NOTICE OF Council MEETING

PUBLIC AGENDA

 

An Ordinary Meeting of City of Parramatta Council will be held remotely via audio-visual link on Monday, 11 May 2020 at 6.30pm.

 

 

 

 

Brett Newman

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                             11 May 2020

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                SUBJECT        PAGE NO

 

1      OPENING MEETING

2      ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

3      WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

4      OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

5      CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Council - 14 April 2020....................................... 6

6      APOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

7      DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

8      MATTERS OF URGENCY (if any)

9      Minutes of the Lord Mayor

10    Public Forum

11    Petitions

12    Rescission Motions

13    Fair

13.1          FOR NOTATION: Investment Report for March 2020................................. 20

13.2          FOR APPROVAL: Response to Notice of Motion - Use of Sporting Fields in the Local Government Area................... 57

13.3          FOR APPROVAL: Response to Notice of Motion - Cost of Printing Council Business Papers.............................. 61

14    Accessible

14.1          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                                                         66

14.2          FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting held on 26 March 2020..................... 69

14.3          FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Meeting held on 26 March 2020..... 140

14.4          FOR APPROVAL: Proposed changes to the Community Engagement Strategy for the notification of development applications............... 190

14.5          FOR APPROVAL: Epping to Carlingford Cycleway (Deferred Item)                                                       204

15    Green

16    Welcoming

17    Thriving

17.1          FOR APPROVAL: Concept Design for Charles Street Square Parramatta.. 282

18    Innovative

18.1          FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Smart City Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 February 2020...................... 312

18.2          FOR APPROVAL: Proposed Amendment to the Homebush Bay West DCP 2013 and Planning Agreement for Block H, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point for public exhibition                                                       345

18.3          FOR APPROVAL: Matters relating to Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement - 295 Church Street, Parramatta..................................... 577

18.4          FOR APPROVAL: Draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for land at 235 - 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford............. 665

18.5          FOR APPROVAL: Planning Proposal and draft Development Control Plan for land at 197 and 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta....... 689

18.6          FOR APPROVAL: Pre-Gateway - Planning Proposal for 12-14 Phillip Street and 331A, 333 & 339 Church Street, Parramatta.......................... 783

18.7          FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement - 2 O'Connell St, Parramatta..................................... 860

18.8          FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Draft Development Control Plan and Matters Pertaining to Planning Agreement - 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park..................................... 991 

19    Notices of Motion

19.1          NOTICE OF MOTION: Advocate for Extension of 401 Bus Route......... 1006

19.2          NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s COVID-19 Act Amendments to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. 1007

19.3          NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s “Planning System Acceleration Program” and related changes No. 1.............................. 1009

19.4          NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s “Planning System Acceleration Program” and related changes No. 2.............................. 1011

19.5          NOTICE OF MOTION: Parramatta Light Rail...................................... 1012  

20    QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

21    Closed Session

21.1          FOR NOTATION: Legal Status Report as at 22 April 2020

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

21.2          FOR APPROVAL: Tender 01/2020 Alfred Street at Prospect Street, Rosehill – Construction of Two Pedestrian Refuge Islands and Associated Works

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

21.3          FOR APPROVAL: Tender 02/2020 Macarthur Street at Grose and Mason Streets North Parramatta – Construction of a Roundabout and Associated Works

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

21.4          FOR APPROVAL: Tender 03/2020 Sturt Street at Evans Road Telopea – Construction of a Roundabout and Pedestrian Refuge Island and Associated Works

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

21.5          FOR APPROVAL: Appointment of consultants for the Horwood Place Car Park Compulsory Acquisition by Metro

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.

 

22    PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

23    CONCLUSION OF MEETING


MINUTES OF THE Meeting of City of Parramatta Council Meeting of City of Parramatta Council HELD REMOTELY VIA AUDIO-VISUAL LINK ON Tuesday, 14 April 2020 AT 6.28pm

 

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, 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, Lorraine Wearne and Martin Zaiter.

 

1.     OPENING MEETING

 

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer, opened the meeting at 6.28pm.

 

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.

 

4.     OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

 

The Lord Mayor advised members of the public that the meeting was being held remotely and if persons watching the meeting live were to encounter technical difficulties to leave and re-enter the meeting via Council’s website.

 

5.     CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

 

SUBJECT:        Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 23 March 2020

 

2689

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Prociv)

 

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

 

 

SUBJECT:        Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 7 April 2020

 

2690

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Esber)

 

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


 

6.     APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

There were no apologies tabled for this meeting.

 

7.     DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Esber declared a non-pecuniary but significant interest in Item 18.1 being Post Exhibition Outcomes - Planning Proposal and Draft Planning Agreement – 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (Deferred Item) as his son works for the applicant. He retired from the meeting during debate and voting on the matter.

 

8.     MATTERS OF URGENCY (if any)

 

There were no matters of urgency raised at this meeting.

 

9.     Minutes of the Lord Mayor

 

9.1

SUBJECT         Condolence Motion for Terry Barnes

 

REFERENCE   F2019/03630 - D07357471

 

REPORT OF    Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer

 

2691

RESOLVED      (Dwyer/Garrard)

 

(a)    That Council acknowledge the passing of Mr Terry Barnes, who served as General Manager of Parramatta City Council from 1999-2003.

 

(b)    Further, that Council pass on our condolences to his family, as a gesture of respect on his passing and in recognition of his contributions and service to the City of Parramatta.

 

10.   Public Forum

 

There were no public forum submissions for this meeting.

 

11.   Petitions

 

There were no petitions tabled at this meeting.

 

12.   Rescission Motions

 

12.1

SUBJECT         RESCISSION MOTION: Superannuation Guarantee Contributions for Councillors and Gender Equity

 

REFERENCE   F2019/04433 - D07339032

 

REPORT OF    Councillor Zaiter

 

 

The Notice of Motion of Rescission was withdrawn.

 


13.   Fair

 

13.1

SUBJECT         FOR NOTATION: Investment Report for February 2020

 

REFERENCE   F2009/00971 - D07310731

 

REPORT OF    Tax and Treasury Accountant

 

2692

RESOLVED      (Esber/Wilson)

 

That Council note the Investment Report for February 2020.

 

 

Procedural Motion

 

2693

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

That Items 13.2, 14.1, 14.3, 15.1, 17.1, 18.3 and 18.4 be resolved en bloc and the recommendations be adopted.

 

13.2

SUBJECT         FOR NOTATION: Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 18 February 2020

 

REFERENCE   F2019/02413 - D07324029

 

REPORT OF    Coordinator Internal Audit

 

2694

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

That Council note the minutes of the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 18 February 2020 as provided at Attachment 1.

 

13.3

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Council's Response to COVID-19 - Delegations to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer

 

REFERENCE   F2019/04433 - D07344413

 

REPORT OF    Governance Manager

 

2695

RESOLVED      (Wearne/Wilson)

 

That no further action be taken on this matter.

 

 

Note:  The Lord Mayor, Clr. Dwyer requested his name be recorded as having voted against the decision taken in this item.

 

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 - D07250449

 

REPORT OF    Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

 

2696

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

14.2

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Epping to Carlingford Cycleway

 

REFERENCE   F2017/01529 - D07325643

 

REPORT OF    Senior Project Officer Transport Planning

 

2697

RESOLVED      (Davis/Tyrrell)

 

That this matter be deferred to the 11 May 2020 Council Meeting for further discussion between Council staff and Ward Councillors.

 

 

Note:

1.     Councillor Issa left the Chamber during consideration of Item 14.2.

2.     Councillor Pandey left the Chamber during consideration of Item 14.2.

 

14.3

SUBJECT         FOR NOTATION: Minutes of the Access Advisory Committee Meeting held on 18 February 2020

 

REFERENCE   F2005/01944 - D07295265

 

REPORT OF    Community Capacity Building Officer, Community Capacity Building

 

2698

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

(a)    That Council note the minutes of the Access Advisory Committee meeting held on 18 February 2020 (Attachment 1).

 

(b)    Further, that Council note the recommendation regarding the parking issues experienced by community transport providers in the City of Parramatta and refer the matter to the Parramatta Traffic Committee for consideration (Attachment 2).

 

15.   Green

 

15.1

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Referral of Inspection Reports by Fire and Rescue NSW

 

REFERENCE   F2004/07367 - D07323924

 

REPORT OF    Team Leader Building Compliance

 

2699

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

(a)    That Council note the inspection reports from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW), pursuant to Schedule 5, Part 8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) as listed in this report.

 

(b)    That Council note FRNSW are advised in due course of the ongoing actions taken by Council officers to address concerns identified by FRNSW.

 

(c)    Further, that Council approve the exercise of powers pursuant to Schedule 5, Part 8 (17) of the EP&A Act, to give fire safety orders addressing the fire safety matters to the buildings located at:

        -       52 Station Street East, Harris Park;

        -       26 Grose Street, West Parramatta;

        -       2-8 River Road, West Parramatta,

        as outlined in this report, and provide notice of this determination to the Commissioner of FRNSW.

 

16.   Welcoming

 

Nil

 

17.   Thriving

 

17.1

SUBJECT         FOR NOTATION: Parramatta Night City Framework - Review of Council Enforcement Policies and Processes

 

REFERENCE   F2018/02117 - D07279704

 

REPORT OF    Project Officer

 

2700

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

(a)    That Council note the review (provided at Attachment 1) undertaken of Council’s enforcement policies has not highlighted any inconsistencies with the endorsed Parramatta Night City Framework 2020-2024, as the regulatory enforcement functions do not set the parameters by which a business or activity is allowed to operate, but rather these are determined during the development assessment process as conditions of development consent.

 

(b)    Further, that Council notes the following development control actions have been prioritised for implementation within the endorsed Parramatta Night City Framework 2020-2024 ; to set, where possible, a standard for trading hours for various categories of premises, plans of management requirements for licensed premises, acoustic minimisation measures to protect against night time sound, as well as assessment criteria for live music within premises and in outdoor dining areas.

 

17.2

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Dence Park Master Plan Implementation Plan

 

REFERENCE   F2017/03692 - D07327047

 

REPORT OF    Place Manager

 

2701

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Davis)

 

(a)    That Council endorse this Dence Park Masterplan Implementation Plan.

 

(b)    That Council allocate $12M from the Epping Stronger Communities Fund reserve for delivering the aquatic elements of the Dence Park Masterplan.

 

(c)    That Council allocate of $6.5M ($1.5M from the Epping Stronger Communities Fund reserve and $5M from the former Hornsby LGA Land and Epping Town Centre S94 Plan) to the aquatic amenities building elements of the of the Dence Park Masterplan.

 

(d)    That, in the event that the aquatic amenities building elements of the of the Dence Park Masterplan are anticipated to require a budget in excess of $6.5M, a further report with options for directing these funds to elements of the Dence Park Masterplan be brought back to Council.

 

(e)    That Council recognises the economic contribution the implementation of the Dence Park Masterplan will have, both directly and indirectly, via employment opportunities as well as through the procurement of construction materials, skilled labor, consultants and other services.

 

(f)     Further, that the Dence Park Masterplan Implementation Plan be included in the list of ‘shovel ready’ projects, some of which may seek additional State Government funding, of which all projects will be considered on their merit.

 

 

Note:

1.     Councillor Bradley left the Chamber during consideration of Item 17.2.

2.     Councillor Pandey left the Chamber during consideration of Item 17.2.

3.     Councillor Wilson left the Chamber during consideration of Item 17.2.

 

Note: Councillor Esber declared a non-pecuniary but significant interest in Item 18.1 and retired from the Chamber prior to debate and voting thereon.

 

18.   Innovative

 

18.1

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition Outcomes - Planning Proposal and Draft Planning Agreement - 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (Deferred Item)

 

REFERENCE   F2019/04433 - D07283013

 

REPORT OF    Team Leader Land Use Planning

 

 

MOTION          (Garrard/Wearne)

 

(a)    That Council notes the independent planning assessment report on the submissions received in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement and the report’s recommendations contained at Attachment 2.

 

(b)    That subject to the clarification outlined in paragraph 27 of this report, Council endorses the Planning Proposal at Attachment 3 noting that the Planning Proposal includes all the changes recommended by the independent reviewer except the inclusion of a satisfactory arrangements clause requiring a contribution to State infrastructure.

 

(c)    That subject to the clarification outlined in paragraph 27 of this report, Council forwards the Planning Proposal at Attachment 3 to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for finalisation, but request that the DPIE not finalise the Planning Proposal until the Planning Agreement referred to in (d) below is executed by Council and the landowner.

 

(d)    That Council enters into the Planning Agreement at Attachment 4 subject to it being amended to add a standard review clause that allows a review if Council seeks to increase Section 7.11 and 7.12 contributions and decreases the community infrastructure contribution payable under Council’s Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure policy framework.

 

(e)    That upon signing of the Planning Agreement, the agreement be forwarded to the DPIE in accordance with Section 25G of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

(f)     That Council authorises the CEO to correct any minor policy inconsistencies or any anomalies of an administrative nature relating to the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement that may arise during the plan amendment process.

 

(g)    Further, that Council note the advice of the Local Planning Panel of 3 December 2019 is consistent with the Council Officer’s recommendation in this report.

 

 

AMENDEMENT        (Barrak/Bradley)

 

That the consideration of this matter be deferred for answers to be provided to the questions outlined in the email dated 14 April 2020 and raised at the previous Councillor Workshop.

 

2702

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Wearne)

 

That the motion be put.

 

 

The amendment moved by Clr Barrak and Seconded by Clr Bradley on being put was declared LOST.

 

DIVISION         The result being:-

 

AYES:              Clrs Barrak, Bradley, Pandey and Prociv

 

NOES:              Clrs Davis, Dwyer, Garrard, Han, Issa, Jefferies, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter

 

The motion moved by Clr Garrard and seconded by Clr Wearne on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

DIVISION         The result being:-

 

AYES:              Clrs Dwyer, Garrard, Han, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter

 

NOES:              Clrs Barrak, Bradley, Davis and Prociv

 

2703

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Wearne)

 

(a)    That Council notes the independent planning assessment report on the submissions received in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement and the report’s recommendations contained at Attachment 2.

 

(b)    That subject to the clarification outlined in paragraph 27 of this report, Council endorses the Planning Proposal at Attachment 3 noting that the Planning Proposal includes all the changes recommended by the independent reviewer except the inclusion of a satisfactory arrangements clause requiring a contribution to State infrastructure.

 

(c)    That subject to the clarification outlined in paragraph 27 of this report, Council forwards the Planning Proposal at Attachment 3 to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for finalisation, but request that the DPIE not finalise the Planning Proposal until the Planning Agreement referred to in (d) below is executed by Council and the landowner.

 

(d)    That Council enters into the Planning Agreement at Attachment 4 subject to it being amended to add a standard review clause that allows a review if Council seeks to increase Section 7.11 and 7.12 contributions and decreases the community infrastructure contribution payable under Council’s Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure policy framework.

 

(e)    That upon signing of the Planning Agreement, the agreement be forwarded to the DPIE in accordance with Section 25G of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

(f)     That Council authorises the CEO to correct any minor policy inconsistencies or any anomalies of an administrative nature relating to the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement that may arise during the plan amendment process.

 

(g)    Further, that Council note the advice of the Local Planning Panel of 3 December 2019 is consistent with the Council Officer’s recommendation in this report.

 

 

Note:

1.     Councillor Issa left the Chamber during consideration of Item 18.1.

2.     Councillor Jefferies left the Chamber during consideration of Item 18.1.

 

Note: Councillor Esber returned to the meeting at the conclusion of Item 18.1.

 

18.2

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Aquatic & Leisure Centre Parramatta - Main Works DA

 

REFERENCE   F2017/02999 - D07318955

 

REPORT OF    Development Manager

 

2704

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Zaiter)

 

(a)    That Council endorse the current design intent for the Aquatic & Leisure Centre project.

 

(b)    That Council approve the lodgement of the Main Works DA for the Aquatic & Leisure Centre project.

 

(c)    That Council approve the progression of the design team to the detailed design development phase and the completion of the head contractor tender process and report the outcomes back to Council, allowing for the continued expenditure as outlined in paragraph 7 of this report.

 

(d)    Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute all contracts required for the detailed design development phase of the Aquatic & Leisure Centre project.

 

18.3

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Revised Investment Policy April 2020

 

REFERENCE   F2009/00971 - D07326234

 

REPORT OF    Tax and Treasury Accountant

 

2706

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

That Council approve the revised Investment Policy April 2020.

 

18.4

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 19 February 2020

 

REFERENCE   F2013/00235 - D07328357

 

REPORT OF    Project Officer Land Use

 

2707

RESOLVED      (Tyrrell/Garrard)

 

(a)    That Council note the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 19 February 2020 provided at Attachment 1.

 

(b)    That Council approve the Heritage Grant recommendations (as outlined in Item 13) on applications for grants from Council’s Local Heritage Fund as follows:

1.     to make payment of grants of:

·            $522.50 for 70 Ross Street, North Parramatta;

·            $1,237.50 for 26 Albert Street, Granville; and

·            $3,248 for 28 The Boulevarde, Epping,

2.     to refuse a grant application of $1,565.38 from Council’s Local Heritage Fund for 24 Epping Avenue, Eastwood.

 

(c)    Further, that $10,804.41 from the Heritage Grants budget not allocated in round one and two of the Heritage Grants Program be reallocated to other Council priorities as part of the next Quarterly Review of Council’s budget.

 

19.   Notices of Motion

 

19.1

SUBJECT         NOTICE OF MOTION: Inclusion of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles in Council's Fleet

 

REFERENCE   F2010/02630 - D07350429

 

FROM              Councillor Bradley

 

2708

RESOLVED      (Bradley/Esber)

 

(a)    That a report be provided to the 9 June 2020 Council Meeting on the maintenance and running costs and savings, and other risks and benefits such as emissions reductions, which would arise from the purchase of more hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles including e-bikes in Council’s fleet.

 

(b)    Further, that the report include benefits balanced against likely costs over the average guaranteed battery life and vehicle life; and possible savings from electric vehicle co-funding referred to in the NSW Government’s recent “Net Zero Plan.”

 

 

Note:  The Lord Mayor, Clr. Dwyer requested his name be recorded as having voted against the decision taken in this item.

 

 

Note:

1.     Councillor Han left the Chamber during consideration of Item 19.1.

2.     Councillor Pandey left the Chamber during consideration of Item 19.1.

 

20.   QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

 

There were no Questions on Notice for this meeting.

 

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.

 

21.    CLOSED SESSION

 

2709

RESOLVED      (Esber/Garrard)

 

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 49/2018 Streetscape Revitalisation – Phillip Street, between Church Street and Smith Street, Parramatta. (D06733536) - 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.

2      FOR APPROVAL: Tender 36/2019 Barton Park, North Parramatta - Remediation Works. (D07250547) - 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.

3      FOR APPROVAL: Tender 37/2019 Terry Road at Midson and Shaftsbury Roads, Eastwood - Traffic Signal Upgrade and Associated Civil Works. (D07256052) - 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.

 

 

Procedural Motion

 

2710

RESOLVED      (Esber/Tyrrell)

 

That Items 21.2 and 21.3 be resolved en bloc and the recommendations

be adopted.

 

21.1

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Tender 49/2018 Streetscape Revitalisation – Phillip Street, between Church Street and Smith Street, Parramatta

 

REFERENCE   F2018/03245 - D06733536

 

REPORT OF    Project Manager

 

2711

RESOLVED      (Esber/Zaiter)

 

(a)    That Council accepts the tender of the preferred tenderer for the revitalisation of the Phillip Street streetscape, between Church and Smith Streets, Parramatta for the sum as outlined in paragraph 28 of the report.

 

(b)    That all unsuccessful tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in this matter.

 

(c)    Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and execute all necessary documents.

 

21.2

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Tender 36/2019 Barton Park, North Parramatta - Remediation Works

 

REFERENCE   F2019/04434 - D07250547

 

REPORT OF    Project Manager

 

2712

RESOLVED      (Esber/Tyrrell)

 

(a)    That Council accepts the tender of the preferred tenderer for the remediation works at Barton Park Reserve / PH Jeffrey Reserve, North Parramatta for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 18 of the report.

 

(b)    That all unsuccessful tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in this matter.

 

(c)    Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and execute all necessary documents.

 

21.3

SUBJECT         FOR APPROVAL: Tender 37/2019 Terry Road at Midson and Shaftsbury Roads, Eastwood - Traffic Signal Upgrade and Associated Civil Works

 

REFERENCE   F2019/04434 - D07256052

 

REPORT OF    Project Manager

 

2713

RESOLVED      (Esber/Tyrrell)

 

(a)    That Council accepts the tender of the preferred tenderer for the Traffic Signal Upgrade and Associated Civil Works at the intersection of Terry Road, Midson Road and Shaftsbury Road, Eastwood for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 12 of the report.

 

(b)    That all unsuccessful tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in this matter.

 

(c)    Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and execute all necessary documents.

 

 

Procedural Motion

 

2714

RESOLVED      (Esber/Garrard)

 

That the meeting resume into Open Session.

 

22.   PUBLIC ANNOUNCMENT OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

 

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 21.1, 21.2 and 21.3.

 

23.   CONCLUSION OF MEETING

 

The meeting terminated at 8.35 pm.

 

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 12 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 14 APRIL 2020 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 11 MAY 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

Chairperson

 

   


 

Fair

 

11 May 2020

 

13.1          FOR NOTATION: Investment Report for March 2020............................................................ 20

 

13.2          FOR APPROVAL: Response to Notice of Motion - Use of Sporting Fields in the Local Government Area......................................... 57

 

13.3          FOR APPROVAL: Response to Notice of Motion - Cost of Printing Council Business Papers......................................................... 61


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 13.1

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER        13.1

SUBJECT                 FOR NOTATION: Investment Report for March 2020

REFERENCE           F2009/00971 - D07361823

REPORT OF            Tax and Treasury Accountant        

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of March 2020.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the Investment Report for March 2020.

 

 

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 investment portfolio closing balance as at 31 March 2020 was $465m. The average portfolio holdings held throughout the month was $471m.

4.     Council holds a diversified range of investment products which as at 31 March 2020 included:

Investment Product

$000

% Held

Return %

Annualised

Term Deposits

$309,630

66.56%

0.19%

2.23%

Floating Rate Notes / Bonds

$121,755

26.17%

0.15%

1.79%

Cash at Call

$4,501

0.97%

0.10%

1.15%

Managed Funds

$13,189

2.83%

-4.05%

-48.59%

Long Term Growth

$16,143

3.47%

-5.78%

-69.34%

Total Investment Funds

$465,218

100.00%

-0.34%

-4.13%

 

5.     The Investment portfolio lost 36 basis points (-4.13%) annualised in March, underperforming the AusBond Bank Bill Index benchmark (1.18%). The TCorp Fund monthly result (-9.53%) and CFS Fund (-5.48%) were the primary detractors to performance this month, as all risky assets were sold off and credit spreads widened.

 

6.     Council engages CPG Research and Advisory & Imperium Markets for assistance in all investment matters relating to advice, risk and portfolio weighting. CPG monitor the portfolio daily and conduct a monthly health check review. This confirms that Council’s portfolio is conducted within Ministerial and rated counterparty guidelines.

 

7.     COVID-19 –Impact on City of Parramatta Portfolio

 

        COVID-19 has adversely influenced financial markets, which in turn, has also affected Council’s investment portfolio.

 

        Financial markets were impacted by the RBA cutting interest rates twice in March 2020, taking the official cash rate down to a record low of 0.25%. Shares (equities) experienced a significant correction, down over -20% in Australian and around -13% globally for the month of March.

 

        The following summarises the adverse performance impact on Council’s various investments types:

 

        Council’s Floating Rate Notes make up approximately 26% of the portfolio at month end.  The market valuation of Council’s FRNs fell by around -1.07% (actual) during March due to the selloff experienced across financial markets.

 

 

Council’s FRNs are senior ranking assets and high in the bank capital structure. If held to maturity, the FRNs will pay back its original face value, along with its quarterly coupons throughout the life of the security. That is, advisors do not expect Council to lose any capital or interest payments from its current holdings.

 

BBB Rated Direct investments (Floating Rate Notes) Council’s senior floating rate notes (FRNs) with “BBB” rated ADIs make up around 10% of the total investment portfolio. The market valuation of Council’s FRNs fell by around -0.59% (actual) during March due to the selloff experienced across financial markets. (Note as a comparison, Australian shares fell over 20% in March).

 

 

Council advisors reiterate that Council’s FRNs are senior securities issued by ADIs and rank high in the bank capital structure. As previously stated, it is expected, that if held to maturity, all of Council’s BBB rated FRNs will pay back their original face value ($100.00), along with its quarterly coupons throughout the life of the security. Advisors do not expect Council to lose any capital or interest payments from its current holding in its senior FRNs given all banks continue to maintain high capital buffers as required by APRA.

 

At the time of writing, the “BBB” rated bank FRN valuations have started to recoup some of their “mark-to-market” losses experienced in March. Should credit markets stabilise (Advisors are cautiously optimistic they will), then Council is likely to be in a position to sell out of existing FRNs (when favourable), realise capital gains and switch proceeds into higher yielding complying assets. It is therefore recommended that Council continue to hold the FRN’s in the portfolio, regardless of their credit rating.

 

T-Corp Long Term Growth Fund accounts for around 3½% of Council’s total investment portfolio. The Fund fell -9.53% (actual) during March, largely driven by the fact it invests between 60-80% of its underlying assets in domestic and international shares (equities). Equities fell substantially during March due to the rampant effects of COVID-19, which saw many countries undertake lockdown measures, creating a halt to the global economy.

 

Further higher levels of volatility in equity markets are expected, as downside risks to global growth remain, dictated by how long the effects of COVID-19 will remain.

 

Various stimulus aid packages provided by federal governments across all nations may allow equity markets to rebound once there is some stability and containment of the virus globally. Council are advised to continue to hold the TCorp fund and it will continue to be closely monitored.

 

CFS Global Credit Managed Fund accounts for around 3% of Council’s total investment portfolio. The Fund fell -5.39% in March, as the market valuation of the fund’s assets in global credit securities (FRNs and bonds) were marked down significantly.

 

 

The Fund holds a diverse range of securities across the global credit market. It remains very well diversified by issuer in order to mitigate default risk. It invests in nearly 600 corporate bonds from issuers in various countries and industry sectors. Any spread contraction going forward allows credit and asset-backed holdings to enjoy significant capital gains. Holding a running yield of around 3% p.a., advisors recommend Council retains this “grandfathered” Fund given the alternative to invest in cash and deposits are yielding much lower.

 

Term Deposits account for around 66% of the total investment portfolio at month-end and are currently yielding 2.23%. The average duration is approximately 1.25 years and will provide some protection in a low interest environment over the next 12 months.

 

8.     Council’s investment portfolio returns are benchmarked to the Ausbond Bank Bill Index to ensure investment returns are acceptable for the investment strategy Council has adopted. Current and Historical Performance is as follows:

 

Past and Present Performance

FYTD

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

Total Portfolio

1.74%

2.20%

2.71%

2.84%

2.98%

3.09%

Ausbond Bank Bill Index Benchmark

1.04%

1.23%

1.62%

1.66%

1.73%

1.83%

Outperformance

0.70%

0.97%

1.09%

1.18%

1.25%

1.26%

 

9.     The portfolio now fully invested, with 1% of at-call and a further 26% of assets maturing in the next 3 months. Returns have gradually fallen after the RBA’s multiple cuts during FY20 and reducing the cash rate to 0.25%.

 

10.   Council has a substantial allocation to securities and bonds, as well as the CFS credit managed fund, for additional liquidity requirements. The portfolio is well- spread across maturities, opportunistically utilising capacity available in short – medium terms.

 

The maturity profile as at 31 March is as follows:

 

11.   All ADI’s remain within current policy and counterparty limits, with no capacity for unrated investments during the current proposed draft policy transition.

Under the proposed draft policy, a more complex and generally lower set of limits will apply BBB- and unrated investments.

 

 

12.   The majority of Council’s portfolio is deposits, at 66% of the total assets (+2% from last month). The portfolio also includes liquid FRN securities, cash, as well as TCorpIM Long Term Growth Fund.

 

Approximately 6.3% of the portfolio is less defensive, and is categorised as long-term. The investment portfolio is well diversified in complying assets across the entire credit spectrum; with no one credit dominating.

 

Council has invested $15M of Reserve funds (3.5% of the total portfolio) to back specified long-term liabilities with the TCorpIM Long Term Growth Fund.

 

13.   The Portfolio allocation as at 30 March 2020 is as follows:

 

14.   Term Deposits The weighted average duration of the deposit portfolio is approximately 462 days (1.25 years). The weighted average yield is 2.23%, which is 187 basis points above bank bills.

 

Given a limited window following inflows and ongoing portfolio growth, Council has done well to reposition into very long-term duration at the last opportunity before the recent cyclical collapse in long rates – a decision that will prove very well rewarded as the yield curve remains inverted, and deposit rates set new record lows throughout CY20.

 

15.   Floating Rate Notes and Bonds returned 1.79% for March with a 12-month return of 2.33%. With spreads widening significantly over March, it is recommend that Council retain its FRNs at this stage.

 

Advisors have highlighted that Council’s FRNs are senior ranking assets and high in the bank capital structure. They expect that, if held to maturity, the FRNs will pay back its original face value ($100.00), along with its quarterly coupons throughout the life of the security. That is, they do not expect Council to lose any capital or interest payments from its current holding in its senior FRNs given all banks continue to maintain high capital buffers as required by APRA.

 

16.   TCorp Long Term Growth Fund recorded -9.53% loss (actual) for the month of March. Both global and domestic shares suffered a strong selloff, with falls of -13.19% and -20.65% respectively, the worst quarter since 1987.

 

Advisors remain cautious on the future performance of the T-Corp Growth Fund given the high volatility associated with a diversified growth fund, which generally allocates a range of 60%-80% in domestic and international shares. They anticipate a higher level of volatility in equity markets, particularly as downside risks to global growth remain, dictated by how long the effects of COVID-19 will remain. The current allocation for this fund is as follows:

 

 

 

17.   CFS Managed Credit Fund For the month of March, the CFS Global Credit Income Fund returned -5.39% (actual), underperforming the AusBond Bank Bill Index return of +0.10% (actual) and the AusBond Credit Index return of -1.46% (actual).

 

Valuations in the portfolio fell significantly, with credit spreads marked wider (back to 2012 levels). This was on the back of COVID-19 escalating quickly around the world, which resulted in lockdowns across many cities globally, crippling global growth.

 

Although it has been a relatively volatile environment for credit over the past few years, it has been one of Council’s best performing assets over the longer-term. With an attractive yield of 2.5% to 3%, it is recommended that Council continue to retain this investment.

 

The current allocation is as follows:

 

 

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

·   Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance (Attachment 1)

·   Average interest rate comparison to Ausbond Bank Bill Index (Attachment 1)

·   Investments and loans interest compared to budget (Attachment 1)

·   List of all Council investments (Attachment 2)

·   CPG Comprehensive Investment report (Attachment 3).

 

19.   The Certificate of Investments for March 2020 is provided below:

 

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of March 2020 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy – Alistair Cochrane, Acting Chief Financial Officer. 

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

20.   Council officers consulted with its financial advisors’ CPG & Imperium during the preparation of this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

21.   Council’s budgeted income for FY2019-2020 was $10.4m. On Council’s average total portfolio size of around $475m over the financial year, that equates to a budgeted return of around 2.2% p.a.

 

As at the end of March, the cumulative interest earned was approximately $2.6m below budget due to the significant selloff experienced in March. Should the last quarter provide some stability in financial markets, Council is likely to return around approximately 1.9% p.a. for FY2019-2020, below its budgeted income of around 2.2% p.a. equating to around $1.4m.

As at the time of this report, in line with record stimulus measures and relaxed lockdown rules in many countries, share markets have rebounded around 8.3% in the US and 2.8% in domestic markets.

 

Bruce MacFarlane

Tax & Treasury Accountant

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Michael Tzimoulas

Executive Director Corporate Services

 

 

Attachments:

1

Investment and Loans Performance Graph - March 2020

1 Page

 

2

List of Council Investments by Maturity - March 2020

10 Pages

 

3

CPG Comprehensive Investment Report - March 2020

17 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 13.1 - Attachment 1

Investment and Loans Performance Graph - March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Item 13.1 - Attachment 2

List of Council Investments by Maturity - March 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 13.1 - Attachment 3

CPG Comprehensive Investment Report - March 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 13.2

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER        13.2

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Response to Notice of Motion - Use of Sporting Fields in the Local Government Area

REFERENCE           F2004/07337 - D07322482

REPORT OF            Recreation Facilities & Programs Manager

PREVIOUS ITEMS           19.1 - NOTICE OF MOTION: Use of Sporting Fields in Local Government Area - Council - 08 Oct 2019 6:30pm       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To advise Council of the authorised, organised users and reported unauthorised, organised users of Doyle Ground, North Parramatta, in the summer and winter seasons.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council work with authorised, organised users of Doyle Ground and other similar sportsgrounds in the Local Government Area (LGA), through the seasonal hirers’ workshop and other regular communication channels to encourage the reporting of unauthorised, organised use of Council parks.

 

(b)    That Council undertake proactive patrols at Doyle Ground and other similar sportsgrounds which are subject to unauthorised, organised use for an extended period of time, until there is a significant increase in the levels of compliance and reduction in the unlawful use of Council’s parks.

 

(c)    Further, that Council undertake a review of signage in Council’s parks to ensure any regulatory action is enforceable under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     At its meeting of 8 October 2019, in response to a Notice of Motion, Council resolved:

That a report be brought to a Council meeting advising details of the authorised organised users and reported unauthorised organised users of Doyle Ground, North Parramatta, in the summer and winter seasons. The report should include the current user charges paid by the authorised, organised users of Doyle Ground, and an estimate of the approximate level of income lost to Council through reported unauthorised users of Doyle Ground and other similar sportsgrounds in the LGA over the last 12 months.

 

2.     This report seeks to respond primarily to the authorised organised use of the Ground and set forth an approach by which unauthorised use may be identified and acted upon.

3.     Doyle Ground, North Parramatta, is Council’s largest open sportsground and is home to authorised, organised users, or seasonal hirers, engaging in touch football, AFL, hockey, fitness training and school sport during winter and touch football, cricket, fitness training and school sport during summer.

4.     Doyle Ground is also popular with individuals and families for informal recreational activities because of the circular walking track, fitness equipment, playground and wide open spaces. This is a great benefit for the physical and mental well-being of our community.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

5.     Unauthorised, organised use refers to sporting or other activity that, through its level of organisation, clearly has an elevated level of sophistication above that of everyday informal recreational use and has not been formally booked through Council. Prior to 2019, there is record of reports of such use at a number of parks and matters that were followed through from a regulatory perspective. In the 2019 calendar year, no formal reports were received by Council’s Recreation or Regulatory Services teams related to the unauthorised, organised use of Doyle Ground or other similar sportsgrounds in the LGA. However, anecdotally, Council is aware that this is an ongoing issue and of concern to the seasonal and casual hirers, local residents, the broader community and Council. Anecdotal reports most often relate to unauthorised, organised use involving cricket, football (soccer) and training academies.

6.     The current seasonal and casual hirers of Doyle Ground, and other similar sportsgrounds in the LGA, are required to go through a rigorous application process to obtain their seasonal licence or undertake a casual booking, including, the provision of public liability insurance (as appropriate). This process seeks to ensure sports participants are sufficiently protected and that risk is appropriately managed for the community and Council’s assets.

7.     Given the unauthorised, organised users of Doyle Ground and other similar sportsgrounds in the LGA are not subject to this process, there remains a potential risk exposure for Council and the unauthorised users, through organisers’ lax approach to risk management. In addition, there is a sense of inequity that is felt by those seasonal and casual hirers that are engaging in the proper process. Unauthorised, organised use also puts pressure on field capacity and quality through increased, unmanaged use.

8.     In instances where Council has become aware of unauthorised, organised users, there have been limitations to the level of intervention and enforcement that Council’s Regulatory Services rangers can engage in from available resources and within current delegated authority. However, by adopting a proactive, targeted approach and by ensuring that appropriately worded Section 632 signage is in place, Council’s Regulatory Services rangers can approach organisers and, in the first instance, encourage compliance to the proper booking process or face the prospect of enforcement penalties.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

9.     While no formal consultation has taken place with the seasonal hirers of Doyle Ground or other similar sportsgrounds in the LGA over the last 12 months in relation to this issue, Council officers will actively engage with these groups during the next 12 months and encourage reporting.

 

10.   Where unauthorised, organised use is reported, Council’s Recreation and Regulatory Services teams will work together to approach organisers, utilising current booking information to enable proactive patrols during the winter and summer seasons, targeted to maximise the use of Council’s resources.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

11.   Over the last 12 months, Council has received $13,809.95 in revenue from the seasonal hirers of Doyle Ground during summer and winter. Additionally, for the same period, Council has received $3,266.00 in revenue from casual hirers, which brings the total to $17,075.95 over the last 12 months.

12.   Given that there is limited data on the unauthorised, organised users of Doyle Ground over the last 12 months, it is difficult to estimate the approximate level of revenue lost by Council. Under Council’s adopted Fees and Charges, the following costs would apply at Doyle Ground in the given scenarios:

Scenario

Council Fees and Charges

Casual field booking by a commercial entity

$752.40 per day

Casual field booking by not for profit entity

$112.60 per day

Coaching clinic by a commercial entity

$225.10 per day

 

13.   There is no current seasonal license in place for the use of Doyle Ground on a Sunday. Therefore, the cost to seasonally hire Doyle Ground at this time, which is categorised as a B Grade Field, is summarised below:

 

·    $997.15 per wicket (eg. cricket) for registered not for profits; or

·    $1,887.9 per wicket (eg. cricket) for a commercial entity; and

·    $997.15 per field (eg. football) for registered not for profits; or

·    $1,887.9 per field (eg. football) for a commercial entity.

 

14.   The monitoring of activities at parks and reserves is included on the list of duties undertaken by Council Rangers. Balancing competing demands for the attention of Rangers is an on-going challenge. Undertaking proactive patrols at Doyle Ground and other identified sportsgrounds can be met from existing budgets, but may result in a reduced focus on other duties while this initiative is being pursued.

 

 

Gregory Radford

Recreation Facilities & Programs Manager

 

David Moutou

Group Manager Social & Community Services

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jon Greig

Executive Director Community Services

 

Wayne Carter

Executive Director City Assets & Operations

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 13.3

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER        13.3

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Response to Notice of Motion - Cost of Printing Council Business Papers

REFERENCE           F2019/04433 - D07354656

REPORT OF            Governance Manager        

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Councillors with the details of the annual cost of printing the Council Meeting agenda in response to a Notice of Motion raised in August 2019.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council note that printing Council Business Papers costs $31,258.23 per annum.

 

(b)    Further, that Council determine if it wishes to move to the provision of all Councillor information being provided electronically.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     Council, at its meeting of 12 August 2019, considered a Notice of Motion from Clr. Prociv and resolved:

“That Council be provided with a report detailing the annual costs of printing business papers for Councillors, with the intention of seeking the support of Councillors to move to the provision of all Councillor information electronically.”

2.     This report details the annual cost of printing the Council Meeting business papers for the 2018/2019 financial year.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

3.     A review of the cost of printing the business papers has been conducted and the following details are provided:

 

Cost Per Annum

Colour Copies (11 total)

(Councillors 10, Minute Clerk 1)

Plastic Folders (@ $4.30 per binder) x 300

$1,290.00

Double-sided A4 colour sheets (@ 0.126c per sheet) x 106,752

$13,450.70

Tab Dividers (@ 0.98x per set of 5)

$588.00

Black & White (17 total)

(Libraries 7, Customer Service 1, Heritage Centre 1, Public 6, Press 2)

Double-sided A4 B&W sheets (@ 0.02c per sheet) x 132,413

$2,648.26

General Costs

Cost of paper (@ $5.20 per ream) x 500 reams

$2,600.00

Staff time (Grade 7) (@ 10.5 hours per meeting,
2 meetings per month, 11 months per year + 2 extraordinary meetings)

$10,681.27

TOTAL COST

$31,258.23

 

4.     It is noted that ten (10) out of fifteen (15) Councillors received a printed copy of the business paper for the financial year ending 30 June 2019.

5.     In addition, seventeen (17) public copies of the business paper were printed, providing copies to the libraries (7), customer service (1), Heritage Centre (1), copies for the public and press at the Council Meeting (8).  A review into the way the public can access the Council Meeting business papers is also currently underway.

Transition to Electronic Business Papers

6.     Council’s Governance Unit publishes upcoming business papers to the Councillor Portal on the Friday, 10 days prior to the Council Meeting.  Councillors are provided an email advising that the business paper is available, and have the function to download a copy of the business paper from the Councillor Portal to their device and annotate with individual comments as required.

7.     In light of the current COVID-19 environment, additional supplementary Council Meeting information has been provided to Councillors in electronic form only.

 

Support to Councillors

8.     IT systems and equipment are provided to Councillors to support the provision of information electronically.  This includes:

a.  Councillor Portal – cloud based hub to all information to Councillors

b.  Councillors’ Facilities and Expenses Policy provides an ICT budget of $7,500 per Councillor over the first two years of term and $2,500 for every year after.  The ICT budget is provided for expenses related to communications devices and services used by Councillors to undertake their civic duties, which includes laptops, tablets, phones and associated data costs.

9.     Councillors are offered ongoing support and training to utilise the systems and equipment provided.

10.   In addition to the Council Meeting business paper, Councillors receive hardcopies of the following Councillor information:

a.  Briefing notes;

b.  Newsletters;

c.  Reports / Presentations;

d.  Invitations / incoming mail;

e.  Other information as required / requested.

11.   The above information is currently provided through the Councillor Portal, or via circular to Councillors on Fridays. Emails are also provided to Councillors attaching individually addressed information as required.  Councillors are able to download this information to their device and make notes as required.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

12.   Councillor Support has introduced a weekly newsletter to streamline the electronic distribution of Councillor Information.

13.   A briefing note seeking the support of Councillors to move to the electronic distribution of Council business papers including a survey was circulated for feedback.  Council received four responses from the survey, with seventy-five percent (75%) of responses recommending the partial provision of electronic business papers.

14.   The partial provision of electronic business papers recommends the provision of attachments only, with officer reports continuing to be provided in hard copy.  If this is supported by Council, the business paper will need to be separated into two documents, being “Agenda” and “Attachments” to support this change.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

15.   The annual cost of printing the business papers for the 2018/2019 financial year was $31,258.23.  The cost to print the business papers is provided for within the current adopted budget.

16.   Should Council consider the provision of electronic only business papers, a saving of up to $18,678.50 per annum can be achieved in Council’s operational budget (comprising cost of plastic folders, double-sided A4 colour sheets, tab dividers and a percentage cost of paper and staff time).

 

Patricia Krzeminski

Governance Manager

 

Lisa Oldridge

Group Manager Corporate Strategy and Governance

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Michael Tzimoulas

Executive Director Corporate Services

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Attachments:

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

  


 

Accessible

 

11 May 2020

 

14.1          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.. 66

 

14.2          FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting held on 26 March 2020............................................................ 69

 

14.3          FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Meeting held on 26 March 2020........................................... 140

 

14.4          FOR APPROVAL: Proposed changes to the Community Engagement Strategy for the notification of development applications...... 190

 

14.5          FOR APPROVAL: Epping to Carlingford Cycleway (Deferred Item)........................... 204


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 14.1

ACCESSIBLE

ITEM NUMBER        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 - D07250465

REPORT OF            Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Council with information each month on development applications determined where there has been a variation in development standards under Clause 4.6 of the Local Environment Plans or State Environmental Planning Policy No.1.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     During the reporting period, 19 March 2020 to 14 April 2020, there was one (1) Development Application determined under Council delegation where there was a variation to a development standard under Clause 4.6:

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for further details.

 

2.     Under Clause 4.6 of the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP) applying to the local government area of the City of Parramatta, development consent may be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard such as a height and/or floor space ratio standard contained within an LEP.

 

3.     State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 (SEPP 1) contains similar provisions to Clause 4.6 and allows development to be approved even though it may not comply with a development standard in a state planning instrument, such as another SEPP.

 

4.     A report is presented to Council each month on any development consent issued where the development does not comply with a development standard.  This report follows the reporting requirements prescribed in Planning Circular PS08-014 issued by the (then) NSW Department of Planning.

 

5.     Controls within Development Control Plans (DCP) are not development standards as a DCP is not an “environmental planning instrument”.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCE

 

6.     There are no issues/options/consequence for Council associated with this report.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

7.     There are no consultation and timing considerations for Council associated with this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

8.       There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.

 

 

Mark Leotta

Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy and Development

 

 

Attachments:

1

Development Application variation under SEPP1

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 14.1 - Attachment 1

Development Application variation under SEPP1

 

PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 14.2

ACCESSIBLE

ITEM NUMBER        14.2

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting held on 26 March 2020

REFERENCE           F2020/00082 - D07249545

REPORT OF            Traffic and Transport Manager       

 

PURPOSE:

 

That Council give consideration to the minutes and endorse the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 26 March 2020.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council note the minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 26 March 2020, as provided at Attachment 1.

 

(b)    Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 26 March 2020 provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications for each item.

 

i.                  ITEM 2003 A1 – INTERSECTION OF BETTINGTON ROAD AND YORK STREET, OATLANDS – PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT

 

        The draft cost estimate for the proposed roundabout in Bettington Road at York Street, Oatlands is $323,000 to be funded 100% by Council as outlined in the report.

 

ii.                 ITEM 2003 A2 – THREE BRIDGES RUN 2020 ALONG PARRAMATTA VALLEY CYCLEWAY

 

        There is no financial implication to Council as the proposed traffic management is to be implemented by the organiser of the Three Bridges Run 2020.

 

iii.                ITEM 2003 A3 – WIGRAM STREET, HARRIS PARK - SYDNEY CURRY FAIR STREET FESTIVAL ON SATURDAY 18 JULY 2020

 

      The proposed Event is to be delivered by Little India Harris Park Business Association. The Event Organiser has lodged an application to Council for a Community Event Grant of $10,000.  The outcome of the application is not yet determined.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is legislated as the organisation responsible for the control of traffic on all roads in New South Wales under the Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999.  In order to deal with the large number and range of traffic related matters effectively, the RMS has delegated certain aspects of the control of traffic on local roads to councils.  RMS has retained both the control of traffic on the State's classified road network and the control of traffic signals on all roads.

2.     The RMS delegation to councils limits the types of prescribed traffic control devices and traffic control facilities that council can authorise and imposes certain conditions on councils.  One of these conditions requires councils to obtain the advice of RMS and the Police prior to proceeding with any proposal. This is most commonly achieved by councils establishing a Local Traffic Committee.

3.     The Committee is composed of four formal members each with one vote. These four members are a representative from Council, the Police, and Roads and Maritime Services and the Local State Member of Parliament or their nominee.  The Parramatta Traffic Committee is an advisory body only, having no decision making powers. It is, primarily, a technical review committee that is required to advise the Council on traffic related matters referred to it by Council. In general, Council makes the decision, however, the Police and RMS can appeal Council’s decision to the Regional Traffic Committee.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4.     The most recent meeting of the Parramatta Traffic Committee was held on 26 March 2020.  The minutes of that meeting and the reports to that meeting are Attachments 1 and 2 of this report.

 

5.     The recommendations from the Committee are provided below together with financial impact statements for each recommendation:

 

ITEM NO.

 

2003 A1          intersection of bettington road and york street, oatlands – proposed roundabout

 

That the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and York Street, Oatlands as shown on the plan attached to the report be approved subject to the detail design plans being forwarded to Transport for NSW for concurrence.

Unanimous support.

 

Community Notification

 

The proposal for the installation of the roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and York Street, Oatlands was advertised for 28 days. Letters were sent to owners and occupiers of 52 properties inviting submissions on the proposal by 25 March 2020. The proposal was also advertised in the Parramatta Advertiser on 26 February 2020 and on Council’s website.

Council received 9 responses including one from Oatlands Golf Club.  Of these responses, 4 supported the proposed roundabout. It is to be noted that one of these respondents lives outside the area.  

The other 5 responses did not support the proposed roundabout.  All of these respondents are local residents. Two of the respondents suggested speed humps as an alternative (the responses indicate two different types of speed humps). The other three that opposed the roundabout indicated that no additional treatment, beyond the guardrail, is required.

There are three roundabouts in place in Bettington Road south of Pennant Hills Road (at Ellis Street, Belmore Street East and Greens Avenue). These roundabouts act as traffic calming and improve access for side streets. Accordingly, it is proposed that Council proceed with the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and York Street, Oatlands.

Financial Impact Statement

 

The draft cost estimate for the proposed roundabout in Bettington Road at York Street, Oatlands is $323,000.

 

This project will be 100% funded by Council because it does not qualify for TfNSW or Federal grant funding programs. City of Parramatta Council at its meeting on 11 March 2020 also resolved:

 

(h)    That Council delegate to the CEO authority to:

 

i.      reprioritise the Council capital works program to fund the construction of the roundabout and guard rail;

 

ii.      implement any relevant recommendations arising from the Coroner’s Report.

 

2003 A2          three bridges run 2020 along parramatta valley cycleway

 

1.     That the Three Bridges Run 2020 scheduled to be held on Sunday 1 November 2020 be classified as a Class 2 Event in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, Part 9 – Traffic Operations (Table 6.4 – Special Event Planning Matrix) and Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events.

 

2.     That the use of local roads, cycleways and/or shared pathway within the City of Parramatta for the Three Bridges Run 2020 be supported in principle subject to compliance with the attached traffic related conditions.

 

3.     That the Organiser obtain approval from Council's Open Space and Natural Resources Manager to use public reserves as rest points for participants.

 

4.     That the Event Organiser obtain approval from the relevant Wentworth Point Strata Managers to use roads that are under their care and control.

 

5.     That the Event Organiser install event notification signs (made of waterproof material) on off-road cycleways at least 2 weeks prior to the event, so that the users of the facilities are aware of the Event.

 

6.     That all costs associated with the ‘Three Bridges Run 2019’ Event are to be funded by the Event Organiser at no cost to Council.

 

7.     That the Event Organiser adhere to requirements imposed by State and/or Federal Governments in relation to combating COVID-19.

 

8.     That the Event Organiser obtain Road Occupancy Licence from Traffic Management Centre of TfNSW.

 

9.     That item 2 is subject to the Event Organiser completing items 3 to 8.

Unanimous support.

 

Community Notification

 

Community consultation is not required for the proposed traffic management plan for the event.  

 

Financial Impact Statement

The proposed traffic management is to be implemented by Maximum Adventure Pty Ltd at no cost to Council.  Therefore, this matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's budget.

 

2003 A3          wigram street, harris park – sydney curry fair street festival on saturday 18 july 2020

 

1.     That the proposed Sydney Curry Fair Street Festival scheduled to be held in Wigram Street, Harris Park on Saturday 18 July 2020 be classified as a Class 2 Event in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, Part 9 – Traffic Operations (Table 6.4 – Special Event Planning Matrix) and Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events.

 

2.     That the closure of Wigram Street, Harris Park (Marion Street to Ada Street) for Sydney Curry Fair Street Festival is supported in principle subject to the attached traffic related conditions.

 

3.     That all costs associated with the event be paid for by the Event Organiser at no cost to Council.

 

4.     That the Event Organiser adhere to requirements imposed by State and/or Federal Governments in relation to combating COVID-19.

 

5.     That the Event Organiser obtain Road Occupancy Licence from Traffic Management Centre of TfNSW.

 

6.     That the Event Organiser liaise with City of Parramatta’s City Events and Festivals Manager regarding crowd number and the capacity of Wigram Street, Harris Park to hold the crowd.

 

7.     That item 2 is subject to the Event Organiser completing items 3 to 6.

Unanimous support.

 

Community Notification

 

The Event Organiser will notify the local residents and businesses via letterbox drop at least 2 weeks prior to the event.  It is to be noted that food stalls will be operated by local restaurants.

Financial Impact Statement

 

The proposed Event is to be delivered by Little India Harris Park Business Association. The Event Organiser has lodged an application to Council for a Community Event Grant of $10,000.  The outcome of the application is not yet determined.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION

6.     The financial implications are detailed above in the comments for each item.

CONCLUSION

7.     Council officers recommend that the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 26 March 2020 be adopted by Council.

 

Richard Searle

Traffic and Transport Manager

 

Mark Leotta

Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1

Parramatta Traffic Committee Minutes of Meeting held on 26 March 2020

5 Pages

 

2

Parramatta Traffic Committee Item Reports for Meeting held on 26 March 2020

61 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 14.2 - Attachment 1

Parramatta Traffic Committee Minutes of Meeting held on 26 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 14.2 - Attachment 2

Parramatta Traffic Committee Item Reports for Meeting held on 26 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator





PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator










PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 14.3

ACCESSIBLE

ITEM NUMBER        14.3

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Meeting held on 26 March 2020

REFERENCE           F2020/00077 - D07249552

REPORT OF            Traffic and Transport Manager        

 

PURPOSE:

 

That Council give consideration to the minutes and approve the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 26 March 2020.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council note the minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 26 March 2020, provided at Attachment 1.

 

(b)    Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 26 March 2020 provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications for each item.

 

i.        ITEM 2003 B1 – REQUEST FOR NINE CAR SHARE SPACES IN HARRIS PARK, WESTMEAD AND EPPING

 

        According to 2019/20 Fees and Charges schedule, an initial application fee of $385 and annual renewal application fee of $154 will apply for the installation of each dedicated car share parking space in the Parramatta LGA.  These fees will cover the costs of installing and removing car share spaces.

 

ii.       ITEM 2003 B2 – REVIEW OF RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME AREA BOUNDARY PARRAMATTA (AREA 14)

 

        The proposal to remove 76-80 Pemberton Street or 127 Pennant Street, Parramatta from the Resident Parking Scheme for the purpose of issuing new permits would not involve any changes to parking restrictions.  Accordingly, this matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's budget.

 

iii.     ITEM 2003 B3 - PROJECT LISTS INCLUDING AN UPDATE ON PROJECTS FOR 2019/20

 

        There is no financial implication to Council as a result of this recommendation.

 

iv.     ITEM 2003 B4 – OUTSTANDING WORKS INSTRUCTIONS

 

        RMS Block Grant funds for 2019/20 have been used for these works.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     The Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) is similar to the Parramatta Traffic Committee, except that it only involves matters that do not invoke the Road and Maritime Services (RMS) delegation to councils.  The TEAG does not have the formal voting process that Parramatta Traffic Committee has.  It is, primarily, a technical review committee that advises Council on traffic related matters. TEAG also considers items where RMS maintains its control, such as speed limits, clearways and traffic signals or items for which RMS does not have control such as planning of future projects. 

 

2.     The most recent meeting of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group was held on 26 March 2020.  The minutes of that meeting and the reports to that meeting are Attachments 1 and 2 of this report.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

3.     The recommendations from the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting are provided below together with financial impact statements for each recommendation:

ITEM NO.

 

2003 B1     REQUEST FOR NINE CAR SHARE SPACES in harris park, westmead and epping

1.     That community consultation be undertaken for a 6 week period for the installation of the nine (9) GoGet car share spaces listed below:

i.      South side of Ada Street west of Wigram Street, Harris Park

ii.    West side of Tottenham Street south of Raymond Street, Harris Park

iii.     West side of Lydbrook Street south of Darcy Road, Westmead

iv.     North side of Byrne Street west of Lydbrook Street, Westmead

v.     West side of Edensor Street south of Kandy Avenue, Epping

vi.     West side of Edensor Street north of Ray Road, Epping

vii.    North side of Bridge Street east of Kent Street, Epping

viii.   East side of Kent Street north of Carlingford Road, Epping

ix.     West side of Cliff Road north of Carlingford Road, Epping

 

2.     That the outcome of the community consultation for the installation of the car share spaces as detailed in recommendation 1 be referred to the Parramatta Traffic Committee for consideration.

                Unanimous support.

 

Community Notification

 

Not applicable

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

According to 2019/20 Fees and Charges schedule, an initial application fee of $385 and annual renewal application fee of $154 will apply for the installation of each dedicated car share parking space in the Parramatta LGA.  These fees will cover the costs of installing and removing car share spaces.

 

2003 B2     review of resident parking scheme area boundary parramatta (area 14)

 

1.     That 76-80 Pemberton Street (currently known as 127 Pennant Street), Parramatta be removed from Resident Parking Scheme Area 14 due to the high density of development on this site.

 

2.     That residents of 127 Pennant Street, Parramatta be notified of the changes to the boundary of Resident Parking Scheme Area 14.

Unanimous support.

 

Community Notification

 

Residents of 127 Pennant Street, Parramatta will be notified of the changes to the boundary of RPS Area 14.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

The proposal to remove 76-80 Pemberton Street or 127 Pennant Street, Parramatta from the Resident Parking Scheme for the purpose of issuing new permits would not involve any changes to parking restrictions.  Accordingly, this matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's budget.

 

2003 B3     project lists including update on projects for 2019/20

 

1.     That the Project Lists for proposed traffic works be received and noted.

 

2.     That the information in relation to the two (2) traffic projects completed in February and March 2020 be received and noted.

 

Unanimous support.

 

Community Notification

 

Not applicable

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no financial implication to Council as a result of this recommendation.

 

2003 B4     outstanding works instructions

 

That the information in relation to outstanding Works Instructions over the 2-month period between December 2019 and January 2020 be received and noted.

 

Unanimous support.

 

Community Notification

 

Not applicable

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

RMS Block Grant funds for 2019/20 have been used for these works.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION

4.     The financial implications are provided in the comments for each item.

 

CONCLUSION

5.     Council officers recommend that the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 26 March 2020 be adopted by Council.

 

Richard Searle

Traffic and Transport Manager

 

Mark Leotta

Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Minutes of meeting held on 26 March 2020

4 Pages

 

2

Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Item Reports for meeting held on 26 March 2020

42 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 14.3 - Attachment 1

Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Minutes of meeting held on 26 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 14.3 - Attachment 2

Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Item Reports for meeting held on 26 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 14.4

ACCESSIBLE

ITEM NUMBER        14.4

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Proposed changes to the Community Engagement Strategy for the notification of development applications

REFERENCE           F2016/03461 - D07342887

REPORT OF            Strategic Business Manager       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To seek approval for the revision of the Community Engagement Strategy in relation to Development Assessment notification requirements for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council endorse the addition of the draft consolidated notification requirements for development applications as an attachment to the Community Engagement Strategy (as provided at Attachment 1) for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

(b)    That the draft consolidated notification requirements for development applications be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days, and the outcome of the public exhibition be reported back to Council.

 

(c)    Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor inconsistencies or anomalies of an administrative nature that may arise during this process.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) requires all planning authorities, such as councils, to outline how and when the community will be engaged across planning functions through either a separate Community Participation Plan or an integrated Community Engagement Strategy. Council at its meeting on 9 December 2019, endorsed a Community Engagement Strategy (https://www.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/council/key-council-documents/community-engagement-strategy).

2.     Council has been undertaking a process to bring consistency across the Local Government Area (LGA) through the creation of a consolidated Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP). As part of the Land Use Planning Harmonisation Discussion Paper it recognised that notification requirements across the DCPs varied, particularly in regard to minimum exhibition times and which properties are to be notified. It recommended that DCP notification requirements be reviewed as part of the process to prepare the Community Participation Plan or Community Engagement Strategy.

3.     Due to the 1 December 2019 deadline, Council’s current Community Engagement Strategy was updated to reflect the notification requirements currently contained within each of the nine (9) DCPs that currently apply in the LGA. The requirements contained in each DCP have now been reviewed and a consolidated set of draft notification requirements prepared (refer to Attachment 1).

4.     It is proposed that this draft consolidated notification requirements would form an attachment to Council’s Community Engagement Strategy outlining how Council will undertake engagement related to Development Applications.

5.     It is not proposed to make changes to other forms of community engagement contained within the Community Engagement Strategy, however some minor revisions will be required to the Community Engagement Strategy to incorporate the consolidated notification requirements for development applications, if adopted.

6.     Under the EP&A Act requirements for notification must be included in a council’s Community Participation Plan or Community Engagement Strategy. Once the requirements for notification have been updated within Council’s Community Engagement Strategy this will replace the requirements contained within each of the current DCPs. Existing notification requirements for development applications will be removed from the DCP as part of the DCP harmonisation process.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

7.     The EP&A Act sets out the minimum public exhibition periods for development applications as follows:

a.  An application for development consent (other than for a complying development certificate, for designated development, for nominated integrated development, for threatened species development or for State significant development)

i. The period specified in the community participation plan, or

ii. Otherwise 14 days

b.  28 days for an application for development consent for designated development, nominated integrated development, threatened species development or State significant development.

8.     A review of the requirements in each of the DCPs was undertaken and compared to the statutory requirements in preparing the draft consolidated notification requirements. A comparison between the draft consolidated notification requirements and the requirements of the existing DCPs is contained in Attachment 2.

9.     The draft consolidated notification requirements has been prepared so that it provides a consistent approach to notification of DAs across the LGA and is presented in a more user friendly and easy to use format.

10.   The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for councils to be more flexible in the way we engage with the community. This is especially relevant for the notification of planning documents and applications.

11.   The COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Bill 2020 passed on 24 March 2020 made changes to the EP&A Act allowing councils to meet the requirements of the EP&A Act or regulations for documents to be available for inspection at physical locations by instead making these documents available electronically on the NSW planning portal and other approved websites (e.g. council websites).

12.   In addition, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Public Exhibition) Regulation 2020 published on 17 April 2020 allows various notices and other documents under the EP&A Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to be published online, on Council’s website, instead of in local newspapers. Council is now placing all notifications of development applications on its website. This does not preclude letter notification currently required.

13.   It is proposed that Council follow this NSW State Government move and look to transition more of our notification letters to be via electronic means. It is allowable, where email addresses are available, for Council to provide notification letters for development applications electronically rather than by physical mail. It is proposed that Council will begin to provide notification letters in this form where possible.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

14.   The EP&A Act sets out that draft community participation plans are to be exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days. As such the draft consolidated notification requirements for development applications will need to be publicly exhibited. 

15.   Council’s current Community Engagement Strategy was exhibited in 2019 prior to its adoption on 9 December 2019.

16.   It is proposed that the draft consolidated notification requirements would be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days. Information will be made available on Council’s website and the engagement portal. The exhibition will also be promoted using other channels including social media.

17.   Feedback received during the exhibition period will be considered and reported back to Council along with the draft consolidated notification requirements for adoption and inclusion in Council’s Community Engagement Strategy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

18.   The costs associated with public exhibition of the draft notification requirements will be covered by the existing City Strategy and Development Directorate budget.

19.   The consolidation of notification requirements will have an impact on the annual cost to Council. The overall amount spent each year on notification of development applications varies depending upon the number and nature of the actual applications lodged. Based on a sample of applications, it is estimated the consolidated notification requirements would save Council around 25% in the cost of printing and postage for development application notification each year.

20.   In addition, the recent Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Public Exhibition) Regulation 2020 which no longer require Council to advertise in the local paper will result in additional savings. Council currently recovers some of this advertising expense from applicable applicants by charging an advertising fee. This fee will no longer be charged. This change will result in net saving of approximately $70,000 to Council each financial year.

21.   It is expected that the transition from physical to electronic notification for development applications will represent savings to Council over time. This will result in a reduction in the cost of printing and postage of letters to affected properties. This saving will increase as Council collects more email addresses for residents and property owners.

 

Kathleen Sales

Strategic Business Manager

 

Mark Leotta

Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

 

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Anthea Hall

Group Manager City Engagement

 

Lindsay Woodland

Executive Director City Engagement and Experience

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Draft Consolidated Notification Requirements for Development Applications

7 Pages

 

2

Draft Consolidated Notification Requirements and existing DCP requirements comparison

3 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 14.4 - Attachment 1

Draft Consolidated Notification Requirements for Development Applications

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 14.4 - Attachment 2

Draft Consolidated Notification Requirements and existing DCP requirements comparison

 




Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 14.5

ACCESSIBLE

ITEM NUMBER        14.5

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Epping to Carlingford Cycleway (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE           F2017/01529 - D07375707

REPORT OF            Senior Project Officer Transport Planning       

 

This Item was deferred from the Council Meeting held on 14 April 2020 (Item 14.2) for further discussion with Ward Councillors.

 

PURPOSE:

 

To seek Council’s endorsement for the next actions relating to the Epping to Carlingford Cycleway project.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council acknowledge the contribution made by the communities of Epping and Carlingford on the project, and note the community consultation documented at Attachment 1.

 

(b)    That Council note the Road Safety Audit and additional commentary by the Road Safety Audit team provided at Attachments 3, 4 and 5.

 

(c)    That Council note the significantly reduced scope of works for the Cycleway from the original proposal provided at Attachment 6.

 

(d)    That Council approve the scope of works as summarised below to be submitted to the Parramatta Traffic Committee for consideration:

a.  Widen the western kerb in Victoria Street south of Bridge Street, Epping, and install a refuge island in Rickard Street at Marsden Road, Carlingford.

b.  Upgrade the existing pedestrian refuge islands at High Street south of Epping Road, at the roundabout Bridge Street / Rawson Street (eastern/southern approach) Epping, and at the roundabout at Willoughby Street / Pennant Parade (southern approach) to allow use by cyclists.

c.  Widen the footpath to a shared use path on the southern side of Bridge Street between High Street and Wyralla Avenue, Epping, and between Pennant Parade and Barellan Avenue, Carlingford.  All efforts shall be undertaken at every stage of the project to ensure there are minimal impacts on existing street trees on, and adjacent to Bridge Street.

d.  Install regulatory signage on the eastern side of Marsden Road between Pennant Hills Road and Rickard Street, Carlingford to enable a shared path.

e.  Install a pedestrian/cyclist refuge island in Midson Road near Wyralla Avenue, Epping.

f.   Re-fresh the existing PS-2 logos on Willoughby Street and install PS-2 logos on Wyralla Avenue, Hermington Street and Barellan Avenue to indicate a cycling route.

g.  Review the existing Evans Road and Pennant Hills Road refuge island to identify potential short-term safety improvements, and advocate for the prioritisation of traffic lights at this intersection as a result of existing and future development in the area.

h.  Identify longer-term walking and cycling improvements to be incorporated into future planning and design of the Carlingford Precinct to improve the connections from the Parramatta Light Rail Active Transport Link to the Epping to Carlingford Cycleway.

i.   Any remaining grant funds for the cycleway to be focussed on improving the connections along Epping Road to Pembroke Street, to connect onwards to the Ryde regional cycleway.

 

(e)    Further, that Council note the project is wholly grant funded, with $2.5M of funding from Transport for NSW, and $1M of funding from the State Government’s Stronger Communities Fund.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     On 16 December 2016 Council resolved, in part:

(a)    That Council adopts the recommendations of the Assessment Panel for the implementation of the Community Grants and Major Projects programs of the Stronger Communities Fund and agrees to the following actions to accompany the Administrator’s public announcement of all successful grants and projects early in 2017:

a.     Documents are prepared to advise all successful recipients including the provision of notice of any funding conditions, as relevant

b.     Letters are prepared for all unsuccessful applicants

c.     Letters are prepared for all local MPs and the Minister for Local Government to advise of the successful recipients.

2.     This proposal was a community nominated project within the Community Grants and Major Projects programs, to improve cycling connectivity between Epping and Carlingford and extend the Parramatta Light Rail “Active Transport Link” beyond Carlingford.

3.     This report has been updated to incorporate further feedback from Epping Ward Councillors.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

4.     Council conducted three rounds of community consultation on the project over 2018, 2019 and 2020. The project generated a range of feedback – both negative and positive, and it was reviewed each time in light of the feedback received, and changes made where possible in response.

 

5.     In 2018 Council consulted with the community on the potential cycling route, and on two options of either Keeler Street or Barellan Avenue (details on the consultation activities are included at Attachment 1). Figure 1 below illustrates the 197 responses, the preference for the Barellan alignment over Keeler, and the strong preference for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles to be physically separated on Willoughby Street and Bridge Street.

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Feedback summary on route options

6.     To respond to the community feedback in 2018 and provide a greater length of physical separation between pedestrians, cyclists and general traffic on Willoughby Street and Bridge Street, a funding application was made to the Transport for NSW Active Transport Program for additional construction funds, and in June 2019 Council was notified a grant had been made. The total funding for the project is $3.5M.

7.     During extended consultation in late 2019, Council committed to place the project on hold, and re-commence the consultation in early 2020.  Written responses from a total of 144 residents, businesses and community groups were received and a detailed summary of the responses is provided at Attachment 1.  Of the responses, 48 support the project, 61 oppose the project, and 35 offer conditional support or opposition.   Verbal feedback and questions were also received during the community information meetings that paralleled those submitted in writing and are included in the key issues outlined in the same attachment.  The meetings were attended in total by 75-100 interested community members across the three meetings.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

8.     During the consultation in early 2020, an independent Road Safety Audit (RSA) was commissioned by Council to independently assess the safety aspects of the proposal.  It is provided at Attachment 3. This audit also considered community concerns (outside the formal RSA process) and these are available at Attachment 4.

9.     Common themes raised by the community include; safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles more broadly and in specific locations, alternative routes, potential user behaviour and inadequate path widths.  These have been responded to in detail by Council officers and by the independent Road Safety Auditors.  Concerns have also been raised on the scale of concrete and loss of street trees. In this regard, concrete has been reduced to the bare minimum, and street trees identified for protection on Bridge Street, or offset planting identified in other locations. The comprehensive consultation process has also been detailed.   In contrast, other responses were very supportive, asking for greater investment in cycling, or requesting minor modifications.

10.   Council has the following options available on the next steps for this project:

i. That Council proceed with the project in full, and that it be forwarded to Parramatta Traffic Committee for its consideration.

ii. That Council not proceed with the project, and that Council write to the Office of Local Government requesting a re-distribution of the residual Stronger Communities Funds (SCF) grant to other approved SCF projects, and further that Transport for NSW be advised that the $2.5M Active Transport Grant is no longer required.

iii.  Partial implementation - as per the Council staff recommendation provided for in this report.

11.   Option i. would have the greatest connectivity benefits, but the greatest change to existing conditions, particularly on Willoughby Street and Orchard Street. Option ii. would result in no additional connectivity. The risk with this option is that Transport for NSW may re-assess Council’s future capacity to deliver grant programs, however would allow additional funding to be released to other SCF projects.  

 

12.   Option iii. focusses on delivering sections that have the greatest connectivity and safety improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians. The key community issues of inadequate path width and existing trees on Bridge Street can be resolved through replacing an existing 1.2-1.5m footpath with a 4.5-5.5m shared path along with very strong protection measures for existing trees. A summary of the reasons for the staff recommendation for partial completion is explained section by section in Attachment 2.

 

13.   The Council officer’s recommendation is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 whereby the project is partially implemented, being:

a)     Widen the western kerb in Victoria Street south of Bridge Street, Epping, and install a refuge island in Rickard Street at Marsden Road, Carlingford.

b)     Upgrade the existing pedestrian refuge islands at High Street south of Epping Road, at the roundabout Bridge Street / Rawson Street (eastern/southern approach) Epping, and at the roundabout at Willoughby Street / Pennant Parade (southern approach) to allow use by cyclists.

c)     Widen the footpath to a shared use path on the southern side of Bridge Street between High Street and Wyralla Avenue, Epping, and between Pennant Parade and Barellan Avenue, Carlingford.  All efforts shall be undertaken at every stage of the project to ensure there are minimal impacts on existing street trees on, and adjacent to Bridge Street.

d)     Install regulatory signage on the eastern side of Marsden Road between Pennant Hills Road and Rickard Street, Carlingford to enable a shared path.

e)     Install a pedestrian/cyclist refuge island in Midson Road near Wyralla Avenue, Epping.

f)      Re-fresh the existing PS-2 logos on Willoughby Street and install PS-2 logos on Wyralla Avenue, Hermington Street and Barellan Avenue to indicate a cycling route.

g)     Review the existing Evans Road and Pennant Hills Road refuge island to identify potential short-term safety improvements, and advocate for the prioritisation of traffic lights at this intersection as a result of existing and future development in the area.

h)     Identify longer-term walking and cycling improvements to be incorporated into future planning and design of the Carlingford Precinct to improve the connections from the Parramatta Light Rail Active Transport Link to the Epping to Carlingford Cycleway.

i)      Any remaining grant funds for the cycleway to be focused on improving the connections along Epping Road to Pembroke Street, to connect onwards to the Ryde regional cycleway.

 

 

Existing Shared Path

Proposed Shared Path

On Road Cycling (mixed with traffic)

New or upgraded pedestrian/cycling refuge island

 

 

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Location of Cycleway (West)

 

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Location of Cycleway (East)

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

14.   To date Council has spent $629,000 of a $1M Stronger Communities Fund (SCF) Grant that was provided and to be spent by 31 December 2019. Council sent a request to Office of Local Government in December 2019 asking for an extension to July 2020.

15.   Remaining funds from SCF of $371,000 and $2.5M provided by Transport for NSW will be utilised by Council if the project was to proceed in its entirety.

16.   Should Council endorse the officer recommendation for partial completion, the $2.5M provided by Transport for NSW will cover the estimated costs of all the works.  The remaining $371,000 from SCF can be used to improve the Epping to Carlingford Cycleway as per the recommendation, subject to the permission of the Office of Local Government.

17.   Should the project not proceed, the remaining $371,000 from SCF will be re-allocated to the existing projects funded by SCF subject to the permission of the Office of Local Government, and the Transport for NSW notified that the Active Transport Grant will not be required.

18.   If the project proceeds, maintenance of the cycleway (partially or wholly) will be funded from the existing operational budget. ‘Cycle Route Maintenance and Encouraging Cycling’.

Mark Crispin

Senior Project Officer Transport Planning

 

Michael Jollon

Transport Planning Manager

 

Geoff King

Group Manager City Strategy

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Detailed Consultation Summary

19 Pages

 

2

Staff Recomendation

1 Page

 

3

Stage 3 (Detailed design) Road Safety Audit Report - Epping to Carlingford Cycleway

40 Pages

 

4

Road Safety Audiy (RSA) Close Out Form

6 Pages

 

5

Community Concerns - Auditor Commentary

3 Pages

 

6

Epping to Carlingford Cycleway Context Plan

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 14.5 - Attachment 1

Detailed Consultation Summary

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator






Item 14.5 - Attachment 2

Staff Recomendation

 

PDF Creator


Item 14.5 - Attachment 3

Stage 3 (Detailed design) Road Safety Audit Report - Epping to Carlingford Cycleway

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 14.5 - Attachment 4

Road Safety Audiy (RSA) Close Out Form

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 14.5 - Attachment 5

Community Concerns - Auditor Commentary

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 14.5 - Attachment 6

Epping to Carlingford Cycleway Context Plan

 

  


 

Thriving

 

11 May 2020

 

17.1          FOR APPROVAL: Concept Design for Charles Street Square Parramatta........................... 282


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 17.1

THRIVING

ITEM NUMBER        17.1

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Concept Design for Charles Street Square Parramatta

REFERENCE           F2019/02851 - D07353040

REPORT OF            Team Leader City Transformation        

 

PURPOSE:

 

To report to Council the outcomes of a stakeholder and community engagement program undertaken on the draft concept design for the upgrade of Charles Street Square, and seek approval for the work to progress to detailed design, submission for planning and technical approvals, and preparation of documentation for tendering of the works.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council note the feedback and submissions made during the public exhibition of the draft concept design for Charles Street Square.

 

(b)    Further, that Council approve the concept design, including minor amendments in response to feedback and submissions as shown in Attachment 4 for progression to detailed design, planning and technical approvals, and documentation for tender.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     Progressing the implementation of the Parramatta City River Strategy is a key outcome for Council’s 2018-2021 Delivery Program. Construction of this key public domain project also represents a timely opportunity to support stimulus and recovery of the local economy disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic.  This project will employ local construction contractors and suppliers from the first half of 2021. 

2.     Upon completion of the project the following year, there will be a high quality public domain and revitalised arrival point to the Parramatta city-centre, supporting a thriving visitor and knowledge worker economy, helping make Parramatta a destination for business, culture and recreation, and further stimulating the local economy.

3.     Charles Street Square and the Escarpment Boardwalk are key to realising the vision for Parramatta Quay as a contemporary gateway to the Central River City, which the Parramatta 2038 Community Strategic Plan identifies as one of the projects that “will completely transform the look and feel of the City.”

4.     The upgrade of Charles Street Square will create a vibrant public space, a welcoming, accessible connection between the river and the city, and a memorable arrival experience that celebrates the Parramatta River. 

5.     The key features and elements of the project include:

a.  Upgraded Riverfront Walk and provision of a new shade shelter

b.  New River Amphitheatre incorporating terraced seating

c.  New ramped walkways and connecting stairs

d.  New garden terrace adjacent to 36 Charles Street (the Port Bar)

e.  New square at street level

f.   Integration of public artwork.

6.     Following extensive site and design investigations, on 9 December 2019 Council endorsed the draft concept design for progression to public exhibition. 

 

CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN

 

7.     The draft concept design for the Charles Street Square Upgrade was placed on public exhibition from 25 February to 16 March 2020. A broad range of communication and engagement activities were undertaken during the exhibition period:

a.  Council’s engagement portal 'OurSay' with project information and an on-line survey – viewed by more than 240 people, with more than 100 completed survey submissions received.

b.  Three Community drop-in sessions with onsite display boards at Parramatta Wharf and Centenary Square markets, where more than 400 face-to-face engagements were undertaken.

c.  A key stakeholder briefing to adjacent property owners.

d.  Distribution of project brochures (refer Attachment 1) at community sessions, on-line, and through displays at the Parramatta Library, Customer Service Centre and Heritage Centre.

8.     These engagement activities were further promoted through:

a.  Material on Council’s website, including home page (visited 19,298 times during the exhibition period), community engagement pages and on-exhibition webpage, visited 658 times, with 322 downloads of the online brochure.

b.  Advertisements and promotion in the Parramatta Advertiser, Auburn Review, Northern District Times and Hills Shire Times, with a combined circulation of over 204,000.

c.  Posters on site promoting exhibition and submission details.

d.  Approximately 1,000 postcards distributed by hand, at Council facilities and via our welcome programs for new Parramatta Square tenancies.

e.  Direct mail to 2,200 tenants and landowners.

f.   Social media promotion through Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

g.  Generating media coverage via media release and liaison to promote the design and the exhibition period. Media stories were secured in metropolitan newspapers (SMH, Daily Telegraph) and local media, as well as metropolitan television, with news coverage on multiple networks.

9.     Overall, it is estimated that more than 880,000 people across the LGA and beyond saw the opportunity to provide input to the Charles Street Square project.


 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

10.   As a result of this communications and engagement program, eight (8) email responses were received from business/adjoining landowners (3); residents (3); and utilities (2) - Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy. 115 online survey responses were completed via the engagement portal. The community also provided responses via social media and by sharing their views at community drop-ins. An analysis of feedback was undertaken by an engagement specialist. A summary of the findings is presented as an Executive Summary and infographic snapshot at Attachment 2.

11.   Stakeholders expressed their existing perceptions of Charles Street Square, with 82% of contributions rating their current experience of the square as only ‘ok’ or ‘poor’. A clear majority of submissions expressed a view that the square was in need of an upgrade. Overall, community submissions about the planned improvements were generally positive, and many expressed enthusiasm.

12.   Of the three main themes emerging from stakeholder and community feedback:

a.  Access - 77% of those surveyed felt the new design would make it easy for everyone in the community to enjoy the area and access transport services.  People said they like the fact that there is sufficient width of walkways, ramps and stairs to allow for various modes of travel (i.e. walking, cycling, running), and that the access for prams, wheelchairs and people with limited mobility has been improved.

b.  Use and experience – more than 79% of respondents said they would like to spend their time in the public places depicted in the draft concept design. People particularly liked the variety and flexibility of seating and furniture; they also liked the increased shade and would like more of it.

c.  Character and identity - 83% of respondents endorsed elements of the concept design which they saw as providing pleasant places to sit and watch activities on the river or to meet with friends. Many people liked the mature trees, and there was a positive response to the opportunities for art installations and representations of Parramatta’s stories.

13.   Issues and suggestions raised during engagement, along with responses from Council officers’, are summarised in the table at Attachment 3, identifying measures already incorporated in the draft design, refinements proposed in response, commitment to further measures in the next stage of design, and suggestions not incorporated.

14.   The refined concept plan for the site is shown at Attachment 4 and, in response to the public and stakeholder feedback received incorporates the following refinements:

a.  More Shade and Shelter

An enlarged riverfront shelter provides 43% more weatherproof area.  This extra provision will particularly support ferry customer and visitor amenity on popular days for the ferry service.  Four additional tall trunked trees have been incorporated into the design will provide dappled shade while maintaining view lines to the river.

b.  More green landscaping

Together with the additional trees, increased garden planting areas (extra 150m2) in the centre of the site and on the garden terrace, ensure a strong landscape character extends throughout this riverside location.  The extent of hard surfaces is reduced as a result, including the extent of concrete terracing.  The river amphitheatre retains generous capacity for over 400 people. 

c.  A legible customer service point

The ferry office, located as shown in the draft plan, now incorporates a service window for customer interaction, and ferry staff enjoy good surveillance of wharf operations.  The laser projectors essential to the Craig Walsh artwork have been integrated into the roofline.

d.  Access refinements

The amended concept design incorporates minor adjustments to ramps to improve clear width of the riverfront walk and a small reduction in the overall travel distance between street level and the riverfront.   Double handrails to all stairs better assist people travelling in both directions.

e.  An extension of refurbishments

The project incorporates an adjacent area of public space connecting the Garden Terrace to the existing arcade, the proposed colonnade of 180 George Street and 36 Charles Street. Whilst not initially included in the scope of works, it is complementary to both the project and new development at 180 George Street.  The adjusted levels will improve public access and facilitate access to the existing roof top terrace of 36 Charles Street.  Deferring refurbishment of this area to a later time as a separate works package would be less cost effective.

f.   Measures to support a well maintained space

The amended concept design incorporates minor adjustments to ramp geometry to ensure the swept path of maintenance equipment can be accommodated.  Small retaining walls within lower level garden beds will reduce scouring and improve flood resilience of landscaping.

15.   Suggestions not incorporated into the design include:

a.  a request for a children’s playground (there is a recently upgraded playground a four-minute walk away on the northern riverbank);

b.  measures to reduce flooding of the site (Whilst it is beyond the scope of the project to reduce the river’s flood levels, the project’s design has been modelled to not impede flow of flood waters. The design is resilient to flooding, utilising robust design and materials and locating more vulnerable infrastructure to higher levels.  Design and extent of balustrades has been minimised to best manage frequent debris.);

c.  new food and beverage outlets, (this public domain project facilitates opportunity for existing adjacent businesses to provide outdoor dining under license, and further food and beverage offerings nearby are anticipated with the completion of 180 George Street, and with the potential redevelopment of other adjacent sites in the future).

16.   During the public exhibition, concerns have been raised for commercial waste and private vehicles occupying the square, impacting amenity and access.  The concept design incorporates bollards to enable greater control of vehicle access, and no provision for commercial waste storage within public land.  In design development, detailed arrangements of bollards will be guided by advice on applicable regulations, legal entitlements of all stakeholders, and in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

 

NEXT STEPS AND TIMING

 

17.   Subject to this report, the design will be further developed to gain planning and technical approvals, incorporating public notifications to satisfy the requirements of part 4 and part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and other legislation. Documentation will be prepared to enable the works to be tendered for construction, with a report returned to Council on the outcomes of the tender.

18.   The draft concept design has been informed by consultation with Councillors at workshops held in April, June and September 2019.  Prior to finalising the design, further updates and consultation with Councillors will be undertaken.

19.   Pre-construction planning and liaison with stakeholders throughout construction will mitigate the potential impact on stakeholders and members of the public.

20.   Project communications will continue, including on-site hoardings detailing the project and providing project team contact details. Navigational signage (changes to pedestrian access etc.) will also be incorporated as required.

21.   Key milestones for project delivery are:

Milestone

Target

Public Exhibition

Feb-Mar 2019

Council Report back after community consultation

May 2020

Lodge planning assessments/applications

Jun 2020

Tender for the works

Dec 2020

Commence Construction

Apr 2021

Complete Construction

Apr 2022

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

22.   The financial implications of the project are summarised in confidential at Attachment 5

23.   This capital project is funded through development contributions and is augmented by a funding contribution secured from the Transport for NSW Transport Access Program in late 2019.

24.   A cost plan for the project has been prepared by the project quantity surveyor to determine the total forecast cost.  Currently, there is a forecast shortfall in funds of $214,421. To address this, value management undertaken during the next stage of design will ensure the project remains within the current approved budget.

Adam Fowler

Team Leader City Transformation

 

Kelly van der Zanden

Group Manager City Design

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Brochure - Charles Street Square Exhibition

8 Pages

 

2

Executive Summary- Snapshot from Consultation Report

6 Pages

 

3

Issues and Response Summary Charles Street Square

6 Pages

 

4

Amended Concept Plan

2 Pages

 

5

Financial Implications (confidential)

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 17.1 - Attachment 1

Brochure - Charles Street Square Exhibition

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 17.1 - Attachment 2

Executive Summary- Snapshot from Consultation Report

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 17.1 - Attachment 3

Issues and Response Summary Charles Street Square

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 17.1 - Attachment 4

Amended Concept Plan

 


 


 

Innovative

 

11 May 2020

 

18.1          FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Smart City Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 February 2020............................................ 312

 

18.2          FOR APPROVAL: Proposed Amendment to the Homebush Bay West DCP 2013 and Planning Agreement for Block H, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point for public exhibition..................................... 345

 

18.3          FOR APPROVAL: Matters relating to Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement - 295 Church Street, Parramatta.......................... 577

 

18.4          FOR APPROVAL: Draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for land at 235 - 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford......... 665

 

18.5          FOR APPROVAL: Planning Proposal and draft Development Control Plan for land at 197 and 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta................................................. 689

 

18.6          FOR APPROVAL: Pre-Gateway - Planning Proposal for 12-14 Phillip Street and 331A, 333 & 339 Church Street, Parramatta................ 783

 

18.7          FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement - 2 O'Connell St, Parramatta................................................. 860

 

18.8          FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Draft Development Control Plan and Matters Pertaining to Planning Agreement - 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park.......................... 991


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.1

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.1

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Smart City Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 February 2020

REFERENCE           F2017/00685 - D07321680

REPORT OF            Senior Strategic PO Future City        

 

PURPOSE:

 

To inform Council of the minutes of the Smart City Advisory Committee meeting held on 27 February 2020.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council note the minutes (provided at Attachment 1) of the Smart City Advisory Committee meeting held on 27 February 2020.

 

(b)    That Council officers initiate a Request for Quotation to evaluate online parking applications prior to implementation.

 

(c)    Further, that Council approve the Digital Services Transformation Strategy (provided at Attachment 2) and proceed with its implementation, as a priority, within the limitations of current resources.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     The Smart City Advisory Committee meeting was held on 27 February 2020.  It is a requirement under the terms of reference of the Smart City Advisory Committee to report the meeting minutes to Council.  

2.     This report summarises the agenda and includes the minutes of the meeting (Attachment 1). 

3.     The report also includes the Draft Digital Services Transformation Strategy (Attachment 2).

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

4.     Updates were provided on a number of projects and programs that contribute to the delivery of the Smart City Masterplan:

a)  the Smart City elements of the Parramatta Square Public Domain including the installations of wireless charging devices, big belly bins, totems and proposed water feature.

b)  the Draft Digital Services Transformation Strategy.  It is proposed that Council proceed with the implementation of the Digital Transformation Strategy, as a priority, within the limitations of current resources and implementation of the first phase of Online Conversion of Council Services as a key priority project within the “Omni Channel Program”. Essentially, this program aims to significantly accelerate the shift of our customers to online services, and improve this experience. The Committee emphasised the need to improve the process (rather than simply technology). Details of the Strategy Presentation to the Committee are available within Attachment 2.  Note: This item was included as part of Council’s Covid 19 response approved on 7 April 2020.

c)  A number of other projects were discussed. These included the Draft ICT Strategy and Open Data Policy, the Storybox project (a digitally enabled artwork to activate Parramatta Square). A brief discussion was held regarding proposed trial of other smart parking technology – note: this project has been paused temporarily due to the current challenges.

d)  The proposal to opt into NSW Government’s Park‘nPay initiative was raised.  The app (provided by the Department of Customer Services) allows people to pay for CBD parking using their smart phones – a capability that Council does not currently have. Recent challenges have made cashless and contactless parking payment a short-term priority. The committee raised concerns around data ownership, procurement and intellectual property rights of not going to market.  To address this risk, it is proposed that Council rapidly undertake a simple Request for Quotation for Parking Applications to assess the relative capability, costs and adaptability of available technology that is “meter agnostic”. The immediate objective will be to address these short-term challenges (for a limited period) so Council can then work towards aligning the development of customer services to a broader and more comprehensive Smart Parking technology review and tender process.

5.     The Chair expressed interest in attending the Smart Cities Conference in Melbourne.  Note: The conference has since been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  A number of award submissions will also be made this calendar year on existing projects.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

6.     There are no consultation / timing issues for Council associated with this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

7.     All projects discussed in the meeting are currently funded in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  All of the strategies discussed in the meeting would be submitted as a proposal in future Delivery Program and Operational Plan as appropriate, particularly as priorities are reviewed in light of current conditions.

8.     The minimal costs of Park’nPay can be enabled within the current budget.

9.     Any proposed smart parking technology trial in the future will be submitted with an identified funding source.

 

Betty Jones

Senior Strategic PO Future City

 

Geoff King

Group Manager Future City

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Lindsay Woodland

Executive Director City Engagement and Experience

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Minutes of the Smart City Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 February 2020

3 Pages

 

2

Digital Service Transformation Strategy 2020

27 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.1 - Attachment 1

Minutes of the Smart City Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 February 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.1 - Attachment 2

Digital Service Transformation Strategy 2020

 




























Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.2

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.2

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Proposed Amendment to the Homebush Bay West DCP 2013 and Planning Agreement for Block H, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point for public exhibition

REFERENCE           RZ/27/2016 - D07123388

REPORT OF            Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

PREVIOUS ITEMS           13.1 - Proposed Amendment to the Homebush Bay West DCP 2013 - Block H, Precinct B - 3 Burroway Road, Wentworth Point - Council - 28 May 2018 6.30pm       

 

applicant:            Fairmead Business Pty Ltd (Billbergia)

landowner:         Fairmead Business Pty Ltd (Billbergia)

 

dEVELOPMENT aPPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY DISTRICT PLANNING PANEL: Nil

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Council with an overview of proposed changes to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan 2004 as a result of the Design Excellence Competition, and to advise on the outcome of the Planning Agreement negotiations for the site known as Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council endorse draft amendments to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan (DCP) 2004 (provided at Attachment 2) that have been prepared in response to Council’s resolution on 28 May 2018 and the Phase 2 Design Excellence Competition for the purposes of public exhibition in order to accommodate a:

i)        Maximum of 54,356m2 of residential GFA and 40 storeys plus architectural articulation storeys under Scenario 1

ii)        Maximum of 85,000m2 of residential GFA and 50 storeys plus architectural articulation storeys under Scenario 2.

 

(b)    That Council endorse the drafting of a Planning Agreement to reflect the following items identified in Table 4 including associated drafting commentary provided in Attachment 1, with the exception of the proposed Water Recreation Facility:

 

i)        Bennelong Parkway/Hill Road intersection upgrade works,

ii)        Community Centre and Library Fit-Out reimbursement,

iii)       Childcare Centre (75 place) and public pavilion,

iv)       Embellishment of additional open space,

v)       Shuttle bus service,

vi)       Water Recreation Facility or Indoor Multi-purpose courts (refer to

        recommendation (c) below), and

vii)      Community Infrastructure Maintenance and Operational Fund

 

(c)    That during the public exhibition, Council seeks community feedback on the following alternative options for inclusion in the Planning Agreement in accordance with the parameters provided in Attachment 1:

 

i)   Indoor multi-purpose courts; or

ii)   A water recreation facility.

 

(d)    That the draft DCP and Planning Agreement be placed on public exhibition concurrently for a period of 28 days and that a report be provided to Council on the outcomes of the public exhibition.

 

(e)    That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and determine the specific terms around the delivery of the proposed Planning Agreement items in accordance with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy (2018) and as detailed in Attachment 1 including but not limited to staging, delivery, security and indexing prior to the Planning Agreement being placed on public exhibition.

 

(f)     Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any anomalies of a minor or non-policy nature that may arise during the preparation of the Planning Agreement or the draft DCP.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     At its meeting of 28 May 2018, Council considered a report on the proposed amendments to the draft Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan (the draft DCP) and the Phase 1 Design Jury Expert Report for the site known as Block H in Wentworth Point (refer to Figure 1). The purpose of the Phase 1 Design Competition was to identify the vision for the site and resolve the building envelopes and the public domain. The Phase 1 report contained recommendations regarding the site’s capacity to support additional bulk, scale and density beyond the currently approved floor space and building height controls.

2.     At this meeting, Council resolved to proceed with Phase 2 of the Design Excellence competition and endorsed development Option 3 for the site, which includes an increase in the height limit from 25 storeys to 35 storeys and an increase in the permissible residential gross floor area (GFA) on the Block H site from the currently approved 29,743m2 to 85,000m2. Council also resolved to update the DCP to reflect the outcomes of the Design Excellence Competition and for it to proceed to public exhibition.

3.     As outlined in Council’s resolution of 28 May 2018, the ability of the site to realise the full GFA of 85,000m2 is reliant on a State Government funding commitment to Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 and Sydney Metro West (or other transport infrastructure to justify the increased GFA). Should this commitment not be made then the maximum residential GFA achievable on the site is 54,356m2. The State Government announced a commitment to Sydney Metro West in October 2019. At this stage a commitment is yet to be made on Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2.

4.     At the 28 May 2018 meeting, Council also resolved to enter into negotiations for a Planning Agreement with the applicant to the value of at least $70 million and stipulated items of public benefit to be targeted.

5.     As a result of Council’s resolution, the second phase of the Design Excellence competition commenced, with the winning Architect, FJMT, announced in late 2018. Further detail on the background, Council’s resolution and the Design Excellence process is provided at Attachment 1.

6.     The proposed changes to the planning controls for this site are being undertaken as part of an amendment to the Homebush Bay West DCP, and not to a Local Environmental Plan (LEP), due to the application of the State Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No. 24 – Homebush Bay Area to this site. The SREP is a State Government planning policy that gives statutory power to the Homebush Bay West DCP in place of a LEP and all the planning controls for this site are contained within the DCP, including those that would ordinarily be in a LEP.  As a result, Council is the approval authority that sets key controls such as height and floor space ratios for the subject site.

Figure 1. Subject site outlined in red.

 

 

KEY CHANGES TO THE DCP

 

7.     As resolved by Council on 28 May 2018, the draft DCP has been amended (refer to Attachment 2) to reflect the outcomes of the Phase 2 Design Excellence Competition and recommendations within the Jury Report (refer to Attachment 3). Key amendments to the following sections of the draft DCP have been made to facilitate the design competition winning scheme:

a)  Building Height – Section 5.4.6,

b)  Built form – Section 5.4.7,

c)    Public Domain and Open Space Network – Section 5.4.10, and

d)  Environmentally Sustainable Development – Section 5.4.14.

 

8.     The key issues in the draft DCP are summarised below (with detailed discussion provided in Attachment 1).

 

Built Form

9.     In particular, the proposed maximum building height has increased significantly in order to accommodate the additional GFA and achieve a built form that minimises view loss from existing development to the bay and provides for a significant amount of publicly accessible open space. The current maximum building height in the DCP permits buildings up to 25 storeys on the site, however to accommodate the increased GFA of 85,000m2, building heights are required to increase to up to 50 storeys (refer to Figure 2) as a result of the Phase 2 Design Competition.

10.   Council resolved to support a 10 storey increase in the building height to 35 storeys at its meeting of 28 May 2018 upon endorsing development Option 3 on the site. The 35 storeys height limit originates from the Phase 1 Design Competition Brief and was subsequently referenced in Option 3 within the Council report. However, as evidenced by the Phase 2 Design Excellence Competition outcomes, this is still not considered to offer sufficient height to be able to accommodate the endorsed increase in residential GFA and still achieve a reasonable built form and design outcome.

11.   Under the proposed changes, development on the site comprises two development scenarios which respond to Council’s resolution that limits the GFA on the site should the State Government not make a financial commitment to the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 and Sydney Metro West, with each scenario consisting of two tower buildings at different heights. A summary of the scenarios and associated GFA and building heights is provided in Table 1 below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current DCP Controls

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Residential GFA

29,743m2 (residential and non-residential) (approx. 350 dwellings)

54,356m2 (approx. 642 dwellings)

85,000m2 (approx. 997 dwellings)

Proposed Building Height

(measured from Wentworth Place, being the highest part of the site)

25 storeys across the site

1 x tower up to 25 storeys (102m) plus architectural articulation storeys

1 x tower up to 40 storeys (165.45m) plus architectural articulation storeys

1 x tower up to 40 storeys (165.45m) plus architectural articulation storeys

1 x tower up to 50 storeys (190.65m) plus architectural articulation storeys

          Table 1. Current DCP controls and proposed development scenarios

12.  Each tower also proposes to include architectural articulation detail in the form of additional non-residential floor space above the upper-most residential level, which will add to the overall number of storeys under Scenarios 1 and 2 (approximately 7 part-level for each tower). The floor space within this component will not be used for residential purposes and will be for plant room, communal open space and landscaping uses (refer to Figure 3 of Attachment 1). Although these upper storeys are for articulation purposes and will not have the appearance of a fully enclosed level, they will increase the overall height of the buildings, potentially up to 47 storeys and 57 storeys for each tower respectively should the Scenario 2 development scheme be realised.

13.   It is noted that Council resolved to undertake the exhibition of the draft DCP upon finalisation of the Design Excellence competition. However, due to the extent of the proposed changes, in particular the increase in building height, Council officers consider it necessary for Council to review the changes and to re-endorse the draft DCP for public exhibition.

14.   A number of other amendments have been made to the draft DCP to reflect the Design Jury Report, including strengthening controls relating to the public domain, open space, desired street character, ecologically sustainable development, car and bicycle parking and view line protection. Further discussion and detail is provided at Attachment 1 which should be read in conjunction with the Jury Report at Attachment 3.

Figure 2. Scenario 2 proposed building envelope and building heights

 

Strategic Considerations

15.   Despite the outcomes of the Design Excellence Competition, some reservations over the proposed building heights and density on the site remain. The proposed changes present a number of strategic implications, including the suitability of the proposed development in context to the location, the unresolved traffic implications and the community concerns that is already present. These matters are summarised below but explained in detail in Attachment 1.

 

Precinct Building Heights

16.   The proposed maximum building height of up to 50 storeys (up to 57 storeys including the architectural articulation zone in Scenario 2) are considered to be more akin to development within a CBD context rather that within a primarily high density residential suburb such as Wentworth Point. It is acknowledged that the increased GFA (and building height) is subject to the required transport infrastructure upgrades such a Light Rail and West Metro being committed to, however even the Scenario 1 development will allow up to 40 storeys (up to 47 storeys including the architectural articulation zone) which will significantly exceed existing building heights permitted within the Wentworth Point precinct (up to 25 storeys). Further Scenario 2 will result in development that will also significantly exceed maximum building heights within nearby centres such as Rhodes (up to 40 storeys) which is serviced by an existing train station, and Sydney Olympic Park (up to 45 storeys) which is serviced by an existing train station and future West Metro station.

17.   Notwithstanding the above, within the context of Council’s resolution, it is considered that Scenarios 1 and 2 for Block H have the potential to achieve design excellence in the delivery of an urban form that maximises the provision of publicly accessible open space. This has been confirmed through the competitive design excellence process that was undertaken to inform the current proposed design.

 

Traffic and Transport Issues

18.   Advice received from Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) in February 2018 raised concerns regarding the capacity of the road network and adequacy of the traffic impact assessment undertaken by the applicant to support the proposal. It was noted by TfNSW/RMS that the current traffic demands resulting from Wentworth Point, Carter Street and Sydney Olympic Park are in excess of the road network capacity despite the proposed shuttle buses being provided at the time of the trial.

19.   Billbergia have stated that the full service will consist of four buses as opposed to the two buses that were part of the trial to help address the estimated demand generated by the proposed uplift. Nonetheless, subsequent to Council’s resolution of 28 May 2018, Council officers requested further comment from TfNSW/RMS on the traffic implications and intended bus service increase as a result of the increased GFA of 85,000m2 permissible on the site under Scenario 2. While a response from TfNSW/RMS is yet to be received, Council will initiate further consultation with TfNSW/RMS during the public exhibition period should Council seek to endorse the draft DCP and Planning Agreement to proceed to public exhibition.

20.   It is therefore recommended that the proposed amendments to the DCP are not finalised until advice has been received from TfNSW/RMS confirming that the traffic and transport impacts generated from the proposal have been addressed.  

21.   It is considered that enabling the proposed changes to the draft DCP to proceed to public exhibition will give the community and relevant State Agencies the opportunity to provide formal feedback that is critical to informing Council on how this proposal should proceed post-exhibition. Further, this will also progress an important proposal at a time when Council is continuing to prepare for post-Covid 19 recovery by ensuring development in the pipeline proceeds as efficiently as possible and that any adverse impacts are properly considered and ameliorated.

 

OUTCOMES OF PLANNING AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

22.   In accordance with Council’s resolution of 28 May 2018, Council officers commenced negotiations of a Planning Agreement within the parameters of the resolution that specified public benefit items to be targeted to the value of at least $70 million, as follows:

·    Road infrastructure and intersection upgrades

·    Shuttle bus service

·    Child care centres

·    Library and Community Centre fit-out funding

·    Public open space and developed parklands

·    Waterfront promenade and other as agreed on foreshore

 

23.   The applicant has submitted a Letter of Offer (refer to Attachment 4) proposing a number of community infrastructure and public benefits to be delivered at each development scenario in accordance with the resolution of Council. A summary of the proposed items under each scenario is provided in Table 2 below, with a detailed breakdown including costs/values provided at Attachment 1.  The public benefit items have been assigned to each scenario on a needs basis, with those items considered more critical to the precinct to be delivered under Scenario 1. This ensures that should Scenario 2 not proceed or be significantly delayed, then the priority items can still be delivered. The monetary value assigned to each item is proportional to the GFA being delivered for each scenario.

24.   The estimates of the value of each element of the offer have been analysed and verified and an independent peer review (commissioned by Council) was undertaken to verify the proposed costs of delivering the child care centre, public pavilion (café/gallery space) and open space embellishment. The peer review concluded that the values assigned by the applicant are a reasonable estimate of the cost of delivering these items. Further detail on the review outcomes is provided at Attachment 1.

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Bennelong Parkway / Hill Road Intersection upgrade works

Contribution towards Community Centre and Library fit-out

Child Care Centre and Public Pavilion

Open Space Embellishment

Council Maintenance and Operational Sinking Fund

Shuttle Bus Service

Water Recreation Facility or Indoor Sports Facility

Council Maintenance and Operational Fund

 

Subtotal = $33,841,000

Subtotal = $36,760,000

Total - $70,601 000

Table 2. Summary of proposed Planning Agreement items

25.   Detailed discussion on the items included in the Planning Agreement is contained in Attachment 1.

26.   The public benefit items identified in the above table are considered to be consistent with the parameters set in Council’s May 2018 resolution. However, Council officers have concerns regarding the proposed water recreation facility ($20M value) for the following reasons:

a.  Council’s draft Community Infrastructure Strategy does not identify it as an infrastructure need for Wentworth Point, and therefore its inclusion would be at the expense of high priority recreation facilities such indoor multi-purposes courts (at least 4 courts) identified in the Strategy

b.  Uncertainty regarding its deliverability as it is proposed within State Government owned land (i.e. Homebush Bay) and not within the subject development site

c.  Concerns regarding the operation of the facility by a private operator as Council would need to secure suitable contractual and/or legal mechanisms to ensure the facility is provided for public use in perpetuity at an affordable cost throughout the life of the facility.

27.   It is therefore recommended that Council proceed to exhibit Billbergia’s draft Planning Agreement offer, noting Council’s preference for the delivery of indoor multi-purpose courts to be provided as part of the development of the Block H site (to be dedicated to Council) with any remaining funds being allocated to the Maintenance and Operational Fund, rather than the provision of the proposed Water Recreation Facility.

City of Parramatta Planning Agreements Policy 2018

28.   Council’s Planning Agreements Policy, adopted on 26 November 2018, sets out the framework for the assessment and drafting of Planning Agreements associated with Planning Proposals. However, this proposal is not subject to the capture of 50% of the value uplift for the purposes of determining an appropriate planning agreement value. Council’s decision of 28 May 2018, resolved to seek public benefits to the value of at least $70 million value in the Planning Agreement for this site prior to Council’s adoption of the Planning Agreements Policy. Section 1.4 Savings Provision within the Policy states the following:

(b)    For those Planning Proposals outside the Parramatta CBD where Council and the Applicant had already reached an in-principle agreement about the value of the Planning Agreement at the time of adopting his Policy: Council will honour the agreement reached with no change to the agreed value.

29.   The DCP amendment for Block H is considered to be a de-facto planning proposal as building heights and densities (which are normally LEP controls) are contained within the Homebush Bay West DCP rather than the LEP as it relates to development of the subject site. As a result of Council’s previous resolution on the value of the Planning Agreement prior to adoption of this Policy, the minimum $70 million value remains. 

30.   Despite the Policy not applying to the current Block H planning agreement negotiations, valuation advice provided by the applicant and peer reviewed by an external consultant on behalf of Council officers; indicates that the current offer substantially exceeds the 50% value uplift requirement set out in the Policy with the current offer representing a value closer to 70% of the value uplift. Further detailed assessment of the acceptability of the Planning Agreement value is included in Attachment 1.

31.   Notwithstanding the above, all other provisions contained within Council’s Planning Agreement Policy 2018 applies.

 

CONCLUSION

32.   As a result of Council’s resolution of 28 May 2018 and the completion of the Design Excellence competition, a number of changes are proposed to the draft DCP including an increase in the maximum building height permissible on the site up to 50 storeys under Scenario 2. Due to the extent of changes proposed in the draft DCP, Council officers consider it necessary for Council to review the revised controls and endorse the draft DCP as amended in Attachment 2 for public exhibition. It is also recommended that Council endorse the preparation of a draft Planning Agreement to reflect the contents of Table 4 of Attachment 1 and for public exhibition to be undertaken concurrently with the draft DCP.

 

CONSULTATION / NEXT STEPS

 

33.   Should Council resolve to endorse the draft DCP and Planning Agreement, they will be placed on public exhibition concurrently for a period of 28 days. Consultation is proposed to be undertaken with the community and relevant Government Agencies, during which time submissions will be invited.

34.   Upon completion of the public exhibition, a report will be prepared for Council’s consideration detailing the submissions received on the draft DCP and Planning Agreement with Council officer responses.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

35.   Should Council resolve to finalise the Planning Agreement, Council’s budget will need to be updated in the future to reflect increased running costs and depreciation resulting from taking on additional Council facilities and assets as a result of this agreement. Council’s Finance team has been briefed on the implications of entering into the planning agreement and will take into account that the offer also includes funding for maintenance and operational costs of $1.97M in Scenario 1 and $4.76M in Scenario 2.

36.   Additional financial implications for Council include costs associated with the public exhibition process, which will include advertising and landowner / Government Agency notification by a mail out. These costs are funded from the Land Use Planning budget.

37.   The Planning Agreement will result in $70 million of public benefit as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

Amberley Moore

Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

 

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

 

David Birds

Group Manager City Planning

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Detailed Report on Proposed DCP Amendments and Planning Agreement

21 Pages

 

2

Draft Homebush Bay West DCP Amendment No. 2

21 Pages

 

3

Design Excellence Competition Jury Report

104 Pages

 

4

Planning Agreement Letter of Offer

74 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.2 - Attachment 1

Detailed Report on Proposed DCP Amendments and Planning Agreement

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.2 - Attachment 2

Draft Homebush Bay West DCP Amendment No. 2

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.2 - Attachment 3

Design Excellence Competition Jury Report

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


PDF Creator





PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.2 - Attachment 4

Planning Agreement Letter of Offer

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.3

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.3

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Matters relating to Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement - 295 Church Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE           RZ/14/2014 - D07251589

REPORT OF            Acting Team Leader Land Use Planning        

 

Landowner          295 Church Street Property Pty Ltd

Applicant             Mecone Pty Ltd

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY THE SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL  Nil

 

PURPOSE:

 

·        To update Council on the responses of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) and the Applicant to its resolution of 12 December 2019, and to recommend a course of action in response.

 

·        To allow Council to consider a request from the Applicant to amend the payment staging in the draft Planning Agreement related to this Planning Proposal, prior to the re-exhibition of the draft Planning Agreement.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council note:

i.      the correspondence from the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) and the Applicant attached to this report;

ii.      that the Planning Proposal does not contain a boarding house proposal; and

iii.     that the forthcoming public exhibition of planning policies related to affordable rental housing indicated by the Minister will present an opportunity for Council to make a formal submission on this matter. 

 

(b)    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal for finalisation, noting that the Proposal seeks to:

i.      Increase the height of buildings from 12 metres to part 12 metres for the front of the site and part 150 metres for the remainder of the site (plus design excellence bonus); and

ii.      Increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3:1 to 10:1 (plus design excellence bonus).

 

(c)    That Council approve the amendments to the draft Planning Agreement which require the payment of 75% of the payment before the issue of the first Construction Certificate and 25% of the payment before the issue of an Occupation Certificate (or registration of a strata plan, whichever is earlier) and note that these amendments are consistent with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy.

 

(d)    That Council:

i.      endorse the concurrent public exhibition of the amended draft Planning Agreement and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) (the latter of which was endorsed by Council on 12 December 2019); and

ii.      note that the outcomes of the exhibition of these two documents will be reported to Council.

 

(e)    That Council forward the Planning Proposal to the DPIE to prepare for finalisation, but request that the final notification on the relevant Government website only be undertaken once:               

 

i.      Council confirms that the Planning Agreement has been signed and entered into; and

ii.      The site-specific DCP has been publicly exhibited and endorsed by Council.

 

(f)     Further, that Council officers prepare a submission on the forthcoming exhibition of planning policies relating to affordable housing foreshadowed by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. This submission should:

 

i.      be informed by an analysis of the potential infrastructure impacts of these provisions which is based on monitoring development proposals that respond to the provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 bonus provisions for boarding houses, and

 

ii.      subject to the analysis confirming the infrastructure impacts, it should make a request that the bonus provisions for boarding house proposals in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 not be applied in the Parramatta CBD.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     At its meeting of 16 December 2019, Council considered a post-exhibition report for the Planning Proposal, draft Planning Agreement and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) at 295 Church St, Parramatta. The report can be referred to at the following link (Item 18.6).

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2019/OC_16122019_AGN_510_AT.PDF

 

2.     This report advised Council that the Planning Proposal being considered by Council is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. It also noted that the applicant had lodged a Design Competition Brief which indicated their intention to apply for additional floor space under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) to accommodate a boarding house on the subject site. It was noted that the boarding house proposal was not related directly to the Planning Proposal being considered by Council but would be a matter that would be considered at Development Application stage. Council resolved the following on this matter at its meeting on 16 December 2019:

 

(a)    That Council receives and notes the submissions made, summarised at Attachment 5, during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement for land at 295 Church Street, Parramatta.

 

(b)    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal provided at Attachment 2 for land at 295 Church Street, Parramatta, which seeks to:

(i)   Increase the height of buildings from 12 metres to part 12 metres for the front (Church Street) 12m of the site and part 150 metres for the remainder of the site (plus design excellence bonus); and

(ii)  Increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3:1 to 10:1 (plus design excellence bonus).

 

(c)    That an amended draft DCP, included at Attachment 3, be re-exhibited to address the following matters that arose during the previous consultation phase:

(i)   12 metre tower setback to Church Street;

(ii)  Traffic, access, loading and servicing; and

(iii)  Flooding.

 

(d)    That the draft Planning Agreement included at Attachment 4 be re-exhibited with amendments including:

(i)   a standard review clause that allows a review if Council seeks to increase Section 7.11 and 7.12 contributions and decrease the community infrastructure contribution payable under Council’s Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure policy framework, and

(ii)  making it clear that no contribution will be required unless the development includes residential apartments.

 

(e)    That the exhibition outcome of the revised Planning Agreement and draft DCP be reported to Council.

 

(f)     That Council defer forwarding the amended Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) until the outcome of the exhibition of the draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement has been considered by Council and the documents are endorsed for finalisation.

 

(g)    That Council object to the development of a boarding house on the subject site as the provision of a 20% bonus floor space to accommodate boarding houses has not been considered as part of the studies undertaken as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and therefore, the cumulative impact has not been properly considered. To address this, the Lord Mayor write to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces requesting that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 be amended to restrict the application of the bonus provisions in the Parramatta CBD. In addition that this planning proposal be advanced only if the boarding house is withdrawn.

 

(h)    That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to make any minor amendments and corrections of an administrative and non-policy nature relating to the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement that may arise during the plan-making and finalisation process.

 

(i)     Further, that Council note the advice of the Local Planning Panel of 3 December 2019 is consistent with the Council Officer’s recommendation in this report.

 

3.     This report has two functions:

a.  to provide Council with an update on the boarding house matter referenced in part (g) of the above resolution, and to recommend a course of action to Council on the same; and

b.  to allow Council to consider a request from the Applicant to amend an aspect of the draft Planning Agreement that was not included in part (d) of the above resolution.

 

BOARDING HOUSE ISSUE

 

Lord Mayoral correspondence to Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

 

4.     The Lord Mayoral correspondence regarding boarding houses referred to in part (g) of the above resolution was forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in January 2020. A response was received in March 2020, and is included at Attachment 2.

 

5.     The response noted Council’s request to exclude the Parramatta CBD from the provisions of the ARHSEPP. It also advised Council that DPIE will shortly exhibit amended planning policies relating to affordable housing, and would welcome a response from Council at that time.

 

Correspondence from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

 

6.     DPIE staff wrote to Council’s Chief Executive Officer in March 2020 regarding this Planning Proposal; refer Attachment 3 for a copy of DPIE’s correspondence. This correspondence came from the DPIE team charged with responsibility for ensuring Planning Proposals are progressed in a timely manner. It is the team that would make recommendations to the Secretary to remove Council as the Planning Proposal Authority if the Department felt that Council was not progressing the Planning Proposal in an appropriate manner. DPIE’s position on this matter and their request for advice from Council is summarised as follows:

 

“…the planning proposal does not seek to include provisions relating to boarding houses, rather that the separate design [competition] brief sought to allow bonuses afforded by State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP) for boarding houses as part of a potential future development application (DA). It therefore appears that the consideration of the suitability of the site for use as a boarding house relates more directly to the assessment of the future DA, and not the planning proposal.

 

If this is not the case, could you please advise and also provide advice on how the planning proposal is to proceed? I also note that the timeframe for finalising this LEP is due to expire on 24 March 2020.”

 

7.     On 13 March 2020 Council officers wrote to DPIE to request an additional Gateway extension to allow Council to consider the matters outlined in DPIE’s correspondence and in the remainder of this Council report.

 

Correspondence from Applicant

 

8.     The Applicant was advised of Council’s position on the Planning Proposal outlined in part (g) of the above resolution. In response, the Applicant has provided correspondence (see Attachment 4) detailing their position on this matter. The Applicant’s position is summarised as follows:

 

“We wish to clarify that the planning proposal does not include a boarding house component. The planning proposal does not seek any additional FSR for a boarding house and does not include any boarding house-enabling provisions. Therefore having regard to the wording of the Council resolution above, we are of the view that the planning proposal can be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, for finalisation.

 

We acknowledge that Council has concerns with boarding houses under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP and its application to Parramatta CBD, however this is a separate issue. In the meantime we wish to continue with the as submitted planning proposal and any future development on this site would be assessed on its merits in accordance with the applicable planning controls.”

 

Council officer analysis and recommendation

 

9.     Council officers note that DPIE and the Applicant have essentially taken the same position, which is that the boarding house matter and the Planning Proposal process should be treated separately in terms of process.

 

10.   Council officers recommend that the boarding house matter and the Planning Proposal process should be treated separately in terms of process, and that Council progress this Planning Proposal to finalisation as per the terms of part (f) of its 12 December 2019 resolution (i.e. following the endorsement of a final Planning Agreement and final DCP post-exhibition). This is based on the following considerations:

 

·        The Planning Proposal does not contain any provisions relating to boarding house uses at this site. Rather, it seeks to introduce planning controls at this site that are consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

·        The boarding house proposal the Applicant flagged they were pursuing via their design competition brief is proposed as part of a potential future development at this site and would be permissible through the ARHSEPP. The ARHSEPP effectively “overrides” local planning controls, in that the proposed boarding house use would be permissible in addition to any development under controls contained within Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011. Therefore, the proposed boarding house use could proceed at this site, regardless of whether this Planning Proposal progresses.

·        Once the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is exhibited and becomes a matter for formal consideration when assessing Development Applications, there would be nothing preventing the Applicant from commencing the same process that they have already indicated they wish to commence – i.e. a design competition and Development Application that includes the boarding house use. Consequently, declining to progress the site-specific Planning Proposal based on the boarding house use only delays the potential lodgment of the same Development Application (as the 295 Church St Planning Proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal).

·        The Minister has not indicated support for a policy decision to exclude Parramatta CBD from the ARHSEPP bonus provisions at this time. Even if this policy decision was made in the future, it is unlikely that DPIE would allow Council to decline to progress this site-specific Planning Proposal due to the boarding house issue as DPIE has already identified that the Planning Proposal does not include any provisions relating to the boarding house use. Furthermore, introducing this policy change would likely delay the progress of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, which would only put more pressure on Council to finalise site-specific Planning Proposals such as this case.

·        A key risk to Council in not progressing the site-specific Planning Proposal due to the boarding house matter is that Council’s status as the Planning Proposal Authority (PPA) could be removed due to a failure to progress the Planning Proposal. Losing the PPA status would jeopardise Council’s ability to negotiate and finalise a Planning Agreement and an appropriate Development Control Plan for the site, as an alternate PPA would be free to finalise the changes to planning controls without these documents.

 

11.   To continue to address the boarding house issue, Council officers also recommend that development proposals responding to the provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and the ARHSEPP bonus provisions for boarding houses are monitored. This is based on the following considerations:

 

·        The forthcoming public exhibition of planning policies related to affordable rental housing indicated by the Minister will present an opportunity for Council to make a formal submission on this matter and reiterate its request that the Parramatta CBD be excluded from the ARSHEPP bonus provisions. Monitoring development proposals in the Parramatta CBD which respond to these provisions would provide an evidence base for this submission.

·        At this stage, 295 Church Street is the only known development proposal that clearly intends to respond to the provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and the ARHSEPP. There are many sites in the B4 zone of the Parramatta CBD that could theoretically be subject to similar proposals. However, without a further indication from the market as to the feasibility of this sort of development and the types of sites where this might occur, it is difficult to provide a meaningful analysis that predicts with any level of certainty how many other sites might respond in a similar manner (and, therefore, the likely cumulative infrastructure impact).

·        The Applicant has indicated that part of the future development at this site may be for a hotel use; therefore, the resulting development would be part hotel and part boarding house. This may be a unique land-use mix that is unlikely to be broadly replicated across the Parramatta CBD. On the other hand, this example could be read as an opportunity by other landowners/developers to pursue this bonus on numerous sites around the Parramatta CBD. Given this lack of certainty, Council officers consider it prudent to monitor development activity and analyse any new applications that seek to pursue the affordable housing bonus option to inform consideration of the need for action to be taken. It is recommended that this analysis informs the submission to the future exhibition indicated by the Minister, as per the recommendation of this report.

 

PAYMENT STAGING IN DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT – APPLICANT REQUEST

 

12.   During the process of preparing the amended Planning Agreement referred to in part (d) of the above resolution, the Applicant also requested to alter the staging of the payment outlined in the Planning Agreement. The Applicant’s request is included at Attachment 5 of this report.

 

13.   As Council officers were not empowered under the above resolution to renegotiate the terms of payment staging, this request is being reported to Council for its decision.

 

14.   The previous Planning Agreement contained a payment staging structure as follows:

 

a.  25% of the Monetary Contribution is payable no later than 10 Business Days after the date of the Development Consent that authorises the conduct of the Development on the Land;

b.  50% of the Monetary Contribution is payable prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate for the Development; and

c.  25% of the Monetary Contribution is payable prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the Development of the Land, or prior to the registration of any Strata Plan, whichever is earlier.

 

15.   In place of the above, the Applicant wrote to Council to request a payment staging structure as follows (refer Attachment 5):

 

a.  75% payable prior to issue of the first Construction Certificate

b.  25% payable prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate

 

16.   This request is consistent with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy, with the exception that the second stage of payment (25%) is due either prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate or prior to the registration of a Strata Plan, whichever is earlier (so the Planning Agreement can be removed from title prior to Strata Plan registration). The Applicant has indicated in subsequent communication to Council officers that this is acceptable to them, so the final draft Planning Agreement now accords with Council’s policy position on this matter, which is as follows:

 

a.  75% payable prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate

b.  25% payable prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate or prior to the registration of any Strata Plan forming part of any such Development, whichever is earlier.

 

17.   The reason that the previous draft Planning Agreement had a different payment staging structure to that of Council’s Planning Agreements Policy is that the terms of that previous draft agreement were negotiated prior to Council’s adoption of that policy in November 2018.

 

18.   Council officers do not object to the amendment requested by the Applicant, as it is consistent with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy. This position is reflected in the amended draft Planning Agreement and Explanatory Note at Attachments 6 and 7, respectively.

 

DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT – OTHER AMENDMENTS

 

19.   In addition to the recommended change to payment staging described previously in this report, the draft Planning Agreement at Attachment 6 also contains amendments for re-exhibition as follows:

 

a.     Amendments to ensure that descriptions of the planning control changes to be made as part of the Planning Proposal correctly reflect Council’s resolution on this matter in all instances;

b.     Amendments in accordance with part (d) of the resolution cited in the first section of this report, where Council resolved to:

i. add the standard review clause relating to a potential future change in the community infrastructure policy framework, and

ii. make it clear that no contribution applies unless residential apartments are included (noting that the application of this resolution has resulted in draft terms that the contribution applies only if development consent includes development “for the purposes of residential accommodation (as defined in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011), excluding any use for the purposes of a boarding house”. The reason the terms have been drafted this way is because “residential apartments” is not a legal land use term, and Council officers consider that it would be prudent to use a legal land use term to describe the development in the Planning Agreement. The legal land use term residential accommodation covers a number of types of residential development, however it is most likely that the type of residential accommodation that would eventuate on this site would be in the form of residential apartments. Therefore, Council officers proposed to the applicant that the wording in the draft Planning Agreement would refer to the contribution applying to residential accommodation; provided that the boarding house use was excluded as per the previous report to Council on this matter, the applicant has agreed to this); and

c.     Administrative amendments as authorised under part (h) of this resolution to clarify certain aspects of the Planning Agreement.

 

20.   The draft Planning Agreement as amended above and attached for Council’s endorsement (Attachment 6) includes provision for a monetary contribution of $1,136,000 and aligns with Council’s policy framework for community infrastructure provision in the Parramatta CBD.

 

21.   It is noted that the Applicant’s current development proposal for this site is for a hotel use (including boarding house, as previously discussed). In this instance, as per part of the discussion above, the monetary contribution would not apply as the development would not include residential accommodation (excluding boarding house use). As per the last report to Council, Council officers do not consider requiring a community infrastructure contribution for the boarding house component is appropriate for this development primarily because the boarding house is being proposed under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP rather than directly as a result of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

 

22.   Necessary changes to the Explanatory Note (Attachment 7) resulting from the above amendments to the draft Planning Agreement have also been undertaken.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

23.   Council’s endorsement of the amended draft Planning Agreement will facilitate re-exhibition of the draft Planning Agreement and draft DCP for this site. The outcomes of that exhibition will be reported to Council at a future date.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

24.   The draft Planning Agreement makes provision for a monetary contribution to Community Infrastructure of $1,136,000 if the development approved contains residential accommodation (excluding boarding house uses). However, if the site is developed with non-residential uses (for instance, if developed as a hotel use as is currently proposed), this would not attract any community infrastructure contribution. This is consistent with Council’s policy framework for community infrastructure in the Parramatta CBD.

 

25.   There are two potential financial implications which have been discussed in this report, and are summarised below:

 

a.  Should Council refuse to progress the Planning Proposal due to the boarding house issue, there is a risk that Council’s PPA status would be removed. This would make it more difficult for Council to finalise the Planning Agreement for this site, as an alternate PPA would be free to finalise the changes to planning controls without a Planning Agreement being in place.

 

b.  Altering the staging of payment as discussed in this report does not affect the amount of the contribution under the draft Planning Agreement, but it does affect when Council receives the contribution. However, this timing is consistent with Council’s policy on this matter, therefore, the draft Planning Agreement reflecting this position is recommended for endorsement for the purposes of re-exhibition.

 

Sarah Baker

Acting Team Leader Land Use Planning

 

Robert Cologna

Acting Manager Land Use Planning

 

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1

Planning Proposal for 295 Church St, Parramatta

46 Pages

 

2

Correspondence from the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

1 Page

 

3

Correspondence from the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment

1 Page

 

4

Correspondence from the Applicant regarding the Planning Proposal

1 Page

 

5

Correspondence from the Applicant regarding the draft Planning Agreement

1 Page

 

6

Amended draft Planning Agreement for 295 Church St, Parramatta

25 Pages

 

7

Amended draft Explanatory Note for draft Planning Agreement for 295 Church St Parramatta

3 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 

The previous report to Council on this matter considered at Council’s meeting of 16 December 2019 can be referred to at the following link (Item 18.6).

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2019/OC_16122019_AGN_510_AT.PDF

 


Item 18.3 - Attachment 1

Planning Proposal for 295 Church St, Parramatta

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.3 - Attachment 2

Correspondence from the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

 

PDF Creator


Item 18.3 - Attachment 3

Correspondence from the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment

 

PDF Creator


Item 18.3 - Attachment 4

Correspondence from the Applicant regarding the Planning Proposal

 

PDF Creator


Item 18.3 - Attachment 5

Correspondence from the Applicant regarding the draft Planning Agreement

 

PDF Creator


Item 18.3 - Attachment 6

Amended draft Planning Agreement for 295 Church St, Parramatta

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.3 - Attachment 7

Amended draft Explanatory Note for draft Planning Agreement for 295 Church St Parramatta

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.4

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.4

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for land at 235 - 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford

REFERENCE           RZ/25/2016 - D07322428

REPORT OF            Project Officer Land Use       

 

APPLICANT             Architex Pty Ltd

 

landowner          Gaiset Pty Ltd          

 

Development applications considered by sydney central city planning panel – Nil.

 

PURPOSE:

 

To seek Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit a draft site-specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for land at 235 – 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford concurrently with the draft Planning Proposal as endorsed by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)      That Council endorse the draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for the land at 235 – 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford, as provided at Attachment 1, for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

(b)      That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to prepare the legal drafting of a Planning Agreement in accordance with the letter of offer (provided at Attachment 2) and the specifications of the through site link set out in the draft site-specific DCP (provided at Attachment 1) for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

(c)      That the draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement be placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal for land at 235 – 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford for a minimum period of 28 days, and the outcome of the public exhibition be reported back to Council.

 

(d)      Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor inconsistencies or anomalies of an administrative nature relating to the draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement documentation that may arise during the drafting and exhibition processes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE SITE

 

1.     The subject site is located at 235 to 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford, on the northern side of Marsden Road between Tomah Street and Mobbs Lane. The subject site consists of three allotments (legally described as Lots 1, 2 and 3 of DP 5982), with a total site area of 12,884sqm (1.29ha).

2.     The site is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011) and is surrounded by other R2 zoned sites with a mixed character of single dwellings and townhouse development, with the exception of Simpson Reserve and the Carlingford Anglican Cemetery, both located to the north-east of the subject site. 

Figure 1: The subject site outlined in red

BACKGROUND

 

3.     A Planning Proposal for the land at 235 - 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford was lodged with Council on 23 December 2016 seeking to amend the zoning, height and FSR controls under the provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 to enable the development of townhouses and villas. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend planning controls on the site as follows in Table 1.

 

Existing

Proposed

Land Use Zoning

R2 Low Density Residential

R3 Medium Density Residential

Height of Buildings

9m (2 storeys)

11m (up to 3 storeys)

Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1

0.6:1

Number of Dwellings

15 detached dwellings or

23-30 dwellings (dual occupancies)

 

48 dwellings (townhouses)

       Table 1: Current and Proposed Planning Controls

 

4.     On 14 December 2017, the Planning Proposal was reported to the then Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) (now Local Planning Panel). The Panel recommended that the Planning Proposal not be supported as the proposal was inconsistent with the Strategic Framework identified in the draft Parramatta Residential Development Strategy 2006 for land outside of identified study areas, and subsequently did not meet the strategic merit test criteria for a proposal of that nature. The recommendation of the Panel was consistent with the recommendation provided by Council officers.

5.     At the Ordinary Meeting of 12 February 2018, Council adopted the Panel’s and Council officer recommendation and resolved to not support the Planning Proposal.

6.     Following the Council resolution, the applicant lodged a request for a rezoning review with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE). On 17 May 2018, the Sydney Central City Planning Panel determined that the Planning Proposal should proceed to Gateway determination stage despite the Council resolution stating that the Planning Proposal not proceed.

7.     In September 2018, the DPIE issued a Gateway Determination with conditions that required the applicant to amend the Planning Proposal to include an updated landscape plan to ensure the retention, and where possible the expansion of the urban tree canopy, and to facilitate a Green Grid connection between Galaringi and Simpson Reserves. These conditions would ensure consistency with ‘Planning Priority C16: Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green grid connections’ of the Central City District Plan. The green grid link and urban tree canopy are proposed to be implemented through the draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement the subject of this report.

8.     The remaining Gateway Determination conditions relate to updating the heritage item number referencing within the Planning Proposal and including the relevant supporting technical studies prior to exhibition. The Planning Proposal has subsequently been updated in accordance with the Gateway conditions and is recommended to proceed to public exhibition concurrently with the associated draft site-specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement. The Gateway Determination is included at Attachment 3.

9.     Council is authorised as the Planning Proposal Authority as granted by the Gateway Determination to process the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal, site-specific DCP and Planning Agreement will be placed on public exhibition concurrently, with the outcomes of the exhibition to be reported to Council (via the Local Planning Panel).

 

DRAFT SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

10.   In order to ensure that the Gateway Determination conditions are addressed by any future development on the site, a draft site-specific DCP was prepared at Council officer’s request by the applicant and lodged with Council on 22 January 2020. The draft DCP has been reviewed by Council officers and a number of additional provisions have been included to provide a better development outcome for a site of this nature. A copy of the draft DCP is provided at Attachment 1.

 

11.   The existing controls for medium density development within the Parramatta DCP 2011 do not necessarily suit a site of this size and configuration. The controls are geared to smaller lots with a regular shape. Therefore, additional provisions have been included by Council officers that are tailored to the site. The key controls within the draft DCP include:

 

-    Setbacks: Given the irregular shape of the subject site, a 12m rear setback (of deep soil) is proposed instead of a rear setback of 15% of the site depth under the current DCP to allow a more regular-shaped building envelope.

 

-    Top storey controls: the proposed controls will allow attics to be no greater than 50% of the footprint of the townhouse/multi-dwelling unit instead of 25sqm under the existing controls thereby providing for greater design flexibility.

 

-    Building length control: the current controls for medium density housing contain a maximum building length control of 20m. Given the size and depth of the subject site, it is proposed that this control be removed to allow greater flexibility for the development layout.

 

-    Green Grid through site link: in order to satisfy the gateway condition regarding the Green Grid connection, a through site link is proposed at a minimum 3.5m in width, comprising a 1.5m planted verge (deep soil), and 2m footpath to permit easy walking and cycling between Marsden Road and Simpson Reserve. A minimum 1m wide verge for street lighting is also proposed adjacent to the link.

 

-    Urban Tree Canopy: the draft DCP also includes provisions to address the Gateway condition in relation to the expansion of the urban tree canopy and includes controls that are benchmarked against an ‘Existing Trees Plan’ to ensure an increase in urban tree canopy is achieved.

 

12.   The proposed through site link provides a new opportunity for local routes consistent with Appendix C – Detailed Parramatta Ways Route Options of the Parramatta Ways Walking Strategy (shown in Figure 2). It also addresses the Gateway determination conditions of the urban tree canopy and the Green Grid connection.

 

Figure 2: Detailed Routes Option Map from Appendix C – Detailed Parramatta Ways Route Options of the Parramatta Ways Walking Strategy. The subject site is outlined in red dashed line and one of the identified local routes is circled in red which aligns with the southeastern boundary of the subject site connecting Marsden Rd to Simpson Reserve to the rear of the site.

 

13.   It is noted that the identified through link from the Parramatta Ways Walking Strategy is located just outside of the subject site. Notwithstanding, the Strategy is intended to identify high level local routes and it is acknowledged that the practical application of the Strategy needs to respond to local opportunities. It is considered that the proposed renewal of the Swane’s Nursery site provides the opportunity for the subject site to deliver this link as part of the development in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the Strategy.

 

14.   A diagram of the proposed organisation of the site including setbacks and the  indicative location of the through site link is shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Site organisation and indicative location of through site link in the draft site-specific Development Control Plan

 

15.   The final endorsed site specific DCP will become a key consideration for the preparation of any future development application for the site, in addition to general controls provided in the Parramatta LEP 2011, the broader controls in the Parramatta DCP 2011, as well as any other relevant legislation and guidelines.

 

OTHER ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

16.   It is noted that the subject site is does not contain a heritage item nor is it within a heritage conservation area. However, it is adjacent to a heritage item of local significance, St Paul’s Anglican Church Cemetery (Item I18). The Cemetery is separated from the eastern boundary of the subject site for most of its length by a fence.

 

17.   The Applicant’s Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS Architecture states that the proposal will not have an adverse impact or affect the conservation of the cemetery or the other nearby heritage items. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the Planning Proposal, Statement of Heritage Impact and associated documentation and has raised no objections to the proposal proceeding.

 

18.   Notwithstanding the above, the draft DCP requires further detailed heritage analysis to be provided at the Development Application stage to ensure that any proposed development appropriately considers the potential impacts of the development on the heritage listed Cemetery, and in particular the protection of the heritage item and its interface with the new development.

 

 

 

 

Transport and Accessibility

 

19.     Council’s Traffic and Transport team have reviewed the Planning Proposal and the associated Traffic and Parking Impact Statement prepared by Thompson Stanbury Associates and confirm that the proposed relocation of the vehicular access to the site without a deceleration lane is considered acceptable and that the traffic generated from the proposal will not degrade overall service on Marsden Road in the immediate vicinity of the site. Relocation of the existing vehicular access is proposed to enable left-in and left-out access for the subject site and will be required as part of the site-specific DCP to address the issues relating to safe access to and from the subject site with additional further safety measures discussed below.

 

20.   However, due to the increase in traffic associated with the development and the number of casualty accidents in the vicinity of the site, Council’s Traffic and Transport team have requested that Transport for NSW (TfNSW) be consulted with regards to the feasibility of providing a median island in the centre of Marsden Road, to further restrict right turn ingress/egress. Formal consultation with TfNSW will therefore be undertaken when the Planning Proposal, draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement are placed on public exhibition.

 

City of Parramatta Local Strategic Planning Statement 2036 (LSPS)

 

21.   Council’s LSPS was published on 31 March 2020 and sets out the 20 year land use planning vision for the City of Parramatta. It is noted that the assessment of this proposal pre-dated Council’s LSPS and therefore the LSPS was not a matter for consideration when the matter was considered by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel in May 2018.

 

22.   Notwithstanding, it is considered the proposal is consistent with Council’s LSPS which identifies and encourages the need to provide a more diverse range of housing through Housing Diversity Precincts. The proposal which seeks to redevelop the site for townhouse development is consistent with the LSPS’s Housing Diversity Precinct criteria which encourage the provision of a mix of low rise housing types for sites larger than 1 hectare. 

 

23.   The proposed townhouse development is also considered compatible with the adjoining properties given the relatively modest increase in residential density (from 0.5:1 FSR to 0.6:1 FSR) and resulting low scale built form. The development also provides for generous side setbacks which will further ameliorate any interface issues with neighbouring properties. The proposed built form is also consistent with the existing surrounding character that predominately contains a mix of low density housing and townhouses.

 

24.   Further, the proposal also facilitates the provision of a through site link consistent with the LSPS direction of implementing the Parramatta Ways Walking Strategy (Green Grid).

 

DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

25.   There is no Council resolution that requires this Planning Proposal to provide a Planning Agreement as Council resolved not to support the Planning Proposal. However, as noted above, a Gateway Determination was issued after the rezoning review by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel, Council is therefore obligated to process the Planning Proposal.

 

26.   Council’s Planning Agreement Policy was adopted in November 2018, it requires Planning Proposals outside of the Parramatta CBD to deliver a planning agreement contribution that is equivalent to 50% of the land value uplift. However, the requirement of the 50% of the value uplift is not applicable for this Planning Proposal as the Gateway Determination was issued prior the adoption of the Policy by Council in November 2018.

 

27.   Notwithstanding, the applicant has submitted a letter of offer to enter into a Planning Agreement with Council to address the Gateway condition to facilitate the Green Grid connection. The letter of offer provided at Attachment 2 seeks to create a 3.5m wide right of way through the site consistent with the provisions contained in the draft DCP. This right of way will be privately maintained but will benefit the public by providing 24-7 public access and will therefore place no cost burden on Council to maintain.

 

28.   It is noted that Council has never endorsed the Planning Proposal associated with this report (or the potential to negotiate a Planning Agreement) as the Gateway Determination was issued by the DPIE following a pre-gateway review. Further, Council’s Planning Agreement Policy 2018 relating to the capture of 50% of the land value uplift as a part of the Planning Agreement does not apply to the site. This is due to the Gateway Determination being issued prior to the Policy coming into force. Accordingly, as the Gateway Determination has already been issued with specific conditions that need to be met and that there is currently no Council endorsed position regarding the nature of the VPA to be negotiated, Council’s ability to negotiate the VPA is constrained.

 

29.   Notwithstanding the above it is considered that the current letter of offer to deliver the through site link is of value to the community and Council as it creates certainty around the delivery of items referred to in the Gateway Determination such as the implementation of the Green Grid Link and increased Urban Tree Canopy (which are also addressed within the draft DCP).

 

30.   Further, while the proposal seeks to rezone the site from R2 Low Density Residential (0.5:1 FSR resulting in a GFA of 6,442sqm) to R3 Medium Density Residential (0.6:1 resulting in a GFA of 7,730sqm) to facilitate the development of town houses, this increase is considered to be relatively modest and will also deliver a housing type that is needed within the City of Parramatta as identified in Council’s LSPS.

 

31.   Given that Council must progress the Planning Proposal for the site if it is to remain the Planning Proposal Authority for this matter, and that the proposal received Gateway prior the adoption of the Planning Agreement Policy, the existing letter of offer is considered reasonable given the modest uplift that will be achieved on site.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

32.   The costs associated with the preparation, exhibition and finalisation of the draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement are funded within the City Planning budget. The proposed Planning Agreement seeks only to establish a Right of Way over privately owned land, therefore there are no ongoing costs to Council to maintain the link.

 

CONCLUSION

 

33.   It is recommended that Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP and that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare the legal drafting of the draft Planning Agreement in accordance with the letter of offer provided in Attachment 2 on behalf of Council for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

34.   If endorsed, the draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement will be publicly exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal for 235 - 237 Marsden Road, Carlingford, for a minimum of 28 days. A further report will be prepared for Council detailing the outcome of the public exhibition period.

 

Jane Liang

Project Officer Land Use

 

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

 

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Draft Development Control Plan

11 Pages

 

2

Draft Planning Agreement Letter of Offer

2 Pages

 

3

Gateway Determination

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 18.4 - Attachment 1

Draft Development Control Plan

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.4 - Attachment 2

Draft Planning Agreement Letter of Offer

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.4 - Attachment 3

Gateway Determination

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.5

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.5

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Planning Proposal and draft Development Control Plan for land at 197 and 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE           RZ/4/2015 - D07358670

REPORT OF            Project Officer Land Use       

 

LAND OWNER         Holdmark Properties Pty Ltd                     

 

APPLICANT             DFP Consultants

 

Development applications considered by central sydney planning panel:  Nil

 

PURPOSE

 

To seek Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit a revised Planning Proposal and a draft site-specific Development Control Plan for the subject site at 197 and 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta and to enter into negotiations for a Planning Agreement.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal for 197 and 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta for the purposes of public exhibition (included as Attachment 1), subject to the following amendments:

·    Apply an FSR of 10:1

·    Apply a height of part 105m part 12m;

·    Include provisions that require a minimum 1:1 commercial floor space be provided in any redevelopment and allow for unlimited commercial floor space to be provided;

·    apply the full range of car parking rates specified in the current draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal; and

·    ensure it reflects the amendments requested by the Gateway Determination conditions excluding those described in (b) below.

(b)    That Council request that amendments be made to the Gateway Determination to ensure that:

·    The requirement to consult with relevant aeronautical agencies prior to exhibition is no longer required;

·    It is clear that the clause implementing the solar access protections requested in the Gateway conditions has already been implemented via a separate Planning Proposal. No further amendments are proposed to be made to the solar access clause notwithstanding some changes may be required to the height of buildings map; and

·    The requirement for a satisfactory arrangements clause seeking contributions to fund state provided public infrastructure be removed.

(c)    That Council endorse the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) at Attachment 2 for public exhibition, subject to amendments contained in Attachment 5 of this report.

 

(d)    That delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to negotiate and endorse for exhibition a draft Planning Agreement that takes into consideration the Applicant’s letter of offer (Attachment 6) and the following negotiating position:

·    consistent with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy and draft framework relating to Community Infrastructure in the Parramatta CBD;

·    require any contribution payable to be based on the Community Infrastructure policy in place at the time the contribution is paid rather than the current rate;

·    secure a 2m right of public access over the 2m ground floor setback along Marsden Street.

 

(e)    That Council grant delegated authority to the CEO to correct any minor anomalies to the Planning Proposal and draft DCP that may arise during the amendment process.

 

(f)     That Council no longer require an international design competition to be run for the subject site.

 

(g)    Further, that the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement be publicly exhibited concurrently and the outcome of the public exhibition be reported back to Council.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

THE SITE

 

1.     The subject site is located on the north-western corner of the intersection of Church Street and Macquarie Street, Parramatta. This is a prominent location within the Parramatta City Centre as it is directly north of Centenary Square and Parramatta Square; two key elements of the public domain within the City Centre.

 

2.     The subject site consists of two lots (Lot 1 DP 710335 and Lot 1 DP 233150) with a total site area of 4,307.4m2. It is an irregular shape and has a frontage to Church Street to the east, Macquarie Street to the south, and Marsden Street to the west. It is approximately 250m north of the Parramatta Transport Interchange and 420m south of the Parramatta River (see Figure 1).

 

Figure 1: Subject Site Location

 

3.     A mix of two and three storey retail and commercial buildings currently occupy the site, which includes Heritage Item No.655 (shop and potential archaeological site). The Heritage Item, referred to as the Murray Brothers department store, was built in 1925 with the original façade marking the beginning of Church Street and its fine grain retail component. The surrounding development consists of a mixture of commercial and retail uses.

 

HISTORY

 

4.     Prior to the Planning Proposal for the subject site being lodged with Council a Preliminary Planning Proposal (PPP) was lodged for the subject site in April 2014. At the same time PPPs were also lodged for adjoining sites at 20-22 Macquarie Street and 220-230 Church Street and 48 Macquarie Street, Parramatta.

 

5.     Preliminary Planning Proposals are lodged with Council prior to a formal detailed Planning Proposal being lodged when there is a key issue which requires Council direction. Usually the direction then given by Council is key to the preparation and content of any subsequent Planning Proposal or may mean the lodgement of a Planning Proposal is not feasible or appropriate. In the case of the PPPs described above the two key issues were related to height and overshadowing.

 

6.     At the time these were being considered the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal was in a preliminary stage involving the preparation of documents to request a Gateway Determination. While Council had not formally resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal Council had endorsed a position where an FSR of 10:1 and unlimited building height was being considered for the precinct containing the three PPPs. 

 

7.     In particular allowing tall slender towers as proposed in the three PPPs would result in overshadowing of a portion of the public domain of Parramatta Square (refer to Figure 2 which shows portion to be protected) which was at that time protected by a control in the Parramatta LEP 2011 which referenced supporting controls in the Parramatta DCP 2011. The key issue was whether Council should allow some overshadowing of the protected portion of the Parramatta Square Public domain to allow tall slender towers to be feasible on these sites.

 

 

Figure 2: Portion of Parramatta Square to be protected from overshadowing outlined in red

 

8.     Attachment 3 contains a more detailed summary of the Preliminary Planning Proposals and their assessment. Following a number of Councillor Briefings and reports to Council it resolved to allow the proposals to be considered on their merit with an FSR of 10:1. This decision resulted in a formal Planning Proposal being lodged for each site. 

 

9.     The Planning Proposal for the subject site was lodged on 9 March 2015.  The proposal as originally submitted sought to allow a height of 250m or 80 storeys and a GFA of 71,000m² as well as exemptions from design competition processes and other LEP clauses. However, during the assessment the applicant made some amendments to the proposal. The final proposal from the applicant reported to Council sought to:

 

·    increase maximum FSR from 3:1 and 4:1 to 16.5:1 (inclusive of Design Excellence) instead of a Gross Floor Area control of 71,000 m² within a Site Specific Clause

·    remove the application of a Maximum Building Height control, or if Council considered a height control necessary increase maximum Building Height from 12 metres and 36 metres to 250 metres (inclusive of Design Excellence)

·    pursue an International Design Competition at an appropriate stage of the development process.

 

10.   On 23 November 2015 Council had resolved to amend the DCP controls that applied to the Parramatta CBD at that time to protect a portion of the Public Domain of Parramatta Square. Council sought to introduce a “45 minute rule” which allowed any development to the north of the Parramatta Square to overshadow the protected portion if the shadow moved quickly across Parramatta Square.  In order to comply, the shadow cast by any development on June 26 should move across the Square so no single point of the protected portion remained in shadow for more than 45 minutes between 12 noon and 2pm.   

 

11.   The assessment of the Planning Proposal was considered by Council on 7 December 2015 and Council’s resolution included the following:

 

(a)    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 subject to it being modified as follows:

 

   To incorporate the recent changes proposed by the applicant detailed in the section of this report titled ‘Final Planning Proposal’ for 197-207 Church Street, Parramatta.

   Provide an increase in FSR to 15:1 (excluding design excellence) subject to compliance with the sun access provisions of Clause 29E of PCCLEP 2007, including the “45-minute rule” for overshadowing of the solar zone of Parramatta Square and SEPP 65.

   Inclusion of a clause requiring an international design competition.

   A height to be determined by the design competition as described in (b).

 

(b)    That the applicant work collaboratively with the CEO to draft a brief for an international design competition to design a building on the site, demonstrating compliance with the sun access provisions (Clause 29E of PCCLEP 2007) including the “45-minute rule” for overshadowing of the solar zone of Parramatta Square and SEPP 65. In particular, any future building on the site must demonstrate a built form that appropriately addresses the building separation controls of the ADG to ensure future development on adjacent sites is not compromised (including 20-22 Macquarie Street, Parramatta).

 

12.   On 13 July 2017, a Gateway Determination was received by Council on behalf of the Greater Sydney Commission that the Planning Proposal should proceed subject to a number of conditions. Conditions required the following amendments of relevance to the subject Planning Proposal:

 

(iii) change the Explanation of Provisions and proposed height of buildings map to indicate that the maximum height of buildings for the site is subject to clause 7.4 Sun Access;

 

(iv) change the Explanation of Provisions to amend clause 7.4 Sun Access, to ensure direct access of natural sunlight, and no additional overshadowing occurs between 12pm – 2pm of the protected area of public domain within Parramatta Square (Note: this is not intended as a site- specific control but will apply to all land affected by clause 7.4);

 

(v) amend the proposed maximum FSR to ensure consistency with the FSR controls proposed for the site in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (PP_ 2016_ PARRA_015_00), and to ensure that the maximum potential FSR, including design excellence bonus, will comply with clause 7.4 Sun Access (as amended by condition 1(c) above) and the State Environmental Policy 65 Apartment Design Guide.

 

13.   The Gateway Determination issued for the subject site did not support the 45 minute rule endorsed by Council. It sought to put in place a control that would supersede the “45 minute rule” Council included in the Parramatta CBD DCP. The Department of Planning considered that the level of overshadowing of the protected portion of Parramatta Square was inappropriate. It raised concern that the “45 minute rule” allowed for numerous developments north of Parramatta Square to overshadow the protected portion of Parramatta Square and that the cumulative shadow impact from all these developments resulted in unacceptable levels of overshadowing.

 

14.   Between July 2017 and August 2018 the applicant sought via the Gateway Review process, which allows Council or the applicant to appeal against any condition of the Gateway Determination, to appeal to have the condition relating to shadowing of Parramatta Square removed from the Gateway Determination. The applicant was seeking to have the “45 minute rule” remain as the policy that would determine the level of overshadowing permitted over Parramatta Square. The outcome of the review process was that the Independent Planning Commission issued advice on 2 July 2018 that supported the retention of the solar access conditions of the Gateway determination made on 13 July 2017.

 

15.   It should be noted that a similar condition requiring a new clause to supersede the Council’s “45 Minute rule” was also required in Gateway Determinations issued for 20-22 Macquarie Street and 220-230 Church Street & 48 Macquarie Street. The Planning Proposal for 220-230 Church Street and 48 Macquarie Street has been finalised so Clause 7.4(2) in Parramatta LEP 2011 is in effect and it protects the relevant portion of Parramatta Square from overshadowing between 12 noon and 2pm all year round. While the 45 minute rule remains in the current Parramatta Town Centre DCP 2011 it is superseded by Clause 7.4(2) and has no effect.

 

16.   In addition in finalising the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal for submission to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination, so the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal can be endorsed for exhibition Council resolved on 25 November 2019 to apply a control that seeks to protect the relevant portion of Parramatta Square from any overshadowing between 12 noon and 2pm on 26 June.

 

17.   In the middle of 2019 the applicant approached Council Officers and advised that they now wish to proceed with the Planning Proposal and wished to proceed with a commercial development that would comply with Clause 7.4(2) and since then Council Officers and the applicant have been working on:

 

a.  New reference design and new versions of the planning proposal and supporting documents, such as urban design reports, so that they are consistent with the conditions of the Gateway Determination

b.  A Draft DCP to support the Planning proposal controls

c.  Negotiating a Planning Agreement in accordance with Council’s Community Infrastructure Funding Policy Framework. 

 

18.   The subject report seeks to have these documents endorsed by Council so the Planning Proposal and supporting documents can proceed to public exhibition.              

CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS

 

19.   The current controls that apply to the site under Parramatta LEP 2011 are:

 

a.  Zoning - B4 Mixed Use

b.  The land fronting Church Street has a maximum building height of 12m (approximately 4 storeys) with the remainder of the site fronting Marsden and Macquarie Street having a height of 36m (approximately 12 storeys)

c.  The land fronting Church Street has a maximum FSR of 3:1 with the remainder of the site fronting Marsden and Macquarie Street having an FSR of 4:1 (diagrams showing the zoning, FSR and height controls are contained in Attachment 4)

d.  The subject site contains Heritage Item I655 – Shop and potential archaeological site which is locally listed under the Parramatta LEP 2011. Figure 6 shows the heritage item and the other heritage items in close proximity to the subject site.

 

Figure 3: Heritage Map (subject site outlined in red)

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

20.   The Council resolution of 7 December 2015 required an international design competition be run. This competition was run but before a competition winner could be formally resolved it became apparent that all the winning designs could not comply with the solar access controls required by the Gateway Determination. A competition winner was not formally announced. The developments in the design competition were mixed-use developments with two buildings, being a commercial building and a residential tower. Figure 4 shows one of the design competition entries to demonstrate the nature of the building previously being considered with a very tall slender tower of approximately 83 storeys.

Figure 4: Design Competition Entry for 197 Church Street Site

 

21.   The applicant’s most recently submitted reference design is for a non-residential building made up of a mix of retail and commercial uses with no residential development. Figures 5 and 6 show the nature of the building now proposed by the applicant.

 

22.   The applicant proposal comprises:

a.     A commercial tower above a primarily retail podium on the part of the site fronting Church and Macquarie Streets

b.       A longer narrow building to be used for a hotel on the portion of the site that extends to Marsden Street.

 

Figure 5: View from Macquarie Street looking west

Figure 6: Proposed massing concept of two towers

23.   Table 1 below provides a comparison of the height FSR and uses between the previous and current development proposals:

 

Table 1: Comparison of Previous and Current Reference Designs for Subject Site

 

Current Controls

Design Competition Entry

Current Reference Design

Use

Permits mix of commercial and residential development

11,000m2 Commercial Floor Space

Approx 600 Residential units

Approx. 100 hotel rooms

 

32,510m2 Commercial Floor space

Approx. 240 Hotel Rooms

FSR

Part 3:1 and part 4:1

16.5:1

11.8:1

Height

Part 12m (3-4 storeys) and Part 36m (12 storeys)

250m (82 storeys)

Part 12m (3-4 storeys) part 105m (32 storeys)

Solar access

Clause 7.4 seeks to protect portion of Parramatta Square

Complied with 45 minute rule

Complies with clause 7.4 ie does not overshadow the protected portion of Parramatta Square

 

24.   While the new proposal submitted is primarily for commercial uses the zoning will remain B4 Mixed Use which will still permit residential development. However, it will not be possible for the applicant to achieve an FSR close to 11.8:1 and still satisfy SEPP 65 Design Guidelines. If the proposal was to revisit an earlier mixed use residential tower design the FSR would be likely to be in the range of 8.06:1 and 8.21:1.

 

IMPLICATIONS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ON PLANNING PROPOSAL AND COMPLIANCE WITH GATEWAY DETERMINATION

25.   Council adopted the latest iteration of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal on 25 November 2015. In general terms, the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal seeks to increase heights and FSRs in the Parramatta CBD, subject to the provision of community infrastructure and other requirements. The Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal remains Council’s most recently endorsed policy position on density increases in the Parramatta CBD.

 

Consistency of Planning Proposal and Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

 

26.   Table 2 compares the key planning controls identified for the subject site with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Planning Proposal comparison to Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

Scenario

Current Controls

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal Controls

Recommended Site-specific Planning Proposal controls

Land-Use

B4 Mixed Use

B4 Mixed Use

B4 Mixed Use

FSR

Part 3:1 Part 4:1

Base: Part 3:1 and Part  4:1

Incentive: 10:1 (11.5 with bonus)

10:1 (11.5:1 with design excellence bonus) An additional 0.3:1 can be achieved via the unlimited commercial floor space clause

Meets site area for unlimited commercial floor space

HOB

 

 

18m

(6 storeys)

Base:

Part 36 m (12 storeys) and part 12 m (4 storeys)

Requirement to comply with Sun Access Protection provision and 12 m for Church Street frontage

Part 105 m

Part 12m on along Church Street frontage (4 storeys)

The Height of Buildings map will show – 105 m (32 storeys)

Compliance with Sun Access Protection provision

Land Acquisition

Nil

In the land reservation acquisition map the Marsden Street frontage of the site is subject to the requirement for provision of a regional cycleway

It is recommended that a Planning Agreement be negotiated to secure a 2m right of public access over the 2m ground floor setback area in order to ensure a satisfactory publically available footpath along Marsden Street

 

Minimum Commercial Floor Space

Nil

Minimum 1:1 commercial floor space required in mixed use development

 

Unlimited commercial floor space permitted as long as site area of 1,800 m2 achieved

Insert clause that will require minimum commercial floor space 1:1 and unlimited commercial floor space on this site (given the site area is greater than 1,800m2) consistent with CBD PP

 

This will give the applicant the opportunity to apply for the FSR of 11.8:1 proposed in their development application subject to them meeting other Council requirements (refer to section on flooding below for further analysis)

Active Street Frontages

N/A

Site identified on Active Frontage Map proposed for CBD PP

The site-specific DCP requires active frontages on Church, Macquarie and Marsden Streets

High performing buildings (residential)

N/A

5% high performing building bonus

Solar access and Apartment Design Guide controls mean it is unlikely that site can achieve an FSR up to 11.5:1 so a 5% bonus to allow the site to achieve 12:1 total FSR is not feasible

High Performing buildings

(commercial)

 

Office premises with a gross floor area (GFA) greater than 10,000m² are required to meet certain standards regarding energy and water targets. Dual piping to allow capacity for future use of recycled water.

The requirement of the CBD PP will be required to be met in a design competition brief to achieve Design Excellence

 

Parking

Parking Rates

Endorsed Parking Rates consistent with City of Sydney CBD Parking rates - Category A. These are subject to future review when more detailed parking and traffic studies can determine if these rates should be amended.

Insert Clause setting site specific parking rates as per Council’s resolution on CBD Planning Proposal and Gateway Determination condition. Refer to further comments below on which rates will be applied

Solar Access

Clause 7.4 seeks to protect Parramatta Square from overshadowing

Clauses proposed to retain protection to portion of Parramatta Square between 12 noon and 2pm measured on 26 June.

Refer to comments on solar access protection in section on compliance with Gateway Determination Conditions below

 

Evolution of Car Parking Rates to be applied in Site Specific Planning Proposal

27.   The application of parking rates in the Parramatta CBD has been evolving as the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal has evolved. Council on 10 April 2017 made a decision to apply the City of Sydney Category A parking rates. The Department of Planning, relevant Transport Agencies and Council have agreed that Site Specific Planning Proposals can proceed ahead of the transport plan currently being undertaken as part for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal if these controls are applied. As a result of this Clause 7.14 “Car parking for certain land in Parramatta City Centre” has been introduced into Parramatta LEP 2011 and has been applied to six sites in the CBD. Two sites have had the same controls as those contained in Clause 7.14 applied separately in site specific clauses.

28.   Clause 7.14 contains controls based on the City of Sydney Category rates applying two sets of rates one set for residential development and a second formula that applies to all non-residential development.

29.   However, when endorsing the latest version of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal it was amended to include a more detailed cross section of car parking rates that apply to a range of uses. It is recommended that the latest Planning Proposal makes it clear that the parking rates currently specified in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal will be applied to this site rather than just the two rates in Clause 7.14. This will require either a rewriting of Clause 7.14 or the introduction of a new clause, including the broader range of rates, so that this site specific planning proposal, and site specific proposals in the CBD that follow, will have the broader range of rates applied as their parking rates. This is important for this site as it now proposes a hotel and there is a particular rate for hotels specified. It will also mean moving forward that other site specific Planning Proposals will be more consistent with the Council policy framework.

30.   The rates in clause 7.14 will continue to apply to the eight sites already rezoned and the rates will change for these sites when the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is finalised and clause 7.14 is superseded by the new Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal clauses.

Compliance with Gateway Determination

31.   The Gateway Determination requires various amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal and that it be sent to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for their review prior to it being placed on public exhibition. Given this requirement Council Officers recommend Council takes the opportunity to request these amendments be made to the Gateway Determination at the same time.

a.   Requirement to Consult with Aeronautical Agencies:

The Gateway Determination requires Council to consult with aeronautical agencies prior to exhibition. However, this requirement is based on the previous controls which proposed a height of 250m. Under the current proposal the maximum height is 105m below the height at which buildings will begin to impact on aeronautical operations. For this reason Council should request the requirement be removed from the Gateway Determination.

b.   Solar Access Protections:

The conditions of the Gateway Determination require the Planning Proposal be amended to insert a new solar access clause for Parramatta Square. However as explained earlier a clause that achieves the Department’s proposed outcome has already been included in the Parramatta LEP 2011 (i.e. clause 7.4) via a separate Planning Proposal which has already been finalised. Given the solar access protection clause is already in place and will apply to the subject site, it is potentially confusing to put on exhibition a Planning Proposal that suggests it will be implementing the same clause again. However, it may be necessary to amend the height of buildings map. Council Officers consider there is no policy impact if this requirement is now amended in this Planning Proposal. For these reasons Council should request that this condition be amended.

c.   Satisfactory arrangements clause for contributions towards provision of designated state public infrastructure:

State Government has to date yet to implement the State Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) requirement that it has been flagging that it will implement over the last 5 years. State Government agencies have been inconsistently requesting Council apply a satisfactory arrangements clause which would require the applicant to make a contribution towards State Government infrastructure even if the SIC is never implemented.

Where State Agencies have requested during the exhibition process that this clause be applied to Council Planning Proposals, Officers have raised concern that the application of these clauses is inconsistent and does not treat all developers in the Parramatta CBD equitably.

For the same reasons it is recommended Council requests the Department amend the Planning Proposal to remove the requirement to include a satisfactory arrangements clause.

Summary – Content of Planning Proposal

32.   The Planning Proposal enclosed with this report as Attachment 1 is either consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal or will be amended prior to submission to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to ensure:

a. it is consistent with Table 2 above

b. applies the full range of car parking rates specified in the current iteration of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

c. reflects the amendments requested to the Gateway Determination conditions described in Paragraph 31 of this report.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

33.   The Applicant has prepared a draft DCP (Attachment 2) that has been reviewed by Council Officers. The draft DCP will be incorporated into the Parramatta CBD DCP and most of the controls in the current CBD DCP will continue to apply, but the site specific aspects dealt with in the proposed site specific DCP are:

 

a.   Built Form Controls – primarily setbacks for podium and tower elements

b.   Public Domain controls – requiring activated frontage and a through site link

c.   Traffic and Transports controls – primarily dealing with access and loading arrangements

d.   Heritage – making reference to relevant Heritage Studies that should be considered when incorporating the existing heritage elements in to the design of any future redevelopment.

 

34.   Council Officers recommend that some additions and changes to the Applicant’s draft DCP are made prior to its exhibition. These changes are detailed in Attachment 5 and discussed in the below sections.

 

Key Change Relating to Pedestrian Entry Point

 

35.   A key change that Council Officers are recommending to the Applicant’s draft DCP is to the pedestrian access through-site link proposed by the applicant at the corner of Church and Macquarie Streets. This has implications for a number of sections of the draft DCP, and resulting changes are reflected in the recommended changes to DCP controls contained in Attachment 5.

 

36.   The diagram below shows two potential locations of the main entry point from Macquarie Street and path of travel through the site connecting to the through site-link from Church Street to Marsden Street. The Applicant’s preference is shown with a blue arrow (Option A), while Council officer’s preference is shown with a red arrow (Option B).

 

Figure 7: Pedestrian Arcades – Applicant’s preference shown with blue arrow (Option A); Council officer’s preference shown with red arrow (Option B). Arrow shown with black dashed line is the through site link agreed by both parties.

 

37.   Council’s Urban Design officers recommend that the pedestrian access point should instead be on Macquarie Street (red arrow) for the following reasons:

 

a.   A preference for a ‘solid’ corner to help define the intersection at Church and Macquarie Streets, as well as the northwest corner of Centenary Square.

b.   To integrate with the existing and future network of laneways in the CBD, most importantly the future lane proposed to run north-south along the edge of the Planning Proposal at St John’s Cathedral.

c.   The majority of the design competition submissions showed a pedestrian access to the site on Macquarie Street, rather than at the corner of Macquarie and Church Streets.

 

38.   The Applicant has provided a detailed analysis to justify retention of the through site link from the corner of Macquarie / Church Streets (blue arrow) arguing that their proposed link:

 

a.   Provides for more viable retail outlets.

b.   In their opinion is more consistent with the existing and proposed future pedestrian desire lines providing more pedestrian amenity to pedestrians in the CBD.

c.   Minimises pedestrian vehicle conflicts because the only feasible location for the north south link preferred by Council Officers is adjacent to the proposed driveway.

 

39.   Council’s Land Use Planning Officers note that both cases have elements that suggest they can be supported and that neither option is necessarily unacceptable. However, for the sake of clarity only one option should be included in the draft DCP. Land Use Planning Officers recommend Option B (red arrow in figure 7) be included in the DCP for the following reasons:

 

a.   Council has already identified a new pedestrian link running north-south along the western edge of the St John’s Cathedral site opposite this site across Macquarie St. The north-south link illustrated in Figure 7 will align better with this new link.

b.   The Applicant’s argument is that that the critical desire line is the pedestrian desire line for people moving between the Parramatta Square/Centenary Square/ Station Precinct and areas on Marsden Street to the northwest. It is considered that the link proposed still adequately address these desire lines.

c.   The Applicant’s claim that the north south link location is fixed is based on the reference design and the location of a service core. The reference design is not the final design and the site will still be subject to a design competition process where the service core and location of the through site link can be resolved in more detail to address the applicant’s concerns.

d.   The Urban Design team’s conclusion that Option B provides a more defined corner element.

 

Built Form Controls

 

40.   Council Officers are recommending amendments to the Built Form section of the Applicant’s draft DCP. These are contained in Attachment 5 (Item 1) and summarised as follows:

 

a.   Changes to reflect the recommended amendment to the pedestrian entry point as discussed above

b.   Strengthening of language relating to built form heritage

c.   Strengthening of language relating to incorporating design features to mitigate wind impacts

d.   Ensuring a minimum tower separation distance of 12m between the towers on site for non-residential uses, and 18m between residential uses.

 

Public Domain Design Controls

 

41.   Council Officers are recommending amendments to the Public Domain Design section of the Applicant’s draft DCP. These are contained in Attachment 5 (Item 2) and are summarised as follows:

 

a. Changes to reflect the recommended amendment to the pedestrian entry point as described above

b. Setting design controls for the pedestrian arcades which are proposed onsite in order to promote good design outcomes (accessibility, connectivity, etc.).

 

Traffic and Transport

 

42.   Council Officers are recommending three amendments to the Traffic and Transport section of the Applicant’s draft DCP, as discussed below.

 

43.   First, the Applicant proposes a set-down area for vehicles on the Marsden St frontage. Council officers recommend removal of this control, as Council officers consider that there are potential conflicts with pedestrian footpath, bike path and vehicle traffic associated with locating a vehicle set-down at this point and these matters have not been resolved at this point in time. It is recommended that this issue is further examined at Design Competition and Development Application stage, rather than introduce a control into the DCP.

 

44.   Second, the Applicant’s draft DCP refers to existing parking controls that are not consistent with the Gateway Determination and are not recommended to be included in this Planning Proposal. Therefore, it is recommended that the reference to existing parking controls be removed.

 

45.   Third, this section of the Applicant’s draft DCP contains a key diagram which shows the layout of the site, including tower locations, setbacks, vehicular and pedestrian access points, etc. Council Officers are recommending changes to this diagram to reflect the key change to pedestrian entry point above, as well as to accord with the setback controls otherwise discussed in Attachment 5 (Item 3). A copy of this diagram is included below.

 

 

Figure 8: Recommended amended diagram for insertion in DCP – Traffic and Transport section

 

Heritage

46.   The Applicant’s reference design provides for the retention of the facade of the Murray brothers building along Church Street and Macquarie Street. The Statement of Heritage Impact in support of the original planning proposal favoured retention of the façades as the best means of preserving a significant measure of the building's fabric and its contribution to the city.

47.   In the Council report of 7 December 2015 on the original proposal Council officers commented (paragraph 64) that the facade and internal structure of the building contributed to the fine grain retail streetscape of Church Street and contribute strongly to the town centre history of the city centre. Council Officers sought that the fabric of the original Murray Bros Store be kept (including elements of internal structure and the caretakers flat) not just the facade.

48.   Council’s resolution of 7 December 2015 included that “The design competition brief must require entrants to retain the heritage façade of the existing building on the site.” The brief was prepared accordingly, and the design competition submissions for the competition previously held generally contemplate retention of the heritage façade only.

49.   Taking into account Council’s previous resolution on this matter, Officers recommend minor changes to the Applicant’s draft DCP relating to heritage. The new section included at Attachment 5 (Item 4) reflects retention of the heritage façade as per Council’s resolution, and also recommends some minor changes including:

a.   strengthening of language to incorporate (rather than “consider”) the recommendations of the original heritage report supporting the Planning Proposal, as well as any archaeological items found on site

b.   ensuring creation of new access arrangements minimises impacts on heritage facade

c.   to consider opportunities to incorporate the existing heritage fabric

d.   to acknowledge nearby heritage items.

 

Street Wall / Ground floor Controls

 

50.   Council Officers recommend addition of new sections relating to street wall and ground floor design to the Applicant’s draft DCP; the new sections are included at Attachment 5 (Item 5). These controls draw on the controls that were written for the neighbouring Planning Proposal site at 20 Macquarie Street. Key features of these controls include the following:

 

a.   Providing detailed design controls about the treatment of street walls to ensure good design outcomes such as solidity of building form, good articulation, pedestrian shelter, and richness in detail at the pedestrian level

b.   Discouraging undercrofts or other features which amplify the presence of the tower to the street

c.   Acknowledging the public domain needs of future Light Rail

d.   Providing for a positive pedestrian experience at ground level through controls that promote such outcomes as human scale design, fine grain street frontage, good articulation, treatment of slope at the ground plane, and legibility of entrances

e.   Ensuring security doors and grilles do not detract from the public domain.

 

Flooding

 

51.   The Applicant’s reference design includes a basement level supermarket. Council Officers have concerns about this matter from the point of view of flooding.

 

52.   This supermarket impacts on the FSR achievable on this site as the FSR may decrease by approximately 1:1 if the supermarket is not approved on flooding grounds.

 

53.   Generally, Council Officers recommend that Council not support habitable and retail floor space in basements in areas subject to flooding. The subject site is within the area inundated in flood events up to and including the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). However, the Applicant has suggested that there are engineering methods that protect the basement space from inundation up to the PMF and that they should be permitted to pursue these.

 

54.   Council Officers acknowledge that a system of engineering barriers and gates can be implemented but only consider these to be appropriate for non-habitable areas such as basements and plant and equipment but not for habitable and retail floor space which represent a higher level of risk.

 

55.   Council Officers are recommending a set of additional flooding and drainage related controls to make it clear what Council’s policy position is on the habitable and retail floor space in basements and the flooding/drainage related requirements. A copy of these controls are provided in Attachment 5 (Item 6). The Applicant has advised that they will continue to seek approval for a basement supermarket as part of any design competition and Development Application process and so will seek to vary the DCP in the future.

 

Other Amendments to DCP

56.   Other amendments to the Applicant’s DCP recommended by Council Officers are as follows:

a. Amendments to ensure the DCP is consistent with the provisions of the Planning Proposal, as otherwise discussed in this report (for instance, to ensure that the instrument change facilitated by the Planning Proposal is accurately described in the DCP)

b. Amendments to ensure that titles in the DCP reflect the current format of titles in Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 (i.e. “Objectives” and “Controls”)

c. Administrative amendments (for example, to ensure section numbering, formatting and references to figures are accurate and consistent with PDCP 2011).

 

VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

57.   Council’s resolution of 7 December 2015 included the authority to proceed with negotiations for a voluntary planning agreement. The outcome of negotiations was to be reported back to Council prior to the public exhibition of the planning agreement together with the amended scheme.

 

58.   The Applicant has amended their proposal and indicate that it will be developed for non-residential (commercial) purposes. The community infrastructure (i.e. value sharing) provisions of the draft Parramatta CBD do not apply to the increase of commercial floor space proposed for the subject site.

 

59.   However, Council's practice is to require a Planning Agreement for any Planning Proposal in the B4 Mixed Use Zone, because any future use could include residential development. As such, a Planning Agreement is still required to be entered into, albeit with a condition that the contribution will only be delivered in the case where the site is developed incorporating residential development. If the applicant were to develop in accordance with the latest reference design submitted to Council no contribution would be required.

 

60.   The Applicant also submitted a letter of offer (Attachment 6) in February 2020 indicating that they are happy to work with Council on a draft VPA that deals with a potential residential use of the site, but that their development concept for the site is for commercial uses only.

 

61.   Table 3 provides Council Officers’ best estimate of what could be achieved under the current proposed controls if a residential development was to occur on the site. There is no reference design for residential development of this site that does not overshadow Parramatta Square, so the following floor space estimates are based on preliminary modelling undertaken by Council Officers. It was explained earlier that the FSR proposed by the Applicant can only be achieved for commercial development; once the requirements of SEPP 65 are factored into residential development, the maximum FSR achievable would reduce to approximately 8.2:1.

 

Table 3: Contribution Required under Draft Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure Framework if site is developed for residential purposes

Development parameters

Site Area

4:1 part of site = 3,331.8 m2

3:1 Part of Site = 975.6 m2

Total = 4,307.4 m2

Base FSR

Part 4:1 and Part 3:1

Base Gross Floor Area

4:1 Part of the site = 4 x 3,331.8 = 13,327 m2

3:1 Part of the site = 3 x 975.6 m2 = 2,926.8 m2

Estimate FSR Achievable under Residential Scheme

8.2:1 across whole site(1)

4:1 Part of the site = 3,331.8*8.2 = 27,320.8m2

3:1 Part of the site = 975.6*8.2  = 7,999.9m2

Phase 1 calculation

Uplift in gross floor area

4:1 Part of Site - (27,320.8m2 – 13,327m2)= 13,993.8m2

3:1 Part of Site - (7,999.9m2 – 2,926.8m2)= 5,073.1m2

Total Uplift = 13,993.8m2 + 5,073.1m2 = 19,066.9m2

Community infrastructure payment required at $150 /m2

(19,066.9m2 x $150) = $2,860,035

(1)   Estimate of Council Officers of Maximum FSR achievable to comply with SEPP 65 Design Guidelines and Solar Access Controls

 

62.   As part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal work consideration is being given as to whether the community infrastructure rate should increase from the current rate of $150 per square metre that would be applied in this case (Note: given the circumstance the $375/m2 rate for sites with floor space increases above 12:1 does not apply in this case).

 

63.   Council has recently negotiated two agreements for sites in Aird Street and Marion Street where clauses were included, so that if Council does increase the rate at some time in the future as a result of its review then the contribution paid would be based on the higher rate rather than the $150/m2 currently applied. In negotiations Council should seek to impose a similar requirement in this case.

 

64.   The DCP requires the ground floor of the building fronting Marsden Street to be given a 2m setback requirement. The purpose for this is to allow for a widening of the footpath as it appears possible that 2m portion of the existing footpath will need to be converted to accommodate a widened road that includes a dedicated bike path. This issue was also raised when Council considered the Planning Proposal for the adjoining site at 20 Macquarie Street.

 

65.   Council is seeking to have a right of public access granted to Council over this 2m setback area to ensure that a publicly accessible footpath of equivalent width to the current footpath has been maintained. This arrangement is being negotiated with the adjoining owner of 20 Macquarie Street. This approach is taken as part of a balanced approach because the alternative is for Council to acquire the 2m strip of land. If the strip was acquired the developer would not be permitted to build car parking below the footpath or allow the building to encroach above the footpath or benefit from the FSR. However, with a right of way the applicant can maintain development rights above and below the 2m wide strip while Council achieves the desired pedestrian amenity by maintaining the footpath width.

 

66.   It is recommended, consistent with the approach being taken on the adjoining site at 20 Macquarie Street, that a right of way be requested by Council which would be delivered to Council regardless of whether the site is developer for residential or commercial purposes.

 

67.   In summary, it is recommended the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) be delegated to negotiate and finalise for the purpose of public exhibition a draft Planning Agreement that:

 

a.   Is consistent with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy and Draft Community Infrastructure Framework noting that a community infrastructure contribution would only be required if the ultimate development of the site incorporated residential development

b.   Incorporates a clause that would require any contribution payable to be based on the community infrastructure policy in place at the time the contribution is paid rather than just apply the current rate

c.   Seeks to secure a 2m right of public access over the 2m ground floor setback area in order to ensure a satisfactory publically available footpath is achieved along Marsden Street.

 

NEXT STEPS

68.   Council Officers recommend that:

a.   Council forward the Planning Proposal and its request for amendments to the Gateway Determination to obtain their endorsement for the Planning Proposal to be exhibited

b.   The draft VPA be negotiated and a copy be endorsed by the CEO under delegation to allow it to be exhibited with the Planning Proposal

c.   The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft VPA all be exhibited concurrently and the outcome of the exhibition process be reported to Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

69.   It is proposed to negotiate a VPA with the Applicant that provides that, in the event there are any proposals for residential development, a monetary contribution would need to be paid. The best estimate available suggests Council would receive approximately $2.8 million if the site was developed for residential instead of commercial purposes. The costs associated with the preparation, exhibition and finalisation of the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft VPA would be funded within the City Planning Unit budget, acknowledging that the budget includes a Planning Proposal fee paid by the Applicant to help offset the costs to Council of processing Planning Proposals.

 

Paul Kennedy

Project Officer Land Use

 

Robert Cologna

Acting Manager Land Use Planning

 

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Revised Planning Proposal for 197 and 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden St, Parramatta

43 Pages

 

2

Applicant Draft Development Control Plan (DCP)

10 Pages

 

3

Summary of Preliminary Planning Proposals

2 Pages

 

4

Diagrams of Existing Planning Controls

2 Pages

 

5

Recommended Amendments to DCP Controls

12 Pages

 

6

Letter of Offer

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.5 - Attachment 1

Revised Planning Proposal for 197 and 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden St, Parramatta

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.5 - Attachment 2

Applicant Draft Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

 

 

Amendment to Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011

 

Part 4.3.3 Parramatta City Centre

 

Part 4.3.3.7 City Centre Special Areas

 

197 Church Street Parramatta

 

17 February 2020

 

Revised 14 April 2020

 


Purpose of draft Site Specific DCP

This draft site specific DCP seeks to include development controls specific to development on 197 Church Street, 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta.  The site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 710335 and Lot 1 DP 233150.  For simplicity, the site is referred to herein as 197 Church Street, Parramatta.

 

The objectives and controls in Section 4.3 and Section 4.3.3 of this DCP, as they relate to the Parramatta City Centre are relevant to development on this site, except where amended by the site specific provisions and controls contained in this section.

 


Figure 1[1] shows the location of the site in the context of the Parramatta city centre and Parramatta Square.

Figure 1      Location of 197 Church Street Parramatta

 


 

Amendment to Section 4.3.3.7 City Centre Special Areas

Amendment to Figure 4.3.3.7.1

Figure 4.3.3.7.1 City Centre Special Areas (on page 4.3 – 89 of Parramatta DCP 2011) to be updated to include the subject site.  The site is identified in red in Figure 2 below.

 

 

Figure 2                    Amendment to Figure 4.3.3.7.1 City Centre Special Areas

New Section 4.3.3.7(x)

A new section, Section 4.3.3.7(x) to be inserted into Parramatta DCP 2011 to include site specific controls relating to 197 Church Street, Parramatta.

 

This Section is to be read in conjunction with Parramatta LEP 2011 and other parts of Parramatta DCP 2011, unless otherwise amended by the site specific provisions and controls contained in this section.

 

Land to which this section applies

 

This site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) applies to land at 197 Church Street, 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta.  The land is legally described as Lot 1 DP 710335 and Lot 1 DP 233150.  For simplicity, the site is referred to herein as 197 Church Street, Parramatta.

 

Amendment to Parramatta LEP 2011

Following amendment of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 as it applies to the site, the following development standards will apply to the site:

 

·     Base floor space ratio (FSR) of 11.9:1

·     Maximum building height of 105m.

Relationship to other Planning Documents

This section of the DCP is to be read in conjunction with other parts of this DCP and the Parramatta Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2011, which prevails in the event of any inconsistency. 

If there is any inconsistency between this part of the DCP and other parts of Parramatta City Centre DCP 2011, this section of the DCP will prevail. This section of the DCP establishes objectives and controls to be interpreted during preparation and assessment of development applications and supports the objectives of the LEP.

Where there are no specific development controls in this section, reference should be made to other sections of the DCP.

197 Church Street Section 4.3.3.7(x)

 
Desired Future Character

The site occupies a significant corner within the Parramatta city centre. The intersection of Church Street and Macquarie Street has historically played a major role in Parramatta’s life as a city. It is envisaged that it will continue to do so as part of Parramatta’s role of the other CBD as envisaged in A Metropolis of Three Cities – The Greater Sydney Region Plan.

City of Parramatta Council also foresees a future for Parramatta as a centre of excellence... This means forward planning, innovation and investment to ensure that public infrastructure and future development meets the needs of our residents, visitors and workers.[2] This includes the redevelopment in and around Parramatta Square, the connection with Centenary Square and the provision of new Civic Link between the river and Parramatta Square.


 

Site Specific Objectives

In addition to the general objectives listed in Section 4.3 of this DCP and the broad objectives for the Parramatta City Centre as detailed in Section 4.3.3 of this DCP, the specific objectives relating to 197 Church Street are to:

 

O1.      Capitalise on the site’s strategic location within the Parramatta city centre.

O2.      Facilitate the fine grain network of pedestrian links through the site.

O3.      Respect the heritage items on the site and the social significance of these items.

O4.      Ensure the built form outcome is appropriate having regard to Council’s and the community’s vision for the Parramatta CBD and responds to the emerging built form context in the city centre.

O5.      Ensure development provides built form articulation and an attractive composition of building elements with an appropriate relationship between buildings and streetscape.

O6.      Ensure building height is distributed across the site having regard for orientation and overshadowing.

O7.      Provide opportunities for an appropriate level of active ground floor uses to be accommodated to increase pedestrian activity and use of public domain areas.

O8.      To include stormwater management measures which appropriately address the level of flood affectation on the site and immediate surrounds.

Built Form Design Principles and Controls

The site reference design is a guide to future development on the site.

 

The site reference design is based on a proposal that provides for two towers above a podium, which will cover the entire site.  The tower on the south and eastern part of the site comprises commercial floor space.  The tower on the north western part of the site (fronting Marsden Street) comprises hotel accommodation.

 

Retail floorspace will be provided on the ground floor of the podium as well as within a lower ground/basement level, which has been designed to accommodate a small format supermarket.  Site servicing (loading/unloading, waste collection) will also occur on basement level 1.

 

Car parking will be located within basement levels accessed from Macquarie Street.

 

Design Principles

The following design principles are to be considered in relation to development on the site:

 

·     Towers are to be designed to ensure solar access to the key public space within Parramatta Square is maintained.

·     Activation of street frontages to Church Street, Macquarie Street and Marsden Street is to be provided.

·     Incorporation of an entry feature on the ground floor of the south - eastern corner of the building to engage with the intersection of Church Street and Macquarie Street.

·     Opportunities to connect with the development on 20-22 Macquarie Street at ground level to be considered.

·     The existing façade of the Murray Bros building along Church Street and Macquarie Street is to be retained subject to access needs.

·     Consider incorporating design features to eliminate wind downdrafts on Marsden and Macquarie Streets.

·     Provide awnings along all street frontages, where these can be incorporated within compromising heritage features.

·     Provide opportunities to accommodate a major retail tenant within the ground floor or lower ground floor areas.

Built Form Controls

C1  The setbacks along Marsden Street are to be consistent with those shown in Figure 3

C2  A parapet wall is to align with the parapet height of the Marsden Street frontage of the adjoining development on 20 Macquarie Street – Refer Figure 3.

C3  A zero setback to Macquarie Street for the podium, with the tower element being setback a minimum of 6m to Macquarie Street.

C4  A zero setback to Church Street for the podium, with the tower element being setback a minimum of 12m from Church Street.

C5  The separation between towers used for non-residential uses on the site shall be generally 12m.

C6  Setbacks to adjoining property boundaries will generally be a minimum of 6m for non-residential uses.

C7  If residential uses are proposed, setbacks and building separations will be in accordance with the design criteria specified in Part 2F of the Apartment Design Guide.

NOTE:

The above controls are detailed on the Site Reference Site Plan at Figure 4.

Figure 3          Marsden Street frontage – Setbacks to podium and tower

Public Domain Design Principles and Controls

The fine grain pedestrian network is a key aspect of the public domain. The pedestrian amenity provisions in this section are intended to achieve a high quality of urban design, pedestrian comfort and safety in the city centre.

 

Parramatta’s streets, lanes, arcades and through site links should form an integrated and legible pedestrian network providing choice of routes at ground level for pedestrians. The design of individual developments will be required to contribute to and integrate with this network.

 

The site offers an opportunity to enhance the public domain by the provision of through site pedestrian links to and from key destinations within the City Centre.

 

Design Principles

The following design principles are to be considered in relation to public domain features within any future development:

·     Improve access within and through the city centre by providing new site links.

·     Contribute meaningfully to the legibility of the pedestrian network.

·     Provide active frontages to through site links.

·     Design through site links having regard to pedestrian amenity and safety.

·     Design to separate vehicular entries from primary pedestrian thoroughfares.

Development Controls

C1  A through site pedestrian link from Church Street to Marsden Street to be incorporated.

C2  A through site pedestrian link from the corner of Church Street and Macquarie Street, to the Church Street/Marsden Street through site link to be provided.

NOTE:

The above controls are detailed on the Site Reference Site Plan at Figure 4.

Traffic and Transport

The site is ideally located to take advantage of existing and future public transport options including heavy rail and light rail.  In view of this, a reduction in the provision of on site car parking can be considered.

Design Principles

·     Ensure adequate parking is provided.

·     Discourage reliance on private vehicles.

·     Minimise pedestrian and vehicle conflict and flooding impacts.

·     Ensure parking design is integrated with the design of the building.

Development Controls

C1  Access to the basement parking to be provided from Macquarie Street, immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the site.

C2  Provide a set down area on the Marsden Street frontage.

C3  Provide car parking, on site loading and bicycle parking in accordance with Part 3.5.2 of this DCP.

C4  Loading/unloading facilities are to be designed to facilitate efficient use of dock areas.

C5  Car parking on site shall not exceed the maximum car parking numbers for the range of uses as specified in clause 7.3 of Parramatta LEP 2011.

NOTE:

The controls relating to the location of the site access is detailed on the Site Reference Site Plan at Figure 4.

 

Figure 4          Site Reference Development Footprint Site Plan

Heritage

The site contains listed heritage items.  There are also a number of heritage items in the vicinity of the site.

 

There is also the potential for archaeological items to be found on the site. 

 

Design Principles

·     Opportunities to incorporate existing heritage fabric, and in particular, the façade of the Murray Bros building along Church Street and Macquarie Street are to be considered.

·     Opportunities to salvage archaeological items unearthed during demolition works are to be considered.

Development Controls

·     The recommendations detailed in the Rappoport Heritage Consultants[3] Statement of Heritage Impact dated March 2015 are to be considered during the detailed design.

·     If archaeological items are found during demolition and excavation, in the first instance, opportunities to salvage and reuse the items are to be considered.  Where this is not practical or possible, an interpretation strategy is to be prepared.

 


Item 18.5 - Attachment 3

Summary of Preliminary Planning Proposals

 

Attachment 2: Summary of Preliminary Planning Proposals

 

 

1.     In April 2014 a preliminary concept proposal for the subject site at 197-207 Church Street was submitted to Council which sought a development concept that departed significantly from the existing height and FSR controls within the City Centre.  

 

2.     Two preliminary concept proposals for adjacent sites were also submitted in April 2014 for the land at 20-22 Macquarie Street, and for the land at 220-230 Church Street and 48 Macquarie Street, Parramatta. Figure 1 shows the location of these sites as well as the subject site at 197-207 Church Street, Parramatta. 

 

Site Map

Figure 1 – Three Preliminary Concept Proposals on Macquarie Street

 

3.     The three preliminary concept proposals presented development schemes that sought significant departure from Council’s current City Centre height and FSR controls. Common to all three proposals was the intention to increase the level of permitted density on the sites to develop mixed use towers (largely residential). This would produce taller buildings in close proximity to Centenary Square and Parramatta Square - two key public domain areas within the city centre area north of the railway line and south of the river foreshore.

 

4.     The above sites’ proximity to Centenary Square and Parramatta Square warranted careful consideration at this early stage of the planning process in order to determine the potential impact on Council’s key public domain areas arising from these proposals. This was to ensure the public domain is adequately protected and receives sufficient solar access to deliver a high level of amenity to the space for the community. 

 

5.     In addition, consideration of the three proposed building envelopes’ relationship to each other and other current and future developments (including the Aspire Tower) was assessed to ensure tall slender towers.

 

6.     The three preliminary concept proposals were subject to a series of Councillor Workshops in July, August and October 2014. This included the presentation of the three proposals in Council’s 3D model of the City Centre to illustrate the proposed built form and resultant overshadowing impacts on Centenary Square and Parramatta Square.

 

7.     A report on the three preliminary concept proposals was presented to Council on 15 December 2014; Table 1 shows the planning controls sought for each site:

 

Site

Proposed FSR by Applicant

Proposed Height by Applicant

Site A:

20-22 Macquarie Street

39:1

265m (80-85 storeys)

Site B:

197-207 Church Street

12.5:1

250m (82 storeys)

Site C:

220-230 Church Street & 48 Macquarie Street

14:1

190m (55-60 storeys)

Table 1: Proponents’ preferred development scheme

 

8.     At the Council meeting of 15 December 2014, Council resolved:

 

(a)  That Council accept building proposal (a), (b) and (c) and request a further report.

(b)  That Council seek an opportunity to create an A Grade building in the CBD by encouraging the developer to submit an innovative plan/proposal for the key site which would then be assessed on its merits.

(c)  Further, that each application for (a), (b) and (c) be assessed on its merits individually with a 10:1 FSR as stipulated in Council’s draft planning framework


Item 18.5 - Attachment 4

Diagrams of Existing Planning Controls

 

Diagrams of Existing Planning Controls

 

 

Figure 1: Land Zoning Map

 

 

Figure 2: Maximum Building Height Map

 

  

 

Figure 3: Maximum Floor Space Ratio Map

 


Item 18.5 - Attachment 5

Recommended Amendments to DCP Controls

 

Recommended Amendments to Applicant’s Draft DCP

 

 

Item 1: Amended section relating to “Built form design principles and controls”

 

The site reference design is a guide to future development on the site.

 

The site reference design is based on a proposal that provides for two towers above a podium, which will cover the entire site.  The tower on the south and eastern part of the site comprises commercial floor space.  The tower on the north western part of the site (fronting Marsden Street) comprises hotel accommodation.

 

Retail floorspace will be provided on the ground floor of the podium as well as within a lower ground/basement level, which has been designed to accommodate a small format supermarket.  Site servicing (loading/unloading, waste collection) will also occur on basement level 1.

 

Car parking will be located within basement levels accessed from Macquarie Street.

 

Design Principles

The following design principles are to be considered in relation to development on the site:

 

·     Towers are to be designed to ensure solar access to the key public space within Parramatta Square is maintained.

·     Activation of street frontages to Church Street, Macquarie Street and Marsden Street is to be provided.

·     Opportunities to connect with the development on 20-22 Macquarie Street at ground level to be considered.

·     The existing facade of the Murray Bros building along Church Street and Macquarie Street is to be retained. Access arrangements are to respect the heritage values of the façade.

·     Incorporate design features to eliminate wind downdrafts on Marsden and Macquarie Streets.

·     Provide awnings along all street frontages, where these can be incorporated without compromising heritage features.

·     Provide opportunities to accommodate a major retail tenant within the ground floor or lower ground floor areas.

Built Form Controls

C1  The setbacks along Marsden Street are to be consistent with those shown in Figure 3A

C2  The parapet wall along Marsden Street is to align with the parapet height of the Marsden Street frontage of the adjoining development on 20 Macquarie Street – Refer Figure 3A.

C3  A zero setback to Macquarie Street for the podium, with the tower element being setback a minimum of 6m to Macquarie Street.

C4  A zero setback to Church Street for the podium, with the tower element being setback a minimum of 12m from Church Street.

C5  The separation between towers used for non-residential uses on the site shall be a minimum of 12m.

C6  Setbacks to adjoining property boundaries will generally be a minimum of 6m for non-residential uses.

C7  If residential uses are proposed, setbacks to adjoining property boundaries will be a minimum of 9m, and inter-building separation of 18m between residential uses, as well as in accordance with the design criteria specified in Part 2F of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

NOTE:

The above controls are detailed on the Site Reference Site Plan at Figure 4.

 

A close up of a logo

Description automatically generated

Figure 3A    Marsden Street frontage – Setbacks to podium and tower

 

 

­

Figure 3B:   Detailed Section through Marsden Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 2: Amended / Additional controls for inclusion in section titled “Public Domain Design Principles and Controls”

 

Development Controls

C.01   A through site pedestrian link from Church Street to Marsden Street is to be incorporated.

C.02  A through site pedestrian link from Macquarie Street, to the Church Street/Marsden Street through site link is to be provided.

C.03  Arcades must be located in a mid-block position or where connections can be made between other public spaces as agreed with Council.

C.04  Arcades must not compromise or take precedence over the activation of adjacent streets.

C.05  Where possible, arcades must be aligned with existing arcades or laneways across blocks.

C.06  Arcades must provide clear access and sight lines from one end to the other and be designed so as to:

a)  be well-proportioned with a minimum width of 4m and minimum ceiling height of 4.5m.

b)  have a 1:20 maximum gradient.

c)  connect one public space to another in a clear and obvious way.

d)  act as a supplementary connection rather than a primary one.

e)  conform to the relevant controls relating to active ground floor frontage contained elsewhere in this site-specific DCP

NOTE:

The above controls are detailed on the Site Reference Site Plan at Figure 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 3: Amendments to section titled “Traffic and Transport”

a.   Remove reference to vehicle setdown on Marsden St.

b.   Remove reference in the controls to existing parking controls in Parramatta LEP 2011.

c.   Insertion of amended diagram below

 

Figure 4          Site Reference Development Footprint Site Plan

 

Item 4: Amended section relating to “Heritage”

 

 

The site contains listed heritage items. There are also a number of heritage items in the vicinity of the site.

 

There is also the potential for archaeological items to be found on the site. 

 

Design Principles

·     The façade of the Murray Bros building along Church Street and Macquarie Street is to be retained.

·     Opportunities to incorporate existing heritage fabric are to be considered.

·     Creation of new access arrangements will seek to minimise impacts on the heritage façade.

·     Acknowledge heritage items to the north of the site and across Church Street, the heritage view corridor along Church Street and the broader context of Centenary Square.

·     Opportunities to salvage archaeological items unearthed during demolition works are to be considered.

Development Controls

·     The recommendations detailed in the Rappoport Heritage Consultants[4] Statement of Heritage Impact dated March 2015 are to be incorporated during the detailed design.

·     If archaeological items are found during demolition and excavation, in the first instance, opportunities to salvage and reuse the items are to be incorporated. Where this is not practical or possible, an interpretation strategy is to be prepared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 5: Addition of new sections pertaining to “Street Wall Design” and “Ground Floor Controls”

 

 

Street Wall Design

 

O bjectives

 

·     Define the space of the streets and articulate their edges.

·     Design the street walls to provide appropriate scale and detail.

·     Design the street walls to achieve fine grain modulation in the street.

·     Provide comfort and shelter for pedestrians.

·     Minimise large expanses of inactive frontage.

C ontrols

 

·     The street walls must:

be modulated in vertical increments that relate to the fine grain subdivision pattern of the context.

be of predominantly masonry character with limited amounts of glass and no lightweight panel construction.

be articulated with depth, relief and shadow on the street façade. A minimum relief of 150mm between the masonry finish and glazing face must be achieved.

use legible architectural elements and types - doors, windows, loggias, reveals, pilasters, cills, plinths, frame and infill, etc. - not necessarily expressed in a literal traditional manner.

include semi-recessed awnings for pedestrian shelter, refer to Figures 3B.

include a ground floor façade design which intensifies the walking experience with particular richness in detail.

 

·     Undercrofts or disruptions of the street wall which expose the underside of the tower and amplify its presence on the street are not permitted.

 

 

Ground Floor Controls

 

Objectives

 

·     Provide for the amenity, interest and liveliness of the pedestrian street environment.

·     Ensure a positive experience for pedestrians with a fine grain environment of the street.

·     Integrate an engaging street interface with the design of the public domain, taking account of the context of the site.

·     Optimise the extent of active frontages in the public domain.

·     Ensure appropriate scale and proportion of foyers and lobbies in relation to site frontage.

·     Promote activity, connectivity and variety in the public domain.

·     Contribute to the economic vitality of the city.

·     Ensure security measures do not inhibit passive surveillance on the street.

 

Controls

 

·     The ground floor frontage should have active uses for a minimum of 70% of its length.

·     Semi-recessed awnings must be provided on Marsden Street frontage (refer to Figure 3B in section of this site-specific DCP relating to Built Form)

·     The public domain on O’Connell St to acknowledge the needs of the future Light Rail (Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1).

·     Double height awnings are not permitted.

·     Glass awnings are not permitted.

·     The ground floor frontage must be designed in detail and the following must be incorporated in its design:

The ground floor levels and façade structure and rhythm must be designed to present a fine grain street frontage.

A nominal 500mm interface zone at the frontage should be set aside to create interest and variety in the streetscape, to be used for setbacks for entries, opening of windows, seating ledges, benches, and general articulation.

The frontage must have a high level of expressed detail and tactile material quality.

Facades must be vertically articulated.

The modulation and articulation of the facade should include a well resolved meeting with the ground plane that also takes account of the slope. A horizontal plinth, integrated in the design, must be incorporated at the base of glazing to the footpath.

The frontage must take account of the need to provide a clear path of travel for disabled access.

Legible entrances must be formed in the frontage.

Fire escapes and services must be seamlessly incorporated into the frontage with quality materials.

 

·     Security doors or grilles must be designed to be:

Fitted internally behind a shopfront;

Fully retractable; and

A minimum 50% transparent when closed.

 

·     Parking security grilles or doors must be recessed and aligned to the building edge.

·     The frontage must not have deep recesses for entry lobbies that compromise safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 6: Addition of controls pertaining to Flood Management

 

 

Addition to section entitled “Desired Future Character”:

 

Future development at 197 Church Street, Parramatta shall be designed to respond to the flood conditions of the site and surrounding roads. 

 

 

Addition of the following Site Specific Objectives:

 

O.1  To ensure the design of the building addresses the local flood conditions and does not impede local overland flow paths.

 

O.2  To minimise the risk to life by ensuring appropriate safe areas within the building to shelter during a flood, and safe access from the building during a medical or fire emergency.

 

O.3  To allow uses and development on the site that are appropriate to the flood hazard.

 

O.4  To facilitate redevelopment of the site as a high quality mixed use development.

 

O.5  To ensure the building interfaces positively with the public areas and contributes to an attractive public domain and desirable setting for its intended uses.

 

 

Addition of the following controls:

 

Controls

 

Building Footprint and Uses

 

C.1 Development Application submission requirements must include architectural design details for

the landscaped open space and its interface with the building that:

 

·     have regard to the immediate flooding environment, including flooding both from Parramatta River and from local overland flow.

·     have regard to Parramatta Public Domain Framework Plan 2012;

·     have regard to the City of Parramatta’s Council’s Document: Best Practice Urban Design in Flood Prone Areas, and

·     are to the satisfaction of the Design Excellence Jury.

 

C.2 Permanent and temporary commercial or retail floor space or uses are not permitted below the Flood Planning Level. Any DA for the site must be supported by an adequate overland flow flood study satisfactory to Council from which the 1% AEP flood levels for overland flow may be determined. The Flood Planning Level is the higher of either the Council-adopted 1% AEP flood water surface level plus 0.5m freeboard from Parramatta River flooding, or the overland flow flood level as agreed by Council, plus 0.5m freeboard. It is probable that the Flood Planning Level will vary around the perimeter of the site corresponding to the various applicable 1% AEP flood levels at each location. The architectural design must reflect this variation.

 

C.3 The habitable floors of all residential uses within the building must be above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for Parramatta River flooding as adopted by Council for this site. No freeboard is required for the PMF.

 

C.4 ‘Sensitive Uses and Facilities’ and ‘Critical Uses and Facilities,’ as defined in Table 2.4.2.1.1 of the Parramatta DCP 2011 Section 2.4.2. Water Management, are not permitted within the building.

 

C.5 Basement car parking is discouraged but may be permitted subject to satisfying the requirements set out below.

 

C.6 Loading docks, garbage transfer areas, plant rooms, bicycle storage plus end of trip facilities, storage of low value items and other non-habitable uses may be permitted below the Flood Planning Level subject to the following safeguards.  

 

Building and Basement Design

 

C.7  To minimise the chance of a fire during a flood situation, the building must have a fire management system which meets the Australian Building Code Board (ABCB).

 

C.8  External fire doors must be located above the Flood Planning Level.

 

C.9  The following details must be included as a minimum in the Development Application: (Submission of this material will not necessarily result in Council approving basement car parking or the Development Application.)

i.      Demonstration that high hazard floodwaters will not occur in a 1% AEP event in the area adjacent to the driveway.

ii.     The basement must be protected from the ingress of floodwater by passive measures at least up to the Flood Planning Level. These measures are likely to include provision of a driveway crest at or above the Flood Planning Level with associated wing / or bund walls to this level to prevent floodwaters flowing into the basement.

iii.    The basement must be protected from the ingress of floodwater via the driveway up to the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for Parramatta River. These measures are likely to include provision of a self-triggering and self-powered flood gate at or near the driveway crest that reaches the level of the PMF, together with corresponding wing wall bunds etc. to the same PMF level.

iv.    The basement must be protected from the ingress of floodwater via stairwells and other openings up to the PMF level. These measures are likely to include a combination of a self-closing flood doors, flood gates and bund walls. Flood doors may be combined with fire doors.

v.     Provision of flood-free escape stairs from the basement up to a place of refuge/shelter in place within the building above the PMF level with adequate facilities for users during and after a flood.

vi.    Provision of adequate car parking for the disabled and an escape path that can be followed to safety.

vii.   Submission of a comprehensive Flood Emergency Management Plan incorporating all of the above.

 

C.10  Wherever possible, critical services infrastructure that could be damaged by flooding such as electrical, lifts, sewer and water are to be placed above the PMF level, or, where that cannot reasonably be achieved, effectively floodproofed.

 

C.11 Development Application submission requirements must:

·      demonstrate that the building and basement will be protected from floodwaters up to the PMF;

·      include evidence demonstrating why all or some of the critical infrastructure services cannot be located above the PMF and the floodproofing measures to be taken instead.

 

Areas of Refuge and Evacuation Routes

 

C.12  All building occupants (residents, workers and visitors) must have access to a safe area of refuge or ‘shelter in place’) above the PMF where they can remain until the flood event has passed and any subsequent disruption after the flood has been rendered safe and serviceable. Residents may choose to remain in their own apartments as a safe area of refuge. A communal safe area(s) of refuge for residents, workers and visitors must also be provided and suitably equipped.

 

C.13  A communal safe area of refuge must have:

emergency electricity supply, clean water, food, personal washing facilities, medical equipment including a first aid kit, a battery-powered radio and relevant communications equipment.

 

C.14 All safe areas of refuge (residents own apartment or a communal area) must have:

·      fail safe access from anywhere in the building including the basement (lift access is not allowed) that is protected from floodwaters up to the PMF by suitable flood doors, flood gates and the like; and

·      fail safe access to an exit/entry point located above the 1% AEP flood level plus 0.5m freeboard that enables people to exit the building during a fire and/or flood, and allows emergency service personnel to enter a building to attend to a medical emergency.

 

C.15 Development Application submission requirements must include a Flood Emergency Management Plan (FEMP) consistent with that for the CBD. The FEMP must outline:

·      both warning and evacuation measures for occupants in the building including the most appropriate ‘safe areas’ and ‘safe evacuation routes’;

·      measures to prevent evacuation from the site by private vehicle;

·      the most appropriate emergency response for flood and fire events that occur together;

·      a building flood emergency management plan, similar to a building fire evacuation drill, and measures to ensure this is tested at least annually; and

·      consultation undertaken with relevant state and local agencies in the preparation of the FEMP.

 

C.16 The Building Management System and Plan for the development must include all necessary measures to maintain, test and operate the flood protection devices including flood gates, doors and barriers, flood sensors, flood refuges and FEMP. Details of this will be required to support any Development Application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 7: Other Amendments to DCP

 

 

a.       Amendments to ensure the DCP is consistent with the provisions of the Planning Proposal, as otherwise discussed in the Council report of 11 May 2020 (for instance, to ensure that the instrument change facilitated by the Planning Proposal is accurately described in the DCP)

b.       Amendments to ensure that titles in the DCP reflect the current format of titles in Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 (i.e. “Objectives” and “Controls”)

c.       Administrative amendments (for example, to ensure section numbering, formatting and references to figures are accurate and consistent with PDCP 2011).

 


Item 18.5 - Attachment 6

Letter of Offer

 

PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.6

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.6

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Pre-Gateway - Planning Proposal for 12-14 Phillip Street and 331A, 333 & 339 Church Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE           RZ/8/2019 - D07357764

REPORT OF            Project Officer, Land Use Planning        

 

LANDOWNER          PCCDEVCO1 Pty Ltd

APPLICANT             Ethos Urban                             

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL

 

a)  DA/171/2014 – Development application for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a 41 storey mixed-use building containing retail tenancies, conference venue, discovery/exhibition centre and 413 residential apartments over 6 levels of basement car parking with stratum subdivision. Approved on 15 April 2015 by the former Joint Regional Planning Panel (Sydney West), which was replaced by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel.

b)  DA/171/2014/A – Modification to the approved mixed-use tower development including two additional residential levels, two additional basement levels (59 additional car parking spaces), reconfiguration of podium including additional mezzanine level, revised residential apartment mix and revised stratus subdivision. Approved on 12 September 2018 by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel.

 

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement to forward a Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment that seeks to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 controls that apply to the subject site by:

·  Reconfiguring the boundary between the RE1 Public Recreation Zone and B4 Mixed Use zone on the site;

·  Rezoning part of the site zoned RE1 Public Recreation to RE2 Private Recreation to resolve a zoning inconsistency that arose when Council sold its interest in the subject site; and

·  Adjusting the mapped floor space ratio controls to reflect the zoning changes above in a manner that does not increase the development potential of the site.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council note the independent peer-review (provided at Attachment 2) completed in relation to the subject Planning Proposal and the assessment report (provided at Attachment 1).

 

(b)    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal at Attachment 3 for land at 12-14 Phillip Street and 331A, 333 & 339 Church Street, Parramatta, which seeks to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 by way of:

·        Re-zoning part of the site from B4 Mixed Use to RE1 Public Recreation;

·        Re-zoning part of the site from RE1 Public Recreation to RE2 Private Recreation;

·        Re-zoning part of the site from RE1 Public Recreation to B4 Mixed Use; and

·        Amending the floor-space ratio control for the parts of the site which are being rezoned.

 

(c)    That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to request a Gateway Determination be issued.

 

(d)    That upon the issue of a Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days.

 

(e)    That Council advise the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment that Council will not be exercising plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal.

 

(f)     That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan-making process; and

 

(g)    Further, that Council note that the Parramatta Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council (Attachment 1) is consistent with the recommendations of this report.

 

 

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

 

SITE DESCRIPTION

 

1.     The subject site is at 12-14 Phillip Street and 331A, 333 & 339 Church Street, Parramatta. The site is irregularly shaped and has an area of approximately 6,281 square metres (Refer to Figure 1).

 

2.     The site is located on the southern bank of the Parramatta River between the Lennox and Bernie Banton Bridges. Vehicular access to the site is via Phillip Street and pedestrian access is available from Church Street to the east, Phillip Street to the south and Marsden Street to the west.

 

3.     The site previously accommodated a Council-operated at-grade car park and two-storey commercial buildings at 331A, 333 & 339 Church Street.

 

Figure 1: An aerial image of the site and surrounds (subject site outlined in yellow).

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.     In December 2012, Council entered into a Project Delivery Agreement with PCCDevCo1 (the developer). Under this agreement, the developer would be permitted to develop Council’s site, but would need to dedicate to Council a Discovery Centre and an enhanced public domain around the site including along the Parramatta River foreshore.

 

5.     In 2015, development consent was granted for the building currently under construction. The approved architectural plans, per the design excellence scheme, included the Discovery Centre in the podium which projected from the B4 Mixed Use zone into the adjacent RE1 Public Recreation zone. As the Discovery Centre is defined as a ‘community facility’, the projection into the RE1 Public Recreation zone was permissible. The extent of the projection into the RE1 Public Recreation zone is shown in Figure 2 below.

 

Figure 2: Extent of the podium projection into the RE1 Public Recreation zone (in green).

 

6.     At its meeting on 10 July 2017, Council resolved to consolidate the Discovery Centre with two other existing and one proposed cultural facilities into a larger amalgamated facility at 5 Parramatta Square. Council outlined that the facilities would be more accessible at the alternative location due to the proximity to the Parramatta Transport Interchange node, and that the cost of operating an amalgamated facility would be much less than the combined cost of operating several separate facilities.

 

7.     As a result of the above, Council no longer required the community space approved within the development and an agreement was reached whereby the developer purchased level one of the development which was to house the Discovery Centre. The developer is seeking to pursue commercial uses on this level. 

 

8.     Construction of the building has already commenced and it is not practical to substantially amend the approved plans so that the building no longer projects into the RE1 Public Recreation land. Given this, there are two issues which arise as a result of the zoning misalignment:

i.   The developer is only able to use the portions of the building encroaching into the RE1 Pubic Recreation area, which they have now purchased, for uses permitted in this zone. In practical terms this limits the use of these parts of the building to Cafes which are permitted in the zone; and

ii.   If the RE1 Public Recreation area shown in Figure 2 is retained, Department of Planning guidelines require that all land reserved for a public purpose but not owned by a Government Agency to be identified on the Land Reservations and Acquisition Map. Given that Council has just sold this land to the applicant, it is counterintuitive for Council’s planning policy to be set up to require future reacquisition of this strip of land.

 

9.     As part of the agreement to sell former Discovery Centre space, the developer is required to lodge a Planning Proposal application to seek to resolve the zoning misalignment. The assessment below is as a result of the lodgment of this application which was submitted in October 2019.

 

RECOMMENDED PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

10.   A detailed assessment report of the Planning Proposal is provided at Attachment 1.

 

11.   The intention of this Planning Proposal is not to reduce the amount of public access to the public foreshore of the Parramatta River. Improving access to the river foreshore is a key strategic objective of Council to ensure the river is activated, more accessible and better integrated into the CBD. The Planning Proposal will not change the amount of land accessible to the community because the development will continue to deliver public access at river level and street level as shown in Figure 3. This public access will be accessible via an easement for public access required by the Project Delivery Agreement and the Planning Agreements already in place. These areas will be accessible to the public irrespective of whether they are within the B4 Mixed Use Zone or the RE2 Private Recreation Zone.

 

 

Figure 3: View of the building podium from the north (Parramatta River in the foreground) with public access to be provided on both the street-level colonnade and the river-level promenade.

 

12.   The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Parramatta LEP 2011 to make the changes proposed in Figure 4 which includes:

i.      Rezone the part of the building that will not be accessible to the public (because it is within the outer wall of the development) that encroaches into the RE1 zone, from RE1 Open Space to B4 Mixed Use

Reason: This will allow the applicant to use this strip which forms part of the building for a commercial use which will allow for the most efficient use of this part of the approved building.

 

ii.      Rezone the outermost area projecting in the RE1 Public Recreation zone that will be accessible to the public from RE1 Public Recreation to RE2 Private Recreation

Reason: To ensure that Council does not need to acquire any part of the building which is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation while minimising the total amount of area to be rezoned B4 Mixed Use. Public access will still be retained to the approved boardwalk on both levels in this area via a public right of access.

 

iii.     Rezone a portion of space not required as part of the development from B4 Mixed Use to RE1 Public Recreation

Reason: To compensate for the loss of RE1 Public Recreation area as specified above.

 

iv.     Make relevant adjustments to the floor-space ratio maps in the areas to be rezoned

Reason: The rezoning of part of the site from RE1 Public Recreation to B4 Mixed Use could permit additional gross-floor area on the site if the current floor-space ratio arrangements are maintained. In order to ensure that there is no greater environmental impact as a result of this Planning Proposal, the mapped FSR will be redistributed to ensure that no additional gross floor area can be achieved.

 

13.   The proposed zoning scheme overlaid on the approved architectural plans is shown in Figure 4 below. A complete set of indicative zoning plans, as proposed in the revised Planning Proposal are provided at Attachment 4.

 

Figure 4: Proposed amendments to the land use zoning map.

 

14.   While the Planning Proposal reduces the amount of RE1 Public Recreation zoned land on the site, it does not reduce the amount of publicly accessible open space. The approved development facilitates more public open space than what could be provided under strict adherence to land use zoning as it includes publicly accessible spaces across multiple levels and in RE1, B4 and W2 zones. The quantum of publicly accessible space will not change as a result of the Planning Proposal – only the zoning of the publicly accessible areas will be subject to change. This is demonstrated in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Comparison of the quantum of public open space under the current and proposed zoning scheme

 

Current Zoning

Recommended Planning Proposal

Land zoned RE1

1,569m2

1,349 m2

Publicly accessible  area in RE1 zone*

2,544m2

1,998m2

Publicly accessible  area in RE2 zone

nil

438m2

Publicly accessible  area in B4 zone

746m2

854m2

Publicly accessible  area in W2 zone

630m2

630m2

Total Public Open Space

3,920m2

3,920m2

*Publicly accessible area in the RE1 zone is provided on the river-level promenade and above on the street-level colonnade, hence why it is higher than the actual land zoned RE1.

 

15.   In the report to the Parramatta LPP, Council Officers noted that areas of the site currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation are classified as operational land. The Planning Proposal does not intend to make any amendments to the classification of land on this site and any new RE1 Public Recreation areas will be sought to be classified as operational land by way of a Council resolution later in the process.

 

16.   In summary, the Planning Proposal in its proposed form is the best mechanism in resolving the zoning misalignment as:

a)     There is no net loss of publicly accessible space as a result of the Planning Proposal;

b)     The Planning Proposal does not result in a compromised urban design outcome on the site or surrounding areas; and

c)     The Planning Proposal does not result in a greater environmental impact.

 

 

PEER REVIEW

 

17.   As Council has formally had an interest in this site, Council Officers have commissioned an independent peer review of this report and the Planning Proposal document.

 

18.   Following an internal tender selection process, Knight Frank Town Planning was selected to complete the peer review for Council. The consultancy was appropriately briefed on the background to the Planning Proposal and was provided all relevant material to assist them with providing professional planning advice.

 

19.   On 27 March 2020, Knight Frank issued their peer review to Council Officers. The peer review acknowledged the need for the Planning Proposal and gave in-principle support for the amendments to the mapped land use zoning and floor-space ratio controls as a means to rectify the misalignment between the approved development and the zoning.

 

20.   The independent peer review suggested minor technical amendments to the Planning Proposal document and these have been adopted in their entirety. The complete independent peer review can be found at Attachment 2.

 

21.   Based on this peer review, Council Officers are satisfied that the Planning Proposal has been assessed transparently and can be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

 

22.   This matter was considered by the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (LPP) at its meeting on 21 April 2020 (refer to Attachment 1 for the assessment report and minute).

 

23.   In issuing its advice to Council, the Parramatta LPP supported the Council Officer’s recommendations and advised Council to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for the purposes of requesting a Gateway Determination.

 

24.   Should a Gateway Determination be issued by the Department, the Planning Proposal will be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days. A report on the outcomes of the public exhibition will be provided to the Parramatta LPP addressing any objections received. If no objections are received, the matter will be reported directly to Council seeking approval to finalise the Planning Proposal.

 

PLAN-MAKING DELEGATIONS

 

25.   New delegations were announced by the then-Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in October 2012, allowing councils to make LEP amendments of local significance. On 26 November 2012, Council resolved to accept the delegation for plan-making functions and that these functions be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.

 

26.   It is noted that Council has previously had an interest in this site. In order to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, Council Officers have recommended that Council not request plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal. This means that once the Planning Proposal has been to Gateway, undergone public exhibition and been adopted by Council, the Department, rather than Council Officers, will liaise with Parliamentary Counsel Office on the legal drafting and mapping of the LEP amendment. The Minister of Planning (or delegate) then signs the LEP amendment before it is notified on the NSW Legislation website. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

27.   The independent peer review has been paid for using funds from Council’s Land Use Planning budget that includes funds received annually to fund third-party consultants that assists Council with either making or implementing planning decisions in a transparent manner. The total costs associated with the peer review are in the order of $3,000.

 

28.   This Planning Proposal does not result in any additional residential uplift. Under Council’s CBD Planning Proposal Community Infrastructure Framework a contribution to community infrastructure is only required where there is an uplift in residential development potential.

 

29.   This proposal deals with the issues arising from a Council decision to sell the floor space to the developer that would have been occupied by the formerly proposed Discovery Centre facility. The financial impact of the decision to sell the facility was considered at Council’s meeting on 28 August 2019 in closed session and is not relevant to this part of the process which seeks to resolve the planning issues arising from that decision.

 

Marko Rubcic

Project Officer, Land Use Planning

 

Robert Cologna

Acting Manager Land Use Planning

 

David Birds

Group Manager City Planning

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Local Planning Panel Assessment Report & Minute

16 Pages

 

2

Peer Review

7 Pages

 

3

Planning Proposal

30 Pages

 

4

Zoning Plans

14 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.6 - Attachment 1

Local Planning Panel Assessment Report & Minute

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.6 - Attachment 2

Peer Review

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.6 - Attachment 3

Planning Proposal

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.6 - Attachment 4

Zoning Plans

 















Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.7

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.7

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement - 2 O'Connell St, Parramatta

REFERENCE           RZ/2/2017 - D07357862

REPORT OF            Acting Team Leader Land Use Planning        

 

LANDOWNER          The Owners of Strata Plan 20716

 

APPLICANT             Think Planners

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL: None

 

PURPOSE:

 

To allow Council to consider the progression of a Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 2 O’Connell St, Parramatta, following public exhibition of these documents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council receives and notes the submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement.

 

(b)    That Council endorse for finalisation the Planning Proposal for land at 2 O’Connell Street, Parramatta provided at Attachment 1 of Attachment 1, which seeks to amend the Parramatta LEP 2011 as follows:

 

i.      An increase in the maximum Height of Buildings from 36 metres to 217 metres (inclusive of design excellence bonus);

ii.      An increase in the maximum FSR from 4.2:1 to 16.2:1 (including all bonuses, opportunity site provisions and additional non-residential floor space);

iii.     Introduction of site-specific provisions that outline the requirements for achieving the maximum FSR, require an appropriate transition to heritage items or conservation areas, introduce maximum parking rates, and ensure that issues pertaining to airspace operations and satisfactory arrangements for State infrastructure are addressed.

 

(c)    That Council forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to prepare for finalisation, but request the final notification on the relevant Government website only be undertaken once:

 

i.      Council confirms that the Planning Agreement has been signed and entered into; and

ii.      The site-specific DCP has been publicly exhibited and endorsed by Council for finalisation.

 

(d)    That an amended DCP is re-exhibited and the outcomes of this exhibition are reported to Council. The amendments to be made to the DCP prior to re-exhibition are as follows:

 

i.      Removal of the 3.5 metres setback to O’Connell Street (as Transport for NSW has indicated this is no longer required for road widening purposes) and resulting adjustments to relevant controls including but not limited to changes to the building and tower setbacks;

ii.      Addition of a section on heritage that refers to the LEP provision relating to heritage transition and impacts. The new DCP controls will ensure clear criteria for assessing the transition of any development on this site to the adjoining heritage item; and

iii.     Addition of a control outlining that materials selection is to minimise reflectivity and glare impacts.

 

(e)    That, with regards to the Planning Agreement:

 

i.      That an administrative amendment is undertaken to the draft Planning Agreement provided at Attachment 4 of Attachment 1 to accurately describe the instrument change sought under the Planning Proposal (noting that this does not change the contribution or any other terms of the Planning Agreement);

ii.      That Council enter into this amended Planning Agreement;

iii.     The Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to sign the Planning Agreement on behalf of Council;

iv.     Council (in accordance with its statutory obligations) forward the Planning Agreement to DPIE once it comes into force.

 

(f)     That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments and corrections of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan amendment process relating to the Planning Proposal, DCP and Planning Agreement.

 

(g)    Further, that Council note the advice of the Local Planning Panel of 21 April 2020 at Attachment 2 is consistent with the Council Officer’s Recommendation in this report. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     The subject site is located at 2 O’Connell Street, Parramatta and is also known as St John’s Terrace, 5 Aird Street. The legal description of the site is Strata Plan 20716. The site area is 3,283 square metres and contains a two and three-storey commercial building occupied by a number of strata subdivided office suites. The site has frontages to O’Connell Street (West), Aird Street (North) and Campbell Street (South) and slopes substantially from south to north. An aerial photo of the site is shown below in Figure 1. 

 

Figure 1: Site location (Source: City of Parramatta GIS)

 

2.     The site is located towards the western edge of the Parramatta CBD within the B4 Mixed Use zone. To the north of the site is the Westfield shopping complex, immediately to the east two newly-constructed residential towers, and opposite the site to the west, the State Heritage-listed St John’s Cemetery. With regards to flooding issues, this site is outside of the area affected by the 1-in-100-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI).

3.     At its meeting on 10 July 2017, Council considered a report on a Planning Proposal for the subject site and resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal for the purposes of seeking a Gateway determination, which seeks changes to Parramatta LEP 2011 (PLEP 2011) consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, as outlined in the table below. Council also resolved at that time to prepare a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and enter negotiation on a Planning Agreement, and to report both to Council for endorsement prior to their concurrent exhibition with the Planning Proposal.

Table 1. Comparison of controls for the subject site between Parramatta LEP 2011, the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, and the exhibited planning proposal

Parramatta LEP 2011

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

Planning Proposal

Zoning

B4 Mixed Use

B4 Mixed Use

B4 Mixed Use

Maximum HOB

36m (approximately 10 storeys)

RL 243m (approximately 217m when converted to height above ground level – 66 storeys)

217m (inclusive of Design Excellence – 66 storeys)

Maximum FSR

4.2:1

15:1 FSR (including all bonuses) with the potential for additional non-residential FSR

15:1 FSR (including all bonuses) + 1.2:1 additional non-residential FSR

Approximate yields

 

 

3,283 m2

(mandatory 1:1 commercial, with potential for additional non-residential FSR)

 

575 dwellings (at 80 m2 per dwelling)

3,283 m2 mandatory 1:1 commercial

 

45,962 m2 residential (14:1 residential) 575 dwellings (at 80 m2 per dwelling)

 

Additional 3,939 m2 additional commercial floorspace

 

 

4.     At Council’s meeting on 26 February 2018, a further report was considered which sought to respond to advice from the then-Department of Planning and Environment (now referred to as the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, or DPIE). DPIE’s advice was to restructure the format and mechanism of the proposed FSR controls to more closely align with the format of PLEP 2011, while still achieving development density outcomes in line with Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as were previously endorsed by Council). In response to this report, Council resolved to restructure the Planning Proposal in accordance with DPIE’s advice, and also resolved to consider a further report on the heritage impacts of the Planning Proposal on St John’s Cemetery.

5.     Council considered the further report on 9 April 2018. Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal without changes and also included the following additional resolutions:

a.  That the public domain landscaping on the eastern side of O’Connell Street is enhanced. This is achieved within the draft DCP through controls to require retention of existing trees and provision of new street trees.

b.  That the northern edge of the new development to Aird Street considers the existing axial views from the cemetery path. This is interpreted within the draft DCP to provide for the protection of the view corridor along Aird Street when looking east from the cemetery entrance gates, and is achieved through the setback controls from Aird Street which provide for a 6 metre tower setback and a 1.2 metre ground level setback.

6.     DPIE issued a Gateway determination on 5 October 2018 which required certain amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal, and that an amended Planning Proposal be forwarded to DPIE for their endorsement prior to exhibition. The amendments are outlined in more detail in Paragraph 8 of the LPP report (Attachment 1). Notably, the Gateway determination required an amendment to the reference design for the Planning Proposal to include a 3.5 metre setback for the purposes of road widening, as was then required by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

7.     On 11 November 2019, Council considered a draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement, and resolved to exhibit these documents concurrently with the Planning Proposal. The exhibited draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement are discussed in more detail in the LPP report (Attachment 1), with key points summarised below:

a.  The DCP seeks to achieve the following objectives:

i. Contribute to a high quality public domain at ground level with activated edges to the streets and street walls that create legible, safe, functional and attractive streets;

ii. Provide for slender, elegant towers that are setback above the street walls to allow for daylight penetration to the street, views to the sky and privacy; and

iii. Protect, frame and enhance the axial view corridor from the entry gate to St John’s Cemetery along Aird Street.

b.  The draft Planning Agreement makes provision for a monetary contribution of $6,549,585, and aligns with Council’s policy framework for community infrastructure contributions in the Parramatta CBD.

 

PUBLIC EXHIBITION SUMMARY

 

8.     The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement were publicly exhibited from 11 December 2019 to 31 January 2020 (to account for the Christmas and New Year’s period). An advertisement was placed in the local newspaper, and relevant material was made available on Council’s website and in hard copy format at Council’s Administration Building and Parramatta Central Library. Letters were sent to land owners and occupiers in the vicinity of the subject site. Public authorities were consulted as per the Gateway determination.

9.     During exhibition, five submissions were received from public authorities, 11 from nearby residents and one from the owners of Westfield. The issues raised across these submissions are discussed in the LPP report (Attachment 1), and addressed by Council officers in detail at Attachment 5 of Attachment 1.

10.   In summary, Council officers did not consider that any of the issues raised in the public exhibition period require any post-exhibition amendments to the Planning Proposal. However, the results of the post-exhibition period and further issues identified by Council Officers during the exhibition period do necessitate some changes to the DCP. The outcomes of the exhibition are discussed further below.

 

Public Authority submissions

 

11.   Submissions were received from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (DIRD), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Heritage NSW, Endeavour Energy, and Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

12.   Heritage NSW raised concern about potential overshadowing of St John’s Cemetery and the South Parramatta HCA; these two issues are addressed in more detail in paragraph 24 of the LPP report included in Attachment 1. In summary detailed analysis undertaken during the preparation of this Planning proposal and the CBD Planning Proposal has concluded that:

a.  the impact of overshadowing impacts on St John’s Cemetery does not warrant any amendment to the Planning Proposal; and

b.  the overshadowing impact from this site on the South Parramatta HCA is negligible given the distance of this property from the HCA.

13.   TfNSW’s submission advised that, notwithstanding RMS’ prior recommendation for a 3.5 metre setback along O’Connell Street to allow for future potential road widening, TfNSW has no current plans or funding in its forward work program for this section of O’Connell St and the 3.5 metre setback is not a requirement of TfNSW. In response to this advice, Council staff reconsidered the issue of the 3.5 metre setback. Council officers are satisfied that it is not required from a traffic or active transport perspective, and also conclude that removing the setback could potentially result in urban design improvements (which are discussed in more detail in paragraph 26 of the LPP report at Attachment 1).

14.   As a result of the above consideration, Council officers support removal of the 3.5 metre road widening setback. As this setback is not part of the proposed controls of the Planning Proposal, no changes are required to the Planning Proposal. However, removal of the setback does have implications for amending the draft site-specific DCP as follows:

a.  There are references to the 3.5 metre road widening in the current draft DCP that need to be removed and / or reworded.

b.  There are resulting adjustments to the development controls for the building form and layout that can be undertaken as a result (i.e. in order to achieve the improved urban design outcomes noted above).

15.   Council officers recommend that these changes should be made to the draft DCP, and that it should be re-exhibited and reconsidered by Council prior to notification of the Planning Proposal.

 

Community submissions

 

16.   The main concern expressed in community submissions related to the potential for structural damage to adjoining buildings during the construction phase. It is noted that this is a matter for consideration at Development Application stage, and that there are separate processes in place to ensure construction impacts are managed at the Development Application stage. There are also State-wide processes underway to identify high-risk projects, to improve industry standards and practices, and to make designers and builders more accountable on these matters.

17.   Concerns about traffic congestion, overshadowing and loss of views were also raised by the community. As a summary response, while it is acknowledged that future development in line with this Planning Proposal will inevitably result in impacts to nearby residents and landowners, Council officers consider that these impacts are not unacceptable given that this Planning Proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

18.   The submission from Westfield raised some issues relating to the streetscape of Aird St. Council officers consider that the amended draft DCP controls described earlier in this report will address the issues raised relating to active streetscape. This submission suggested that the podium be set back further to Aird St; however, this is not recommended as the footpath width is considered sufficient here and setting the building back further would have undesirable urban design impacts.

19.   For reference, the issues raised in these submissions are addressed in further detail in Table 3 of the LPP report (Attachment 1), and at Attachment 5 of Attachment 1.

 

Further issues identified by Council officers during public exhibition

 

20.   During the exhibition phase a number of issues were identified with the content of the exhibition material. The issues and responses are as follows:

a.  Clause drafting: The exhibition material contained a potential draft LEP clause that would be added to the LEP to implement the controls sought in the Planning Proposal. Some technical issues have been identified with the way the draft clause was structured and worded. These issues will be addressed in the drafting of the final clause that will be included in the LEP but none of these issues impact on Council intended planning outcomes.

b.  Clarification of height and relationship to Design Excellence bonus: The documentation exhibited contained inconsistencies on how design excellence would be dealt with. In one part of the exhibition documentation the height of 217m was described as including design excellence. In another part of the documentation it was stated the building would be taller than 217m because the design excellence bonus would allow more height. Final testing has been done and given the setback of 3.5m is not required the 16.2:1 FSR can be achieved within the 217m height with design excellence included. The Planning Proposal will proceed on this basis and the instrument should be amended to ensure this position is consistently represented. Given that one section of the exhibition material suggested a height taller than 217m might be considered and the height is being limited to the lower option of 217m there is no need to re-exhibit the Planning Proposal because the impact is less than what was proposed in the exhibition material.

21.   Additional matters for inclusion in an amended DCP: The review by Council officers has identified the following issues that can be addressed, and it is recommended that the following amendments be made to the Draft DCP prior to the re-exhibition:

a.     Addition of a section on heritage that refers to the LEP provision relating to heritage transition and contains controls outlining that a development that complies with the DCP is taken to have provided an appropriate transition to heritage items, as the building envelope accounts for matters such as the axial view down Aird Street from the Cemetery gates. This section of the amended DCP should also detail that the heritage assessment report otherwise required by the existing controls in Parramatta DCP 2011 should ensure that the building design and materials take into consideration the relationship of the building and the heritage item.

b.     Controls relating to selecting building materials to minimise reflectivity and glare impacts.

 

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

 

22.   The Local Planning Panel considered a report on this matter (Attachment 1) on 21 April 2020, and their advice (Attachment 2) was consistent with the recommendation of Council officers included in this report to Council.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

23.   It is recommended that an amended draft DCP as discussed in this report is prepared and re-exhibited, and that Council the outcomes of this exhibition and endorses the final DCP prior to the Planning Proposal being finalised.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

24.   As outlined previously in this report, the exhibited draft Planning Agreement makes provision for a monetary contribution of $6,549,585, and aligns with Council’s policy framework for community infrastructure contributions in the Parramatta CBD.

Sarah Baker

Acting Team Leader Land Use Planning

 

Robert Cologna

Acting Manager Land Use Planning

 

David Birds

Group Manager City Planning

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Item 6.2 Report and Attachments - Local Planning Panel 21 April 2020

119 Pages

 

2

Extract from Minutes of Local Planning Panel Meeting held 21 April 2020

3 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.7 - Attachment 1

Item 6.2 Report and Attachments - Local Planning Panel 21 April 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.7 - Attachment 2

Extract from Minutes of Local Planning Panel Meeting held 21 April 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 18.8

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER        18.8

SUBJECT                 FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Draft Development Control Plan and Matters Pertaining to Planning Agreement - 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park

REFERENCE           RZ/9/2015 - D07358402

REPORT OF            Project Officer Land Use        

 

LAND OWNER         Aland Group

 

APPLICANT             Pacific Planning Pty Ltd

 

Development APplications COnsidered by the SYdney central city planning panelNil 

 

PURPOSE:

 

To report to Council the outcome of the public exhibition for the draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for land at 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park and to recommend that Council adopt the draft DCP. The report also asks Council to endorse amendments to the Planning Agreement that applies to the subject site.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)    That Council receives and notes the submissions made during the public exhibition period of the draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) as detailed in this report.

 

(b)    That Council endorse for finalisation the site-specific DCP contained at Attachment 1 for insertion in Section 4.3.3 – Parramatta City Centre of the Parramatta DCP 2011.

 

(c)    That Council endorse further amendments to the Planning Agreement previously endorsed by Council on 16 December 2019 and confirm that the Planning Agreement can now be finalised by the CEO utilising the delegation granted by Council on 16 December 2019 subject to the following further amendments:

 

I.   The site area which forms the basis of the contribution calculations being amended to 2,829.7m2 and resulting increase in the monetary contribution; and

II.  Introduction of a clause that provides for the contribution payable to be based on the final floor space approved through a Development Application process or subsequent application to modify a development approval. This provision would apply regardless of whether the final amount of floor space approved is greater or less than the FSR permitted by the Planning Proposal.

 

(d)    Further, that Council grant delegated authority to the CEO to make any minor amendments and corrections of an administrative and non-policy nature to the draft DCP that may arise during the plan making and finalisation process.

         

 

 

THE SITE

 

1.         The subject site is located at 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park, and comprises four (4) allotments including Lot 10 DP12882, Lot 13 DP1077402, Lot 14 DP1077402 and Lot 2 DP128524. The site is approximately 2,800 square metres (see Figure 1).

 

1 pic

     Figure 1 – Subject Site (site shown outlined in red)

 

2.     The subject site is identified as flood-prone under the Parramatta LEP 2011. The site has a western frontage to Wigram Street and a southern frontage to Parkes Street, while the Clay Cliff Creek open channel is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary. 

 

3.     The entire site is inundated in the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event, affected by the 100 year Flood event, and partly affected by the 20 year Flood event (see Figure 2). The north-western part of the site is situated within a high hazard flood risk zone (see Figure 3). 

 

 

 

flood aff

 

Figure 2: Flooding affectation of site (site shown outlined in red)

 

 

high haz

haz cap

 

Figure 3: High Hazard Flood Risk (site shown outlined in blue)

 

 

BACKGROUND                                      

 

4.    This report relates to a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) dealing with the management of flood risk associated with a Planning Proposal for the subject site. The proposed planning controls for this site have been subject to some change since the Planning Proposal application was first lodged. Key actions to date are:

 

(a)  Council resolved on 23 November 2015 to proceed with a site-specific Planning Proposal for this site with an FSR of 10:1;

(b)  The former Department of Planning issued a Gateway determination for the Planning Proposal on 29 November 2016 that allowed for an FSR of 8:1;

(c)  Following the completion of the Hector Abrahams Heritage Interface study, which informed the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, Council resolved on 12 February 2018 to seek an amended Gateway determination for this site-specific Planning Proposal seeking an FSR of 10:1;

(d)  The Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) advised on 24 August 2018 that it would not support an amended Gateway determination until a cumulative impact assessment of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal on Heritage Conservation Areas to the south of the site was undertaken.

 

5.     Following the above advice from the DPIE, the applicant requested that Council proceed with the Planning Proposal based on the Gateway determination that had been issued allowing 8:1 on the subject site. On 17 December 2018, Council considered a report on the applicant’s request and letter of offer for a Planning Agreement and resolved in part:

 

(a)    That Council endorse the exhibition of the Planning Proposal enabling an FSR of 8:1 and maximum building height of 110 metres (plus design excellence for both FSR and height) for the site at 14 – 20 Parkes Street, Harris Park in accordance with the Gateway determination issued on 29 November 2016.

 

(c)    That Council endorse the matters in the letter of offer for inclusion in a draft Planning Agreement, in relation to the Planning Proposal to increase the maximum building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) at 14 – 20 Parkes Street, Harris Park

 

6.     The Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement were publicly exhibited from 12 March 2019 to 12 April 2019.

 

7.     On 16 December 2019, Council considered recommendations of the Local Planning Panel on the outcome of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement. Council resolved:

 

 (a)   That Council receives and notes the submissions made in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement, as summarised in Attachment 2.

 

(b)    That Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP provided at Attachment 4 and that it be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days.

 

(c)    That Council having considered the issues arising as a result of the submissions made during the public exhibition, endorse the Planning Proposal for land at 14 – 20 Parkes Street, Harris Park (provided at Attachment 3) which seeks an FSR of 8:1 and maximum building height of 110 metres (plus design excellence for both FSR and height) and forward it to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) for finalisation, subject to:

1.     the final notification in the Government Gazette only be undertaken once Council confirms that the Planning Agreement has been signed and entered into; and

2.     the site-specific DCP dealing with the management of flood risk being publicly exhibited and endorsed by Council for finalisation.

 

(d)    That Council enter into the Planning Agreement at Attachment 5 subject to it being amended to:

1.     add a standard review clause that allows a review if Council seeks to increase Section 7.11 and 7.12 contributions and decreases the community infrastructure contribution payable under Council’s Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure policy framework; and

2.     include a revised monetary contribution amount of $1,680,000. 

 

(e)    That the Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to execute the Planning Agreement.

 

(f)     That upon signing the Planning Agreement, the agreement be forwarded to the DPIE in accordance with Section 25G of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

(g)    That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments and corrections of an administrative and non-policy nature relating to the Planning Proposal, Planning Agreement and draft site-specific DCP that may arise during the plan-making and finalisation process.

 

(h)    Further, that Council note the advice of the Local Planning Panel dated 3 December 2019 in relation to this matter as detailed in this report, noting that the Panel's advice to Council is consistent with the Council officer's recommendation to support the proposal.

 

8.     In response to Council's above resolution (c)2, the draft site-specific DCP dealing with the management of flood risk was placed on public exhibition.

 

9.     As per Council’s resolution above, the Planning Proposal has been sent to DPIE for finalisation. Council officers have reviewed a draft instrument forwarded by DPIE, and have advised DPIE that the draft instrument is acceptable to Council officers given its consistency with Council’s resolution, provided that administrative numbering of the clause is updated to align with the ordering of various amendments at the point of finalisation.

 

SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

10.   The exhibited site-specific draft Development Control Plan (DCP) (Attachment 1) deals with the management of flood risk associated with a Planning Proposal for the subject site. Specifically, it contains controls relating to achieving the following objectives:

 

a.  Ensuring that the design of the building addresses the local flood conditions and does not impede local overland flow paths.

b.  Minimising the risk to life by ensuring appropriate safe areas within the building to shelter during a flood, and safe access from the building during a medical or fire emergency.

c.  Allowing uses and development on the site that are appropriate to the flood hazard.

d.  Facilitating redevelopment of the site as a high quality mixed use development.

e.  Ensuring that the building interfaces positively with the public areas and contributes to an attractive public domain and desirable setting for its intended uses.

 

11.   Controls contained within the draft DCP include (but are not limited to):

 

a.   Minimum 6 metre building footprint setback from the Clay Cliff Creek stormwater floodway (at rear of site).

b.   Any cantilever building elements (excluding structural support columns) must have a minimum 4 metre clearance above the ground surface level of the overland flow path, and a minimum 4.5 metre setback between the channel bank and the building must be maintained above the clearance height.

c.   Permanent and temporary commercial or retail floor space or uses are not permitted below the Flood Planning Level.

d.   Habitable floors of all residential uses must be above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level adopted by Council for this site.

e.   Controls pertaining to protecting the basement.

f.    Controls pertaining to refuge areas and evacuation routes.

 

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

 

12.   The site-specific draft DCP was exhibited from 12 February 2020 to 13 March 2020.  An advertisement was placed in the local newspaper, relevant material was placed on Council’s website and a hard copy located at Council’s Administration Building and Parramatta Central Library. Letters were sent to landowners near the subject site and to the following public authorities: the Environment, Energy and Science Group (EES) in the DPIE, State Emergency Services and Sydney Water. These public authorities were required to be consulted by the Gateway for the related planning proposal and identified by Council staff as having a particular interest in the subject matter of the site-specific DCP.

 

13.   No submissions were received from members of the community.

 

14.   Submissions were received from two (2) public authorities during the exhibition period. One agency (Endeavour Energy) advised that their comments on the Planning Proposal remained applicable for the DCP. The Environment, Energy and Science Group (EES) in the DPIE advised that it considered the DCP had addressed EES’ previous flooding issues raised in response to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal, but reiterated that it sought a number of site-specific controls in the site-specific DCP for landscaping. The submissions received are addressed below:

 

 Table 1: Public Authority Submissions and Council Officer response

Issue

 Council Officer Response

DPIE/EES: Considers that the DCP has addressed EES’ previous flooding issues. However, EES previously suggested in April 2019 that a number of site-specific controls be included in the DCP for landscaping and that a Vegetation Management Plan be prepared for the rehabilitation of the riparian corridor. It is noted that these suggestions have not been included. It is EES's preference that these requirements be inserted into the DCP and not left for consideration of a future Development Application as proposed in planning report RZ/9/2015-D07113621.

 

As per Council’s resolution cited previously in this report, this site-specific DCP was prepared to address flood management at the site.

 

Consistent with Council officers’ previous response to this issue, it is considered that the proposed building setback from Clay Cliff Creek in the Planning Proposal should enable this area to be appropriately vegetated and preserves the option of establishing a vegetated riparian corridor along Clay Cliff Creek. The landscaping of the setback together with the incorporation of a diversity of local native plants can be further considered in a future Development Application for the site. Council’s DCP requires that a landscape concept plan must be provided for all landscaped areas.

 

Short-term opportunities to rehabilitate the riparian corridor in a holistic manner are limited at this point in time. Therefore, addressing biodiversity and landscaping matters at DA stage on a site-by-site basis (while also preserving the future option of establishing a vegetated riparian corridor as noted above) is considered the most appropriate course of action at this stage.

 

Endeavour Energy: Advised that their comments on the Planning Proposal remained applicable for the DCP. Information was provided relating to electricity supply to the site, noting that distribution substations should not be subject to flood inundation.

As previously commented on the Planning Proposal, matters raised can be considered during the assessment of a future Development Application for the site.

 

VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

15.   Since Council's resolution of 16 December 2019 on the Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement, the applicant has raised two issues regarding the Planning Agreement. These amendments are discussed in further detail below.

 

Amending the site area and resultant change to the monetary contribution

 

16.   The applicant considers the figures used to calculate the contribution were based on an incorrect site area. Using a survey plan, the applicant shows that the correct site area is 2,829.7m2. This results in a contribution amount of $1,697,820.00.

 

17.   The draft Planning Agreement reflects a site area of 2,800m², which was the site area agreed with the applicant when the Agreement was first negotiated. This site area meant the exhibited agreement required a contribution of $1,680,000.00. This change will therefore increase the contribution by $17,820.00.

 

18.   Council officers accept the applicant’s revised site area and contribution amount, and recommend that the Planning Agreement be amended accordingly. This amendment is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure policy framework and does not require a re-exhibition.

 

Amending the contribution calculation methodology to reflect the FSR achieved on the site at DA stage

 

19.   The applicant is also seeking a revision of the Planning Agreement to ensure it is based on the actual FSR achieved through a Development Application process and not the nominal increase in FSR under the changes to planning control contained in the Planning Proposal (i.e. amending from 4:1 FSR control to 8:1 FSR control).

 

20.   Currently, the draft Planning Agreement requires the applicant to pay the monetary contribution of $1,680,000.00 (to be changed to $1,697,820.00 as noted above) regardless of whether they achieve all of the additional floor space enabled by the subject Planning Proposal (i.e. an increase of 11,318.8 m2 beyond the 11,318.8m2 already permissible under current 4:1 FSR controls).

 

21.   Therefore, the applicant has proposed to amend the Planning Agreement to allow for a reduction of the monetary contribution if they do not achieve the full FSR increase (i.e. the full additional 4:1 FSR beyond current 4:1 FSR controls) at Development Application stage.

 

22.   Council officers consider that this is a reasonable request, provided that a commensurate amendment is also introduced that allows for an increase in the monetary contribution if more than the maximum FSR enabled by the Planning Proposal is achieved at Development Application stage (for instance, through a clause 4.6 variation or application to modify a future consent). The applicant has agreed that this is acceptable.

 

23.   Therefore, it is proposed that the Planning Agreement is amended so that, in the event that the final approved floor space at Development Application stage is either less or more than the maximum FSR achievable under the Planning Proposal, the contribution payable will be calculated as follows:

 

DA-approved residential gross floor area greater than the base 4:1 FSR (in square metres)

 

x

$150 per square metre

 

 

=

Contribution Payable

 

24.   This approach is considered acceptable as when the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is in place it is expected that contributions will be calculated in this manner rather than on a fixed sum basis.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS/NEXT STEPS

 

25.   The site-specific DCP for 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park has been exhibited in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Council officers have reviewed and addressed the submissions relating to this draft site-specific DCP and consider that issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed. It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP as exhibited. Should Council resolve as recommended in this regard, a notice of this decision will be placed on Council’s website, noting that recent changes to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 have removed the previous requirement to place such notices in a local newspaper.

 

26.   The site-specific DCP will come into effect when the associated LEP amendment is made.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

27.   There is no longer a requirement to place a notice in a local newspaper of Council’s decision on the site-specific DCP, therefore, no notification costs will be incurred.

 

28.   The Planning Agreement as amended to correct the site area will provide for a Community Infrastructure contribution of $1,697,820. However, as a result of the recommended amendment discussed previously in this report, the contribution may be adjusted if the floor space approved at Development Application stage is more or less than the maximum increase permitted by the Planning Proposal. Until a Development Application is approved, however, it is not possible to determine the extent of any change to the contribution.

 

Paul Kennedy

Project Officer Land Use

 

Robert Cologna

Acting Manager Land Use Planning

 

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Draft Site-specific DCP - 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.8 - Attachment 1

Draft Site-specific DCP - 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

  


 

Notices of Motion

 

11 May 2020

 

19.1          NOTICE OF MOTION: Advocate for Extension of 401 Bus Route...................................... 1006

 

19.2          NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s COVID-19 Act Amendments to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979........................................................ 1007

 

19.3          NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s “Planning System Acceleration Program” and related changes No. 1............................... 1009

 

19.4          NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s “Planning System Acceleration Program” and related changes No. 2............................... 1011

 

19.5          NOTICE OF MOTION: Parramatta Light Rail                                                                 1012


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 19.1

ITEM NUMBER        19.1

SUBJECT                 NOTICE OF MOTION: Advocate for Extension of 401 Bus Route

REFERENCE           F2008/02993 - D07388728

FROM                      Councillor Prociv        

 

 

MOTION

That, in light of the NSW State Government announcement that Transport for NSW could reprioritise investment into the City’s West, Council explore and advocate for the extension of the 401 bus route which currently operates from Carter Street to Lidcombe Station, to accommodate the public transport needs of the residents of Wentworth Point and Newington.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     A recent City of Parramatta transport survey of Wentworth Point and Newington residents indicated that the majority of them nominated Lidcombe Station as a preferred public transport destination.

 

STAFF RESPONSE

 

2.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

 

3.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

 

Councillor Patricia Prociv

Councillor

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 19.2

ITEM NUMBER        19.2

SUBJECT                 NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s COVID-19 Act Amendments to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

REFERENCE           F2019/04433 - D07388798

FROM                      Councillor Bradley       

 

 

MOTION

That Council:

 

(a)    Write to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, The Hon Rob Stokes MP and the NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian to advise them that we believe that local councils are best placed to make decisions about planning that is appropriate for their local area and constituents, and that planning decisions should be supported by community and be consistent with Ecologically Sustainable Development principles.

 

(b)    Accordingly, will express its concern in the correspondence about the loosely worded COVID-19 Act 2020 amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which grant the Minister unprecedented powers to override planning decisions made by local councils. The correspondence should also advise the Minister that these amendments (which allow the Minister “to authorise development to be carried out on land without the need for any approval under the Act or consent from any person”) should not be applied to developments other than hospitals, ICUs, social housing, or other directly COVID-19 related works, using the ambiguity of the wording of clause 10.17(5)(b) allowing Ministerial discretion about which works are "necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of members of the public".

 

(c)    Therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider the permission granted under this COVID-19 Act to the construction industry to operate every day and potentially late at night, including on public holidays, in light of the growing level of complaints from residents living close to construction works (including those on compulsory work from home and home schooling arrangements) about the detrimental impact on their “health, safety and welfare” due to all week construction disturbances.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     With the COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Act 2020, the State Government has amended section 10.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EPA Act) to give the Government unprecedented powers to override planning decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic for at least the next 6 to 12 months.

 

2.     Under the legislation, the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces can authorise development to be carried out on land without the need for any approval under the Act or consent from any person.

 

3.     Orders made by the Planning Minister will have effect regardless of any environmental planning instrument or development consent.

 

4.     This means that decisions made by local councils, independent planning panels or even regional planning panels can be overruled by the Planning Minister if he deems this is for “the health, safety and welfare of members of the public”. Is the recent order made under the new COVID-19 Act to extend allowable construction hours to weekends and public holidays really “necessary for the health, safety and welfare of members of the public”? These approvals are not reversed when the pandemic is over.

 

STAFF RESPONSE

 

5.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

 

6.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

 

Councillor Phil Bradley

Councillor

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 19.3

ITEM NUMBER        19.3

SUBJECT                 NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s “Planning System Acceleration Program” and related changes No. 1

REFERENCE           F2019/04433 - D07388805

FROM                      Councillor Bradley       

 

 

MOTION

That Council:

 

(a)    Seek assurances from the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes MP, that Council’s ability to conduct due diligence in line with community expectations and Ecologically Sustainable Development principles will not be impeded by the recently announced Planning System Acceleration Program to fast-track assessments of State Significant Developments, rezoning and development applications (DAs).

 

(b)    Advise the Planning Minister that in order to ensure community confidence in the Program, a plan to promote a high level of community engagement must be included in the additional support the Minister promised to provide to councils and planning panels to fast-track locally and regionally significant DAs.

 

(c)    Seek confirmation from the Planning Minister that Planning Proposals for amendments to Local Environment Plans (LEPs) currently in progress and/or already before the Department of Planning are to be finalised before the approvals of “any expanded list of works that may be carried out without the need for planning approval or under the fast-tracked complying development pathway.”

 

(d)    Alert the Planning Minister that many of the proposals included in Urban Taskforce Australia’s list of 76 so-called ‘shovel-ready’ projects that “are caught up in any area of the planning system” have already been refused by local councils and/or Local or Regional Planning Panels for valid planning, social or environmental reasons or because of insufficiency of community infrastructure funding needed to maintain liveability standards for the resulting population growth, particularly in targeted population growth areas like in the City of Parramatta LGA.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.       The NSW Treasurer and Minister for Planning and Public Spaces issued a media release on 3 April 2020 foreshadowing further changes to the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in order to fast-track development.

 

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/News/2020/Jobs-boost-through-fast-tracked-planning-system

 

STAFF RESPONSE

 

2.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

 

3.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

 

Councillor Phil Bradley

Councillor

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 19.4

ITEM NUMBER        19.4

SUBJECT                 NOTICE OF MOTION: NSW Government’s “Planning System Acceleration Program” and related changes No. 2

REFERENCE           F2019/04433 - D07388809

FROM                      Councillor Bradley       

 

 

MOTION

That Council:

 

(a)    Advise the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces that the Department of Planning’s directive to councils to no longer publish development applications in local newspapers will disadvantage the elderly and residents who do not have access to the internet. The subsequent advertising loss of revenue will likely also undermine the viability of local newspapers, many of which are already struggling to survive. Also that this directive should only apply for the duration of the pandemic or 6 months, whichever is shorter, and after which it should be voluntary.

 

(b)    Advise the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces that the Department of Planning’s temporary directive to councils that certain documents related to development proposals/applications will no longer be required for physical inspection in their offices disadvantages residents who do not have access to computers and could lead to copyright issues with architects/developers regarding the electronic publication of certain plans.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     There was no background provided for this Notice of Motion.

 

STAFF RESPONSE

 

2.     A staff response will be provided to Councillor at the meeting.

 

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

 

3.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting

 

 

Councillor Phil Bradley

Councillor

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council 11 May 2020                                                                    Item 19.5

ITEM NUMBER        19.5

SUBJECT                 NOTICE OF MOTION: Parramatta Light Rail

REFERENCE           F2019/04433 - D07389022

FROM                      Councillor Davis       

 

 

MOTION

That the CEO and Lord Mayor write to the State Minister for Planning, State Minister for Transport and Deputy Secretary, Greater Western Sydney, Transport for NSW, requesting:

 

(a)    that detailed design drawings of the entire Parramatta Light Rail corridor, including the width, be made publicly available by the end of May 2020;

 

(b)    that City of Parramatta Council and the public be informed of what measures are being taken to preserve heritage components of buildings, such as pressed metal ceilings, fireplaces, window and door frames (as appropriate), that have been identified for demolition as a result of the construction of Parramatta Light Rail;

 

(c)    that an archival pictorial record of all buildings be produced;

 

(d)    that City of Parramatta Council and the public be provided with details of all trees identified for removal as a result of the construction of the Parramatta Light Rail; and

 

(e)    further, that City of Parramatta Council and the public be provided with details of all trees identified for relocation as a result of the construction of the Parramatta Light Rail along with details of the proposed relocation sites for these trees.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.     No background was provided for this Notice of Motion

 

STAFF RESPONSE

 

2.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

 

3.     A staff response will be provided to Councillors at the meeting.

 

 

Councillor Donna Davis

Councillor

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.



[1] All references to Figures in this draft DCP will need to retitled in accordance with the DCP Figure naming regime before final adoption of the DCP.

[2] http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/your_council/future_planning 

[3] Rappoport Heritage Consultants is now known as Heritage 21

[4] Rappoport Heritage Consultants is now known as Heritage 21