Agenda of Council - 23 July 2012

Council 23 July 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 9 July 2012

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 DELETE

5 Minutes of Lord Mayor

6 Public Forum

7 PETITIONS

8 Rescission Motions

8.1 Smoking in Public Places Policy and Outdoor Dining Policy Update

9 Economy and Development

9.1 45-49 Spurway Street, Ermington
(Lots 66-68 DP 16170) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

9.2 Economic Development Levy recommended project allocation for financial year 2012/2013

9.3 Use of development contributions for purchase of properties bounded by Balmoral, Kleins and Beamish Roads, Northmead for car parking.

9.4 Heritage Advisory Committee for June 2012

9.5 Planning Proposal for land at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and Part 2A Darcy Road, Westmead

9.6 Future Development of Auto Alley

9.7 Reaffirming the Council members to the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel

10 Environment and Infrastructure

10.1 Draft Duck River Catchment Waterways Maintenance & Rehabilitation Master Plan and Upper Duck River Riparian & Wetland Plan of Management

10.2 Parramatta City Ring Road

10.3 Barry Wilde Bridge Sewer Pipe Relocation

11 Community and Neighbourhood

11.1 2013 Parramatta City Council Community Grants Program

11.2 Riverside Advisory Board

11.3 Access Advisory Committee Minutes 19 June 2012

11.4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 26 June 2012

11.5 Covert Mobility Parking Scheme (Disabled) Program

11.6 Report on possible T-way to Granville and upgrade to the Transport Interchange and commuter car parking in Granville

12 Governance and Corporate

12.1 Aboriginal Local Government (LGAN) Network Conference 15-17 August 2012 - Grafton

12.2 Investments Report for May 2012

12.3 Audit Committee Minutes

12.4 Parraconnect Advisory Committee

13 Notices of Motion

13.1 Reduction of Annual Administration Fee for School Canteens

13.2 Use of specific Non Toxic Paints on in Council Buildings

13.3 Impact of the Carbon Tax on Parramatta Council

13.4 Converting secure bike park facilities into general facilities for the homeless

13.5 Installing traffic calming devices near 40km School Zones

14 Closed Session

14.1 Tender 17/2012 Wigram Street (Between Marion and Ada Streets), Harris Park – Streetscape Upgrade.

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

14.2 Tender 9/2012 Management of Paid Parking Facilities Within the Parramatta Local Government Area.

14.3 Tender No. 11/2012 Western Sydney Light Rail Feasibility Study - Transport Study

14.4 Potential Acquisition of Land in Guildford for Local Open Space

14.5 Development Opportunity

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

14.6 Tender 29/2011 Lennox Bridge Carpark

14.7 Land and Environment Court Litigation

14.8 Disposal of a Surplus Site

14.9 Sale of Land in Parramatta

15 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

16 QUESTION TIME

Council 23 July 2012 Item 9.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT 45-49 Spurway Street, Ermington
(Lots 66-68 DP 16170) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Consolidation, subdivision, demolition and construction of a 2 storey boarding house comprising 14 rooms under the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

REFERENCE DA/109/2012 - 24 February 2012

APPLICANT/S Revelop Projects

OWNERS Mr M El Bayeh

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 4 JULY 2012

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for a boarding house and due to the number of submissions received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the consolidation of three allotments and re-subdivision into two allotments and construction of a two storey boarding house containing 14 self contained accommodation suites for a total of 28 persons on Lot X. The existing dwelling and associated structures on proposed lot Y are to be retained for residential purposes and will not be used in conjunction with the boarding house.

The proposed development is permissible with consent under Parramatta LEP 2011 and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 (ARHSEPP).

The development has been assessed against the compatibility provisions of the ARHSEPP and found to be compatible with the character of the surrounding local area.

In response to the notification period of the application a total of 778 objections were received comprising 14 individual submissions, a petition comprising 646 signatures and 118 form letters. Due to the number of submissions received, an on-site meeting was held on 23 June 2012 and commenced at 9.00am. The outcomes of the on-site meeting are discussed at Page 11 of the Section 79C report (Attachment 1).

The issues raised within the submissions and at the on-site meeting relate to potential overlooking, noise generation, and excessive traffic, lack of parking, devaluation of properties, social issues, impact on the nearby school, management/maintenance, occupancy levels, child safety, permissibility, overshadowing, credentials of the on-site manager, non-compliance with conditions of consent, future use of the boarding house, future use of the adjoining allotment, and character of the area. The issues have been discussed in detail within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

It is recommended that 2 rooms be deleted from the rear of the development to provide an increased rear setback and to ensure the development complies with the maximum number of rooms permissible for boarding-houses specified by the PDCP 2011. In addition it is recommended a further condition is imposed restricting each room to 1 person to comply with requirements of the PDCP 2011.This restricts the number of occupants to 12 (11 boarders and 1 on-site manager).

The proposed development as conditioned in the recommendation is consistent with the objectives contained within Parramatta LEP 2011. The building has a satisfactory design, bulk and scale. The proposed development is appropriately sited to minimise the impacts on adjoining properties in terms of privacy and overlooking.

A Plan of Management has been submitted and is considered satisfactory by Council’s Community Crime Prevention Officer. Further, a separate room has been provided within the development for an on-site manager who will be contactable 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

The plans subject of this report are also the result of extensive consultation being undertaken between the applicant and Council’s Urban Designer with respect to design of the front facade of the building. Council’s Social Outcomes Team have assessed the proposal and has no objections subject to a number of conditions..

The application is considered satisfactory with respect to the aims and objectives of the ARHSEPP, PLEP 2011 and PDCP 2011. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions contained in Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council pursuant to the provisions of S. 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 grant a Deferred Commencement Consent to Development Application No. DA/109/2012 for consolidation, subdivision, demolition and construction of a 2 storey boarding house under the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 at 45-49 Spurway Street, Ermington subject to the conditions outlined in Attachment 1 of this report.

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

Maya Sarwary

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	76 Pages
2 View	Location Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	6 Pages
4	Confidential Internal Residential Floor Plans	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 9.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT Economic Development Levy recommended project allocation for financial year 2012/2013

REFERENCE F2011/02464 - D02427150

REPORT OF Manager Economic Development

PURPOSE:

To advise Council of expenditure from the Economic Development Levy from financial year 2011/12 and to seek Council approval for the proposed expenditure plan for financial year 2012/13 as per Year Two of the Parramatta Economic Development Strategy 2011-2016.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive the levy expenditure report from financial year 2011-2012 and note expenditure is in line with approved allocations with minimal variance (Attachment 1).

(b) That Council note that a competitive process has been undertaken to assess applications for the Economic Development Partner’s Fund 2012-2013 as per Council Resolution of 7 November 2011. Further, that Council endorse the Assessment Panel’s recommendation to fund partners to a total of $70,000 from the Economic Development Levy; $10,000 more than originally intended (Attachment 2).

(c) That Council endorse the expenditure plan for Year Two of the Economic Development Strategy (Attachment 3 and Background below).

(d) Further, that Council approve the following items to be funded from the Economic Development Levy Reserve: $80,000 Rydalmere Project and $20,000 Small Business Hub (both unspent from last year), and $60,000 casual staff for upkeep of Discover Parramatta website/database (Attachment 3).

BACKGROUND

1. In November 2011 Council adopted a twenty-five year vision and five-year Economic Development Strategy for Parramatta. At the time Council also approved a one-year action plan and levy allocation.

2. As part of this endorsement Councillors resolved to have a competitive committee-run process established to assess applications from business groups and media publishers. This would have the effect of capping expenditure and improving the transparency of decisions relating to the Economic Development Levy.

3. All Year One projects (excepting three) and the Partners Fund process have been implemented and a summary of expenditure for 2011-2012 has been provided for Councillors at Attachment 1.

4. The three projects that did not progress to the point of requiring expenditure were 1) small business hub, 2) business recruitment survey and 3) student survey. They totalled $40,000. The $20,000 for the hub is requested to roll over to FY 2012/13 (Attachment 3).

5. The focus of the first year’s expenditure has been on:

· Developing a competitive identity that could project the confidence of a city and communicate an open-for-business attitude to the market

· Engaging meaningfully with politicians, advisors and chief-bureaucrats to advance the interests of Parramatta through targeted advocacy and events

· Broadening Council’s understanding of the industry specialisations operating in both the CBD and Westmead through strategic research (preparation for business attraction focus in year 2)

· Broadening Council’s understanding of the experience of workers and CEO’s operating in the Parramatta CBD (preparation for activation/amenity focus in year 2)

· Supporting the work of the City Culture and Tourism team in improving the leisure offering

· Working closely with the Transport Strategy Unit to develop a series of proposals to better connect people in Parramatta’s catchment with jobs in the city core

· Strengthening relationships with existing partners and forging connections with new organisations based in established Sydney (preparation for major external engagement focus in year 2).

6. It is appropriate at this time; at the commencement of the 2012-2013 financial year, to ask Council to review the proposed expenditure plan for the second year of the strategy. Please see Attachment 2 for levy allocations, and below for the rationale for expenditure.

7. Year Two seeks to build on the work of the previous year. The total pre-approved levy allocation for 2012-2013 is $550,000 and is proposed to be allocated across the six pillars of the strategy as below:

· IDENTITY

The emphasis on high-level advocacy is to be maintained with a new and expanded focus on partnership building. The establishment of a Parramatta Business Partnership is recommended, as per the Parramatta Engagement and Advocacy Strategy (PEAS) endorsed by Council in May 2012. Deloitte, UWS, Millennium Institute, Westfield, WSROC and News Limited will be approached as founding members. The Economic Development Forum event will also be held. Total allocation $115,000.

· BUSINESS

On-the-ground engagement with local business will be a greater focus in the coming year. New engagement activity is planned for the Professional Services sector in the CBD. A broad industry consultation and facilitation program is planned for Westmead which will be lead by Economic Development. Investment in the establishment of a Small Business Hub in Macquarie House will be funded, with Council approval, via $30,000 from this year’s levy allocation, and $20,000 from the Reserve, unspent from last year. A business attraction program will also be developed, aligned to the activities of the Property Development Group and Parramatta 10,000 Project. Total allocation $105,000.

· LABOUR

Skills and education will be a focus of later years, and is not the focus for the coming 12 months. The team is proposing, however, to build continue to build ties with the universities, TAFEs and private colleges and introduce a new business survey exploring the experience of local firms attempting to recruit professional staff to Parramatta. This survey is intended to repeat each year so as to record progress over time. Total allocation $10,000.

· PROPERTY

Land and property in Camellia is a priority for 2012-2013 with the impending closure of the Shell Oil Refinery. A $55,000 contribution is recommended from the levy to help fund the studies necessary for masterplanning the peninsula, as per Council Resolution June 2012. Landowners in the city centre are also a focus for this year with plans to initiate a landowner’s forum in the later part of 2012 to coincide with the Land Use LEP Review process. Total allocation $60,000.

· AMENITY

The results of the employee perception research conducted by the team in April-June 2012 highlight a pressing need for improved street life, safety and retail offering in the Parramatta CBD. In order to address the concerns of business, and to help firms attract talented staff, a focus on improving the ‘fine-grain’ of the CBD is required. A focus on small bars, cafes, laneway-enterprises, creative industries – and a review of the regulations that apply to them – is recommended. A new 2 year contract position is recommended to play a strategic coordination role in aligning the activities of Place, Urban Design, Land Use, Events, Pop Up, Strategic Asset Management and others in the CBD, focussing efforts on meeting the needs of CBD-based businesses and staff. A further $30,000 will be provided to Council’s City Culture, Tourism and Recreation Group, as per previous years, to support the expansion of the tourism sector. Total allocation $70,000.

· INFRASTRUCTURE

An allocation of $30,000 is recommended for the Transport Strategy Unit to help gain exposure for Parramatta and Western Sydney transport proposals and to ensure a Western Sydney perspective is audible within the broader debate. A planned focus on partnership building in the region via the lightrail project is supported by the Economic Development agenda via PEAS. A further $70,000 will be set aside for the Partners Fund (soft infrastructure). Total allocation: $100,000.

Other

The standard $90,000 for specialist modelling software, ABS reports and other data sources is included as per previous years.

From the Economic Development Reserve

An $80,000 allocation from the Reserve is requested for the Rydalmere Project to complete studies unfinished in previous year. A further $20,000 from the Reserve for the Small Business Hub (unspent in previous year) and $60,000 for administrative support maintaining the Discover Parramatta website and expanding the business database crucial to the work of the Unit is also requested. Total allocation from Reserve: $160,000.

8. A Measures Framework has been developed in the past 4 months to monitor the impact of the Economic Development Strategy. This will be implemented from July 2012 onwards, and will draw on the input of a large range of internal units.

CONSULTATION AND TIMING

9. Should Council wish to seek the feedback of external stakeholders, Council may indicate a preference for the 2012/13 levy allocation to be put on exhibition for 28 days and specific commentary sought from key business and industry groups.

Solaire Eggert

Manager Economic Development

Attachments:

1 View	Parramatta Economic Development Levy Expenditure FY 2011/12	1 Page
2 View	Assessment Panel Report	4 Pages
3 View	Parramatta Economic Development Levy Proposed Allocation 2012/13	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 23 July 2012 Item 9.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT Use of development contributions for purchase of properties bounded by Balmoral, Kleins and Beamish Roads, Northmead for car parking.

REFERENCE F2005/01594 - D02419879

REPORT OF Project Officer, Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to address the Notice of Motion adopted by Council on 25 June 2012 regarding the use of development contributions to purchase properties bounded by Balmoral, Kleins and Beamish Roads, Northmead for car parking.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Councillor Workshop be held to discuss options for the use of S94 development contributions collected for traffic projects under superseded contribution plans, including consideration of the use of those funds for car parking in Northmead

BACKGROUND

1. Council at its meeting of 25 June 2012 considered a Notice of Motion regarding the purchase of properties in Northmead for the provision of car parking and resolved:

(a) That Council prepare a report to consider including in the Section 94A Work Programme the purchase of properties bounded by Balmoral, Kleins and Beamish Roads, Northmead to facilitate the provision of approximately 90 public car parking spaces, such report to be submitted to the Council Meeting to be held on 23 July 2012.

Development Contributions

2. Council collects development contributions from persons undertaking new development. These funds are pooled together to be spent on capital infrastructure that Council would normally be expected to provide to support the local population. The works items delivered are identified in a works program adopted by Council as part of the Plan. None of the current or former work plans identified land acquisition/ car parking provision in Northmead.

3. Any change to the works program would need to be placed on public exhibition and adopted by Council. Council would also need to decide if this was a one off amendment or part of a comprehensive review of the works program. If this project was added to the work program, other projects may need to be removed as the current works program is based upon the estimated cost of the works equalling the estimated income from development contributions.

4. Council currently has two s94A Development Contributions Plans that came into effect in December 2007 and April 2008. These plans superseded the Comprehensive Parramatta S94 Development Contributions Plan. While most of the funds collected under the former plan have been spent or transferred into the new plans, there are some monies that had been collected for traffic projects in Epping, Dundas, Harris Park and Rosehill, with approximately $1.5 million still available. Possible options for the use of these funds are detailed below and would be subject to further discussions with Councillors:

(i) Spend the money on traffic works in the areas originally identified i.e. Epping, Dundas, Rosehill/Harris Park.

(ii) Utilise the available funds toward the provision of land acquisition/car parking at Northmead. While there are insufficient funds to deliver the desired 90 spaces, the parking area could be reduced in size or the remaining shortfall provided from an alternate funding source such as general revenue.

(iii) Utilise the available funds toward a range of traffic projects across the Parramatta local government area (LGA). A suggested list of priority projects that could be chosen from is provided in the Detailed Report at Attachment 1.

(iv) That Councillors table other suggested traffic improvements across the LGA to be investigated by staff with regard to suitability, preliminary costing and the like.

(v) Roll over the funds into the current s94A contributions plan to assist in the delivery of traffic projects identified in the existing works program as detailed at Attachment 2.

90 Space Car Park: Preliminary Cost Estimate& Zoning Permissibility

5. Council officers have identified preliminary costs associated with land acquisition and construction of a 90 space car park in the area bound by Balmoral, Beamish and Kleins Road. Based upon the existing allotment sizes (between 550m² to 690m² each) Council would be required to purchase 4 properties to provide approximately 80 car parking spaces or 5 properties to provide for 90 – 100 spaces. Having regard to recent sales in the area, a conservative estimate valuation is $500,000 per property.

6. Preliminary estimates suggest that cost of demolition of existing structures and construction of a 90 space car park would be approximately $1.2 million. Accordingly a conservative estimate of the project cost, including land acquisition, is between $3.2 - $3.7million.

7. Land south of Balmoral Road and west of Kleins Road is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Stand alone car parking is prohibited within the R2 zone. Accordingly, should Council pursue the provision of car parking in the R2 zone, this would require the preparation of a planning proposal to either: a) nominate car parking as an additional permitted use on nominated land parcels; or b) change the zoning.

Local Parking Demand & Traffic Issues

8. Long stay parking demand in the local area is attributed to employee parking of the nearby shops/industrial land uses and overflow parking from Westmead Hospital. Short term parking is required for the shop patrons. Recent residential development in Balmoral and Redbank Roads has also increased traffic flows and parking demand in the local area.

9. The suggested 90 spaces included in the Council resolution would be substantially more than is required to support the local shops, but less than required to meet the demand from employees /hospital overflow. If Council did provide the car parking this may actually further increase parking demand and traffic in the area and may also set a precedent for the provision of Council parking in other centres.

10. Council has received planning proposals from the land owners of industrial properties between Windsor Road and Kleins Road seeking additional permitted uses and densities. Preliminary investigations indicate that the changes sought will result in significant traffic generation and will require intersection upgrades at Kleins and Briens Road, including a new left turning bay (Attachment 3). To enable this upgrade existing parking adjacent to the shops will need to be reconfigured resulting in an estimated loss of 10 parking spaces. Further upgrades to the intersection at Redbank Road are also suggested (Attachment 4).

11. It is suggested that a Voluntary Planning Agreement could be negotiated as part of the planning proposals to contribute toward the Kleins/Briens Roads intersection upgrade; and/or the provision of Council owned car parking including land acquisition/dedication, demolition and construction.

12. Council could also increase time limited parking restrictions in proximity to the shopping centre and/ or increase enforcement of existing time restricted parking spaces in the area.

Next Steps

13. Given the range of options and issues associated with the Council resolution, it is recommended that a Councillor Workshop be undertaken to further discuss the matter, with particular emphasis to investigate options for the use of s94 funds collected under superseded plans.

Diane Galea

Project Officer- Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Detailed Report	6 Pages
2 View	Existing S94A Works Program Traffic Projects	1 Page
3 View	Draft Plan Kleins and Briens Road Intersection upgrade	1 Page
4 View	Draft Plan Redbank Road /Briens Road Intersection upgrade	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 23 July 2012 Item 9.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT Heritage Advisory Committee for June 2012

REFERENCE F2005/01945 - D02420559

REPORT OF Project Officer- Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the key discussion points of the meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee on 20 June 2012.

RECOMMENDATION

That the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 20 June 2012 be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee meets every two months and comprises 11 members.

2. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee met on 20 June 2012. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s information and consideration. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Attachment 1.

ISSUES

3. The main issues considered at the meeting were that the Committee:

(a) In response to an update (item 37/12) on the maintenance and condition of St John's Cemetery the Committee resolved that an invitation be extended to the Trustees of St John's Cemetery to attend a future meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee to engage in an exchange of ideas on the future maintenance of the Cemetery. An invitation will be extended to the Trustees of St John's Cemetery to attend a future Committee meeting.

(b) The Committee was advised (item 41/12) that the Gateway determination by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to proceed with the heritage planning proposal was subject to a condition requiring the removal of all proposals in Epping given the Department’s current review of the Epping Town Centre. The condition related to the removal of the proposed extension of the Epping Eastwood Conservation Area, the creation of the Boronia Avenue Conservation Area and the addition of a number of houses to the heritage schedule. The Committee resolved that the Lord Mayor write to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure requesting a reconsideration of the Department's decision. The Lord Mayor has written to the Minister requesting the removal of the condition relating to the Epping heritage proposals.

(c) The Committee recommended (item 42/12) that the following applications for funds from Council's Local Heritage Fund be granted: $1,300 for 3 Kent Street, Epping; $2,650 for 3 – 5 Grandview Street, Parramatta; $2,650 for 11 – 13 Harrison Street, Northmead; $2,650 for 23B Orchard Street, Epping; $1,325 for 36 Prince Street, North Parramatta; and $350 for 105 Railway Street, Parramatta.

(d) The Committee discussed (44/12) the placement of portals in Lennox Bridge. The Committee understood the need to provide access for pedestrians and cyclists but was in favour of alternative options that did not require major changes to the bridge. The Committee resolved that it “- strongly opposes any action to place portals in the Lennox Bridge and further, that Council be requested to locate and consider a copy of the early 1990s report prepared by Rod Howard which indicated that the cables located inside the bridge support the arch and forms an integral fabric of the Bridge. The Committee considers that any proposed works may have an affect on the cables and the sustainability of the Bridge”.

The Committee's resolution opposing the placement of portals in Lennox Bridge will be referred to Council's Development Services Unit to be taken into account in the assessment of any development applications for the portals. From investigations conducted by Council staff there is no knowledge of any cables in the original bridge. There may be cables in the concrete additions as these are reinforced. However, this will be investigated by the engineers engaged during the design stage who will be able to determine how the making of the portal openings can be made without any structural impacts. A full copy of the report referred to by the Committee has been requested by Council.

4. There are no requests for additional expenditure arising from this meeting.

Paul Kennedy Jennifer Concato

Project Officer Acting Manager

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View

Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes for 20 June 2012

7 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 9.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

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

REFERENCE RZ/4/2011 - D02422392

REPORT OF A/Manager Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

To report on the outcome of preliminary community consultation and to seek Council’s endorsement of a planning proposal to amend the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 on land at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part of 2A Darcy Road, Westmead and forward to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration under the Gateway process. Council's endorsement is also sought for a site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for the site.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the planning proposal at Attachment 1 to amend the Parramatta LEP 2011 on land at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part 2A Darcy Road, Westmead 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 the site specific DCP at Attachment 2, being an amendment to the Parramatta DCP 2011, be endorsed for the purposes of public exhibition.

(c) That prior to public exhibition, the Built Forms Control Map and Indicative Concept Plan in the site specific DCP at Attachment 2 be amended to reflect the enlarged heritage curtilage.

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

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

THE SITE

1. The subject site comprises approximately 4 hectares and is located at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and part of 2A Darcy Road, Westmead.

2. The site currently contains buildings utilised by the University of Western Sydney (UWS or University) 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 at-grade commercially operated car parking generally used by hospital staff and the general public.

BACKGROUND

3. In August 2006, following a request made by the University, 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.

4. A report on the planning proposal was presented to Council on 27 February 2012. Council resolved:

(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred for two months and in the meantime, Council consult with the Westmead community in writing and via consultative forums.

(b) Further, that discussions be held with the applicant in relation to the negotiation of a possible voluntary planning agreement.

5. Prior to the commencement of consultation, the University revised the planning proposal and site specific DCP to achieve a more appropriate format for the proposal. There was concern that the previous form of the proposal did not provide sufficient certainty to Council and hence the community as to the future form of development of the site.

6. In response to Council's resolution of 27 February 2012, the planning proposal, site specific DCP and supporting information were publicly exhibited from 6 June to 27 June 2012. Details of the exhibition were placed in the local newspaper, on Council's website, in relevant Council libraries and forwarded to surrounding land owners. Community information sessions were held on 12 June 2012 and 21 June 2012. The results of the consultation are reported in paragraph 11 of this report.

PLANNING PROPOSAL

7. The planning proposal at Attachment 1 seeks to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 by:

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

– Applying maximum heights, which range from 31m (9 storeys) to 48m (15 storeys) as indicated in the site precinct map below. It should be noted that the maximum building height of 48m (15 storeys) only applies to precinct 5. No maximum building height currently applies under Parramatta LEP 2011.

– Applying maximum FSRs, which range from 1.5:1 to 4:1 as indicated in the site precinct map below. No maximum FSRs currently apply under Parramatta LEP 2011.

– Requiring a minimum of 30% non-residential floor space on land fronting Hawkesbury and Darcy Roads (excluding the St Vincent's building).

Adobe Systems

8. The planning proposal is supported by detailed studies: Survey Plan, Urban Design Analysis, Traffic and Access Report, Contamination and Hazardous Material Assessment, Heritage and Archaeological Reports (including Supplementary Heritage Assessment), Geotechnical Report, Fauna and Flora Report, Site Condition Assessment and Infrastructure Services, Social Effects Analysis, Economic Effect Analysis, Visual Impact Assessment and Consultation Outcomes Report. Copies of studies are available upon request. A summary of these studies, including background information and more detailed justification is located at Attachment 3.

SITE SPECIFIC DCP

9. The site specific DCP, which will be incorporated into Part 4 Special Precincts of the Parramatta DCP 2011, has been prepared (at Attachment 2) and is submitted to Council for endorsement for the purposes of public exhibition. It is proposed that it be exhibited at the same time as the planning proposal. The site specific DCP deals with controls such as; building form and massing (including building setbacks), public domain and indicative layout, heritage and traffic and transport.

10. The site specific DCP provides for the following site objectives:

· The delivery of mixed use development that supports and meets the needs of the Westmead Precinct.

· To ensure the built form features articulation and an attractive composition of building elements with a strong relationship between buildings and the streetscape.

· To ensure the future built form is responsive to the existing siting, scale, form and character of heritage items.

· To provide appropriate provision of and high quality public domain elements, including internal streets, footpaths, open space and public square for the benefit of the existing and future community.

· To ensure building height is distributed across the site having regard for orientation, overshadowing, heritage buildings and views / vistas.

· To provide active ground floor uses along Hawkesbury Road and Darcy Road to increase the safety, use and interest of the street.

· To provide a visual and physical connection throughout the site for a high level of surveillance and safety.

· To accommodate generated traffic and the mitigation of traffic effects, and the promotion of public transport to the site.

CONSULTATION

11. The community consultation undertaken for the proposal resulted in 12 people attending the information sessions and 4 written submissions, included at Attachment 4. The key issues raised included the scale of development and traffic and transport. These issues are outlined and commented on at Attachment 5. The following section of this report provides a discussion on the key aspects of the proposal including the issues raised in the submissions.

ISSUES

Land Use Planning and Urban Design

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

– The proposal is consistent with the 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.

13. The average FSR of 3:1 for the site, with a range of FSRs from 1.5:1 to 4:1 to parts of the site, is considered appropriate given the site’s strategic location. The site’s location provides an opportunity to deliver a transit orientated development which allows for greater intensity of uses to optimise the advantage of available transport infrastructure.

14. The application of a proposed maximum height of 48m (15 storeys) for the site in Parramatta LEP 2011, with a range of maximum heights for parts of the site 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).

– 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 the eastern side of Hawkesbury Road (existing 4 storeys and earmarked for increased density and height).

– Overshadowing concerns were raised in a submission from Holroyd Council. Investigations indicate that development will cause minimal overshadowing and loss of sunlight, as seen from diagrams included at Attachment 6. Further, whilst buildings up to a height of 15 storeys on the site will be visible to residences in Holroyd City there is a substantial buffer of the rail corridor and the road reserve which substantially mitigates the effects. The site specific DCP provides sufficient principles for the Development Application stage, to ensure that development on the site is designed and sited to minimise the extent of shadows that its casts on adjoining properties.

– Based on research commissioned by the University and included at Attachment 7, the proposed high rise buildings should not impact on views from Parramatta Park. The research concludes that it will be difficult to discern the physical massing and built form of future development on the site from within Parramatta Park. Potential views will be filtered by distance, intervening urban development, the extensive stands of vegetation and the topographical changes across Parramatta Park. Council together with the State and Federal Governments are at the early stages of embarking on a broader strategic study of views from Old Government House and its Domain (Parramatta Park) and how they may impact on the development of the Parramatta CBD and Westmead.

15. 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.

16. The site specific DCP is considered appropriate in that:

– the conceptual plan of development is generally in line with indicative concept plans included in earlier strategic plans for Westmead;

– it provides for a mixed use development reflecting the proposed zoning;

– it provides for public domain elements, including landscaping and a town square which will enhance development of the site and the amenity of Westmead; and

– it provides for building forms that are appropriate for the site and surroundings.

Heritage

17. The site is of local heritage significance as listed in Parramatta LEP 2011. The heritage inventories for the site identify the St Vincent's Boys Home fronting Hawkesbury Road and the Victorian residence (also referred to as Bayley's Cottage) as significant heritage items. The supplementary heritage assessment undertaken of the site by Tanner Architects identified the trades building as being of moderate heritage significance and sufficiently intact to demonstrate its original industrial education function. The University originally requested that the heritage curtilage not include the trades building. As recommended by Tanner Architects, and supported by Council's heritage adviser, the heritage curtilage has been enlarged to include the trades building. This enlarged curtilage will ensure that the buildings of heritage significance and their settings are retained and appropriately managed.

18. Consequently, the Built Forms Control Map and Indicative Concept Plan in the site specific DCP will be amended to reflect the enlarged heritage curtilage prior to the exhibition of the DCP. It is acknowledged that this enlarged curtilage may impact on the final design at Development Application stage.

Traffic and Transport

19. 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 (opposite the main Westmead Public Hospital entrance) for all vehicular movements. This intersection currently operates with spare capacity and therefore 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.

– On the basis of the indicative land-use mix and proposed parking rates, it is anticipated that the development could generate up to 650 vehicle trips in the weekday AM peak and up to 1,000 vehicle trips in the weekday PM peak period.

– Maximum parking rates are proposed in the site specific DCP which have been based on the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. On this basis 1,400 parking spaces may be provided on site in a number of underground car parks.

– Planning for the UWS site has been on the basis of achieving a public transport modal share of 35% in the week day peak periods. The table below demonstrates that the relatively low parking rates will assist in achieving the desired level of public transport usage.

Land use	Target mode split
	Non-car	Car
Residential	57%	43%
Non-residential	30%	70%
Total	46%	54%

20. The forecast traffic generation in the traffic report is based on an indicative land use representing the total gross floor area sought by the FSR in the planning proposal. The actual traffic generation when the site is developed may vary due to the final land use mix. The final land use mix and density will be determined at Development Application stage at which further detailed traffic modelling and analysis will be undertaken. This requirement together with other traffic and transport provisions have been inserted in the site specific DCP (refer to Attachment 2).

21. Council’s Transport Planning and Traffic Services units have indicated that the proposal is acceptable.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

22. 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 up zoning land.

23. However, the University 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 (VPA) with Council at this early phase of the project. The University acknowledges that a future developer of the site may wish to enter into a VPA with Council at the Development Application stage.

24. In response to Council's resolution of 27 February 2012 further discussions have been held with the University in relation to the negotiation of a possible VPA. However, the University has restated its position in a letter dated 12 March 2012 (refer to Attachment 8) to not enter into a VPA at this stage.

25. The purpose of a VPA is to capture some of the value uplift resulting from the increased potential in density and height and change in zone for public benefit purposes. A VPA linked to this planning proposal could contribute to progressing the provision of specific infrastructure for the precinct. VPA’s are best negotiated at the rezoning stage as it provides certainty, negotiation is with one landowner and it is clearly distinguished from Section 94A development contributions which will be levied at Development Application stage.

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 Department for Gateway determination should Council resolve to support and proceed with this proposal.

27. Community consultation is undertaken after Council and the Department have considered and subsequently approved to proceed with the amendments. It is proposed that in accordance with the Department'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 including the Parramatta Park Trust. It is noted that confirmation of the public exhibition period and requirements for the planning proposal will be stipulated in the Gateway determination.

28. The site specific DCP will be publicly exhibited simultaneously with the planning proposal.

CONCLUSION

29. The planning proposal seeks a change of zoning to B4 Mixed Use with a range of different height limits up to 48m and a range of different FSRs with an average of FSR of 3:1, as well as the provision for 30% minimum non-residential floor space on the Hawkesbury and Darcy Roads frontages for the site at 154 – 164 Hawkesbury Road and part of 2A Darcy Road, Westmead. The planning proposal is supported by a site specific DCP that allows for a mixed use development with the provision of open space and a town square.

30. The planning proposal and site specific DCP are considered acceptable to forward to the Department for Gateway determination for reasons outlined below:

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

(ii) An average FSR of 3:1 is considered appropriate given the site’s strategic location. The site’s location provides an opportunity to deliver a transit orientated development which allows for greater intensity of uses to optimise the advantage of available transport infrastructure.

(iii) A modal split target of 35% public transport usage has been established. This together with other Traffic and Transport provisions will be controlled in the site specific DCP.

(iv) The maximum height limit of 48 m (15 storeys) will only apply to a portion of the site. The proposed range of 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.

(v) The heritage significance of the site will be adequately protected and managed.

(vi) The conceptual plan of development is consistent with indicative concept plans included in strategic plans for Westmead and will help achieve Council’s vision of creating a vibrant world class medical precinct of high amenity values.

Paul Kennedy Jennifer Concato

Project Officer Acting Manager

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Planning Proposal for UWS Westmead Campus Redevelopment	17 Pages
2 View	Site Specific DCP	15 Pages
3 View	Background Information and more detailed information	46 Pages
4 View	Submissions from Community Consultation	12 Pages
5 View	Summary of Issues from Community Consultation	2 Pages
6 View	Shadow Diagrams	2 Pages
7 View	Visual Impact Assessment	4 Pages
8 View	Letter dated 12 March 2012 from University of Western Sydney	7 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 23 July 2012 Item 9.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.6

SUBJECT Future Development of Auto Alley

REFERENCE F2011/02749 - D02425020

REPORT OF A/Manager Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s position on the future development of the Auto Alley precinct and surrounding area including the endorsement of Option 2B and to forward to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for their consideration during the preparation of the draft Urban Renewal Study.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the submissions made during the public consultation of the options and Urban Design Analysis for the Auto Alley precinct.

(b) That Council adopt and forward Option 2B to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for their consideration during the preparation of the draft Urban Renewal Study.

(c) That Council adopt and outline the importance of retaining the highest percentage of employment lands in Auto Alley within a B5 Business Development zone to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

(d) That Council request the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority to prepare the studies identified in this report, in consultation with Council, prior to the statutory exhibition of the draft Urban Renewal Study.

(e) Further, that Council advises the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure of its objection to amending the planning controls for the area marked ‘A’ in Attachment 3.

BACKGROUND

1. A report outlining the recent work undertaken by the City Strategy Unit regarding the future development of the Auto Alley Precinct, south of the Great Western Highway was considered by Council on 26 March 2012. The report presented four strategic growth options for Council’s consideration (refer to Attachment 1). Following two Councillor Workshops (held 20 February and 13 March) Council resolved on 26 March 2012:

(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 1B provided in this report for purposes of consultation with land owners and stakeholders.

(c) Further, that a report be provided back to Council following the public consultation.

2. The Auto Alley precinct was identified for investigation for urban renewal under the NSW Government’s State Environmental Planning Policy (Urban Renewal) 2010 (the SEPP). The SEPP requires an Urban Renewal Study to be prepared to allow the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to determine whether a potential urban renewal precinct should be developed. The Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority (SMDA) is responsible for preparing the Urban Renewal Study in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The Parramatta City Centre Vision 2007 also identifies Auto Alley as a key component for future development of the City and requires detailed urban design analysis to be conducted.

3. Council staff have assisted the SMDA in the preparation of preliminary investigations in the form of an Urban Design Analysis. This analysis concentrated on the current commercially zoned land on either side of Church Street.

PLANNING PROPOSALS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL

4. Council has received a planning proposal for land at 57, 63 & 83 Church Street and 44 Early Street, Parramatta, owned by the Heartland Group. The planning proposal broadly seeks to rezone 44 Early Street and the western portions of 83 and 63 Church Street B4 Mixed Use with a certain provision of commercial use (retain the B5 Business Development zoning on the Church Street frontage), apply an increased building height ranging from 10 to 40 storeys across the site, increase the FSR to 6:1 (average across the site) and zone 57 Church Street RE1 Public Recreation and dedicate to Council (together with other laneways and road widening).

5. Council has also received a preliminary rezoning concept for land at 12-20 Dixon Street, Parramatta, on behalf of the landowners. The rezoning concept seeks a B4 Mixed Use zone, a building height of 60 metres (approximately 20 storeys) and no specified FSR. This is a predominantly residential proposal.

6. These two (2) proposals will be reported to Council for consideration and determination in August.

IMPORTANCE OF AUTO ALLEY AS AN EMPLOYMENT PRECINCT

7. Only 24% of the Parramatta 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.

8. 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 current Sydney Metropolitan Plan job target of 27,000 new jobs by 2036. The current planning controls only allow a capacity of approximately 1,700 jobs and Option 1B allows a capacity of approximately 13,000 jobs. Option 2B has the capacity to provide a sizable sector of approximately 10,500 jobs. Should Auto Alley’s capacity for jobs be significantly reduced below 10,500 it is unlikely that Parramatta will be able to reach the employment targets set in the current Sydney Metropolitan Plan.

9. Aside from the target of 27,000 jobs within the Parramatta City Centre, the Sydney Metropolitan Plan has also identified a target of 21,000 dwellings across the LGA. Parramatta has demonstrated capacity to meet the residential target in existing residential areas through Parramatta LEP 2011 and Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, but if areas zoned exclusively for commercial purposes in the Parramatta CBD are converted to strata residential, the jobs target will likely be difficult, if at all possible, to achieve.

10. Development of lands for employment uses has not been occurring at the desired rate partly given the significant amount of the Parramatta City Centre zoned B4 Mixed Use which is heavily weighted to residential development in the current market. Auto Alley with its very large sites in single ownership, provides a critical bank of land for the future growth of employment in the Parramatta CBD. This is not only of importance to Parramatta, but also for the western Sydney region and Sydney as a whole.

OPTIONS PLACED ON PUBLIC EXHIBITION

11. Council adopted Option 1B (refer to Attachment 2) for the purposes of public consultation. This option retains the commercial land zoning and prohibits residential development. It increases the floor space ratio to 4:1 (and 6:1 in the block bound by Parkes and Anderson Streets and Jubilee Park) with a building height ranging from 8 to 30 storeys allowing for a higher potential jobs yield (approximately 13,000).

12. The SMDA’s preferred option contains Option 2B presented to Council (refer to area marked ‘B’ in Attachment 3) on 26 March 2012 for land either side of Church Street (refer to Attachment 4 for Council’s version of Option 2B). However, the SMDA’s exhibited option applied to a broader area. This includes land west of Church Street up to Marsden Street (refer to area marked ‘A’ in Attachment 3) and east of Church Street up to the Railway Line at Harris Park (refer area marked ‘C’ in Attachment 3). The area marked ‘A’ was exhibited with a potential height limit of 6 storeys. The area marked ‘C’ was exhibited with a potential height limit ranging from 6 to 30 storeys.

13. Council staff have expressed concerns with the SMDA in a letter dated 12 June 2012 around the realities of increasing development potential on highly restricted land within the SMDA’s broader study area, particularly the area marked ‘A’ in Attachment 3. This land contains existing medium and high density residential developments, small lots, narrow roads, strata subdivision, large number of landowners, heritage items and a nearby heritage conservation area (South Parramatta Conservation Area). There is the potential for this option to create unrealistic expectations within a volatile market and area given these significant constraints.

14. Parramatta LEP 2011 (which applies to the area marked ‘A’ in Attachment 3) was published in October 2011 which ‘upzoned’ land adjoining railway stations to facilitate medium and high density residential development. This recent ‘upzoning’ of residential land throughout the LGA exceeds Parramatta’s dwelling target set in the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036. There appears to be no compelling planning reason for future ‘upzoning’ of residential land in this highly constrained area in the foreseeable future, as it is not required to meet any dwelling targets.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

15. The public consultation was held from 16 May to 6 June 2012. The consultation was hosted by Parramatta City Council, Holroyd City Council and the SMDA. This consultation period was an opportunity to exhibit the Council’s adopted option with the SMDA’s preferred option to inform the preparation of an Urban Renewal Study for the Auto Alley Precinct. The purpose of the upcoming Study, being prepared by the SMDA, will be to further investigate a single future redevelopment option for this precinct.

16. The following information was displayed during this consultation:

a. Council’s adopted Option 1B (exclusively commercial)

b. SMDA’s adopted Option (Commercial and Mixed Use along Church Street and increase residential density in broader area)

c. Urban Design Analysis – Preliminary Investigations

17. The two options (referred to as ‘concepts’ during the consultation period) and the preliminary investigations were displayed on the web site of the SMDA and offices and web sites of Parramatta City Council and Holroyd City Council. Newspaper advertisements were placed in the Parramatta Advertiser (16 and 30 May) and Holroyd Sun (17 and 31 May). Letters were mailed to all landowners within the area generally bound by Pitt Street, Argyle Street, Railway Line and Boundary Street. A community drop-in session was also held on Saturday, 26 May 2012 at the Parramatta City Council Chambers Building where 50 signatories viewed the display and discussed it with the officers of the three authorities.

18. Twenty-five (25) submissions were received. Of the 25, 14 were from individuals, 5 from car dealerships, 1 from the Urban Taskforce and 5 feedback forms. A summary of the submissions as well as the general remarks made at the community drop-in session is provided at Attachment 5. A copy of the submissions is available upon request. An outline of the key issues is provided in the following section of this report.

ISSUES RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION

19. Preference for commercial and residential development

Many of the submissions supported the SMDA’s preferred option of mixed use, to include both commercial and residential uses. Reasoning for this includes, creating a vibrant and exciting place as well as stimulating change and growth.

Comment: The current market pressures are for residential development. Should Auto Alley for the most part or in its entirety be zoned B4 Mixed Use to allow a mix of residential and commercial development, it is likely, that residential development will occur at the expense of commercial development. Once residential development occurs and is strata titled, it is highly unlikely to be converted to commercial use. Additionally, a dominance of residential development may challenge and deter commercial development from occurring in the area. An attractive commercial character and clustering requires a sufficient scale, density and outlook that is not diluted by residential uses and infrastructure. Auto Alley is a vital part of the future growth of the City’s commercial space. Ensuring a balanced approach by way of planning controls (i.e. identifying the location of the commercial zone (B5) and mixed use zone (B4)) is required. This would include sufficient commercial land to ensure 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 precinct improvements and redevelopment.

20. Increased density west of Church Street (area marked ‘A’ in Attachment 3)

A concern was raised with the appropriateness of increasing the height limit to 6 storeys and that such significant changes will alter the character of the low density area. Another issue raised during the community drop-in session was the unlikelihood of this area being redeveloped due to existing strata and that the proposed incentives are not substantial enough to facilitate change.

Comment: The appropriateness of increasing density in this highly constrained area has not been sufficiently investigated or justified by the SMDA or Council at this point in time. This should not be a priority given these constraints and the capability of Parramatta to meet its residential growth target.

21. Negative affect on present motor showroom businesses

One submission identified that the car dealerships preference is for branding through building design and high visibility to the street.

Comment: More detailed analysis on the transition in building from is required by the SMDA. Any changes should enable the types of buildings that suit existing and future potential industries.

22. Heritage

The preservation heritage in the area was identified generally and in determining the location of new roads and lanes.

Comment: Further heritage analysis is required by the SMDA during the preparation of the draft Urban Renewal Study. This analysis is largely required to inform the location of new roads and lanes and the impact of built form control changes in the area particularly in the area marked ‘A’ in Attachment 3 (should the SMDA proceed with this area).

23. Proposed new roads and lanes

Some proposed roads and lanes were supported and others not supported. The functionality and servicing needs require further examination. A request for an effective and real method available to compensate landowners for the cost of their land required for new streets to benefit the broader precinct has been identified.

Comment: The draft Urban Renewal Study should review the location and functionality of proposed roads and lanes through a Traffic and Transport Analysis Report as well as the analysis of land ownership and potential development parcels. It is also noted that an increase in floor space and building height acts as a catalyst and funding source for public domain improvements whilst providing a net benefit to the landowner. However further analysis is required by the SMDA to ensure planning controls are equitable across the precinct, particularly for those landowners affected by a potential new road or lane.

24. Public domain improvements

Many of the submissions sought public domain improvements in the form of new street trees, new parks, improved streetscapes and new community facilities.

Comment: Any redevelopment of the precinct will be supported by public domain improvements through the preparation and implementation of a public domain plan that will address the need for improved streetscapes, street trees and furniture, new public open space and community facilities.

25. Public transport improvements

Upgrade of Harris Park Station, including pedestrian access and parking as well as improvements to the timetable were identified. Greater public transport accessibility to the Parramatta CBD was also recognised.

Comment: The preparation of the draft Urban Renewal Study by the SMDA will be supported by a range of studies including a Traffic and Transport Analysis that should also include an analysis of current and proposed improvements to public transport and pedestrian movement. Service frequency to Harris Park remains an issue that would need to be addressed by the State Government.

26. Lack of studies

Several submissions raised a lack of studies prepared to inform the options exhibited.

Comment: The purpose of this exhibition was to seek landowner and community input into the preparation of the draft Urban Renewal Study, which it is understood will be based on a single preferred option. The preparation of this draft Study by the SMDA will be supported by a range of studies including (but not limited to); Heritage Impact, Traffic and Transport Analysis, Economic Analysis, Public Domain Plan, Social and Community Analysis and Built Form Analysis (transition in building form) prior to its formal exhibition.

THE SMDA’ S PROCESS

27. Following the public consultation, the SMDA is currently in the process of considering the issues raised in the submissions and preparing the draft Urban Renewal Study. The board of the SMDA convened on 27 June 2012 and considered the submissions received. It is understood that no decision on the future redevelopment option has yet been made by the SMDA.

28. The process for implementation of a recommended option has yet to be finalised. It is understood that the draft Urban Renewal Study will be based on a preferred redevelopment option. Council therefore needs to determine its preferred option for consideration by the SMDA and Minister for Planning and Infrastructure during the preparation of this Study. Once prepared it will be placed on public consultation where landowners and interested parties will be given an opportunity to comment on the Study. This will also be an opportunity for Council to restate its position on the future planning controls for Church Street, and the broader area (should the SMDA proceed with the broader area).

29. Once the Study has been finalised by the SMDA and publicly exhibited, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will determine whether to proceed and implement the Study. Should the Minister decide to implement the Study, this would involve amending the land zoning, height and FSR of the precinct. This could be done by way of the SEPP or the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 (for Church Street) and Parramatta LEP 2011 (for the broader area). It is also understood that new DCPs are likely to be prepared by the SMDA for the Council to enforce.

RECOMMENDATION

30. Following the feedback received at the community drop-in session and in the written submissions it is recommended that Council adopt Option 2B (Attachment 4) to forward to the SMDA and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for consideration during the preparation of the draft Urban Renewal Study. Council should note that this is a proposed change to the previous endorsed concept. Option 2B would provide for a balanced approach including sufficient commercial land to ensure 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 a stimulus for precinct improvements and redevelopment.

31. The main benefits of this option are:

a. The creation of a revitalised ambience by permitting a controlled portion of residential and commercial area.

b. The large commercial sites will be retained, by way of a B5 Business Development zone, on both sides of Church Street therefore preserving a commercial capacity and appearance for Parramatta’s southern gateway. These large floor place 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. This option provides for an additional 10,500 jobs.

c. Although only 24% of the City Centre is zoned exclusively for commercial purposes (office and retail) and Auto Alley is currently a third of this exclusively commercial zoned land, the capacity to provide a sizable sector of approximately 10,500 jobs is a significant contribution to Parramatta’s ability to release its vision as being a successful CBD for western Sydney. The current planning controls only allow a capacity of approximately 1,700 jobs.

d. Allowing some residential development to be built along the western edge abutting the existing residential area and increased FSR will assist landowners offset the costs of providing site area for new parks and streets which would benefit the entire precinct (including the commercial component along Church Street). It also allows for some tower developments towards the north, adjacent to existing tall apartment buildings. It will most likely advance the timing of the redevelopment of Auto Alley.

32. It is also recommended that the Council advises the SMDA and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure of the following:

a. Its objection to amending the planning controls for the area marked ‘A’ in Attachment 3 for the reasons discussed under the section titled ‘OPTIONS PLACED ON PUBLIC EXHIBITION’.

b. Its request to prepare the studies identified in this report prior to the statutory exhibition of the draft Urban Renewal Study and in consultation with Council.

c. The importance of retaining the highest percentage of employment lands in Auto Alley within a B5 Business Development zone.

CONCLUSION

33. The community drop-in session and written submissions raised numerous issues including a preference for commercial and residential development, concerns around increased density west of Auto Alley, the negative affect on present motor showroom businesses, the preservation of heritage, proposed new roads and lanes, improvements to the public domain and public transport, and the lack of studies.

34. It is in Council’s best interests to select its preferred option for consideration by the SMDA and Minister for Planning and Infrastructure during the preparation of the draft Urban Renewal Study.

Jennifer Concato

A/Manager Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	All options considered by Council on 26 March 2012	4 Pages
2 View	Council’s Option 1B (Commercial only)	1 Page
3 View	SMDA’s preferred option	1 Page
4 View	Council’s Option 2B (Mixed Use)	1 Page
5 View	Summary of submissions	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 23 July 2012 Item 10.1

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT Draft Duck River Catchment Waterways Maintenance & Rehabilitation Master Plan and Upper Duck River Riparian & Wetland Plan of Management

REFERENCE F2004/06136 - D02400220

REPORT OF Senior Open Space and Natural Resources Manager

PURPOSE:

To seek Council endorsement for the public exhibition of the Duck River Catchment Waterways Maintenance and Rehabilitation Master Plan and the Draft Upper Duck River Riparian and Wetland Plan of Management.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Draft Duck River Catchment Waterways Maintenance and Rehabilitation Master Plan and the Draft Upper Duck River Riparian and Wetland Plan of Management (Attachments 1 & 2) be placed on exhibition for a period of 28 days at the Parramatta City (central) Library, Granville Library, the Darcy Street Administration Building Customer Service Centre and on Council’s website.

(b) Further, that a report of the public submissions be brought back to Council for consideration following the exhibition period.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s adopted Rivers of Opportunity waterways strategy outlines a number of key areas for implementing waterways improvement. One of these areas is the development of Waterways Rehabilitation and Maintenance Master Plans (WRMPs). WRMPs provide a consistent, prioritised and agreed program of maintenance and restoration works for waterways. The premise behind Council’s approach is to preserve the ecological integrity of the waterways while recognising and managing the constraints provided by urbanisation at an acceptable level.

2. Council has previously adopted WRMPs for Toongabbie Creek (2002), Vineyard Creek (2003), Quarry Branch Creek (2006) and Ponds Subiaco Creek (2009).

3. In May 2011 Council successfully attained a Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (CMA) grant to prepare the Upper Duck River Riparian and Wetland Plan of Management (PoM). The $31,000 dollar for dollar grant is supported by a memorandum of agreement between Parramatta City Council, Auburn City Council and the CMA. Auburn Council has provided a further $15,000 cash contribution for the preparation of the PoM and the CMA grant deadline is September 2012.

4. Duck River currently forms the boundary between Parramatta City Council and Auburn City Council. The PoM is a planning document designed to form a management partnership and collaboration between Parramatta City Council and Auburn City Council to jointly manage, and focus efforts in the coordinated management of the Upper Duck River wetlands and riparian zones. These unique areas contain seven Endangered Ecological Communities and are home for numerous threatened animals and plants.

5. The PoM specifically addresses the wetland and riparian zones of both the eastern (Auburn Council) and the western (Parramatta Council) banks of the Duck River between the Sydney Water pipeline in the south and the Clyde Weir in the north (defined as the Upper Duck River). The Master Plan is a broader document that addresses the greater Duck River catchment area within the Parramatta LGA, and includes the suburbs of Granville, Merrylands, Guildford and Chester Hill.

6. In order to maximise value for money, the preparation/consultation and public exhibition phases of both documents has been prepared simultaneously. One consultant (Applied Ecology Pty Ltd) has been engaged to prepare and complete both documents.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

7. The Master Plan contains three volumes. Volume One contains the preliminary studies including the introduction and background information; Volume Two contains the detailed A3 mapping section which is comprised of a series of A3 maps of the various sections of the catchment and waterways, and Volume Three is the working document and Master Plan which includes the proposed management actions.

8. Each of the final plans consists of a vision, objectives, description of the catchment and detailed action plan. There is a set of feature maps for identification of specific attributes of the broader catchment and a set of reach maps that contain site specific actions at a series of locations along the waterway. The Plans will also include accompanying special reports on the geomorphic assessment of the waterway and European and Aboriginal studies of sites within or adjacent to the creek.

9. The geomorphic assessment includes an analysis of the physical characteristics of the waterway, specification of stream restoration targets and identification of priority actions. The Aboriginal and European Heritage studies have been included in the planning process to ensure that any planned waterways restoration works are considered in the context of any identified heritage sites and to minimise impacts to those sites.

10. The Master Plan and PoM identify a range of maintenance and rehabilitation actions. These are a combination of hard and soft civil works together with a range of intensive vegetative measures. Examples include bank stabilisation, managing environmental weeds, path and track management, stormwater outlet works, protection of potential heritage items, interpretative signage and education.

11. These actions will be used to inform future work priorities under Council’s existing annual Natural Resource Program budgets (including projects such as Waterways Restoration, Restoration of Natural Areas, Water Quality Improvement, Bushland Protection, and Walking Track Construction). Actions identify in the PoM will also guide priorities for Auburn Council and potential separate or joint grant applications.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. The Master Plan has been developed through collaboration between the management and staff of Auburn Council, the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority and Council’s City Assets and Environment Unit.

13. A range of stakeholders were consulted during the preparation of the plans. Representation was sought from local government, the CMA, special interest groups, local residents and the broader community. Approximately 350 invitations were issued and 35 people attended the community consultation and information session which was conducted on the evening of 12 March 2012 at the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre.

14. The Draft Master Plan and PoM is proposed to be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days during which time the community will have the opportunity to provide comment. The documents will be exhibited on Council’s website and at Council’s Administration Building and Parramatta and Granville libraries. A report will be brought back to Council with consideration of public submissions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

15. The cost of the consultancy to produce the Master Plan is $32,000 and the Plan of Management is $46,000. The total cost of $78,000 is partially funded by the CMA grant contribution of $31,000 and an Auburn Council contribution of $15,000. Council’s total contribution for the preparation and completion of the two plans is $32,000.

16. Once finalised, both plans will be used to inform work priorities under Council’s existing annual Natural Resource Program budgets and will also assist in the preparation of grant applications, including possibly shared projects with Auburn Council.

Pino Todarello

Senior Open Space and Natural Resources Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Draft Duck River Catchment Waterways Maintenance and Rehabilitation Master Plan	220 Pages
2 View	Draft Upper Duck River Riparian and Wetland Plan of Management	145 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 10.2

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Parramatta City Ring Road

REFERENCE F2011/03214 - D02412784

REPORT OF Traffic & Transport Support Officer.Traffic and Transport

PURPOSE:

To progress the implementation of the Parramatta City Ring Road.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council support, in principle, the concepts outlined in the report for the Parramatta City Ring Road.

(b)That Council seek a partnership with Roads and Maritime Services to implement the Parramatta City Ring Road.

BACKGROUND

The Integrated Transport Plan included proposals for a Regional Ring Road and a City Ring Road (also known as the Inner Ring Road). The routes for both the Regional Ring Road and City Ring Road where included in the Integrated Transport Plan. However, the proposed works on these routes were to be determined as part of the detailed planning.

The route of the City Ring Road includes Victoria Road, O’Connell Street/Pitt Street, Great Western Highway, Parkes Street, Harris Street and Macarthur Street. This is a combination of Main Roads and Regional Roads. The City Ring Road includes projects to increase capacity to accommodate growth, improve pedestrian safety and provide bus priority in Smith Street. The City Ring Road supports the strategy to relocate Council’s car parks to the fringes of the CBD and encourages local traffic to travel around the CBD rather than through the centre.

The City Ring Road is proposed to include the following projects (in probable order of implementation):

1. Intersection of George Street and O’Connell Street

Widen footpath in front of Tudor Gates, provide signalised marked foot crossing on south side of the intersection.

2. Intersection of Great Western Highway and Marsden Street

Provide left turn lane (eastbound) into Marsden Street.

3. Intersection of Church Street, Parkes Street and Great Western Highway

Provide additional right turn lane (northbound) into Parkes Street and additional signalised foot crossing on the north side of intersection.

4. Parkes Street between Great Western Highway and Harris Street (partly a lower priority than item 5)

Provide two through lanes in each direction by installing right turn bays and right turn bans and a median, (incorporating a pedestrian fence) west of railway line.

5. Intersection of Parkes Street and Harris Street

Road widening to provide three lanes on southbound and westbound approaches, new signalised foot crossing on east side of intersection, pedestrian refuge island in Harris Street at Hassall Street.

6. Harris Street, Macarthur Street and George Street

Duplicate Gasworks Bridge, provide pedestrian and cycle path on east side of bridge, upgrade approach intersections, make George Street two-way to the east of Harris Street.

7. Intersection of Victoria Road and Smith Street

Additional northbound lane in Wilde Avenue for buses only and improve road geometry for westbound traffic.

8. Intersection of Great Western Highway and Pitt Street

Provide left turn for westbound traffic into Pitt Street.

Financial Impact Statement

There is no direct impact from adopting the recommendation for this report. Further reports would be required before any construction occurs. It is intended that the works be funded primarily through the City Improvement Plan developer contributions, contributions from specific sites, and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Regional Roads funds. There are also other traffic projects in the CBD that will also make use of City Improvement Plan funds.

The total estimated cost is $36 million.

Designs for items 1 and 2 are nearing completion. Concepts have been prepared for items 3 and 7. Design has commenced for Item 4 (west of the railway line).

Items 4, 5 and 8 require minor road widening reservations. A substantial road widening reservation is proposed on the Heartland Holden site, for northbound traffic in Church Street (item 3). Road widening reservations were considered in a report to the Council meeting of 25 June 2012.

Consultation

The City Ring Road was discussed at a Councillor Workshop on 30 April 2012. The main suggestion from this workshop was for item 4 to include consideration of a pedestrian overbridge for Parkes Street near Cowper Street. This investigation will be included in the concept design stage for Parkes Street. Further consultation will be undertaken prior to any construction occurring.

Richard Searle

Service Manager Traffic and Transport

Attachments:

1 View

Proposed upgrades for Parramatta City Ring Road plan

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 10.3

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Barry Wilde Bridge Sewer Pipe Relocation

REFERENCE F2010/02284 - D02416313

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer – Environmental Outcomes

PURPOSE:

To report on investigations into relocating the sewer pipe underneath Barry Wilde Bridge.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the contents of this report be noted;

(b) That the CEO be authorised to continue investigations into options for relocation of the sewer pipe; and

(c) Further, that a report on the outcomes of these investigations be presented to Council for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

1. A Sydney Water sewer pipeline of 500mm diameter crosses the Parramatta River underneath Barry Wilde Bridge (see photo below).

2. The pipeline is located alongside a footbridge which also crosses the River.

3. The sewer pipeline (and footbridge) creates a barrier across the River preventing boat movement between the upper section (Marsden St Weir to Barry Wilde Bridge) and the lower section (Barry Wilde Bridge to Charles St Weir).

4. The sewer pipeline is an unattractive feature of the foreshore area.

5. The sewer pipeline (and footbridge) present a barrier to floodwaters and make flooding worse upstream. During recent flooding (April 2012) several cars parked in the Brandsmart car park located upstream of the pipeline were damaged by floodwater.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. A report was commissioned from a consulting engineer to determine if in principle the sewer pipeline could be buried underneath the bed of the Parramatta River.

7. The engineering report indicated that the sewer pipeline could be buried, at an approximate cost of $1 million.

8. A separate investigation is being conducted to investigate if the footbridge could or should be moved.

9. The investigations into the sewer pipeline / footbridge removal will be useful if other opportunities such as infrastructure upgrades, redevelopment of the foreshore or grants for river activation works arise.

10. Permission is now sought to continue investigations into moving the sewer pipeline, including discussions with external funding organisations about whether grants / contributions towards moving the pipeline might be available.

TIMEFRAME

11. Further work on this issue will continue over the next 6 months

Financial ImpactS

12. There are no financial implications in adopting this report.

Paul Hackney

Senior Project Officer

Environmental Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View	Consultants report on feasibility of moving sewer pipeline	22 Pages
2 View	Aerial photo showing Parramatta River in CBD	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 11.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT 2013 Parramatta City Council Community Grants Program

REFERENCE F2012/01710 - D02407250

REPORT OF Grants Officer

PURPOSE:

To provide an overview on the 2013 Annual Community Grants Program and associated activities and to provide an update on existing grants programs.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the 2013 Parramatta City Council Community Grants open on Monday 17 September 2012 and close at 4pm on Friday 7 December 2012 and run to the timetable outlined in the report.

(b) That all Councillors be invited to receive briefings on applications and participate in the Councillor Assessment Panel prior to Council considering the Panel’s recommendations.

(c) Further, that grant guidelines be amended to allow a maximum 15% auspice fee within the budget for any applicant project that requires auspicing by an incorporated body.

BACKGROUND

Parramatta City Council’s Community Grants

1. Parramatta City Council’s Community Grants Program provides an annual funding opportunity for the Parramatta Local Government Area. The grants program aims to support local not-for-profit community-based groups, organisations and services and, in one category, individuals. Through the Community Grants Program, Council supports a wide range of services and activities that contribute to the strategic objectives and destination statements of the Parramatta Twenty25 strategy.

2. Since its establishment in 2006 the capacity building focused program has attracted over 500 applications requesting over $4 million. Council has contributed to 260 projects, injecting $2.86 million into the community and supporting a wide range of services and activities that build community capacity and build on existing community strengths.

3. The following categories were offered through the community grants in the 2012 PCC Community Grants program:

Category	Funding pool per annum	Funding cap	Time frame
Community Capacity Building Grants – 100% Voluntary Organisations	$100,000	$5,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Organisations with Paid Staff	$100,000	$10,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Social Enterprise	$80,000	a) $2,500 b) $25,000	1 year
Arts Professional Projects Fund	$60,000	$20,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Parramatta’s Heritage and Stories Research Fund	$20,000	$5,000	1 or 2 year funding available
Parramatta Arts Fellowship Fund	$20,000	One Fellow	1 year
Small Grants Fund	$20,000	$1,000	Opens quarterly

4. A guidelines document was made available for potential applicants that detailed the eligibility criteria, objectives and application process that each of the above categories.

5. In the 2012 PCC Community Grants Program, 72 grants were made to 57 organisations and one individual. A partnership with WorkVentures Ltd saw 24 computers distributed to four organisations as part of their grants. An external advisory panel was successfully utilised in the Social Enterprise category of funding.

6. In June 2012, successful multi-year grants from the 2011 PCC Community Grants Program reported back on the progress of their projects. Year 2 funds were released to those projects where progress was deemed adequate. An update report can be found as Attachment 1.

7. From December 2011-June 2012 the Community Capacity Building Team completed a project aimed at improving the support offered to unincorporated groups who enter into auspice arrangements with incorporated bodies in order to access grant funding. Auspicing organisations usually provide assistance with grant administration and financial management and may also support the grant applicant with insurances and other project management support. Without this support, many smaller community organisations would be ineligible for Council’s Community Grants. As part of this project, a law firm was engaged to provide advice on the legal issues involved in auspicing. Workshops have also been held with relevant organisations and participants were consulted on how Council could improve the way it dealt with auspicing in the Community Grants Program.

8. A grants administration review was carried out during the 2012 PCC Community Grants process as part of Council’s Audit Program for 2011-2012. The results of this review and a draft implementation plan for its recommendations will be presented to Council’s Audit Committee on 31 August 2012. The present report does not alter the process in response to any of the recommendations made by the Auditor. Following review by the Audit Committee, it may be necessary to present a separate report to Council providing options for change to some aspects of grants administration. Any proposed changes will need to be scheduled within workable timeframes for this grant round, or postponed for implementation in future rounds.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

9. It is proposed that Council proceed with the 2013 PCC Community Grants Program using the categories previously adopted and a similar timeframe and assessment process which are outlined later in this report.

10. Feedback from Councillors and applicants regarding the clarity of application forms will be taken into consideration in the preparation of revised forms.

11. The process for supplying refurbished computers to those that apply for them, rather than providing funds, will be repeated. Council staff will again seek the best partner to provide these refurbished computers for this aspect of the program, following Council’s procurement processes.

12. It is proposed that the funding categories in the 2013 PCC Community Grants Program remain unchanged. The categories on offer will be:

Category	Funding pool per annum	Funding cap	Time frame
Community Capacity Building Grants – 100% Voluntary Organisations	$100,000	$5,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Organisations with Paid Staff	$100,000	$10,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Social Enterprise a) Business Plans b) Growing Social Enterprise in Parramatta	$80,000	a) $2,500 b) $25,000	1 year
Arts Professional Projects Fund	$60,000	$20,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Parramatta’s Heritage and Stories Research Fund	$20,000	$5,000	1 or 2 year funding available
Parramatta Arts Fellowship Fund	$20,000	One Fellow	1 year
Small Grants Fund	$20,000	$1,000	Opens quarterly

13. Following consultations with community partners and other funding bodies and in acknowledgement of the work involved in auspicing, it is proposed that a new guideline be established requiring all grant applicants that involve auspicing to include a 15% auspice fee in the budget to be charged by the incorporated body providing auspicing.

14. It is also proposed that during 2012-2013 additional work will be undertaken by Council on the following topics:

a. Investigate options and implement a move of Council’s Community Grants Program to an appropriate online system, and

b. Document internal policies and procedures for grants administration at Parramatta City Council and any other changes recommended by the grants administration review conducted by Council’s Audit Committee.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

15. It is proposed that the Community Grants round will open Monday 17 September 2012 and close 4pm on Friday 7 December 2012. The timeframe outlined below is designed to allow appropriate time for applications to be received and assessed for Council to resolve in March 2013 on grants to be provided, with presentations to be made in June 2013.

a. During the application period, information sessions to be held for interested applicants, with guidance regarding grant writing provided. Councillors to be invited to attend these sessions or to help promote the sessions to local groups.

b. Throughout January 2013, Councillors to be provided the opportunity to receive individual briefings on the received applications prior to the assessment panels. Council officers to check eligibility and provide comments prior to the Councillor Assessment Panel to ensure applications meet the guidelines, as in previous years.

c. An external expert panel to be formed to provide advice to Councillors on the quality and feasibility of the growing social enterprise in Parramatta category applications received.

d. Councillors to be given a month’s notice prior to the assessment panel meetings which would take place during February 2013. Applications are to be collated into booklets and delivered to Councillors’ pigeon holes. The Councillor Assessment Panel to assess applications in line with the assessment criteria as outlined in the application forms.

e. The panel’s final recommendations to be outlined in a report to Council in March 2013.

f. Successful applicants to be notified in May 2013 and a grant presentation ceremony will follow in June 2013.

16. It is proposed that the Councillor panel for the assessment of applications received will be open to all Councillors.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

17. Council has allocated $400,000 for the 2013 PCC Community Grants Program in the 2012-2013 budget, plus additional funds to cover previous commitments to multi-year projects.

18. There are no additional financial implications for Council in this report.

David Moutou

Grant Officer

Attachments:

1 View

2011 PCC Community Grants - Multi Year Funded Projects Update following completion of Year 1

2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 11.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT Riverside Advisory Board

REFERENCE F2004/06918 - D02407705

REPORT OF Group Manager City Services

PURPOSE:

This report provides information on the initial meetings of the new Riverside Theatres Advisory Board and seeks Council’s support for the further investigation of potential production partnerships and future development of Riverside Theatres.

RECOMMENDATION

a) That Council receives and notes the minutes of the Riverside Theatres Advisory Board meetings held on 9^th February, 12^th April and 14^th June 2012.

b) That Council seeks specialist advice to assist Riverside Theatres to explore the establishment of a new partnership with a performance production company.

c) Further, That Council proceeds with the development of a master plan for the future development of Riverside Theatres as outlined in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. On the 12^th December 2011, Council resolved to appoint the fifth Riverside Theatres Advisory Board to commence from 1 January 2012. Ten community members were appointed to join the Board along with the Deputy Lord Mayor, Clr Andrew Wilson, Clr Scott Lloyd and Clr Michael McDermott.

2. Mr Richard Evans did not take up a position on the Board as he resigned from his position with the Sydney Opera House early in the new year.

3. At its first meeting on 9^th February 2012, the Advisory Board agreed that each meeting agenda will include the presentation of a range of information and performance data relating to the Theatre’s recent operations including programs, marketing, technical and financial material. Further, a special topic will be identified for discussion at each meeting which relates to the Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010-2014.

4. The new Advisory Board has now met on three occasions in addition to holding two strategic discussion sessions. The minutes of the Advisory Board meetings are attached for Council’s information.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. In February 2012, the Advisory Board received a detailed overview of the Theatre’s operations from the Director, Mr Robert Love. Council’s Property Development Director, Mr Scott Gregg, also attended this meeting to provide an overview of current development strategies for Parramatta City Centre, in particular, the properties adjoining Riverside Theatres.

6. At the Advisory Board meeting held on 12^th April 2012, Riverside Theatre’s Marketing Manager, Suzanne Hannema, provided a presentation on current marketing activities. Council’s Manager Marketing and Communications, Mr Nick Murphie, also attending this meeting and the Board discussed many different issues and ideas relating to the promotion of Riverside Theatres and audience development.

7. The Advisory Board also considered Council’s decision on 26^th March 2012 regarding preliminary plans to celebrate the 25^th Anniversary of Riverside Theatres in late February and early March, 2013. The Board considered ways this anniversary could be used to not only celebrate the Theatre’s achievements to date but also leverage the opportunity to promote its future development.

8. It was agreed that two informal discussion sessions would be held prior to the next Board meeting to enable a fuller consideration of two strategic issues:-

i. Resident production company

ii. Future potential development of the Theatre

9. The context for this discussion includes the Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010-2014 which articulates this vision:-

“Riverside Theatres will continue to lead an economic and cultural contribution within Western Sydney, as a presenter of high quality performing arts, entertainment, community and culturally specific programs which engage audiences, visitors and local talent.”

Resident Production Company

10. The Strategic Plan 2010-2014 includes a strategic objective:-

“Establishment of a suitably resourced resident production company based at Riverside Theatres which creates and produces local and relevant stories and provides employment and artistic opportunities for performing artists living and working in Western Sydney.”

11. During discussion at the workshop and the subsequent Advisory Board meeting, consideration was given to the implications of having a separate producing company to Riverside Theatres and how such a production company partnership could be developed, for example, whether to engage with an existing company or form a new organisation.

12. Suggested reasons for seeking to establish an independent company to produce at Riverside Theatre include:-

· Increase ability to attract additional resources and diversify funding

· Increase employment opportunities for local producers, writers and actors

· Reduce some of the financial and creative risk on Council

· Promote performance content that is relevant to local audiences/ communities

13. The discussion acknowledged that Riverside Theatres already has a production partnership with FORM. While this is an independent dance organisation which also supports performances at other venues, it receives a variety of practical support from Riverside Theatres and produces several different performances each year for part of the Riverside’s program.

14. If Riverside Theatres elected to establish a similar partnership with another performance production company, two distinct options were identified:-

· Develop new relationship with an existing company or

· Initiate a new production company.

15. Partnering with an existing production company was considered an easier option although the meeting agreed it would be important that the partnership created an opportunity to meet the strategic objectives and grow both organisations, not simply relocate an existing company.

16. It was also suggested that rather than a generic approach, the strategic advantages of such a partnership would be enhanced if the production company had a specific focus such as youth, family and educational theatre. This would enable a focus on schools educational programming eg. for HSC students and could have a touring role.

17. The meeting concluded with a discussion about the appropriate next steps which included engaging specialist advice to assist Riverside Theatres to:

· Identify potential resources and support that Riverside Theatres can offer through a production company partnership eg. rehearsal and performance space, office accommodation, marketing, direct funding etc.

· Engage other stakeholders such as funding bodies and regional venues including seeking advice on potential performance focus eg. educational productions

· Identify different partnership models and assess pros and cons of each

· Recommend a methodology and selection criteria that could be used to determine/develop a preferred partner.

18. At its meeting held on 14^th June 2012, the Advisory Board endorsed this approach and resolved to encourage Council to pursue a fuller investigation of potential partnerships before determining whether to proceed with such arrangements.

Future Development of Riverside Theatre

19. The Strategic Plan 2010-2014 includes two relevant strategic objectives, one with a short to medium term timeframe and another with a long-term focus:-

· Develop a 5 year infrastructure plan which is fully costed & covers technical & building upgrades and asset renewal necessary to deliver high quality programs to all users of the theatre

· Develop a master plan with drawings, models and indicative costs which enable long term infrastructure planning for the theatres over 20 years

20. Being 25 years old, the basic infrastructure of Riverside Theatres is aging and it risks becoming architecturally, technologically and functionality out of date. The Advisory Board recognizes, however, that many of the key elements of the original design remain relevant including the size of the main theatre. With only a modest investment in improvements each year, the existing facilities manage to successfully support a very busy program.

21. Opportunities identified for future improvements to the Theatres included:-

· Realigning Lennox and Raffetys Theatres to increase audience capacity, stage size and flexibility

· Increasing foyer area and multi-function spaces to support complementary activities including exhibitions, corporate and social functions and break-out spaces for conferences

· Redeveloping foyer, bar and veranda to include additional food and beverage facilities and enhanced complementary commercial operations

· Increasing access to the building from street frontages and improve the buildings permeability – through adaptation of the courtyard and/or redevelopment of the foyer, bar and patron amenities

· Improve the visual and aesthetic appearance of the external building to create a striking landmark

· Increase the back-of-house facilities, particularly to cater for performances and community programs that have large numbers of performers

· Incorporate more associated activities on the site or in the precinct eg. rehearsal spaces and accommodation for performance production partners

22. The Advisory Board’s discussion included consideration of better utilization of the car park site and the potential to incorporate Market Street into future Theatre developments.

23. While the meeting agreed that priority could be given to redeveloping the foyer, bar and veranda to take advantage of adjoining development, it was agreed that it was appropriate to develop a master plan for the whole Theatre. Such a plan would identify the long-term development goals as well as suggesting staged projects that may proceed as funding becomes available.

24. At its meeting held on 14^th June 2012, the Advisory Board resolved to advise Council of its support for the development of a master plan for the future development of Riverside Theatres.

25^th Anniversary Celebrations

25. The 25^th Anniversary of Riverside Theatres will be marked by a number of events and activities at the time of the anniversary, in late February and early March 2013. Council had previously considered also holding a preliminary event in mid-2012 to generate interest in the 25^th Anniversary and provide a vehicle to promote the Theatres’ future development.

26. The Advisory Board considered the proposals and agrees that the 25^th Anniversary of Riverside Theatres provides Council with an opportunity to seek financial support for key initiatives that promote the Theatre’s future development in alignment with its strategic objectives. The further development of a partnership proposal for a resident production company and the preparation of a master plan for the theatres would provide tangible projects that could be promoted to potential funding bodies.

27. It is proposed, therefore, to pursue these two proposals further and not pursue a preliminary event at this time. Planning for the 2013 celebrations has commenced and will be reported for discussion at the next Advisory Board meeting which will be held on 9^th August 2012.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

28. It is proposed that Council appoints specialist consultants to assist the Riverside Theatre Director, Robert Love, to investigate and document the preferred parameters for a resident production company partnership. It is envisaged that such work, including some stakeholder consultation, will cost in the vicinity of $20,000.

29. It is also proposed that Council prepares a master plan for the future development of the Riverside Theatre that articulates the long-term development goals for the Theatre as well as suggesting staged projects that may proceed as funding becomes available. While such a master plan would be anticipated to cost in the vicinity of $100,000 - $150,000, there may be an opportunity to incorporate some of this work within the precinct planning proposed as part of the Lennox Bridge car park development.

30. If supported by Council, both initiatives will require budget adjustments to be made during the next quarterly review of Council’s Delivery Program and following further consideration of planning for the Lennox Bridge car park development.

31. Provision has been made in the draft Delivery Plan and Budget 2012/13 for $25,000 to support 25^th Anniversary celebratory activities including an Open Day.

Sue Coleman

Group Manager City Services

Attachments:

1 View	Minutes of Riverside Advisory Committee 9 February 2012	4 Pages
2 View	Minutes of Riverside Advisory Committee 12 April 2012	4 Pages
3 View	Minutes of Riverside Advisory Committee 14 June 2012	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 11.4

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 26 June 2012

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D02414623

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 26 June 2012. This report provides a précis of the decisions made at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of 26 June 2012 be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 21 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 26 June 2012. This report provides a summary of the decisions of the Committee.

MAIN AGENDA ITEMS

3. Committee members were briefed by Council’s Major Events Team staff delivering Burramatta Family Fun Day: Luke Pearson, Lauren Hiller and George Mannix. Information was provided on all aspects of the event including the program, stage schedule, workshop program, site plan, wet weather contingency plan, role of the Committee members and food.

4. The Committee was advised that Council’s Heritage Centre would shortly be calling for tenders for an Aboriginal person or organisation to lead a project on the use of the Parramatta River.

5. The Committee appointed two members to represent the Committee at the upcoming 2012 Local Government and Aboriginal Network Conference to be held in Grafton between 15-17 August 2012: Deputy Chairperson John Robertson and Executive Member Doug Desjardines.

6. Members were advised that Chairperson Bruce Gale had tendered his resignation due to an increase in his work commitments and that Deputy Chairperson John Robertson had agreed to continue as Chairperson.

The Committee determined to acknowledge the commitment of Mr Gale as Chairperson of the Committee over the last 13 years and expressed its appreciation.

Committee member Gilson Saunders advised members that due to his work commitments he was resigning as an Executive member however would remain as an ordinary member.

7. The Committee were advised by Council Officer Maggie Kyle that Council’s Advisory Committees would spill in September 2012 at the time of the Local Government Elections and that following the establishment of a new Council in October, membership of the Committees would be open and applications invited.

Ms Kyle further advised that Council would also review the Terms of Reference of the Committees. Given the number of members of this Committee and the subsequent difficulties of maintaining a quorum at some recent meetings, Ms Kyle sought suggestions from members about alternative definitions of a quorum. Committee members suggested six members with a minimum of four Executive members could be appropriate.

8. The Committee requested Council fund members’ attendance at the upcoming Western Sydney NAIDOC Dinner Dance. It was noted that funding was provided from the Community Capacity Building Team Aboriginal community projects budget for Committee members to attend this event in 2011. This was on a “once-off” basis as additional networking opportunities for committee with other Aboriginal representatives from across Western Sydney was seen as a priority for 2011.

Officer’s Comment:

Council’s Community Capacity Building (CCB) Team funded members to attend this event in 2011 as a ‘one off’ opportunity. Funding is not available in this year’s budget as other projects have taken priority.

9. The Committee were provided with an update of the work of Council’s Aboriginal Community Capacity Building Officer Mr Steven Ross.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

10. There are no financial implications to Council.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee 26 June 2012

7 Pages

Council 23 July 2012 Item 11.5

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 11.5

SUBJECT Covert Mobility Parking Scheme (Disabled) Program

REFERENCE F2004/10001 - D02419099

REPORT OF Manager Regulatory Services

PURPOSE:

In accordance with the provisions of the Parking Enforcement Policy approval is sought from Council for a covert Mobility Parking Scheme (MPS) operation to be run by the Community Safety Unit over a two month period.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve a two month covert ‘Mobility Parking Scheme Program’ to be conducted by the Community Safety Unit; and

(b) Further, that Council approve for Community Safety Officers involved in this program to wear plain clothes.

BACKGROUND

1. The Community Safety Unit (CSU) is responsible for the enforcement of vehicle parking related offences. In order to achieve this function, several parking related programs are continuously run through out each year.

2. One such program is the Mobility Parking Scheme program which is designed to detect drivers using the disabled permit of another person to gain a benefit by obtaining free unlimited parking.

3. At this time, information gathered by Parking Patrol Officers indicates that vehicles displaying MPS permits through out the CBD are in some areas utilising 60% or more of available parking (particularly in Hunter Street, Pitt Street and Civic Place, Parramatta). A recent survey conducted in these streets show that the number of vehicles parked with MPS Permits has risen a further 10 to 15% in the last year.

4. Recent programs have revealed that a number of vehicles are being left unattended on the street whilst Community Safety Officers are present. On a number of occasions, staff have reported that they have witnessed people approach vehicles displaying an MPS permit and upon sighting the officers they have turned around and left the area.

5. To assist the Community Safety Unit in targeting misuse of the current MPS scheme, Council approval is sought to run a covert operation in which CSU staff are permitted to dress in plain clothes (Council’s Parking Enforcement Policy requires approval of all covert parking enforcement programs). The intention of the current program is to support legitimate MPS holders and other motorist seeking to park lawfully within the city centre.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. Under the current MPS conditions the holder of a valid disabled permit is exempt from parking meter fees. Further, the holder of such a permit may park for an unlimited length of time in an area where the erected parking control signs provide a time limit of or greater then 1 hour. In areas where the time is limited to ½ hour parking the holder of a current MPS permit may park for up to a period of 2 hours.

7. Council staff will undertake a program to target only MPS parking during the covert operation. CSU staff will identify themselves and show their council authority when speaking to vehicle drivers displaying a current MPS.

8. The authorised CSU staff will use this program to educate and enforce the regulations related to MPS by advising vehicle drivers displaying a current MPS that under the provisions of the Road Transport (Safety Management) Regulation 1999 they are permitted to request to check the MPS permit to verify it is being used in lawfully

9. CSU staff will afford all identified users of MPS permits the opportunity to verify the MPS holder if they are not the identified person on the permit.

10. Where CSU staff are satisfied that an offence has occurred, the officer will record the drivers details, record the details on the permit and advise the drivers they may receive a penalty notice in the mail.

11. In accordance with the Parking Enforcement Policy, CSU staff will return the MPS permit to driver. No permits will be confiscated.

12. All detected offences will be recorded in the current register and a report will be forwarded to the RTA upon completion of the program on a daily basis.

13. Council may receive complaints from vehicle drivers in relation to CSU staff not being in uniform and representations from vehicle drivers seeking leniency in relation to on the spot penalty notices. All representations will be considered in accordance with the Parking Enforcement Policy.

14. Results of the MPS covert operation will be reported back to Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

15. Offenders of the MPS permit will be subject to a penalty infringement notice for offences relating to misuse of MPS parking permits to a value of $596.00 (as of 1 July 2012).

16. There are no additional financial implications associated with running of the covert operation for MPS parking.

Laurie Whitehead

Manager Regulatory Services

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 July 2012 Item 11.6

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 11.6

SUBJECT Report on possible T-way to Granville and upgrade to the Transport Interchange and commuter car parking in Granville

REFERENCE F2007/02318 - D02419764

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of findings into investigation of possible T-way to Granville and upgrade to the Transport Interchange and commuter car parking in Granville.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes this report;

(b) That Council continues to investigate ways to improve public transport between Parramatta and Granville including the proposed Western Sydney Light Rail concept.

(c) Further, that Council authorises the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to continue negotiations with Transport for NSW in regards to the proposed upgrade of the Transport Interchange and Granville commuter car parking.

REPORT

1. This report responds to the Council resolution (13041) of 10 April 2012;

(a) That Parramatta City Council prepare a report with a view to making representations to the State Government on the extension of the T Way to Granville and the creation of a commuter car park at Granville.

(b) Further, that the State Member for Granville be approached and requested to organise a meeting with the Department of Transport to discuss the issue of a commuter car park at Granville.

PART 1 – T-Way to Granville

Background

2. Sydney’s bus transit-way network was announced in 1998 with the following corridors proposed – Parramatta-Liverpool, Parramatta-Rouse Hill, Parramatta-Strathfield, Parramatta – Blacktown, St Marys-Penrith, Blacktown-Wetherill Park and Blacktown-Castle Hill.

3. The South West T-way (Parramatta-Liverpool) was opened in 2003 and the North West T-way (Parramatta-Rouse Hill & Parklea-Blacktown) was opened in 2007. The remaining sections of T-way were never fully investigated or planned and subsequently dropped from strategic plans.

Bus Lanes

4. A Bus Lane is a discrete length of traffic lane reserved for buses for a specific period of time. It is one of many bus priority tools to reduce bus journey times and improve reliability.

5. The length of Bus Lane can be short (like the so called bus jump-start at intersections) which is the same length as one bus or over a long distance such as on Victoria Road with breaks at intersections. The hours of operation ranges from peak hours to 24 hours (usually used for safety and or operational reasons). A bus lane can also be used by bicycles, taxis and motorcycles but a Bus Only Lane can only be used by buses.

Bus Rapid Transit

6. A Transit-way (or t-way) is the terminology used in New South Wales to describe a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Most other countries and cities refer to them as Busways including Brisbane, Adelaide and Auckland. The aim of BRT is to offer a public transport experience close to that offered by rail. There are two elements to a BRT system, infrastructure and service.

7. BRT infrastructure is composed of the route and bus stops. Predominately Bus Only roads (and sometimes supported with Bus Lanes) are used to reduce bus journey times and improve reliability. The distance between BRT bus stops are greater than local bus stops, typically 600 to 800m compared to 200 to 400m for local bus services.

8. BRT services typically run every 10 minutes or less and offer the shortest, most direct route between key origins and destinations, similar to rail services. BRT bus stops generally have a full range of passenger facilities typically including seating, large shelter, real-time information, passenger help points, bicycle parking and sometimes a park & ride car park.

Existing public transport between Granville and Parramatta

9. The trip between Granville and Parramatta is already well served by public transport as shown in the table below. The rail service is approximately every 5 ½ minutes and takes 3 minutes while there is a bus approximately every 4½ minutes taking 17 minutes.

	Rail	Bus - 909 Bankstown	Bus - 906 Fairfield	Bus - 907 Bankstown	Bus - M91 Hurstville
Route	Western Line	Parkes Hassell St Alfred St Parramatta Rd	Parkes St Harris St Allen St Good St Parramatta Rd Bold St Railway Pde	Church St Woodville Rd	Church St Parramatta Rd/ Railway Pde
Journey time (mins)	3	17	17	18	15
Number of Services 8am-9am	11	2	2	3	10

10. The State Government is continuing to develop 43 strategic bus corridors across Sydney. Granville is on corridor 12, which connects Parramatta to Bankstown, and correlates to the Metrobus service M91 that connects Parramatta to Hurstville via Bankstown. Two bus priority measures were delivered in 2009 as part of this program:

· Northbound bus lane on Bold St at Parramatta Rd.

· Westbound bus lane on Parramatta Rd at Woodville Rd

Analysis of possible T-way between Parramatta to Granville

11. A T-way is bus only road and there is little scope to create a bus only road between Parramatta and Granville without significant land acquisition at substantial cost. It may be possible to create a T-way under the elevated section of the M4 between Church St and Good St, partially using Junction St. The Western Line creates a significant barrier along this alignment and would require a significant bridge or tunnel structure to overcome this barrier.

12. It may possible to use either the western (Church Street to Western Line) or eastern sections (Wigram St to Good St) of this possible T-way corridor. The western section would offer little benefit and involve land acquisition near Parramatta Rd as well as and an additional intersection on Parramatta Rd. The eastern section between Wigram St and Good St would involve re-routeing of buses (minimum of 12 per hour) via Harris Park along Wigram Street, , noting that this route does not currently form any part of a bus route. It is estimated that there would be no journey time benefit of this proposed section of T-way due to the need to travel via Harris Park rather than Church St.

13. In addition, the alignment under the M4 is subject to flooding and the bus noise may be amplified due to the overhead M4 structure.

14. The existing bus service between Parramatta and Granville already operates at a high frequency with a bus less than every 4½ minutes in the peak albeit relatively slow at around 17 minutes. Implementing a T-way is very unlikely to increase the frequency of the bus service, especially considering the existing rail service and the Metrobus M91 service which operates every 10 minutes.

15. The alternative to T-way infrastructure (bus only road) is additional bus priority measures between Granville and Parramatta to reduce journey time.

16. In 2008, at the request of Council officers, the RTA (now RMS - Roads & Maritime Services), considered bus lanes along Church Street. At the time RMS advised that after an initial review there was insufficient bus traffic or traffic congestion to rank the proposal as a priority considering the overall Sydney bus priority programme.

CONCLUSION TO SUGGESTION T-Way to Granville

17. The implementation of a T-way between Parramatta and Granville is unlikely to increase the bus service frequency considering the existing high level, with particular note to the Metrobus service, which operates every 10 minutes in the peak.

18. The implementation of T-way infrastructure (bus only road) from Parramatta to Granville is not feasible due to the lack of available land (and associated cost). It may be possible to create a short section of T-way under the M4 between Wigram St and Good St but it is unlikely to reduce the journey time. In addition, a T-way to Granville is unlikely to be considered due to the existing rail service which connects Parramatta to Granville in 3 minutes.

19. The RTA reviewed and rejected the suggestion of additional bus priority on Church Street due to the relative volume of buses and traffic congestion compared to other bus priority schemes across Sydney. It is unlikely that RMS would change this position despite an increase in buses as the Church St section still has relatively low levels of traffic congestion. The RMS is unlikely to consider a Bus Lane on Parramatta Road, as it would significantly increase traffic congestion on Parramatta Rd Granville, which already has high levels of congestion.

20. It is recommended that Council continues to investigate ways to improve public transport between Parramatta and Granville including the proposed Western Sydney Light Rail corridor, which includes light rail between Parramatta and Bankstown via Granville.

PART 2 - Upgrade to the Transport Interchange Granville commuter car parking

BACKGROUND

21. The provision of commuter car parking is generally not a responsibility of local government. There are approximately 250 unrestricted parking spaces in the vicinity of the Granville Station. These spaces are on-street unlimited parking and in easy walking distance (of less than 500m) to the Station.

22. As Granville offers regular and fast connections to and from the Sydney CBD, it is a popular destination for commuters.

23. On 29 May 2012, the NSW Government announced upgrades to rail interchanges and nine new commuter carparks around the State, including Granville. The press release specifically mentions; “Granville: A car park with 40 additional spaces, with major new bus interchange, new passenger lift, new toilets, estimated to cost $14 million”

24. Following the announcement, Council officers met with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) to discuss the proposal. Over two meetings held on 13 & 22 June 2012, it was clear that the project was at the conceptual stage.

25. Both agencies agreed to work collaboratively to ensure that the proposal delivered benefits for commuters and other visitors to the Granville Town Centre. Consideration of previously considered options (Cowper Street and the bus interchange) and new sites to achieve 40 or more all day parking spaces will be explored.

Previous engagement with Transport for NSW in regards to increasing commuter car parking capacity in Granville

26. Since 2010, Council has liaised with NSW Transport Construction Authority (TCA) – now known as Transport for NSW - to explore options to increase capacity for commuter parking in the Granville area.

27. On 14 February 2011 TCA wrote to Council advising progress on investigations into options at Cowper Street, the current bus interchange site, the west side of Bold Street and RailCorp small depot site.

28. TCA advised Council that in their view the 40 Cowper Street proposal is not viable. The proposed land swap and development, incorporating commuter parking, failed to stack up financially as the site is not large enough to accommodate a functional multi-storey carpark.

29. At the 25 July 2011 Council Meeting, Councillors requested an update on the proposed Granville Commuter carpark.

30. In 31 August 2011, Council wrote to the TCA requesting an update on the proposed commuter car park at Granville.

31. In September 2011, Council officers spoke with TCA and the feedback was that the proposed Commuter carpark remained under consideration.

32. At the meeting on 10 April 2012, Council resolved that:

“…the State Member for Granville be approached and requested to organise a meeting with the Department of Transport to discuss the issue of a commuter car park at Granville”

OPTIONS

33. Council and Transport for NSW will review a number of options to increase commuter parking near to Granville Railway Station, including:

a. Cowper Street

The site is currently operates as an at-grade public car park on the north side of Granville Station. The option for a multi-storey car park with a residential component was tested and considered not viable by the TCA. Despite the efforts of staff from both agencies, in February 2011 TfNSW advised Council that it had withdrawn its interest in the site at 40-48 Cowper Street for the purposes of a commuter car park.

An at grade solution incorporating the recently acquired 40 Cowper Street with the existing car park could add 20 spaces until redevelopment of this site.

b. 2 Factory Street Granville

Additional all day parking spaces may be provided as part of a Voluntary Planning Agreement for a proposed re-zoning and new development at 2 Factory Street Granville, adjacent to the Clyde Railway Station. Clyde is on the Carlingford Line and is served by the Western and Southern Lines, and has regular 15 minutes services during the morning and afternoon peaks, but does not have the frequency of service and connectivity to other lines available at the Granville Station.

The distance from Clyde station to Granville Station is approximately 600 metres. Increased capacity and frequency of train services at Clyde would make this station more attractive for commuters, although, walking from Clyde to Granville takes less than 5 minutes.

c. Bus Interchange

Located on the southern side of Granville Railway Station, the existing bus interchange bounded by Memorial Avenue, Mary Street and South Street lane is on Council owned land.

In 2009, Council considered conversion of this interchange to short-stay parking in 2009. The size of the site is surplus to the actual requirements for buses, which would relocate to a bus stop on South Street, or to Memorial Avenue. The reconfiguration would achieve a minimum of 32 new car parking spaces. An estimate to make the conversion, including demolition of the existing shelters, is $225,000. Reclassification of the land from community to operational is awaiting Ministerial approval.

At this stage, no action other than an at grade short stay car park is advised on this site or the adjoining Council-owned car park site until council determines the long-term development potential of both sites.

Council has resolved to rezone to B4 and increase the FSR to 6:1 with a height of 52m in Amendment 1 to LEP 2011 over the bus interchange and Memorial Drive car park. Therefore Council has indicated its intention for a major redevelopment of this site in order to encourage commercial retail and residential to activate this area.

d. Other options yet to be determined

One consideration is for Council is to balance commuter parking requirements wit the need to provide short stay parking for shoppers and businesses in Granville. Increasing the capacity of short-stay parking is more likely to contributor to the economic vitality of the centre.

CONCLUSION

34. The NSW Government has confirmed that the project will proceed. By working collaboratively with Transport for NSW Council can influence the proposal so that the result is a positive impact on the economic vitality of the centre.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council authorises the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to continue negotiations with Transport for NSW in regards to the proposed upgrade of the Transport Interchange and commuter car parking in Granville

David Gray Kevin Brennan

Manager Transport Planning Place Manager

Attachments:

1 View

Map of the Granville Bus interchange - Red outline (interchange) and Blue outline (adjoining car park)

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Western Sydney Light Rail Network.

Council 23 July 2012 Item 12.2

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT Investments Report for May 2012

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D02406640

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of May 2012.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for May 2012.

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 May 2012 was $94.1M. The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $91.2M.

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 May 2012 versus the UBSA Bank Bill Index is as follows:

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.380% 4.56%

Funds Managers - 0.367% - 0.44%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.378% 4.54%

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. Although Councils investment portfolio still slightly outperformed the UBSA Bank bill index, the overall return was negatively affected by the managed fund performances. The CFS credit (-5.05%) fund under performed bank bills as spreads on domestic and global corporate / financial securities widened on the back of further concerns surrounding Europe and the outlook for global growth. Equities also experienced another severe sell-off reaching their lowest levels in over 6 months. This negative environment also resulted in a weakened performance for the T-Corp growth fund (-25.78%) annualised.

7. Councils Term deposit and floating rate note portfolio assisted in offsetting these market losses with approximately 59% of total holdings being held in fixed returns yielding from 5.80% to 7.40%.

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 May 2012 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of May 12 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

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