Agenda of Council - 23 March 2020

MINUTES OF THE Meeting of City of Parramatta Council HELD IN THE CLOISTER FUNCTION ROOMS, ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL 1 MARIST PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 9 March 2020 AT 6.30pm

These are draft minutes and are subject to confirmation by Council at its next meeting. The confirmed minutes will replace this draft version on the website once confirmed.

PRESENT

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer and Councillors Benjamin Barrak (6:51pm), Phil Bradley, Donna Davis, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard (Deputy Lord Mayor), Paul Han, Steven Issa, Andrew Jefferies, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Bill Tyrrell, Andrew Wilson and Martin Zaiter.

1. OPENING MEETING

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer, opened the meeting at 6.32pm.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Dwyer, acknowledged the Burramattagal people of The Darug Nation as the traditional custodians of this land, and paid respect to their ancient culture and their elders past and present.

3. WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Dwyer, advised that this public meeting is being recorded and streamed live on the internet. The recording will also be archived and made available on Council’s website.

The Lord Mayor further advised that all care will be taken to maintain privacy, however as a visitor in the public gallery, the public should be aware that their presence may be recorded.

4. OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

As per Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, the recording of the Council Meeting by the public using any device, audio or video, is only permitted with Council permission. Recording a Council Meeting without permission may result in the individual being expelled from the Meeting.

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

SUBJECT: Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 February 2020

2653

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Bradley)

That the minutes be taken as read and be accepted as a true record of the meeting.

6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

SUBJECT: Apologies/Requests for Leave of Absence

2654

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Zaiter)

(a) That the apology received from Councillor Lorraine Wearne be accepted and leave of absence granted.

(b) Further, that the apology received for the late arrival of Councillor Benjamin Barrak, be noted.

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made at this meeting.

8. MATTERS OF URGENCY (if any)

Council considered a matter of urgency prior to Closed Session (see Item 20 below).

9. MINUTES OF THE LORD MAYOR

9.1

SUBJECT National Redress Scheme

REFERENCE F2019/03630 - D07315428

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer

2655

RESOLVED (Dwyer)

That a report be brought to Council to detail the genesis and current status of the new National Redress Scheme which should include details of responsibilities and obligations of Councils under the Scheme as well as the associated role and specific obligations for Mayors.

9.2

SUBJECT Appeals Process to Regional Traffic Committee for Parramatta Local Traffic Committee

REFERENCE F2019/03630 - D07315489

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer

2656

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Zaiter)

(a) That Council write to the Minister for Transport and Roads, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and all local State Members of Parliament, and any other relevant person, recommending that the appeal process for decisions of the Parramatta Local Traffic Committee be reviewed.

(b) Further, that this letter call for the appeal process to be reviewed with the objective of ensuring greater consideration is given to the serious concerns of Council and the community in local traffic matters and providing a more consistent and inclusive approach to the appeals process for all parties, for reasons of fairness and equity.

10. Public Forum

10.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: ITEM 18.1 - Local Strategic Planning Statement Seeking Endorsement

REFERENCE F2018/01790

FROM JANET MCGARRY

The Epping Civic Trust is the peak community body for the Epping area – an area that has undergone rapid change and unprecedented growth. I am here to speak to you about this key plan which will be used to direct the future of our suburb – which I note is called a Strategic Centre within the City of Parramatta.

The Trust prepared a detailed submission to this suite of plans that were put on exhibition together. We engaged expert assistance at a cost to our members who are Epping residents. However, we note that our submission, which was lodged on 11 November, is not referenced in the overview of community feedback. We have raised this with council last Wednesday, but I feel this raises serious concerns about the community consultation process. Therefore, I ask tonight for this item to be deferred until council can review all feedback received and ensure that it has all be looked at and covered in this paper. Otherwise the integrity of this process has been compromised.

Notwithstanding that, there are a number of points we would like to draw to your attention:

1) Housing

A key point in our submission was that housing development throughout the Epping ward should be slowed down until infrastructure to support the increased population had been built or purchased. Further, we argued that alongside housing development targets, we should see development targets for infrastructure.

Instead, this latest iteration of the LSPS seems to have increased the rate of housing development in Epping, seeking a target of 8910 new dwellings by 2036, versus 8755 in the earlier edition. See page 22.

And as far as any infrastructure targets, we must await a later edition of the CIS. We think this is unsatisfactory and these documents should be considered together.

2) Climate change and tree canopy

Since this plan was drafted, Australia has had the worst bushfires season in living memory, and one of the hottest summers ever. It is clear that the impact of climate change on urban environments is going to be a vital issue to be addressed in coming decades – both to reduce energy consumption cooling our homes but also to make our streets and built environment more liveable.

Trees are absolutely vital. Mature trees, not the ones we have to wait 20-40 years to grow. The mature trees that are being removed across the LGA at an unprecedented rate right now.

In the LSPS (Page 40) states the council is working to increase the tree canopy to 40% by 2050. This is far too long a time frame and will just serve to put off the work needed. We urge you now to amend this target to 2036 at least. The plan also highlights the cost of tree management – we are unhappy with this wording as again it could be used to defer the very necessary investment in both planting, maintaining and planning for a larger tree canopy.

We also ask for a review of the wording under 3.4.3 – climate change and resilience (page 39). There should be consideration of a green canopy in the reference to better design. That is reinstate the wording for better design ‘particularly passive design and the promotion of a green canopy’ that was in the draft version.

We request changes to 3.4.4 Tree canopy (Page 40):

1) Please add that the tree canopy is ‘enhanced’ across all geographical areas rather than ‘spread evenly’.

2) The last paragraph notes the costs related to tree management– we are unhappy with this focus as it could be used to defer the very necessary investment in both planting, maintaining and planning for a larger tree canopy. Please change the wording in the last sentence to show that the benefits of trees outweigh the management costs.

Finally, we seek an amendment to the wording in one paragraph in item 3.2.3 Heritage– on page 25.

We would like the wording ‘Any changes proposed in these areas need to consider how the items of heritage can contribute to the future identity of a place’ to be reworded to: ‘Any changes proposed in these areas need to consider how the changes will enhance and contribute to the items of heritage’. The reason for this wording change is to better protect existing heritage by putting it first in decision making, rather than the other way around.

Thank you.

STAFF RESPONSE

· Council Officers acknowledge that the Epping Civic Trust submission was not captured in the submissions summary provided in Attachment 2 to the report at Item 18.1.

· As the submission was sent to Council’s general email address, not the LSPS project mailbox, the submission was excluded from the submissions summary as a result.

· When Council Officers were made aware of this, a detailed review and assessment of the key matters raised in the context and scope of the LSPS was carried out. A briefing note that responds to the matters raised in the submission was provided to Councillors before the meeting.

· Council Officers have determined that the majority of the key matters raised in the submission relate to detailed planning work currently being undertaken under the Epping Planning Review project and these will be addressed by that project.

· The submission also raises some matters that relate more broadly to the LSPS. These include the preparation of Local Character Statements, management of trees and green infrastructure, and the delivery of affordable housing. The LSPS includes actions to address these matters.

10.2

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 2: ITEM 18.1 - Local Strategic Planning Statement Seeking Endorsement

REFERENCE F2018/01790

FROM SHELLIE OATES

Good evening Councillors and Council officers, my name is Shellie Oates and I’m the joint owner of car yard properties at 56-60 Parramatta Road Granville. I therefore have a keen and personal interest in the locality. My consultant Town Planner Mr Ron Sim is also here to answer any questions you might have following this address.

Firstly, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address Council concerning its Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement. I commend Council and its officers for producing an impressive and significant body of work to guide council’s strategic planning directions well into the future.

Our previous submissions to Urban Growth, Council and to the Greater Sydney Commission proposed establishing a B6 Enterprise Zone for industrially zoned properties fronting the southern side of Parramatta Road east of Duck Creek within the Clyde Industrial Area. We also suggested changes to permitted height and FSR controls and permitted land uses in order to incentivise redevelopment by allowing a proportion of residential use as part of future mixed-use proposals.

I’d like to stress that our aim is not to reduce the employment potential of sites in any way. By way of comparison, a Parramatta Road B6 Enterprise Zone has been adopted by many other Councils for properties fronting the highway specifically to encourage high quality employment generating uses. We believe a similar zone applied to properties east of Duck Creek could “kick start” renewal of what are visually unattractive older industrial buildings and car yards in the area by permitting a wider range of business uses in comparison with the current restrictive IN1 General Industrial Zone.

This industrial zoning fails to recognise that modern employment generating uses can now happily co-exist with business and residential activity as part of mixed-use developments. It also has a very low FSR of 1:1 and prohibits commercial premises. The end result is that there little or no incentive for myself or other owners in the area to redevelop their properties. In fact, our understanding is that apart from designated centres such as Granville, no significant redevelopment has taken place recently along this part of Parramatta Road for some time.

I’m sure you would agree that prominent sites fronting the highway need a targeted, flexible land use zoning approach to encourage well-designed mixed-use development which includes a proportion of shop-top housing. This would help to make redevelopment financially feasible and achieve timely improvements to the appearance of Parramatta Road. Encouraging and prioritising good urban design outcomes along the highway was a key objective of the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy. This clearly won’t happen if the current IN1 Industrial zoning along the highway is retained.

So we think as owners that the most logical solution is to apply a flexible B6 Enterprise land use zoning to our properties along Parramatta Road. This should also enable some shop-top housing to be provided in conjunction with predominantly employment-based uses to provide a financial incentive to redevelop. We’re aware Council’s Housing Strategy has identified adequate housing potential to meet current targets set by the Department. However, widening geographical options for residential uses may enable these targets to be met earlier.

We don’t believe that being pro-active by establishing a B6 Enterprise zone and also allowing limited shop top housing along Parramatta Road on properties close to public transport and to Granville shopping centre will adversely affect Council’s Housing Strategy or its Employment objectives. In fact, the opposite is likely to be the case.

Finally, we recently made a similar submission to Cumberland Council. As a result, the Planning Panel when reviewing Council’s Draft LEP recommended that Council officers examine the potential for shop top housing within their B6 Enterprise Zones along Parramatta Road. Other Councils such as Inner West Council already have a continuous B6 Zone along Parramatta Road. I understand they are currently exploring the possibility of allowing residential development within this zone as transport facilities along the road corridor improve.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to address Council. I’ll leave a hard copy of our previous submissions for your consideration.

STAFF RESPONSE

The purpose of the Local Strategic Planning Statement is to provide high level strategic planning guidance for the City of Parramatta for the next 20 years, not to prescribe zoning changes for specific locations such as 56-60 Parramatta Road, Granville. The Local Strategic Planning Statement will provide the framework upon which future planning proposals can be assessed, but does not recommend any specific rezoning of land.

The site identified is however, subject to the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy that contains a number of recommendations and proposed land uses to guide future development along this key transport corridor. Further detail on the progression of any specific land use changes in this area will be reported to Council following the completion of a precinct wide traffic and transport study that is currently being undertaken by Council in conjunction with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and Cumberland Council. This will potentially lead to a planning proposal to implement the recommendations of the Strategy.

Should this matter proceed to public exhibition, any submission seeking land use changes such as those raised by Ms Oates will be considered and reported to Council accordingly.

Note: Councillor Barrak arrived at 6:51pm during the consideration of the Public Forum 2.

11. Petitions

11.1

SUBJECT Petition to Stop the installation of 5G Tower on Bettington Road in Oatlands

REFERENCE F2005/01248

FROM Pierre Esber

A petition signed by residents of Oatlands, North Parramatta and Parramatta was tabled at the Council Meeting and reads:

“We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to stop the installation of 5G tower on Bettington Road in Oatlands.”

2657

RESOLVED (Esber/Dwyer)

(a) That the petition be received and a copy of the petition be circulated to all Councillors.

(b) Further, that a copy of the petition be sent to Geoff Lee (Member of the NSW Legislative Assembly representing Parramatta for the Liberal Party) and Julie Ann Owens (Australian Labor Party member of the Australian House of Representatives, representing the Division of Parramatta, NSW).

12. Rescission Motions

12.1

SUBJECT RESCISSION MOTION: Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting held on 23 January 2020 - Item 2001 A2 - North Rocks Road at Alkira Road, Carlingford

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07295517

REPORT OF Councillor Jefferies

2658

RESOLVED (Jefferies/Esber)

That the resolution of the Council Meeting held on 24 February 2020 in relation to Item 14.2 regarding the minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting held on 23 January 2020 – Item 2001 A2 – North Rocks Road at Alkira Road, Carlingford, namely:

“(c) That Item 2001 A2 – North Rocks Road at Alkira Road, Carlingford proposed traffic signals and median island barriers be deferred until a site visit with the Roads and Maritime Services can be organised.”

be and is hereby rescinded.

2659	RESOLVED (Jefferies/Tyrrell) That Item 2001 A2 be adopted as per Council officer’s recommendation.

13. Fair

Nil

14. Accessible

14.1

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Variations to Standards under Clause 4.6 of Parramatta LEP 2011, Auburn LEP 2010, Holroyd LEP 2013, The Hills LEP 2012, Hornsby LEP 2013 and SEPP 1

REFERENCE F2009/00431 - D07250445

REPORT OF Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

2660

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

That the report be received and noted.

15. Green

Nil

16. Welcoming

Nil

17. Thriving

17.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Retail Frontage Improvement Program Endorsement of funding agreements

REFERENCE F2016/00137 - D07266493

REPORT OF Project Officer - Local Business Liaison

2661

RESOLVED (Garrard/Zaiter)

(a) That Council notes that in the 2019/20 DPOP the Retail Frontage Improvement Program was expanded to cover the whole CBD and neighbourhood centres across the LGA.

(b) That Council endorse a Retail Frontage Improvement Program grant to Queensland Arcade (181 Church Street, Parramatta) for the purpose of repainting and refurbishing the exterior of the building up to a total value of $20,000.

(c) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a Funding Agreement with the applicant so that funding amount, timeline, development approval and other conditions can be finalised as outlined in this report.

18. Innovative

18.1	SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Local Strategic Planning Statement Seeking Endorsement REFERENCE F2018/01790 - D07150762 REPORT OF Snr Project Officer Land Use
	Motion (Esber/Davis) That Council defer consideration of this matter to the next Council Meeting on 23 March 2020, and a Councillor Workshop be held prior to the Council Meeting. FORESHADOWED MOTION (Tyrrell/Zaiter) (a) That Council approve the final Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) at Attachment 1 noting the following associated key principles: · Focus employment growth in the Parramatta Metropolitan Centre (Parramatta CBD) and Strategic Centres of Epping and Sydney Olympic Park and Westmead Innovation Precinct. · Housing growth is focused in identified Growth Precincts. · Preserve and enhance the low-scale character and identity of suburban City of Parramatta suburbs outside of the GPOP area. · Stage housing release consistent with infrastructure delivery. · Housing diversity underpins any future changes to planning controls. · The majority of employment lands are protected to ensure no net loss of jobs or employment land. · Neighbourhoods, places and development are well-balanced, connected and sustainable. · Protection of the environment, including providing for sustainable development. (b) That Council note the information in the Briefing Note dated 6 March 2020 which forms an addendum to Attachment 2 of this report; and addresses the submission received from the Epping Civic Trust during the public exhibition of the LSPS; and corrects the Affordable Rental Housing targets in the submissions summary to ensure consistency with State Government policy. (c) Further, that Council forward the approved LSPS to the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) to seek its support in writing for the statement in accordance with section 3.9(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and following receipt of this support, Council delegate authority to the CEO to finalise the LSPS (including to make any minor amendments as requested by the GSC and Council) and then publish it on the NSW planning portal. The motion moved by Councillor Esber and seconded by Councillor Davis on being put was declared CARRIED.
2662	RESOLVED (Esber/Davis) That Council defer consideration of this matter to the next Council Meeting on 23 March 2020, and a Councillor Workshop be held prior to the Council Meeting. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Clrs Barrak, Bradley, Davis, Esber, Garrard, Han, Pandey, Prociv and Wilson NOES: Clrs Dwyer, Issa, Jefferies, Tyrrell and Zaiter
	Note: 1. Councillor Barrak left the meeting at 7:09pm and returned at 7:12pm during consideration of Item 18.1. 2. Councillor Issa left the meeting at 7:09pm and returned at 7:12pm during consideration of Item 18.1. 3. Councillor Issa left the meeting at 7:23pm and returned at 7:24pm during consideration of Item 18.1.

18.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Land Use Planning Work Program Update

REFERENCE F2018/00155 - D07027671

REPORT OF Project Officer

2663

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Bradley)

(a) That Council receive and note this report on the Land Use Planning team’s work program.

(b) Further, that future work program updates are provided to Councillors in summary format in the form of bi-annual briefing notes, with the next briefing note scheduled for October 2020.

18.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition Outcomes - Parramatta CBD Development Contributions Plan 2007 (Amendment 5)

REFERENCE F2008/03205 - D07271755

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

2664

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Issa)

(a) That Council adopt the Parramatta CBD Development Contributions Plan 2007 (Amendment No. 5), at Attachment 1 subject to a minor amendment outlined in the report.

(b) Further, that a copy of the adopted Parramatta CBD Development Contributions Plan 2007 (Amendment No. 5) be forwarded to the Minister for Planning as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-

AYES: Clrs Barrak, Bradley, Davis, Dwyer, Esber, Garrard, Han, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Prociv, Tyrrell, Wilson and Zaiter

NOES: Nil

19. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

19.1

SUBJECT QUESTION WITH NOTICE: Active Hoardings Policy

REFERENCE F2007/01865 – D07278706

FROM Councillor Prociv

QUESTION

What is Council currently doing, or what are Council’s Policies and future plans, to activate construction hoardings in order to minimise the visual impact of bare walls of hoardings facing the public domain as the City undergoes accelerated development?

STAFF RESPONSE

1. Council’s Hoarding and Tower Crane Policy strongly encourages the provision of public art, graphics and images on hoardings as an opportunity for a developer to promote their development and show its contribution to the growth and vibrancy of the City. At present, artistic treatment or activation of hoardings must be limited to messages that relate to the development, the partners in the project, or the planned benefit to the development of the City of Parramatta. Council officers work with individual applicants and provides artwork guidelines, examples and advice on brand style. Council officers also provide approval to proceed with artwork designs. The current policy provides that any public art, graphics and images on hoardings is at the discretion of the applicant.

2. Council officers are undertaking a review of Council’s Hoarding and Tower Crane Policy with a view to incorporate similar outcomes to the City of Sydney Council policy. It is anticipated the review will be complete by the second quarter of 2020 with any proposed changes to Council’s current Policy to be brought to the Chamber for consideration.

19.2

SUBJECT RESPONSE TO QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE: Construction of Guard Rail at Bettington Road, Oatlands

REFERENCE F2019/04433 – D07300097

FROM Councillor Barrak

QUESTION

Councillors have received correspondence from a local resident who resides in the vicinity of Bettington Road, Oatlands where the recent accident occurred resulting in the tragic loss of young lives and extreme pain for the families and our community at large.

What arrangements are being by made by Council for the construction of a guard rail along Bettington Road, Oatlands?

STAFF RESPONSE

1. Following a question without notice received at the Council Meeting held on 24 February 2020 Monday night’s meeting, Councillors are advised on the details of the section of guard rail constructed in Bettington Road, south of York Street.

2. Council's Traffic and Transport staff obtained specialist external advice on the type and design of the guard rail to be installed. Council's Capital Works team have now engaged a specialist constructor to complete the works. Works commenced on 26 February 2020 and are expected to be completed within one week.

3. A total length of 98 metres of steel guard rail including collapsible end sections will be installed. Other systems including wire rope safety barriers and RMS urban pedestrian fencing designs were considered as alternatives, however the safest and most suitable barrier system for this location has been specified by Council’s traffic and transport experts, and is supported by Council’s civil liability engineers.

4. Council’s cleansing staff have been in frequent contact with friends of the family regarding materials left at the site by mourners and well-wishers. Quite a lot of material has been removed in consultation. The construction works will not interfere with the remaining flowers and tributes left at the site. Council officers spoke with the family about the installation of a guard rail at the site.

5. Notification letters have also been issued to stakeholders and the local community and a response will be provided to the local resident regarding this matter.

20. MATTER OF URGENCY

20.1

PROCEDURAL MOTION

2665

RESOLVED (Barrak/Bradley)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to the construction of a guardrail at Bettington Road, Oatlands

The Lord Mayor ruled the matter to be urgent.

	SUBJECT MATTER OF URGENCY: Construction of Guardrail at Bettington Road, Oatlands FROM Benjamin Barrak
	Motion (Barrak/Bradley) (a) That Council consult with the public in relation to the guardrail as no consultation had taken place prior to construction of the 100 metres of metal rail recently completed. (b) That in its choice of guardrail, Council consider the sensitivities associated with having to build a suitable memorial for the Abdallah and Sakr children who tragically lost their lives on site in the selection of the guardrail, together with public safety. (c) That noting Council's advice in the letter to Dr Bhagi Singh Awla dated 25 February 2020: " ... wire rope ... barriers are intended for locations where a vehicle is likely to hit at a low angle, such as on straight roads", that the public consultation be addressed towards having a solid horizontal metal rail immediately at the curve where the vehicle lost control for a distance of 25 metres, and then for the balance of the straight run of up to 75 metres, for the rail to be constructed of wire rope barrier. (d) Further, that in its choice of guardrail, that Council considers installation of a steel rail of 25 metres, to be followed by the balance being comprised of stainless-steel rope wire and posts barrier along the straight. AMENDMENT (Esber/Garrard) That Council continue with the consultation in relation to the installation of the roundabout at the corner of Bettington Road and York Streets. The amendment moved by Councillor Esber and seconded by Councillor Garrard on being put was declared CARRIED. The amendment then became the motion. The motion moved by Councillor Esber and seconded by Councillor Garrard on being put was declared CARRIED.
2666	MOVED (Esber/Garrard) That Council continue with the consultation in relation to the installation of the roundabout at the corner of Bettington Road and York Streets.
	Note: Councillor Barrak requested his name be recorded as having voted against the decision taken on this item.
	Note: 1. Councillor Han left the meeting at 7:31pm and returned at 7:32pm during consideration of the matter of urgency. 2. Councillor Wilson left the meeting at 7:35pm and returned at 7:40pm during consideration of the matter of urgency.

19. Notices of Motion

Nil

Note: Prior to moving into Closed Session, the Lord Mayor invited members of the public gallery to make representations as to why any item had been included in Closed Session. No member of the gallery wished to make representations.

22. CLOSED SESSION

2667

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

That members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting of the Closed Session and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Session be withheld. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(s) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:-

1. FOR APPROVAL: Tender 39/2019 - Fire Sprinkler Replacement Program, Riverside Theatres - Design and Construct Contract. (D07267248) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) (d) 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; AND 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.

22.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Tender 39/2019 - Fire Sprinkler Replacement Program, Riverside Theatres - Design and Construct Contract

REFERENCE F2019/04434 - D07267248

REPORT OF Project Manager

2668

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

(a) That Council note the project budget of $1,250,141.76 from Civic Improvement Plan (CBD Section 7.11 Contributions) under sub category Arts & Cultural Facility.

(b) That the Council proceed with the appointment of the preferred tenderer to undertake the fire sprinkler replacement program to the Riverside Theatres for the tendered lump sum exclusive of GST and Contingency as outlined in the report.

(d) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign all necessary legal and contractual documentation, and statutory documentation in connection with the contract for the fire sprinkler replacement program to the Riverside Theatres and to expend the total project budget to the maximum value of $1,250,141.76 allocated from Civic Improvement Plan (CBD Section 7.11 Contributions) under sub category Arts & Cultural Facility.

Note:

1. Councillors Barrak, Issa, Wilson and Zaiter requested their names be recorded as having voted against the decision taken on this item.

2. Councillor Bradley did not vote on the decision taken on this item, and in accordance with Clause 11.5 of the Code of Meeting Practice, is taken to have voted against the decision.

Procedural Motion

2669

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

That the meeting resume into Open Session.

23. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolution for Item 22.1.

24. CONCLUSION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 7.55pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 14 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 9 MARCH 2020 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 23 MARCH 2020.

Chairperson

Council 23 March 2020 Item 13.1

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting held on 26 November 2019

REFERENCE F2017/00358 - D07243827

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 26 November 2019. This report provides a precis of the minutes of the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting held on 26 November 2019.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly (except December and January) and comprises of 12 members.

2. The Committee met on 26 November 2019. The minutes of this meeting can be found at Attachment 1.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The below section is a summary of the main issues discussed at the meeting.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity Mapping

4. Representatives from Kayandel Archaeological Services and Council’s Land Use and Planning team presented on the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity Mapping Project. The presentation covered:

a. Current extent of sensitivity mapping

b. Project progress

c. Project methodology

d. Maps of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity

5. The presenters noted feedback from Committee members and discussed the next steps whereby the sensitivity mapping gets incorporated into the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) in advance of public exhibition of the draft DCP by Council.

Lennox Parramatta Public Art Project

6. Frank Nastasi (Pre-Construction + Development Project Manager, EQ Projects), Andrew Young (Director, EQ Projects) and Ross Shepherd (Partner/Director, Site Image) presented on the Lennox Parramatta Public Art Project and distributed photo concepts of the proposed artwork.

7. The project involves the provision of large scale artwork to the building façade of ‘The Lennox’ (a significant waterfront tower located between Church and Marsden Streets, Parramatta) and along the foreshore boardwalk on the Parramatta River adjoining the CBD.

8. An Expression of Interest (EOI) for professional artists has been issued with a couple of responses already received. A draft contract will be supplied to the shortlisted artists and the selection criteria will be determined by a Design Excellence Board.

9. The Committee raised the question as to whether young Aboriginal artists have been approached to submit an EOI. It was indicated that they have not been specifically approached for this work, but there were plenty of other opportunities coming up in the Parramatta CBD where their participation would be welcome. Those upcoming opportunities will provide an avenue through which to develop the professional practice required for this EOI.

10. The Committee also enquired about the theme for the proposed Lennox Parramatta Public Art Project. It was indicated that the subject will be based on either the environment, spirituality or Aboriginal stories with the overall intention to genuinely embrace symbolism and place making as part of telling the story of Parramatta.

2019 Yarramundi Lecture

11. John Robertson (Chairperson) noted that the Lord Mayor and Councillors had received invitations to attend the 2019 Yarramundi Lecture to be held at 5.30pm on Monday 2 December 2019, but was unable to attend.

12. The Committee resolved to recommend that the Lord Mayor, Councillors and Staff attend the Annual Yarramundi Lectures, which are held at Western Sydney University. This resolution is being provided to the Executive Office for notation.

Stretch Reconciliation Action Plan – Progress Report

13. Community Capacity Building Officer – First Peoples Engagement and Strategy gave a progress report on the implementation of actions in the Stretch Reconciliation Action Plan. He reported that of the 87 actions contained within the Plan:

Actions completed	5
Annual actions completed for 2019	28
In progress and on schedule	30
In progress but behind schedule	17
Not yet started	7

Parramatta Gaol

14. Reference was made to a question raised at the last Committee meeting as to whether the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) is intending to sell the Gaol. It was indicated that following enquiries, there is no indication that the Gaol is to be sold.

15. A question was raised as to whether the cultural and heritage aspects associated with the Gaol will be taken into consideration by the DLALC. This question was taken on notice to raise with Council staff.

Resolution for Leave of Absence for Committee Member

16. It was resolved that Leave of Absence be granted to Committee Member, Kody Boney who sought Leave of Absence from attendance at the ATSI Committee meetings on 25 February 2020 and 24 March 2020, as she is going on extended leave and will return on Wednesday 1 April 2020.

Sorry Day Garden, Lake Parramatta

17. Reference was made to a suggestion raised at the ATSI Advisory Committee meeting on 24 September 2019 to re-name the ‘Sorry Day Garden’ at Lake Parramatta to the ‘Marcia Donovan Memorial Garden’. It was reported that there has been no apparent action taken as yet to re-name the garden. The Committee requested an update on progress.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

New Signage System for City of Parramatta

18. City of Parramatta, Community Capacity Building Officer – First Peoples Engagement and Strategy, provided an update to the Committee from Brand Advisor, City Engagement & Experience on the new signage system for the City of Parramatta. The new wayfinding system would provide more recognition of Aboriginal culture.

19. The Committee was pleased with the revised designs and colours of the signage but considered that the City of Parramatta logo could be highlighted a bit more.

Riverside Theatres and Parramatta Artists’ Studios Workshops – 23 & 24 January 2020

20. Community Capacity Building Officer – First Peoples Engagement and Strategy informed the Committee that Riverside Theatres and Parramatta Artists’ Studios are both developing strategies to better engage with the First Nations community. This will include a facilitated workshop for each cultural institution and key First Nation creatives and practitioners. He advised that the Committee will have opportunity for input throughout the development. The workshops will be held on 23 and 24 January 2020.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

21. There are no financial commitments associated with this report.

Ellen Ross

Community Capacity Building Officer

Phillip Scott

A/Community Capacity Building Manager

David Moutou

Group Manager Social & Community Services

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jon Greig

Executive Director Community Services

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee

6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 March 2020 Item 18.1

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 18.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Pre-Gateway - Planning Proposal for 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site)

REFERENCE RZ/3/2017 - D07307244

REPORT OF Project Officer-Land Use Planning

This item was deferred at the Council Meeting held on 24 February 2020 (Item 18.3).

Landowner PIC Royal Investments Pty. Ltd.

Applicant Think Planners

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL Nil

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement to request a Gateway determination for a Planning Proposal for land at 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta and to prepare an accompanying draft site-specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse for the purposes of requesting a Gateway determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, the Planning Proposal included at Attachment 1 and the addendum at Attachment 2 for land at 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta which seeks to increase the maximum height of buildings control from 54 metres to 166 metres and allow for FSR consistent with the provision of the CBD Planning Proposal by including the following provisions in the site-specific Planning Proposal:

i. Floor space ratio (FSR) – reduction in the floor space ratio from the applicant’s proposed 13.5:1 to a mapped FSR of 10:1; (noting that the Design Excellence and High Performing Buildings bonuses and the unlimited commercial floor space site specific provision allows for an FSR of 12:1 or greater subject to the proposal not exceeding 165.6 metres in height)

ii. Height of Buildings – Reduction in the Height of Buildings control from the applicant’s proposed height of approximately 166 metres to a mapped height control of 144 metres noting that this provides for a total height of 165.6 metres when applying the 15 percent Design Excellence bonus;

iii. Inclusion of a site specific clause that allows for

· Minimum Commercial Provisions – inclusion of a site-specific LEP clause in keeping with draft Clause 7.6C(4) of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal that requires a minimum commercial floor space area equivalent to an FSR of 1:1 and allows for any additional commercial premises floor space in excess of this to be exempt from the maximum FSR as long as this does not result in the proposal exceeding 165.6 metres in height;

· High Performing Buildings Bonus - Provision outlining an additional FSR of 0.5:1 is achievable, provided that high-performing buildings standards are met and this bonus does not result in the proposal exceeding 165.6 metres in height.

iv. Car parking – inclusion of a site-specific LEP clause that applies the maximum car parking rates previously endorsed by Council as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal; and

v. Overshadowing – inclusion of a site-specific clause that ensures that the proposed building does not cause additional overshadowing to the Experiment Farm heritage item between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June consistent with the draft amendment to Clause 7.4 under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

(b) That the Planning Proposal, as amended in accordance with resolution (a) above, be forwarded to the Department requesting a Gateway determination.

(c) That a draft site-specific development control plan (DCP) be prepared and reported to Council for endorsement prior to its public exhibition.

(d) That the applicant be invited to negotiate a Planning Agreement for the subject site and that delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a Planning Agreement with the landowner in relation to the Planning Proposal on behalf of Council. The outcome of negotiations shall be reported back to Council prior to the draft Planning Agreement being placed on public exhibition.

(e) That the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement be exhibited concurrently.

(f) That the reference design be amended by the applicant to reflect the changes in (a) and any changes required by any Gateway Determination issued, prior to exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

(g) That Council advises the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment that the Chief Executive Officer will be seeking to exercise the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal.

(h) That Council grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor anomalies to the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the amendment process.

(i) That Council note the Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council is to defer the Planning Proposal subject to overshadowing analysis (refer Attachment 3), which has been conducted as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and is addressed in this report.

(j) Further, that the Incentive Height of Buildings Map within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal be amended to indicate a height control of 144 metres (165.6 with design excellence) for the site noting that a portion of the site will still retain the Sun Access Protection controls under draft Clause 7.4 relating to the protection of solar access to Experiment Farm.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

SITE DESCRIPTION

1. The subject site is located at 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta and has a legal description of Lot 135 DP 748984 and Lot 4 DP 388895 (Refer to Figure 1). The site has an area of 3,135 square metres. The site contains the Albion Hotel.

2. The site adjoins another development site to the west and south known as the former Cumberland Media site. To the north is the Parramatta River foreshore, to the east is the Robin Thomas Reserve.

Figure 1: Site Location (site shown outlined in blue)

PLANNING PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Table 1: Summary of proposed controls

Control	Existing (Parramatta LEP 2011)	Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as endorsed by Council on 25 November 2019)	Previous lapsed Planning Proposal	Applicant’s Planning Proposal	Recommended Planning Proposal
FSR	4:1	10:1 Incentive FSR (excluding Design Excellence) (noting that bonuses and the unlimited commercial floor space site specific provision discussed below allows for an FSR of 12:1 or greater)	8.47:1 (including Design Excellence)	13.5:1 (including Design Excellence)	10:1 Incentive FSR (excluding Design Excellence) (noting that bonuses and the unlimited commercial floor space site specific provision discussed below allows for an FSR of 12:1 or greater)
Height	54m (approx 14 storeys)	130m – approx 40 storeys Incentive Height (149.5 – approx 46 storeys including Design Excellence bonus).	102 m (35 storeys)	Approximately 166 m (51 storeys)	144m – approx 44 storeys - Incentive Height (165.6 -approx 51 storeys including Design Excellence bonus).
Site-specific provision		An additional FSR of 0.5:1 is achievable, provided that high-performing buildings standards are met. Includes maximum car parking rates previously endorsed by Council; and Includes amendment to Clause 7.4 Sun Access Protection to ensure that any part of the proposed building does not cause additional overshadowing to the Experiment Farm heritage item between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June. Minimum commercial floor space area of 1:1 Unlimited commercial floor space (within the height limit).	Total FSR can only be reached if that development includes a standalone pub		An additional FSR of 0.5:1 is achievable, provided that high-performing buildings standards are met. Includes maximum car parking rates previously endorsed by Council; and Includes amendment to Clause 7.4 Sun Access Protection to ensure that any part of the proposed building does not cause additional overshadowing to the Experiment Farm heritage item between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June. Minimum commercial floor space area of 1:1 Unlimited commercial floor space (within the height limit).
Land reservation Map		Proposes a 7m wide reservation on the Harris Street frontage for the purpose of local road widening.		The applicant’s reference design is set back 7m from Harris Street.	7m wide reservation on Harris St frontage for the purpose of local road widening.
Number of dwellings¹	147	405	291	505	405

¹ The number of dwellings has been estimated based on the maximum achievable residential gross- floor area (including bonuses) divided by an average apartment size of 85m^2.The number of dwellings for the applicant’s Planning Proposal reflects the Reference Design.

BACKGROUND

3. This report is supported by the detailed assessment report (report to the Local Planning Panel considered on 19 March 2019) provided at Attachment 3.

4. The applicant’s Planning Proposal (refer to Attachments 1 and 2) seeks to amend the Parramatta LEP 2011 by:

a. Increasing the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) on the Floor Space Ratio Map from 4:1 to 13.5:1 (including design excellence bonus); and

b. Increasing the Height of Buildings (HOB) on the Height of Buildings Map from 54 metres to 166 metres.

5. The applicant’s Planning Proposal is supported by a reference design included within the Urban Design Report at Attachment 4.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE TO COUNCIL

6. A detailed assessment report was considered by the Local Planning Panel at its meeting on 19 February 2019. The Panel considered the matter and resolved as follows: “That the matter be deferred to allow for a briefing paper to be prepared and issued to the Panel about the broader CBD Planning Proposal strategy for transitioning building heights, including building heights on the subject site.”

7. The matter was reconsidered by the Panel on 19 March 2019 (see Attachment 3) and the information requested above was provided to the Panel as an attachment to the Panel report (see Attachment 5) where the Panel resolved as follows:

“The Panel has serious concerns regarding the potential shadowing impacts from the proposed controls, particularly the cumulative impact with the adjoining proposal.

The Panel considers these concerns should be addressed prior to a decision being made on this planning proposal.

In these circumstances, the Panel recommends that the shadowing diagrams be prepared so that a decision can be made by Council on what is an acceptable level of shadowing impact.”

8. The matter was considered by Council at its Meeting on 8 April 2019 where it resolved as follows:

“That Council note the recommendation of the Local Planning Panel dated 19 March 2019 in relation to this matter as detailed below, noting that the Panel’s recommendation is inconsistent with the Council Officer’s recommendation to support the proposal subject to amendments and the completion of cumulative shadow analysis prior to seeking a Gateway determination.

i. The Panel has serious concerns regarding the potential shadowing impacts from the proposed controls, particularly the cumulative impact with the adjoining proposal.

ii. The Panel considers these concerns should be addressed prior to a decision being made on the planning proposal.

iii. In these circumstances, the Panel recommends that the shadowing diagrams be prepared so that a decision can be made by Council on what is an acceptable level of shadowing impact.”

9. In noting the Panel’s advice, Council did not progress the matter and effectively deferred it pending the outcome of the shadow analysis conducted as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

10. Council considered the matter at its meeting on 24 February 2020 and resolved to defer consideration of the matter for a Councillor workshop which was held on 2 March 2020.

PARRAMATTA CBD PLANNING PROPOSAL

11. At the time that the concerns were raised by Council and the Local Planning Panel regarding overshadowing, work had already commenced in this area by Council’s CBD Planning Proposal team in response to the conditions of the Gateway determination for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

12. The Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal Gateway determination condition No. 1(j)(2) requires that in relation to the proposed height controls: “provide further assessment of the overshadowing impact of the proposed controls on public open spaces surrounding the CBD compared to the existing controls.”

13. Condition no. 1(j)(3) requires that in relation to the proposed height controls: “incorporate an assessment of the potential overshadowing impacts on Experiment Farm that may result from the proposed planning controls (outside the proposed sun access plane of 10am to 2pm).”

14. As such, the reporting of the site-specific Planning Proposal back to Council was considered to be interrelated with the overshadowing assessment for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

15. As part of this assessment, Council Officers prepared an Overshadowing Technical Paper for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal based on several city blocks to address the Gateway conditions to further assess the cumulative overshadowing impacts as a result of the proposed controls on public open spaces and heritage conservation areas. The analysis conducted included different scenario testing and urban design input.

16. Council considered the results of the analysis at its meeting on 26 November 2019 and modified provisions were endorsed by Council for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

17. The updated Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal contains provisions relating to solar access plane provisions for Experiment Farm as well as amendments to maximum building heights and FSRs in certain areas required to protect solar access to public open spaces. This also has the effect of reducing the extent of overshadowing of Robin Thomas Reserve to a more acceptable level.

18. The recommendation for the subject site is the identification of the southern half of the site within the Sun Access Protection Map that relates to Clause 7.4 Sun Access Protection (related to Experiment Farm) within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. This clause stipulates that development consent must not be granted that results in any part of a building causing additional overshadowing on 21 June of Experiment Farm between 10.00am and 2.00pm.

19. A second recommendation was to retain the proposed Incentive FSR (10:1), but introduce a maximum height of buildings control of 130 metres (approximately 40 storeys) excluding the 15 per cent Design Excellence bonus. With the the Design Excellence bonus, the total achievable height would be approximately 149.5 metres (approximately 46 storeys). This total height would be subject to development assessment, having regard to the design excellence provisions and the proposed Sun Access Protection clause.

20. This report now recommends a mapped height control of 144m – approx 44 storeys – which allows for a total height of 165.6 metres -approx 51 storeys - when including the design excellence bonus.

COUNCILLOR WORKSHOP

21. The matter was presented at a workshop with the Councillors on 2 March 2020. The focus of the workshop was the implications of the height sought by the applicant in their Planning Proposal when compared with the height recommended in the report to Council on 24 February 2020.

22. It was noted that when the site-specific Planning Proposal was first reported to Council in April 2019, the CBD Planning Proposal shadow analysis was yet to be completed. As such, a precautionary approach was taken in assessing the Planning Proposal and in recommending controls for the site. The height and FSR controls were recommended at 130 metres (149.5 metres including all bonuses) and 10:1 mapped FSR (12:1 including all bonuses) respectively which reflected the draft controls in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. These controls were also recommended for the site in the report to Council on 24 February 2020.

23. The Overshadowing Technical Paper for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal was analysed in preparation for the Councillor Workshop. Analysis of the assumptions underlying the Technical Paper has revealed that the applicant’s proposed height of 166 metres was tested and found to have acceptable overshadowing impacts.

24. Further detailed testing was done by Council’s City Design Unit in preparation for the Councillor workshop using the reference design supplied by the applicant. This included cumulative overshadowing from the Planning Proposals on the adjoining Former Cumberland Media site and 184 George Street to the north-west of the site. Associated shadow diagrams are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4 below.

Figure 2: overshadowing caused by the Albion Hotel site at 12pm on 21 June. (Blue line reflects shadow profile of 149.5m tower. Red line reflects shadow profile of 166m tower).

Figure 3: overshadowing caused by the Albion Hotel site at 1pm on 21 June. (Blue line reflects shadow profile of 149.5m tower. Red line reflects shadow profile of 166m tower).

Figure 4: overshadowing caused by the Albion Hotel site at 2pm on 21 June. (Blue line reflects shadow profile of 149.5m tower. Red line reflects shadow profile of 166m tower).

25. The shadow diagrams compare the overshadowing impacts between a building at the previously recommended height of 149.5 metres (including design excellence) with the impacts of a building at the applicant’s sought height of 166 metres (including design excellence). In summary, the comparison indicates:

a. The proposal does not impact on Experiment Farm reserve at either height;

b. Both of the proposed heights impact on Robin Thomas Reserve, however, the marginal difference in overshadowing between the two heights is considered acceptable.

26. With regard to the overshadowing on Robin Thomas Reserve, the Gateway determination did not provide any criteria for the assessment of overshadowing of public open space. In the absence of any criteria, the Overshadowing Technical Paper for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal deferred to the City of Sydney’s “Sydney Development Control Plan 2012” which requires a minimum of 50 per cent of a park’s area to receive four hours or more of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

27. Using this threshold, the Planning Proposal at both heights allows for this level of sunlight access.

CONSEQUENCES

28. The recent analysis by Council’s City Design unit has found that a development of the site may not reach the applicant’s proposed total FSR of 13.5:1 even with the height set at 166 metres (including design excellence) and is more likely to achieve a total FSR closer to 12:1 within this site. This is mainly due to the numerical assumptions behind the applicant’s reference design which do not accord with Council’s standard urban design assumptions for floor area efficiencies.

29. Another influencing factor will be the podium and tower setbacks which are yet to be determined through a site-specific DCP. There is nothing in the recommendation for this Planning Proposal that would prohibit the applicant from achieving an FSR of 13.5:1 in theory. This is due to the recommended site-specific clause that allows for any additional commercial premises floor space over and above the required minimum of 1:1 floor area to be exempt from the maximum FSR (but not exempt from the height controls).

30. This provides the applicant with flexibility to potentially achieve the FSR sought, however, this will be subject to the setback controls established in a site-specific DCP. A better indication of the FSR that is achievable within the total height of 165.6 metres (including all bonuses) will be available upon preparation of a draft DCP. The draft DCP for this site,will be prepared once a Gateway determination has been issued, and reported to Council for endorsement prior to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

31. It is now recommended that the applicant’s Planning Proposal be amended to reflect the following controls:

a. Floor space ratio (FSR) – reduction in the floor space ratio from the applicant’s proposed 13.5:1 to a mapped FSR of 10:1 (noting that the Design Excellence and the High Performing Buildings bonuses and the unlimited commercial floor space site specific provision allows for an FSR of 12:1 or greater subject to the proposal not exceeding 165.6 metres in height) ;

b. Height of Buildings – Reduction in the Height of Buildings control from the applicant’s proposed height of 166 metres to a mapped height control of 144 metres noting that this provides for a total height of 165.6 metres when applying the 15 per cent Design Excellence bonus. (Note: a mapped incentive height of 144 metres is recommended as it is the closest whole number to use as a basis to arrive at a total height of approximately 166 metres when applying the 15 per cent Design Excellence bonus. The total height arrived at in this instance is 165.6 metres.);

c. Inclusion of a site-specific clause that allows for:

· Minimum Commercial Provisions – a draft clause in keeping with Clause 7.6C(4) of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal that requires a minimum commercial floor space area equivalent to an FSR of 1:1 and allows for any additional commercial premises floor space in excess of this to be exempt from the maximum FSR as long as this does not result in the proposal exceeding 165.6 metres in height;

d. Car parking – inclusion of a site-specific LEP clause that applies the maximum car parking rates previously endorsed by Council as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal; and

e. Overshadowing – inclusion of a site-specific clause that ensures that the proposed building does not cause additional overshadowing to the Experiment Farm heritage item between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June consistent with the draft amendment to Clause 7.4 under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

32. The amendments above would ensure that the development of the site is consistent with Council’s vision for the Parramatta CBD while ensuring an acceptable level of overshadowing of Experiment Farm and Robin Thomas Reserve.

33. In order to resolve the height anomaly identified it is recommended that the relevant CBD Planning Proposal Height of Buildings Map also be amended to reflect the height of 144 metres (excluding design excellence bonus) for this site.

NEXT STEPS

34. Should Council endorse the site-specific Planning Proposal, it will be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway determination.

35. A draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement are also required for the site and will be reported to Council for endorsement prior to exhibition with the Planning Proposal.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

36. If a Gateway determination is received, the Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition along with the draft site-specific DCP and a draft Planning Agreement. A report on the outcomes of the public exhibition will be provided to the Local Planning Panel addressing any objections received. If no objections are received, the matter will be reported directly to Council seeking approval to finalise the Planning Proposal.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

37. Should Council resolve to endorse the Planning Proposal, it is recommended that the applicant be invited to negotiate a draft Planning Agreement for the subject site. This may include the dedication of land, works-in-kind and/or a monetary contribution. The result of any negotiations will be reported back to Council for the purpose of public exhibition alongside the Planning Proposal and draft DCP.

Felicity Roberts

Project Officer-Land Use Planning

Robert Cologna

Team Leader Land Use Planning

Jonathon Carle

Land Use Planning Manager

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Applicant's Planning Proposal	33 Pages
2 ⇩	Addendum to applicant's Planning Proposal	9 Pages
3 ⇩	Report to Local Planning Panel 19 March 2019	17 Pages
4 ⇩	Applicant's reference design	62 Pages
5 ⇩	Further information provoided to the Local Planning Panel on 19 March 2019	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 23 March 2020 Item 18.2

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 18.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Local Strategic Planning Statement Seeking Endorsement (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2018/01790 - D07317881

REPORT OF Snr Project Officer Land Use

PREVIOUS ITEMS 18.1 - Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement, Draft Local Housing Strategy and Draft Community Infrastructure Strategy - Seeking endorsement for Public Exhibition - Council - 09 Sep 2019 6.30pm

This item was deferred from the Council Meeting held on 9 March 2020 (Item 18.1) for a Councillor Workshop.

PURPOSE:

To report on the feedback received from the exhibition of the Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement, to explain the changes and recommend its endorsement.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the final Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) at Attachment 1 incorporating the amendments at Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 noting the following associated key principles:

· Focus employment growth in the Parramatta Metropolitan Centre (Parramatta CBD) and Strategic Centres of Epping and Sydney Olympic Park and Westmead Innovation Precinct.

· Housing growth is focused in identified Growth Precincts.

· Preserve and enhance the low-scale character and identity of suburban City of Parramatta suburbs outside of the GPOP area.

· Stage housing release consistent with infrastructure delivery.

· Housing diversity underpins any future changes to planning controls.

· The majority of employment lands are protected to ensure no net loss of jobs or employment land.

· Neighbourhoods, places and development are well-balanced, connected and sustainable.

· Protection of the environment, including providing for sustainable development.

(b) That Council note the community feedback and submissions received during the public exhibition of the LSPS documented in the Community Engagement Report provided at Attachment 2.

(c) Further, that Council forward the approved LSPS to the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) to seek its support in writing for the statement in accordance with section 3.9(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and following receipt of this support, Council delegate authority to the CEO to finalise the LSPS (including to make any minor amendments as requested by the GSC and Council) and then publish it on the NSW planning portal.

BACKGROUND

1. Revisions to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) introduced a new Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) framework for councils. A LSPS sets out the long-term vision for land use planning in a Council’s local government area (LGA) and responds to broader priorities identified in the District Plans – in the City of Parramatta’s case, the Central City District Plan (March 2018). The LSPS also integrates with a Council’s Community Strategic Plan. The figure below shows the linkages to both State Government and the City of Parramatta’s plans.

Figure – Relationship of LSPS with government and Council plans

2. Council prepared a draft LSPS which was exhibited last year simultaneously with the draft Local Housing Strategy (LHS) and draft Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS). The draft LSPS also appended the Draft Employment Lands Strategy - Review and Update (August 2019) (ELS Review and Update).

3. The LHS, CIS and revised ELS Review and Update* are scheduled to be reported to Council in the coming weeks given the detail contained within these strategies and the implications of changes made to the LSPS as a result of feedback from the GSC received through its Assurance Program.

*Note: The ELS Review and Update has been detached as an Appendix to the LSPS based on the advice of the GSC through the Assurance Program. This will be reported separately at a later date.

4. The GSC’s Assurance Program ensures a Council’s LSPS is aligned with its applicable Region Plan and District Plan. The Assurance Program requires each Council’s LSPS Project Team to discuss their LSPS’s progress and place-specific matters with the GSC and relevant State government agencies at key milestones. Under section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act, a Council in the Greater Sydney Region must not make its LSPS unless the GSC has advised the Council in writing that it supports the statement as being consistent with the applicable regional and district plans – hence the purpose of the GSC’s Assurance Program.

COUNCILLOR WORKSHOP

5. At its 9 March 2020 Council meeting, Council resolved to defer the report to hold a Councillor Workshop on the LSPS.

6. A Councillor Workshop was subsequently held on 11 March 2020 to discuss potential changes to the LSPS. The recommended proposed changes are documented at Attachment 3. This report recommends the LSPS at Attachment 1 be amended to include the proposed amendments at Attachment 3 (and Attachment 4 – discussed later in the report).

EXHIBITION PERIOD

7. The draft LSPS together with the draft LHS and draft CIS (‘the strategies’) as well as the Employment Lands Strategy Review and Update (which was appended to the LSPS) were simultaneously exhibited for a 6 week period from 30 September 2019 to 11 November 2019. During this time, the community, including residents, businesses, workers, visitors, interest groups, non-government and not-for-profit organisations, the development industry and applicants, State Government authorities and others, were able to comment on the draft strategies.

Consultation mechanisms

8. A number of consultation mechanisms were utilised to extend the reach of the strategies. These included media releases, public advertisements, social media posts, a letter mail out, email newsletters and drop-in sessions. Throughout the duration of the exhibition period, a range of options were provided for the community to return feedback on the draft strategies, which are detailed in the Exhibition Engagement Report at Attachment 2.

9. Furthermore, the Executive Director City Strategy and Development accepted invitations to make presentations to members of the Property Council of Australia and the Committee for Sydney. The LSPS Project Team also informally presented to Council’s Access Committee.

Community feedback on the LSPS

Submissions

10. Community feedback received via submissions on the draft LSPS (including the ELS Review and Update) and LHS is detailed in Section 4 of the Exhibition Engagement Report (LSPS & LHS) provided at Attachment 2. A total of 87 submissions were received. In summary:

a. The key themes raised from residents and interest groups/ not-for-profit organisations (41 submissions) were around the following:

i. Concern around the doubling of the City’s population and its impact on infrastructure, local character and amenity, and the need to provide housing diversity.

ii. The need to stage growth with infrastructure delivery.

iii. The need to protect low-density areas, and protect tree coverage as well as protect land for employment.

iv. Concern around developers having too much influence over where and how housing is located.

b. Council Officers inadvertently missed a submission from the Epping Civic Trust in its initial review of submissions. This submission has now been reviewed in detail and incorporated into the Community Engagement Report at Attachment 2.

c. The key points raised from the development industry, applicants and investors (37 submissions) were around the following:

i. The desire to accelerate renewal and/or land use change for their respective precinct/site or requests for site-specific planning proposals to be fast-tracked outside recommended LHS sequencing.

ii. Requests to review and/or amend planning controls relating to specific sites.

iii. The assertion that certain sites or precincts containing Employment Lands are underperforming and that alternative land uses should be considered despite Council’s Employment Lands Strategy (2016) (ELS) and ELS Review and Update (2019).

d. The key points raised from the State Government authorities (7 submissions) were around the following:

i. The need for the LSPS to align with the actions of the District Plan and have a line of sight to other state level strategies and plans.

ii. The need to sequence housing growth in line with infrastructure delivery as well as ensure the LSPS has flexibility to accommodate for the final recommendations of the Place-based Infrastructure Compact for GPOP.

iii. Reinforcing the importance of integrated transport and land use planning to achieve a sustainable, liveable and productive city.

e. Key points raised by adjoining Councils (City of Ryde and The Hills) include the following:

i. support for the Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme (City of Ryde);

ii. for the opportunity to work with Council on planning for Melrose Park Growth Precinct (City of Ryde);

iii. support for the planning principle that infrastructure planning occurs before growth (City of Ryde); and

iv. support for mass transit link notations in the LSPS Structure Plan between Norwest and Parramatta as well as active transport networks (The Hills).

11. Refer to Appendix 2 in Attachment 2 for detailed responses to each submission received.

12. Council Officers inadvertently omitted to correct references to the Affordable Rental Housing targets in the Community Engagement Report to ensure consistency with State Government policy. The Community Engagement Report has now been updated accordingly at Appendix 3 of Attachment 2.

Community Survey

13. Community feedback was also received via a community survey. A total of 495 survey responses were received on the draft LSPS (including the ELS Review and Update) and LHS which is detailed in Section 4.3 of the Exhibition Engagement Report (LSPS & LHS) provided at Attachment 2. In summary the key themes raised were around the following:

a. Respondents supporting the need for the staging of growth so that it does not happen all at once.

b. Respondents supporting more low-rise development was seen as important for housing diversity.

c. Affordable rental housing was seen as important.

d. Protecting employment lands for jobs.

e. Protecting and increasing tree canopy was seen as important.

14. Other matters or themes were also raised. For further details, refer to Section 4.3 in Attachment 2.

Conclusion

15. The feedback received resulted in amendments to the LSPS. Broadly, the changes were around the following:

a. Restructuring of the document so that the strategic context is clearer with some new content which strengthens the City’s role within Greater Sydney.

b. Allocating timeframes to the actions.

c. Strengthening the housing diversity precinct criteria.

d. Clarifying actions where there was ambiguity.

e. Improving figure legibility.

f. Clarifying terminology.

N.B. Attachment 2 provides more detail on the changes made to the LSPS.

16. For further details on the feedback received during the exhibition period, refer to Sections 4 and 5 in the Exhibition Engagement Report provided at Attachment 2.

RELEASE OF THE GPOP DRAFT PLACE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE COMPACT

17. Shortly before the conclusion of the exhibition period for the draft LSPS on 11 November 2019, the GSC commenced exhibition of a draft Place-based Infrastructure Compact Pilot (PIC) for the Greater Parramatta to Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) area. The draft PIC was exhibited from 7 November 2019 to 18 December 2019. A Council report on Council’s submission on the draft PIC was considered by Council at its 16 December 2019 Council meeting (Item 18.2). The endorsed submission was subsequently forwarded to the GSC.

18. Given the public exhibition of the draft PIC, amendments were required to the draft LSPS by way of small reference notes to ensure that all future growth largely aligns with infrastructure delivery consistent with the PIC for GPOP. The PIC is also now clearly referenced in the ‘Introduction’ section to the LSPS. Council officers have retained the inclusion of Camellia as a Growth Precinct in the LSPS, but have also included relevant notations that this is subject to the Government’s final position in response to the GSC’s draft PIC.

LSPS ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK

19. Since early November 2019, Council staff have been working with the GSC and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) as part of the LSPS’s Assurance Program, which is run by the GSC. As discussed previously in this report, it is a statutory requirement for the GSC to advise Council in writing that it supports the LSPS as being consistent with the applicable regional and district plans before Council can make their LSPS. The GSC’s Assurance Program has been set up to facilitate this process.

20. The GSC requested through the Assurance Program a number of changes to the draft LSPS to ensure a direct line of sight to the District Plan. The principal changes relate to:

a. strategic context – improving the narrative around the role of Greater Parramatta and GPOP in the Greater Sydney metropolitan area. This included the need to reference the GPOP PIC, which had since been exhibited by the GSC.

b. dwelling forecasts – these needed to be spread over a wider time frame to more accurately reflect annual housing delivery rates. In summary, this resulted in a change to the 20 year (2016-2036) total additional dwellings figure from 102,410 dwellings down to 87,900 dwellings, which is still 3,925 dwellings over target (being 83,975 dwellings). The difference between the original exhibited draft figure of 102,410 dwellings and the revised figure of 87,900 dwellings, being 14,510 dwellings, would still be delivered, but in a longer timeframe (beyond 2036). This will be clarified further in the LHS.

The related dwelling figures contained in Figure 23 – Delivering Housing and Employment in the LSPS incorrectly referred to exhibited figures and needs to be updated to reflect the revised figures in Table 3. The updated Figure 23 forms Attachment 4 and it is recommended that this replaces Figure 23 in the LSPS at Attachment 1.

c. references to strategies not yet endorsed by DPIE – small reference notes were inserted within the document explaining the requirement for DPIE approval of the ELS, ELS Review and Update and LHS, consistent with relevant section 9.1 Ministerial Directions. Furthermore, the ELS Review and Update was detached as an Appendix from the LSPS to create a stand-alone document. These strategies will be addressed separately in a follow-up Council report.

d. correctly reflecting endorsed Government policy – revised wording to be consistent with endorsed Government policy (eg. affordable housing contribution rates, use of Government owned land, infrastructure commitments, etc.).

e. minor technical amendments – amending figures for improved legibility and other technical edits.

21. These changes are referenced in the Summary of LSPS changes at Appendix 3 of Attachment 2.

22. On Council’s endorsement of the LSPS (recommendation (a) of this Report) and consistent with the GSC Assurance Program tied to the making of the LSPS, the next Assurance milestone is to immediately forward the endorsed LSPS to the GSC for final review. Following submission to the GSC, its Assurance Panel will consider the endorsed LSPS and decide whether to issue its ‘Letter of Support’ as per the requirement in section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act. Council’s LSPS cannot come into effect without the GSC’s ‘Letter of Support’. Under Clause 11A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Savings, Transitional and Other Provisions) Regulation 2017, this first LSPS is required to be made by Council before 31 March 2020.

23. As part of the Assurance framework, the GSC has advised Council to detach the ELS Review and Update (August 2019) - which was exhibited as the Appendix to the Draft LSPS – and create it as a stand-alone document. To that end, it has been detached from the LSPS and will be given a cover page, ‘Background’ and ‘Next Steps’ sections and will be reported separately to a later Council meeting together with the LHS and CIS.

24. Furthermore, because the timeframe between Council’s endorsement of the LSPS and its deadline for submission to the GSC for finalisation is so short, a separate Council report on the LSPS’s supporting strategies – the LHS, ELS Review and Update and CIS - will follow in the short term.

MONITORING / IMPLEMENTING THE LSPS

Monitoring / implementing the LSPS

25. Councils are required to establish monitoring and reporting for their respective LSPSs. Therefore, the Actions within the LSPS will be incorporated into Council’s Pulse online reporting tool so that the progression of each action can be tracked and be reported on. In addition, Council’s Pathway system will be augmented to better manage the tracking of housing growth.

REVIEWING THE LSPS

26. The EP&A Act establishes that LSPSs must be reviewed every seven years at a minimum. But Councils can review and update their LEP more regularly than this if required. Because the City is growing at such a rapid rate, it is intended that the LSPS be comprehensively reviewed every four (4) to five (5) years. In between comprehensive reviews, the LSPS may have more frequent out-of-cycle reviews. These will be interim reviews limited in their scope. They will be informed by either a: (1) a new local strategy prepared by Council; or (2) a plan prepared by the DPIE or the GSC. The first out-of-cycle review is anticipated in 2021 when the GSC are expected to have finalised the GPOP PIC (and DPIE have endorsed the LHS, ELS and ELS Review and Update).

CONCLUSION

27. The attached LSPS being recommended for Council approval is being considered ahead of the LHS, ELS Review and Update and CIS owing to the short statutory timeframe for the making of the LSPS (refer to paragraph 18 above). Incorporating feedback from the GSC on the LSPS as a part of its Assurance Program has also assisted Council staff in making amendments to the Draft LHS and Draft ELS Review and Update, so as to ensure these strategies are properly synthesized, consistent with the LSPS and drafted effectively so as to improve their likelihood of being endorsed by DPIE in accordance with relevant section 9.1 Ministerial Directions.

28. Community and GSC feedback has resulted in the draft LSPS being updated.

29. A Council report on the LHS, ELS Review and Update and CIS will be provided at a later Council meeting.

30. The actions within the LSPS will be incorporated into Council’s Pulse online reporting tool so that progression on each action can be regularly reported on.

31. The LSPS (and LHS, ELS and CIS) will be reviewed comprehensively every 4 to 5 years.

NEXT STEPS

32. Should Council approve the attached LSPS then the next steps are to:

a. Make the amendments to the LSPS in accordance with Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 and any other minor changes (requested by the GSC or Council) through the CEO’s delegation.

b. Send the LSPS to the GSC for endorsement consistent with the LSPS Assurance process and statutory requirements.

c. Publish it on the NSW Planning Portal once the GSC Assurance is received.

d. Send the final LSPS to DPIE for its information and records.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

33. Council is required by the Accelerated LEP Framework Review Funding Agreement to complete the six phases of the LEP Framework Review within set milestone dates to be able to receive the remaining component of $2.5 million to finance the remaining parts of the Review. On the assumption Council endorses the LSPS, Council is on schedule to claim its fourth round of funding (of $625,000) given the Harmonisation Planning Proposal has been submitted for a Gateway determination.

Jacky Wilkes

Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

Janelle Scully

Team Leader Land Use Planning

Roy Laria

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager City Planning

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy and Development

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Local Strategic Planning Statement 2036	88 Pages
2 ⇩	Community Engagement Report	112 Pages
3 ⇩	Proposed LSPS Amendments arising from Councillor feedback	5 Pages
4 ⇩	Revised Figure 23	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Clr Phil Bradley	Clr Lorraine Wearne	Sound
Clr Sameer Pandey	Clr Andrew Wilson	Sound
Clr Paul Han	Clr Bill Tyrrell
Clr Dr Patricia Prociv	Clr Andrew Jefferies	IT
Clr Pierre Esber	Clr Benjamin Barrak	IT
Clr Donna Davis	Clr Martin Zaiter
Clr Michelle Garrard, Deputy Lord Mayor	Clr Steven Issa

Page number in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2019/20	Name/s of measure/s	Proposed change	Rationale for change
49 (Fair)	· Effectiveness of Internal Audit Program · Compliance with Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation	Remove	Work is ongoing but current measures are not valuable.
89 (Welcoming)	· Benefits of Council Events & Festivals program (audience growth, economic, media)	Reword to: “Combined attendance at Council Events & Festivals”	Reworded measure better reflects what is actually measured.
114 (Innovative)	· Reviews of project management portfolios · Quality reviews for all Critical Projects · Increase in project management capability · Project Management capability for Information and Technology projects	Remove	Items are now obsolete due to structural change and refocused PMO functions.
114 (Innovative)	· Statutory financial indicators	Remove	These are statutory indicators already reported annually in the Annual Report. The ratios cannot be calculated quarterly and should be based on the Audited Statements. Reporting quarterly is not valuable.


Press Press

Public Gallery