10. The new policy now conforms to formal policy guidelines.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. The Investment Policy was constructed by CPG Research and Advisory. CPG worked in consultation with Finance staff and currently advise over 100 other councils. CPG believe that the proposed changes will reduce the risk profile of council’s portfolio.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. The opportunity to increase counterparty limits and maturity duration mitigates rollover risk from a falling interest rate environment.

13. The flexibility to invest increased limits in BBB institutions will allow Council to take advantage of premium interest rates in the mid to long term range thus increasing interest income.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

1 View

Parramatta City Council Investment Policy February 2012

14 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 February 2012 Item 11.9

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.9

SUBJECT 2012 Real Estate Conference

REFERENCE F2007/00400 - D02264132

REPORT OF Executive Support Manager

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s approval to attend and participate in the 2012 Real Estate Conference and Exhibition being held in Singapore from 27-28 June 2012.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse Parramatta City Council’s participation in the 2012 Real

Estate Conference and Exhibition in Singapore from 27-28 June 2012

(b) That Council authorise the Lord Mayor, Cr Lorraine Wearne and Chief Executive Officer, Dr Robert Lang and up to three relevant staff nominated by the CEO to represent Council at the conference.

(c) That Council write to the Federal Minster for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and the New South Wales Minister for Trade and Investment to advise of Council’s attendance at this conference and seek support.

(d) That Council liaise with State and Federal Government Department’s, particularly Austrade and Trade and Investment NSW in the planning and facilitation of attendance at this conference.

(e) Further, that Council liaises with local investment and property contacts to explore possible partnership opportunities.

BACKGROUND

· The Real Estate Investment World Asia 2012 is a conference and exhibition that focuses exclusively on partnerships for land use, urban development and large scale mixed-use communities in the Asia Pacific region.

· More than 600 developers, investors and service professionals attend the event showcasing strategies, projects and companies that make up the Asia real estate and investment management marketplace.

· More than 50% of previous participants were institutional investors, asset managers, property funds and developers, of which 41% were Chairmen, Chief Executives, and Managing Directors.

· The Real Estate Investment World Asia 2012 conference is an opportunity to represent Parramatta as the capital of one of Australia’s fastest growing economic regions, with a CBD geared for growth and attractive investment destination.

TIMING

· Council is being asked to consider attendance at this conference now in order to secure a prominent exhibition location.

· This will also enable Council staff to explore potential commercial partnerships and design and produce exhibition collateral including stand and marketing materials.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

· Cost estimates included below are based on the Lord Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and three support staff attending the conference.

· The Council staff would be required to provide continuous attendance at the exhibition stand and promote Parramatta and Western Sydney as an investment destination.

Item	Cost
24sqm Exhibitor Package*	17,640.00
4 x 3 day conference package	5,513.00
Lord Mayor x 3 day conference package	2,876
Exhibition fit out	11,250.00
Marketing and promotion collateral	5,000.00
Accommodation	6,563.00
Flights	6,750.00
Contingency	4,409.00
Total	$60,000.00

The *exhibitor package includes:

· 24sqm of exhibition space

· 4 exhibitor passes

· 50% discount off REIW Asia conference fees

· Corporate logo on brochure

· Corporate logo on main event banner / signage on site

· Corporate logo on event website

· Corporate logo on delegate documentation / packs

· Complimentary list in official exhibition show-guide

· Personalised emailing of conference e-brochure to exhibitor’s wish list of clients offering registration discounts of 15% courtesy of exhibitor

· One time mailing to all conference delegates after the event via a third party mailing house

Attachments:

1 View

2012 Real Estate Conference brochure

12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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	Parramatta Traffic Committee minutes of meeting held on 9 February 2012	7 Pages
2 View	Parramatta Traffic Committee reports of meeting held on 9 February 2012	42 Pages

1 View	Traffic Engineering Advisory Group minutes of meeting held on 9 February 2012	4 Pages
2 View	Traffic Engineering Advisory Group reports of meeting held on 9 February 2012	24 Pages