Agenda of Council - Monday, 11 October 2021

MINUTES OF THE Meeting of City of Parramatta Council HELD IN THE CLOISTER FUNCTION ROOMS, ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL 1 MARIST PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 27 September 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 (6:32pm), Phil Bradley, Donna Davis, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard (Deputy Lord Mayor), Steven Issa, Andrew Jefferies, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Bill Tyrrell, Andrew Wilson, Lorraine Wearne and Martin Zaiter.

1. OPENING MEETING

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer, opened the meeting at 6:30pm.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

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

3. WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

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

4. OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

Nil.

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

SUBJECT: Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 13 September 2021

3446

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Bradley)

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

6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3447	RESOLVED (Garrard/Wilson) That the request to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 27 September 2021 via remote means submitted by the following Councillors due to personal reasons, be accepted: - Councillor Barrak - Councillor Bradley.

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Prociv declared a non-pecuniary and less than significant interest in Item 20.2 – Tender 1/2021 Upgrade of Rydalmere Park, Filed 1 & 2, Rydalmere being that her partner and her sons are former employees of the tenderer. She remained in the meeting during debate and voting on this matter.

Note: Councillor Barrak arrived at 6:32pm during Declarations of Interest.

8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor

8.1

SUBJECT Thanking the Parramatta Community

REFERENCE F2019/03630 - D08239325

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer

3448

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Tyrrell)

(a) That Council thank and congratulate the many community groups, organisations and volunteers detailed in this Lord Mayor Minute at Attachment 1 for their exceptional ongoing efforts to support the people of the City of Parramatta in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns.

(b) That Council note the support provided by these organisations has been across a wide range of areas, from provision of essential food and household items to activities reducing the impacts of social isolation.

(c) That Council note messages of thanks have been sent to these organisations recognising the integral role they play in our community and for the incredible resilience they have shown through these uncertain times, adapting their services when faced with new challenges.

(d) That Council note this list of organisations is not exhaustive, and that there are many more in our City who have made contributions to support and keep this community well and safe.

8.2

SUBJECT End of Lord Mayoral Term Report

REFERENCE F2019/03630 - D08239465

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer

3449

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Issa)

(a) That Council note I thank the Chamber, the community, Council staff, and my family for their support during my term as Lord Mayor.

(b) Further, that the Chamber note the significant achievements and milestones of Council during this period, some of which are outlined in this Minute.

9. Public Forum

9.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: Item 17.2 - Planning Proposal and associated process - 355 & 377 Church Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08240359

FROM: Alison Brown, NSW Planning Manager, Stockland

Background to Planning Proposal

Stockland is working with McDonald’s to deliver a high quality mixed use development at 355-375 Church Street, Parramatta. As Councillors may be aware, there is a long planning history on the site.

An initial DA submitted by McDonald’s and supported by Council in 2015, included a drive-through and at grade car parking. This DA was deferred by the Regional Planning Panel with feedback that the proposal did not maximise the site potential. Specifically, that it was a “lost opportunity to present a major architectural feature on this significant site substantial amendment is required to create a building of more appropriate scale and city character in this very significant location of Parramatta”.

McDonald’s withdrew the DA, and subsequently entered into a JV with Stockland in 2017 to deliver a scheme that would maximise the sites potential in accordance with the Panel’s feedback and the CBD Planning Strategy. Since then Stockland and McDonald’s have worked extensively with Council and other authorities to deliver a satisfactory Planning Proposal. Lodged in 2018, the Planning Proposal was finally supported by Council in July 2020.

After receiving the support of full Council in July 2020, we have dealt with some hurdles put up by the Department of Planning. Firstly, the Gateway Determination issued in September 2020 sought to further restrict the number of parking spaces contrary to Council’s resolution, however this was overturned by the Independent Planning Commission. Eight months later, the Gateway Determination was amended. We were then instructed by the Department to refine the Planning Proposal, to remove those elements which will duplicate the CBD Planning Proposal, and lodge as a fresh application. We were concerned about this backward step, but given no choice. This has resulted in the need to report the matter to Council again today.

This has been a long process starting from the feedback received in 2015 that the site is capable of great things. We have fully cooperated with consent authorities in order to achieve an outcome that is acceptable to all stakeholders including the landowner, McDonald’s.

McDonald’s Key Requirements

Stockland wishes to realise the shared goal of achieving a high quality mixed use development on this strategic site. However in order to proceed with the development we must meet the minimum requirements of McDonald’s.

The present McDonald’s restaurant and take away operation is supported by a dual drive-through facility and approximately 60 at-grade parking spaces. The site also benefits from a high level of visibility and accessibility, with multiple entries and unrestricted operation (entry/exit) from both Victoria Road and Ross Street. McDonald’s presence at the site for 42 years means that they own the site outright and are under no commercial pressure from their business to redevelop the land in the foreseeable future.

McDonald’s overriding objective in any redevelopment is to continue to operate a successful restaurant on the site. This has informed our conversations with Council over the past 4 years as we worked through the planning and design issues, and the concept was endorsed by Council in July 2021.

McDonald’s requirements to support the ongoing operation include the following of relevance:

· Maintain a drive thru facility,

· Provide convenient access to the drive through, and

· Provide adequate customer car parking.

If McDonald's cannot achieve these fundamental requirements, they will not proceed with a redevelopment.

Parking and Access

Currently, there are 60 McDonalds parking spaces. This will reduce to 30 spaces following development.

In terms of access arrangements at Victoria Road, there is currently free movement of traffic, with turning movements permitted freely in both left and right directions, and both into and out of the site. Traffic may also enter from Ross Street. This will change significantly following development.

· In terms of entry from Victoria Road, movements into the site will be restricted to left in only. This will prevent any impact whatsoever on the Church Street intersection, or the light rail corridor, as only eastbound traffic approaching from the west can enter the site.

· In terms of exit movements, no cars will be permitted to exit the site onto Victoria Road at all. Instead, all exits will be to Ross Street.

· Ross Street access will be upgraded to permit both entry and exit movements.

The above approach is supported by traffic modelling.

McDonald’s Compromises

As noted above, there are three key changes to the current access and parking arrangements that McDonald’s has agreed to:

· Firstly, a halving of customer car parking numbers.

· Secondly, left turn only movements into the site from Victoria Road

· Thirdly, all exit movements onto Ross Street.

Each of these changes represents a compromise by McDonald’s, as they will result in a reduction in convenience for customers. As such, McDonald’s cannot accept any further restrictions on their access arrangements compared to the existing. Any proposal to further restrict access or egress arrangements will result in the project being abandoned. Instead McDonald’s has indicated that it would simply maintain the status quo, preferring to maintain a large car park and highly flexible vehicle movements.

Recommendation

We endorse the Recommendation in the business paper. In order to ensure that the access arrangements are thoroughly interrogated going forward, we would accept an amendment to recommendation (f) to require that the DCP address the following (added text in red):

Recommendation (f)…

3 Resolving traffic issues (including justifying the location for vehicular access, sightlines, vehicle queueing, pedestrian safety and minimising any impact of the development on Parramatta Light Rail and the surrounding road network, including restricting turning right from Victoria Road into the site);

Conclusion

We thank you for the opportunity to present our submission.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING AND DESIGN

No staff response provided.

10. Petitions

10.1

SUBJECT Pedestrian Crossing at Louise Sauvage Pathway, Newington

FROM Patricia Prociv

A petition signed by the public was tabled at the Council Meeting and reads:

“This petition is requesting Parramatta Council install a pedestrian crossing or pedestrian island where Oceania Boulevard is crossed by the Louise Sauvage Pathway in Newington, NSW.

Given the increased heavy traffic flow and often excessive sppeds by some motorists using this road as either a means to access Holker Street, Silverwater or by residential traffic, this location presents a dangerous crossing point as the Louise Sauvage Pathway is in constant use by local pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers and parents with strollers.

Both approaches on Oceania Boulevard to the pathway intersection are distinguished by two blind corners and it appears it will only be a matter of time before a potential serious accident occurs at this location. Currently where the road is crossed by the pathway it is only signposted on the eastern approach from Hill Road, which doesn’t seem to act as a cautionary warning to many speeding motorists.”

3450

RESOLVED (Prociv/Wilson)

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

(b) That the petition be forwarded to the Traffic Committee.

10.2

SUBJECT Proposed Epping South Primary School at 86 Chelmsford Avenue, Epping

FROM Donna Davis

A petition signed by the public was tabled at the Council Meeting and reads:

“We the undersigned insist the proposed extension of Grimes Lane to the link with Second Avenue Epping be rescinded and that denial of motor vehicle access from Grimes Lane to Second Avenue Epping remains in force.”

3451

RESOLVED (Davis/Prociv)

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

(b) That the petition be forwarded to appropriate Council Officer.

10.3

SUBJECT State Significant Development 883789

FROM Donna Davis

A petition signed by the public was tabled at the Council Meeting and reads:

“We the undersigned insist the motor vehicle access to the proposed carpark via Second Avenue Epping be rescinded and relocated to Grimes Lane.”

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

(b) That the petition be forwarded to appropriate Council Officer.

11. Rescission Motions

Nil

12. Fair

12.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Election of the Lord Mayor

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08184871

REPORT OF Governance Manager

3452

RESOLVED (Zaiter/Garrard)

(a) That in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the Chief Executive Officer, as the Returning Officer, conduct the Election of the Lord Mayor.

(b) That in the event that there be more than one (1) nomination, Council determine the method of voting as Open Voting.

(d) Further, that Local Members, surrounding Councils and other key stakeholders be informed of the result of the election.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), as Returning Officer, then conducted the election of the Lord Mayor.

The CEO advised that two (2) nominations had been received for the role of Lord Mayor, being:

- Councillor Esber; and

- Councillor Issa.

There having been two (2) nominations received, the names of both nominations were written on slips of paper and placed in a barrel and the names were drawn from the barrel in the following order:

- Councillor S Issa

- Councillor P Esber

Those voting for Councillor Issa were asked to raise their hands and the following votes were recorded:

Councillors Barrak, Dwyer, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter – 9 votes.

Those voting for Councillor Esber were then asked to raise their hands and the following votes were recorded:

Councillors Bradley, Davis, Esber, Pandey and Prociv – 5 votes.

The CEO then declared Councillor Steven Issa duly elected Lord Mayor for the ensuing term to December 2021.

Note: At this time, the newly elected Lord Mayor, Councillor Steven Issa assumed the Chair.

12.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Election of the Deputy Lord Mayor

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08184882

REPORT OF Governance Manager

3453

RESOLVED (Wilson/Zaiter)

(a) That in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the Chief Executive Officer, as the Returning Officer, conduct the Election of the Deputy Lord Mayor.

(b) That in the event that there be more than one (1) nomination, Council determine the method of voting as Open Voting.

(d) Further, that Local Members, surrounding Councils and other key stakeholders be informed of the result of the election.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), as Returning Officer, then conducted the election of the Deputy Lord Mayor.

The CEO advised that two (2) nominations had been received for the role of Deputy Lord Mayor, being:

- Councillor Davis; and

- Councillor Garrard.

There having been two (2) nominations received, the names of both nominations were written on slips of paper and placed in a barrel and the names were drawn from the barrel in the following order:

- Councillor M Garrard

- Councillor D Davis

Those voting for Councillor Garrard were then asked to raise their hands and the following votes were recorded:

Councillors Barrak, Dwyer, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter – 9 votes.

Those voting for Councillor Davis were asked to raise their hands and the following votes were recorded:

Councillors Bradley, Davis, Esber, Pandey and Prociv – 5 votes.

The CEO then declared Councillor Michelle Garrard duly elected Deputy Lord Mayor for the ensuing term to December 2021.

Procedural Motion

3454

RESOLVED (Issa/Garrard)

That the meeting be adjourned for fifteen (15) minutes.

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 7:36pm for a short recess.

Procedural Motion

3455

RESOLVED (Issa/Tyrrell)

That the meeting resume.

The meeting resumed at 7:56pm with the following Councillors in attendance: The Lord Mayor, Councillor Steven Issa and Councillors Bob Dwyer, Phil Bradley, Donna Davis, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard (Deputy Lord Mayor), Andrew Jefferies, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Bill Tyrrell, Andrew Wilson, Lorraine Wearne and Martin Zaiter.

Matter of Urgency

MOTION (Garrard/)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow a consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to Bankwest Stadium that is owned by CommBank.

The Lord Mayor ruled the matter not urgent.

Note: Councillor Barrak returned to the meeting at 7:57pm during consideration of the Matter of Urgency.

12.3

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Investment Report for August 2021

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08214535

REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant

3456

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Zaiter)

That Council receive the Investment Report for August 2021.

12.4

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 20 May 2021

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08204439

REPORT OF Coordinator Internal Audit

3457

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

That Council notes the minutes of the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee meetings as provided at Attachment 1.

12.5

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08202153

REPORT OF Governance Manager

3458

RESOLVED (Wearne/Pandey)

That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop to be held on 29 September 2021.

12.6

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Public Exhibition of Draft Councillors' Expenses and Facilities Policy

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08216125

REPORT OF Executive Officer

3459

RESOLVED (Wearne/Pandey)

That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop to be held on 29 September 2021.

12.7

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: 2021 Local Government NSW Annual Conference

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08216153

REPORT OF Executive Officer

3460

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

(a) That Council nominate the following ten (10) Councillors to be Council’s voting delegates for the 2021 Local Government NSW online Annual Conference, being held on 29 November 2021:

- Lord Mayor Councillor Issa

- Councillor Bradley

- Councillor Dwyer

- Councillor Esber

- Councillor Jefferies

- Councillor Tyrrell

- Councillor Pandey

- Councillor Prociv

- Councillor Wearne.

(b) That Council nominate the following nine (9) Councillors and two (2) alternatives to be Council’s voting delegates for the 2021 Local Government NSW Board Elections, to be held by postal vote between 27 October and 24 November 2021:

- Lord Mayor Councillor Issa

- Councillor Davis

- Councillor Esber

- Councillor Jefferies

- Councillor Tyrrell

- Councillor Pandey

- Councillor Prociv

- Councillor Wearne

- Councillor Zaiter

- Councillor Bradley (Alternate)

- Councillor Dwyer (Alternate).

(c) Further, that Council note the 2021 Local Government NSW Annual Conference is being delivered in a split format due to current Covid-19 restrictions and the postponement of the local government elections as outlined in the report background.

12.8	SUBJECT SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT FOR APPROVAL: Proposed extension of current COVID Relief Package REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08241869 REPORT OF Acting Senior Project Officer
	MOTION (Tyrrell/Esber) (a) That Council approve the extension of ten action items (1(c) i.-x.) previously endorsed on the 26 July 2021, for a further three months until 31 December 2021: i. (F1) Waiver of interest on late rate payments - The Council will waive interest on late payments for Council rates, where ratepayers satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy). ii. (F2) Payment Plans for Late Rate Payments - The Council will put in place payment plans for late payments for Council Rates, where ratepayers are suffering financial hardship and satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy). iii. (F3) 7-day Payment of Goods – The Council will reintroduce 7-day payment processing periods for local small and medium suppliers of goods. iv. (F5(a)) Waiver of License and Hire Fees - The Council will waive pre-paid and ongoing licence and hire fees for outdoor dining, food stalls, temporary premises, and non-commercial advertising. v. (F5(b)) Waiver of License and Hire Fees – The Council will waive pre-paid and ongoing licence and hire fees for community halls, parks, and community venues. vi. (F5(c)) Waiver of Outdoor Dining Fees - License and Approvals – The Council will waive the licence and approval fees for outdoor dining licences across the LGA, including Parramatta Square. vii. (F6) On Street Parking – The Council will put in place a range of measures to provide grace periods and cautions for time limited on street parking spaces; however, Council will continue to enforce illegal parking to ensure public safety and turnover for short stay parking to support local businesses. Council will also reduce and change time limits in a number of local on street parking locations to facilitate takeaway services, support local business and hospital staff. These measures will remain in place until occupancy reaches 80% of 2019’s vehicle volumes or at Councils discretion. viii. (F7a) Waiver of Rents – The Council will waive all rents for Council owned assets which are occupied by community groups, essential services and not for profit organisations. ix. (F7b) Waiver of Rents – Affordable Housing Dwellings - The Council will provide rent relief for tenants of City of Parramatta Council’s Affordable Housing Dwellings, if tenants qualify for financial hardship and a request is made for rent reduction. x. (H3) Evening Lighting Trial of Council’s sportsgrounds - That Council implement a park night lighting trial across the entire Local Government Area. (b) Further, that Council notes the State Government’s intention to provide $250,000 to Council to contribute to on-the-ground emergency relief efforts in relation to the impacts of COVID-19, and resolves that to meet required timeframes, expenditure of these funds will occur in one of the following ways: i. Through existing procurement policy and financial delegations; and/or ii. Via delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award ad-hoc grants, under the Community Capacity Building category of the Community Grants program, where grants are directly related to emergency relief provision as a result of lockdown restrictions.
	AMENDMENT (Pandey/Davis) (a) That Council approve the extension of ten action items (1(c) i.-x.) previously endorsed on the 26 July 2021, for a further three months until 31 December 2021: i. (F1) Waiver of interest on late rate payments - The Council will waive interest on late payments for Council rates, where ratepayers satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy). ii. (F2) Payment Plans for Late Rate Payments - The Council will put in place payment plans for late payments for Council Rates, where ratepayers are suffering financial hardship and satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy). iii. (F3) 7-day Payment of Goods – The Council will reintroduce 7-day payment processing periods for local small and medium suppliers of goods. iv. (F5(a)) Waiver of License and Hire Fees - The Council will waive pre-paid and ongoing licence and hire fees for outdoor dining, food stalls, temporary premises, and non-commercial advertising. v. (F5(b)) Waiver of License and Hire Fees – The Council will waive pre-paid and ongoing licence and hire fees for community halls, parks, and community venues. vi. (F5(c)) Waiver of Outdoor Dining Fees - License and Approvals – The Council will waive the licence and approval fees for outdoor dining licences across the LGA, including Parramatta Square. vii. (F6) On Street Parking – The Council will put in place a range of measures to provide grace periods and cautions for time limited on street parking spaces; however, Council will continue to enforce illegal parking to ensure public safety and turnover for short stay parking to support local businesses. Council will also reduce and change time limits in a number of local on street parking locations to facilitate takeaway services, support local business and hospital staff. These measures will remain in place until occupancy reaches 80% of 2019’s vehicle volumes or at Councils discretion. viii. (F7a) Waiver of Rents – The Council will waive all rents for Council owned assets which are occupied by community groups, essential services and not for profit organisations. ix. (F7b) Waiver of Rents – Affordable Housing Dwellings - The Council will provide rent relief for tenants of City of Parramatta Council’s Affordable Housing Dwellings, if tenants qualify for financial hardship and a request is made for rent reduction. x. (H3) Evening Lighting Trial of Council’s sportsgrounds - That Council implement a park night lighting trial across the entire Local Government Area. (b) That Council notes the State Government’s intention to provide $250,000 to Council to contribute to on-the-ground emergency relief efforts in relation to the impacts of COVID-19, and resolves that to meet required timeframes, expenditure of these funds will occur in one of the following ways: i. Through existing procurement policy and financial delegations; or ii. Via delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award ad-hoc grants, under the Community Capacity Building category of the Community Grants program, where grants are directly related to emergency relief provision as a result of lockdown restrictions. (c) Further, that a report be provided to the next Council Meeting regarding the implications of an EOI process to donate used computers and laptops through a digital donation program (including any licensing implications) during this period to registered Community based organisations within City of Parramatta and the license implications. The amendment was accepted by Councillor Tyrrell as the mover of the motion. The motion moved by Councillor Tyrrell and seconded by Councillor Esber on being put was declared CARRIED.
3461	RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber) (a) That Council approve the extension of ten action items (1(c) i.-x.) previously endorsed on the 26 July 2021, for a further three months until 31 December 2021: i. (F1) Waiver of interest on late rate payments - The Council will waive interest on late payments for Council rates, where ratepayers satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy). ii. (F2) Payment Plans for Late Rate Payments - The Council will put in place payment plans for late payments for Council Rates, where ratepayers are suffering financial hardship and satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy). iii. (F3) 7-day Payment of Goods – The Council will reintroduce 7-day payment processing periods for local small and medium suppliers of goods. iv. (F5(a)) Waiver of License and Hire Fees - The Council will waive pre-paid and ongoing licence and hire fees for outdoor dining, food stalls, temporary premises, and non-commercial advertising. v. (F5(b)) Waiver of License and Hire Fees – The Council will waive pre-paid and ongoing licence and hire fees for community halls, parks, and community venues. vi. (F5(c)) Waiver of Outdoor Dining Fees - License and Approvals – The Council will waive the licence and approval fees for outdoor dining licences across the LGA, including Parramatta Square. vii. (F6) On Street Parking – The Council will put in place a range of measures to provide grace periods and cautions for time limited on street parking spaces; however, Council will continue to enforce illegal parking to ensure public safety and turnover for short stay parking to support local businesses. Council will also reduce and change time limits in a number of local on street parking locations to facilitate takeaway services, support local business and hospital staff. These measures will remain in place until occupancy reaches 80% of 2019’s vehicle volumes or at Councils discretion. viii. (F7a) Waiver of Rents – The Council will waive all rents for Council owned assets which are occupied by community groups, essential services and not for profit organisations. ix. (F7b) Waiver of Rents – Affordable Housing Dwellings - The Council will provide rent relief for tenants of City of Parramatta Council’s Affordable Housing Dwellings, if tenants qualify for financial hardship and a request is made for rent reduction. x. (H3) Evening Lighting Trial of Council’s sportsgrounds - That Council implement a park night lighting trial across the entire Local Government Area. (b) That Council notes the State Government’s intention to provide $250,000 to Council to contribute to on-the-ground emergency relief efforts in relation to the impacts of COVID-19, and resolves that to meet required timeframes, expenditure of these funds will occur in one of the following ways: i. Through existing procurement policy and financial delegations; or ii. Via delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award ad-hoc grants, under the Community Capacity Building category of the Community Grants program, where grants are directly related to emergency relief provision as a result of lockdown restrictions. (c) Further, that a report be provided to the next Council Meeting regarding the implications of an EOI process to donate used computers and laptops through a digital donation program (including any licensing implications) during this period to registered Community based organisations within City of Parramatta and the license implications.
	Note: Councillor Wilson left the Chamber at 8:21pm during consideration of the Item 12.8 and was not present in the Chamber for the vote thereon.

13. Accessible

13.1	SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Reappointment of Community Representatives to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel REFERENCE F2021/01980 - D08194263 REPORT OF Strategic Business Manager
	MOTION (Davis/Wearne) (a) That Council reappoint the current community representative members (named in paragraph 20) of the Parramatta Local Planning Panel until 31 March 2022. (b) Further, that appropriate actions to be taken to commence the recruitment and selection and appointment of community representatives immediately with a list of suitable applicants to be reported to the next term of Council.
	AMENDMENT (Dwyer/Zaiter) That Council reappoint the current community representative members (named in paragraph 20) of the Parramatta Local Planning Panel until 29 February 2024. The amendment moved by Councillor Dwyer and seconded by Councillor Zaiter on being put was declared LOST. The motion moved by Councillor Davis and seconded by Councillor Wearne on being put was declared CARRIED.
3462	RESOLVED (Davis/Wearne) (a) That Council reappoint the current community representative members (named in paragraph 20) of the Parramatta Local Planning Panel until 31 March 2022. (b) Further, that appropriate actions to be taken to commence the recruitment and selection and appointment of community representatives immediately with a list of suitable applicants to be reported to the next term of Council. Note: Councillor Dwyer requested that his name be recorded as having voted against the decision taken on this matter.
	Note: 1. Councillor Wilson returned to the Chamber at 8:29pm during consideration of the Item 13.1. 2. Councillor Dwyer left the Chamber at 8:34pm and returned at 8:35pm during the consideration of Item 13.1.

13.2	SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Free Parking - Ticket Parking Machines (On-Street) and Multi Level Carpark - Christmas Festive Period REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08212390 REPORT OF Manager Paid Parking
	MOTION (Garrard/Zaiter) That Council approve: i. The City's parking meters be switched off and no parking fee be charged for on street parking in the meter’s location between 24 December 2021 to 4 January 2022 inclusive. ii. The provision of free parking at Council owned parking stations for one (1) day on 24 December 2021.
	AMENDMENT (Barrak/Esber) That Council approve: i. The City's parking meters be switched off and no parking fee be charged for on street parking in the meter’s location between 24 December 2021 to 4 January 2022 inclusive. ii. The provision of free parking at Council owned parking stations between 24 December 2021 to 4 January 2022 inclusive. The amendment moved by Councillor Barrak and seconded by Councillor Esber on being put was declared LOST. The motion moved by Councillor Garrard and seconded by Councillor Zaiter on being put was declared CARRIED.
3463	RESOLVED (Garrard/Zaiter) That Council approve: i. The City's parking meters be switched off and no parking fee be charged for on street parking in the meter’s location between 24 December 2021 to 4 January 2022 inclusive. ii. The provision of free parking at Council owned parking stations for one (1) day on 24 December 2021.
	Note: Councillor Davis left the Chamber at 8:41pm and returned at 8:45pm during consideration of Item 13.2.

13.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Public Exhibition of the Dunlop Street (Epping) Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths, and George Street East (Parramatta) Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08206857

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Transport Planning

3464

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

(a) That Council approve the attached draft Dunlop Street pedestrian and cyclist paths at Attachment 1 for the purposes of exhibition.

(b) That Council approve the attached draft George Street East pedestrian and cyclist paths at Attachment 2, for the purposes of exhibition.

(d) Further, that the outcomes of public exhibition of the plans be reported to Parramatta Traffic Committee, and in turn to Council.

14. Green

Nil

15. Welcoming

15.1

SUBJECT SUPPLEMENTARY LATE REPORT FOR APPROVAL: Citizen of the Year Awards Policy

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08023479

REPORT OF City Events & Festivals Manager

3465

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Garrard)

(a) That it be noted that the Citizen of the Year Awards is currently administered by a Terms of Reference.

(b) Further that, Council approve the City of Parramatta Citizen of the Year Awards Policy which will supersede the previous Terms of Reference.

16. Thriving

Nil

17. Innovative

17.1	SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post exhibition Draft Development Control Plan for the Telopea Precinct REFERENCE F2019/00327 - D08093458 REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning; Team Leader Land Use Planning
	MOTION (Tyrrell/Garrard) (a) That Council receives and notes the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Draft Development Control Plan for the Telopea Precinct which are summarised at Attachments 2 and 3. (b) That Council approves finalisation of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Telopea Precinct at Attachment 5 including the minor amendments, which will repeal the existing controls relating to the Telopea Precinct in Section 4.1.11 of the Parramatta DCP 2011 and that the amendments come into effect from the date of the public notice of Council’s decision. (c) Further, that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature relating to the finalisation of the DCP that may arise.
	AMENDMENT (Esber/Wilson) That Council defer consideration of this matter for two (2) weeks to allow for senior planning staff to meet with the community. The amendment was accepted by Councillor Tyrrell as mover of the original motion. The motion moved by Councillor Tyrrell and seconded by Councillor Garrard on being put was declared CARRIED. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Barrak, Bradley, Davis, Esber, Garrard, Jefferies, Pandey, Prociv, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter NOES: Councillors Dwyer and Issa
3466	RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Garrard) That Council defer consideration of this matter for two (2) weeks to allow for senior planning staff to meet with the community.
	Note: The Lord Mayor vacated the Chair at 8:54pm during the discussion of the amendment moved by Councillor Esber. The Deputy Lord Mayor assumed the Chair. The Lord Mayor resumed the chair at 8:58pm during the discussion of the amendment moved by Councillor Esber.

17.2	SUBJECT SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT FOR APPROVAL: Planning Proposal and associated processes - 355 & 375 Church St, Parramatta REFERENCE RZ/10/2018 - D08073201 REPORT OF Land Use Planning Manager
	MOTION (Garrard/Esber) (a) That Council note the correspondence from the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment (DPIE) summarised in this report regarding this Planning Proposal. (b) That the existing Planning Proposal for 355-375 Church St, Parramatta be amended to remove provisions consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal, while retaining the provision pertaining to a bespoke parking rate for take away food and drink premises at this site. (c) That the amended Planning Proposal (as at Attachment 1) be resubmitted to the DPIE as a new Planning Proposal seeking a new Gateway determination. (d) That, pending a new Gateway determination from DPIE in line with the amendments outlined in (b) above, Council: 1 advise DPIE that it no longer wishes to pursue the existing Planning Proposal process, as the amended Planning Proposal described above will replace it as a new Planning Proposal, and 2 exhibit the Planning Proposal. (e) That negotiation of a Planning Agreement at this site cease, recognising that infrastructure contributions for this site will instead be made as part of a future Development Application (DA) in line with the relevant Contributions Plan in place for the CBD at that time. (f) That Council officers prepare a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and it be endorsed under delegation by the Chief Executive Officer for the purpose of public exhibition in accordance with the following principles: 1 Further defining the preferred two-tower scheme, including podium heights and tower setbacks, with a view to minimising any non-compliances with relevant Apartment Design Guide requirements but acknowledging that some non-compliances will remain; 2 Establishing an appropriate relationship to, and mitigating impacts on, proximate heritage items; 3 Resolving traffic issues (including sightlines, vehicle queueing, pedestrian safety and minimising any impact of the development on Parramatta Light Rail and the surrounding road network, including restricting turning right from Victoria Road into the site); 4 Demonstrating adaptive re-use potential of the drive-through facility and at least some of the parking spaces proposed; 5 Establishing an appropriate relationship to the 385 Church Street isolated site (including built form controls for an unamalgamated scenario, and a direction for an amalgamated scenario that maintains the two towers while seeking to increase inter-building separation and tower setbacks); 6 Appropriately managing the environmental quality impacts of the proposed podium uses (particularly noise, air pollution and odour); 7 Ensuring that footpath widening and the “notch” in the centre of the site are marked appropriately in the DCP to support future public access; 8 Ensuring the building appropriately addresses the potential future through-block link; 9 Require a comprehensive Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) report at Development Application stage and ensure that building design implements CPTED principles; and 10 Ensuring that podium landscaping makes a positive contribution to public and private domain. (g) That, prior to exhibition of the draft DCP, Council consult with the landowners of 385 Church Street on the draft DCP about the controls pertaining to their land. (h) That the exhibition of the Planning Proposal and DCP need not occur concurrently. (i) Further, that Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer to make any changes of a minor, administrative and/or non-policy nature that may arise during progression of the relevant Planning Proposal.
	AMENDMENT (Wilson/Barrak) (a) That Council note the correspondence from the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment (DPIE) summarised in this report regarding this Planning Proposal. (b) That the existing Planning Proposal for 355-375 Church St, Parramatta be amended to remove provisions consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal, while retaining the provision pertaining to a bespoke parking rate for take away food and drink premises at this site. (c) That the amended Planning Proposal (as at Attachment 1) be resubmitted to the DPIE as a new Planning Proposal seeking a new Gateway determination. (d) That, pending a new Gateway determination from DPIE in line with the amendments outlined in (b) above, Council: 1 advise DPIE that it no longer wishes to pursue the existing Planning Proposal process, as the amended Planning Proposal described above will replace it as a new Planning Proposal, and 2 exhibit the Planning Proposal. (e) That negotiation of a Planning Agreement at this site cease, recognising that infrastructure contributions for this site will instead be made as part of a future Development Application (DA) in line with the relevant Contributions Plan in place for the CBD at that time. (f) That, prior to exhibition of the draft DCP, Council consult with the landowners of 385 Church Street on the draft DCP about the controls pertaining to their land. (g) That the exhibition of the Planning Proposal and DCP need not occur concurrently. (h) Further, that Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer to make any changes of a minor, administrative and/or non-policy nature that may arise during progression of the relevant Planning Proposal.
	FORESHADOWED MOTION (Wearne/) That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop to seek clarity on parking rates, the drive through and the traffic study.
	The foreshadowed motion was accepted by Councillor Garrard as mover of the original motion. MOTION (Garrard/Esber) That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop to seek clarity on parking rates, the drive through and the traffic study.
	The amendment moved by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Barrak on being put was declared LOST. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Barrak and Wilson NOES: Councillors Bradley, Davis, Dwyer, Esber, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Prociv, Tyrrell, Wearne and Zaiter The motion moved by Councillor Garrard and seconded by Councillor Esber on being put was declared CARRIED. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Barrak, Bradley, Davis, Dwyer, Esber, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Prociv, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter NOES: Nil
3467	RESOLVED (Garrard/Esber) That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop to seek clarity on parking rates, the drive through and the traffic study.

18. Notices of Motion

Nil

19. Questions with Notice

19.1

SUBJECT QUESTION WITH NOTICE: Wistaria Gardens and Glengarriff House

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08228042

FROM Councillor Davis

QUESTION

At the 9 June 2020 Council meeting Councillor Davis moved a notice of motion regarding the delay of the 2017 NSW Government decision to transfer Wistaria Gardens from NSW Health to the Parramatta Park Trust.

In response, the Lord Mayor wrote to the Chief Executive of Western Sydney Local Health District and a reply was received advising that the matter had been referred to the Minister for Health and Research.

1. Has Council received any correspondence from the Minister and/or other NSW Government departments or agencies regarding a date for the transfer of Wistaria Gardens and Glengarriff House to Parramatta Park?

2. If Council has received any correspondence from or engaged in any discussions with the NSW Government or agencies about the transfer of Wistaria Gardens and Glengarriff House what, if anything has been discussed/resolved to this point including a date for transfer?

3. Is the Governor’s Walk included in the land transfer from NSW Health to Parramatta Park Trust?

4. Can Council provide information about the long-term plan of management for the Governor’s Walk?

CHIEF OF STAFF RESPONSE

1. The Office of the Lord Mayor received a response from The Hon Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Health on 1 February 2021. This response was circulated to all Councillors on 2 February 2021.

2. The Office of the Lord Mayor received a response from The Hon Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Health on 1 February 2021. This response was circulated to all Councillors on 2 February 2021.

3. Council staff are not aware of the specific site details or any other terms of any proposed transfer.

4. Council staff are not aware of any such plans.

Note:

1. Councillor Tyrrell left the Chamber at 9:24pm and returned at 9:27pm during consideration of Item 19.1.

2. Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 9:23pm and returned at 9.25pm during consideration of Item 19.1.

3. Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 9:23pm and returned at 9.27pm during consideration of Item 19.1.

4. Councillor Zaiter left the Chamber at 9:29pm and returned at 9:27pm during consideration of Item 19.1.

19.2

SUBJECT QUESTION WITH NOTICE: Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 13 September 2021

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08226390

FROM Governance Manager

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 13 SEPTEMBER 2021

Item	Subject	Councillor	Question
14.1	Sustainability Rebates and Small Grants Program	Prociv	When will the grant applications be available? Will they be available all year? Will there be multiple rounds for these grants?
18.2	Notice of Motion – Project Budgets in Property & Place Division	Garrard	What is the financial implications around the amendment (which became the resolution), noting that the original motion had a $50,000 financial implication?
19.2	Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting – 23 August 2021	Garrard	Should the information contained within the Question Taken on Notice at the last Council Meeting be answered in closed session?

STAFF RESPONSE

Item	Subject	Councillor	Question	Answer	Executive Director
14.1	Sustainability Rebates and Small Grants Program	Prociv	When will the grant applications be available? Will they be available all year? Will there be multiple rounds for these grants?	Available from December 2021 for the remainder of financial year, or until the budgets are expended / claimed. The intention is for only 1 round per financial year. However, if budgets are increased, up to 2 rounds maybe possible.	City Assets & Operations
18.2	Notice of Motion – Project Budgets in Property & Place Division	Garrard	What is the financial implications around the amendment (which became the resolution), noting that the original motion had a $50,000 financial implication?	To provide Councillors with a report that explains current processes and recommend process improvements to better manage scope, budget and timing of a project we will be undergoing a two stage process: Stage 1 will be to engage an external consultant to review current processes and identify improvements for the life of a major project from ideation to delivery. This is estimated at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000. Stage 2 will be to receive an MPAC assurance on the processes and any recommended changes agreed upon by the Executive for the life of a major project. This is estimated at a cost of $10,000 to $15,000. The cost of this report will be charged to the PDG Consultancy budget line therefore having no unbudgeted impact on Council’s current approved budget.	Property & Place
19.2	Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting – 23 August 2021	Garrard	Should the information contained within the Question Taken on Notice at the last Council Meeting be answered in closed session?	Section 53 of the Local Government Act states that Councils must keep a register of all land vested in it or under its control. The register must include (inter alia) particulars of any agreement (including any lease or licence) entered into by the council with respect to the land. The land register is prescribed as open access information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.	Corporate Services

20. CLOSED SESSION

3469

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

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 19/2020 Stage 2 Request for Quote (RFQ) for Advertising Services for Billboards. (D08211664) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

2 FOR APPROVAL: Tender 1/2021 Upgrade of Rydalmere Park, Field 1 & 2, Rydalmere. (D08144159) - 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.

20.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Tender 19/2020 Stage 2 Request for Quote (RFQ) for Advertising Services for Billboards

REFERENCE F2020/02353 - D08211664

REPORT OF Category Manager Shared Services

3470

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Wilson)

(a) That the proposal submitted by JCDecaux Australia Trading Pty Ltd (ABN: 49 059 604 278) for the provision of Advertising Services be accepted.

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

20.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Tender 1/2021 Upgrade of Rydalmere Park, Field 1 & 2, Rydalmere

REFERENCE F2021/01075 - D08144159

REPORT OF Manager Capital Projects

3471

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Barrak)

(a) That Council approve appointment of the preferred proponent for the upgrade of the southern playing fields (Fields 1 and 2) at Rydalmere Park, Rydalmere for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 12 of the report.

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

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

21. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 20.1 and 20.2.

22. CONCLUSION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9:36pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 26 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2021 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2021.

Chairperson

Council 11 October 2021 Item 12.3

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER 12.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08243067

REPORT OF Governance Manager

workshop/briefing date: Policy Advisory Committee Meetings 22 April, 20 July and 24 August 2021 and Councillor Briefing Session held 29 September 2021

NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED FROM THE 27 SEPTEMBER COUNCIL MEETING FOR A COUNCILLOR WORKSHOP.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of the revised Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the revised Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy.

BACKGROUND

1. On 22 February 2021, Council resolved to adopt the revised Model Code of Conduct and Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct, and resolved to establish a Policy Advisory Committee to review all policies that underpin Council’s governance framework, and any other policy that requires Council approval.

2. A vast range of governance policies were reviewed by the Committee at meetings held March, April and May and Council subsequently resolved to adopt those policies on 15 June 2021. Policies adopted at the time include:

a. Governance Framework

b. Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

c. Complaints Handling Policy

d. Gifts and Benefits Policy

e. Affixing the Council Seal Policy

f. Webcasting Policy

g. Business Ethics Policy

h. Public Interest Disclosures Policy

i. Councillors Workshop & Briefing Policy

j. Legislative Compliance Policy.

3. The Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy (Interaction Policy) was deferred at that time, noting that the Office of Local Government (OLG) had released a draft Model Interaction Policy for consultation. Council officers subsequently aligned Council’s draft Interaction Policy with the draft from the OLG, and presented the revised draft to the Policy Advisory Committee for comment.

4. This report presents the final revised draft Interaction Policy to Council for adoption.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. The revised Interaction Policy is largely aligned to the OLG’s draft Model Councillor and Staff Interaction Policy. It provides a framework for Councillors when exercising their civic functions by specifically addressing their ability to interact with, and receive advice from, authorised staff. The Interaction Policy aims to facilitate a positive working relationship between Councillors and staff. It provides direction on interactions between Councillors and staff to assist both parties in carrying out their day to day duties professionally, ethically and respectfully.

6. The Interaction Policy outlines:

a. principles, roles and responsibilities

b. the Councillor Request System

c. access to Council staff

d. Councillor Access to Council Buildings

e. appropriate and inappropriate interactions; and

f. authorised staff contacts for Councillors.

7. The Interaction Policy provides the Chief Executive Officer discretion to update the authorised staff contacts for Councillors list from time to time to meet organisation and operational needs.

8. The Interaction Policy does not provide specific service measures in responding to Councillor inquiries, but references Council’s Guidelines for Responding to Councillor Information Requests which may be reviewed and updated from time to time. The Guidelines have also been attached as an appendix to the Policy.

9. The Interaction Policy aims to establish positive, effective and professional working relationships to ensure that Councillors are able to fulfil their statutory roles. In addition, it intends to maintain transparent decision making and good governance arrangements, ensure that Council’s reputation is enhanced by consistent, professional and positive interactions between Councillors and staff and provide a clear and consistent framework through which any potential breaches of the Policy will be managed, in accordance with Council’s adopted Code of Conduct.

10. A copy of the revised Interaction Policy is attached to this report.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

11. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
16/10/2020	Policy provided to IOSS, Risk, Councillor Support for comment	General agreement with the Policy	NA	NA
5/11/2020	Policy provided to Leadership Team for comment	General agreement with the Policy	NA	NA
20/1/2021	Policy provided to ET for endorsement	General agreement with the Policy	NA	NA

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
22/2/2021	Council Meeting	Defer consideration of governance related policies to newly established Policy Advisory Committee	Noted.	Governance
20/4/2021	Policy Advisory Committee	Recommended Policy incorporate hybrid document aligned to agreed service measures	Noted. Policy revised to align with the draft Model Policy released by OLG.	Governance
20/7/2021	Policy Advisory Committee	Recommended Policy to reference agreed SLAs, provision of Executive Director approval to give alternate contacts as required and expand list that Councillors may contact	Agreed. Policy updated to reflect recommendation.	Governance
24/8/21	Policy Advisory Committee	Recommended Policy be reported to Council for approval	Noted.	Governance
29/9/21	Councillor Briefing Session	Changes to Policy to refer to SLAs as “guidelines”, and for the guidelines to be attached as an appendix, update section 7 to provide clarity around the purpose of the clause	Agreed. Policy updated to reflect request.	Governance

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

14. There are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council associated with this report. The staff costs in reviewing the policy are provided for within existing adopted operating budgets.

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue
External Revenue
Total Revenue	Nil

Funding Source

Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Patricia Krzeminski

Governance Manager

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jillian Khoo

Executive Director

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Revised Draft Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy	17 Pages
2 ⇩	Revised Draft Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy - Marked Up	17 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 12.4

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER 12.4

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Public Exhibition of Draft Councillors' Expenses and Facilities Policy (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08243088

REPORT OF Executive Officer

workshop/briefing date: Policy Advisory Committee meetings on 31 May, 29 June and 20 July 2021.

NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED FROM THE 27 SEPTEMBER COUNCIL MEETING FOR A COUNCILLOR WORKSHOP.

PURPOSE:

This report seeks the endorsement of Council to publicly exhibit the draft Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the attached draft Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy at Attachment 1 for the purposes of public exhibition.

(b) That the draft Policy be placed on exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days.

(c) Further, that following public exhibition, the Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy, together with a summary of submissions and any further revisions, be referred back to Council for consideration.

BACKGROUND

1. Under the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act), City of Parramatta Council (Council) is required to prepare, exhibit and adopt a policy governing the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to the Lord Mayor and Councillors.

2. Once exhibited and adopted, the policy must be made publicly available on Council’s website.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The policy has been reviewed and changes have been proposed to ensure that the Policy is:

a. Fit for purpose and effectively supports Councillors’ in fulfilling their civic duties, in line with community expectations.

b. Reflects established Council practices not previously documented in the Policy and improves its practical applications.

c. Reflects key learnings gained from Councillors, Council officers and the community throughout the current Council term.

d. Remains up to date with regulations, policy benchmarking and advice received from the Office of Local Government.

4. Consultation has been undertaken with Councillors, the Office of Local Government and a cross section of Council teams. A bench-marking exercise was also undertaken against the Office of Local Government’s Better Practice Template and several expenses and facilities policies of NSW councils including, but not limited to, the City of Sydney, Canterbury Bankstown City Council, Inner West Council, Cumberland City Council, Liverpool City Council, City of Newcastle and Wollongong City Council.

5. Changes proposed as a result of the review are summarised in the table at Attachment 2, and include updates to key support provisions including:

a. Updated provisions to allow for a hybrid model for the issue or purchase of Councillor ICT equipment.

b. Updated Councillor professional development provisions to improve transparency and accountability.

c. Updated approval provisions throughout the policy to improve transparency and accountability.

d. Additional provisions documenting the established practice of issuing Council event or function tickets, and update approval provisions for Councillor and accompanying person attendance at non-Council functions and events where a cost is involved.

e. Clarifying administrative support provisions, including revising postage provisions to be through Council’s mail services system.

f. Clarifying equipment ownership provisions for items purchased or reimbursed by Council under the policy.

g. Updated reimbursement of legal expenses provision in relation to Code of Conduct investigations to improve clarity.

6. While Council is required to prepare, exhibit, and adopt a policy governing the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to Councillors in the first year of a new Council term, undertaking a review of the Policy prior to the 2021 local government election reduces risk to Council by clarifying support provisions and setting clear expectations for both Councillors and staff from the commencement of a new Council term.

7. Additionally, the updates to the policy seek to reduce risk by responding to key learnings, operational needs and improve language to ensure the consistent application of the policy in supporting the Lord Mayor and Councillors.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

8. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
April 2021	Office of Local Government	Provision of OLG Better Practice Template and provision of advice regarding event ticketing requirements	Feedback incorporated into review and language clarified throughout policy.	Executive Support
5/5/2021	ICT Team	Feedback provided on the updates to the policy’s ICT provisions and proposed changes	Feedback incorporated into review and language clarified in ICT provisions	Executive Support
6/5/2021	Governance Team	Questions raised on definitions, references to the Code of Conduct, approval processes and wording of ICT provisions	Questions were answered with language clarified throughout policy.	Executive Support
6/5/2021	Leadership Team	Questions raised on administrative support provisions, event invitations and ticketing, and legal provisions.	Questions were answered with language clarified in the policy on support provisions including meeting room access.	Executive Support
May 2021	Executive Team	Approval received from ET to proceed to Policy Advisory Committee	Questions were answered and language clarified throughout policy.	Executive Support
July 2021	Business Information Services	Advice provided on postage cost comparison of mail issued through Council’s mail room services compared to individual stamp allocations	Advice provided to Councillors at July 2021 PAC meeting	Executive Support
August 2021	Office of Local Government	Advice provided on proposed revision to legal reimbursement provisions to ensure adherence with the Act, and OLG guidelines	Policy language clarified for legal reimbursement provisions on occasions where a Code of Conduct investigation is withdrawn or closed without an adverse finding	Executive Support

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
31/5/2021	Policy Advisory Committee Meeting	Questions raised and feedback provided on ICT provisions, focused on retaining provisions to individually purchase devices and seek reimbursement	Questions were answered and ICT provisions were amended to include the option to reimburse Councillors for individually purchase devices to a value equitable to the value of devices issued by Council, with edits reported back to the June PAC meeting	Executive Support
25/6/2021	All Councillors	Provision to all Councillors of the updated draft policy prior to June PAC Meeting	No additional feedback received	Executive Support
29/6/2021	Policy Advisory Committee Meeting	Questions raised and feedback provided on expense approvals, reimbursement to Council, professional development, legal assistance, postage, and return of equipment provisions	Questions answered with further edits and advice reported back to the July PAC meeting	Executive Support
20/7/2021	Policy Advisory Committee Meeting	Feedback provided with questions raised on legal reimbursement provisions and capacity for pro-rata valuations on instances where Councillors contribute personally to equipment costs	Further advice sought from OLG on legal reimbursement provisions prior to finalisation of the draft Policy, and language clarified to allow for pro-rata valuations	Executive Support
27/08/2021	Policy Advisory Committee Members	Provision to PAC members the updated draft Policy incorporating the final changes requested at the July PAC meeting	NA	Executive Support

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

10. There are no new legal implications for Council as a result of the Policy review. Proposed changes align with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government Regulation 2005 and the guidelines for the payment of expenses and provision of facilities for mayors and councillors in NSW as set out by the Office of Local Government.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

11. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget.

12. The proposed policy updates reflect a series of established practices already being carried out within existing budgets, and the initial costs for the provision of ICT equipment to Councillors on the commencement of a new Council term has been accounted for in the forecasted Councillor Support budget for 2021/22.

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

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue
External Revenue
Total Revenue

Funding Source

Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Bronwyn Pullen

Executive Officer

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Justin Mulder

Chief of Staff

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	DRAFT Councillors Expenses and Facilities Policy August 2021	23 Pages
2 ⇩	Summary of Proposed Changes - Councillors' Expenses and Facilities Policy - August 2021	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 16.1

THRIVING

ITEM NUMBER 16.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Naming of 5 Parramatta Square

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08228710

REPORT OF Group Manager City Assets Parramatta Square

workshop/briefing date:

Councillor workshop on Monday 6 September 2021; 5/7 Parramatta Square Advisory Group on Thursday 16 September 2021; Councillor workshop 20 September 2021.

PURPOSE:

To name the 5 Parramatta Square (5PS) building.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the 5 Parramatta Square building be named

a. Phive (Parramatta Hive) or;

b. Civic (The Civic Parramatta) or;

c. Prisma (The Prisma Parramatta).

(b) Further that Council secure the necessary registrations for the approved name.

BACKGROUND

1. At the meeting of Council on 26 July 2021 (Item: 16.3) Council resolved:

(a) That Council note the community feedback received on the public exhibition of the proposed names for the 5 Parramatta Square building.

(b) That Council approve further investigation to identify a broader selection of naming options for the 5 Parramatta Square building.

a. a consultant be appointed to coordinate further investigation identified in part (b);

b. that the brief provided to the consultant be circulated to Councillors for feedback;

c. that Councillors be provided an opportunity to meet with the consultant to provide feedback on naming options.

2. Following the 26 July 2021 Council meeting, led by Council’s City Identity team a request for quotation process to five (5) suitably qualified agencies was undertaken and brand agency Traffic was appointed to lead the 5PS naming project.

3. A 5PS naming project brief was developed and circulated to Councillors for feedback on 27 August 2021 prior to a project inception workshop with Councillors and brand agency Traffic on 6 September 2021.

4. At the 6 September 2021 Councillor Workshop Brand agency Traffic presented the 5PS Naming project brief and project plan, and ‘naming territory’ project methodology, for Councillor feedback. Councillor feedback was noted and incorporated into the 5PS Naming project plan and methodology.

5. The initial shortlist of names for 5PS, naming rationale and descriptive narrative and associated visual mood boards were presented to the 5/7PS Councillor Advisory Group meeting (16 September 2021) and a full Councillor workshop (20 September 2021).

6. Following the Councillor workshops of 16 and 20 September, of the seven (7) initial shortlisted names, three (3) names for 5PS were selected for the consideration and endorsement of the preferred name for 5PS at the Council meeting of 11 October 2021.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

7. Following the Councillor workshops of 6, 16 and 20 September 2021, the below three (3) names and naming rationale were selected from the initial shortlist of names for consideration by Council as the preferred name for the 5PS building:

a. Phive

The Parramatta Hive (Phive)

Naming Territory: Acronym

5PS’s design, functionality and purpose is certain to give it a well-earned reputation as a hub, or hive, of community, innovation, knowledge and ingenuity.

Leveraging its prime position in a high-energy location, 5PS stands for activity and hype on a monumental scale. It is also the cultural and physical nexus of Parramatta Square, creating a large gathering place for people to experience everything from entertainment and events to its historical, municipal and educational services - all under the one roof. It is a building that has been designed like a magnet, or a hive (beehive) to bring people together for a multitude of reasons.

Definition:

Acronym. Playing on 5 and the word Hive, whilst incorporating the buildings location.

b. Civic

The Civic Parramatta

Naming Territory: Historical/Architectural

For as long as humankind has built cities, we have needed civic architecture.

Places to manage our cities and documents, to converse with our fellow community, to relax and enjoy art, literature and culture, and even, to tend to nature's business. Public buildings have, and continue to be, a vital part of the vitality of a city. 5PS has been designed to make a statement about Parramatta that resonates with the local community and visitors, and although its architecture represents an identity of its own, still provides its civic duties. It will become the heart and central meeting place of Parramatta - a cultural ‘department store’ filled with books, history and images, that offers event and community spaces, entertainment, a cafe and more. It aspires to become a platform for interaction and debate, and a ‘living room’ for the city.

Definition:

Civic. Relating to a city or town, especially its administration; municipal. A meeting of civic and business leaders - relating to the duties or activities of people in relation to their town, city, or local area. The name Civic was also consistently used in the submission from the architects. If something is related to or benefits an individual citizen.

c. Prisma

The Prisma Parramatta

Naming Territory: Architectural/Unique

When naming such an important landmark, we must not overlook its architecture or more simply, its shape. 5PS is an extremely complex and sophisticated shape. It has such symmetry, that its general form with faces cutting all axes at unspecified intercepts, forms somewhat of a prism. It is a light filled structure yet never allows the direct sun with extremely high performance features that will provide maximum transparency while controlling solar gain from within. During our consultation with the architects, there was a word which was mentioned on many occasions, and this word was PRISMATIC.

Definition:

A solid figure whose sides are parallel and whose two ends are the same in shape and size. An object of this shape, usually with triangular ends, that breaks up a beam of white light into the colours of the rainbow.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

8. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
27 August 2021	Traffic	Project inception meeting	Project background to onboard agency and commence project.	City Identity/City Experience and Engagement
13 September 2021	Manuelle Gautrand (Manuelle Gautrand Architecture); Richard Does (Design Inc); Thierry Lacoste (Lacoste Stevenson)	5PS architecture and design team provided Council/Traffic with contextual architectural background and design inspiration for 5PS.	Architect’s feedback was noted by Council/ Traffic and applied to the 5PS naming project and name shortlisting process.	City Identity/City Experience and Engagement

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
27 August 2021	All Councillors	5PS Naming project draft brief circulated to Councillor for review and feedback.	Councillor feedback was incorporated into the final project brief issued to Traffic.	5PS and Community Hubs/Community Services
6 September 2021	Councillor Workshop	Traffic presented the 5PS naming project process and naming methodology. Councillor provided feedback in relation to project and suitable themes for consideration as part of the shortlisting of names.	Council/Traffic noted Councillor feedback for consideration as part of the shortlisting of names.	City Identity/City Experience and Engagement.
16 September 2021	5/7PS Councillor Advisory Group	Traffic presented seven (7) shortlisted names for Councillor feedback and consideration. Advisory Group requested a further workshop for all Councillors to provide feedback on shortlisted names.	Council/Traffic noted Councillor feedback and scheduled follow up Councillor workshop.	City Identity/City Experience and Engagement.
20 September 2021	Councillor Workshop	Traffic presented seven (7) shortlisted names for Councillor feedback and consideration. Councillors discussed a shortlist of the preferred three (3) to four (4) of the shortlisted names to be presented to a future Council meeting for consideration and endorsement of a preferred name.	Council/Traffic noted Councillors feedback and Councillor request for the Councillor preferred three (3) to four (4) names to be put forward to Council for consideration and endorsement of a preferred name for 5PS.	City Identity/City Experience and Engagement.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

10. Proposed names detailed within this report have been pre-screened for suitability, ownership and registration purposes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

11. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget with the funding ($30,000) identified within the existing 5PS capital delivery budget.

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

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue
External Revenue
Total Revenue

Funding Source

Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal	Nil
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Christopher Snelling

Group Manager City Assets Parramatta Square

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jon Greig

Executive Director Community Services

Tamara Hitchcock

Acting Executive Director City Engagement and Experience

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 16.2

THRIVING

ITEM NUMBER 16.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Outdoor Dining Integration into Renewed Street Activity Policy

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D07955781

REPORT OF Place Manager

PURPOSE:

To endorse the retiring of the Outdoor Dining Policy and endorse the updated Street Activity Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the retiring of the Outdoor Dining Policy (POLICY236).

(b) Further, that Council approve the updated Street Activity Policy (POLICY351), inclusive of Guidelines for Outdoor Dining areas.

BACKGROUND

1. The Outdoor Dining Policy was due to be reviewed in December 2020. The review of the Policy was postponed in response to a Resolution at the 9 November 2020 Meeting "That Council resolve to agree to postpone the previously requested workshop to review the Outdoor Dining Policy, initially resolved at the Council meeting of 9 September 2019, Item 19.1, until the completion of the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) construction phase (proposed between June-Sept 21) on Church Street."

2. The current Street Activity Policy was adopted in July 2017 and has a review period of one (1) year. The Policy is due for review.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

3. The Outdoor Dining Policy is recommended to be retired and integrated into the Street Activity Policy.

4. The existing Street Activity Policy comprises a suite of Guidelines and Application Forms (including Terms and Conditions) to permit activation of the public domain, including:

· Events and Festivals

· Fundraising and Charity Collection

· Leaflet Distribution

· Mobile Food Vending

· Occasional Footpath Trading

· Outdoor Markets

· Portable Advertising

· Retail Trading in Public Spaces

· Street Entertainment

· Temporary Art in Public Spaces

5. The proposed changes to the Street Activity Policy (Attachment 1) will be to:

a) Integrate the Outdoor Dining Policy into the Street Activity Policy where ‘Outdoor Dining’ becomes one of the suite of Guidelines. The Outdoor Dining Guidelines and associated diagrams (Attachments 2 and 3) will be an updated and refined version of the current Outdoor Dining Policy content as one type of activity in that suite.

b) Align new Outdoor Dining Guidelines with Night time Economy Strategy.

c) Retain the outdoor dining policy’s set purpose to:

i. promote a highs-quality visual environment;

ii. ensure outdoor dining contributes to streetscapes and local business centres’ economic health;

iii. ensure that there is no obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular circulation.

6. Incorporating outdoor dining into the Street Activity Policy enables a more streamlined, inviting and accessible application process to align with Council strategy and provides for improved regulation of Outdoor Dining areas and use of the public domain.

7. The instatement of the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) on Church (Eat) Street has significant impacts on the offering of outdoor dining by food and beverage businesses along the corridor. Businesses fronting the PLR corridor in the CBD make up approximately 52% of the city’s outdoor dining approvals. The renewed Street Activity Policy’s Outdoor Dining Guidelines therefore also address the significant changes caused by the introduction of PLR, including the provision of outdoor dining assets as part of the new public domain such as outdoor dining coverage structures.

8. The significant renewal of these policies addresses the need for a more transparent, accessible definition of outdoor dining area compliance, which will aid in the consistent regulation of outdoor dining across the city and particularly in the CBD.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Internal Stakeholder Consultation

9. The following internal stakeholder consultation has been undertaken to renew the Street Activity Policy (SAP), with the incorporation of Outdoor Dining (ODD) as an ‘activity’:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
February – April 2021	City Experience - Carla Theunissen & Albert Gittany	Minor comments to improve SAP User Guides + Application Forms	Advice and proposed changes incorporated	Place Services (PS)
March –August 2021	PSAS - Yvonne Ramesh & Bindy Begg	PSAS, as owner of ODD Approvals, and Place worked closely to ensure lessons-learned and current challenges are addressed in the Policy renewal	Advice incorporated. PS worked with PSAS to ensure no proposed changes are a negative impact on the ODD approvals process	PS & PSAS
March –August 2021	Regulatory Services – Michelle Burke & Paul Lyth	Advised on all regulatory considerations	Advice incorporated. PS worked with Regulatory Services to ensure all regulatory and legislative requirements have been considered	PS & Regulatory Services
March – July 2021	Urban Design – Gabriela Fernandez and Deb Eastment	Advised on PLR design, preferred urban design outcomes, alignment with current Public Domain Guidelines	Advice incorporated.	PS & Urban Design
March – August 2021	Light Rail Interface – Anthony Newland	Advised on PLR design, construction, public domain asset outcomes.	Advice incorporated.	PS & Light Rail interface
March – July 2021	Traffic & Transport – Richard Searle	Advised on traffic safety and current challenges	Advice incorporated.	PS & Traffic
March – July 2021	City Operations – Terry Johnson, Jesse Ellis	Advised on maintenance, cleansing consideration for new public domain	Advice incorporated.	PS & City Operations
May – August 2021	Legal – Maureen Ip	Legal, as author of ODD Approval template, and Place worked closely to ensure Policy and new Approval align	Advice incorporated.	PS & Legal
April – August 2021	Community Engagement – Julia Gauci	Advised on messaging of new ODD Guidelines	Advice incorporated.	PS & Comm Engagement

External Stakeholder Consultation

10. The following external stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter with particular emphasis on engaging with Eat Street Businesses:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
25 February to 2 March 2021	19 ‘Eat Street’ businesses as part of 1-on-1 PLR design information sessions	Businesses were concerned at the size of their ODD space or loss of ODD altogether. Concerns around the ODD structures.	Information from meetings shared with all relevant internal stakeholders, including Council via PLR Briefings	Place Services (PS)
February – August 2021	TfNSW	Engagement with TfNSW has been through Anthony Newland, Parramatta Light Rail Program Interface Manager Economic Development	Responses to queries and concerns regarding ODD allocation as part of policy	PS
19-30 July	26 ‘Eat Street’ businesses	One-on-one online engagement with businesses regarding applications for outdoor dining and allocation of space and covered area	Responses to questions about approvals process; distribution of informational pamphlet and site plans	PS

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
28 April 2021	Councillor Information Session	Concerns about smoking; consistent regulation; business hardship due to COVID-19 and PLR construction	Incorporation of detailed no-smoking clause in Approval template; streamlining of guidelines for consistent regulation; waiver of fees as part of COVID-19 relief	Place Services (PS)
16 July 2021	Update on Policy renewal via PLR Councillor Briefing Note (p3)	n/a	n/a	PLR Interface Officer
21 Sept 2021	Policy Advisory Committee	Delete “Smoking is prohibited in Outdoor Dining Areas”; Add “cold” to the definition of inclement weather.	Completed	PS

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

12. Council will continue to issue Outdoor Dining Approvals for all approved outdoor dining applications, a copy of which the Approval Holder must retain at all times in easy access for public inspection. The Outdoor Dining Approval template has been updated to reflect the new Outdoor Dining Guidelines (Attachments 2 and 3). Special conditions for individual businesses can be specified in the Approval document.

13. Applicants are required to hold a public liability certificate of currency $20 million (with City of Parramatta Council named as an additional insured party and the outdoor dining site address).

14. The Outdoor Dining Guidelines state that Council’s Regulatory Officers have the right to enforce the Terms & Conditions of the Approval and that Authorised Council Officers or emergency services may require the removal of the outdoor dining area at any time.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

15. The renewal of the Policy has no financial implications for Council.

16. Outdoor dining fees are currently waived until 1 January 2022 for businesses in the CBD along the Parramatta Light Rail Corridor and in the wider LGA until September 2021 as a part of Council’s COVID-19 Relief Package (adopted 26 July 2021).

17. The Outdoor Dining fees as proposed in the 2021/22 Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP) Fees & Charges are as follows:

a) Outdoor dining application fee $141.10

b) Outdoor dining fees – per square metre per annum:

i. Parramatta Square $500.00

ii. Parramatta CBD $228.30

iii. Epping (main shopping centre) $204.75

iv. Harris Park $131.95

v. All other locations $94.20.

c) Outdoor Dining Bond 25% of Annual GST free amount.

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

Funding Source

Rosamund Palmer

Place Manager

Bruce Mills

Group Manager Place Services

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Draft Street Activity Policy Policy Renewed with Outdoor Dining	7 Pages
2 ⇩	Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines	6 Pages
3 ⇩	Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines_Diagrams 1-5	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 17.2

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Update of Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08171431

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

PREVIOUS ITEMS 9.1 - PUBLIC FORUM: Item 17.1 - Post Exhibition - Finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal following consideration
of submissions received during the public exhibition period - Council - 15 Jun 2021 6.30pm

workshop/briefing date: Wednesday 6 October 2021

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of the Update Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans to enable Council to update its flood risk regime for the Parramatta CBD, which will also support the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the Update of Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans contained at Attachment 2 and that the document be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to support the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

(b) That Council note the extensive stakeholder consultation undertaken in relation to the preparation of this document, as articulated in this report.

(c) Further, that Council note the submissions table at Attachment 3, which summarises submissions received during the public exhibition that raised flooding related issues, as well as written public forum statements that raised flooding issues, together with the Council officer responses.

BACKGROUND

1. The Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) was endorsed by Council for finalisation on 15 June 2021. After making minor amendments to the CBD PP consistent with Council’s resolution, it was forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) on 1 July 2021 for finalisation, consistent with the timeframe in the altered Gateway determination. The Draft Update of Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans has previously been endorsed by Council for exhibition as a supporting document to the CBD PP on 25 November 2019.

2. The CBD PP includes a new Clause 7.6L Floodplain risk management, to manage risk to life and property from flooding and includes a requirement for ‘Shelter in Place’ on development sites. A copy of the proposed clause and its accompanying map are provided at Attachment 1.

3. Clause 7.6L responds to the Draft Update of Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans (Draft FRMP) which forms Attachment 2 to this report. The purpose of the Draft FRMP is to detail how the risks from flooding can be managed in the Parramatta CBD given the anticipated future changes and growth in the CBD.

4. The Draft FRMP (with its supporting documents, being the Draft Parramatta CBD Flood Evacuation Assessment (2019) and the Horizontal Evacuation Pilot Study (2017)), was publicly exhibited in conjunction with the CBD PP from 21 September 2020 to 2 November 2020.

5. Submissions received during the public exhibition that raised flooding related issues, as well as written public forum statements that raised flooding issues, together with the Council officer response, are summarised at Attachment 3.

6. The issues raised included: the encouragement of a resilient CBD; car parking on flood prone sites; recommendations for supporting flood related DCP controls; the impacts of stormwater on river health; and currency of the flood data.

7. The issues raised did not warrant delaying the finalisation of the Draft FRMP because the issues were either not consistent with intent of the NSW State Government Standard Instrument or standard clauses, or were addressed by one or more of the following: the proposed LEP clause/map; the Draft FRMP; the forthcoming Draft CBD DCP controls for flooding; the Draft CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan; the forthcoming LGA wide Flood Study due in 2022; and/or the State Government’s new Flood Package which came into effect in mid July 2021.

8. Condition 2 of the Gateway determination for the CBD PP required formal consultation with eight (8) specific public authorities prior to finalising the draft CBD PP and Draft FRMP for exhibition purposes, with the State Emergency Services (SES) being one of the authorities. Consultation on Condition 2 occurred from November 2019 to February 2020. The only agency that responded identifying issues relating to the Draft FRMP was the Environment, Energy and Science Group (part of DPIE) and their submission and Council Officer response is detailed in Attachment 3. The SES did not respond to Council’s formal requests for comment.

9. Condition 4 of the Gateway determination for the CBD PP required formal consultation with a further 15 public authorities (as part of a longer public authorities list), as well as councils and service providers. Condition 4 also required further consultation with those public authorities identified in Condition 2, including the SES. Accordingly, Council Officers continued to seek comment from the SES – during late 2020 and early 2021, presenting the SES with numerous opportunities to comment on the CBD PP clause and Draft FRMP.

10. Until August this year, the State Emergency Services (SES) had not made any formal submissions despite multiple attempts within and outside the statutory requirements of the CBD PP process. Council officers considered that it was important to proceed with the progression of the Draft FRMP to avoid delay in the finalisation of the CBD PP. The decision to proceed was also consistent with verbal advice provided by DPIE.

Purpose of the CBD Floodplain Risk Management Policy framework

11. The Parramatta CBD floodplain risk management policy framework comprises the follow elements:

a. Proposed 7.6L Floodplain risk management LEP clause with supporting map with requirements for shelter-in-place – anticipated to come into effect with the CBD PP in the coming months. Refer to Attachment 1.

b. Draft FRMP which describes various actions that, when undertaken, will reduce flooding risks in the CBD to acceptable levels (refer to Attachment 2). Council Officers are seeking endorsement of this draft plan so that the framework around the planning controls is finalised.

c. Draft CBD Development Control Plan controls relating to flooding which will provide specific requirements for applicants relating to the provision of flood modelling, the location of habitable rooms and other requirements. This is the subject of another report to this Council meeting for consideration for public exhibition.

12. This policy framework will replace existing flood risk management strategies for the Parramatta CBD and establish plans to manage the flood risks associated with the future growth of population / business in the CBD. Endorsement of all aspects of this framework enables Council to access grant funding and reduce its liability associated with flood risk.

Existing and Proposed Flood Risk Management Plans for the Parramatta CBD

13. Two existing flood risk management plans currently cover the Parramatta CBD:

a. The Floodplain Risk Management Plan for the Upper Parramatta River Catchment (2003), prepared for the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust.

b. The Lower Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plan (2005), prepared for City of Parramatta Council.

14. A total of 49 recommendations to manage flood risks are included in these two plans. Most of these recommendations have been completed but some were found to be unfeasible, or have become unnecessary due to legislative changes. However, some remaining recommendations have been included or modified in the Draft FRMP (Attachment 2), the subject of this report.

15. The following table summarises the recommendations in the Draft FRMP.

Number	Summary of recommendation	Priority	Status
1	Encourage SES to complete an emergency action plan for the Parramatta CBD	High	Currently engaging with SES on various issues, and will include discussions on the emergency action plan.
2	Review availability of flood data to the public and develop a community awareness and education policy to inform the public about flood risks	High	Will be considered as part of Council’s “FloodSmart Parramatta” flood warning and public outreach program.
3	Continue to develop and improve a flood warning system for the CBD	High	The FloodSmart Parramatta flood warning system is being continuously improved and this will continue.
4	Revise the CBD DCP based on the findings of the FRMP	Medium	New draft DCP controls prepared as part of the CBD DCP to be considered by Council at its meeting on 11 October.
5	Develop a policy relating to fences in floodways	Medium	Further consideration will be undertaken as to how to achieve this aim.
6	Provide better information on flood risks to purchasers of properties in the Flood Planning Area	Medium	Existing system already provides information to purchasers but will be considered if this can be enhanced as part of FloodSmart Parramatta.
7	Consider ways in which Section 7.11 infrastructure contributions could be directed towards flood mitigation projects	Medium	Council’s Draft CBD Contributions Plan includes $119M of flood related works.
8	Encourage Sydney Water to review its maintenance program for its channels including removal of rubbish and excess vegetation	Medium	Currently engaging with Sydney Water on various issues, and will include discussions on its channel maintenance program and upgrading their trunk drainage network.

16. As for any type of strategic plan, endorsement of this Draft FRMP by Council indicates that Council intends to carry out these recommendations, subject to their being practical and achievable.

ISSUES

17. Specific issues that are directly related to the finalisation of the CBD PP and Draft FRMP are considered below.

Applicability of the Section 9.1 Direction on Flooding

18. Much of the land within the Parramatta City Centre is flood prone land which needs to be appropriately addressed via the NSW Flood Planning framework. DPIE’s current Section 9.1 directions provide guidance for the preparation of Planning Proposals. Section 9.1 directions are issued by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and address specific issues such as housing, hazard and risk. They must be followed when preparing planning proposals for new Local Environmental Plans.

19. The relevant part of the Section 9.1 Directions to floodplain risk is contained in Direction 4.3 clause 6(d) which states that a planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning area which:

“permit a significant increase in the development and/or dwelling density of that land”

20. Given the CBD PP will result in increased development / dwelling density in the CBD, this would not normally be permitted for the Parramatta CBD. However, Direction 4.3 clause 9 states that:

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the planning proposal authority can satisfy the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (or their nominee) that:

a) the planning proposal is in accordance with a floodplain risk management study or plan adopted by the relevant Council in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005,…

It stipulates that Council endorsement of the FRMP is required. This direction is new, having come into effect on 14 July 2021.

21. However, at a recent meeting with key DPIE, SES and Council staff, DPIE advised that the pre-14 July 2021 Flooding Direction under Section 9.1 applies to the CBD PP because it was the direction that was in place at the time the Gateway determination was issued (December 2018). This former direction required Council to create a Floodplain Risk Management Plan, but did not require formal Council adoption of a floodplain risk management plan before a planning proposal could be finalised. Since this is the case, DPIE is able to proceed with the finalisation of the CBD PP without the FRMP being adopted by Council.

22. Whilst DPIE could finalise the CBD Planning Proposal without Council having endorsed the FRMP Council Officers recommend that Council should endorse the Plan for the following reasons:-

· It ensures compliance with the post July 2021 State Government flood policy framework.

· Once adopted, the FRMP will enable Council to apply to the State Government for up to two thirds grant funding of any projects described in the FRMP.

· The adoption of the FRMP will enable appropriate internal resourcing and prioritisation of projects to be made.

· Council’s legal liability relating to flood risk is minimised, with adoption of a FRMP being a key part of State Government’s guidance for managing floodplains.

· Completing the projects in the FRMP will reduce property damage and risk to life from flooding in the CBD.

Forthcoming new LGA-wide flood modelling

23. The Parramatta River Flood Study Project aims to create a single flood model for the majority of the LGA, including Parramatta CBD. The project will update all previous Parramatta River flood modelling studies.

24. It is anticipated that the draft Flood Study will be placed on public exhibition in mid-2022 subject to Council’s endorsement.

25. Following adoption of the Flood Study, a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for most of the LGA will be prepared and this process will involve a further review of the FRMP for the Parramatta CBD, which is the subject of this report. The new Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan will take the results of the Flood Study and develop actions to reduce flood risks. The timeline for this is as follows:

a. Preparation of a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (anticipated in 2023);

b. Seek Council endorsement of Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (anticipated 2024); and

c. Preparation of corresponding LEP and DCP amendments and seek Council endorsement (anticipated 2024/5).

26. Once these phases have been completed the Draft FRMP attached to this Council report will be replaced. Until then it will remain the guide on how to manage flooding in the CBD.

27. Because of the above timeframes, Council Officers recommend Council’s endorsement of the Draft FRMP to update the existing outdated regime. Council endorsement will also ensure the forthcoming new flood clause 7.6L in the LEP is supported with the latest technical documentation.

Consultation with Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Committee (FRMC)

28. Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Committee (FRMC) serves a critical role in the development of Council’s floodplain policy to manage flood risk within the City. Throughout the duration of the CBD PP process and commencing as far back as November 2015, the FRMC has been regularly consulted on the progression of the Draft FRMP and supporting LEP clause (refer to the ‘Stakeholder Consultation’ table below) thus ensuring compliance with the State Government’s flood policy framework, which requires the involvement of Floodplain Risk Management Committees.

29. On the seven (7) occasions where the CBD PP was presented to the Committee since 2015, representatives from the State Emergency Services have been present at two (2) meetings.

30. The outcomes of the exhibition of the Draft FRMP were presented to the FRMC meeting held on 3 August 2021. In attendance were representatives from the State Emergency Services (SES), DPIE and Council. The main discussion points were:

a. Relationship between Council’s forthcoming Flood Study – of which exhibition is proposed in mid-2022 - and the CBD Floodplain Risk Management framework;

b. Some background as to why the SES had not been able to provide comments on the CBD PP and Draft FRMP to date, being field operational requirements and staff resources. SES advised that there had been internal reorganisations that have been disruptive, and also that they have been concentrating on developing strategy for the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment.

c. Impact of climate change on the range of technical work Council is doing on its floodplain work.

31. The Committee resolved:

1. That given that the SES has not been able to provide input to date, and taking into account the circumstances, the matter be deferred pending Council staff consulting with the SES.

2. That following staff consultation with the SES, a report on the proposed adoption of the Draft Update of the Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans, as prepared by Molino Stewart (October 2019), be submitted directly to Council.

32. Further consultation with the SES has taken place accordingly and is discussed in the section below.

Consultation with State Emergency Services (SES) post Floodplain Risk Management Committee Meeting

33. Since the FRMC meeting held on 3 August 2021, Council Officers and representatives from DPIE have held two meetings with SES representatives (on 9 and 18 August 2021) in order to encourage SES commentary on the CBD PP and the Draft FRMP. Both meetings were positive and the SES provided the following verbal feedback relating to:

a. The re-ordering of the objectives in proposed clause 7.6L Floodplain risk management; and

b. Clarification of the relationship between the future special flood consideration clause (part of the NSW Government’s Flood-prone land package of May 2021) and the proposed clause 7.6L.

34. At the meeting, both Council Officers and DPIE were in agreement about the re-arrangement of the clause objectives. Furthermore, DPIE were able to clarify the distinction between the intent of clause 7.6L and the intent of the future special flood consideration clause. In short, they would work together and not overlap one another, nor would one replace the other.

35. Since the second meeting with the SES and DPIE, Council Officers have made the following attempts to consult with the SES without receiving any written response:

a. Emails sent on 24 and 30 August and 3, 7, 8 September 2021 seeking timeframe for receipt of comments; and.

b. Phone calls on 1 and 3 September 2021.

36. At the time this Council report was being finalised, no further comments had been received from the SES on the Draft FRMP. Councillors will be advised if a response is received from the SES prior to the Council meeting.

Parramatta CBD Development Control Plan – Proposed flood controls

37. Draft DCP controls relating to flooding have been prepared to address more detailed issues outside the LEP’s scope. The controls include requirements for:

a. assessing flood hazards, risks and harm including the provision of flood hazard modelling;

b. land uses and building levels;

c. sensitive and critical uses;

d. flood warning and emergency response planning;

e. development near floodways; and

f. car park basements.

38. A working draft of the controls were forwarded to the SES in early August 2021 as part of recent consultations, for their consideration. The draft controls sit within the Draft Parramatta CBD DCP which is the subject of another report to this Council meeting for consideration for public exhibition.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

39. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
November 2015	Flood Risk Management Committee (FRMC)	No recommendation made.	Noted.	City Strategy & City Planning
March 2017	FRMC	Recommended Draft FRMP be exhibited if State Government required no changes.	Draft FRMP was subsequently exhibited with Draft CBD PP.	City Strategy & City Planning
21 June 2017	FRMC	(1) Recognised the complexity of the evacuation needs of the Parramatta CBD; and (2) Supported further development of an integrated evacuation strategy for the Parramatta CBD.	Noted.	City Strategy & City Planning
5 December 2017	FRMC	Noted the Parramatta CBD PP, the Draft FRMP and Flood Evacuation Study as presented at the meeting.	Noted.	City Strategy & City Planning
12 April 2018	FRMC	Noted the importance of the NSW planning system in reducing flood risk.	Noted.	City Strategy & City Planning
19 December 2019	SES Purpose: Condition 2 of the Gateway determination.	No response provided.	Noted. (See follow up consultation).	City Planning
21 September 2020 to 2 November 2020 (public exhibition)	Various – Refer to Attachment 3 for submissions table.	Refer to Attachment 3 for submissions table.	Refer to Attachment 3 for submissions table.	City Planning
21 September 2020	SES Commencement of exhibition period	No response provided.	Noted. (See follow up consultation).	City Planning
October 2020	SES Reminding SES of exhibition deadline.	No response provided.	Noted. (See follow up consultation).	City Planning
November 2020	SES Requested for comments on CBD PP and Draft FRMP	No response provided.	Noted. (See follow up consultation).	City Planning
17 November 2020	FRMC Overview of preliminary feedback received in response to exhibition.	Discussed consultation with SES and also Floodplain Management Australia. Thanked officers for presentation.	Noted.	City Strategy & City Planning
February 2021	SES Requested for comments on CBD PP and Draft FRMP.	No response provided.	Noted. (See follow up consultation).	City Planning
March – April 2021	SES Requested for comments on CBD PP and Draft FRMP.	No response provided.	Noted. (See follow up consultation).	City Planning
3 August 2021	FRMC	Refer to FRMC resolution as provided at Paragraph 27 of this report.	Council Officers held subsequent meetings with SES & DPIE. (See summary of SES consultations in below table).	City Strategy & City Planning
9 August 2021	SES Discussion on intent of CBD PP and Draft FRMP.	Will review CBD PP and draft FRMP material with a view to provide a response in the next 2-3 weeks.	Comments in meeting noted. Recommended SES progress review of the documentation with a focus on the FRMP.	City Planning
18 August 2021	SES Discussion on intent of CBD PP and Draft FRMP.	Will continue to review CBD PP and draft FRMP material with a view to provide a response on the FRMP by 25 August and a follow up response on the CBD PP to DPIE.	Noted. Anticipate SES comments on draft FRMP on 25 August 2021. Note: No comments received as at the time of writing this report.	City Planning

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
28 May 2021 via email	Councillor Wilson	Sought information on the FRMP process	Process for the FRMP post exhibition of the CBD PP was outlined.	City Planning
7 June 2021 via email	Councillor Bradley	Queried the progression of the receipt of a submission from the SES on the CBD PP. Identified a link from the Draft FRMP to the wider Flood Study and that the CBD PP is being progressed to finalisation too quickly.	Explained why the special flood consideration clause was not appropriate for the CBD. Explained how draft clause 7.6L compliments the Draft FRMP and that clause is tailored to address the unique flood conditions of the Parramatta CBD.	City Planning
7 June 2021: Clr workshop on CBD PP presentation	Various	Workshop held following the deferral of the CBD PP at that time.	Explained the role of the proposed flood clause and FRMP and that it sits outside the LGA wide Flood Study due for exhibition in mid-2022.	City Planning
3 August 2021 via email (prior to the FRMC meeting later that day)	Councillor Bradley and Councillor Prociv	Seeking role of FRMC meeting scheduled for 3 August 2021.	Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to advise the committee of the issues that arose during the public consultation phase and that the FRMC endorse as per the exhibition version and recommend to Council.	City Planning

41. The following Councillors were also present at specific FRMC meetings listed in the ‘Stakeholder Consultation Table’:

a. Administrator – 21/3/2017

b. Clrs Bradley and Han – 5/12/2017

c. Clrs Bradley, Prociv and Han – 12/4/2018

d. Clrs Bradley and Prociv – 17/11/2020

e. Clrs Bradley and Prociv – 3/8/2021.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

42. NSW Councils are responsible for flood risk management, with the assistance / guidance of the State Government. The Draft FRMP has been prepared to be consistent with the NSW State Government’s Flood Policy Framework. This framework enables councils that have an endorsed FRMP in place to minimise Council’s legal liability in relation to flooding. Council’s adoption of the Draft FRMP will ensure Council’s liability relating to flood risk in the CBD is minimised.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

43. If Council resolves to endorse the Draft FRMP in accordance with the proposed resolution, it is expected actions in the FRMP will be carried out within existing budgets, assisted if required by State Government grants.

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

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue
External Revenue
Total Revenue

Funding Source	N/A

Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

CONCLUSION

45. It is recommended that Council endorse the Draft FRMP as it brings in a new floodplain management framework that is consistent with the NSW Flood Policy guidelines, replacing a framework which is outdated. Endorsement is also recommended because Council’s liability relating to flood matters would be reduced. Furthermore, endorsement also provides access to grant funding which Council would not ordinarily have access to without FRMP endorsement and will support the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

Jacky Wilkes

Snr Project Officer Land Use

David Birds

Group Manager City Planning

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Extract of CBD PP Floodplain Risk Management clause and map	2 Pages
2 ⇩	Draft Update of Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans	275 Pages
3 ⇩	Submission Summaries from CBD PP process	7 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 17.3

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Submission on the Draft Directions Paper for Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08230276

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use

workshop/briefing date: 6 October 2021

PURPOSE:

To seek Council approval of a draft submission on the Directions Paper for the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy, released for comment by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the draft submission to the Directions Paper for Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy at Attachment 1, which includes but is not limited to the following key matters: aligning growth with infrastructure; roles and responsibilities in infrastructure delivery and funding; and inclusion of a new (or as a minimum, provision for) Metro station in Camellia-Rosehill.

(b) Further, that Council forward the submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

Previous Strategic Planning Work

1. Following exhibition of the draft Camellia Town Centre Masterplan in February 2018, the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) released its Place-based Infrastructure Compact (PIC) in March 2020. The PIC sought to ensure infrastructure delivery is matched with growth across the area from Greater Parramatta to the Olympic Peninsula (GPOP).

2. Under the PIC, the GSC recommended the Camellia-Rosehill precinct be retained for urban services land until broader planning and infrastructure issues have been further considered. This highlighted significant issues that need to be resolved to enable the precinct to transition to higher order urban services or a mixed-use precinct. Subsequently, the NSW Government determined that a Place Strategy for the precinct should be prepared.

3. The Directions Paper that has now been released will inform the preparation of the subsequent Place Strategy for the entire Camellia-Rosehill Peninsula. The draft Place Strategy is proposed to be exhibited before the end of 2021.

4. DPIE initiated the development of the Place Strategy, through a two-day Enquiry by Design workshop held in May 2021. This iterative process was attended by approximately 100 participants including Council officers, State agencies, landowners and consultants. The workshop outcomes have informed the preparation of the Directions Paper.

Key Features of the Directions Paper

5. The Directions Paper (Attachment 2) is on public exhibition from 15 September to 13 October 2021. It provides a vision that ‘by 2041 the Camellia-Rosehill precinct will be enhanced, with service and circular economy industries, and new recreational and entertainment facilities, all enabled by better transport access via light rail, active transport and road connections [abridged]’.

6. The Directions Paper provides five directions to inform the future Place Strategy:

a) Recognising and celebrating Country

b) Boosting economic activity and employment opportunities

c) Improved connectivity with a focus on sustainable modes of transport

d) Residential development key to delivering good placemaking outcomes

e) An integrated and holistic approach to environmental management and sustainability.

7. The Directions Paper includes an Indicative Land Use Plan in Figure 1. It shows heavy industry being retained to the east (dark purple), centrally located urban services (light purple), mixed use and high-density residential uses to the north-west (red), transport facilities to the south-west (grey), open spaces (light green) and wetlands (dark green). Rosehill Racecourse is to be retained with potential for additional open space to the east and an entertainment precinct on the western edge of the site (orange).

Figure 1: Indicative Land Use Plan

SUBMISSION ON THE DIRECTIONS PAPER

8. The vision and key directions are broadly supported by Council. It is recommended that key principles identified in the draft submission (Attachment 1) in relation to infrastructure delivery, housing provision, employment objectives, traffic and transport, environmental sustainability and cultural heritage are applied to guide the planning of the Camellia-Rosehill precinct.

9. It is considered particularly important that the key issues identified below are fully addressed in the new Place Strategy. Further details are provided in the draft submission (Attachment 1).

10. Aligning growth with infrastructure - The Directions Paper lacks details of how infrastructure will be aligned with growth and delivered in a suitably staged manner. The provision of infrastructure must be commensurate with the needs of the incoming population. The required local infrastructure (including sportsgrounds and playing fields) to support development in Camellia must be provided within the precinct, to help ensure an increased burden is not placed on facilities outside of Camellia that are already subject to high levels of usage. Further details regarding what infrastructure is required at different stages of the development of Camellia and triggers for infrastructure delivery (e.g., dwelling numbers and job numbers) must be included in the Place Strategy.

11. Roles and responsibilities in infrastructure delivery and funding - For Council and other stakeholders to consider their role in infrastructure provision, details of costs (including any gaps and how they will be addressed), delivery models and availability of funding sources will need to be understood. Collaboration between the landowners, State Government and Council on a comprehensive strategy for the staged delivery of all required infrastructure will be critically important. Developers will need to play a major role in the funding and delivery of infrastructure to support development and re-development of the precinct.

12. In this respect it is noted that the Directions Paper indicates that the Government is considering a potential local special rate variation in Camellia. This levy would apply to existing landowners for them to contribute to the cost of new infrastructure. The draft submission notes that the application of such a funding mechanism would need to be subject to Council consideration and endorsement.

13. Inclusion of new Metro station in Camellia - While DPIE and Transport for NSW have indicated that a Metro station will not be considered in Camellia, Council has previously adopted a position supporting the ‘inclusion (or as minimum, provision for future addition) of a Metro Station at Camellia’ as part of Council’s submission on the Environmental Impact Statement for Sydney Metro West. The draft submission on the Directions Paper reiterates this position as part of the public transport improvements needed to support growth in the precinct.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Nil	Nil	Nil	N/A	N/A

Councillor Consultation

14. Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
21 July 2021 Councillor Workshop with DPIE	All	NIL	NIL	DPIE
17 September 2021 Councillor Briefing Note advising of public exhibition of Draft Directions Paper and inviting feedback	All	NIL	NIL	City Planning

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

15. There are no legal implications for Council associated with the recommendations of this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

16. There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report. Council’s submission to the Directions Paper does not commit Council to expend any budget. Only staff time has been required in the preparation of the draft submission.

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

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Funding Source	N/A

Jema Samonte

Senior Project Officer Land Use

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Council Submission - Camellia Rosehill Place Strategy
2 ⇩	Directions for Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Item 17.3 - Attachment 1

Council Submission - Camellia Rosehill Place Strategy

CITY OF PARRAMATTA COUNCIL SUBMISSION – DRAFT DIRECTIONS PAPER FOR CAMELLIA-ROSEHILL PLACE STRATEGY
________________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City of Parramatta Council thanks the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft Directions Paper for the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy (Directions Paper). Council broadly supports the vision and key directions of the Directions Paper. Key principles in relation to the following themes have been identified in this submission:

1. Infrastructure Delivery

2. Housing Provision

3. Employment Objectives

4. Traffic and Transport

5. Environmental Sustainability

6. Cultural Heritage

Council requests that the principles as further detailed in this submission are applied in order to guide the planning of the Camellia-Rosehill precinct. Key recommendations associated with these principles should be further considered to inform the finalisation of the Directions Paper and the preparation of the Place Strategy.

A key element of Council’s response to the Directions Paper is the need for further details on proposals for infrastructure funding, staging and delivery models, the inclusion of a new Metro station in Camellia, and the importance of early provision of supporting infrastructure aligned with the needs of new development. While stakeholder collaboration in infrastructure provision will be crucial, the cost implications, availability of funding sources and delivery models will need to be understood for Council and other stakeholders to consider their roles and responsibilities in delivering infrastructure in this precinct. Developers should play a major role in the funding and delivery of infrastructure to support development and re-development of the precinct.

Further detailed comments relevant to the Place Strategy are included in Attachment 1. Council welcomes further opportunities to meet with DPIE and discuss the matters identified in this submission.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Infrastructure Delivery

Principle 1: Aligning growth with infrastructure provision

The Directions Paper lacks details of how infrastructure is to be funded and delivered in a suitably staged manner. The provision of infrastructure must be commensurate with the needs of the incoming population. Further details are required regarding what infrastructure is required at different stages of the development of Camellia, any potential funding gaps, delivery models, funding mechanisms and triggers for infrastructure delivery (e.g., dwelling numbers, job numbers and/or site redevelopment). DPIE must ensure the Place Strategy and Infrastructure Delivery Plan detail what infrastructure is required for the different stages of Camellia and specify the relevant thresholds and triggers. Notably, Melrose Park could provide a relevant example for staging of development and infrastructure in Camellia.

Principle 2: Roles and responsibilities in infrastructure delivery

It is a critical consideration that Council must not to be presented with a funding deficit when facilitating local infrastructure delivery. For Council and other stakeholders to consider their role in infrastructure provision, details of costs, delivery models and availability of funding sources will need to be understood. Collaboration between the landowners, State Government and Council on a comprehensive strategy for the staged delivery of all required infrastructure will be critically important. Developers will need to play a major role in the funding and delivery of infrastructure to support development and re-development of the precinct. It is noted in relation to funding mechanisms that the Directions Paper refers to the potential application of a special rate levy to Camellia and the application of such a process must subject to Council consideration and agreement.

Principle 3: Delivery and staging of social infrastructure including district sportsground facilities

All required social infrastructure (e.g. district sportsgrounds, community facilities and playing fields) must be provided early and locally within Camellia and in optimal locations to support incoming residents/workers. This will ensure that future growth does not place an increased burden on facilities outside of Camellia that are already subject to high levels of usage. Notably, the Staging Plan in the Directions Paper should reflect early delivery of open space and other facilities within the short-term (0-5 years) rather than the medium-term.

The Directions Paper should reference the Greener Places Design Guide, Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS) and Council’s draft Sportsground Strategy/Action Plan. The location and configuration of open space, and provision of tree canopy must be consistent with these documents.

More detailed mapping should be provided to include the location of sportsgrounds, community facilities, open space and park assets. Open space and environmental assets should be depicted as separate uses to avoid ambiguity. As with Figure 3 of the Directions Paper, open space and foreshore areas should be distinguished from each other as they are different asset types. It is also important that detailed mapping shows the location of community assets in terms of shared property/land boundaries. This is important for ensuring facilities are not constrained or overburdened by competing needs/uses.

2. Housing Provision

Principle 4: Approximately 10,000 dwellings and minimum 5% affordable housing with opportunity for greater provision

The Directions Paper identifies the potential to deliver up to 10,000 dwellings and identifies benchmarks for affordable rental housing (5 to 10% of total yield). DPIE should ensure that if the maximum dwelling yield is 10,000, this figure informs infrastructure provision rates. It is also important that the Place Strategy/rezoning package includes planning controls that prevent future density increases in the precinct.

Additionally, DPIE must ensure that the Directions Paper and the Place Strategy clarify maximum dwelling yield, desired densities, desired housing mix and typologies, design and built form principles, minimum requirements for affordable housing provision, and suitable planning controls for implementation.

While the Directions Paper identifies the provision rate of affordable housing (5% to 10% of total yield), this range presents the risk that future developments will only provide 5% as a minimum. It is recommended that future planning controls are drafted to enable Council to require more than 5% of affordable housing where it is determined to be feasible.

Principle 5: Provision of built form of design quality and high amenity

Given the high densities envisaged for the precinct, the Directions Paper and Place Strategy should emphasise the provision of built form that is of design quality and high amenity.

3. Employment Objectives

Principle 6: Optimising job opportunities through additional employment uses while supporting the retention of important industrial uses.

The Directions Paper identifies that ‘there is opportunity to more than double the number of jobs to approximately 10,000’. Council supports optimising job opportunities through additional employment uses while supporting the retention of important industrial uses in Camellia. The Directions Paper and Place Strategy will need to clarify desired employment uses and ensure the Masterplan and planning controls facilitate desired land uses and job growth. It is recommended to amend the Directions Paper to include reference to Council’s Economic Development Plan and to ensure consistency with the actions identified for the Camellia-Rosehill precinct. In particular, consideration should be given to means of ensuring that new development delivers job opportunities in commercial/industrial zones that are consistent with City of Paramatta’s current and future key employment growth areas, including the medical, education, health research and professional services sectors.

Principle 7: Strengthening the growth of leisure/visitor economy within and in proximity to Rosehill Gardens

With the presence of Rosehill Gardens there are significant opportunities to strengthen the leisure/visitor economy in that precinct with enhanced entertainment, hospitality, and recreation uses that complement the Rosehill Gardens and create an events and entertainment district.

Principle 8: Establishing a strong night-time economy and range of placemaking activities

It is recommended to amend the Directions Paper to include principles to establish a strong night-time economy and a range of placemaking activities in the precinct to boost the economy of Camellia. This will be key to positioning the Camellia-Rosehill precinct as a viable and vibrant place to live and work. It is recommended to amend the Directions Paper to include reference to Council’s Night City Framework and ensure consistency with its objectives and actions relevant to Camellia-Rosehill Precinct.

4. Traffic and Transport

Principle 9: Inclusion of new Metro station in Camellia

While the State Government has indicated a position on the matter, Council considers that a new Metro station at Camellia is required to support the precinct in the long term. It is recommended to amend the Directions Paper to include a Metro station (or provisions for one) as part of the transport improvements.

Principle 10: Completion of a traffic and transport investigation

It is recommended that a comprehensive traffic and transport investigation is undertaken to inform the Place Strategy and prior to any development expectation being set within the precinct. This must include strategic and traffic modelling (including internal road testing), intersection analysis in/adjacent the precinct, and optioneering improvements. Additionally, the Directions Paper should consider application of travel demand management in Camellia which could assist in the management of unbundled parking whereby tenants or owners can flexibly purchase parking spaces as they need rather than being automatically included as part of the housing package.

Principle 11: Preferred alignment of Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2

The proposed route option running along Grand Parade (Option 2B) is Council’s preferred alignment for Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2. The alternative proposed route along the foreshore (Option 2C) would preclude recreation and open space opportunities.

Principle 12: Active transport links are provided north-south and east-west across Parramatta River

It is encouraged to provide active transport missing links north-south and east-west across Parramatta River. Additional active transport links are required in and outside of the precinct as further detailed in the mapping section of this submission.

5. Environmental Sustainability

Principle 13: Protection and enhancement of Parramatta River, Duck Creek and associated wetlands
It is important that the Directions Paper and Place Strategy emphasise the protection of environmental assets including Parramatta River, Duck River, and associated wetlands. The wetlands have high ecological value and potentially cultural value providing habitat for endangered species and ecological communities such as saltmarsh and the Green and Golden Bell Frog.

Principle 14: Optimising foreshore access and riparian planning

The Directions Paper provides ‘it is expected that public foreshore access and improvement will be a condition of any redevelopment proposal’. While this is supported, relevant riparian planning guidelines must be considered including Office of Water and Sydney Harbour Coastal Management guidelines. It is recommended to omit the qualifier in the Directions Paper ‘maintenance/enhancement of riparian habitats, with a minimum 40m setback ...where required and possible’ as this is a minimum requirement.

Principle 15: Integrated flood management strategy across the whole precinct

A comprehensive precinct-wide Flood Risk Study and Plan must be undertaken to inform the Place Strategy. Below is an assessment of flood management principles in the Directions Paper which require amendment:

· The principle to locate sensitive and critical and uses out of flood-affected areas is supported. To clarify, while ‘childcare’ is considered a sensitive land use, ‘residential’ would not be considered a sensitive or critical use and therefore should be omitted. Parramatta DCP (Part 2) provides a list of critical land uses.

· While the principle of providing new bridge connections is strongly supported, it is crucial that these new connections consider design approaches that provide for safe flood evacuation.

· A new principle should be incorporated to restrict/discourage basement carparking considering potential flood risks. It should only be considered if basement carparking areas are fully protected from flood inundation risks for all events. Groundwater will leak into underground carparks even if they are sealed and this requires disposal. As groundwater in Camellia is likely to be highly contaminated, it should not be discharged into the environment without substantial treatment.

Principle 16: Precinct-wide coordinated remediation strategy

A Contamination Investigation Report must be undertaken to inform the subsequent Place Strategy. The Place Strategy will need to detail how any precinct-wide remediation strategy will be implemented and the costs of ensuring it being implemented to the highest possible standard.

Principle 17: Council consideration of proposals for land dedication subject to understanding land constraints and maintenance costs

Council will not accept dedication of contaminated land. Land constraints and ongoing maintenance costs will need to be understood by Council when considering proposals for land dedication if it is to be accepted.

Principle 18: Implementing net zero carbon precinct

The Directions Paper includes an objective to make Camellia a net zero carbon precinct by 2050 and this is supported. It is recommended that the Directions Paper and Place Strategy provide further detail on how net zero will be implemented and include reference to Council’s Sustainability Strategy as it is a useful resource.

Principle 19: Integrated planning of active transport, open space and the public domain

The Directions Paper and Place Strategy should emphasise the principle of integrating open space, active transport, public domain planning with the development and delivery of precinct wide environmental strategies.

6. Cultural Heritage

Principle 20: Optimising opportunities for Connecting with Country

A comprehensive cultural heritage assessment process must be completed to inform the Place Strategy. The Directions Paper and Place Strategy should incorporate principles to provide spaces for ceremony as a means of connecting with Country.

CONCLUSION

Council supports the vision and directions of the Draft Directions Paper for the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy, subject to the consideration of the principles and recommendations raised in this submission. Council looks forward to collaborating with DPIE to address the matters raised in this submission.

ATTACHMENT 1 – COMMENTS RELEVANT TO PLACE STRATEGY

Traffic and Transport

· Council officers suggests that DPIE consult closely with Sydney Metro to ensure the most accurate depiction of the Clyde stabling facility and surface and below ground railway lines can be represented (on all maps).

· The Place Strategy should show potential upgrades or at least an investigation area around James Ruse Drive/Hassall Street. Council is aware that TfNSW is investigating options to improve traffic flow along James Ruse Drive. Future Transport 2056 has Parramatta Regional Ring Road improvements in it and here is a description of the project at Infrastructure Australia: https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/map/parramatta-outer-ring-road-capacity. The Place Strategy should indicate planning and timeframe commitments for potential upgrades or otherwise earmark that consideration of this intersection will be made through a separate process, if that is the case.

· Considering its geography and possible redevelopment in Camellia, there is a great opportunity for a robust application of travel demand management including establishment of a Travel Management Association. A TMA would have to be tied to approvals and it would require landowner support. This could be very useful for Camellia to encourage public and active transport take up as the precinct grows.

· Suggested amendments to Transport Map as identified in the Mapping section below.

Open Space and Natural Environment

· It is recommended to remove the qualifiers for the provision of riparian setbacks: “Maintenance/enhancement of riparian habitats, with a minimum of 40 m setback from mean high water level where required and possible.” Council has required 40m for all recent PPs on river foreshore as per office of water guidelines.

· The Place Strategy should consider the following principles for open space provision:

o Minimum 20% of land are to be allocated to high quality open space that is within a walkable catchment (approx. 250m) of residential dwellings.

o Open space should be regularly shaped (square/rectangular) and defined by public road frontages to maximise their accessibility, amenity and activation.

o Optimise opportunities for additional sportsfields and multi-use indoor courts including the use of alternative ‘non-traditional’ spaces and underutilised land (e.g., Rosehill Racecourse).

Provide multi-use buffers to environmentally sensitive wetlands and riparian corridors to protect ecological functionality whilst enhancing connectivity and recreational opportunities.

Water Management

· The Flood Risk Study and Plan will need to detail how existing flood challenges will be addressed. It should address the challenges/risks associated with:

o the proximity and significant impacts from A’Becketts Creek, Little Duck Creek, Duck River and Parramatta River;

o zoning changes (from predominantly industrial to predominantly commercial/residential) increasing occupation of the floodplain;

o treatment of sensitive developments (e.g. childcare, aged car centres) and critical infrastructure;

o impacts on or closure of access points to and from the precinct during major flood events which will be a key issue for flood emergency evacuations and/or refuge-in-place arrangements; and

o existing contamination issues and implementation of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) solutions.

The Place Strategy will need to clarify how the Integrated Water Management Strategy impacts developments recently approved by DPIE such as the VIVA site.

Mapping issues

It is recommended to amend the diagrams in the Directions Paper to rectify below mapping issues:

Amend the transport map (Figure 4 – Potential Transport Improvements):

· To exclude details of the local road network acknowledging that this is a high-level circulation map and further technical work is to be undertaken. Concern is raised towards the street network indicated in the Town Centre (Figure 4), including access to 181 James Ruse Drive and the seemingly multi-leg, polycentric, intersection with all modes of travel represented at Grand Avenue.

· To indicate an alternative bus route along Grand Parade towards the alternative PLR Stage 2 bridge at the eastern end of the precinct to provide future flexibility in transport connections.

· To indicate the Clyde stabling yards noting that the map is indicative and will be informed by consultation with Sydney Metro.

· To indicate potential green/active transport links: along the northern foreshore of Duck River through the heavy industry precinct connecting to the Parramatta River foreshore; potential link across Duck River to Silverwater Park; links on both northern and southern sides of Unwin Street; links across Duck Creek and along Tennyson Street that directly connect to the fork at M4 motorway; connection across Duck Creek from Shirley Street to Deniehy Street and Tennyson Street that directly connects to the fork at the M4 cycleway; and an additional link along the northern side of Duck River that extends past Durnham Street eastwards towards the heavy industry precinct connecting to the Parramatta River foreshore.

· To consider whether a straighter alignment can be achieved for the river crossing to Clyde Street as it is depicted as bisecting two properties.

Correct Figure 1- Environmental Challenges as numbers 2 and 3 are shown in the map legend but are not on the map itself. Further, correct Figure 2 – Flooding from Parramatta River as it does not correctly show the flood inundation areas where the planned Sydney Metro West stabling facility is proposed and the flood inundation areas along A’Becketts Creek. Council’s Flood Map is provided in the Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Council ‘s Flood Map

Economic Development

· With the presence of Rosehill Gardens, there are opportunities to strengthen the leisure/visitor economy in that precinct with potential entertainment, hospitality, and recreation uses that complement the Rosehill Gardens and create an events or entertainment district.

· Given the precinct’s proximity to Rosehill/Harris Park and Western Sydney University (WSU), all connected by PLR, there is scope to assess the future character of these areas with respect to any commercial or retail development and needs of residents (factoring in those who live outside the precinct in any assessment) and to ensure complementary uses with greater active transport connections between them, particularly for any development fronting James Ruse Drive/Grand Parade.

· Future partnerships between businesses in Camellia and WSU should be encouraged to bolster study and work opportunities in the locality. This would position Camellia as an attractive place for students and/or young professionals to study and work in the area.

· There is scope for the provision of student accommodation in Camellia given the proximity of WSU to the precinct.

· The retention of industrial uses and introduction of uses that increasing employment density in the precinct is supported.

· The provision of high-quality public domain is key to creating meeting places outside of work. This would cultivate collaborative and innovative work environments in Camellia.

· The planning of buffer/transition zones between residential and urban services could boost economic activity through the provision of retail and hospitality uses within these areas. This would enable legibility of land uses transitioning from the town centre in the west to urban services/business park environment in the central portion of the precinct.

Urban Design

- The presence of the north-south surface connection that runs parallel to James Ruse Drive should be strengthened. At a minimum, it should connect Grand Avenue and Unwin Street, but should also illustrate its potential to connect through to Clyde and/or Granville Railway Station in the future. It is important to preserve this access, even more so when considering the pull that Rosehill Racecourse brings to Parramatta’s social calendar and the necessity to provide alternate access to James Ruse Dive with its potential intensification of use.

- There should be a greater acknowledgement of a potential long-term strategy for delivering light industrial development in the southern portion of the precinct, where there appear to be large leftover land parcels. Some indication of a permeability index or armature of streets would be helpful to manage existing NCAs in the area and to protect the delivery of the Duck River crossing in the identified timeframe.

- On the eastern portion of the Precinct, the immediate retention of existing industrial uses is supported. However, some degree of vision and/or recognition of desired future uses such as recreation, ecological or environmental employment would be beneficial.

Council 11 October 2021 Item 17.4

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.4

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Parramatta CBD Development Control Plan seeking commencement of exhibition

REFERENCE F2016/01165 - D08191683

REPORT OF Project Officer Urban Design; Team Leader –Land Use Planning; Group Manager City Design

workshop/briefing date: 8September and 22 September 2021

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement for exhibition of amendments to Part 4.3.3 of the Parramatta DCP 2011 – Strategic Precincts Parramatta City Centre (and consequential minor amendments to other sections of the DCP) as part of the CBD Planning Framework project.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the draft Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan at Attachment 1 and consequential amendments at Attachment 5 for the purposes of public exhibition for a 28 day period consistent with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(b) That the following public authorities are consulted during the public exhibition:

i. NSW Department of Education;

ii. Transport for NSW;

iii. Sydney Metro West;

iv. Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – (both Planning and Environment, Energy and Science Branches);

v. Heritage NSW – Department of Premier and Cabinet;

vi. Aerospace agencies; Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication and Regional Development (DIRD);

vii. Utility providers – Endeavour Energy and Sydney Water; and

viii. State Emergency Service (SES).

(d) That Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make any changes of a minor, administrative and/or non-policy nature to the DCP during the drafting exhibition process.

BACKGROUND

1. The Parramatta CBD Planning Framework Project involves the development of a new planning framework for the Parramatta City Centre. The new planning framework includes the preparation of new planning controls (via a planning proposal and associated development control plan (DCP)); new development contributions plan; Integrated Transport Plan and a new Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

2. The focus of this report is on amendments to Part 4.3.3 of the Parramatta DCP 2011for the Parramatta City Centre.

3. The proposed Parramatta City Centre controls discussed in this report aim to support the proposed LEP controls being delivered via the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal which amends Part 7 – Parramatta City Centre, of Parramatta LEP 2011.

4. The preparation of the draft City Centre DCP controls are consistent with the following actions in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS):

a. Action A67 – Implement the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal to protect an expanded commercial core and encourage increased commercial floor space around the core.

b. Action A92 – Progress the draft high performance building planning controls (energy, water and dual piping) for both residential and non-residential developments within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal area.

5. The previous and relevant Council reports on the DCP controls for Parramatta City Centre are:

a. The Council meeting held on 28 October 2019 (Item 15.1) where Council resolved that Draft amendments to Parramatta Development Control 2011be reported to Council prior to public exhibition.

b. The Council meeting held on 12 October 2020 (Item 17.1) where Council resolved to approve the revised Civic Link DCP, including detailed controls for Block 1 … and that detailed controls for Blocks 2, 3 and 4 be reported to Council as a future DCP amendment.

METHODOLOGY

6. An internal team of officers from City Design, City Planning, the Development and Traffic Services Unit and City Strategy, including input from specialist external heritage, architecture and urban design advisors, have prepared the proposed amendments to Part 4.3.3 of Parramatta DCP 2011.

7. The following considerations informed the proposed amendments to the DCP controls:

a. The draft LEP controls which establish the future built form and densities permitted within the City Centre.

b. Council’s vision for new built form to define streets and high quality active public spaces, with tall slender towers above the street wall, set back to allow daylight, views and air to the streets and public spaces below.

c. The importance of design quality as an important consideration in the development assessment process and reinforcing that the DCP should form the basis for assessment of Design Competitions.

d. The cumulative impact of increasing densities, heights and building floorplates upon sun access to public places, wind, views to sky, significant views, vistas and the skyline.

e. The requirement to ensure development achieves amenity consistent with the NSW Apartment Design Guideline objectives.

f. Acknowledgement of the legacy of existing built form where established street frontages, setbacks and building form will persist in parts of the city as it evolves.

g. The importance of heritage controls tailored for the unique character and setting within the Parramatta City Centre and the need for detailed heritage consideration.

h. Increasing pressure upon energy, water and sewerage infrastructure, as well as in response to improved sustainable building technologies.

i. Changes to the movement and flow of activity within the City in response to new significant state government transport infrastructure such as Parramatta Light Rail and Metro West.

j. Council’s resolution of 26 July 2021, “That, Council’s Draft CBD Development Control Plan (DCP), currently under preparation, explore opportunities to improve tree canopy and greening on private development”.

8. Furthermore, specific clauses in the proposed City Centre LEP that require the amended City Centre DCP to address:

a. Requirements for Parking and Access report (as required by clause 7.3 Car parking);

b. Clarifying the ‘Area of Influence’ when assessing specific heritage impacts (as required by clause 7.6K Managing heritage impacts); and

c. Requirements for a ‘shelter-in-place’ (as required by clause 7.6L Floodplain risk management).

Supporting technical Studies

9. A suite of technical and background studies has assisted in informing the new draft City Centre DCP controls. A full list of these studies is contained in Attachment 3.

Integration of Special Areas in the CBD

10. The proposed amendments to the Parramatta DCP 2011 acknowledge Special Areas as precincts within the City having special importance or distinct character that require tailored controls to manage their growth. These precincts are also informed by aforementioned technical and background studies.

11. Special Areas are distinct from site specific DCP controls that result from site specific Planning Proposals, which are much smaller in scale, e.g. a single or amalgamated collection of development parcels as opposed to multiple city blocks and streets. City Centre Special Areas and their controls, are distinguished by their unique character and built form and are typically larger areas.

12. Refer to the Summary Table of Key Amendments to Part 4.3.3 Parramatta City Centre DCP at Attachment 2 that outlines the Special Areas and identifies those that have minor amendments, are new, or that have been carried across to the draft City Centre DCP.

Civic Link

13. In response to Council’s resolution of 12 October 2020, requiring detailed controls be reported to Council for Civic Link as a future DCP amendment, updated and revised controls are incorporated for the special area, inclusive of 71 (part), 73 and 75 George Street. This is in response to receipt of two site-specific DCP applications received during the preparation of the draft City Centre DCP. A summary of the applications and assessment of the issues is contained in Attachment 4.

Phillip Street/City River East Block

14. In response to feedback from Council following its consideration of the CBD Planning Proposal, additional controls for the Phillip Street/City River East block are proposed to be included as part of the City River Special Area. The new controls respond to the vision of the CBD PP for this precinct consistent with Council’s resolution on 15 June 2021 to ensure that there are separations between buildings from ground level upwards, including the tower elements, to maintain visual and physical connectivity between the river and the broader CBD to the south. These will also ensure that amenity, high quality, and tall slender towers are realised in a manner that ensure streets (and other public spaces) are as well scaled and comfortable as possible for people. Detailed controls for the remainder of the City River Special Area will form part of a future DCP amendment.

Integration of site specific DCPs in the CBD

15. Recent Site Specific PPs and associated site specific DCPs within the City Centre have also helped shape the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP informing key controls such as inter-building separation, street walls and the quality of space between buildings for the duration of time between amendments to Part 4.3.3 of the Parramatta DCP 2011.

16. All of the existing and endorsed site-specific DCP controls are proposed to be carried over in the draft City Centre DCP.

Compliance with relevant SEPPs

17. BASIX SEPP: The Environmental Sustainability controls have been drafted to ensure compliance with the BASIX SEPP. They also address other concerns such as internal amenity, urban heat, bird strike, green roofs, and requirements for high performing buildings.

18. SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guidelines: Apart from the three non-discretionary development standards in SEPP 65 of car parking, internal area, and ceiling heights, the ADG is not intended to be and should not be applied as a set of strict development standards and a DCP can take precedence in these areas. The draft City Centre DCP aims to achieve amenity consistent with the ADG while also ensuring consistency with the CBD PP. Controls in the draft City Centre DCP are consistent with the ADG for eight nominated areas including visual privacy, solar and daylight access, common circulation and space, apartment size and layout, ceiling heights, private open space and balconies, natural ventilation, and storage. However controls for building separation, deep soil, streetscape, and floor-to-floor heights differ from the numerical guidelines however still satisfy the objectives of the ADG.

Urban Design Principles and Controls

19. Principles underpinning the proposed amendments to Part 4.3.3 of the Parramatta DCP 2011 give effect to Council’s vision for high quality active urban spaces and the architecture of tall slender towers, to foster the development of a lively, diverse and healthy city, which celebrates a sense of place and local character in both the public and private realms.

20. A key focus of the amended DCP controls is on the way people experience the city, particularly at the ground level, where direct contact between buildings and people is at its most intense. The overarching LEP framework requires a large portion of the City’s streets to have active ground floor frontages and the DCP controls support this by establishing controls for street walls and their character to enhance the pedestrian experience.

21. With respect to built form outcomes, there are two central principles: well- scaled street walls built to the frontage, and tall and slender towers that are set back to allow daylight, views, circulation of air, and amenity to the streets and public spaces below. This mitigates some of the impact of large towers and makes streets (and other public spaces) as well scaled and comfortable as possible for people.

22. In areas at the periphery that are zoned B4 and where active ground floors are not mandatory, the built form parameters at the lower levels are more dependent on site conditions. Where buildings have residential ground floors, they are to be set back from the street frontage with deep soil in the setback area. Trees and landscape take on an important role in defining the street in these cases, adding to its amenity and character, and extending the tree canopy at the fringes of the city.

Heritage controls

23. Heritage is an important feature of the Parramatta City Centre. A key challenge for Parramatta is to retain the authenticity and setting of its heritage amidst new large scale, high-rise development, particularly as heritage buildings are generally small in scale. The aim of the additional heritage controls is to conserve the collective network of heritage buildings and places that together enliven and enrich the character of the City Centre.

24. The draft controls, which are correlated with the broader Parramatta DCP 2011, require a detailed understanding of the heritage values of a place, its setting, and its broader relationships with other places within the City Centre to be demonstrated through detailed heritage analysis and appropriately responded to in any new development.

25. Provisions continue to be provided in some ‘Special Areas’ and Site Specific Controls that contain heritage items to ensure their unique character and quality is well considered in the redevelopment of surrounding sites for example, the Roxy and Kia Ora along Civic Link; Harrisford House adjacent to 180 George Street. Specific controls have also been prepared (informed by studies that supported the CBD PP) recognising the clusters of heritage items along Church Street and Marion Street.

Flooding controls

26. Proposed amendments to the City Centre DCP provide enhanced and specific controls tailored to the Parramatta City Centre. Council’s approach to flood controls supports the framework established under the CBD PP and the Draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan. In general terms, the draft flood controls do the following:

- Provide further design guidance on measures to comply with the “shelter-in-place” strategy (vertical evacuation) established under the CBD PP, which applies to the PMF.

- Require flood hazard modelling and hazard, risk and safety assessments to be undertaken.

- Provide a framework for uses that are appropriate to the flood risk within a CBD environment.

- Allow for an integrated built form response and merit assessment.

- Give specific consideration for Parramatta Riverbank and foreshore given high public use.

- Ensure flood warning and emergency response planning is undertaken for flood prone developments to assist in reducing risk of harm.

Sustainability

27. The Sustainability and infrastructure studies predict future city centre growth will result in a three-fold increase in energy and water demand, a four-fold increase in sewer loads, as well as temperature increases and urban heat impacts in Parramatta as the city builds out to the densities envisaged by the LEP.

To limit the impact from this growth, it is important to design and build environmentally sustainable buildings that reduce energy, water use and urban heat generation. High energy and water performing buildings require controls to be materially better than the national minimum regulated standards.

28. To deliver high performing buildings in the Parramatta City Centre, a Best in Market approach has been adopted in the LEP and the draft City Centre DCP Controls are in support of this approach.

29. The updated Environmental Sustainability section for the City Centre responds to the increasing demands on energy, water and sewerage infrastructure, as well as in response to improved sustainable building technologies. This includes principles and controls relating to High Performing Buildings, Urban Heat mitigation, design of building surfaces and choice of materials, bird strike, solar reflectivity, wind mitigation, all electric buildings, natural refrigerants in air conditioners and electric vehicles.

Civic Link Controls

30. Updated and revised controls are proposed for the Civic Link Special Area. Draft Civic Link controls were previously reported to Council on 12 October 2020. The draft controls included overall objectives for the whole of Civic Link as well as specific provisions for Block 1 only. Block 2 was deferred in 2020 in response to the announcement by Metro West of Parramatta Metro Station. Block 4 was also deferred as Parramatta Powerhouse was under consideration for State Significant approval.

31. The proposed Civic Link Special Area controls identify new public open spaces, streets, and laneways; guide property access and servicing; describe how future buildings will interact with public spaces; and outlines the shape of future built form.

32. The amended Civic Link Special Area includes current provisions for Block 1 and new provisions for Blocks 2 and 3. Detailed provisions for Block 4 are proposed to be addressed in the future City River Special Area.

33. The amended Civic Link Special Area also expands its boundary to include 71 (part), 73 and 75 George Street in response to two, site-specific DCP applications received during the preparation of the amendments to the City Centre DCP. A summary of the applications and assessment of the issues is contained in Attachment 4.

OTHER ISSUES

34. Existing controls that remain consistent with the LEP and all existing site-specific controls have been carried over into the amended DCP. A Summary Table of Key Amendments to Part 4.3.3 Parramatta City Centre DCP is included at Attachment 2. .

35. Business Rules are in place to guide the assessment and determination of development applications, including their relationship to planning proposals and design competitions. The current business rules were endorsed by the CEO on 6th October 2020. In accordance with these business rules, once the draft City Centre DCP (the subject of this report), is endorsed by Council and placed on exhibition, it will be able to be used in the assessment of applications and used to inform design competition briefs.

36. Given that the CBD Planning proposal is imminent, and that there are no proposed savings provisions, Applicants are being advised that all new significant proposals in the Parramatta City Centre should be submitted in accordance with the new legislation. The proposed City Centre DCP support this planning proposal and will therefore be used in all assessments and design competition briefs following exhibition. Development Applications that are currently in the system will be considered under the existing controls. In relation to design competitions, these have either recently been completed on the basis of Site Specific Planning Proposals and DCPs which will continue to be the statutory framework for assessment or are waiting for the Council’s consideration of this DCP and will be run on the basis of the new LEP and DCP framework.

37. The forthcoming City Centre LEP controls rezone some land in the Harris Park West and North Parramatta Heritage Conservation Areas to B4 Mixed Use (with no changes to the height and FSR controls). As a result, consequential minor policy amendments are required to Parramatta City Centre DCP controls specifically Section 4.4 Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) to require the controls in Section 4.3.3 Parramatta City Centre of the DCP to be considered in addition to the controls in Section 4.4.3.3.1 Harris Park West and Section 4.4.4.1 North Parramatta and Sorrell Street. The proposed changes are detailed in Attachment 5.

38. Owing to the size and complexity of the proposed City Centre DCP controls, once the exhibition period has concluded, Council Officers will determine how best to integrate the new controls into the existing Parramatta DCP 2011 structure. Options to be investigated include:

a. Integration into the existing section 4.3.3 Parramatta City Centre; or

b. Deletion of section 4.3.3 Parramatta City Centre and replace with:

i. a new Part in DPCP 2011; or

ii. create a temporary stand-alone DCP for the period up until the Harmonised DCP comes into effect.

ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE EXHIBITION PERIOD

39. The engagement strategy for the exhibition of the City Centre DCP has been prepared consistent with Council’s Community Engagement Strategy (December 2019) as well as the statutory requirements under the EP&A Act 1979 for DCPs. The engagement strategy will be delivered with assistance from Council’s City Engagement Team and involves the following elements:

a. 4 week exhibition period;

b. Frequently asked questions (FAQs);

c. Community Summary Sheet;

d. Public notices and social media;

e. Notification email to 350 contacts on the CBD Planning Framework Contact List;

f. Webpage promotion on: the CBD Planning Framework and CBD Planning Proposal webpages; and a new Participate Parramatta and temporary ‘On exhibition’ webpages will be created;

g. Online submission portal and formal submission process; and

h. Letters to Public Authorities listed in recommendation.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

40. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter.

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

During CBD PP exhibition period (Sept-Nov 2020)

Heritage NSW

The new Parramatta City Centre control should prevent a “hard wall” effect

New built form controls are included in the draft DCP. Heritage NSW will be consulted when the DCP controls are exhibited.

City Planning & Design

During CBD PP exhibition period (Sept-Nov 2020)

Property and Development NSW/Dept of Education/

School Infrastrcture NSW

Requested the CBD PP make clear that the maintenance of solar amenity to existing and future residential development in the CBD may be challenging to achieve in some circumstances.

Matter is best dealt with via the DCP controls where possible but mindful of the limitations of what the controls can do given the CBD is Greater Sydney’s Central CBD. These public authorities will be consulted when the DCP controls are exhibited.

City Planning & Design

During CBD PP exhibition period (Sept-Nov 2020)

NSW Environment Protection Authority

Proposed City Centre LEP provisions:

- do not consider the effects of wind or issues associated with canyoning

- would benefit recognising the air quality protection principles for residential and other sensitive developments near busy roads (as per Development near rail corridors and busy roads – interim guideline).

Proposes the DCP controls could:

- address the circular economy concept and principles relating to waste management.

- site contamination for key sites such as the Auto Alley precinct.

Detailed urban design controls have been introduced into the City Centre DCP.

It is beyond the scope of the City Centre DCP to address LGA wide issues relating to air quality and circular economy, and equally, contamination issues. The EPA will be consulted when the DCP controls are exhibited.

City Planning & Design

During CBD PP exhibition period (Sept-Nov 2020)

Transport for NSW

Suggests DCP include design provisions for Macquarie Lane to enable a footpath width of at least four metres to accommodate the expected large volumes of pedestrians entering and exiting the Sydney Metro Precinct using this connection.

Footpath requirements for Macquarie Lane are drafted in the Civic Link Block 2 DCP controls.

TfNSW will be consulted when the DCP controls are exhibited.

City Planning & Design

During CBD PP exhibition period (Sept-Nov 2020)

National Trust

Raised concerns about the conservation of places across the CBD and recommended better protection of heritage items: Parramatta River, Church Street, Prince Alfred Square, Roxy Theatre, Centenary Square and Experiment Farm.

New DCP heritage controls are being introduced to support clause 7.6K Managing heritage impacts.

National Trust will be consulted when the DCP controls are exhibited.

City Planning & Design

9 August, 2021

State Emergency Service (SES)

No formal reply

City Planning & Design

19 August 2021

Department of Planning, Infrastructure & Environment (DPIE)

No comments received

City Planning & Design

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
8 September 2021 (Councillor workshop)	Lord Mayor, Cllr Dwyer Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr Garrard Cllr Pandey Cllr Wilson Cllr Davis Cllr Prociv Cllr Issa Cllr Bradley Cllr Wearne	Raised questions and provided feedback in relation to setback controls, heritage, awnings, Phillip St block controls, future proofing the City and the application of draft DCP in the assessment of DAs	Responses provided at Councillor Workshop held on 22 September 2021 and addressed in this report and attachments	City Planning and Design
16 September 2021 (provided working draft of DCP and summary table of key changes)	ALL	NIL	NIL	City Planning and Design
22 September 2021 (Councillor workshop)	Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr Garrard Cllr Pandey Cllr Wilson Cllr Davis Cllr Prociv Cllr Issa Cllr Bradley Cllr Wearne Cllr Tyrell Cllr Esber	Responses to questions raised at 8 September workshop and a review of summary of changes to the draft DCP as well as questions and feedback around safe pedestrian crossing of Church Street in Auto Alley and Harris Park, maximum floor plate sizes, minimum site width controls and building separation. the nature of through site links at the Phillip St block including activation & open to sky, ensuring Phillip Street controls align with Council’s endorsed position	Responses provided during workshop and addressed in this report and attachments	City Planning and Design

Timing

42. The proposed amendments to the Parramatta DCP 2011 controls will be exhibited for a 4 week period in accordance with the above Engagement Strategy with a report back to Council anticipated in early 2022.

43. The timing of this DCP is critical. Council requires a DCP that supports and responds to the significant planning changes that will imminently be introduced by the making of the CBD PP. It will provide clarity, consistency and efficiency in the consideration of design competitions and assessment of development applications under a new planning framework. Without an updated DCP, for major development proposals, a site-specific DCP will be required (as current City Centre DCP controls are inadequate) to inform Design Competitions and development applications relying on CBD PP controls, which will be resource intensive and increase processing times.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

44. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report because the proposed Engagement Strategy is consistent with the requirements in the EP&A Act 1979 and Council’s Community Engagement Strategy (December 2019).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

45. Costs associated with the public exhibition of the draft DCP are fully funded from the City Planning budget.

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue
External Revenue
Total Revenue

Funding Source	N/A

Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Jay Ahmed

Project Officer Urban Design

Kelly van der Zanden

Group Manager City Design

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1⇩	Draft Parramatta City Centre DCP
2⇩	Summary of key differences to the City Centre DCP
3⇩	Full List of Studies
4⇩	Assessment of Block 2 Civic Link
5 ⇩	Consequential amendments to Parramatta DCP 2011	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 17.5

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.5

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post-exhibition - Amended Melrose Park North Planning Proposal, Draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and Draft Planning Agreement

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08203219

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

PREVIOUS ITEMS 17.5 - FOR APPROVAL: Post Gateway - Amended Melrose Park North Planning Proposal and Draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement - Council - 22 Mar 2021 6.30pm

APPLICANTS Payce MP DM Pty Ltd (38-42, 44 & 44a Wharf Road, Melrose Park, And 27-29 Hughes Avenue, Ermington)

Ermington Gospel Trust (15-19 Hughes Avenue & 655 Victoria Road, Ermington)

Jae My Holdings Pty Ltd (8 Wharf Road, Melrose Park)

LANDOWNERS Payce MP DM Pty Ltd

Ermington Gospel Trust

Jae My Holdings Pty Ltd

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY CENTRAL CITY DISTRICT PANEL: nil

workshop/briefing date: Wednesday 6 October 2021.

PURPOSE:

To detail submissions received during the public exhibition of the amended Melrose Park North Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement and respond to issues raised. The report recommends that Council approve the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE), and approve the site-specific DCP and Planning Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes the submissions (summarised in Attachment 2) made during the concurrent public exhibition of:

· the amended Melrose Park North Planning Proposal.

· the draft objectives and controls to be included the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the Draft Planning Agreement.

(b) That Council approve the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal for finalisation (provided at Attachment 4) that seeks to amend Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as follows:

1) Rezone 38-42, 44 & 44a Wharf Road, Melrose Park from IN1 General Industrial to part R4 High Density Residential, part B2 Local Centre, part RE1 Public Recreation and part SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

2) Rezone 27-29 Hughes Avenue, Ermington from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential.

3) Rezone 15-19 Hughes Avenue and 655 Victoria Road from part R2 Low Density Residential and part SP1 Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) to part R4 High Density Residential and part RE1 Public Recreation.

4) Rezone 8 Wharf Road, Melrose Park from IN1 General Industrial to part R4 High Density Residential and part RE1 Public Recreation.

5) Amend the height of buildings map to increase the maximum building heights from part 9m and part 12m to multiple heights ranging from 36m to 95m (approx. 6-8 storeys to approx. 26 storeys).

6) Amend the floor space ratio (FSR) from part 0.5:1 and part 1:1 to 1.85:1.

7) Amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to reflect areas of public open space to be dedicated to Council and land for the new school site to the State Government.

8) Amend Schedule 1- Additional Permitted Uses to permit ‘Residential flat buildings’ in the B2 Local Centre zone where the minimum 30,000m² of retail/commercial floorspace is achieved.

9) Amend the Additional Local Provisions map to include the site and insert a site-specific provision in Part 6 Additional local provisions – generally of PLEP 2011 to ensure:

9.1) That Design Excellence Competition provisions be inserted applicable to development lots E, EA and G (identified in Figure 8 of Attachment 1) without the provision of floor space and height bonuses.

9.2) That a Design Excellence Panel be appointed to provide design advice for all development applications within the Planning Proposal area of the northern precinct. Floor space and height bonuses are not to be awarded on any development lot.

9.3) The total residential gross floor area within the planning proposal site does not exceed 481,340m².

9.4) A minimum of 30,000m² of non-residential floor space is provided within the site to serve the retail and commercial needs of the incoming population.

10) Include a provision that prevents the planning proposal sites from utilising the amended planning controls until such time that a planning agreement has been executed and registered on the respective Title.

(c) That Council forward the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

(d) That Council approve for finalisation the amendments to the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 that are included at Attachment 5.

(e) That Council endorse the Planning Agreement associated with the Payce landholding included at Attachment 6.

(f) That Council resolves to consider the Planning Agreements associated with The Ermington Gospel Trust site at 15-19 Hughes Avenue & 655 Victoria Road, Ermington and Jae My Holdings site at 8 Wharf Road, Melrose Park separately.

(g) That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments and corrections of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan amendment process relating to the Planning Proposal, Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement.

(h) Further, that Council note the Local Planning Panel considered the Planning Proposal and draft DCP at its meeting of 17 August 2021 and recommended that the following additional matters be considered by Council:

i. Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the draft DCP that reference the Master Plan and Public Domain Plan and clearly identify key requirements of these plans including where direct access to the frontage roads is restricted.

ii. Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the draft DCP to demonstrate the adequacy and purpose of public open space areas to provide both active and passive recreational opportunities within the precinct.

iii. The framework for the water management strategy needs to be incorporated into the draft DCP to provide adequate guidance for detailed design of the stormwater infrastructure to be provided within the precinct.

iv. Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the draft DCP to provide clarity around setting podium heights and associated setbacks to ensure consistency across the precinct.

v. Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the DCP to reflect the proposed staging of development as provided for within the relevant Voluntary Planning Agreements.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

BACKGROUND

1. The Planning Proposal was originally considered by Council at its meeting of 10 July 2017, where it was resolved to proceed for Gateway determination. The Gateway determination was issued on 27 September 2017 with a number of conditions that needed to be addressed.

2. A revised version of the original 2017 draft Melrose Park North Planning Proposal was considered by Council at its meeting of 12 August 2019, when it was resolved to forward the proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) seeking approval to exhibit. This was a requirement of the Gateway determination issued in September 2017.

3. At its meeting of 22 March 2021, Council resolved to exhibit the amended version of the 2019 draft Melrose Park North Planning Proposal, draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement that are the subject of this report.

4. The draft documents were publicly exhibited from 25 April 2021 to 26 May 2021. A summary of the consultation is contained within this report, with full details provided in the Local Planning Panel (LPP) report of 17 August 2021 (Attachment 1).

5. The draft Planning Agreement for the Payce landholding was subject to a re-exhibition due to the adoption of the Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan. The re-exhibition was undertaken from 9 August to 6 September 2021.

6. The remaining Planning Agreements relating to the other two sites within the Planning Proposal area, being 8 Wharf Road, Melrose Park and 15-17 Hughes Avenue and 655 Victoria Road, Ermington are subject to separate consultation processes and will be reported to Council for consideration for exhibition in the New Year.

7. The Planning Proposal seeks to include a deferred commencement clause in the PLEP 2011 stipulating that no development applications can be lodged on sites included in the proposal that seek to utilise the proposed uplift on the respective sites until the respective Planning Agreements for those sites have been registered on the Title. This will ensure that redevelopment of these sites cannot occur without a commitment to deliver the required infrastructure.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL OUTCOMES

8. The Planning Proposal and draft DCP were considered by the Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 17 August 2021, where it was decided to defer the making of a recommendation by the Panel pending consideration of further information from Council officers relating to stormwater management, urban design, design excellence and infrastructure provision. The Panel considered the additional information on 24 August 2021 and made recommendations regarding specific matters before Council’s consideration of the Planning Proposal and draft DCP for finalisation.

9. The Panel did not raise new issues or recommend significant changes to the Planning Proposal or draft DCP, and a number of the Panel’s recommendations were already proposed to be included in the legal drafting of the LEP amendment should Council endorse the Planning Proposal. The Panel did not consider the Planning Agreement document because at that time the Planning Agreement was subject to a re-exhibition which had not concluded in time to be considered by the Panel. The Panel’s recommendations relate to:

Planning Proposal

· Requirement of Planning Agreements to be registered on the respective Titles prior to the lodgement of development applications.

· Inclusion of a provision stating the maximum residential gross floor area permitted on the Planning Proposal site.

· Adding a provision stating that residential flat buildings are only permissible in the B2 zone where the minimum 30,000m² of retail/ commercial floor space is achieved.

· Establishing a Design Excellence Panel to review all development applications within the northern precinct and that height and floor space bonuses not be awarded to any development lot.

· Limiting the amount of floor space that can be developed within the precinct prior to the construction of essential infrastructure such as a bridge over the Parramatta River to facilitate a public transport link to the future Metro stop at Sydney Olympic Park.

DCP

· Update of in-document references to the Master Plan and Public Domain Plan

· Clarification over the extent and purpose of the proposed new public open space.

· Updating the attached Water Management Strategy framework.

· Additional controls relating to podium heights and setbacks to better reflect the exhibited Master Plan.

· Further detail regarding the staging of development.

10. The full Local Planning Panel recommendation and detailed responses to the issues raised by the Panel are included in Attachment 3 to this report. In general, Council officers agree with the recommendations as they were either already proposed to be incorporated into the relevant document or are considered reasonable to be inserted. Those recommendations proposed to be inserted that were not already identified include:

· Requirement for the Planning Agreements to be registered on the respective Titles prior to the lodgment of development applications.

· Expanding on the existing provision to enable residential flat buildings to only be permissible where the minimum retail/commercial floor space is achieved.

· Clarification of the extent and purpose of new public open space in the precinct.

· Updating the Water Management Strategy framework.

· Additional controls relating to podium heights and setbacks.

· Further detail regarding the staging of development.

11. It is noted that the maximum residential gross floor area permitted on the planning proposal site has since been recalculated to exclude the commercial floor space and account for updated cadastral information and is now identified as 481,340m². This change has been made to the draft DCP, Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement to provide clarification between the GFAs achievable on each site and to differentiate between the residential and non-residential GFA components.

KEY ISSUES

12. A total of seventy-five (75) submissions were received during the public exhibition period comprising sixty-five (65) from the community, with the remaining ten (10) from public agencies and other organisations. Overall, 11% of submissions supported the proposal in full, 68% objected to the proposal in full. A total of 8% stated partial support or objection and 13% neither stated objection nor support. Refer to the Local Planning Panel report at Attachment 1 for full details of the consultation undertaken for this exhibition.

13. A number of submissions received during the public exhibition period raised concerns regarding the proposed amendments, with the key issues relating to density, building heights, amenity, the Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP), open space and the proposed residential floor area. Refer to the Local Planning Panel report at Attachment 1 for further details on the key issues raised and Council officer responses and recommendations. A table of all concerns raised and Council officer responses is provided at Attachment 2.

14. As a result of the public exhibition and the Local Planning Panel recommendations, the Planning Proposal is recommended to proceed at the proposed heights and density. However, a number of changes have been made to the Planning Proposal (at Attachment 3). In addition to those which were suggested by the Panel and are identified in paragraph 10-11, two changes have been made by Council officers which relate to the shuttle bus service and maximum residential GFA permissible on the Planning Proposal site. These changes are detailed below and in Attachment 3. These changes do not alter the overall dwelling yield under the exhibited Planning Proposal. They are not material changes and therefore do not trigger the need for a re-exhibition.

15. Changes are also proposed to the site-specific DCP as a result of the public exhibition, further internal review and the Local Planning Panel recommendations. These changes aim to provide further clarity as to how development should proceed on the site and reflect the exhibited Master Plan. They are highlighted above (see paragraph 8) and are also detailed in Attachment 3.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

16. The draft Planning Agreement for the Payce landholding was exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP and has a total value of $96,745,226. The Planning Agreement will deliver new open space, social and community and road infrastructure over the course of the redevelopment. Further details on the infrastructure items are included in Attachment 3.

17. As part of the initial exhibition, submissions were received raising concerns in relation to the staging of infrastructure delivery, lack of contributions towards infrastructure within the Ryde LGA and the inclusion of items in the Planning Agreement that are considered to not have a public benefit. All issues raised and Officer responses are included in Attachment 2 to this report.

18. The Planning Agreement was subject to a re-exhibition due to the subsequent adoption of the Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan which resulted in changes needing to be made to the applicable development contributions rate within the Planning Agreement.

19. The re-exhibition was undertaken from 9 August to 6 September 2021. Four (4) submissions were received, with three being from public agencies and one from a community member. No objections were raised by the three public agencies. The issues raised in the community member submission relate to transparency, accuracy and validity of the agreement, staging and procedural matters. All issues raised and Council Officer responses are provided at Attachment 2 to this report.

20. The re-exhibited Planning Agreement is subject to changes as a result of the exhibition process. These changes are in response to the first submission made by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) relating to an extension of the shuttle bus service, which will now remain in operation until the delivery of PLR Stage 2 or bus equivalent instead of the original proposal of three years from the first occupation of the development or until direct public transport (light rail and/or public bus) to and from Melrose Park is available, whichever occurs first. Another adjustment relates to the maximum residential gross floor area permissible on the Payce site. The gross floor area currently includes the 30,000m² non-residential component. The residential and non-residential components have since been separated and are stated individually on the GFA map in the Planning Proposal and the DCP. Other minor changes are also proposed for clarification purposes. No changes have been made to the commercial terms of the agreement. Further detail in relation to all changes is included in Attachment 3. The agreement has been reviewed by the Executive Director Property and Place who supports the terms, conditions and deliverables under the proposed agreement.

21. In order to secure the necessary infrastructure to support the precinct and to ensure that redevelopment does not occur in the precinct without the delivery of the necessary infrastructure at the right time, it is proposed to insert a provision in PLEP 2011 that will prevent the new planning controls coming into effect on a site until a planning agreement for the respective site has been executed and registered on title. This approach has the support of DPIE and is considered to be an appropriate solution to managing planning agreements that are not in sequence with the finalisation of the planning proposal.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

22. In addition to the community and agency consultation noted above, the following stakeholder and Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
25 April 2021 to 26 May 2021	Multiple	Various comments in relation to finalising the draft PP, draft DCP and VPA	Refer to the LPP report at Attachment 1 and Submissions Table at Attachment 2 for full responses.	City Planning and Design
9 August 2021 to 6 September 2021	Multiple	Various comments relating to the draft changes to the VPA.	Refer to the Submissions Table at Attachment 2 and detailed responses at Attachment 3	City Planning and Design

Councillor Consultation

24. Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter since the original Planning Proposal was lodged in February 2016. The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and Planning Agreement were most recently endorsed by Council at its meeting of 22 March 2021 which was preceded by a Councillor briefing on 24 February 2021.

25. In relation to the post-exhibition period, Councillors were briefed on the report, key issues and recommendations prior to this meeting.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

26. The legal implications associated with this report relate to the Planning Agreement that is proposed to be entered into between Council and the developer, Payce. Council’s legal team were assisted by an external expert in the drafting and finalisation of the Planning Agreement.

27. The proposed post-exhibition changes to the Planning Agreement have been reviewed by the Group Manager Legal Services and are considered to be minor or provide an improved outcome for the proposal.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

28. Work to progress the finalisation of the Planning Proposal will be conducted by Council Officers and therefore is within the existing City Planning budget. Should this matter progress, a Planning Agreement delivering open space, social and community infrastructure and road infrastructure and improvements to the value of $96,745,226 will be entered into between Council and the applicant. Further, at development application stage, development contributions in keeping with the rates contained in the Parramatta Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (Amendment No. 5) 2017 will be applied to the development.

29. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report. As the timeframe for the delivery of each stage of the redevelopment is unknown, it is uncertain as to whether there will be any financial implications for Council within the next four (4) years.

30. However, the Planning Agreement includes a two-year maintenance period clause which means that Council will not be required to allocate funding for maintenance immediately. As a result, it is possible that Council will not need to fund the maintenance of infrastructure within the next 5-year period. Therefore, associated maintenance costs and depreciation will need to be addressed in future budgets.

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Internal Revenue	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
External Revenue	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Total Revenue	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Operating Result	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
External Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Internal Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Depreciation	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Other	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Total Operating Result	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
External	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Internal	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Other	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

31. It is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal, DCP and Planning Agreement for Melrose Park North noting that Planning Agreements for each property subject to the Planning Proposal must be in place before development applications can be lodged that seek to utilise the new planning controls and uplift on the site.

32. Should Council endorse the Planning Proposal, it will be forwarded to DPIE for finalisation. If Council adopts the site-specific DCP, it will be inserted into the Parramatta DCP 2011. Should Council endorse the Planning Agreement for the Payce landholding, it will progress through the necessary legal process and be registered on Title accordingly.

Amberley Moore

Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Ian Woodward

Group Manager Legal Services

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Local Planning Panel Report - 17 August 2021	31 Pages
2 ⇩	Submission Table
3 ⇩	Detailed DCP, Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement Changes.
4 ⇩	Planning Proposal	81 Pages
5 ⇩	Melrose Park North Site-specific DCP
6 ⇩	Planning Agreement (Payce)	111 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Item 17.5 - Attachment 3

Detailed DCP, Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement Changes.

1. CHANGES TO THE DRAFT DCP

Multiple changes have been made to the draft DCP following the public exhibition process and further internal review. These minor changes seek to clarify the intent of the written controls, for the purpose of reducing potential misinterpretation at the development application and assessment phases.

1.1 Infrastructure Development Application

Provisions have been included in the DCP to require an infrastructure development application (DA) to be lodged for the entire precinct upfront prior to individual DAs lodged on a site-by-site basis. This Infrastructure DA is proposed to set out key elements of the masterplan and is critical in establishing the framework for the future development of the precinct. This is due to the size of the redevelopment site, numerous development lots and proposed staging plan which will span 10-15 years. The Infrastructure DA will be required to set out the following key elements:

· The proposed lot boundaries

· Site levels including cut and fill and retaining wall locations

· The design of the roads including drainage

· Public open space provision

· Demonstrate how the obligation under the Planning Agreement will be addressed.

Additional provisions have been inserted into the Introduction section of the draft DCP contained at Attachment 5.

1.2 Podium Setbacks

In response to feedback from Council’s City Significant Development team and the recommendation of the Local Planning Panel, it was considered necessary to expand on the controls in the draft DCP relating to the requirement for podium level setback distances and references to the Public Domain Plan. These requirements have been included in an additional appendix to the draft DCP and are intended to support the existing controls in Section 1 Built Form and the map contained within Appendix 4 - Building Setbacks. No changes have been made to the required setbacks as exhibited, however an appendix is now included which articulates the requirements of the Building Setbacks map into written objectives and controls.

1.3 GFA

During the exhibition period, it became evident that the maximum residential gross floor area that could be achieved on the site was incorrectly referenced in the draft DCP, Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement documents. The maximum residential GFA represented in the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and Planning Agreement of 508,768m² inadvertently included the non-residential floor space component of 30,000m². Following the public exhibition, the GFAs for each development lot were recalculated based on updated cadastral information (PP site area is 276,400m²) and it is confirmed that the correct residential GFA that can be achieved across the Planning Proposal site is 481,340m². This total residential GFA comprises the following:

· Site 1- Ermington Gospel Trust site (15-19 Hughes Avenue & 655 Victoria Road) = 32,880m²

· Site 2- Payce site (38-42, 44 & 44A Wharf Road and 27-29 Hughes Avenue) = 434,023m²

· Site 3- Jae My holdings (8 Wharf Road) = 14,437m²

The revised GFA does not affect the proposed dwelling yield or the ability to achieve the 1.851 FSR that has been applied to the sites.

As a result, a revised gross floor area (GFA) map has been inserted into the draft DCP to replace the exhibited version. The revised map identifies a maximum residential GFA for each development lot in the precinct, GFA totals for each of the three sites, in addition to identifying the commercial/retail GFA.

1.4 Other Changes

Other minor changes to the draft DCP include:

· General explanation and simplification of controls to assist in the development assessment process.

· Updated section references

· Renaming of section 1.11 Retail Ground Floor Frontages and expansion to include the intersections

· Renaming of section 1.13 from ‘Town Centre Mall Design’ to ‘Town Centre Interface’

· Expanded explanation on Building Envelopes and how the controls are to be applied

· Rewording/simplification of section 1.1 Principles

· Clarification of controls for section 1.2 Allocation of Gross Floor Area

· Further clarification of section 1.4 Explanation of Building Envelopes

· Clarification of section 1.5 Street Setbacks

· Removal of references to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

1.5. Local Planning Panel Recommendations

1.5.1 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the draft DCP that reference the Master Plan and Public Domain Plan and clearly identify key requirements of these plans including where direct access to the frontage roads is restricted.

Response

Provisions have been inserted into the draft DCP within sections 1. Built Form and 2. Public Domain that reference the Master Plan and Public Domain Plan. In addition, an additional appendix has been created - Appendix 5 Application of Building Envelopes to provide further detail on the requirements of the Master Plan. A new map has been inserted into section 3. Vehicular Access, Parking and Servicing to clearly identify where vehicular access to buildings is not permitted.

1.5.2 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the draft DCP to demonstrate the adequacy and purpose of public open space areas to provide both active and passive recreational opportunities within the precinct.

Response

Table 1 within section 2.8 Public Open Space identifies the intended and most suitable use for the various areas of public open space proposed to be provided within the precinct. The public open space provides for active and passive recreational uses for the general community and the school community through the provision of grassed and landscaped areas, including a playing field.

1.5.3 The framework for the water management strategy needs to be incorporated into the draft DCP to provide adequate guidance for detailed design of the stormwater infrastructure to be provided within the precinct.

Response

Stormwater management within the precinct is critical in ensuring that the redevelopment is sustainable and does not have any adverse implications on the current flood levels of surrounding properties adjacent to the precinct. Extensive flood modelling of the precinct has been undertaken to determine overland flow paths and appropriate locations for stormwater detention system, water sensitive urban design (WSUD) measures and how the roads and other impermeable surfaces will contribute to managing stormwater runoff to prevent flood damage to properties within and outside the precinct.

The exhibited draft DCP included sections on stormwater management throughout the document, including a Stormwater Management Strategy in Appendix 8. These controls and the Strategy have been refined post-exhibition to provide better clarity on the requirements, to reduce duplication with other sections of the draft DCP and provide a clear framework in the body of the document. A new Water Management Control Plan has been written to replace the previous Strategy, which clearly identifies the objectives and controls for water management within the precinct and is contained within Appendix 10 of the draft DCP.

1.5.4 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the draft DCP to provide clarity around setting podium heights and associated setbacks to ensure consistency across the precinct.

Response

Refer to Podium Setback response provided in 1.2.

1.5.5 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the DCP to reflect the proposed staging of development as provided for within the relevant Voluntary Planning Agreements.

Response

The redevelopment of this precinct is likely to occur over 10-15 years and as such a staging plan has been included in the Planning Agreement to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure is delivered as the dwelling yield increases. It is difficult to anticipate the exact timing that the various stages will be completed. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that the staging of the redevelopment is considered in the draft DCP, an objective has been added to the Introduction section stating that development must occur in accordance with the staging plan and that the required infrastructure is to be delivered as specified in the Planning Agreement and TMAP.

2. CHANGES TO THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

2.1 GFA

Refer to response provided in 1.3.

2.2 Local Planning Panel Recommendations

2.2.1 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the PP that make it clear that development applications (DA) cannot be lodged in relation to land within the precinct unless a Planning Agreement is registered on title of the land the subject of the DA, that commits to the provision of funding for the infrastructure required within the precinct.

Response

It is reasonable and justified to include this provision in the Planning Proposal due to the varying stages in which the three separate planning agreements related to this planning proposal are currently situated. As there are three different sites that comprise this planning proposal, separate planning agreements are required for each. Currently, only one planning proposal has been exhibited and can be completed to coincide with the finalisation of the planning proposal. The remaining two (2) planning agreements for 8 Wharf Road and 15-19 Hughes Avenue & 655 Victoria Road are still at the negotiation stage. Although there is no legal mechanism for preventing a development application from being lodged on a site in relation to a planning agreement, to ensure that no development site can redevelop their respective site prior to securing an infrastructure delivery mechanism such as a planning agreement, an alternative mechanism is proposed. It is proposed that a clause will be inserted into Parramatta LEP 2011 that will effectively defer the commencement of the amended planning controls on a site until the associated planning agreement has been executed and registered on Title. This approach is supported by DPIE and is still subject to legal drafting, however it is considered that it will provide security for infrastructure delivery should the planning proposal be finalised before the planning agreement has been executed, such as for 8 Wharf Road and 15-19 Hughes Avenue & 655 Victoria Road.

2.2.2 The maximum residential gross floor space that cannot be exceeded should be 478,764 sqm.

Response

In addition to the response provide above in 1.3, the site areas and achievable GFA for each development lot have been recalculated following the public exhibition. As a result, the maximum residential gross floor area (or space) for the planning proposal area is now confirmed as 481,340m². This is the figure that has been inserted into the Planning Proposal document.

2.2.3 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the PP that guarantee that residential flat buildings are only permissible in the B2 zone where the minimum 30,000 sqm of retail/ commercial floor space is achieved.

Response

A provision was already included in the exhibited version of the Planning Proposal regarding the permissibility of ‘residential flat buildings’ in the B2 Local Centre zone. This provision has been amended to accommodate the Panel’s recommendation.

2.2.4 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the PP that require that a Design Excellence Panel provide design advice for all DAs within the precinct. Floor space and height bonuses should not be awarded to any development lot.

Response

This provision is already included in the Planning Proposal. It is intended to be enforced via an amendment to Part 6 – Additional local provisions - generally of Parramatta LEP 2011.

2.2.5 Appropriate provisions need to be drafted and incorporated into the PP that place a limit on the amount of floor space that can be developed within the precinct prior to the construction of essential infrastructure such as a bridge over the Parramatta River.

Response

A provision to this effect has been inserted into the Planning Proposal. This provision aligns with the Council-endorsed approach of applying two implementation plans for infrastructure delivery within the precinct, being Implementation Plan A and Implementation Plan B.

Implementation Plan A is the Implementation Plan detailed in the Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) which was publicly exhibited along with the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and Planning Agreement. It has also received provisional endorsement by TfNSW and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE). The TMAP’s Implementation Plan states that up to 11,000 dwellings can be delivered in the precinct providing the bridge to Wentworth Point with light rail or bus equivalent is provided in addition to other identified road infrastructure. The bridge and other State infrastructure will be formally secured via the Planning Proposal and State VPA.

Implementation Plan B was first presented to Council as an alternative to Implementation Plan A at its meeting of 19 August 2019, where it was subsequently endorsed. Implementation Plan B would be activated should no commitment be made by the State Government to the bridge, light rail / bus and Sydney Metro West and places a dwelling cap on the entire precinct of 6,700 dwellings. This is the upper limit that can be accommodated across the entire precinct without the bridge and connection to Sydney Metro West at Olympic Park. Accordingly, a 40% reduction in yield will be applied to all development in Melrose Park. This will ensure that the dwelling number does not exceed the capacity of the available public transport services and road infrastructure.

3. CHANGES TO PLANNING AGREEMENT

3.1 Shuttle Bus service extension

Included in the exhibited and re-exhibited Planning Agreement documents is the provision of a shuttle bus service to connect new Melrose Park residents to Meadowbank railway station and ferry wharf. At present, the service is due to be provided for 3 years after the first occupation of the development or until direct public transport (light rail and / or public bus) to and from Melrose Park is available, whichever occurs first.

As a result of submissions received by the community and Transport for NSW raising concern that should the shuttle bus service cease after the first occupation and the light rail (or bus) service is not yet operational, then there will be limited transport opportunities for residents. This would then result in higher usage of private vehicles which could have a negative long-term effect on travel behaviour and traffic levels. Therefore, it has been negotiated that the shuttle bus service will now continue until the delivery of light rail (or bus), regardless of when the development is first occupied.

3.2 GFA

Refer to response provided in 1.3.

3.4 Building Height

It is acknowledged that there was an inconsistency between the Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement relating to the referenced maximum building height proposed in the precinct. At its meeting of 22 March 2021, Council endorsed a maximum building height of 95m within the precinct. This change was reflected in the Planning Proposal document and LEP map but was not reflected in the Planning Agreement, which included the previously endorsed height limit of 90m. The increase in height was required in order to accommodate the additional site area and to enable greater flexibility in building design to accommodate the varying topography of the site as a result of obtaining further detail on the proposed levels. This inconsistency is acknowledged; however, it is considered inconsequential given that the correct building height is reflected in the Planning Proposal and associated height map, and that it has no impact on the value of the Planning Agreement or ability of the agreement to deliver the required infrastructure in the precinct. A Planning Agreement does not give effect to the planning controls on a development site and therefore it is not considered that this inconsistency will impact on the overall built form outcome of the precinct.

Council 11 October 2021 Item 17.6

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.6

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post-exhibition - Site-specific Development Control Plan for land at 89-91 George Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE F2020/02876 - D08213424

REPORT OF Project Officer-Land Use Planning

workshop/briefing date: Nil

LAND OWNER: Various owners under Strata Plan 71180

APPLICANT: Urbis per GPT RE Limited

PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL:

DA/954/2017: Determined by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel on 4 July 2018: 89 George Street, Parramatta – 28 storey hotel building comprising 300 rooms and ancillary restaurant/bar, ballroom, outdoor terrace/pool and 67 above ground car parking spaces (car stacker), landscaping works, demolition of existing buildings. (Approved).

PURPOSE:

To recommend Council approve a draft site-specific Development Control Plan for 89-91 George Street, Parramatta for finalisation and inclusion within Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes the submissions made to the exhibition of the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) for 89-91 George Street, Parramatta.

(b) That Council finalise the draft DCP as amended at Attachment 1.

(c) Further, that Council delegates authority to the CEO to make amendments of a minor and non-policy nature to the draft DCP during the finalisation process.

THE SITE

1. The subject site comprises 87 George Street (Lot 1 DP505486) and 91 George Street (CP SP 71180), Parramatta and is approximately 2,869 square metres in area. The site has a single frontage to George Street at its northern boundary and adjoins Perth House (a State Heritage-listed item) to the west (refer Figure 1).

Calendar

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: The subject site outlined in blue. Sites with heritage listings are shaded beige.

SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN - BACKGROUND

2. Council officers worked with the applicant throughout late 2020/early 2021 to progress a site-specific DCP as it was agreed that a site-specific Planning Proposal was not necessary or desirable given the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) was well progressed, and at the time of writing was with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for finalisation.

3. A draft DCP was subsequently reported to Council which was largely agreed with the applicant except for the primary setbacks for which three (3) options were reported for Council’s consideration. Council considered the report at its meeting on 12 April 2021 and resolved to endorse the draft DCP for public exhibition with “Option A” setbacks. A copy of the resolution with detailed background information on the application is provided at Attachment 2 and includes a table with the endorsed setback controls.

RESULTS OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION

4. The draft DCP (Attachment 3) was publicly exhibited from 21 June to 23 July 2021. The exhibition was conducted in accordance with Council’s resolution, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and Council’s Community Engagement Strategy.

5. A total of nine (9) submissions were received including eight (8) State and Federal Agency submissions and one (1) from a property owner in the vicinity of the site. The applicant did not make a submission.

6. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised in the table at Attachment 4. The majority of the State and Federal Government Agency submissions raised no objection to the DCP and provided information regarding issues requiring consideration at the development application stage. Further detail is provided in the submissions table at Attachment 4. The two State Agency submissions that raised more significant issues and the property owner submission are discussed briefly below with further detail in Attachment 4.

7. Heritage NSW raised concern that the development will have impacts on the visual setting of Perth House but they are unable to assess this as there was no Heritage Impact Statement to inform the DCP. Heritage NSW noted Council’s request for Heritage NSW to consider including the olive tree under the State Heritage Register listing for Perth House. Heritage NSW advised that the tree has adequate protection through the mechanism of the Conservation Management Plan that applies to Perth House and does not necessitate specific listing.

8. Transport for NSW requested the retention of the DCP control which requires a 2 metres wide front setback clear of all structures to accommodate possible future footpath widening as per their submission on Council’s Integrated Transport Plan (ITP). However, it is recommended that this control be removed from the DCP in accordance with Council’s decision on the ITP on 26 July 2021. At that meeting, Council endorsed the ITP which recommended that this section of road widening be removed as it is not needed for the cycleway as both directions can be accommodated on the northern side of George Street.

9. The submission on behalf of the owner of 130, 140 and 150 George Street, Parramatta, opposite the subject site, raised issues about references in the DCP controls to large floorplates, and requested additional wording relating to the Fig and Olive trees, heritage interface area and wind impacts.

Council Officer Response

10. Detailed Council Officer responses to the issues raised are provided in the table of submissions at Attachment 4. These include heritage consultant advice in response to the heritage issues raised in the submissions from Heritage NSW and the property owner in the vicinity of the site. A summary of the heritage consultant advice is also provided in Attachment 4.

11. In relation to the Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), the applicant submitted this to Council on 1 September 2021 in response to the submission from Heritage NSW. Council’s Heritage Consultant notes the HIS generally provides a thorough analysis, however, there are some areas of concern. Notwithstanding these concerns, a future DA would be required to be supported by a HIS and would be referred to Heritage NSW as the site adjoins an item on the State Heritage Register. These issues are discussed in detail in the Summary Table of Submissions in Attachment 4.

12. As a result of public exhibition, it is recommended that the draft DCP be amended in accordance with issues raised in submissions and the advice from the Heritage Consultant as shown as “track changes” in the amended draft DCP at Attachment 1. These changes are broadly summarised as strengthening the heritage objectives and controls, amendments to remove the use of ambiguous language relating to seeking ‘large’ or ‘very large’ commercial floorplates and amending a control to require consideration of wind impacts on adjoining areas.

NEXT STEPS

13. It is considered that the changes recommended to the draft DCP will not materially alter the controls, but rather, will provide clarification of the controls and improved oversight of heritage issues at the development application stage. As such, it is considered that it is not necessary to re-exhibit the draft DCP.

14. The site is currently subject to a Design Competition process which has been informed by the draft DCP. The architects participating in the Design Competition process will be required to respond to the DCP approved by Council.

15. The draft DCP will take effect when a notice is placed on Council’s website advising of Council’s decision. The approval of a DA for the site under the CBD Planning Proposal controls cannot occur until the associated amendment to Parramatta LEP 2011 is notified. The CBD Planning Proposal has been endorsed by Council and is with the DPIE for finalisation and notification.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

16. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
21 June to 23 July 2021 (public exhibition)	Public Exhibition summary provided in paragraphs 4 to 12 of this report.	Refer to Attachment 4 for submission table.	Refer to Attachment 4 for submission table.	City Planning

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Councillors will be briefed on this matter in the standard pre-Council meeting briefing session				City Planning

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

19. If Council resolves to finalise the DCP, the necessary work to do this, including inserting the provisions into the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 and uploading this onto the Council website, will be carried out utilising existing staff resources.

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

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue
External Revenue
Total Revenue

Funding Source	N/A

Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Felicity Roberts

Project Officer-Land Use Planning

Roy Laria

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Draft DCP with recommended amendments	15 Pages
2 ⇩	Background and Detailed Discussion	9 Pages
3 ⇩	Draft DCP as publicly exhibited	14 Pages
4 ⇩	Summary Table of Submissions

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 17.7

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.7

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Planning Proposal and associated processes - 355 & 375 Church St, Parramatta (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08243011

REPORT OF Team Leader –Land Use Planning

LANDOWNER: Stockland Development Pty Ltd

APPLICANT: McDonald’s Australia Ltd

workshop/briefing date: 22 September and 6 October 2021

nOTE: This Item was deferred from the 27 September Council Meeting for a councillor workshop.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL:

DA/96/2015 – Staged development involving a redeveloped McDonald’s restaurant and concept approval for a future mixed-use development; the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel deferred its formal determination on this matter, and the application was withdrawn May 2016.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to:

- Recommend next steps for the Planning Proposal and associated Draft Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement at 355-375 Church St, Parramatta, and

- Address traffic and parking issues raised when Council considered this matter at it’s meeting on 27 September 2021 (Item 17.2).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note the correspondence from the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment (DPIE) summarised in this report regarding this Planning Proposal.

(b) That the existing Planning Proposal for 355-375 Church St, Parramatta be amended to remove provisions consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal, while retaining the provision pertaining to a bespoke parking rate for take away food and drink premises at this site.

(c) That the amended Planning Proposal (as at Attachment 1) be resubmitted to the DPIE as a new Planning Proposal seeking a new Gateway determination.

(d) That, pending a new Gateway determination from DPIE in line with the amendments outlined in (b) above, Council:

1 advise DPIE that it no longer wishes to pursue the existing Planning Proposal process, as the amended Planning Proposal described above will replace it as a new Planning Proposal, and

2 exhibit the Planning Proposal.

(e) That negotiation of a Planning Agreement at this site cease, recognising that infrastructure contributions for this site will instead be made as part of a future Development Application (DA) in line with the relevant Contributions Plan in place for the CBD at that time.

(f) That Council officers prepare a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and it be endorsed under delegation by the Chief Executive Officer for the purpose of public exhibition in accordance with the following principles:

1 Further defining the preferred two-tower scheme, including podium heights and tower setbacks, with a view to minimising any non-compliances with relevant Apartment Design Guide requirements but acknowledging that some non-compliances will remain;

2 Establishing an appropriate relationship to, and mitigating impacts on, proximate heritage items;

3 Resolving traffic issues (including sightlines, vehicle queueing, pedestrian safety and minimising any impact of the development on Parramatta Light Rail and the surrounding road network, including restricting turning right from Victoria Road into the site);

4 Demonstrating adaptive re-use potential of the drive-through facility and at least some of the parking spaces proposed;

5 Establishing an appropriate relationship to the 385 Church Street isolated site (including built form controls for an unamalgamated scenario, and a direction for an amalgamated scenario that maintains the two towers while seeking to increase inter-building separation and tower setbacks);

6 Appropriately managing the environmental quality impacts of the proposed podium uses (particularly noise, air pollution and odour);

7 Ensuring that footpath widening and the “notch” in the centre of the site are marked appropriately in the DCP to support future public access;

8 Ensuring the building appropriately addresses the potential future through-block link;

9 Require a comprehensive Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) report at Development Application stage and ensure that building design implements CPTED principles; and

10 Ensuring that podium landscaping makes a positive contribution to public and private domain.

(g) That, prior to exhibition of the draft DCP, Council consult with the landowners of 385 Church Street on the draft DCP about the controls pertaining to their land.

(h) That the exhibition of the Planning Proposal and DCP need not occur concurrently.

(i) Further, that Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer to make any changes of a minor, administrative and/or non-policy nature that may arise during progression of the relevant Planning Proposal.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURROUNDS

1. Council is processing a Planning Proposal for land at 355-375 Church St, Parramatta (shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1: Subject site at 355 and 375 Church Street and surrounding context

Source: Council’s internal mapping with annotations from Council officers

2. Existing development on the site includes a retail/commercial building (corner of Victoria Road/Church Street), a McDonald’s restaurant (including surface parking and drive-through with vehicle access to both Victoria Road and Ross Street) and a two-storey office building (facing Ross Street).

3. The site is adjacent to the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) Stage 1 corridor running North-South along Church Street. The site is directly across Victoria Road from the State Heritage Item Prince Alfred Square. It is also near a number of other State and Local listed items, including State Heritage Item St Patrick’s Cathedral, presbytery and precinct (and potential archaeological site).

4. The Planning Proposal site does not include 385 Church Street, located at the southwest corner of the Ross/Church Street intersection. The existing development at 385 Church Street is a three-storey retail/commercial building.

COUNCIL’S PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING PROPOSAL

5. Council considered the initial assessment of this Planning Proposal on 13 July 2020 and resolved (amongst other things) to send the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a Gateway determination.

6. The Planning Proposal that Council endorsed was generally consistent with the provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, with the exception that it established a bespoke parking rate for the land use “Takeaway Fast Food and Drink Premises” at this site. The provisions included as part of the Planning Proposal sent for Gateway determination are summarised as follows:

a. Height: consistent with the Prince Alfred Square Solar Access Plane.

b. FSR: 7.2 FSR [comprising 6:1 Incentive FSR control, 0.9:1 Design Excellence bonus, and 0.3:1 [or 5%] High Performing Buildings bonus].

c. Residential and commercial parking rates consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal.

d. Bespoke parking rate for Takeaway Food and Drink Premises land use as follows: 1 parking space per 30 sqm of gross floor area of all Takeaway Food and Drink Premises, or a maximum of 30 parking spaces, whichever is less, as well as a sunset clause ending the application of this provision after 5 years from the date of notification of the amendment.

7. On 13 July 2020, Council also resolved to prepare a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement for this site.

8. On 27 September 2021, Council considered a report on the amended Planning Proposal and resolved to defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop to seek clarity on parking rates, the drive through and the traffic study. Attachment 3 contains additional information on these matters which will be discussed at a Councillor Workshop prior to this meeting and Attachment 4 contains three traffic and parking reports submitted by the applicant which are included in the Planning Proposal documentation. Attachment 5 contains the Independent Planning Commission Gateway Determination Advice Report which accepted the findings of the Traffic and Parking Advice (copy provided in Attachment 4).

GATEWAY DETERMINATION AND POST GATEWAY REVIEW PROCESS

9. The Planning Proposal received a Gateway determination from DPIE on 13 November 2020. The Gateway determination required changes to the Planning Proposal that conflicted with the position supported by Council and the Applicant on two key matters, namely in that its conditions required:

a. inclusion of the neighbouring isolated site (385 Church St); and

b. removal of the parking rate for Takeaway Fast Food and Drink Premises land use.

10. In response to the Gateway determination, the Applicant pursued a Post-Gateway Review process through the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) to amend both of the abovementioned Gateway conditions. The IPC ultimately supported the Council and Applicant supported position, with its advice finding that the Gateway determination should be altered to remove both conditions.

11. DPIE considered the IPC’s advice, and issued a revised Gateway determination (“Gateway alteration”) on 13 May 2021 which removed the abovementioned conditions. Issuance of the Gateway alteration “unlocked” the processes of drafting a DCP and Planning Agreement, and these processes commenced shortly thereafter.

GATEWAY ALTERATION TIMEFRAME

12. The Gateway alteration referred to above also set a timeframe for various stages of the Planning Proposal process as follows:

a. Exhibition by 30 June 2021

b. Reported to Council for finalisation by 31 October 2021

c. Finalised by 31 December 2021.

13. This timeframe was not achievable, particularly given Council’s policy stance that site-specific Planning Proposals not be exhibited unless accompanied by any relevant DCP and Planning Agreement. Council officers and the Applicant both communicated to DPIE that the timeframe set in the Gateway alteration was not reasonable and requested that a more realistic timeframe be set.

14. Council subsequently received correspondence from DPIE (dated 14 July 2021) to the effect that - given the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal has been submitted for finalisation - DPIE encourages Council to consider refining this proposal to relate only to those matters which are not aligned to the CBD Planning Proposal.

COUNCIL OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

15. Council officers agree with DPIE’s stance outlined above, and recommend as follows for the Planning Proposal and its accompanying processes:

a. Planning Proposal: The Planning Proposal should be simplified by removing those controls which are consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal (as at Attachment 1) and resubmitted to DPIE as a new Planning Proposal seeking a new Gateway determination.

b. Planning Agreement: There is no longer a need for a Planning Agreement at this site as Council has recently resolved to move away from the former Community Infrastructure (“value sharing”) framework for the CBD (which depended on Planning Agreements as the delivery mechanism). The delivery of the non-monetary elements originally sought in the Planning Agreement process can be supported by DCP controls instead and development contributions payable.

c. DCP: A DCP should still be advanced to address unique site-specific issues as provided in the recommendation of this report. Council’s previous principles resolved for the DCP should be revisited and updated based on the progress of the DCP drafting process so far.

16. Attachment 2 contains further details on Council officer’s analysis and recommendation on each of the points outlined in Paragraph 14 above.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

17. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
May 2021	Council’s Open Space team	City Planning discussed with Council’s Open Space team the timing and scope of works for improvements to Prince Alfred Square (as Council and the Applicant have discussed for some time the potential of applying contributions from this development site towards that project).	This report recommends that Planning Agreement negotiations cease. If the Applicant communicates a preference for dedicating funds to Prince Alfred Square and this aligns with Council’s priorities at DA stage, this issue can be resolved at that time by works provided being offset against development contributions requirements.	City Planning
Extensive consultation May-Sept 2021	Applicant	Summary of key consultation outcomes are discussed in this report.		City Planning
17 June 2021	Heritage Committee	Council’s Heritage Committee was given a brief update on project status, which at that time was that the draft DCP and Planning Agreement were begin negotiated. It was noted that the Committee would be notified of forthcoming exhibition. The Committee did not provide any comments specifically on this project.	The Committee will be notified when the Planning Proposal and/or DCP are on exhibition.	City Planning

Councillor Consultation

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

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

Councillor Briefing on 22 September 2021

Issues raised concerning the proposed drive through and vehicle access from Victoria Road

Information sent to Councillors on 24 September 2021

City Planning

Councillor Briefing on 6 October 2021

This report was finalised before the briefing

City Planning

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

19. In response to the new contributions framework that Council is progressing for the CBD, this report recommends that Planning Agreement negotiations at this site cease and that infrastructure contributions instead take place at DA stage. Therefore, there are no significant financial implications as a result of this report or the Planning Proposal which it contemplates.

20. Pending a future DA process or processes (the timing and nature of which is unknown), it is expected that Council would receive development contributions in line with the relevant contributions framework in place at that time.

21. As Council officers had undertaken initial action towards negotiating a Planning Agreement for this site in line with Council’s previous resolution, there will be nominal legal fees (estimate: approx. $2,000) that would be recouped from the Applicant that will be covered in existing Council budget allocations.

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil

Funding Source	NA

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Funding Source	NA

Janelle Scully

Team Leader –Land Use Planning

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	ATTACHMENT 1 - PLANNING PROPOSAL - 355 & 375 Church Street, Parramatta	87 Pages
2 ⇩	ATTACHMENT 2 - FURTHER INFORMATION - COUNCIL OFFICER ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	6 Pages
3 ⇩	ATTACHMENT 3 - FURTHER INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC AND ACCESS ISSUES	5 Pages
4 ⇩	ATTACHMENT 4 - TRAFFIC AND PARKING REPORTS - Appendices 1, 2 and 4	40 Pages
5 ⇩	ATTACHMENT 5 - TRAFFIC AND PARKING REPORTS - IPC Gateway Determination Advice Report - Appendix 3	15 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 11 October 2021 Item 17.8

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.8

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post exhibition Draft Development Control Plan for the Telopea Precinct (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08243046

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning; Team Leader Land Use Planning

PREVIOUS ITEMS 17.2 - FOR APPROVAL: Draft Development Control Plan for the Telopea Precinct for Public Exhibition - Council - 10 May 2021

Telopea Master Plan - Council - 18 Dec 2017

8.9 - Telopea Master Plan - Council - 13 Mar 2017

workshop/briefing date: 22 September and 6 October 2021

note: this item was deferred from the 27 september council meeting for further community discussion.

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s consideration of the post-exhibition outcomes for the Draft Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Telopea Precinct and endorsement of the final DCP with minor amendments.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Draft Development Control Plan for the Telopea Precinct which are summarised at Attachments 2 and 3.

(b) That Council approves finalisation of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Telopea Precinct at Attachment 5 including the minor amendments, which will repeal the existing controls relating to the Telopea Precinct in Section 4.1.11 of the Parramatta DCP 2011 and that the amendments come into effect from the date of the public notice of Council’s decision.

(c) Further, that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature relating to the finalisation of the DCP that may arise.

BACKGROUND

1. The Telopea Precinct (the Precinct) is located to the east of the former Telopea heavy-rail station and future Telopea Light Rail Stop. The precinct currently contains a mixture of high and low rise social and affordable and private housing. NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) are a major landholder within the precinct.

2. Precinct planning for Telopea has been underway since 2015, with involvement from Council, LAHC and the (then) Department of Planning and Environment. The current planning controls contained in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011 result from the 2018 rezoning by the NSW Government. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the key planning milestones and the planning controls for the Precinct.

3. Clause 6.18 of the Parramatta LEP 2011 states that development consent cannot be granted for sites within the Precinct until a DCP has been developed for the precinct. Noting that this clause allows for minor development to proceed in the absence of a precinct DCP being prepared.

State Significant Development Application and Voluntary Planning Agreement

4. In December 2019, Frasers Property and Hume Housing were announced as LAHC’s development partner for the Telopea Precinct. Telopea is a part of the Communities Plus Program under which LAHC engages private sector developers and community housing providers to design, fund and build social, affordable and private housing. New social housing is handed over to LAHC.

5. On 12 February 2021, Council was notified by DPIE that LAHC and Frasers were intending to lodge a Concept Plan and Stage 1A (detailed development) for the Telopea Estate Redevelopment as a State Significant Development (SSD) application. The application applies to LAHC owned land, Council’s pathways, roads, 21 Sturt St (Dundas Library site) and Telopea Christian Church (16 Shortland St). Council will be required to give landowners consent, in order for the Minister to grant consent to the development.

6. The Concept Plan by LAHC includes a mixed-use development of approximately 4,700 dwellings (including 1,000 social and affordable units); 7,000sqm retail precinct; a library and community centre; and combined Church, residential aged care facility; conversion of Elyes St to a pedestrian link; and road and intersection upgrades. The Concept Plan application relates to the dark red area shown in Figure 1 below.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Land application of the Concept Plan Application and Stage 1 Detailed Application (source Scoping Report for SSD Application, LAHC 2021)

7. The detailed proposal for Stage 1A of the redevelopment applies to the light red area shown in Figure 1 marked ‘Stage 1A and seeks approval for apartments containing a total of 452 units on Lot C9; a new public park; a new road crossing of the light rail; and a new plaza adjacent to Telopea Station.

8. At the time of writing this report, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) Report had not yet been officially lodged with DPIE. However DPIE advise it is expected the EIS will be officially lodged shortly and soon after it will be placed on public exhibition. When this takes place staff will report to Council on a proposed submission on the SSD application.

9. Council Officers recommend that the DCP largely reflects Council’s endorsed Telopea Master Plan. The DCP will be used as a supporting guide for Council’s future formal responses in relation to the planning agreement and SSD. This would not preclude Council from supporting the SSD proposal, which deviates from the Telopea Masterplan, if Council wishes to do so.

10. Council officers are currently negotiating a Planning Agreement associated with the SSD application with Frasers and LAHC to address the delivery of community infrastructure and several other works-in-kind. Council officers are also currently negotiating with Frasers and LAHC on the transfer of Council’s land. These matters will be the subject of a future workshop and report to Council. It is noted that in its submission on the SSD Council may also object to compensation offered in the event of compulsory acquisition.

11. This report was deferred at the previous Council meeting on 27 September 2021 when it was resolved that: Council defer consideration of this matter for two (2) weeks to allow for senior planning staff to meet with the community.

12. Council staff have since arranged to meet with community members and a report on their discussions will be circulated to Councillors prior to the Council meeting.

TELOPEA PRECINCT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

13. The Draft DCP relates to the Telopea Precinct, which is shown in Figure 2. The area which will contain the tallest and densest buildings and retail areas is known as The Core and is shown in blue line outline. The remaining areas are known as the ‘Precincts’.

Figure 2: Telopea precinct – Application area of DCP Map

Description automatically generated

14. The Draft DCP (Attachment 5) is underpinned by the outcomes of the Telopea Master Plan and responds to the planning controls contained in the Parramatta LEP 2011. The DCP provides development controls relating to the following key areas:

a. Traffic and Transport, including car parking rates and identification of new and upgraded roads and active transport links.

b. Built Form and Public Domain controls for both the Core and Precincts.

c. Tree Protection and Enhancement to ensure tree canopy is preserved and supplemented.

d. Natural Environment and Heritage controls relating to the state heritage item and endangered ecological communities.

e. Sustainability controls including urban heat and water sensitive urban design controls.

15. The Draft DCP includes the Council owned land at 21 Sturt Street (the current Dundas Community Centre and Library) and the land between the existing Waratah Shops and the formed section of Evans Road (also known as Benaud Place) - refer shaded blue areas at Figure 1. The Draft DCP notes that Council will investigate the future of 21 Sturt Street, including the option of building new community facilities on the current site and the potential relocation of community facilities to alternative sites. In relation to Benaud Place, the Draft DCP notes the potential to consolidate with adjoining private landowners as part of a future mixed use or residential development if the road reserve is no longer required to provide access to adjoining privately owned sites.

16. The finalisation of the DCP does not preclude from Council entering into a future planning agreement or expressing support for, or objection to, the SSD proposal, if Council wishes to do so. The DCP does not ‘lock’ Council into any position in relation to its land holdings. However, it does enable development consent to be granted for development applications for sites within the Telopea Precinct that, with the exception of minor development, cannot currently be determined.

17. It is recommended that Section 4.1.11 ‘Telopea Precinct’ of the Parramatta DCP 2011 be repealed if the Draft DCP is endorsed by Council. These controls were put in place in 2011 prior to the Telopea Master Plan and rezoning and therefore no longer reflective of the current planning controls.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

18. The Draft DCP was exhibited between 19 May and 17 June 2021 and involved:

a) Notification letters to over 3,800 property owners/occupiers within and surrounding the Telopea Precinct;

b) Exhibition of the Draft DCP on Council’s Participate Parramatta website;

c) Notification to approximately 10,000 Participate Parramatta Online Community Panel members and included in the June edition of ePULSE which is sent to approximately 60,000 subscribers;

d) Notification of public exhibition in the Parra News on 18 June 2021;

e) Hard copies of the Draft DCP available at Council’s Customer Service Centre and Dundas, Epping and Parramatta Libraries; and

f) A series of four out of hours phone ‘book a planner’ sessions.

19. 26 submissions were received during the public exhibition period. This included 2 from public agencies (DPIE and NSW LAHC), 2 from other organisations (Frasers and Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta) and 22 from community members. The majority of submissions either fully supported or supported to an extent the DCP, or otherwise did not explicitly indicate. Five (5) submissions did not support the Draft DCP.

20. A summary of submissions from state agencies/organisations and Council officer responses are provided at Attachment 2. A summary of submissions from community members and the Council officer responses are provided at Attachment 3. The key concerns raised within the submissions (and Council Officer responses) are summarised as follows:

a) Concerns raised in relation to the proposed density and heights of development in the precinct and resultant traffic and amenity impacts. Response: it is noted that the rezoning of the Precinct occurred in 2018 and that the DCP aims to provide guidance to development outcomes as a result of the amendments to planning controls.

b) Community raised concerns relating to the Draft DCP car parking rates, citing that the rates are insufficient to cater for development and the impacts on on-street parking. Response: Telopea is a suburban centre and requires adequate off-street parking. As such car parking rates are set in line with the Roads and Maritime Services’ Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002) for Metropolitan Sub-regional Centres. Furthermore, the operation of the Parramatta Light Rail is expected to reduce pressure on on-street parking. Council supports on-street parking being maintained on existing streets and any new roads where possible. It is acknowledged this plays an important role in accommodating vehicles visiting the Precinct.

c) Community raised concern in relation to parks catering for a range of ages and provision of additional open space. Response: Council is currently undertaking park upgrades, with Acacia Park upgrades almost completed and Sturt Park construction commencing shortly. These upgrades will provide the community with access to quality recreation spaces to enable activities for a range of age groups. Furthermore, as part of the SSD Application, the applicant is proposing additional public open space, which the community will have an opportunity comment on.

d) DPIE, LAHC and Frasers submission raised concern in relation to specific development controls contained in the Draft DCP. Response: these concerns are specifically addressed in Attachment 2.

21. As a result of the submissions, a number of minor amendments are proposed to the Draft DCP. The amendments relate to points of clarification, reducing duplication and correction of spelling. A table summarising the proposed minor amendments and reasons for the amendments is provided at Attachment 4 and the amendments are shown in red text in the Draft DCP at Attachment 5. These do not have a material impact on the DCP and therefore are considered to be minor and do not require re-exhibition of the Draft DCP.

22. This report was deferred at the previous Council meeting on 27 September 2021 when it was resolved that: Council defer consideration of this matter for two (2) weeks to allow for senior planning staff to meet with the community.

23. Council staff have since arranged to meet with community members and a report on their discussions will be circulated to Councillors prior to the Council meeting.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

24. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
19 May and 17 June 2021	As detailed in Section above titled ‘Public exhibition of the Draft DCP’	Summary of Submissions and Council Officers response is provided at Attachments 2 and 3.	Summary of Submissions and Council Officers response is provided at Attachments 2 and 3.	City Planning
October 2021	Further consultation with community members as requested by Council’s resolution on 27 Sept 2021	To be provided under separate cover	To be provided under separate cover	City Planning

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
5 May 2021	All	Briefing on the Draft DCP prior to 10 May meeting. Following discussion the Councillors were encouraged to email officers with issues they would like included in future DCP reviews.	No specific queries were raised following the Councillor Briefing.	City Planning
22 September 2021 – Councillor Briefing on Planning Reports for 27 September Council meeting	All	Questions raised on various matters including on-street car parking, community submissions and habitat protection.	Further information on matters raised supplied to Councillors by email on 27 September 2021.	City Planning
6 October 2021 – Councillor Briefing on Planning Reports for 11 October Council meeting	Report finalised prior to this briefing session			City Planning

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

26. Finalising the DCP will satisfy Clause 6.18 of the Parramatta LEP 2011 which only allows development consent to be granted for development applications for sites within the Telopea Precinct when a DCP is in place, with the exception of minor development. Development applications cannot be determined until the DCP is formally endorsed and thus Clause 6.18 is fully satisfied.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

27. The decision being made by Council to endorse the DCP will have no direct impact on the budget (refer to Table below). Any minor costs associated with the finalisation of the DCP will be funded from the City Planning budget.

28. The finalisation of the DCP will allow development applications to be determined. Development applications associated with increases in residential density will result in collection of development contributions. The recently endorsed Development Contributions (Outside Parramatta CBD) Plan will apply to new development applications within the Precinct.

29. It is acknowledged that a Planning Agreement is being negotiated by Council Officers. The Planning Agreement will be the subject of a future workshop and report to Council. At the time the Planning Agreement is executed (post exhibition) Council can then consider and incorporate the infrastructure and other Planning Agreement deliverables into Council budget and asset management strategies.

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

NEXT STEPS

30. It is recommended that Council approve the DCP for finalisation, with minor amendments marked in red at Attachment 5. If endorsed, the DCP will amend Section 4.1.11 of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011.

31. If approved, Council Officers will publish a notice shortly thereafter stating the date the DCP will come into effect. The DCP will come into effect within two weeks from the Council meeting in order to allow time to incorporate the final DCP into the Parramatta DCP 2011.

Kashfia Hasan

Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Richard Sheridan

Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Summary of Planning Milestones and Planning Controls	6 Pages
2 ⇩	Summary of and response to submissions - agencies and organisations	31 Pages
3 ⇩	Summary of and response to community submissions	18 Pages
4 ⇩	Summary of proposed amendments to DCP	11 Pages
5 ⇩	Telopea Development Control Plan	42 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Governance Manager		Lord Mayor Clr Steven Issa	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 Bob Dwyer

Focus Area status	#	%
Completed	107	66%
Progressing – on track	21	13%
Progressing – off track	23	14%
On hold / stopped	9	6%
Not due to start	1	1%
Total	161	100%

Service Measure status	#	%
Achieved / on track	78	66%
Not achieved	34	29%
Data not available / Not due	6	5%
Total	118	100%

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Jul - Aug 2021	Reporting officers; Executive Approvers	All business units with reportable items in the Plan have been consulted to compile the Report.	Final draft report finalised.	All business units, led by City Strategy
14 September 2021	Executive Team	Final draft approved.	Report finalised.	City Strategy

1 ⇩	Register of 2020/2021 Pecuniary Interest Returns	3 Pages
2 ⇩	Councillor Pecuniary Interest Returns - redacted	30 Pages
3 ⇩	Executive Team Designated Person Returns - redacted	16 Pages
4 ⇩	Desginated Person Pecuniary Interest Returns - redacted	93 Pages


	Press	Press

Public Gallery