Agenda of Council - Monday, 24 May 2021

MINUTES OF THE Meeting of City of Parramatta Council HELD IN THE DUNDAS COMMUNITY CENTRE, 21 STURT STREET, TELOPEA ON Monday, 10 May 2021 AT 6.30pm

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

PRESENT

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

1. OPENING MEETING

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer, opened the meeting at 6.31pm.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

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

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

4. OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

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

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

SUBJECT: Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 26 April 2021

3207

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

That the minutes be taken as read and be accepted as a true record of the Meeting with the following amendments:

Item 18.2 – Notice of Motion: Constitutional Referendum: Popularly Elected Lord Mayor to read:

3197 RESOLVED (Dwyer/Davis)

(a) That Council defer the decision to hold a constitutional referendum at the 4 September 2021 Local Government Elections to canvass voters on introducing a popularly elected Lord Mayor from September 2024.

(b) That a Councillor Workshop to be convened and models brought to the Workshop about what could be implemented for the City of Parramatta.

(d) That Councillors be furnished with all models of popularly elected Mayors in the Sydney Metro, Newcastle and Wollongong areas.

(e) Further, that the Workshop be convened and a report be brought to Council to consider this matter on Monday, 10 May 2021 and if resolved, Council’s decision to be submitted to the NSW Electoral Commission on Monday, 14 May 2021.

Item 20.3 – For Approval: 31-35 Pitt Street, Parramatta – Holroyd City Brass Band Occupation of Premises and Shop 6/4-14 Hunter Street – City of Parramatta Arts Society Occupation of Premises to read:

3204 RESOLVED (Esber/Davis)

(a) That Council approve a licence to occupy the Jones Park Band Hall located at 31-35 Pitt Street Parramatta (also known as 151 Burnett Street, Mays Hill), for the City of Holroyd Brass Band subject to the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

(b) That Council lease Shop 6, 4-14 Hunter Street, Parramatta and approve Option 2 as outlined in paragraph 20 of this report.

(c) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and sign all documents in connection with these matters.

Note: Councillor Wilson arrived at 6:34pm during consideration of Confirmation of Minutes.

6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE/ REMOTE ATTENDANCE

3208	RESOLVED (Esber/Zaiter) That the apologies received from Councillor Lorraine Wearne for personal reasons, be accepted and leave of absence granted.

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made at this meeting.

8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor

8.1

SUBJECT 200 Years of Catholic Education in Australia National Mass

REFERENCE F2019/03630 - D08042407

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer

3209

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Zaiter)

(a) That Council note the National Catholic Education Commission is holding a National Mass, to celebrate 200 years of Catholic education in Australia.

(b) That Council note the National Mass will be live streamed from St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney, from 10.15am AEST on 24 May 2021.

(c) That Council note that Council officers have collaborated with the Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta to acknowledge this milestone through online programs.

(d) Further, that Council note Lord Mayor Minutes were also tabled in September 2019 and October 2020 in recognition of this milestone.

Note: Councillor Issa arrived at 6:36pm during consideration of Item 8.1.

8.2

SUBJECT COVID-19 Crisis in India

REFERENCE F2019/03630 - D08042710

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer

3210

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Zaiter)

(a) That Council acknowledge the devastating impacts of the current wave of the coronavirus pandemic in India.

(b) That Council acknowledge the strong ties that exist between Parramatta and India, and that we stand in solidarity with our Indian-Australian community in this difficult time.

(c) That Council acknowledge the positive work of the Federal Government in arranging medical supplies to be sent to India.

(d) That Council note members of the Parramatta community wishing to contribute to on the ground responses in India can donate to the Covid-19 appeal initiatives of organisations including Unicef Australia and World Vision.

(e) Further, that Council hold a minute’s silence for the crisis in India.

Note: The Chamber observed a minute’s silence.

9. Public Forum

9.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM: 26 April 2021 Council Meeting - Notice of Motion - World Falun Dafa Day

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08040136

FROM Alice Wong

Dear Lord Mayor Dwyer and Councillors,

On behalf of the local Falun Dafa group, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for recognising the World Falun Dafa Day 2021, as well as your ongoing support for Falun Dafa group over the years.

The conscious choice also sends a strong message to the larger community, that our city stands for values of openness and tolerance, and freedom of religion and conscience.

As a resident of Parramatta, I am proud of the stance our Council have taken in supporting the righteousness and goodness.

Falun Gong also known as Falun Dafa is a traditional Chinese cultivation practice, which consists of moral teachings and five meditative exercises. Although first introduced to the public in 1992 by Mr Li Hongzhi, its roots extend back thousands of years. By 1998 the China State Sports Commission estimated that upwards of 70 million people in China were practising Falun Gong, with reported dramatic improvements in health and moral conduct.

Today Falun Gong has brought improved health and wellbeing to more than 100 million people in over 90 countries around the world. Falun Gong has received thousands of citations, awards and proclamations, conferred by government officials before the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

History always repeats itself. The darkness may prevail for a while but at the end of the day, it is righteousness and goodness that win.

History is a mirror for us to learn. The Christians were persecuted for more than 300 years and they have not disappeared but they are cherished by God.

This same situation is happening in China with CCP regime. The persecution of Falun Gong has continued for 21 years, with thousands killed and hundreds of thousands incarcerated for their beliefs. But we have remained firm in our faith and flourishing.

I can be freely to do my exercises without facing persecution in Australia. I hope one day soon I can return back to my home to visit my family.

Wishing you all are very best and Parramatta City continue to be prosperous.

STAFF RESPONSE

No staff response was provided.

9.2

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM: Item 18.1 - Notice of Motion - Re-establishment of the Wentworth Point Working Group

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08040193

FROM Anna Han

Thank you for the opportunity to address Council. I am here tonight with other concerned residents to explain why we feel the re-establishment of the Wentworth Point Working Group is urgently needed. In order for Councillors to understand the issues we face as residents and hence the need for this request, I will start by providing some background.

I attended a ‘Council-run’ Wentworth Point Working Group back in 2019 where residents were given direct access to the Lord Mayor, Ward Councillors and Council officers to discuss development and infrastructure issues that were important to the community. At the time, I believe the idea was that the Community Association committee representatives would relay information back to owners. However, this method of communication no longer works in the current environment as we now have more than 6 CAs compared to the three originally, and with all the new developments we now have a very high proportion of tenant population and these people are not given a voice via the CAs since one has to be an owner to be part of a CA. For this reason, we believe an appropriately amended Terms of Reference should be adopted in consultation with community representatives.

The Council-run working groups have since stopped, and our community recently found out about a developer-run working group which started last year. These are invitation-only, closed meetings run by the developer of Block H. The broader community was not consulted prior to the establishment of this meeting, and details of discussions and meeting minutes were not available for viewing. Residents feel that community working groups should be open and transparent and all residents should be allowed a voice and be able to provide feedback.

Residents of Wentworth Point have long suffered from the lack of infrastructure and continued uplift for higher densities in our suburb. While we understand that other suburbs in the LGA may not have council working groups, however, it is important for Councillors to be aware that NO other suburb has only one road in and one road out! NO other suburb gets flooded and all residents are trapped inside! NO other suburbs are denied a public park and our children have to play on an empty car park! NO other suburb have to wait years and years to have a roundabout or traffic light so our drivers and pedestrians don’t risk their lives getting home! These are only some of the many issues we experience as residents, and this is all on top of endless developer proposals for further uplift and higher densities! Wentworth Point has been undergoing massive redevelopment and is quite different to most other suburbs in the LGA.

We believe Councillors can see the need and benefits such a working group can be for a community that is rapidly changing, hence the reason why Council did try to endorse the Working Group Meetings as official Council’s’ meetings in late 2017. Our neighbouring suburb of Rhodes which is also a high density suburb and experience similar development issues, has an established residents consultation group which was initiated by their Lord Mayor 15 years ago and is still currently a Council-run event. Why can’t we have this Working Group for the residents of Wentworth Point when our transport and infrastructure issues are much worse than that of Rhodes? In closing, we believe the re-establishment of the Wentworth Point Working Group is urgently needed to provide an opportunity for residents to come together and voice our concerns.

A petition with over 500 signatures has been presented to Council requesting for this, and we hope the Lord Mayor and Councillors present tonight will listen to the community and show us your support. Additionally, I have a question regarding paragraph 18 from the response provided by the Executive Director for Property & Place. You mentioned Council actually provided the library venue for those developer-run meetings, however, you then continued to suggest that community groups should pay for any future usage even though council paid for those developer meetings. Growing up, I have visited multiple libraries in Ryde, Eastwood and Hornsby where group-study rooms are available free of charge for students that may need to work on an assignment together, or for residents and community working on a project together. This service is NOT available at the Wentworth Library. There are no free rooms for students or residents. All rooms are charged and are run like a for-profit business. My questions is, why doesn’t the Wentworth Point Library offer free group-study rooms like other libraries, so our community lobby groups have a place to meet, and our students have a place to work together?

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONSE

The Wentworth Point Community Centre and Library has been designed to incorporate a large, dedicated quiet study space. When operating without COVID restrictions, this area includes 44 work stations and extended community access beyond staffed library opening hours. The first floor of the WPCC&L also has an extensive open floor plan, along with furniture designed to facilitate group working. All rooms at WPCC&L are available for hire in line with Council’s standard Fees and Charges, including available concessions for community organisations and self-help groups.

10. Petitions

10.1

SUBJECT 7 Albion Street Harris Park

REFERENCE DA 250/2021

FROM Patricia Prociv

The Petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, are strongly opposed to the demolition of premises at 7 Albion Street Harris Park and the erection of a 12 person boarding house for the following reasons:

1. 7 Albion Street Harris Park is situated in the Harris Park West Heritage Conservation Area. This area is important because it contributes to the heritage value and character of the Harris Park West Conservation Area (Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, 4.4-34) and is the "most consistent historical urban area in central Parramatta." The buildings in this area "together help to demonstrate the history of the area and contribute to its significance. All buildings except numbers 1, 8, 22, 23, 24 and 40 Albion Street Harris Park should be retained (Parramatta Control Plan 4.4-35). The existing dwelling at 7 Albion Street therefore should be retained.

2. Demolishing a dwelling within the Harris Park West Conservation Area creates a dangerous precedent which means that ANY dwelling within this area could suffer the same fate.

3. The Harris Park West Conservation Area is already a very congested area. Most dwellings do not have onsite parking so owners and renters alike park on the street. There is also a huge demand for street parking for people coming to shop or eat in the area including the cafes and shops on Marion Street, Wigram Street and East Station Street. The proposed development at 7 Albion Street Harris Park does not provide onsite parking for cars. The plans submitted to Council only provide for parking of 2 bicycles and 2 motorbikes onsite. We are concerned that the possible addition of 12 extra cars on a regular basis in Albion Street will only add to the congestion in the area.”

3211

RESOLVED (Prociv/Esber)

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

(b) Further, that the petition be referred to the appropriate Council officer.

10.2

SUBJECT Re-establishment of the Wentworth Point Working Group

REFERENCE F2017/00740

FROM Patricia Prociv

A petition signed by more than 500 residents of Wentworth Point reads:

“ Residents of Wentworth Point have long suffered from the lack of infrastructure and continued uplift for higher densities in our suburb. A permanent , ongoing residents consultation group is urgently needed to provide an opportunity for the community to come together and voice our concerns.”

“We the undersigned, petition Parramatta Council to: urgently re-establish the ‘Wentworth Point Working Group’ for residents of Wentworth Point.”

3212

RESOLVED (Prociv/Esber)

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

(b) Further, that the petition be referred to the appropriate Council officer.

11. Rescission Motions

Nil

12. Fair

Note: Council considered Item - 12.1 LATE REPORT FOR APPROVAL: Constitutional Referendum for the 2021 Local Government Elections prior to moving into Closed Session.

13. Accessible

13.1

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

REFERENCE F2009/00431 - D07851185

REPORT OF Development Assessment Manager

3213

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Davis)

That the report be received and noted.

14. Green

Nil

15. Welcoming

Nil

16. Thriving

16.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Draft CBD Parking Strategy

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D07965892

REPORT OF Development Manager Property Development Group

3214

RESOLVED (Garrard/Barrak)

(a) That Council approve the draft CBD Parking Strategy and the recommendations contained within the strategy to be publicly exhibited for 30 days.

(c) Further, that Council receive a subsequent report including the findings of the public exhibition to approve the final CBD Parking Strategy and its implementation.

Note:

1. Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 7:01pm and returned at 7:02pm during consideration of Item 16.1.

2. Councillor Issa left the Chamber at 7:09pm and returned at 7:10pm during consideration of Item 16.1.

17. Innovative

17.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Draft Development Control Plan and Draft Planning Agreement for 23-25 Windsor Road, Northmead

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D07546223

REPORT OF Project Officer Land Use

3215

RESOLVED (Esber/Jefferies)

(a) That Council endorse the draft site-specific Development Control Plan for the land at 23-25 Windsor Road, Northmead, as provided at Attachment 1, for the purpose of public exhibition.

(b) That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to commence the legal drafting of a Planning Agreement in accordance with the Letter of Offer as provided in Attachment 2, and terms outlined in this report on behalf of Council for the purpose of public exhibition.

(c) That the draft site-specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement be placed on public exhibition concurrently with the updated Planning Proposal in Attachment 3, for a period of 28 days and that a report be provided to Council on the outcomes of the public exhibition.

(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 Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement documentation that may arise during the drafting and exhibition process.

DIVISION The result being:-

AYES: Councillors Barrak, Davis, Dwyer, Esber, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Prociv, Tyrrell and Zaiter

NOES: Councillors Bradley and Wilson

17.2	SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Draft Development Control Plan for the Telopea Precinct for Public Exhibition REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D07947043 REPORT OF Team Leader Land Use Planning
	MOTION (Issa/Barrak) (a) That Council endorse the Telopea Precinct draft Development Control Plan (DCP) provided at Attachment 1 and the repeal of existing controls relating to Telopea in Section 4.1.11 of the Parramatta DCP 2011 for public exhibition purposes. (b) That the draft DCP be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days and that Council undertakes the following engagement: i. Letters to property owners/occupiers and key stakeholders notifying them of the public exhibition; ii. Exhibition of the draft DCP on Council’s Participate Parramatta website; iii. Notification of Draft DCP public exhibition in the local paper; iv. Hard copies of the draft DCP available at Council’s Customer Service Centre and Dundas, Epping and Parramatta Libraries; and v. A series of four out of hours phone ‘book a planner’ sessions during the exhibition period. (d) That a report be prepared to Council on the outcome of the public exhibition period prior to the finalisation of the draft DCP. (e) Further, that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature relating to the draft DCP that may arise.
	MOTION (Tyrrell/Zaiter) That the motion be put. The motion that the motion be put, on being put was declared LOST.
3216	RESOLVED (Issa/Barrak) (a) That Council endorse the Telopea Precinct draft Development Control Plan (DCP) provided at Attachment 1 and the repeal of existing controls relating to Telopea in Section 4.1.11 of the Parramatta DCP 2011 for public exhibition purposes. (b) That the draft DCP be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days and that Council undertakes the following engagement: i. Letters to property owners/occupiers and key stakeholders notifying them of the public exhibition; ii. Exhibition of the draft DCP on Council’s Participate Parramatta website; iii. Notification of Draft DCP public exhibition in the local paper; iv. Hard copies of the draft DCP available at Council’s Customer Service Centre and Dundas, Epping and Parramatta Libraries; and v. A series of four out of hours phone ‘book a planner’ sessions during the exhibition period. (c) That a report be prepared to Council on the outcome of the public exhibition period prior to the finalisation of the draft DCP. (d) Further, that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature relating to the draft DCP that may arise. DIVISION The result being:- AYES: Councillors Barrak, Davis, Dwyer, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Tyrrell, Wilson and Zaiter NOES: Councillors Bradley, Esber and Prociv

18. Notices of Motion

18.1	SUBJECT NOTICE OF MOTION: Re-establishment of the Wentworth Point Working Group REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08019264 FROM Councillor Prociv
	MOTION (Prociv/Issa) (a) That a report be prepared within four (4) weeks, and brought to Council, on the re-establishment the Wentworth Point Working Group. (b) That the Working Group Terms of Reference (dated 30 June 2014) be updated in consultation with the Ward Councillors. (c) Further, that the Working Group Membership be modified to include items such as: - Lord Mayor or their nominee and Ward Councillors, one (1) of whom will act as Chair; - One (1) community representative from each Community Association; and - A maximum of ten (10) nominated community representatives, accepted by Council.
3217	RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Zaiter) That the motion be put.
3218	RESOLVED (Prociv/Issa) (a) That a report be prepared within four (4) weeks, and brought to Council, on the re-establishment the Wentworth Point Working Group. (b) That the Working Group Terms of Reference (dated 30 June 2014) be updated in consultation with the Ward Councillors. (c) Further, that the Working Group Membership be modified to include items such as: - Lord Mayor or his nominee and Ward Councillors, one (1) of whom will act as Chair; - One (1) community representative from each Community Association; and - A maximum of ten (10) nominated community representatives, accepted by Council.
	Note: Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 7:58pm and returned at 8:00pm during consideration of Item 18.1.

Procedural Motion

3219

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Bradley)

That the meeting be adjourned for ten (10) minutes.

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 8:21pm for a short recess.

Procedural Motion

3220

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Esber)

That the meeting resume.

The meeting resumed at 8:32pm with the following Councillors in attendance: The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer and Councillors Benjamin Barrak, Phil Bradley, Donna Davis, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard (Deputy Lord Mayor), Steven Issa, Andrew Jefferies, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Bill Tyrrell, Andrew Wilson and Martin Zaiter.

19. Questions with Notice

19.1

SUBJECT QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE: Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 26 April 2021

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08022341

FROM Governance Manager

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 26 APRIL 2021

Item

Subject

Councillor

Question

Response

Executive Director

12.3

Public Exhibition of the DPOP, Budget and Fees and Charges

Garrard

Does the Voluntary Pensioner Rebate Policy form part of the documents placed on public exhibition?

Has Council harmonised the Voluntary Pensioner Rebate Policy?

The Voluntary Pensioner Rebate Policy for the City of Parramatta was applicable to all ratepayers who satisfied the criteria from the date of amalgamations.

The Voluntary Pensioner Rebate Policy is found on Council’s website and has been included in the budget and forms part of the rates calculation in the Delivery Program & Operating Plan.

Executive Director, Corporate Services

12.1	SUBJECT LATE REPORT FOR APPROVAL: Constitutional Referendum for the 2021 Local Government Elections REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08022346 REPORT OF Governance Manager
	MOTION (Esber/Davis) (a) That Council hold a constitutional referendum at the 2021 Local Government Elections and notify the NSW Electoral Commission within the required timeframe. (b) That the constitutional referendum consider the number of wards and number of Councillors plus a popularly elected Lord Mayor. (c) That Council hold an Extraordinary Council Meeting in May / June to resolve the composition of the City of Parramatta Area to facilitate a popularly elected Lord Mayor, determine the question to be asked at the referendum and that the question be provided to the NSW Electoral Commission by the 28 June 2021 deadline and a workshop be held on a Saturday. (d) That Council approve the adjustment to the Budget in Financial Year 2020/21 of $325,000 and 2021/22 of $200,000 funded from General Funds, as set out in paragraph 26 of this report. (e) That Council note the resolution will be provided to the NSW Electoral Commission within the required timeframe to enable a constitutional referendum to be held at the 2021 Local Government Elections. (f) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute any variation of contract with the NSW Electoral Commission for the conduct of a constitutional referendum.
	AMENDMENT (Zaiter/Tyrrell) (a) That Council consult with the community on the option of a popularly elected Lord Mayor in the six (6) months after the 2021 Local Government Elections. (b) That the results of the community consultation be reported to the new term of Council to inform whether it will hold a constitutional referendum at the 2024 Local Government Elections, for the potential to implement any change at the 2028 Local Government Elections. (c) Further, that Council approve the adjustment to the Budget in Financial Year 2021/22 of $300,000 funded from General Funds, as set out in paragraph 26 of this report. The amendment moved by Councillor Zaiter and seconded by Councillor Tyrrell on being put was declared CARRIED. The amendment then became the motion. The motion moved by Councillor Zaiter and seconded by Councillor Tyrrell on being put was declared CARRIED.
3221	RESOLVED (Zaiter/Tyrrell) (a) That Council consult with the community on the option of a popularly elected Lord Mayor in the six (6) months after the 2021 Local Government Elections. (b) That the results of the community consultation be reported to the new term of Council to inform whether it will hold a constitutional referendum at the 2024 Local Government Elections, for the potential to implement any change at the 2028 Local Government Elections. (c) Further, that Council approve the adjustment to the Budget in Financial Year 2021/22 of $300,000 funded from General Funds, as set out in paragraph 26 of this report.
	Note: 1. Councillor Barrak left the Chamber at 8:48pm and returned at 8:48pm during consideration of Item 12.1. 2. Councillor Davis left the Chamber at 9:05pm and returned at 9:06pm during consideration of Item 12.1.

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.

20. CLOSED SESSION

3222

RESOLVED (Issa/Bradley)

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 07/2020 Provision of Security Services – Panel 3 - VSS Operation & Monitoring. (D08018163) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

2 FOR APPROVAL: Tender 27/2020 Alfred Street Granville Cycleway, Stage 1 – Civil Works. (D07908016) - 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 09/2021 Epping to Carlingford Active Transport Link - Bridge Street, Epping. (D07864043) - 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.

Note: Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 9:07pm during consideration of moving into Closed Session.

Procedural Motion

MOTION (Tyrrell/Esber)

That Items 20.1, 20.2 and 20.3 be resolved en bloc.

The motion moved by Councillors Tyrrell and seconded by Councillor Esber on being put was declared LOST on the Lord Mayor’s casting vote.

20.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Tender 07/2020 Provision of Security Services – Panel 3 - VSS Operation & Monitoring

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08018163

REPORT OF Community Crime Prevention Officer

3223

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Wilson)

(a) That Council approve the appointment of the preferred proponent for Panel 3 – Video Surveillance System (VSS) – Operation and Monitoring and cost outlined in paragraph 10 of the report.

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

20.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Tender 27/2020 Alfred Street Granville Cycleway, Stage 1 – Civil Works

REFERENCE F2020/02946 - D07908016

REPORT OF Manager Capital Projects

3224

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Issa)

(a) That Council approve appointment of the preferred tenderer for the Alfred Street Cycleway – Stage 1 – Civil Works for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 12 of this 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.

20.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Tender 09/2021 Epping to Carlingford Active Transport Link - Bridge Street, Epping

REFERENCE F2021/00180 - D07864043

REPORT OF Manager Capital Projects

3225

RESOLVED (Davis/Esber)

(a) That Council approve appointment of the preferred proponent for Tender 9/2021 Epping to Carlingford Active Transport Link at Bridge Street, Epping between Wyralla Avenue and High Street for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 14 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

3226

RESOLVED (Issa/Bradley)

That the meeting resume into Open Session.

21. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 20.1 to 20.3.

Note: Councillor Garrard returned to the Chamber at 9:13pm.

22. CONCLUSION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9:13pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 16 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 10 MAY 2021 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 24 MAY 2021.

Chairperson

Council 24 May 2021 Item 14.1

GREEN

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Public Exhibition of the Draft Arthur Phillip Park Masterplan

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08021922

REPORT OF Place Manager

PURPOSE:

To seek approval for public exhibition of the renewed draft Arthur Phillip Park Masterplan.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the draft renewed Arthur Phillip Park masterplan be placed on public exhibition from 31 May to 25 June 2021 for community comment.

(b) That temporary signage be installed across the masterplan area to notify the community of the public exhibition period and their opportunities to engage.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The renewed Arthur Phillip Park Masterplan (Attachment 1), includes an all ability water play concept plan. This project is identified as a Parramatta Ward priority project in the DPOP 2018-21 pg 16.

2. Arthur Phillip Park located in Northmead (Parramatta Ward). Redbank Road (northeast), Park Street (northwest) and Edward Street bound the Park (southwest).

3. The park is currently identified in the Catchment 1 of the 2020 Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS) as a local playground. Catchment 1, does not have an identified district* park despite a growing population.

*district park – The CIS defines district facilities as those that cater for Association competition as well as service a local catchment to provide a mix of recreational, competitive and programmed formats for participants.

4. A masterplan was previously completed in 2000 to define the social spaces, improve connectivity and define the recreation spaces. In 2011, Coca Cola Amatil partially funded the construction of a new playground, a circuit pathway and minor park improvements.

5. Arthur Phillip Park is transitioning from a local park to a district park due to rapid population growth experienced in the precincts of Northmead and Westmead.

6. The 2021 population forecast for Northmead is 11,978 and forecast to grow to 20,105 by 2041 (an increase of 68%). The 2021 population forecast for Westmead is 10,323 and forecast to grow to 23,221 by 2041 (an increase of 125%). Reference https://forecast.id.com.au/parramatta/about-forecast-areas?WebID=370.

7. Recent COVID restrictions and border closures has created a surge in demand for accessible, safe open spaces that provide a variety of recreational and social activities.

8. The renewed masterplan identifies future requirements to support the growing Northmead community and provides a long term vision and statutory requirement to fund new recreational facilities and amenities at Arthur Phillip Park.

9. The Masterplan area is 3.2ha in size and comprises of the below recreational facilities:

· Two sports fields, currently used for football (soccer), rugby league and cricket and surrounded by a circuit path

· Amenities block consisting of public toilet, storage, change rooms and kiosk

· Children’s playground (corner of Redbank and Park street)

· Redbank Children’s Centre day care (Redbank Street)

· Fitness stations

· Basketball half court

· Picnic facilities and BBQ

· Redbank Street carpark, Park Street parking and Edward Street parking

10. The 2020 CIS has identified a deficit* of 266 ha in sportsground provision in the Parramatta LGA by 2036. Improvements to Arthur Phillip Park will provide much needed additional open and recreational space to support community wellbeing and active sporting programs.

*sportsground deficit calculation - The CIS takes a people per hectares approach to benchmarking. It calculates that in 2019 the provision of sportsgrounds amounted to 0.56ha/1,000 people, a gap of 0.44ha when compared to the ideal provision of 1ha/1,000 people. This benchmark indicates ideal provision of 266ha to support the current population.

11. The below future improvements identified in the draft Arthur Phillip Park Masterplan also align with 2020 CIS:

i. Increasing the carrying capacity of current playing fields through supporting infrastructure upgrades or embellishments, playing surface upgrades and increased maintenance

ii. Upgrading existing playgrounds to expand the variety of play experiences (nature play, sensory play and imaginative play), including an all ability water play space

iii. Enhancing the pedestrian and cycle connections between play spaces

iv. Repurposing the park to accommodate both formal and informal sports

v. Developing better connections between open spaces and sportsground

vi. Repurposing alternative (non-traditional) spaces for both formal and informal sport and recreation.

12. The development of the renewed draft Arthur Phillip Park Masterplan was informed by two phases of community consultation, Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategy, Parramatta Ward Councillor feedback and an internal officer working group comprising of representatives from Councils OSNR, Parks, Recreation, Social Outcomes and Property team.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

13. The CIS states that “City of Parramatta has a severe shortage of fully inclusive play spaces, with one out of 150 play spaces within the network currently identified as being fully inclusive. Many play spaces are not designed to support inclusion and accessibility.”

14. Initial community consultation identified that 17% of respondents either lived with a disability or cared for a person with a disability.

15. Similar to Ollie Webb (Council’s first all-inclusive play and water play park), Arthur Phillip Park is co-located with a sportsground, exercise station, picnic facilities and walking track. Ollie Webb’s popularity is a result of the complementary grouping of social and recreational amenities that support and encourage local residents to meet, gather and socialise.

16. Arthur Phillip Park’s central location, encourages local visitation from locals who walk and cycle. 55% of Phase 1 consultation respondents lived in Northmead and 90% of respondents visited the park on a daily, weekly and fortnightly basis.

17. Apart from rapid population growth, the precincts of Northmead and Westmead are undergoing extensive transformative urban renewal resulting in higher incidences of urban heat island impacts. These precincts have less established tree canopy and increased urban density will create heat related stress in surrounding neighborhoods.

18. Provision of an all ability water play facility at Arthur Phillip Park, offers a low cost alternative for local communities to cool down across the hotter summer months, reducing usage of household air conditioners and creates local opportunities to gather and socialise.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

19. Community and stakeholder engagement is a vital component of the master planning process to ensure that the future plans for Arthur Phillip Park meets community expectations and requirements.

20. An engagement strategy was developed to understand current and future park visitation requirements whilst keeping in line with the NSW Government Covid 19 restrictions.

21. The community engagement strategy was devised across 3 phases to ensure that a comprehensive collection of data was collected.

· Phase 1 ideation – 4 December 2020 to 4 February 2021

· Phase 2 co design – 19 April 2021 to 10 May 2021

· Phase 3 public exhibition – planned for 31 May to 25 June 2021.

22. A total of 273 responses were collected during phase 1 engagement using the below consultation methods.

· Intercept Survey – 23 park user and local resident participants (5 December – 8 December 2020)

· Online and Paper Survey – 233 community participants (4 December 2020 – 4 February 2021)

· Stakeholder Interviews – 5 sporting group participants (16 December 2020 – 13 January 2021)

· Public Submissions – 3 received from local residents and Cricket NSW (at 4 February 2021)

· Council website and social media

· Flyer mail-out to 650 surrounding residences

23. A dedicated project webpage with current project information and key milestones is available at participate.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/arthur-phillip-masterplan.

24. The full results from Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultation will be published to this site during the public exhibition period.

25. Additionally, an internal officer working group was established to develop the project scope/brief, review consultation data, workshop draft concept designs and review the draft masterplan before seeking Council approval for public exhibition.

26. The below table summarises the internal and external consultation activities to inform the Arthur Phillip Park Masterplan.

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
31 July 2020 Develop Project scope	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation	Develop an agreed project brief to inform the development of the draft masterplan. Establish an internal working group to review community data and workshop the draft masterplan design	Project brief developed and subsequently approved by relevant Council teams, managers and Executive Directors.	Place Manager
30 September 2020 Confirm engagement strategy and requirements	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation	Due to COVID19 restrictions, stakeholder interviews preferred method of consultation with sporting groups.	Stakeholder interviews included in community engagement strategy	Place Manager
16 November 2020 Project inception meeting	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Develop online survey and design consultation activities to collect ideas from the community to inform the masterplan.	Drop in sessions converted to intercept surveys due to COVID restrictions. Consultation period extended across the summer to give the community ample time to provide feedback. Local residents invited to visit Constitution Hill Library to provide feedback as an alternative to online survey	Place Manager
2 Dec 2020	Redbank Daycare Centre and Council’s community Services	Project update and engagement requirements	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Place Manager
4 Dec 2020 to 4 February 2021 Phase 1 community consultation	Park visitors Local sports clubs Local residents within 600m of the park Northmead Public School and Redbank Daycare Centre	Please see Phase 1 consultation report provided as Attachment 2.	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Place Manager/Community Engagement/Recreation Planning
22 Feb 2021 Review Phase 1 consultation data	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Review phase 1 data for any data gaps, issues and develop engagement strategy for Phase 2 consultation	A QR code trail was developed to further tease out the community preferences and prioritise future upgrades at Arthur Phillip Park.	Place Manager/Community Engagement/Landscape Architect
19 April to 10 May 2021 Phase 2 community consultation	Park visitors Local sports clubs Local residents within 600m of the park Northmead Public School and Redbank Daycare Centre Coca Cola Amatil	Phase 2 consultation results will be published directly to Participate Parramatta upon completion of the consultation period.	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Place Manager/Community Engagement
28 April 2021 Workshop draft masterplan concepts	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Workshop draft masterplan concepts to eliminate design options that increase capital and operating costs.	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Landscape Architect
5 May 2021 Review draft masterplan concept design	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement, PSAS	Workshop draft masterplan concept to identify long term implications to Council prior to public exhibition	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Landscape Architect
31 May to 25 June 2021 Phase 3 consultation public exhibition	Park visitors Local sportsclubs Local residents within 600m of the park Northmead Public School and Redbank Daycare Centre	Phase 3 consultation results will be published directly to Participate Parramatta upon completion of the consultation period.	Feedback collated and input to final masterplan design for Council endorsement	Place Manager/Community Engagement
Late June 2021 Review phase 3 data and finalise the masterplan to seek Council endorsement	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Review masterplan design to ensure it reflects community expectations and meets Council’s requirements.	Feedback collated and input to final masterplan design for Council endorsement	Place Manager/Landscape Architect Team

Councillor Consultation

27. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
15 July 2020	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Councillors agreed to undertake masterplan process for Arthur Phillip Park in addition to investigating water play opportunity	Commence project	Place Services
11 November 2020	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Discuss stakeholder engagement strategy and project milestones	Integration into project plan and community consultation activities	Place Services
17 February 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Review Phase 1 consultation results and feedback	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
22 March 2021	Lord Mayor	Provide overview of the masterplan consultation and key project milestones	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
21 April 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Provide overview of Phase 2 consultation activities. Review draft concept options	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
19 May 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Review Phase 2 consultation results and feedback. Review draft masterplan	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
21 July 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Review Phase 3 consultation results and feedback.	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

28. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

29. The consultant fees for community consultation costs are within the existing DPOP budget of $140,000 for the 20/21 Financial Year.

30. Council Landscape Architect team have developed the draft masterplan and engaged relevant consultants ie traffic engineers to review the design specifications.

31. There are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council associated with the development and approval of the masterplan. Funding to implement for Masterplan if adopted will be funded by the 2021 Development Contributions Plan or through NSW or Federal Government grant funding programs.

32. Table 31: Open Space and recreation in the 2021 Draft Development Contributions Plan 2021 has identified funding for Arthur Phillip Park. Excerpt provided below

Line item No.

Description

Estimated Cost to Council

Apportioned Cost

Priority

Timing

O41

Local park upgrade, Northmead upgrade

one existing local park

in Northmead to a district park, ideally at Northmead Reserve or Arthur Phillip Park.

$15,000,000

5-10years

O42

Upgrade sports field, Northmead upgrade

fields and supporting

infrastructure to increase capacity at Arthur Phillip Park,

Northmead

$3,112,500

5-10years

33. Following adoption of the 2021Draft Development Contributions Plan, the collection of the following apportioned funds will support implementation of the renewed Arthur Phillip Park masterplan.

34. Following the proposed public exhibition period, a Council Report to seek endorsement of the final masterplan design will further detail the funding and implementation strategy for the masterplan.

35. Place Services has provided a submission to the 2020-22 NSW Public Space and Legacy Program. If successful, Council will use this funding to accelerate upgrade of key park components identified through community consultation.

36. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.

	FY 20/21	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24
Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX	Nil
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX

Funding Source	N/A

Myly Truong

Place Manager

Bruce Mills

Group Manager Place Services

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Attachment 1: Draft Arthur Phillip Masterplan May 2021

83 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Delivery Program Operational Plan (DPOP) 2018-21

2020 Community Infrastructure Strategy

Draft 2021 Draft Development Contributions Plan

Council 24 May 2021 Item 14.2

GREEN

ITEM NUMBER 14.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Public Exhibition of the Draft Binalong Park Masterplan

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08021927

REPORT OF Place Manager

PURPOSE:

To seek permission to publicly exhibit the draft Binalong Park Masterplan.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the draft Binalong Park masterplan be placed on public exhibition from 31 May to 25 June 2021 for community comment.

(b) That temporary signage be installed across the masterplan area to notify the community of the public exhibition period and their opportunities to provide feedback.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The draft Binalong Park Masterplan (Attachment 1) includes a concept plan for a community hub (local multipurpose indoor recreation facilities). This project is identified as a Parramatta Ward priority project in the DPOP 2018-21 pg 16

2. Binalong Park is located in Old Toongabbie (Parramatta Ward). Toongabbie Public school (north) and Binalong Road bound the park (west). Residential housing from the east and south sides surrounds the park.

3. The Binalong Park masterplan site includes the below facilities:

· Four sports fields – currently used for football.

· Sports field amenities block consisting of toilets, change rooms, storage and kiosk

· Children’s playground

· Two Multi-Purpose Hardcourt Tennis Courts

· Tennis amenities building consisting of kitchen facilities and toilets

· One basketball court

· Three netball courts

· Carpark

· Cricket Nets with 2 lanes

4. The playground and sports ground is currently identified in the Catchment 1 of the 2020 Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS) as a local. Currently, there are no district* size playgrounds and sportsgrounds in Catchment 1.

5. City of Parramatta’s growing population requires a review of existing sporting facilities to identify opportunities to increase capacity of existing facilities to extend playing hours and incorporate a variety of formal and non-formal sports and recreation.

6. Binalong Park services the suburbs of Toongabbie and Old Toongabbie. The 2021 population forecast for Toongabbie is 7,790 and forecast to grow to 8,534 by 2041. Approximately a 9.5% increase in population. The 2021 population forecast for Old Toongabbie is 3,192 and forecast to grow to 3,285 by 2041. Approximately a 2.9% increase in population.

7. The 2016 census identified that the median age of people living in Toongabbie is 37 years old and Old Toongabbie is 38 years old. Children aged between 0-19 years old comprised of 24.6% and 27.2% of the Toongabbie and Old Toongabbie population. People aged 65years and older comprised of 17.2% and 15.4% of the Toongabbie and Old Toongabbie population.

Reference: https://forecast.id.com.au/parramatta/about-forecast-areas?WebID=340 and https://forecast.id.com.au/parramatta/about-forecast-areas?WebID=260 respectively

8. Although the population of Toongabbie and Old Toongabbie is not increasing dramatically, the spread of the population is bookmarked by younger children and older residents. These two groups characteristically, require the most investment in recreational facilities to support healthy social wellbeing.

9. The development of a master plan for Binalong Park will provide a long-term future vision and statutory requirement to fund new recreational facilities and amenities.

10. The below future improvements identified in the draft Binalong Park Masterplan also align with 2020 CIS:

i. Increasing the carrying capacity of current playing fields through supporting infrastructure upgrades or embellishments, playing surface upgrades and increased maintenance.

ii. Increasing the carrying capacity through the conversion of existing hardcourts to multipurpose courts to increase the diversity of recreational activities provided at the park.

iii. Increasing the length of play hours via a proposed park lighting strategy.

iv. Increasing park accessibility by leveling the fields, provision of a circuit path to support walking, DDA compliant amenities and facilities.

v. Increasing social activities and gatherings through the provision of local community indoor multipurpose rooms and facilities.

vi. Revising the car park configuration to improve traffic flow and sight lines

vii. Upgrading the entrance to the car park.

viii. Repurposing the park to accommodate both formal and informal sports

ix. Improving pedestrian safety connections and sight lines between open spaces and sportsground.

x. Repurposing alternative (non-traditional) spaces for both formal and informal sport and recreation.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

11. The Community Infrastructure Strategy has identified a deficit* of 266ha in sportsground provision for the City of Parramatta by 2036.

*sportsground deficit calculation- The CIS takes a people per hectares approach to benchmarking. It calculates that in 2019 the provision of sportsgrounds amounted to 0.56ha/1,000 people, a gap of 0.44ha when compared to the ideal provision of 1ha/1,000 people. This benchmark indicates ideal provision of 266ha to support the current population.

12. Improvements to Binalong Park will provide much needed additional open and recreational space to support community wellbeing and active sporting programs.

13. The only indoor community facilities available in Parramatta Ward is located at Reg Byrne Community Centre, Wentworthville.

14. Inclusion of multipurpose indoor facilities will enable positive social interactions and provide opportunities to provide alternative recreational activities such as yoga/karate classes, birthday parties, music lesson rooms etc.

15. The existing carpark splits the recreational spaces, there have been reports of near misses during exit and entry due to poor sight lines and turning circles. Relocating the carpark will improve:

i. Site connectivity and pedestrian safety

ii. Enable the grouping of sports facilities and combine the public amenities

iii. Enable the relocation and conversion of the existing hardcourts to multipurpose increasing usage and diversity of activities

iv. Enable the establishment of a centrally located multipurpose community building.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

16. Extensive community consultation and site analysis was undertaken to inform the development of the draft Masterplan for Binalong Park.

17. The community engagement strategy was devised across 3 phases to ensure that a comprehensive collection of data was collected.

· Phase 1 understand the site – 4 December 2020 to 4 February 2021

· Phase 2 issues and mitigation options – 19 April 2021 to 10 May 2021

· Phase 3 public exhibition – planned for 31 May to 25 June 2021

18. A total of 415 responses were collected during phase 1 engagement using the below consultation methods.

· Intercept Survey – 30 park user and local resident participants (5 December & 12 December 2020)

· Online and Paper Survey – 374 community participants (4 December 2020 – 4 February 2021)

· Stakeholder Interviews – 5 sporting group participants (1-18 December 2020)

· Social media submissions – 4 received from Instagram

· Council website and social media

· Flyer mail-out to 1024 surrounding residences

19. A dedicated project webpage with current project information and key milestones is available https://participate.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/binalongpark

20. The full results from Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultation will be published to this site during the public exhibition period.

21. Additionally an internal officer working group was established to develop the project scope/brief, review consultation data, workshop draft concept designs and review the draft masterplan before seeking Council approval for public exhibition.

22. The below table summarises the internal and external consultation activities to inform the draft Binalong Park Masterplan.

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
31 July 2020 Develop Project scope	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation	Develop an agreed project brief to inform the development of the draft masterplan. Establish an internal working group to review community data and workshop the draft masterplan design	Project brief developed and subsequently approved by relevant Council teams, managers and Executive Directors.	Place Manager
30 September 2020 Confirm engagement strategy and requirements	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation	Due to COVID19 restrictions, stakeholder interviews preferred method of consultation with sporting groups.	Stakeholder interviews included in community engagement strategy	Place Manager
16 November 2020 Project inception meeting	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Develop online survey and design consultation activities to collect ideas from the community to inform the masterplan.	Drop-in sessions converted to intercept surveys due to COVID restrictions. Consultation period extended across the summer to give the community ample time to provide feedback. Local residents invited to visit Constitution Hill Library to provide feedback as an alternative to online survey	Place Manager
4 Dec 2020 to 4 February 2021 Phase 1 community consultation	Park visitors Local sports clubs Local residents within 600m of the park	Please see Phase 1 consultation report provided as Attachment 2.	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Place Manager/Community Engagement/Recreation Planning
22 Feb 2021 Review Phase 1 consultation data	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Review phase 1 data for any data gaps, issues and develop engagement strategy for Phase 2 consultation	A QR code trail was developed to further tease out the community preferences and prioritise future upgrades at Arthur Phillip Park.	Place Manager/Community Engagement/Landscape Architect
19 April to 10 May 2021 Phase 2 community consultation	Park visitors Local sports clubs Local residents within 600m of the park Toongabbie Public School	Phase 2 consultation results will be published directly to Participate Parramatta upon completion of the consultation period.	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Place Manager/Community Engagement
28 April 2021 Workshop draft masterplan concepts	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Workshop draft masterplan concepts to eliminate design options that increase capital and operating costs.	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Landscape Architect
29 April 2021	Phone call discussion with Mr Chris Brown, Toongabbie Public School Principal.	Discuss proposed park and carparking improvement options to inform the draft masterplan.	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Place Manager
5 May 2021 Review draft masterplan concept design	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement, PSAS	Workshop draft masterplan concept to identify long term implications to Council prior to public exhibition	Feedback collated and input to draft masterplan design	Landscape Architect
31 May to 25 June 2021 Phase 3 consultation public exhibition	Park visitors Local sports clubs Local residents within 600m of the park	Phase 3 consultation results will be published directly to Participate Parramatta upon completion of the consultation period.	Feedback collated and input to final masterplan design for Council endorsement	Place Manager/Community Engagement
Late June 2021 Review phase 3 data and finalise the masterplan to seek Council endorsement	Representatives from OSNR, Social Outcomes, Landscape Architect, Parks, Recreation, Community Engagement	Review masterplan design to ensure it reflects community expectations and meets Council’s requirements.	Feedback collated and input to final masterplan design for Council endorsement	Place Manager/Landscape Architect Team

Councillor Consultation

23. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
15 July 2020	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Councillors agreed to undertake masterplan process for Binalong Park in addition to investigating local multipurpose indoor recreation facilities.	Commence project	Place Services
11 November 2020	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Discuss stakeholder engagement strategy and project milestones	Integration into project plan and community consultation activities	Place Services
17 February 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Review Phase 1 consultation results and feedback	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
22 March 2021	Lord Mayor	Provide overview of the masterplan consultation and key project milestones	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
21 April 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Provide overview of Phase 2 consultation activities. Review draft concept options	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
19 May 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Review Phase 2 consultation results and feedback. Review draft masterplan	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services
21 July 2021	Clr Bradley Clr Pandey Clr Zaiter	Review Phase 3 consultation results and feedback.	Integration masterplan and community consultation activities	Place Services

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

24. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

25. The consultant fees for community consultation costs are within the existing DPOP budget of $140,000 for the 20/21 Financial Year.

26. Council Landscape Architect team have developed the draft masterplan and engaged relevant consultants ie traffic engineers to review the relevant design specifications.

27. There are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council associated with the development and approval of the masterplan. Funding to implement for Masterplan if adopted will be funded by the 2021 Development Contributions Plan or through NSW or Federal Government grant funding programs.

28. Table 29: Community facilities in the 2021 Draft Development Contributions Plan 2021 has identified funding for new community facilities at Binalong Park.

Line item No.	Description	Estimated Cost to Council	Apportioned Cost	Priority	Timing
O18	New multipurpose meeting rooms, Toongabbie construction and fitout of new 1,000m2 multipurpose rooms in Toongabbie, ideally located at Binalong Park.	$1,194,000	$1,194,000	C	10-20 years

29. Table 31: Open Space and recreation in the 2021 Draft Development Contributions Plan 2021 has identified funding for Binalong Park.

Line item No.

Description

Estimated Cost to Council

Apportioned Cost

Priority

Timing

O66

Local park upgrade, Toongabbie – upgrade Binalong Park in

Toongabbie.

$7,500,000

10-20 years

30. Following adoption of the Draft 2021 Development Contributions Plan, the collection of the following apportioned funds will support implementation of the Binalong Park masterplan.

31. Following the proposed public exhibition period, a Council Report to seek endorsement of the final masterplan design will further detail the funding and implementation strategy for the masterplan.

32. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.

	FY 20/21	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24
Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX	Nil
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX

Funding Source	N/A

Myly Truong

Place Manager

Bruce Mills

Group Manager Place Services

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Attachment 1: Draft Binalong Park Masterplan May 2021

84 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Delivery Program Operational Plan (DPOP) 2018-21

2020 Community Infrastructure Strategy

Draft 2021 Draft Development Contributions Plan

Council 24 May 2021 Item 17.1

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal following consideration of submissions received during the public exhibition period

REFERENCE F2020/02047 - D08026973

REPORT OF Snr Project Officer Land Use; Team Leader –Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to:

· enable Council to consider the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and to seek Council’s endorsement of the revised planning proposal to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

· approve changes to the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal that have merit for investigation during a later stage of work and be progressed through separate planning proposal processes.

· approve the preparation of a new Section 7.12 development contributions plan for the Parramatta CBD including a new contributions levy rate set higher than the current 3% rate.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note:

(i) The submissions made in response to the public exhibition of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP), summarised at Attachments 12 to 15 of the Local Planning Panel (LPP) Report;

(ii) The LPP Report at Attachment 1 to this report.

(b) That Council:

(i) Approve the requested changes to the CBD PP set out in Table 1 of Attachment 16 of the LPP Report (‘Changes that are supported (via Decision Pathway 1 - Green)’);

(ii) Note not making any of the requested changes to the CBD PP summarised in Table 2 of Attachment 16 of the LPP Report (‘Changes that are not supported (via Decision Pathway 2 - Red)’);

(iii) Approve further investigation of the requested changes to the CBD PP set out in Table 3 of Attachment 16 of the LPP Report (‘Changes that have merit for further investigation (via Decision Pathway 3 - Orange)’).

(c) That Council note that on 27 April 2015 and on 25 November 2019, Council approved further investigation on a number of “Planning Investigation Areas” (PIAs) to consider amendment of the planning controls in those areas and known respectively as the Northern, North – East, Eastern and Southern PIAs (see Figure 3 in paragraph 33 of this report) and that no change is required to the PIAs in response to submissions received on the CBP PP.

(d) That Council approve:

(i) The revised CBD PP (in Attachments 1 to 9 of the LPP Report); and

(ii) Forwarding the CBD PP to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for finalisation.

(e) That Council note the application to DPIE, will also request the CBD PP amend Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011), in accordance with section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(f) That Council writes to the Secretary of DPIE seeking an exemption from the State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Build-to-rent Housing) 2021 in the B3 Commercial Core zone as this is inconsistent with the employment objectives of the commercial core in the Parramatta CBD and also noting that there is adequate B4 Mixed Use zoned land in the Parramatta CBD to allow for build-to-rent housing and subdividable residential mixed use development.

(g) That Council:

(i) Approve the preparation of a new Section 7.12 development contributions plan for the Parramatta CBD within 12 months; and

(ii) Note the plan will include a new contributions levy rate set higher than the current 3% rate, subject to feasibility testing of the levy rate.

(h) That Council request DPIE not finalise the amendments to PLEP 2011 until:

(i) Council has exhibited and endorsed a new Section 7.12 development contributions plan for the Parramatta CBD; and

(ii) DPIE has amended clause 25K of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to allow the higher Section 7.12 development contributions rate.

(i) That Council delegate authority to 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 Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (and supporting documentation), Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Instrument and Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Maps.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

Time timeline below illustrates that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is progressing towards finalisation stage.

SUMMARY

1. This report details the outcomes from the public exhibition of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) and seeks Council endorsement of a revised planning proposal amending Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011) for forwarding to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for finalisation. A map showing the CBD PP boundary and other areas mentioned in this report is at Figure 1.

2. In response to the exhibition of the CBD PP documentation, a total of 309 submissions were received from the community representing:

a. Residents and individuals (235 submissions)

b. Organisations, Institutions and Interest Groups (12 submissions)

c. Developers, Major Landowners and/ or their Consultants (51 submissions)

d. Public Authorities and Service Providers (12 submissions)

3. It is proposed to progress the current CBD PP with minor amendments, and deal with the more significant amendments arising in a group of separate new draft Planning Proposals. This includes the future Planning Investigation Areas.

4. One of the key elements of the exhibited CBD PP was the accessing of Incentive FSR and Opportunity Site FSR through the inclusion of community infrastructure on site, to be formalised through a planning agreement. Since the CBD PP was exhibited, the DPIE finalised and released its new “Planning Agreements – Practice Note”. This Practice Note does not support the use of Planning Agreements for the purposes of value capture.

5. To address this, an alternative approach is recommended that preserves the original intent of the exhibited planning proposal by requiring compliance with key community infrastructure principles in order to access the Incentive FSR. A value sharing contribution will no longer apply and instead a new Section 7.12 development contributions plan will be prepared with a higher rate. In this way, infrastructure funding will still be assured through this alternate funding pathway (if endorsed by both Council and the DPIE).

6. This review of infrastructure funding for the CBD PP will lead to a new Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan (with higher rate) to be reported to Council separately, as will the other supporting elements of the CBD PP being:

a. the Parramatta CBD Integrated Transport Plan;

b. amendments to the Parramatta Development Control Plan and;

c. updated Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

7. It is intended that these plans will be in place prior to the DPIE finalising the Council endorsed CBD PP.

8. The CBP PP seeks to evolve the character of the Parramatta CBD so that it can properly play the important role of the metropolitan centre for western Sydney and to ensure integration of land use with the significant investment in transport and other infrastructure being put in place by the State Government and Council.

9. The CBD PP document as exhibited includes the detailed analysis of all the studies and policies to justify the strategies and actions contained within it. The CBD PP is also consistent with relevant State Government and Council policies. In instances where there may have been some inconsistency between State Government and Council objectives, those matters have been considered and resolved in a manner that supports the over-arching objective of progressing the role of Parramatta as the metropolitan centre for western Sydney.

10. The time frame for completing the PLEP 2011 Amendment is by 30 September 2021. Council is required to submit the planning proposal to the Department for finalisation by 1 July 2021 consistent with Condition 6 of the Alteration to the Gateway Determination issued on 21 April 2021.

Figure 1 - Map showing the CBD PP boundary and other areas mentioned in this report.

BACKGROUND

11. Since 2013 Council has been engaged in a process to deliver a new planning framework to facilitate and strengthen the Parramatta CBD’s position as one of Sydney’s three metropolitan CBDs. The recently exhibited CBD PP is one of the main elements of the Parramatta CBD Planning Framework (see Figure 2). The CBD Planning Framework proposes planning controls that facilitate the delivery of an extra 46,000 jobs and 14,000 dwellings within the Parramatta CBD over the next 40 years. In doing so the CBD Planning Framework also delivers on key economic, social and cultural objectives for Western Sydney which is home to over half of Sydney’s population.

Figure 2 – Parramatta CBD Framework Review illustrating the four main elements of the framework.

12. The table below details the major milestones to progress the CBD PP.

Table 1: major milestones to progress the CBD PP

April 2015	The principles and actions that guided the preparation of the new planning framework together with the research and technical studies to be undertaken were endorsed by Council in the ‘Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy’.
April 2016	Additional work undertaken to prepare the draft CBD PP to amend the planning controls for the Parramatta CBD. The draft CBD PP was endorsed by Council and forwarded to DPIE requesting a Gateway determination.
March 2017 – September 2017	Additional research and technical studies completed to support refinements to the CBD PP.
December 2018	The DPIE issued a conditional Gateway determination allowing the CBD PP to proceed subject to thirty-four conditions.
March 2019 and June 2019	Resolutions of Council provided the strategic framework and policy direction for Council officers to respond to the matters resulting from the Gateway determination.
November 2019	Council endorsed an updated CBD PP to enable public authority (pre-exhibition) consultation in line with Condition 2 of the DPIE’s Gateway determination.
December 2019 – February 2020	Consultation with the required public authorities occurred with four submissions being received at that time. In response, minor, non-policy changes were made to the CBD PP. A Councillor Briefing note dated 17 April 2020 advised of these changes. The revised document was then sent to the DPIE with a request to proceed to the wider public exhibition process required under Conditions 3 and 4 of the Gateway determination.
July 2020	The DPIE responded by way of correspondence dated 27 July 2020. In doing so the DPIE confirmed that notification that the CBD PP could proceed to public exhibition, subject to further amendments as outlined in the accompanying Alteration to the Gateway Determination.
April 2021	On 21 April 2021, the DPIE provided Council with a letter and Alteration of the Gateway Determination with a revised timeframe to complete the PLEP 2011 Amendment for the CBD PP. The Alteration makes an amendment to Condition 6 of the Gateway Determination, with Council now required to submit the Planning Proposal to the Department for finalisation by 1 July 2021 and complete the PLEP 2011 Amendment by 30 September 2021. Previously, the Department set a timeframe to finalise the PLEP 2011 Amendment within 24 months of the Gateway Determination (ie. by December 2020).

PRE-EXHIBITION PROCESSES

Informal submissions

13. Seven (7) informal submissions were received between December 2019 and August 2020. This was prior to the commencement of the formal exhibition period of the CBD PP and thus sit outside the requirements for community participation in the EP&A Act 1979. These informal submissions broadly covered matters relating to West Auto Alley, North Parramatta, heritage, land in the vicinity of Elizabeth Street and land zoning. It is noted five (5) submitters lodged a formal submission during the exhibition process.

14. For further details of this informal feedback, refer to Section 3.1 of the Community Engagement Report at Attachment 10 of the LPP Report which can be found in Attachment 1 to this report.

Process for CBD landowners seeking policy change prior to the CBD PP’s exhibition

15. Since early 2020, the CBD PP progressed towards its formal exhibition phase, some Parramatta CBD landowners expressed a wish to commence a site-specific Planning Proposal (PP) for their respective site/s. However, landowners were advised:

a) If the site specific PP was consistent with the CBD PP, then it would not be assessed or processed even if it was lodged, until the CBD PP exhibition outcome is reported to Council, so Council Officer resources could be directed to the CBD PP as a priority and because it was anticipated that any Planning Proposal consistent with the CBD PP would take longer to finalise than the CBD PP.

b) If the site-specific PP was inconsistent with the CBD PP, then it would be accepted, but that the assessment was likely to be impacted by the assessment of submissions received in response to the exhibition of the CBD PP, and therefore these site-specific PPs would not be progressed until a decision had been made on the CBD PP.

16. As a result of the above advice to landowners, submissions were received from both groups during the exhibition of the CBD PP.

COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE EXHIBITION OF THE CBD PP

17. In early September 2020, a Communication Plan outlining how Council would consult with the community during the exhibition period was prepared in partnership with Council’s City Engagement team to ensure the plan was fit for purpose, adequately resourced and aligned with Council’s Community Engagement Strategy (December 2019). The purpose of the Communication Plan was to go ‘above and beyond’ what was required from a statutory perspective under the EP&A Act 1979 for planning proposals.

18. The CBD PP was exhibited for six (6) weeks commencing on Monday, 21 September 2020 and concluding on Monday, 2 November 2020. A broad list of the communication mechanisms utilised (as per the Communication Plan) follows:

a. Addressed notification letters and emails

b. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) and Community Summary Sheet

c. Media Release and public notices

d. Social Media

e. ePulse (e-newsletter)

f. Project email address and email databases (4 databases in total)

g. Webpages (Participate Parramatta and City of Parramatta websites and NSW Planning Portal’s e-planning portal)

h. Direct consultations:

i. ‘Phone a Planner’ sessions

ii. Online Industry Forum

iii. Online Community Q&A Session

i. Online submission portal and formal submission process

j. Presentations to external groups and committees (e.g. Committee of Sydney, Ethos Urban Seminar and the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce as well as Council’s Heritage and Flooding Committees).

19. These mechanisms are detailed in the Community Engagement Report which is contained at Attachment 10 of the LPP Report which can be found in Attachment 1 to this report.

SUBMISSION REVIEW

Introduction

20. In response to the exhibition of the CBD PP documentation, a total of 309 submissions were received from the community representing: residents; organisations and institutions; developers, major landowners and planning consultants; and public authorities and service providers.

21. Submissions have been categorised as follows:

a) Residents and individuals (234 submissions)

b) Organisations, Institutions and Interest Groups (12 submissions)

c) Developers, Major Landowners and/ or their Consultants (51 submissions)

d) Public Authorities and Service Providers (12 submissions)

22. A broad summary of the submissions received in each category are provided in the subsections below.

Council Officer responses – Decision Pathways

23. In reviewing the submissions across the categories, and as described in Table 2 below, Council Officers either:

a. Support a proposed change (Decision Pathway 1 – green);

b. Do not support a proposed change (Decision Pathway 2 – red);

c. See merit in further investigating a proposed change (Decision Pathway 3 – orange).

In responding to all submissions, Council Officers provide points of clarification and or explanation and note where the matter raised is considered to be consistent with the CBD PP or a separate endorsed process and no further decisions are required.

24. When considering whether or not to support a submitter’s request to seek a change to the exhibited planning controls, Council officers took into account general practice for considering variations to development standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011). While it is noted that Clause 4.6 of PLEP 2011 limits variations to height and FSR changes to 5% within the CBD (per Clause 4.6(8)(ca)), officers also considered Planning Circular PS 20-002 prepared by the DPIE, which specifies that in respect of a Clause 4.6 Variation, the Secretary’s assumed concurrence “may not be assumed by a delegate of council if: the development contravenes a numerical standard by greater than 10% or if the development contravenes a non-numerical development standard”.

25. Consequently, when considering numerical requests from submitters to increase height or floor space ratio controls (FSR), for example, officers have adopted a 10% maximum exceedance to determine whether a request was substantive or not. Substantive requests to change planning controls from those publicly exhibited in a planning proposal would have the risk of adversely affecting adjoining property owners. Making substantive changes to the planning controls as a Council decision post-exhibition prevents the community from having a fair and reasonable opportunity to review and comment on such changes. If substantive changes were to be approved, then the relevant planning controls would warrant re-exhibition.

26. A decision to make substantive changes to the planning proposal, and, subsequently, choose not to re-exhibit the planning proposal has an inherent risk to the instrument’s validity. This was tested in the case of Friends of Turramurra Inc vs Minister for Planning before the Land and Environment Court ([2011] NSW LEC 128]) where a draft LEP was declared invalid by the Court because of substantive changes made to the instrument post-exhibition without a re-exhibition process.

27. The table below explains the factors considered by Council Officers for each of the three “Decision Pathways” (support; not support; or merit for further investigation). This approach is consistent with the principles of evidence based strategic planning.

Table 2 –Decision Pathways

Decision Pathway type

Supporting Factors

1. Supporting a proposed change (green) – issues that have strategic planning merit

Note: this involves amending the CBD PP and Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment instrument and/or Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Maps to be forwarded to DPIE for finalisation.

These requested policy changes are generally:

· Consistent with Council’s policy framework for the Parramatta CBD including supporting technical studies, Gateway determination and Alteration Gateway determination; and a State Authority or Service Provider submission comment where supported by Council officers; and/or

· Of relatively minor impact that do not warrant re-exhibition of the CBD PP.

2. Not supporting a proposed change (red) – issues that do not have strategic planning merit

Note: this does not involve any amendment to the CBD PP and Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment instrument and/or Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Maps to be forwarded to DPIE for finalisation.

These requested policy changes are generally:

· Inconsistent with Council’s Policy framework for the CBD PP (Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and Local Housing Strategy) including supporting technical studies, Gateway determination and Alteration Gateway determination; and/or

· Located within the Parramatta Park and the Park Edge Highly Sensitive Area; and/or

· Resulting in the demolition of a listed heritage item or significantly amending planning controls related to listed heritage items that will impact on their significance*; and/or

· Inadequately justified by a submitter’s supporting technical analysis; and/or

· Undermining statutory processes (e.g. a recently notified Site Specific PP or design excellence award process or a supporting voluntary planning agreement); and/or

· Result in a substantial change in the case of a numerical provision, greater than 10 per cent; and/or

· Likely to establish a precedent which may encourage other landowners in a similar scenario to pursue an increase in their own height and density controls.

In summary, no amendments to the CBD PP documentation for finalisation are proposed in response.

3. Has merit for further investigation at a later stage as part of a separate process (orange) – issues that have merit for further exploration, but may not necessarily result in a policy change

Note: this does not involve any amendment to the CBD PP and Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment instrument and/or Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Maps to be forwarded to DPIE for finalisation.

Requested policy changes that generally:

· Are consistent with Council’s policy framework for the CBD but are more significant changes, and if integrated would require re-exhibition of the CBD PP; and/or

· Require further investigation to confirm whether they are consistent with the strategy, and/or

· Are inconsistent with Council strategy in their current form, however, could be evolved in consultation with the proponent into a proposed amendment which could be supported in the future. This process would not be dissimilar to stand-alone site-specific PP processes.

*This is discussed in more detail in the ‘Heritage’ section, below.

28. With regards to the submissions that have merit for further investigation (Decision Pathway 3), the suite of issues to be considered and their grouping will ultimately depend on the outcome of further analysis. Importantly, they will be grouped in a way that minimises resourcing, the logic being that too many individual planning proposals are not an efficient use of staff resources and Council monies and at the same time, a single planning proposal is not likely to be suitable as it could delay resolution of less complex issues.

29. Attachment 16 of the LPP Report which can be found in Attachment 1 to this report provides a schedule of recommended changes that fall under Decision Pathways 1, 2 or 3, that is, changes recommended and able to be progressed with the CBD PP at this time (refer to Table 1 of Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report), changes that are not supported (refer to Table 2 of Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report), and other changes that could be investigated during a later stage of work and progressed through separate PP amendment processes (refer to Table 3 of Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report). The reasons for the Decision Pathways recommended by Council officers are provided in the Community Engagement Report at Attachments 10-15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report.

30. With regards to the issues that ‘have merit for further investigation’, Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report includes a suggested grouping of these issues. This will however be subject to resourcing and prioritisation, including an assessment by Council officers on the ability to deliver the short, mid and long term actions in the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) as well as on the proposed sequencing of LEP amendments in the Local Housing Strategy (LHS). This will ensure there are appropriate resources and budget before each individual project is allocated a timeframe. This is discussed further in this report at Paragraph 125-126.

31. Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report also includes a note about ‘Planning Investigation Areas Currently Endorsed for Further Investigation’, reiterating that Council will investigate the ‘Planning Investigation Areas’ shown in Figure 3 (below) for amended planning controls to be progressed through separate planning strategy/Planning Proposal amendment processes at a later stage. This is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy, endorsed by Council on 27 April 2015, and also amendments as endorsed by Council on 25 November 2019. This is discussed further in this report at Paragraphs 115-117 and 127.

Submissions from Residents and Individuals

32. At total of 234 submissions were received in this category. A detailed summary of the submissions in this category is contained at Attachment 12 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report.

Feedback received

33. The predominant issues raised by submitters in the submissions from residents and individuals can be broadly summarised into three groups as follows:

a) Request for inclusion of areas in the CBD PP boundary, specifically, West Auto Alley, Elizabeth Street and Harold Street (see Figure 3 for a map of these areas noting West Auto Alley is part of the ‘Southern PIA’, Elizabeth Street is part of the ‘Eastern PIA’ and Harold Street is part of the ‘North-East PIA’).

Figure 3 – Planning Investigation Areas

b) Request for exclusion of ‘North Parramatta’ from the CBD PP, being land that is generally north of the Parramatta River.

c) Objection or concern raised about specific issues, being,

i. Heritage:

· concerned that the CBD PP does not adequately consider Parramatta’s unique heritage, favouring financial gain and high-density development;

· that the proposed increase to FSR and height controls will have a detrimental effect on heritage items, and the quality of the area;

· need for additional heritage protection including increased setbacks;

· request for the deferral of North Paramatta (north of the Victoria Road) from the CBD PP and a precinct plan be prepared, rather than extending the CBD into North Parramatta.

ii. Overdevelopment (high density):

· concerned about the proposed height of buildings and floor space ratios, and impacts on heritage, lack of supporting infrastructure, open space, schools and car parking;

· adverse impact on amenity, including solar access and wind tunnels;

· concerns about the quality of current development, and numerous small apartments.

iii. COVID 19:

· concern that high density development does not promote social distancing to reduce the spread of COVID 19, with increased parking required because of reduced public transport usage;

· the rate of population increase, as previously projected prior to COVID 19, will not occur due to international travel restrictions, limited migration, stagnant wage growth and the instability of future COVID 19 outbreaks; and therefore there is a decreased need for residential dwellings and commercial floorspace (due to increased working from home arrangements).

iv. Environment:

· concern about the current lack of open space, and request for additional green open space to support the proposal;

· request for an increased focus on green buildings, setting a benchmark for environmental design and livability.

v. Parking:

· concern about the lower car parking rates proposed in the CBD PP, which will discourage visitors.

Conclusion

34. Responses to the issues raised by submitters in the Resident and Individuals category are detailed. Most of the issues raised are not supported for the reasons outlined in Table 2 and detailed at Attachment 12 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report. While it is acknowledged there are concerns about the removal of some land from the CBD PP boundary, introducing these areas now would be a substantial change to the version of the CBD PP as exhibited and would trigger the need for the re-exhibition of the CBD PP. Further work on these removed areas will occur at a later stage as a part of the previously endorsed Planning Investigation Areas. Progressing the CBD PP as soon as possible will establish Council’s policy direction and enable landowners currently within the CBD PP area to progress investment decisions and pursue approval processes in accordance with Council’s strategy.

35. The proposed controls have regard to both the existing character and heritage and the need to evolve the city in a way that will achieve a range of objectives and actions. Council has prepared various studies related to urban design and heritage to seek to put in place controls to guide the future character of all parts of the proposed CBD and protect heritage, amenity and address environmental impacts and issues.

36. A number of submissions raise issues and make suggestions in relation to various matters that Council officers address in responses at Attachment 12 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report as being generally consistent with the approach taken in the CBD PP, for example, high performing building measures.

Submissions from Institutions, Organisations and Interest Groups

37. At total of 13 submissions were received in this category. A detailed summary of the submissions contained in this category is contained at Attachment 13 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report.

Feedback received

38. The predominant issues raised by submitters in the Institutions, Organisations and Interest Groups category can be broadly summarised as follows:

a. Need for clarification around the proposed development contributions framework and highlight the significance of the implementation of the Provision of Community Infrastructure clause and the Infrastructure Needs List.

b. Concerns with the proposed planning controls including heritage protections and potential impact on heritage items/places, including Heritage Conservation Areas and Heritage Interface Areas (these being areas located generally between the Parramatta CBD core and heritage conservation / lower scale residential areas).

c. Concerns with site specific PPs around St John’s Cathedral on the basis that these would compromise the historic setting.

d. Concerns with the lack of clarity around timing of the areas on the edge of the city centre being deferred for future Planning Investigation Area work.

e. Some submitters raise concerns with the assessment and approval of site specific PPs outside of the CBD PP process.

f. CBD car parking rates considered to be too low.

g. Objection to the extension of the CBD Planning Proposal boundary, across the river into North Parramatta and up to Pennant Hills Road.

h. Objection to the prohibition of serviced apartments in the B3 Commercial Core.

i. Objection to proposed heights along the Parramatta River foreshore.

j. Need to encourage a flood and climate change resilient CBD and recommend the inclusion of objectives that support ‘green infrastructure’ and environmental measures.

k. Identification of opportunities to enable more diverse economic outcomes for the Parramatta CBD, by way of Council’s Night City Framework 2020-2024 and a creative sector presence.

l. Suggested that amendments may need to be made to the CBD PP and PLEP 2011 in light of the COVID 19 pandemic.

m. The FSR planning controls are considered multi-layered and complex.

n. Third-party advertising/signage (as opposed to building identification signage) be given further consideration for inclusion as a permitted use in the land use zones in the Parramatta CBD.

o. Concern with the 1,800 sqm minimum site area requirement that affects various clauses (e.g. FSR Sliding Scale, High Performing Building and Minimum Commercial Provision).

p. Recommendation that Council should apply higher BASIX standards without providing an incentive (FSR bonus).

Conclusion

39. Council Officers recommend that the following item be investigated as part of an alternative PP process (Decision Pathway 3):

a. permissibility of ‘water recycling facilitates’ and ‘water supply systems’ in the B3 Commercial Core (Note: ‘Water recycling facilities’ are already a permissible use in the B4 Mixed Use zone).

40. Some of the other issues raised in these submissions are supported by Council Officers and will be dealt with as part of work that is currently underway as detailed in Attachment 13 and Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report:

a. CBD Development Control Plan (DCP).

b. CBD Development Contributions Plan (as a part of the review of the Infrastructure Funding Framework).

c. The mesoscopic modeling and the Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) for the Parramatta CBD.

d. Civic Link DCP amendments.

e. Phillip Street Block Study - see further discussion under the heading ‘Other Parramatta CBD-related policy matters’.

41. Issues raised relating to land within a previously endorsed Planning Investigation Area will be considered later. These areas, if integrated now, would trigger re-exhibition of the CBD PP.

42. The remaining issues raised in the submissions received were not supported and did not warrant changes to the CBD PP for the following reasons (Decision Pathway 2) as detailed in Attachment 13 and Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report:

a. The issues have previously been dealt with via an endorsed technical study that informed the CBD PP and therefore there is no technical justification for the changes to be supported.

b. The issues have previously been addressed via conditions of the Gateway Determination and Alteration to the Gateway Determination that have already been addressed to the DPIE’s satisfaction.

c. The issues are beyond the scope of the CBD PP.

d. The issues are relevant to a DA assessment process not a Planning Proposal process.

Submissions from Developers, Major Landowners and/or their Consultants

43. At total of 51 submissions were received in this category. In some cases, multiple landowners are represented. Of the 51 submissions received, approximately 10 submissions were from landowners who had a site-specific PP process underway with Council. A detailed summary of each submission received in the Developers, Major Landowners and Consultants category is contained at Attachment 14 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report.

44. The technical analysis of submissions in this category varied in quality and standard. However, the provision of a supporting technical study on an issue, of itself, does not justify Council Officer support for a submitter’s proposed policy change because broader considerations are required for support of the reasons described in Table 2 – Decision Pathways, above.

Feedback received

45. The predominant issues raised by submitters in the Developers, Major Landowners and Consultants category can be broadly summarised as follows:

a. Increase sought to the height and FSR controls that were exhibited for their site.

b. Exemption sought from the FSR sliding scale and/or challenging the definition of an ‘isolated site’ or the 1,800 sqm site area requirement to access incentives, including the high performing building bonus and additional commercial FSR.

c. Request to have their site identified as an Opportunity Site which enables an additional 3:1 FSR on top of the incentive FSR; and/or identified on the Additional Local Provisions Map in order to benefit from additional commercial FSR floorspace above a minimum 1:1 FSR in certain parts of the B4 Mixed Use zone on top of incentive FSR.

d. Variation to planning controls sought that would in most cases allow for the eventual demolition or significant alteration of a heritage item and/or its curtilage.

e. Concerns raised about implications of a land reservation acquisition notation over a site or request removal of a notation.

f. Issues raised that are outside the scope of the CBD PP. The predominant request being from owners of sites that are situated outside the CBD PP area seeking to have their land incorporated into the CBD PP. Those sites that are within a previously endorsed Planning Investigation Area will be dealt with as part of the future Planning Investigation Area work at a later stage.

g. Request for a change to a land use zone (without changes to the height or density controls).

h. Request to amend the wording of a draft clause or subclause to address a technical issue.

i. Some submitters had, at the time of lodging their submission, a site-specific PP in train. Of those:

i. Some submitters identified a potential issue in the wording of a clause and subsequent impact on their site-specific PP; and

ii. Some submitters’ site-specific PPs were close to notification stage and were seeking confirmation that the Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment instrument and supporting maps aligned with the controls in their site specific PPs. (Note: many of these site-specific PPs have now been notified and the issue is now redundant).

Conclusion

46. Most of the issues raised by submitters in the Developers, Major Landowners and Consultants category are not supported and are not considered to warrant changes to the CBD PP (Decision Pathway 2) for the reasons detailed at Table 2 above, and are summarised as follows:

a. The issues are inconsistent with Council policy and or recent statutory process; and/or

b. The change requested is substantial and would trigger re-exhibition of the CBD PP.

47. Some issues raised by submitters which are supported by Council Officers as having merit for further investigation as part of a separate PP process (Decision Pathway 3) as detailed in Attachments 14 and Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report are:

a. Consistent with Council’s policy framework for the CBD but are more significant changes, and if integrated would require re-exhibition of the CBD PP such as some of those submissions requesting additional height that meet overshadowing requirements, and some submissions requesting that their land be added to the Additional Local Provisions Map as an Minimum Commercial Provision; and/or

b. Require further investigation to confirm whether they are consistent with the strategy, or, are inconsistent with Council strategy in their current form, however, could be evolved in consultation with the proponent into a proposed amendment which could be supported in the future. This process would not be dissimilar to stand-alone site-specific PP processes.

48. Some issues raised by submitters which are supported by Council Officers for inclusion in the CBD PP documentation to be forwarded to DPIE for finalisation (Decision Pathway 1) as detailed in Attachments 14 and 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report are:

a. Roxy Theatre, 69 George Street, Parramatta (Submission No.161)

b. 75 George Street, Parramatta (Submission No. 167)

c. Westfield landholdings (Submission Nos. 182 and 299)

d. Walker Corporation landholdings (Submission No. 281)

e. 14-20 Parkes Street, Harris Park (Submission No. 284)

49. These amendments are consistent with Council’s policy framework for the Parramatta CBD including supporting technical studies, Gateway determination and Alteration Gateway determination; and a State Authority or Service Provider submission comment where supported by Council officers; or are of relatively minor impact that do not warrant re-exhibition of the CBD PP.

50. Some issues raised by submitters relate to a site or area that is within a previously endorsed Planning Investigation Area and will be considered later as detailed in Attachment 14 and Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report. These sites, if integrated now, would trigger re-exhibition of the CBD PP.

Submissions from Public Authorities, Organisations and Service Providers

51. A total of 12 submissions were received in this category. The consultation of the Public Authorities, Organisations and Service Providers was in accordance with Condition 4 of the Gateway determination. A copy of the summary of the submissions and the Council officers’ response to the Public Authorities and Service Providers can be found at Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report. It is noted that the DPIE may consider some issues not supported by Council officers to be an unresolved Public Authority objection requiring closer consideration and it may be that the DPIE will make a decision to amend the plan to address the Agencies issue once the plan is forwarded to the DPIE. Where a state agency makes an objection and Council is unable to resolve these matters, they are referred to the DPIE to determine whether the matter(s) should be dealt with differently to the proposal put forward by Council.

52. The State Government Agency known as the Environment, Energy and Science Group (EES Group) made a submission, and Council notes that this Agency was not required to be formally notified under Condition 4 of Gateway Determination.

53. Government Architect NSW and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development also provided a response that their matters were addressed during the pre-exhibition consultation required by Condition 2 of the Gateway Determination and that they have no further comments. City of Ryde Council provided a response that they will not be making a submission and requested to be kept informed of the progression of the CBD PP.

Feedback received

54. The predominant issues raised by submitters in the Public Authority, Organisations and Service Providers category are broadly summarised as follows in Table 2 below:

Table 2 – Key issues raised by Public Authorities, Organisations and Service Providers

Key Issues

Council Officer Response

Heritage NSW:

- Raises concerns about impacts on all heritage items/places requesting no incentive height and FSR be applied in these areas,

- Requests transition guidelines be developed

- Requests the existing controls be maintained for land to north and west of St Johns Cemetery; and

- Considers the Park Edge lands should be removed from the CBD PP boundary.

- Extensive heritage studies* have been undertaken to support the amendments and demonstrate consistency with Ministerial Direction 9.1, Direction 2.3 (Heritage) of the EPA Act 1979.

- A new provision - Clause 7.6K Managing Heritage Impacts is proposed as well as future heritage DCP controls.

- Urbis Heritage Study (prepared for Council in 2015) recommended low building heights to reduce the impact on the St Johns Cemetery and maintain landscape connection with Parramatta Park. The CBD PP has consistently reflected these recommendations and the proposed 20m height control was imposed on land north and west of the cemetery in the exhibited DCP.

- The Park Edge lands are required to be included in the CBD PP to maintain the application of the existing controls in PLEP 2011 to this area.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP; however, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) may consider some of the matters raised to be an unresolved Public Authority objection requiring closer consideration by the Department.

* Heritage studies prepared to inform the CBD PP:

• Parramatta CBD Heritage Study, prepared by consultants Urbis, October 2015.

• Heritage Study of Interface Areas, prepared by consultants Hector Abraham Architects (HAA); with Council’s Response to the HAA Heritage Study of Interface Areas, July 2017.

• Church Street Precinct: Urban Design, Feasibility and Heritage Study, prepared by Council with heritage input from consultants City Plan Heritage, June 2019.

• Marion Street Precinct Plan, prepared by consultants SJB with heritage input from heritage consultant Paul Davies, September 2019.

• Opportunity Sites Study, prepared by Council with heritage input from Lucas, Stapleton, Johnson and Partners (LSJ), October 2019.

• Overshadowing Technical Paper and analysis, prepared by Council with market and feasibility analysis for specific blocks by JLL consultants (September 2019); and Supplement (April 2021) June 2019, updated November 2019, August 2020 and April 2021.

School Infrastructure, part of Department of Education:

- Requests DAs not be approved if they adversely overshadow government schools and that the CBD PP ensure compliance with sun access and overshadowing controls contained in DoE policies, including no overshadowing of rooftop solar panels.

- Requests heritage listing only reflect heritage elements on the site.

- Council Officers tested the current and proposed planning controls on the four government schools nominated by School Infrastructure. Existing controls of 120m in PLEP 2011 immediately north of Arthur Phillip High School would cause overshadowing to both Arthur Phillip and Parramatta Public schools on 21 June for most of the day in any event.

- Consistent policy position of the CBD PP has been to not make changes to the heritage listing of items.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP; however, DPIE may consider some of the matters raised to be an unresolved Public Authority objection requiring closer consideration by the Department.

Property and Development NSW and the Department of Education:

- Requests the CBD PP make clear overshadowing is expected and maintenance of solar amenity may be difficult to achieve in some circumstances.

- Draft solar access protection clause makes clear the parameters and land to be protected from overshadowing, with need for compliance with relevant State requirements identified.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP.

Environment, Energy and Science Group (a State Government Agency):

- Highlights that all matters regarding flood evacuation, community education and awareness of the need to shelter in place are the primary responsibility of the NSW SES and its endorsement is considered essential.

- Requests the riparian corridor along the Parramatta River be rezoned from RE1 (Public Recreation) zone to E2 (Environmental Conservation) zone.

- The State Emergency Services (SES) have not made any formal submissions to date despite contact being made via the statutory requirements of the Gateway determination Conditions 2 and 4 to invite a submission.

- Should the SES provide a submission after the CBD PP is endorsed by Council, Council will rely on the DPIE to address any matters arising from a late submission.

- The proposed E2 zone is inappropriate for high use public open space devoid of native vegetation as it is highly restrictive and prohibits development other than for environmental or flood mitigation purposes.

- Council officers suggest that additional RE1 zone objectives related to protection and enhancement of ecological values, and facilitate public enjoyment of these areas could be investigated as part of a future PP process.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP.

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

- Sees the Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) and Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) as critical items that directly inform the CBD PP.

- Generally supports the CBD PP controls and sees potential opportunities to enhance existing LEP or DCP controls to address specific traffic, transport and land use matters including Local Reservation Acquisition’s, active frontages, footpath widths and car parking.

- Council will continue to liaise with TfNSW to ensure there are no delays with the finalisation of the CBD PP, consistent with the Condition 6 in the second alteration to the Gateway determination dated April 2021.

- In relation to the SIC, Council has included in the CBD PP a new clause which requires satisfactory arrangements to be made for the provision of ‘designated State public infrastructure’ consistent with Gateway determination, and awaits any further direction from the State Government on this issue.

- In relation to active frontages and footpath widths, these are matters appropriate for the CBD DCP, and Council will invite comments from TfNSW when this goes on public exhibition.

- In relation to the Local Reservation Acquisition’s, Council notes TfNSW advice that this agency is not in a position to comment on the proposed road widenings identified on the LRA Map. The LRAs and car parking rates are part of the ITP which was endorsed by Council for public exhibition on 26 April 2021. Any amendments to the LRAs and car parking rates arising from the ITP will be considered as part of a future planning proposal.

National Trust (NSW Branch) **

- Objection to the extension of the CBD along Church Street north of the River, and also the incentive planning controls. Requests that the maximum height be 24 metres.

- Requests that 68-96 Phillip Street not be identified as an Opportunity Site

- Concern raised about the loss of the Heritage setting around St John’s Cathedral, which will be exacerbated by SSPPs.

- Solar Access protected period for Prince Alfred Square should not be limited to 12pm and 2pm.

- Requests solar access protection for Experiment Farm be increased beyond 10am to 2pm, to between 10am and 4pm.

** Not a Public Authority, however included by DPIE in Condition 4 of Gateway Determination.

- Land north of Parramatta River either side of Church Street up to Pennant Hills Road has been part of the ‘Parramatta City Centre’ at least since Parramatta LEP 2007 came into force. The exhibited planning controls for this area generally reflect the recommendations from the HAA Heritage Study of Interface Areas. The new planning controls will support the introduction of light rail to this area.

- The site at 68-96 Phillip Street is within the “Phillip Street Block Study Area” that is recommended to be deferred from the CBD PP. Until Council is able to resolve its position and make an amendment to the controls in this precinct via a separate Planning Proposal the existing planning controls under PLEP 2011 will apply.

- SSPPs including a SSPP currently being considered for the St John’s Cathedral site are subject to a separate process and assessment. The CBD PP does not propose any changes to the listing of heritage items within any part of the CBD and proposes to retain the existing controls for sites in vicinity of the Cathedral. Changes to the controls immediately surrounding the Cathedral will be dealt with via the SSPP.

- The introduction of a Sun Access Protection Clause recognises the significance of the Prince Alfred Square, and identifying the key period of 12 noon to 2pm to protect part of Prince Alfred Square recognises its role as a place for residents and workers. The protected period is also consistent with other parks and civic areas throughout the CBD (i.e. Parramatta River Foreshore, Parramatta Square, Jubilee Park).

- Any benefits of extending the protection period from 2pm to 4pm for Experiment Farm are already compromised by existing development and development under construction.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP.

National Trust (Parramatta Branch) **

- Objects to the extension of the CBD along Church Street north of the River, and also incentive planning controls.

- Concern raised about the loss of the Heritage setting around St Johns Cathedral, which will be exacerbated by SSPPs.

- Requests the Roxy theatre site be rezoned to SP1 Special Activities, and supports the proposed 18m height limit.

** Not a Public Authority, however included by DPIE in Condition 4 of Gateway Determination.

- Responses to the first two points are addressed in the submission above from the National Trust NSW Branch)

- Rezoning a site to SP1 Special Activities requires the nominated public authority to acquire the site if a submission is made by the owner under the relevant statutory requirements. Acquisition by Council of the Roxy theatre site has not been considered previously, with the financial impost on Council and community to acquire the site arising from the application of the SP1 zone and consequential reservation of the land likely to be significant. The existing Solar Access Plane (SAP) in PLEP 2011 is recommended to be reinstated as a temporary control until the review of the Civic Link DCP and also master planning for the block being undertaken by Sydney Metro for the new metro station is complete.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP.

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

- It notes that Council, the Commonwealth and State Governments have all entered into an agreement to protect the area of Special Significance related to the Old Government House and its domain and notes the CBD PP is consistent with this agreement. It does not identify any other concerns with the PP.

- Noted

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the

- CBD PP.

Environment Protection Agency

- Acknowledges the CBD PP has many positive features for promoting sustainability; however, considers design elements have not considered the effects of wind or canyoning. The CBD PP should also include air quality protection principles for certain developments near busy roads; planning controls to manage noise-based land use conflict issues; the concept of a circular economy; protection of waterways; and recognise the NSW Government’s 20 Year Waste Strategy.

- Suggests appropriate assessment of contamination is undertaken, including preparation of DCP controls for key sites.

- Notes that water management measures are not included in the supporting Infrastructure Funding Model Study; and recommends consultation with NSW Health about dual water pipes and consultation with Sydney Water.

- The effects of wind and canyoning, air quality and noise, protection of waterways are matters appropriate for a DCP and are often design excellence objectives for Architectural Design Competitions.

- Contamination assessment by Council for the entire CBD included a review of zoning changes and identification of certain development types that could potentially have contamination issues. Based on this analysis, Auto Alley was identified as a potential issue and consequentially Council commissioned the 2016 Preliminary Site Investigation Study. This Study demonstrated it was appropriate to rezone these properties given the change in zoning to permit residential and more intensive employment uses.

- SEPP 55 Contaminated Land will still require the contamination issue to be considered before any development consent is granted.

- The recommendations of this study have been incorporated into the CBD PP framework and in essence it requires consideration of this issue as part of the development application process for site in Auto Alley.

- The CBD PP document has been updated to recognise the NSW Government’s 20 Year Waste Strategy, the updating does not introduce any policy changes and this Strategy including the concept of a circular economy will be addressed in the DCP.

- Water management measures will be considered as part of the new s.7.12 development contributions plan which will now be progressed in place of the Community Infrastructure Framework exhibited with the Planning Proposal. Refer to the discussion in this report under the heading ‘Infrastructure Funding Review.

- In relation to dual piping, Sydney Water provided a submission to the CBD PP which supports the inclusion of the dual piping requirements.

- NSW Health were invited to provide comment on the CBD PP however, no formal submission was received during the exhibition period.

The Hills Shire Council

- This submission raises concern with the reduced car parking rates for the CBD and public transport options between the Hills and Parramatta.

- The CBD PP replaces the majority of the existing car parking provision in clause 7.3 in the PLEP 2011 with a new car parking provision based on similar provisions in Sydney LEP 2012 (which apply to the Sydney CBD). This was based on sustainable transport policies to minimise car parking in the Parramatta CBD due to adverse transport impacts associated with increased development. More broadly, the forthcoming Parramatta CBD ITP is a strategic plan to address the transport challenges through the development of a clear framework for the future planning and development of the transport system to better connect Parramatta CBD as the metropolitan centre of the Central River City to all parts of Sydney including The Hills Shire.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP.

Service Providers - Endeavour Energy and Sydney Water

- Two submissions were received from individual Service Providers, one submission from Endeavour Energy and the second submission from Sydney Water.

- Sydney Water provided a submission to the CBD PP which supports the inclusion of the dual piping requirements.

- Endeavour Energy did not raise any issues with the CBD PP.

- Concluding comment: The issues raised do not require amendments to the CBD PP.

55. These submissions are further detailed at Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report.

Conclusion

56. Council has received 309 submissions and many of these request changes to the exhibited CBD PP that are significant. Where these significant changes can be supported, they would require re-exhibition of the CBD PP. Council officers consider it is important to progress the CBD PP as soon as possible to establish Council’s policy direction and continue with other work that supports the CBD PP. This includes progressing the CBD DCP and new CBD Development Contributions Plan, and deal with any further LEP amendments in a group of separate new draft Planning Proposals at a later stage (ie. through Decision Pathway 3). Many submissions also raised issues that relate to the Planning Investigation Areas (PIAs), however work on these will occur separately outside of the CBD PP process in accordance with the previously endorsed position of Council in relation to these PIAs.

CHANGES TO THE PLANNING PROPOSAL, DRAFT PLEP 2011 AMENDMENT INSTRUMENT AND DRAFT PLEP 2011 AMENDMENT MAPS

57. As a result of the feedback received during the exhibition of the CBD PP documentation, the CBD PP, Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Instrument and Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Maps have all been amended for the purposes of submission to the DPIE for finalisation.

58. The changes to the CBD PP documentation have been informed by:

a. Minor drafting errors / technical changes.

b. Changes arising from new State Government policy introduced since the commencement of the exhibition period namely the “Planning Agreements – Practice Note” (February 2021).

c. Submissions received during the exhibition period.

d. Changes from Site Specific PPs that have been finalised since the commencement of the CBD PP exhibition period.

59. Details of the proposed changes to the CBD PP, Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Instrument and Draft PLEP 2011 Amendment Maps are contained in Attachment 9 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report; with a broad summary provided in the sub-sections below.

Minor drafting errors / technical changes

60. The following changes are proposed to the planning proposal documentation on account of minor drafting errors or other technical changes:

a. Amend Clause 7.6A High performing buildings by including brief explanatory notes and title references to assist with implementation.

b. Amend the ‘Miscellaneous Amendments’ section of the CBD PP instrument so that all site-specific clauses notified as part of a SSPP continue to apply as per the existing situation in the case where the site-specific clause does not exactly reflect the CBD PP endorsed clause for finalisation.

c. Technical changes to terminology in Clause 7.4 Sun access protection, Clause 7.10 Design Excellence, 7.6G Arrangements for contributions to designated State public infrastructure and Clause 7.6M Parramatta Park and Park Edge Highly Sensitive Area and other fringe areas.

d. Amend the Sun Access Protection Map to show the ‘compensatory publicly accessible area’ that forms the balance of the Parramatta Square public domain area outside the already ‘Protected Area’ as shown in Figure 4 below and described in the associated exhibited Clause 7.4. Further amend terminology in Clause 7.4 to change the word ‘Areas to ‘Blocks with an associated update to the Solar Access Plane Map.

61. These changes are detailed in Table 1 in Attachment 9 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report (which forms Appendix 4 to the revised CBD PP).

Figure 4 – Extract from the Solar Access Protection Map showing the ‘Protected Area’ and ‘Compensatory Area’ that together form the ‘Parramatta Square public domain area’.

State Government policy

62. The following changes are proposed to the planning proposal documentation on account of State Government policy:

a) Amend Clause 7.6H Community Infrastructure to address the Planning Agreements Practice Note to now require compliance with community infrastructure principles, rather than the provision of community infrastructure on site, and on account of this change, consequential amendments are necessary to four other clauses (refer to the “Infrastructure Funding Review” section of this report for more information).

63. These changes are detailed in Table 2 in Attachment 9 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report (which forms Appendix 4 to the revised CBD PP).

Submissions on the CBD Planning Proposal

64. The following changes are proposed to the planning proposal documentation on account of submissions received during the exhibition period:

a) Reinstate the height control (Solar Access Plane) in PLEP 2011 for 69 George Street (Roxy Theatre) until the outcomes of the Civic Link DCP amendments and master planning for the block being undertaken by Sydney Metro for the new metro station in this block are completed.

b) Remove notations on the Incentive Height of Buildings map and Incentive FSR map to show uncoloured the land bound by Phillip Street, Charles Street, Paramatta River and Smith Street, and also remove notations for the same land from the Opportunity Site and Minimum Commercial provision map until the outcomes of the “Phillip Street Block Study” are known and have been reported Council.

c) Reinstate the B4 Mixed Use zone in PLEP 2011 for the Westfield landholdings until the second phase of changes to the CBD Precinct are completed (as per Decision Pathway 3).

65. These changes are detailed in Table 3 in Attachment 9 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report (which forms Appendix 4 to the revised CBD PP).

Site specific planning proposals (SSPPs)

66. The following consequential changes are proposed to the CBD PP documentation to ensure that Council’s previous decisions on these SSPPs are retained when the new CBD PP is finalised. In particular the existing provisions, and the existing and proposed maps where relevant will be inserted into the CBD PP, given that these SSPPs have been finalised after the commencement of the exhibition period:

a) 87 Church Street and 6 Great Western Highway, Parramatta (Amendments 30 and 58)

b) 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (Amendment 51)

c) 55 Aird Street, Parramatta (Amendment 55)

d) 142-154 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (Amendment 48)

e) 87 Church Street and 6 Great Western Highway, Parramatta (Amendment 58)

f) 470 Church Street, Parramatta (Amendment 47)

g) 33-43 Marion Street, Parramatta (Amendment 57)

h) 5 Aird Street, 12 Hassall Street and 20 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (Amendment 54)

67. These changes are detailed in Table 4 in Attachment 9 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report (which forms Appendix 4 to the revised CBD PP).

OTHER RELATED POLICY ISSUES

Introduction

68. Several policy issues have arisen that have implications for the CBD PP since the CBD PP was placed on exhibition and these are discussed as follows.

Infrastructure Funding Review

69. In February 2021, the DPIE finalised and released its new “Planning Agreements – Practice Note”. The Practice Note has been made for the purposes of clause 25B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to assist parties (including Councils) in the preparation of planning agreements. The new Practice Note does not support the use of Planning Agreements for the purposes of value capture. Relevant extracts of the Practice Note have been copied below for reference:

“2.1 Fundamental principles

Planning authorities and developers that are parties to planning agreements should adhere to the following fundamental principles.

· Planning agreements should not be used as a means of general revenue raising or to overcome revenue shortfalls.

· Value capture should not be the primary purpose of a planning agreement.

2.3 Value capture

The term value capture is widely used and covers several different practices. This practice note does not attempt to define or discuss them all. In general, the use of planning agreements for the primary purpose of value capture is not supported as it leads to the perception that planning decisions can be bought and sold and that planning authorities may leverage their bargaining position based on their statutory powers.

Planning agreements should not be used explicitly for value capture in connection with the making of planning decisions. For example, they should not be used to capture land value uplift resulting from rezoning or variations to planning controls. Such agreements often express value capture as a monetary contribution per square metre of increased floor area or as a percentage of the increased value of the land. Usually the planning agreement would only commence operation as a result of the rezoning proposal or increased development potential being applied.”

70. One of the key elements of the exhibited CBD PP is that access to Incentive FSR and Opportunity Site FSR was through the inclusion of community infrastructure on site. The process for provision of the community infrastructure was intended to be stipulated through a separate Development Guideline, which would have included “value capture” monetary contribution rates to calculate the quantum of community infrastructure required, the contribution of which would be formalised through a planning agreement.

71. Inclusion of these rates was to ensure fairness, transparency and equity in the planning agreements process, and also to improve efficiencies in making planning agreements between applicants and Council. However, given the effect of the new Practice Note for planning agreements, this approach is no longer possible, and a review of the planning proposal was required in the post-exhibition phase to remove this requirement and establish an alternative approach.

72. In its approval of the CBD PP in July 2020 to go on public exhibition, the DPIE allowed these community infrastructure provisions to be retained for the purposes of exhibition, but noted that “further resolution of this matter will be required at the finalisation of the planning proposal”. This was because the DPIE noted that the “draft planning agreements policy framework released by the DPIE in April 2020 provides a point of tension in applying Council’s intended approach”. It is noted that the planning agreements practice note was only a draft at that time but has since been finalised by the DPIE.

73. In considering a way forward, Council officers referred back to the original Gateway determination for the CBD PP, which included the following condition 1(m)iv.:

“(m) in relation to infrastructure funding:

…

iv. consider a funding mechanism to support the provision of community infrastructure, such as the preparation of a new section 7.11 contributions plan or a potential increase to the levy under the current 7.12 contributions plan.”

74. In lieu of providing a community infrastructure provision system “in-built” within the CBD PP (as exhibited), it is proposed instead to prepare a new s.7.12 contributions plan with an increased levy that will sit alongside the new PLEP 2011 Amendment. A critical part of these considerations is to ensure that a new contributions plan would provide at a minimum the same amount of income as would have been anticipated in community infrastructure provision as envisaged under the exhibited CBD PP, in effect a “break even” approach.

75. The current s7.12 levy for the Parramatta CBD is 3%. The highest s7.12 levy rate that has ever been approved for a NSW Council is at Burwood, which is at 4%. It is noted that recently Liverpool and Penrith Councils proposed a draft s.7.12 levy of 6.5% for the Western City “Aerotropolis”, however at the time of writing this report neither Liverpool or Penrith had received the required DPIE approval for these rates to be legally able to be applied.

76. Preliminary analysis has been undertaken by Council officers to assess what the increased levy rate would need to be in order to “break even” with the proposed “value sharing” approach, and further what the rates would need to be to fully fund the cost of works program that could reasonably be apportioned to new development, being $1.188 billion, as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Preliminary Infrastructure Costs and Apportionment

Priority	Original Cost Estimate	*Less* Amount already funded by existing funding arrangements (i.e. VPA/ Grants/ Committed Council funds)	Residual to be funded	Apportioned Cost
Growth and Transport	$ 191,629,050	$ 32,900,000	$ 158,729,050	$ 116,437,430
Green Spaces and Environment	$ 266,632,795	$ 89,440,000	$ 177,192,795	$ 106,075,677
Recreation and Leisure	$ 245,275,000	$ 75,900,000	$ 169,375,000	$ 162,055,000
Strong economy and City Centre	$ 575,885,190	$ 20,580,010	$ 555,305,180	$ 435,687,508
Community Focus	$ 208,455,000	$ 140,100,000	$ 68,355,000	$ 51,501,000
Arts and Culture	$ 527,539,915	$ -	$ 527,539,915	$ 316,523,949
TOTAL ESTIMATE	$ 2,015,416,950	$ 358,920,010	$ 1,656,496,940	$ 1,188,280,564

77. To determine the “break even” amount, the analysis assumes that whilst the section 7.12 levy would remain at 3%, the cost of development increases over time (noting that the levy is based on the cost of development) and also that the current value sharing rates of $150/sqm (Phase 1) and $375/sqm (Phase 2) escalate at 3% p.a. over a 40 year period, ending at $326/sqm (Phase 1) and $814/sqm (Phase 2). This results in a “break even” amount of $869.58 million, calculated as follows:

Table 4 – Calculation of the “break even” amount using the current approach

Income Source	Estimated Income
S.7.12 Levy @ 3%	$ 664.49M
● Phase 1 Value Sharing	● $ 144.22M
● Phase 2 Value Sharing	● $ 60.87M
Total Value Sharing	$ 205.09M
Total “break even” amount	$ 869.58M

78. A number of preliminary options were tested by Council officers in undertaking the review to determine theoretical contribution rates needed in various scenarios. The following four options are presented to Council below:

· Option 1 – ‘Break even’ option, where the proposed increased contribution rate would apply to all development and bring in the same amount of income as that anticipated with the ‘value sharing’ approach (being $869.58 million highlighted in Table 4 above).

· Option 2 – As per Option 1, but where the rate for commercial development stays at 3% and only residential development is subject to an increased levy.

· Option 3 – Increased levy to all development so as to fully fund the amount of the works program that could reasonably be apportioned to new development (ie. the $1.188 billion highlighted in Table 3 above).

· Option 4 – As per Option 3, but retaining the levy for commercial development at 3% and only increasing the levy for residential development.

79. The results from this analysis are summarised in Table 5 below:

Table 5 – Options testing for proposed new s.7.12 levy rates

Options	S.7.12 Rates
“Break even” result:
Option 1 – Increased s7.12 levy to all development	S.7.12 rate needed to “break even”: · All Development — 4%
Option 2 – Increased s7.12 levy to residential development only	Variable S.7.12 rates needed to “break even”: · Commercial — 3% · Residential — 4.5%
Full funding of apportioned costs:
Option 3 – Increased s7.12 levy to all development	S.7.12 rates needed to fully fund the apportioned component of Works Program: · All Development — 5%
Option 4 – Increased s7.12 levy to residential development only	Variable s.7.12 rates needed to fully fund the apportioned component of Works Program: · Commercial — 3% · Residential — 8.5%

80. Council officers have commissioned a development feasibility study from economic consultants to provide advice to Council on high contribution rates could increase to before adversely impacting on development feasibility. This will also consider the impact of the proposed Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) by the State Government, which has long been a mooted proposal of the State Government, but has never been formally exhibited.

81. Once the development feasibility study has been completed, this together with a new draft contributions plan will be reported to Council seeking a resolution to place on public exhibition and also to begin the process of seeking formal approval from the DPIE for the higher s7.12 levy rate (noting that an amendment to clause 25K of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 will be required).

82. Notwithstanding this further report, it is recommended now that as a part of the resolution in finalising the CBD PP, Council also resolves to prepare a new s.7.12 contributions plan with a higher levy, so as to send a clear message to the market and community that whilst the ‘value sharing’ system (through the provision of community infrastructure) is being removed, infrastructure funding will still be pursued through this alternate funding pathway.

83. So as to preserve the original intent of the exhibited CBD PP, officers also recommend that rather than completely removing the original community infrastructure clause and base and incentive FSR maps, the clause instead be amended to include compliance with key community infrastructure principles in order to access the incentive FSR. The proposed key community infrastructure principles are listed below:

(a) Public access to the community infrastructure network has been maximised in the design of the development.

(b) There is appropriate community infrastructure in place or planned to meet the needs of the proposed development acknowledging the additional density permissible under this clause.

(c) The development includes community infrastructure where the size of the site, the location of the site, and the nature of the development will allow for the provision of that community infrastructure.

84. These changes are detailed in Table 3b in Attachment 9 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report (which forms Appendix 4 to the revised CBD PP) and explained in the revised CBD PP document and Appendix 2A – Potential Draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Provisions at Attachment 4 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report.

Housing Diversity SEPP

85. On 12 February 2021, the NSW Government amended the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (Affordable Rental Housing SEPP) and other related legislation to introduce Build-To-Rent housing (BTR) into the NSW Planning Framework. This amendment is part of a suite of reforms which are being implemented in phases with the ultimate goal being the introduction of a single Housing SEPP which would consolidate three current SEPPs.

86. The provisions with the most potential to impact on the Parramatta CBD are the build-to-rent provisions (BTR). BTR housing is large-scale, purpose-built rental housing that is held in single ownership and professionally managed. Its aim is to provide more rental housing choice with secure tenure arrangements and supports changes to the taxation settings for this form of development that were introduced in July 2020.

87. The BTR Housing SEPP amendment:

· Allows for the development of BTR housing (subject to consent) in any zone that residential flat buildings are permitted, as well as the B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use zones;

· Applies Council FSR and Height standards and Minimum Commercial Provisions;

· Prevents residential subdivision for 15 years except in the B3 Commercial Core zone where it is prohibited in perpetuity;

· Makes BTR Housing State Significant Development where the cost of development is greater than $100 million.

88. Of most concern, is the permissibility of BTR Housing within the B3 Commercial Core zone which has the potential to erode the integrity of the commercial, business and employment focus of the commercial core. It is noted that BTR Housing will be an attractive option for large-scale investors due partly to the 50% discount on land tax applied to this type of development. As such, there is a significant risk that BTR Housing may displace commercial development in the B3 Commercial Core. It is considered that the NSW Government’s planning framework for BTR Housing therefore has the potential to undermine the vision for employment growth established in the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy 2015 and the CBD PP.

89. Included in the recommendation to Council within this report, is a recommendation that the Lord Mayor write to the Minister for Planning and request that an exemption be given to the B3 Commercial core zone within the Parramatta CBD from the BTR Housing provisions. This is considered important because it would undermine the employment and business focus of the commercial core and also noting that there is plenty of land zoned B4 Mixed Use in the Parramatta CBD that would allow for apartments. This is consistent with Council’s submission to DPIE on the new Housing Diversity SEPP in 2020.

Draft Design and Place SEPP

90. The DPIE is currently conducting a broad review of several SEPPs with the aim of consolidating and simplifying the delivery of good design in NSW. Part of this review will include a new Design and Place SEPP which will be a consideration for all scales of development including precincts, significant developments, buildings, infrastructure and public space.

91. The draft SEPP will replace SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development 2002 and the SEPP - Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) 2004. Also included will be a revision to the Apartment Design Guide, improvements to the BASIX tool, and the development of a new Public Space and Urban Design Guide. The intent of the new SEPP is to create one comprehensive design policy to inform future development of the City.

92. An Expression of Intended Effect (EIE) relating to the SEPP has recently been exhibited; with a final draft of the SEPP expected to be exhibited later in 2021.

93. At this point, no changes are required to the CBD PP and Council Officers will undertake a detailed review of the amendments when exhibited to understand implications (if any) for the CBD PP.

COVID 19

94. The CBD PP provides capacity for new commercial and residential development in the Parramatta CBD that will last for a period of approximately 40 years.

95. It is anticipated that the economic effects of the COVID 19 pandemic may impact on development and subsequent rates of worker and resident population increases in the short term. However, in the long term, it is expected that the pandemic will have limited impact on the forecast population for the Parramatta CBD. This is because development is seen as a key contributor in the post pandemic economic recovery effort, the NSW Government’s investment in city-shaping infrastructure, including Sydney Metro West and Parramatta Light Rail, and the Parramatta CBD’s strategic location in the heart of the Greater Sydney region.

ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER DISCUSSION

Heritage

96. A consistent principle of the CBD PP has been to retain the listing of all heritage items. This is supported by a new heritage provision (draft clause 7.6K ‘Managing heritage impacts’ in the Draft PLEP 2011 amendment instrument) to apply to the entire CBD to ensure the relationships between heritage items and development sites is conserved and managed. As a result, the CBD Planning Proposal does not propose to amend the PLEP 2011 Heritage map or Schedule 5 Environmental heritage by delisting any heritage items (Local or State).

97. A number of submissions received during the exhibition of the CBD PP also sought a process that would allow for the eventual demolition or significant alteration of a heritage item and/or its curtilage affecting the following addresses:

a. 41 Hunter Street;

b. 83 Macquarie Street;

c. 11 Marion Street;

d. 27 Elizabeth Street;

e. 29 and 31 Marion Street.

98. Council Officers are concerned that an ad hoc approach to considering changes to provisions related to listed items occurring on a site-by-site basis does not align with a strategic planning approach. Council officers are not recommending the de-listing of any heritage items as a result of any submissions received at this time, given this would be inconsistent with the policy approach taken towards this matter since the CBD PP was first endorsed by Council back in 2016, and for this reason comment about individual requests were not assessed in detail by Council's Heritage Officer. Should Council wish to undertake a broad strategic review of heritage listings in the CBD, this would require significant budget and resource allocation to undertake the required heritage study, which is not available at the current time. Owners do have the option of lodging a site-specific PP; however, as noted above this is unlikely to be supported by Council Officers given it is not a strategic planning approach.

Overshadowing

99. In order to address five (5) conditions of the Gateway Determination issued on 13 December 2018 and subsequent Alteration of the Gateway Determination issued on 27 July 2020, analysis of the cumulative overshadowing impacts caused by the proposed planning controls in the CBD PP was undertaken. This work involved a 3D assessment of planning controls using Council’s Geographic Information System (GIS) application. The GIS analysis considered the following:

a. Cumulative impacts to four heritage conservation areas located to the south of the CBD – being South Parramatta, Tottenham Street, Harris Park West and Experiment Farm on 21 June between 9am and 3pm.

b. Cumulative impacts to ten nominated open space areas located to the west, south and east of the CBD – being Noller Park, Parramatta Park, Mays Hill Reserve, Ollie Webb Reserve, Jones Park, Robin Thomas Reserve, James Ruse Reserve, Experiment Farm Reserve, Hambledon Cottage Reserve and Rosella Park on 21 June between 9am and 3pm.

c. Impacts of overshadowing to the Parramatta Square Protected Area, as well as implications to extend protection from 12 noon to 2pm on 21 June to include the Autumn and Spring Equinoxes at 21 March and 23 September, respectively.

100. The methodology, testing and findings of this analysis was publicly exhibited in a Technical Paper as an Appendix to the CBD PP – refer to Appendix 10A, as exhibited. First round modelling involved simple extrusions of the height control applied to the entire land parcel. This was followed by detailed built-form testing using 3D models of existing and proposed buildings for certain parts of the CBD to obtain a finer-grained assessment. This assessment then informed the draft Height of Buildings and Incentive Height of Buildings Map controls, which were then publicly exhibited as a part of the CBD PP.

101. In response to submissions received to the exhibited CBD PP where additional height was sought, a further iteration of testing was undertaken to identify any additional cumulative impacts from overshadowing to the nominated heritage conservation areas and open space areas. A total of 14 submissions applying to 17 sites were subject to detailed testing. A further seven (7) submissions had overshadowing implications considered but not tested as they did not impact the nominated heritage conservation areas or open space areas. The findings of this further work are contained in the Overshadowing Technical Paper Supplement (April 2021) at Appendix 3B to the revised CBD PP. Of the submissions received, five (5) related to properties outside the CBD PP boundary at the time of exhibition.

102. Assessment of the cumulative overshadowing impacts from the submissions followed the methodology described in the Figure 5 below:

Figure 5 – Methodology to assess cumulative overshadowing impacts from submissions

103. When applying the evaluation criteria set out in the diagram above, a recommendation in the Supplement to the Overshadowing Technical Paper to support-in-principle a submission is not indicative of Council Officers’ support of the submission in its entirety. The shadow analysis only addresses the cumulative overshadowing impacts; other site-based or cumulative considerations such as urban design, heritage impacts, flooding, etc. were not taken into account as part of the overshadowing analysis. A copy of the Overshadowing Technical Paper Supplement (April 2021) – which forms Appendix 3B to the revised CBD PP is provided at Attachment 7 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report.

104. The submissions requesting additional height that are recommended for conditional support based on the overshadowing analysis as detailed in the diagram above, are considered to have merit for further investigation and recommended to be considered as a group as part of an alternate planning proposal (Decision Pathway 3).

105. Grouping these requests enables the additional height sought to be tested and considered holistically and cumulatively against the original vision set out in the Planning Strategy. The Vision of the CBD PP is for new buildings to define streets and public spaces to deliver a comfortable, functional and attractive public domain; while the towers above are tall and slender and are set back to allow daylight, views and circulation of air to the streets and public spaces below.

Site Specific Planning Proposals within the Parramatta CBD

106. A number of site-specific planning proposals (SSPPs) have been finalised in the Parramatta CBD since the commencement of the broader CBD PP process. These SSPPs have introduced new controls, including site-specific clauses and amendments to relevant maps. In finalising the CBD PP, officers recommend that these individual site-specific clauses and map amendments remain, as these have been tailored and customised to meet individual site circumstances and specific development proposals, for example in relation to car parking, high performing buildings and flood controls.

107. In many cases, these site-specific clauses introduced through SSPPs have attempted to emulate the draft controls in the CBD PP ahead of time. However, these have been amended through various site-specific planning processes to respond to technical drafting issues raised by the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office or have been tailored to meet individual site circumstances and a particular development proposal. The CBD PP, as exhibited, proposed to remove some of these provisions where it was considered that these site-specific provisions would in effect “double up” on new provisions coming in via the CBD PP. This was proposed at the time in response to Condition 1(a) of the Gateway Determination for the CBD PP, which reads as follows:

1. Prior to public exhibition, Council is to amend the planning proposal to:

(a) consider sites that have been subject to a site-specific planning proposal and recommend whether the site-specific clause is to be retained in the Parramatta LEP or integrated with the proposed planning framework;

108. However, upon further consideration by Council officers, given that these controls have been tailored and customised to meet individual site and development circumstances, concern was raised that any changes to remove these provisions could potentially inadvertently change intended development outcomes for these sites. The amendment now recommended will see clauses and maps reconciled to ensure that the controls meet the original intentions of the SSPPs to avoid inadvertently impacting on the development process for these sites by changing the controls in a way that could have unintended consequences at Development Approval stage. Only minor technical edits will be progressed, for example in relation to clause numbering and referencing.

OTHER PARRAMATTA CBD-RELATED POLICY MATTERS

109. The CBD PP forms a key part of the planning framework for the Parramatta CBD, supported by infrastructure planning, building design controls, transport planning and flood management. Updates on the supporting policy work and a discussion about future work on the Planning Investigation Areas follows.

Parramatta CBD Development Control Plan

110. A critical supporting piece of work to the CBD PP is the CBD Development Control Plan (DCP). Council Officers have been working for some time on a draft DCP for the Parramatta CBD. Council’s City Planning team have been working closely with the City Design team in drafting the detailed design controls. Further internal consultation is required with other key internal teams (e.g. City Significant Development, Catchment and Development Engineers from City Planning and Design).

111. When the revised CBD PP documentation has been forwarded to the DPIE, Council Officers can recommence the preparation of the draft DCP controls to support the CBD PP planning controls, with an envisaged program being to have a finalised version in place prior to the amendments to PLEP 2011 for the CBD PP being finalised by the DPIE.

Parramatta CBD Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan

112. As detailed above under the heading ‘Infrastructure Funding Review’, it is recommended that as a part of the resolution in finalising the CBD PP, that Council also resolve to prepare a new s.7.12 development contributions plan with a higher flat levy than the current 3% levy.

113. When the revised CBD PP documentation has been forwarded to the DPIE, Council Officers can recommence the preparation of the draft S7.12 Development Contributions Plan to support the CBD PP, with an envisaged program being to have a finalised version in place prior to the amendments to the PLEP 2011 for the CBD PP being finalised by the DPIE.

Parramatta CBD Integrated Transport Plan

114. Further work on the Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) has progressed in partnership with Transport for NSW and was recently endorsed by Council for public exhibition on 26 April 2021. The Draft ITP is anticipated to have recommendations that may have consequential amendments to CBD planning controls at a later stage. These include revisions to the Land Reservation Acquisition Map for local road widening acquisitions, and refinements to off-street car parking rates. It is anticipated that the Draft ITP will be finalised before the CBD PP, consistent with Gateway Condition 1(l).

Planning Investigation Areas

115. A number of Planning Investigation Areas (‘PIAs’) on the fringes of the Parramatta CBD were first identified in the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy, which was endorsed by Council on 27 April 2015. Four (4) more areas were added to the PIAs by Council resolution on 25 November 2019. Submissions to the exhibition of the CBD PP were received requesting inclusion of land within a PIA into the CBD PP boundary.

116. These requests are considered to be seeking substantial policy changes from those publicly exhibited and would trigger the need for the re-exhibition of the CBD PP. The reasons for not incorporating these changes and progressing the CBD PP as soon as possible are outlined elsewhere in this report. The Parramatta CBD Planning Framework already identifies consideration of PIAs, with next steps being to report a workplan to Council that officers (at this stage) recommend split the PIAs into separate projects – the Northern PIA, Southern PIA (includes West Auto Alley) and Eastern PIA (includes Elizabeth Street) – see Figure 3 above.

117. Consistent with the Council resolution from 9 November 2020, the draft Planning Strategy for the North-East PIA (refer Figure 3) was recently placed on public exhibition. Council officers will review the feedback received and will prepare a report for Councillors to consider in the coming months.

Phillip Street Block Study

118. Additional work by Council Officers is recommended to be undertaken for the land parcels between Smith Street and Charles Street on the northern side of Phillip Street, known as the ‘Phillip Street Block Study’. This need for further analysis responds to issues raised in submissions, including those from the National Trust (Parramatta Branch) and Parramatta Heritage Advisory Committee (see Attachments 13 and 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report) and preliminary urban design work that identified potential unsatisfactory outcomes from building heights along the River, and discussion is also contained in Attachment 14 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report in relation to a submission on behalf of the owner for 60 Phillip Street.

119. Any recommended amendments to the planning controls for land within the Phillip Street Block Study area as a result of the analysis is proposed to be considered as part of a secondary alternative pathway to the CBD PP at a later stage. This recommendation, if adopted by Council, would mean that any proposed height and density controls for the land under the CBD PP within the Phillip Street Block (including height of building, FSR, Opportunity Sites and Minimum Commercial Provision draft planning controls) will not be progressed until the study is finalised; and until then, the existing planning controls under PLEP 2011 would continue to apply.

PARRAMATTA LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

120. Council resolved on 14 May 2018 to refer Planning Proposals to the Local Planning Panel where a submission has been received during the public exhibition process, which requests that the Planning Proposal be amended. The Panel provides advice to Council on whether the Planning Proposal should be amended and whether or not to forward it to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

121. At the time of writing this report, the Local Planning Panel is due to consider this matter at its meeting on 11 May 2021. The advice of the Panel and minutes of the meeting will be provided under separate cover via a Supplementary Report to Council.

CONCLUSION

122. Given that the public exhibition of the CBD PP is now complete, submissions have been considered and minor updates have been made to the CBD PP, Council is now in a position to finalise the CBD PP and forward it to the DPIE to make the PLEP 2011 Amendment. After many years of work, this is a significant milestone for Council and will set the foundation for the Parramatta CBD to achieve its potential as the “Central City” for the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area.

123. In forwarding the CBD PP to the DPIE, Council should request that the PLEP 2011 Amendment not be made until the new CBD Development Contributions Plan is finalised with a higher rate (which will also require DPIE approval). This will ensure an infrastructure funding framework is in place in lieu of the original “community infrastructure provision framework” (which was based on the principle of “value sharing”), which has been required to be removed due to new State Government policy in relation to planning agreements.

124. Further, in accordance with the Gateway determination, the PLEP 2011 Amendment under the CBD PP will not be able to be made until the Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) and associated mesoscopic model have been finalised. Council should continue to work in partnership with Transport for NSW to urgently complete this work.

WORK REQUIRING FURTHER INVESTIGATION

125. As detailed elsewhere in this report, following a resolution from Council to finalise the CBD PP, the immediate priority for Council officers over the coming months will be to finalise the PLEP 2011 amendment documentation in consultation with DPIE, and also to prepare and exhibit a supporting DCP amendment and a new Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan for the CBD.

126. Noting the above mentioned priorities associated with the finalisation of the CBD PP, Council officers will prepare a detailed workplan for:

a. the proposed changes that have merit for further investigation as set out in Table 3 in Attachment 16 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report (under Decision Pathway 3).

b. the Northern PIA, Southern PIA (including West Auto Alley) and Eastern PIA (including Elizabeth Street).

127. It is noted that the North-East PIA is currently underway (as the first PIA) and that a post-exhibition report is also due to be separately reported to Council in the coming months.

NEXT STEPS AND TIMING

128. Should Council endorse the recommendation to finalise the CBD PP, it will be updated with any further changes as resolved by Council, and then it will be forwarded to the DPIE with a request that it be finalised and that the PLEP 2011 Amendment be made in accordance with section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This will include legal drafting of the amending PLEP 2011 instrument by the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and technical reformatting of maps to relevant map tile sheets to fit the PLEP 2011. Council will be notified once the PLEP 2011 Amendment has been made by the DPIE.

129. During the period of finalisation of the CBD PP by the DPIE, Council officers will also report to Council two other pieces of strategic work needed to support the planning proposal, being the proposed Draft CBD DCP amendment and also the proposed Draft CBD Development Contributions Plan (refer to previous sections of this report for further details on these matters). Both of these projects need to be endorsed for exhibition, exhibited and then finalised prior to the CBD PP coming into effect so as to support the new controls.

130. Further, Council is also progressing the mesoscopic model and Integrated Transport Plan (ITP), which are also required to be finalised prior to finalisation of the CBD PP. The ITP was recently endorsed by Council for public exhibition on 26 April 2021. Any proposed changes arising from these matters, that differ from those exhibited in the CBD PP, for example in relation to refinements to parking controls or amendments to road widenings in the Land Reservation Acquisition Map, would be subject to a separate alternate PP process.

131. Work on the previously endorsed Planning Investigation Areas (refer to Figure 3) will also continue as team resources allow, with the first PIA, being the North-East PIA, anticipated to be reported back to Council for consideration in the final quarter of 2021 detailing the outcomes of the recent public exhibition process for that PIA.

CONSULTATION

Stakeholder Consultation

132. As noted above, the exhibition process developed for the CBD PP is outlined in the Community Engagement Report at Attachment 10 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report and summarised under the heading ‘Communication Plan’ at paragraphs 17 to 18.

133. The following stakeholder consultation for the CBD PP has been undertaken:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
During the exhibition from 21 September 2020 to 2 November 2020	Residents and individuals	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 32 and 33; and Attachment 12 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 34, 35 and 36; and Attachment 12 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition from 21 September 2020 to 2 November 2020	Organisations, Institutions and Interest Groups	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 37 and 38; and Attachment 13 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 39, 40, 41 and 42; and Attachment 13 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition from 21 September 2020 to 2 November 2020	Developers, Major Landowners and/ or their Consultants	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 43 and 44, and Attachment 14 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50; and Attachment 14 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition from 21 September 2020 to 2 November 2020	Public Authorities and Service Providers	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 51, 52 and 53; and Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See comments previously provided in the report at Paragraphs 54 and 55; and Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition – various dates	Phone-a-Planner sessions	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition on 1 October 2020	Online Industry Forum	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition on 1 October 2020	Heritage Advisory Committee	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition on 14 October 2020	Parramatta Chamber of Commerce	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition on 14 October 2020	Committee for Sydney	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
During the exhibition on 22 October 2020	External Industry Seminar	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning
17 November 2020	Flood Committee Presentation	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	See Attachment 15 of the LPP Report contained within Attachment 1 to this report	City Planning

134. The following Councillor Consultation was undertaken in relation to the CBD PP in the post exhibition period:

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
24 March 2021	Councillor Workshop	Preferred direction provided in relation to specific matters where submissions had been received for an amendment to the exhibited planning controls.	Consideration by Council officers as part of review	City Planning
14 April 2021	Councillor Workshop	Councillors asked a series of questions about the CBD PP, submissions received and process matters.	Responses provided by Council officers during the workshop.	City Planning

135. Furthermore, Councillor Briefing Notes were sent to Councillors at key milestones during the exhibition/post-exhibition process, as follows:

a. On 15 September 2020 a Councillor Briefing Note advised of the arrangements for the public exhibition of the CBD PP. The exhibition commenced on Monday 21 September 2020 and concluded on Monday 2 November 2020 (a period of 6 weeks).

b. On 18 December 2020 a Councillor Briefing Note provided a summary of the submissions received during the exhibition period and outlined the next steps.

c. On 30 April 2021 a Councillor Briefing Note advised that the feedback received during public exhibition on the CBD PP, along with a recommendation for its endorsement for finalization, was being reported to the Local Planning Panel (LPP) on 11 May 2021 (for advice) and to Council on 24 May 2021 (for decision), with the report to the LPP being publicly released on 30 April 2021.

CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING STATEMENT

136. The City of Parramatta’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) “City Plan 2036” came into effect on 31 March 2020. The LSPS sets out the 20-year land use planning vision for the City of Parramatta local government area (LGA) and responds to broader priorities identified in the Central City District Plan and Council’s Community Strategic Plan. The planning priorities are supported by policy directions and actions to guide future changes to the City’s land use planning controls.

137. For the CBD PP, the LSPS priorities and actions are:

· Planning Priority 1 - Expand Parramatta’s economic role as the Central City of Greater Sydney.

o Action A5 - Progress the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal in the short-term (0-2 years)

· Planning Priority 4 - Focus housing and employment growth in the GPOP and Strategic Centres; as well as stage housing release consistent with the Parramatta Local Housing Strategy

o Action A22 - Progress the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal to significantly increase commercial and housing opportunities in Parramatta CBD in the short-term (0-2 years).

138. The LSPS sets a target for the Parramatta CBD to grow by 7,200 additional dwellings and 33,900 additional jobs between 2016 and 2036 and provides greater weight to strategic planning in the broader plan making process. The CBD PP will facilitate the delivery of an extra 46,000 jobs and 14,000 dwellings within the Parramatta CBD over the next 40 years. In doing so the CBD Planning Framework also delivers on key economic, social and cultural objectives for Western Sydney which is home to over half of Sydney’s population and is therefore consistent with the LSPS. The endorsement of the CBD PP for finalisation will enable Council to progress Actions A5 and A22 in the LSPS.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

139. There are no immediate legal implications as a direct consequence of the public exhibition and consideration of the CBD PP for finalisation.

140. The CBD PP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the NSW DPIE’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals and considers State and local planning strategies.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

141. In relation to the CBD PP finalisation:

a. The costs associated with the post exhibition review and finalisation of the CBD PP, including the requested changes supported by Council officers, are funded from the existing City Planning budget.

b. Should additional changes be made to the CBD PP (via Council resolution) that trigger a re-exhibition, depending on the nature and amount of changes, this would cost at least $50,000, which has not been included in the 2021/22 budget.

	FY 20/21	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24
Operating Result
External Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

142. The financial implications of the changes to the CBD PP that have ‘Merit for Further Investigation’ (under Decision Pathway 3 - Orange), which are to be progressed through separate planning proposal processes at a later stage, will be detailed in a separate report to Council to consider in September/October 2021 (see Paragraph 126). Should changes be made (via Council resolution) which increase the scope of works that fall under Decision Pathway 3, this may also have future budget implications with an expanded work program.

143. In relation to the new Section 7.12 development contributions plan to support the CBD PP:

a. The financial implications for Council associated with the preparation of a new Section 7.12 development contributions plan and supporting feasibility testing are funded from the existing City Planning budget. Council has secured additional DPIE funding for some of this supporting work.

b. If a “break even” approach is supported (at a minimum) through an increased levy rate there should be no additional impact on Council’s long-term financial plan, compared to the original “value sharing” approach. See Paragraphs 69 to 84.

c. Further detailed financial implications for Council associated with adopting a new Section 7.12 development contribution plan, including a new contributions levy rate set higher than the current 3% rate, will be outlined in a separate report for Council to consider in the coming months (when that new draft plan is reported to Council).

144. In relation to the Planning Investigation Areas (PIAs) already endorsed by Council, the financial implications for Council associated with amending the planning controls in the PIAs consistent with Council’s previous resolutions from 27 April 2015 and 25 November 2019 will be outlined in a separate report for Council to consider in the final quarter of 2021 as detailed at Paragraph 127.

Jacky Wilkes

Snr Project Officer Land Use

Roy Laria

Land Use Planning Manager

Robert Cologna

Acting Group Manager, City Planning

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

David Birds

Acting Executive Director, City Planning & Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Local Planning Panel Report (and attachments) of 11 May 2021

628 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Governance Manager		Lord Mayor Clr Bob Dwyer	Chief Executive Officer

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

1 ⇩	Investment and Loans Performance Graph April 2021	1 Page
2 ⇩	CPG Comprehensive Investment Report - April 2021	19 Pages
3 ⇩	List of Council Investments by maturity April 2021	9 Pages

1 ⇩	ATSI Advisory Committee meeting 23 February 2021 - Final Minutes	7 Pages
2 ⇩	ATSI Advisory Committee meeting 23 March 2021 - Final Minutes	5 Pages

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
13 May 2021	Finance Committee	N/A at time of compiling report	N/A at time of compiling report	Finance/CFO
19 May 2021	Council workshop	N/A at time of compiling report	N/A at time of compiling report	Finance/CFO

1 ⇩	Draft Granville Square Masterplan
2 ⇩	Imagine Granville Stakeholder Engagement Report

Proposed Name	Background / context
Civic Place	Civic denotes a town and the people who live in it, a building for City of Parramatta’s people. Site has a long history as the centre of Parramatta’s civic infrastructure - Town Hall, built adjacent in 1883; Council relocating to this site in 1958 and former Parramatta Library added in 1964; becoming Civic Place. Pays tribute to the past while celebrating the building as a new commitment to Parramatta’s civic future.
The Banksia	Microscopic pollens of Banksia were found in archaeological digs in the nearby area. The deep reds/oranges of the roof are inspired by nature’s use of colour as an attractor, attracting people to the building for learning, growth and exchange. The roof’s distinctive form is also reminiscent of the openings in a Banksia pod.


	Press	Press

Public Gallery