Agenda of Council - Monday, 8 February 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, 7 December 2020 AT 6.30pm

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

PRESENT

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer and Councillors Benjamin Barrak (6:36pm), Phil Bradley (6:32pm), Donna Davis, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard (Deputy Lord Mayor), Steven Issa, Andrew Jefferies (6:33pm), Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Bill Tyrrell, Andrew Wilson, Lorraine Wearne and Martin Zaiter.

1. OPENING MEETING

The Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Michelle Garrard, opened the meeting at 6.30pm.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

The Deputy 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 Deputy 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

No other announcements were made.

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

SUBJECT: Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 30 November 2020

3018

RESOLVED (Issa/Tyrrell)

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

6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

There were no apologies/requests for leave of absence made at this meeting.

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made at this meeting.

8. MINUTES OF THE LORD MAYOR

There were no Minutes of the Lord Mayor made at this meeting.

MATTER OF URGENCY

3019

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Issa)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to Parramatta being recognised as Australia’s Leading Smart City.

The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter to be urgent.

3020

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Issa)

(a) That Council note the City of Parramatta was recognised as Australia’s leading Smart City with our win of the ‘Leadership City’ award at the third annual Smart Cities Awards on Thursday, 3 December 2020.

(b) That Council congratulate the members of our Smart City Advisory Committee, including Chair Councillor Steven Issa and Councillor Sameer Pandey, on this achievement and thank them for their vision and work in guiding Council’s Smart City vision.

(c) That Council congratulate Council’s staff, including the Future City team, on this win, and thank them for the incredible work they do in developing and delivering smart cities projects for the benefit of our communities.

(d) Further, that Council note this achievement would not be possible without our project and industry partners who share in our smart cities vision, and work with Council to deliver innovative new projects and solutions that transform our City.

Matter of Urgency

3021

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Issa)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to the 2020 Mayoral Challenge Cricket Match.

The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter to be urgent.

3022

RESOLVED (Dwyer/Issa)

(a) That Council congratulate Mayor Cr Steve Christou and Cumberland City Council on winning the 2020 Mayoral Challenge Cricket Match between City of Parramatta and Cumberland City Council, held Saturday 5 December 2020.

(b) That Council thank and congratulate the Councillors, staff and family members who played on the City of Parramatta team, led by team captain Deputy Lord Mayor Cr Michelle Garrard, for their efforts, sportsmanship and team work.

(c) That Council thank the family, friends and community members who came out to the match to support and cheer on the team.

(d) Further, that Council make a donation of $2,000 to a charity of Cumberland City Council’s choice, as match winners, and note this donation will be matched by Cumberland City Council.

MATTER OF URGENCY

MOTION (Prociv/)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to bus services being withdrawn by Transport for NSW within the Parramatta Local Government Area effective January 2021.

The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter not urgent.

Matter of Urgency

3023

RESOLVED (Esber/Wilson)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to the passing of former Councillor Paul Barber’s mother.

The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter to be urgent.

3024

RESOLVED (Esber/Wilson)

(a) That Council extend its condolences to the former Councillor Paul Barber on the passing of his mother and arrange for flowers to be sent to the family.

(b) Further, that Council observe a minutes’ silence as a mark of respect.

Note: Councillor Barrak left the Chamber at 6:54pm and returned at 6:56pm during consideration of this matter.

MATTER OF URGENCY

3025

RESOLVED (Wearne/Wilson)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency to rescind Item 16.2 – COVID-19 Update of the Council Meeting of 30 November 2020.

The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter to be urgent.

3026

RESOLVED (Wearne/Wilson)

That the resolution of the Council held on 30 November 2020 in relation to Item 16.2 – COVID-19 Update, namely:

(a) That Council note the progress of actions in Council’s COVID-19 Community Resilience and Economic Relief Package adopted 7 April, 9 June 2020,13 July 2020 and 12 October 2020 (Attachment A).

(b) That Council endorse revisions to the application of 4 of the actions previously endorsed in Council’s COVID-19 Community Resilience and Economic Relief Packages, to more appropriately respond to the changing impacts of COVID-19 on community and businesses, and allow for clarity and ease of implementation (see table in paragraph 28). Specifically, this recommendation endorses revisions to the following:

I. To continue to waiver the fees for all existing and future Outdoor Dining Approvals outside of the Parramatta Light Rail Corridor (with the exception of Parramatta Square) until 30 April 2021, to further support business owners during the COVID-19 recovery phase.

II. To introduce a staged re-introduction of payment processing periods for local small and medium suppliers of goods. Commencing from December 2020 to January 2021, processing periods would increase from 7 days to 14 days, returning to a normal 30-day processing period in February 2021.

III. To continue to waiver the interest on late payments for Council rates, where ratepayers satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy).

IV. To continue to put in place payment plans for late payments of Council rates, where ratepayers are suffering financial hardship and satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy).

(c) That Council note the list of successful recipients of the COVID-19 Response Grants (Business Grants) (Attachment B).

(d) That Council provide in principle support for City of Parramatta’s participation in the NSW State Government’s ‘Outdoor Dining Trial’ Program that provides support for local businesses affected by COVID-19, and for Council Officers to further progress ways to implement the trial in City of Parramatta.

(e) That the Lord Mayor, on behalf of Council, makes representations to NSW State Government Ministers Dominello, Stokes and Perrottet seeking operational and financial support for the development of a ‘CBD activation plan’ for the City of Parramatta, to enable the delivery of NSW State Government led changes to outdoor dining.

(f) That should appropriate financial support be provided from the NSW State Government to facilitate an “opt-in” by City of Parramatta to the ‘Outdoor Dining Trial’ Program, the CEO be delegated authority to formalise any funding related agreements with the NSW State Government and attend to any related administrative and implementation matters, that do not materially alter the position of Council.

(g) Further, that a report be brought to Council to consider any policy related changes that would be required to support the implementation of the ‘Outdoor Dining Trial’ Program in City of Parramatta.

be and is hereby rescinded.

Matter Arising

3027

RESOLVED (Wearne/Wilson)

I. To continue to waiver the fees for all existing and future Outdoor Dining Approvals outside of the Parramatta Light Rail Corridor until 30 April 2021, to further support business owners during the COVID-19 recovery phase.

II. To introduce a staged re-introduction of payment processing periods for local small and medium suppliers of goods. Commencing from December 2020 to January 2021, processing periods would increase from 7 days to 14 days, returning to a normal 30-day processing period in February 2021.

III. To continue to waiver the interest on late payments for Council rates, where ratepayers satisfy the hardship criteria (as set out in the Rates Hardship Policy).

(c) That Council note the list of successful recipients of the COVID-19 Response Grants (Business Grants) (Attachment B).

9. Public Forum

9.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM: Item 12.3 - Central City Advocacy & Council's WSROC Membership

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07788295

FROM Charles Casuscelli RFD

City of Parramatta Councillors,

Thank you for the opportunity to address you via Public Forum and for your interest in WSROC, I took the opportunity to send a Brief earlier today to all Councillors that summarises the value of continuing membership and the opportunities that this will provide for the people of the City of Parramatta.

I don’t intend to go over the same material but will focus on those things that I believe will be of most significance as we address the challenges as well as the aspirations of the region into the future.

On the basis of just sheer economics, for every $1 of membership fee Parramatta Council will receive $17.69 in direct benefits, this does not include any benefit from advocacy wins or any joint procurement activities. This is more than any other WSROC Council in the Western City and it reflects the outstanding engagement of City of Parramatta Council officers with the many regional initiatives.

WSROCs priorities in the coming year include, but not limited to;

• Making our neighbourhoods more liveable to the urban heat challenge, WSROC is an acknowledged leader in this space, having won State funding to deliver tools to Councils and assist vulnerable communities.

• Developing other waste service delivery models to achieve better outcomes for Councils. WSROC has been invited by the EPA to further progress this initiative.

• Continuing the Western Sydney Energy Program to provide leadership in moving to renewables and reducing emissions.

• Increasing the financial capacity of Councils via various mechanisms.

• Securing a greater share of the waste levy and it being directed to Local Government especially in Greater Western Sydney.

• Securing funding and engagement of the State Government to facilitate the development of Council planning, operating and community engagement systems with incentives in the form of capital grants for early implementation.

There is little doubt that WSROC continues to enjoy a reputation and privileged access to information on the basis of considered advocacy and substantial success in promoting the interests of Greater Western Sydney. For example; WSROC has been intimately involved in helping to shape the soon to be released 20 Year Waste Strategy, having been granted direct access to the authors on multiple occasions.

On advocacy I am guided by a simple observation by that most famous of Roman Emperors Marcus Aurelius who said “that which is not good for the beehive, cannot be good for the bees”, WSROC’s focus has been and continues to be on Greater Western Sydney. Noting that GWS now comprises two cites.

There is good reason for this, State and Commonwealth Governments continue to engage with the region at this level simply because many of the challenges facing us are best addressed at the regional level, some examples include waste infrastructure, urban heat, energy, planning for liveability, transport, levies, and the financial capacity of Councils to address social infrastructure deficits are amongst many others.

On the question of adequate representation of Central City interests, a Central City Forum was established in early 2019 using the WSROC GM/CEO Forum that attracted the participation of all Central City Councils (Blacktown, Cumberland, The Hills and City of Parramatta).

At that forum, Chaired by the CEO of Blacktown City Council ten potential collaborative initiatives were identified and supported for further investigation, at the time City of Parramatta Council decided to not continue the initiative. I am of the understanding that is just awaiting City of Parramatta Council participation and we would welcome such an outcome.

The City of Parramatta Council is an active shareholder of WSROC, it has access to a reputable, highly credentialed and hard-working team of professional officers that have developed outstanding personal and professional relationships with key State agencies.

We do so with the interests of all of our Member Councils in mind, fairly and equitably.

STAFF RESPONSE

No staff response was provided.

10. Petitions

There were no petitions tabled at this meeting.

11. Rescission Motions

Nil

Procedural Motion

3028

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

That Item 12.1, 12.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 15.1 be resolved en bloc.

12. Fair

12.1

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Annual Code of Conduct Complaint Statistics Returned to the Office of Local Government

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07753414

REPORT OF Chief Financial Officer / Acting Executive Director Corporate Services

3029

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

That Council note the statistical report on Code of Conduct Complaints relating to Councillors and the Chief Executive Officer for the period 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020.

12.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Provision of Joint Delegated Authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer over the Christmas / New Year Period

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07686837

REPORT OF Governance Manager

3030

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

(a) That, in accordance with Section 226(d) and Section 377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate joint authority to the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the powers, duties and functions of the Council during the Recess Period, being Tuesday, 8 December 2020 to Monday, 8 February 2021.

(b) Further, that in the event that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer are required to deal with important or urgent business of the Council during the Recess Period, the process for calling a Delegated Authority Meeting as detailed in the report be followed.

12.3	SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Central City Advocacy & Council's WSROC Membership REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07745778 REPORT OF Executive Officer
	MOTION (Tyrrell/Wearne) (a) That Council approve the withdrawal of membership from the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ltd (WSROC). (b) That Council approve the reallocation of the budget savings from the WSROC membership to a specific reserve until a decision is made on any organisation of Councils. (c) That consultation be carried out with Councillors to determine how the Chamber will move forward and a report be provided to Council for a decision within six (6) months. (d) Further, that a report be provided to Council after 18 months following consultation with Councillors and the commencement of any organisation of Councils.
	AMENDMENT (Davis/Esber) a) That this matter be deferred to allow for a comprehensive report to be returned to Council that provides detailed financial analysis, advantages and disadvantages of WSROC membership, an assessment of alternative strategic relationships and consultation with stakeholders and Councillors. b) Further, that Council invite WSROC representatives to a workshop with Councillors. The amendment moved by Councillor Davis and seconded by Councillor Esber on being put was declared LOST. The motion moved by Councillor Tyrrell and seconded by Councillor Wearne on being put was declared CARRIED.
3031	RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Wearne) (a) That Council approve the withdrawal of membership from the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ltd (WSROC). (b) That Council approve the reallocation of the budget savings from the WSROC membership to a specific reserve until a decision is made on any organisation of Councils. (c) That consultation be carried out with Councillors to determine how the Chamber will move forward and a report be provided to Council for a decision within six (6) months. (d) Further, that a report be provided to Council after 18 months following consultation with Councillors and the commencement of any organisation of Councils. Note: A Notice of Motion of Rescission signed by Councillors Pandey, Bradley and Esber was lodged after the close of the meeting in relation to this matter.

13. Accessible

13.1

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

REFERENCE F2009/00431 - D07250482

REPORT OF Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

3032

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

That the report be received and noted.

13.2

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Minutes of the Cycleways Advisory Committee held between September 2019 and October 2020

REFERENCE F2013/00268 - D07702651

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Transport Planning

3033

RESOLVED (Issa/Tyrrell)

That Council note the minutes of the Parramatta Cycleways Advisory Committee meetings held in 2019 on 25 September and 20 November, and in 2020 on 22 January and 12 August.

13.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting held on 5 November 2020

REFERENCE F2020/00082 - D07250443

REPORT OF Traffic and Transport Manager

3034

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

(a) That Council note the minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 5 November 2020, as provided at Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 5 November 2020 provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications for each item.

i. ITEM 2011 A1 BETTINGTON ROAD, CARLINGFORD – INSTALL PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND

The estimated cost of the pedestrian refuge island in Bettington Road south of Felton Road, Carlingford is $250,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from its 2020/21 Active Transport Program Funds.

Note that City of Parramatta Council’s Operational Plan 2020-2021 has allocated $1.5 million under Council’s Active Transport Program for traffic projects. A report was considered by the Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) on 11 June 2020 and by Council on 13 July 2020 regarding the revised 2020/21 Projects List (Ref. TEAG 2006 B5). This project has been included in the list for construction in 2020/21.

ii. ITEM 2011 A2 PEMBROKE STREET BETWEEN NORFOLK ROAD AND ESSEX STREET, EPPING – PROPOSAL TO RAISE THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

The estimated cost of upgrading the existing marked pedestrian crossing located in Pembroke Street between Norfolk Road and Essex Street, Epping to a raised pedestrian crossing is $240,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from its 2020/21 Active Transport Program Funds.

iii. ITEM 2011 A3 evans road at yates avenue, dundas valley – proposed raised thresholds

The estimated cost for the installation of the raised thresholds in Evans Road on both approaches to Yates Avenue, Dundas Valley is $200,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from its 2020/21 Active Transport Program Funds.

iv. ITEM 2011 A4 wentworth avenue, toongabbie - proposed road modification works

The modification works are to be completed by the developer at 12 Station Road and 4-10 Wentworth Avenue, Toongabbie at no cost to Council. Therefore, this proposal has no direct financial impact on Council’s budget.

v. ITEM 2011 A5 DARCY ROAD BETWEEN DOROTHY STREET AND PIONEER STREET, WENTWORTHVILLE – RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

The estimated cost for the installation of a raised pedestrian crossing in Darcy Road west of Dorothy Street, Wentworthville is $240,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from its 2020/21 Active Transport Program Funds.

vi. ITEM 2011 A6 BEACONSFIELD STREET AT MELTON STREET NORTH, SILVERWATER – PROPOSED SPEED CUSHIONS

The estimated cost of installing the proposed speed cushions in Beaconsfield Street at both approaches to Melton Street North, Silverwater is $7,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from its 2020/21 Traffic Facilities Funds.

vii. ITEM 2011 A7 ryde street between angus avenue and carlingford road, epping – installation of a one-way restriction

The estimated cost of the proposed one-way restriction (northbound) on Ryde Street between Angus Avenue and Carlingford Road, Epping is $80,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from its 2020/21 Active Transport Program Funds.

Note that City of Parramatta Council’s Adopted Operational Plan 2020-2021 has allocated $1.5 million under Council’s Active Transport Program for traffic projects. A report was considered by the Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) on 13 August 2020 and by Council on 14 September 2020 regarding the revised 2020/21 Projects List (Ref. TEAG 2008 B4). This project has been included in the list for construction in 2020/21.

viii. ITEM 2011 A8 WARD sTREET, EPPING – INSTALLATION OF A NO RIGHT TURN RESTRICTION

The approximate cost for installing the part-time ‘No Right Turn 8am-9:30am 2:30pm-4pm School Days’ restriction is $1000. The proposed works will be funded by Transport for NSW Block Grant Funds for installation and maintenance of traffic signs and line markings in 2020/21. Accordingly, this proposal has no direct financial impact upon Council’s budget.

ix. ITEM 2011 A9 kleins road at moss street, northmead – proposed raised Threshold

The estimated cost for the installation of the raised thresholds in Kleins Road at Moss Street is $100,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from its 2020/21 Active Transport Program Funds.

Note that City of Parramatta Council’s Adopted Operational Plan 2020-2021 has allocated $1.5 million under Council’s Active Transport Program for traffic projects. A report was considered by the Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) on 11 June 2020 and by Council on 13 July 2020 regarding the revised 2020/21 Projects List (Ref. TEAG 2006 B5). This project has been included in the list for construction in 2020/21.

x. ITEM 2011 A10 felton road at baker street, carlingford – proposed 6-month trial of an ‘All traffic left only 2:30pm – 4:00pm School days’ restriction for eastbound motorists at the roundabout

The estimated cost of installing the proposed ‘All Traffic Left Only 2:30pm-4:00pm School Days’ restriction in Felton Road West (eastbound) at Baker Street is $1,000. The proposed works would be funded by Transport for NSW Block Grant funds for installation and maintenance of traffic signs and line markings in 2020/21. Accordingly, this proposal has no direct financial impact upon Council’s budget.

xi. ITEM 2011 A11 orchard road south of murray farm road, beecroft – proposed speed cushions

The cost estimate for the proposed speed cushions in Orchard Road south of Murray Farm Road is $10,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from the Traffic Facilities Fund.

xii. ITEM 2011 A12 proposed car share parking spaces in harris park, westmead and epping

According to 2020/21 Fees and Charges schedule, initial application fee of $397 and annual renewal application fee of $159 will apply for the installation of each dedicated car share parking spaces in the Parramatta LGA. These fees will cover the costs of installing and removing car share spaces.

xiii. ITEM 2011 A13 BETTINGTON ROAD AT YORK STREET, OATLANDS – REQUEST FOR A SPEED CUSHION ON THE NORTHBOUND APPROACH TO THE APPROVED ROUNDABOUT

The cost estimate for the proposed speed cushion in Bettington Road on the northbound approach of the approved roundabout at York Street, Oatlands is $3,500. This work would be funded as part of the construction of the roundabout at this intersection.

The cost estimate for the roundabout is $395,000. This project is 100% funded by Council from Developer Contributions. Note that the budget allocated for this project is $400,000.

xiv. ITEM 2011 A14 EPPING TO CARLINGFORD CYCLEWAY

Construction of the Epping to Carlingford Cycleway is fully funded by a TfNSW Active Transport grant and the estimated cost of construction is $725,000. Accordingly, this proposal has no direct financial impact upon Council’s budget.

13.4

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Meeting held on 5 November 2020

REFERENCE F2020/00077 - D07250453

REPORT OF Traffic and Transport Manager

3035

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

(a) That Council note the minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 5 November 2020, provided at Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 5 November 2020 provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications for each item.

i. ITEM 2011 B1 oakes road, winston hills – review of Traffic conditions

This report does not recommend any changes in Oakes Road, Winston Hills. Therefore, this matter has no financial impact upon Council's budget.

ii. ITEM 2011 B2 PROJECT LISTS INCLUDING AN UPDATE ON PROJECTS FOR 2019/20 & 2020/21

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

iii. ITEM 2011 B3 – OUTSTANDING WORKS INSTRUCTIONS

RMS Block Grant funds for 2020/21 have been used for these works.

13.5

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post-exhibition report on proposed changes to the Community Engagement Strategy for the notification of development applications

REFERENCE F2016/03461 - D07705633

REPORT OF Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

3036

RESOLVED (Issa/Tyrrell)

(a) That Council notes the submissions made during the public exhibition of the draft consolidated Development Application notification requirements, a summary of which is provided at Attachment 1.

(b) That Council adopt the draft consolidated DA notification requirements as an appendix to Council’s Community Engagement Strategy and as set out in Attachment 2, which seek to amend the notification requirements by way of:

i. implementing notification timeframes consistent with the current Parramatta Development Control Plan to apply across the Parramatta Local Government Area

ii. notifying all Development Applications for tree removal within Heritage Conservation Areas and on heritage listed sites for 14 days

iii. notifying change of use applications for 14 days where there is potential impact on residential amenity or business operation

iv. providing on-site signage as currently set out in the Parramatta Development Control Plan, to apply across the Parramatta Local Government Area.

v. providing letter notification requirements, less the inclusion of attachments, as currently set out in the Parramatta Development Control Plan, to apply across the Parramatta Local Government Area.

vi. notifying by letter the ten (10) closest surrounding properties for applications. Where there is no impact to adjoining properties to the rear of the subject site, notification be limited to the 5 closest surrounding properties to the side and opposite the subject site.

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

Note: Councillors Barrak, Bradley, Wearne and Wilson requested that their names be recorded as having voted against the decision taken on this matter.

13.6

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Stormwater Disposal Policy Review

REFERENCE F2020/03338 - D07741904

REPORT OF Technical Specialist Manager

3037

RESOLVED (Esber/Wilson)

That Council approve the revised Stormwater Disposal Policy provided at Attachment 2.

13.7

SUBJECT LATE REPORT FOR APPROVAL: Free Parking - Ticket Parking Machines (On-Street) and Multi Level Car Park - Christmas Festive Period

REFERENCE F2016/07376 - D07715974

REPORT OF Manager Paid Parking

MOTION (Barrak/Davis)

(a) That Council approve the switch off of the City's parking meters between 24 December 2020 to 4 January 2021 inclusive.

(b) That Council agree to provide free parking at Council owned parking stations from 24 December 2020 to 4 January 2021 inclusive.

AMENDMENT (Issa/Zaiter)

(a) That Council approve the switch off of the City's parking meters on the two (2) business days prior to the Christmas Day and Boxing Day public holidays 2020.

(b) Further, that Council agree to provide free parking at Council owned parking stations for one day on 24 December 2020.

Procedural Motion

3038

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

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

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 8:19pm for a short recess.

3039	RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell) That the meeting resume.

The meeting resumed at 8:33pm with the following Councillors in attendance: The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bob Dwyer and Councillors Benjamin Barrak, Phil Bradley, Donna Davis, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard (Deputy Lord Mayor), Steven Issa, Andrew Jefferies, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Bill Tyrrell, Andrew Wilson, Lorraine Wearne (8:37pm) and Martin Zaiter.

Upon resumption of the meeting, the amendment moved by Councillor Issa and seconded by Councillor Zaiter was WITHDRAWN.

3040

RESOLVED (Barrak/Davis)

(a) That Council approve the switch off of the City's parking meters between 24 December 2020 to 4 January 2021 inclusive.

(b) That Council agree to provide free parking at Council owned parking stations from 24 December 2020 to 26 December 2020 inclusive.

14. Green

Nil

15. Welcoming

15.1

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Minutes of the Riverside Advisory Board Meeting held on 8 October 2020

REFERENCE F2007/00388 - D07731626

REPORT OF Director Riverside Theatres

3041

RESOLVED (Wearne/Wilson)

That Council note the Minutes of the Riverside Theatres Advisory Board Meeting held on 8 October 2020 (Attachment 1).

15.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Commemorating John Books

REFERENCE F2019/03627 - D07757521

REPORT OF Executive Officer

3042

RESOLVED (Wearne/Wilson)

(a) That the amenities building being delivered through the Max Ruddock Reserve upgrade be named in honour of former Lord Mayor John Books.

(b) That Council note the delivery of this upgrade has been endorsed by Council through the adopted Operational Plan & Budget 2020-2021, adopted July 2020.

(c) That upon completion of the upgraded amenities building, the family of Mr Books be invited to be part of an official naming and formal dedication of the building and reserves upgrades.

(d) Further, that a briefing note be provided to Councillors by 31 March 2021 containing a list of the names of Council properties such as but not limited to, buildings, parks, playgrounds and reserves.

Note: Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 8:41pm and returned at 8:52pm during consideration of this matter.

16. Thriving

Nil

17. Innovative

17.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Progression of Some Site-Specific Planning Proposals in the Parramatta CBD

REFERENCE F2013/01409 - D07736256

REPORT OF A/Team Leader Land Use Planning

3043

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Barrak)

(a) That Council note the correspondence at Attachment 1 from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) pertaining to site-specific Planning Proposals (SSPPs) in the Parramatta CBD.

(b) That Council not proceed with the following three SSPP processes for the following reasons:

Planning Proposal site

Reasons

107 George St, Parramatta

The Applicant is no longer pursuing this application and these controls will be achieved via the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

2 Sorrell St, Parramatta

286-302 Church St, Parramatta

Similar controls can be achieved via the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal for both these sites and, based on engagement with the Applicants, it is not possible to provide DPIE with a clear timetable on when these SSPPs can be progressed.

(c) That Council note further correspondence at Attachment 2 from DPIE including a Gateway alteration outlining that the SSPP for 66-68 Phillip St, Parramatta is not to proceed.

(d) Further, that Council write to DPIE to advise of Council’s resolution.

DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-

AYES: Councillors Barrak, Bradley, Davis, Dwyer, Esber, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter

NOES: Prociv (did not vote and was therefore recorded as having voted against the decision taken in this matter)

17.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Public Exhibition - Draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement at 8-14 Great Western Highway, Parramatta

REFERENCE RZ/6/2019 - D07670441

REPORT OF Project Officer, Land Use Planning

3044

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

(a) That Council endorse the draft site-specific Development Control Plan for the land at 8-14 Great Western Highway Street, Parramatta, as provided at Attachment 1, for the purpose of public exhibition.

(b) That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to commence the legal drafting of a Planning Agreement in accordance with the terms outlined in this report and to finalise the draft agreement on behalf of Council for the purpose of public exhibition.

(c) That the draft site-specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement be placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal for land at 8-14 Great Western Highway Street, Parramatta, for a minimum period of 28 days, and the outcome of the public exhibition be reported back to Council.

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

DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-

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

NOES: Councillors Barrak, Bradley, Davis, Wearne and Wilson

17.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post-exhibition - Re-exhibition of Planning Agreement and Development Control Plan - 295 Church Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE RZ/14/2014 - D07534754

REPORT OF A/Team Leader Land Use Planning

3045

RESOLVED (Esber/Tyrrell)

(a) That Council receives and notes the six Government agency submissions responding to the re-exhibition of the amended Development Control Plan (DCP) and amended Planning Agreement for 295 Church Street, Parramatta.

(b) That Council endorses the re-exhibited DCP (Attachment 1) for finalisation subject to the following two amendments, the first of which arose as a result of Transport for NSW’s submission and the second of which arose from an issue identified by Council officers during the re-exhibition period in association with legal drafting for the related LEP amendment:

i. Minor amendments/additions to the DCP controls to clarify that parking, loading and servicing (excluding set down and pick up for full size coach buses) should happen on-site.

ii. Removal of the DCP reference to parking controls in the current Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 Clause 7.14 (Car Parking for Certain Land in Parramatta City Centre) as the DCP should not pre-empt the drafting of the related site-specific Planning Proposal. Council also affirms its support for the parking provisions for this site being included in a site-specific clause rather than in the existing Clause 7.14.

(d) That subject to the Planning Agreement being updated to reflect the prospective new landowner, Council endorses the re-exhibited Planning Agreement (Attachment 2) for execution, and delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Planning Agreement on behalf of Council.

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

(f) That, noting that DPIE has requested a clear timetable for resolution of this Planning Proposal, if the prospective new landowner has not taken control of the property and signed the Planning Agreement by 28 February 2021, that Council advise DPIE that Council no longer wishes to progress the related Planning Proposal.

(g) That Council responds to the communication from DPIE at Attachment 3 by advising DPIE of this resolution and noting that this resolution should facilitate finalisation of the Planning Proposal, DCP and Planning Agreement in a timely manner.

(h) That Council supports the approach to drafting the LEP amendment outlined in this report as it relates to parking controls (noting that this approach confirms the limited range of parking rates included in the exhibited site-specific Planning Proposal rather than the more extensive parking range of rates exhibited in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, and recognising that this is a transitional issue arising as a result of the site-specific Planning Proposal’s proceeding in parallel with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal).

(i) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to correct any minor policy inconsistencies or any anomalies of an administrative nature relating to the Planning Agreement and Development Control Plan.

DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-

AYES: Councillors Dwyer, Esber, Garrard, Issa, Jefferies, Pandey, Prociv, Tyrrell, Wearne, Wilson and Zaiter

NOES: Councillors Barrak, Bradley and Davis

18. Notices of Motion

18.1

SUBJECT NOTICE OF MOTION: Sydney Olympic Park High School

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07766911

FROM Councillor Prociv

3046

RESOLVED (Prociv/Issa)

That Council write to the Minister for Education seeking assurances that any masterplan for the proposed Sydney Olympic Park High School includes the following spatial and community requirements:

a. That school buildings and grounds be designed and built to accommodate students from the entire Olympic Peninsula, including Newington, Wentworth Point, Carter St and Olympic Park.

b. Any covered outdoor learning areas be designed and built to accommodate the maximum number of anticipated enrolments.

c. Library and ancillary study spaces be designed and built to serve the entire school community and be included within the school precinct.

d. That Peninsula Park will not be considered as a de-facto school active and or passive green space for use by any NSW Department of Education facilities and/or students during school hours.

e. That any correspondence in relation to this motion be deferred until a planned meeting between representatives of TfNSW and SINSW. And that this correspondence include any decisions/discussions that result from this meeting as they relate to the motion.

f. That a briefing note on the results of the planned meeting with representatives of TfNSW and SINSW, including any proposed changes to the Local Environment Plan and Wentworth Point Development Control Plan, be made available to Councillors at the first opportunity.

g. Copies of any correspondence to the Minister for Education and Minister for Transport be made available to Councillors at the first opportunity.

Note:

1. Councillor Dwyer requested that his name be recorded as having voted against the decision taken on this matter.

2. Councillor Zaiter left the Chamber at 9:05pm and returned at 9:07pm during consideration of this matter.

18.2

SUBJECT NOTICE OF MOTION: Peninsula Park

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07767290

FROM Councillor Prociv

3047

RESOLVED (Prociv/Issa)

That the Lord Mayor and CEO write joint letters to the Minister for Transport, Minister for Planning and Minister for Education seeking an urgent meeting to advocate for the construction of the Peninsula Park and to secure assurances that this park will not be absorbed into the site of any future school.

Note: Councillors Dwyer and Wilson requested that their names be recorded as having voted against the decision taken on this matter.

19. Questions with Notice

19.1

SUBJECT LATE REPORT QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE: Questions Taken On Notice from Council Meeting - 30 November 2020

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07779371

FROM Governance Manager

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 30 NOVEMBER 2020

Item

Subject

Councillor

Question

Response

Executive Director

14.1

Single Use Plastics

Issa

How many park clean up requests has been received within the LGA over the past 12 months?

A search of the customer service system for the 12 months ending 2/12/2020 has shown that 8 requests were received in the service category of REQUEST FOR THE REMOVAL OF LITTER relating to parks and reserves.

6 requests were also received for Illegally Dumped Rubbish relating to parks and reserves.

John Warburton

16.3

Night Time Economy Activation Grants 2020/2021

Esber

Why is only $10,000 allocated to Outside CBD?

Due to the terms of the Economic Development Special Rate (EDSR) set by IPART, which makes up the majority of the Economic Development budget, any grant funding from this budget can only be spent within the EDSR collection area (within the CBD).

Only $10,000 is currently available from the City Strategy General Budget to allocate to this program for “Outside of CBD”. This amount is consistent with the allocation from the previous financial year.

Geoff King

Note:

1. Councillor Davis left the Chamber at 9:22pm and returned at 9:23pm during consideration of this matter.

2. Councillor Wilson left the Chamber at 9:24pm during consideration of this matter.

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

20. CLOSED SESSION

3048

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Bradley)

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

1 FOR APPROVAL: Tender 9/2020 Construction of a New Sports Pavilion at Boronia Park, Epping. (D07726789) - 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: Proposed Sale of Part of Gardenvale Road, Oatlands. (D07752040) - 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 (the report contains matters affecting Council property).

3 FOR APPROVAL: Parramatta Square Public Domain Public Art Project. (D07708099) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret (This final stage of the selection process included 7 applications, with 2 applicants selected to progress to Council endorsement. EOI applicants will not be informed of the selection outcome until after endorsement by Council, thus not being in confidential session would comprimise this confidentiality. Further, the 2 public art commissions are of signficant value and importance, thus they will be a notable media announcement opportunity, which would be undermined by not being in confidential session.).

4 LATE REPORT FOR NOTATION: Legal Status Report as at 30 October 2020 (Deferred Item). (D07779160) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Procedural Motion

3049

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Davis)

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

20.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Tender 9/2020 Construction of a New Sports Pavilion at Boronia Park, Epping

REFERENCE F2020/00615 - D07726789

REPORT OF Manager Capital Projects

3050

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Davis)

(a) That Council approve the appointment of the preferred proponent for demolition and construction of a new sports pavilion at Boronia Park, Epping for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 15 of this report.

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

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

20.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Proposed Sale of Part of Gardenvale Road, Oatlands

REFERENCE F2012/03069 - D07752040

REPORT OF Property Services Officer

3051

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Davis)

(a) That Council resolve to sell part of Gardenvale Road, Oatlands on the terms set out in paragraph eight of this report.

(b) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute all necessary documents to give effect to the sale of that part of Gardenvale Road, Oatlands referred to in this report.

20.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Parramatta Square Public Domain Public Art Project

REFERENCE F2019/04434 - D07708099

REPORT OF Acting Group Manager City Experience

3052

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Davis)

(a) That Council approve the commissioning of the two public artworks for the Parramatta Square public domain, as recommended by the Parramatta Square Public Domain Public Art Selection Panel, detailed in paragraph 10 of this report.

(b) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the contractual agreements on behalf of Council.

20.4

SUBJECT LATE REPORT FOR NOTATION: Legal Status Report as at 30 October 2020 (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2019/04434 - D07779160

REPORT OF Group Manager Legal Services

3053

RESOLVED (Issa/Pandey)

That Council note the Legal Status Report as at 30 October 2020.

Note: Councillor Wilson returned to the Chamber at 9:32pm during consideration of this matter.

Procedural Motion

3054

RESOLVED (Tyrrell/Esber)

That the meeting resume into Open Session.

21. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 20.1, 20.2, 20.3 to 20.4.

22. CONCLUSION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9:34pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 24 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2020 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2021.

Chairperson

Council 8 February 2021 Item 12.1

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Investment Report for November 2020

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D07787761

REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Investment Report for November 2020.

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation), a report setting out details of all money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

2. The report must include a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act), the Regulation and Council’s Investment Policy.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The investment portfolio closing balance as at 30 November 2020 was $549m. The average portfolio holdings held throughout the month was $542m.

4. The majority of Council’s investment portfolio is in term deposits (61%). The portfolio also includes liquid Floating Rate Notes (FRN), cash, as well as TCorp Long Term Growth Fund (LTGF).

Approximately 7.5% of the portfolio are less conservative long-term investments. The investment portfolio is well diversified and increasingly invested in higher rated institutions.

5. Council holds a diversified range of investment products which as at 30 November 2020 included:

6. Council’s investment portfolio returns are measured against the Ausbond Bank Bill Index Benchmark. The investment portfolio reported an annualised return of 5.12% in November, outperforming the AusBond Bank Bill Index Benchmark of 0.09%. The Colonial First State (CFS) Managed Fund (1.02% return for the month) and LTGF (5.15% return for the month) were the main contributors towards the strong performance this month.

7. Current and historical outperformance/(underperformance)

8. Council has a substantial allocation to securities and bonds, as well as the CFS Global Credit Managed Fund, for additional liquidity requirements. The portfolio is well-spread across maturities, opportunistically utilising capacity available in short- to medium-term maturities.

The maturity profile as at 30 November 2020

The maturity profile table (below) illustrates that the maturity duration is well-spread with approximately 20% available in working capital, 17% maturing within 12 months, 17% 1-2 years, and a further 39% in 2-5 years, opportunistically maximising councils returns in longer term rates.

All investments comply with Council’s Investment Policy limits, with ample investment opportunity still available in A-rated institutions, and approximately $49m capacity in BBB+/unrated institutions.

Available rating capacity $549m

*BBB+/BBB limits combined under Council’s investment policy.

9. Investment income budget - As at 30 November 2020, the FYTD investment income was $6.47m, approximately $573k above the forecast budget.

The outperformance can be attributed to the LTGF, as both international and domestic shares continued to rally on the back of positive COVID-19 vaccine news. The fund is volatile and advisors have told Council to expect regular months of negative returns.

Year-to-date cumulative interest table

10. Council engages CPG Research & Advisory (CPG) and Imperium Markets for assistance in all investment matters relating to advice, risk and portfolio weighting. CPG monitor the portfolio daily and conduct a monthly health check review. This confirms that Council’s portfolio is conducted within the Act, the Regulation and the Investment Policy of Council.

11. City of Parramatta investment portfolio – performance by investment type

The following summarises the performance, including COVID-19 impacts, on

Council’s various investments types.

Council’s senior floating rate notes (FRNs) made up around 22% of the total investment portfolio at month-end.

During November, $14.5m of A- to AAA-rated FRNs were sold on the market realizing a capital gain of $182k. The market valuation of Council’s remaining A- to AAA-rated FRNs increased by $25.4k (total unrealised capital gain of $1,884k).

Council’s A- to AAA-rated FRNs are senior (high) ranked assets in the bank capital structure. It is expected that, if held to maturity, the FRNs will pay back its original face value, along with its quarterly coupons, throughout the life of the FRN.

Council’s advisors do not anticipate Council to lose any capital or interest payments from its current holding of these senior FRNs as all banks continue to maintain high capital buffers as required by the Australian Prudential Rating Agency (APRA).

Advisors have no concerns with Council’s investments in BBB-rated senior FRNs given all counterparties continue to maintain robust balance sheets with high levels of capital. During November, $3.3m of BBB-rated FRNs reached maturity. The market valuation of Council’s remaining BBB-rated FRNs increased by $50k (total unrealised capital gain of $284k).

12. The Senior Bonds held by Council are currently earning between 0.90% and 1.00% (0.40% p.a. above current market offers). During September 2020, Council placed placed two parcels of $2m with the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation (NTTC), locking in yields of 0.90% p.a. and 1.00% p.a. for a 2- and 3-year term respectively.

Council placed an additional parcel of $1m in November 2020, locking in a 4-year deal at 0.90% p.a. These retail bond offerings have now since closed at the end of November.

13. Term Deposits account for around 61% of the total investment portfolio at month-end.

Council’s term deposit portfolio was yielding 1.51% p.a. at month-end, with a weighted-average duration of around 549 days or 1.5 years. The longer average duration will provide some income protection against the low interest rate environment for the next 12 months. However, as existing deposits mature, they will inevitably be reinvested at much lower prevailing rates.

Given interest rates have fallen to all-time lows, Council is likely to see a rapid decline in interest income over the next few financial years, with reinvestment offers likely to range between 0.40% and 0.60%.

14. The TCorp Long Term Growth Fund accounts for around 4.9% of Council’s total investment portfolio. The Fund returned 5.15% (61.8% annualised) during November as international and domestic shares rose significantly on the back of positive vaccine news.

According to Council’s advisors, it is anticipated that there will be a sustained level of volatility in equity markets, particularly as downside risks to global growth remain. Unemployment globally has risen considerably over recent months, with the collective economic impact likely to be more severe than the global financial crisis (GFC).

This Fund has a long-term view (7+ years). Given the exposure to volatile equity markets, Council should expect in some months to report negative returns, but over the long-term it is expected to outperform term deposits and FRNs.

15. CFS Global Credit Managed Fund accounts for around 2.5% of Council’s total investment portfolio. The Fund returned 1.02% in November, as the market valuation of the fund’s assets in global credit securities (FRNs and bonds) rose as spreads tightened

The Fund holds a diverse range of securities across the global credit market. It remains very well diversified by issuer in order to mitigate default risk. It invests in nearly 600 corporate bonds from issuers in various countries and industry sectors. This grandfathered fund has a current running yield of 1.8%.

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

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

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

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

· List of all Council investments (Attachment 2)

· CPG Comprehensive Investment report (Attachment 3).

17. The Certificate of Investments for November 2020 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

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

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

30 Nov 2020

CPG Research & Advisory

Imperium Markets

All Investments are within Policy guidelines and supported by Councils independent advisor.

Refer CPG comprehensive Report

All Investment are within Policy limits and reconcile to the General Ledger as at 30 Nov 20

Finance Team

Paul Perrett

CFO

Bruce MacFarlane

Treasury & Tax Accountant

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

20. Council’s interest income as at 30 November 2020 exceeds the FYTD budget forecast by approximately $573k.

The annual interest budget will be reassessed at the December 2020 quarterly review.

Bruce MacFarlane

Tax and Treasury Accountant

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Michael Tzimoulas

Executive Director Corporate Services

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Investment and Loans Performance Graph November 2020	1 Page
2 ⇩	List of Council Investments by maturity November 2020	9 Pages
3 ⇩	CPG Comprehensive Report - November 2020	18 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 8 February 2021 Item 12.2

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT FOR NOTATION: Investment Report for December 2020

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D07842901

REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Investment Report for December 2020.

BACKGROUND

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The investment portfolio closing balance as at 31 December 2020 was $534.4m. The average portfolio holdings held throughout the month was $542m.

4. The majority of Council’s investment portfolio is in term deposits (65%). The portfolio also includes liquid Floating Rate Notes (FRN), cash, as well as TCorp Long Term Growth Fund (LTGF).

Approximately 7.8% of the portfolio are less conservative long-term investments. The investment portfolio is well diversified and increasingly invested in higher rated institutions.

5. Council holds a diversified range of investment products as at 31 December 2020:

6. Council’s investment portfolio returns are measured against the Ausbond Bank Bill Index Benchmark. The investment portfolio reported an annualised return of 2.39% in December, outperforming the AusBond Bank Bill Index benchmark of 0.03%. The Colonial First State (CFS) Managed Fund (0.64% return for the month) and LTGF (0.52% return for the month) were the main contributors towards the performance this month.

7. Current and historical outperformance/(underperformance)

8. Council has a substantial allocation to securities and bonds, as well as the CFS Global Credit Managed Fund, for additional liquidity requirements. The portfolio is well spread across maturities, opportunistically utilising capacity available in short- to medium-term maturities.

The maturity profile as at 31 December 2020

The maturity profile table (below) illustrates that the maturity duration is well -spread with approximately 17% available in working capital, 24% maturing within 12 months, 17% 1-2 years, 38% in 2-5 years, and a further 5% greater than 5 years, opportunistically maximising councils returns in longer term rates.

9. All investments comply with Council’s Investment Policy limits, with ample investment opportunity still available in A-rated institutions, and approx. $36m capacity in BBB+/unrated institutions.

Available rating capacity $534m

*BBB+/BBB limits combined under Council’s investment policy.

10. Investment income budget – As at 31 December 2020, the FYTD investment income was $7.2m, approximately $950k above the forecast budget.

The outperformance can be attributed to the TCorp Long Term Growth Fund, as shares rose again throughout December on the roll out of multiple COVID-19 vaccines. The CFS Global Managed Credit Fund credit security assets also increased in value as global credit spreads tightened.

Year to date cumulative interest table

11. Council engages CPG Research & Advisory (CPG) and Imperium Markets for assistance in all investment matters relating to advice, risk and portfolio weighting. CPG monitor the portfolio daily and conduct a monthly health check review. This confirms that Council’s portfolio is conducted within the Act, the Regulation and the Investment Policy of Council.

12. City of Parramatta investment portfolio – performance by investment type

The following summarises the performance, including COVID-19 impacts, on Council’s various investments types.

Council’s senior floating rate notes (FRNs) made up around 19% of the total investment portfolio at month-end.

During December, Council sold $15.7m of AA-rated FRN’s realising a capital gain of $313k. The market valuation of Councils remaining A- to AAA-rated FRNs increased by $641k (total unrealised capital gain of $1,413k).

Advisors have no concerns with Council’s investments in BBB-rated senior FRNs given all counterparties continue to maintain robust balance sheets with high levels of capital. During December, $5m of BBB-rated FRNs reached maturity. The market valuation of Council’s remaining BBB-rated FRNs decreased by $19k or -0.05% on a mark-to-market basis. (total unrealised capital gain of $265k).

13. The Northern Territory Government Senior Bonds held by Council have a face value of $5m earning between 0.90% and 1.00% (0.40% p.a. above current market offers). Council placed an additional parcel of $1m in November 2020, locking in a 4-year deal at 0.90% p.a. These retail bond offerings have now since closed at the end of November.

Northern Territory bonds are a ‘retail’ offering and not ‘wholesale’ issuances. Given the lack of liquidity and high penalty costs if they were to be sold/redeemed prior to the maturity date, they are considered to be a hold-to-maturity investment and will be marked at par value ($100.00) throughout the term of investment.

14. Term Deposits account for around 65% of the total investment portfolio at month-end.

Council’s term deposit portfolio was yielding 1.39% p.a. at month-end, with a weighted-average duration of around 545 days or 1.5 years. The longer average duration will provide some income protection against the low interest rate environment for the next 12 months. However, as existing deposits mature, they will inevitably be reinvested at much lower prevailing rates.

15. The TCorp Long Term Growth Fund accounts for around 5% of Council’s total investment portfolio. The Fund returned 0.51% (6.24% annualised) during December as international and domestic shares rose on the back of multiple COVID-19 vaccine rollouts.

This Fund has a long-term view (7+ years). Given the exposure to volatile equity markets, Council should expect in some months to report negative returns, but over the long-term, it is expected to outperform term deposits and FRNs.

16. CFS Global Credit Managed Fund accounts for around 2.5% of Council’s total investment portfolio. The Fund returned 0.64% (7.88% annualised) in December, as the market valuation of the fund’s assets in global credit securities (FRNs and bonds) rose as spreads tightened

17. Cash at Call make up approximately 8% of the investment portfolio. Council has negotiated a special rate with National Australia Bank (cash rate plus 45 basis points currently 0.55%). This rate is higher than most market TD’s 1-12 months.

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

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

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

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

· List of all Council investments (Attachment 2)

· CPG Comprehensive Investment report (Attachment 3).

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

Certificate of Investments

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

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

31 Dec 2020

CPG Research & Advisory

Imperium Markets

All Investments are within Policy guidelines and supported by Councils independent advisor.

Refer CPG comprehensive Report

All Investment are within Policy limits and reconcile to the General Ledger as at 31 Dec 20

Finance Team

Paul Perrett

CFO

Bruce MacFarlane

Treasury & Tax Accountant

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

22. Council’s interest income as at 31 December 2020 exceeds the FYTD budget forecast by approximately $950k.

The annual interest budget forecast, will be assessed, as part at the December 2020 quarterly review.

Bruce MacFarlane

Tax and Treasury Accountant

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Michael Tzimoulas

Executive Director Corporate Services

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Investment and Loans Performance Graph December 2020	1 Page
2 ⇩	List of Council Investments by maturity December 2020	9 Pages
3 ⇩	CPG Comprehensive Report - Dec 2020	18 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 8 February 2021 Item 16.1

THRIVING

ITEM NUMBER 16.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Melrose Park Precinct Naming Proposal

REFERENCE F2019/02288 - D07609207

REPORT OF Place Manager

PURPOSE:

To endorse the proposed names for five new roads and one park in the Melrose Park Precinct Residential Development as outlined in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the proposed names for five new roads and one park in the Melrose Park Precinct Residential Development and as shown on the Precinct Plan at Attachment 1 of this report, as follows:

Street	Appleroth
	Lemon tree
	Rose bush
Boulevard	Bundil
Lane	Wykoff
Park	Putt Putt

(b) Further, that these names be referred to the Geographical Names Board (GNB) of NSW for formal approval and Gazettal under the Geographical Names Act 1996.

BACKGROUND

1. Melrose Park Precinct is located on the northern side of the Parramatta River. The surrounding suburbs include Ermington, West Ryde, Meadowbank and Denistone West (Attachment 1).

2. This precinct is currently undergoing significant residential redevelopment, to be completed in stages over the next 20 years. Stage 1 of the development includes the construction of a park and five roads to service the newly constructed high-rise units.

3. As per ‘Policy 283 – Road Naming Policy’ (Council’s Policy), road naming should be appropriate to the physical, historical or cultural character of the area. Preferred sources for road names include: Aboriginal names, local history (including early explorers, settlers, and other eminent persons), thematic names (such as flora and fauna) and landmarks.

4. Furthermore, all road names must comply with the requirements outlined in Chapter 6 “Addressing Principles” of the Geographical Naming Board of NSW ‘NSW Address Policy and User Manual’ (GNB Guidelines), ensuring road naming is clear, accepted, unambiguous and readily communicated.

5. Council’s Cultural, Heritage & Tourism (CHT) team has researched the history and identity of the area. Below is a list of proposed names for the newly developed roads and park and a description of the origin:

Street	Appleroth	The name of the creator of Aeroplane Jelly Adolphus Herbert Frederick Norman Appleroth - an Aeroplane Jelly factory was located within the area.
	Lemon tree	In recognition of fruit growers who previously occupied this land. Fruit growers are highly significant to this area. There was a plethora of fruit growing operations across the development area from the water to Victoria Road. 1943 aerial map shows the land which were used for growing 'fruits, citrus, vegies, and plants'. Sands Directory and Post Office Directory 1918 lists many fruit growers, orchardists, dairies, market gardeners, some poultry farms.
	Rose bush
Boulevard	Bundil	Sally Bundil was an Aboriginal person of Kissing Point, born circa 1810-1822.
Lane	Wykoff	Putt Putt golf on the corner of Victoria Road entertained the community from 1969 - 2016. Tom Wykoff brought Putt Putt to Australia from South Africa.
Park	Putt Putt	Named after a business that was located within that location - well known to the community (see above).

6. The Community Engagement team developed and arranged public consultation on the proposed names. The proposed names were promoted across Council’s social media channels, on Council’s website and request for feedback (including written submissions) on the proposed names on Council’s engagement portal ‘Parramatta Our Say’. Details relating to community responses and feedback can be found in Attachment 2.

7. The online consultation was held from Wednesday 18 November to Friday 18 December 2020 (meeting the minimum three weeks timeframe as outlined in Council’s Policy and GNB Guidelines).

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. Providing road names for addressing of the units in the development is required for adequate navigation, emergency response and service delivery (including postal and utilities).

9. Developers and residents may seek compensation for any costs they claim are caused by delays in the naming process such as supply of building infrastructure services, re-addressing for residents and businesses and postal and delivery re-direction costs.

10. It is important to note that this consultation took place throughout the COVID-19 outbreak. While the response rate was still quite strong, the government restrictions that were introduced which prevented face-to-face consultations and the situation more generally, may have had an impact on overall engagement numbers.

11. No advertisements were placed in the local paper, as outlined in Council’s Policy and GNB Guidelines, as they no longer exist. The proposal was promoted via Council’s social media and website instead.

12. A mixture of positive and negative comments were received from the community regarding the proposed naming options (see Attachment 2 for further details). However, none of the concerns raised reached a level of the threshold (that being that a name is considered grossly offensive and/or significantly likely to cause offence to a large group of the community or particular ethnic, religious or other specifically identifiable groups) determined to remove and replace any of the proposed names with an alternative.

13. The names satisfy the addressing requirements of the Geographic Names Board (GNB), which has given prior concurrence to the proposed names.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

14. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter. Please refer to Attachment 3 for further details:

Councillor Consultation

15. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter. Please refer to Attachment 3 for further details:

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Fri 17 July 2020	Rosehill Ward Briefing	Nil comment provided	Nil response required	Place Services Unit / Property & Place / Eva Farlow, Stephanie Cascun & Beth Andean – Place Managers
Wed 11 November 2020	ALL - via Councillor briefing note	Nil comment provided	Nil response required	Place Services Unit / Property & Place / Eva Farlow – Place Managers
Wed 18 November 2020	ALL – email notification regarding public consultation	Nil comment provided	Nil response required	Place Services Unit / Property & Place / Eva Farlow – Place Managers

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

16. The public consultation for the proposed road names was funded by the Developer, MProjects.

17. Once the naming proposal is approved, including gazettal by the GNB, Council will arrange for the fabrication and installation of street signs (including the subject street poles and sign blades) at the Developer’s expense.

18. The notification to relevant government authorities and publishing in the Government Gazette is currently provided without charge by the GNB.

Eva Farlow

Place Manager

Melinda Ta

Place Manager

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Melrose Park Precinct Plan	1 Page
2 ⇩	Stakeholder and Consultation table	9 Pages
3 ⇩	Public Consultation - Key Findings and Engagement Evaluation Report	12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 8 February 2021 Item 17.1

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.1

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 26 November 2020

REFERENCE F2013/00235 - D07781826

REPORT OF Project Officer Land Use

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of key discussion points from the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting on 26 November 2020.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 26 November 2020.

(b) Further, that Council endorse Professor Liston remaining as a member of the Heritage Advisory Committee for the current term of this Council notwithstanding her change in circumstances.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee (the Committee) meets every two months and currently comprises 12 members. The purpose of the Committee is to advise Council on how better to conserve, promote and manage heritage within the Parramatta Local Government Area (LGA) for current and future generations.

2. Council receives periodic reports detailing the minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee meetings, in order to keep Council informed of the advice of the Committee. Council also has a decision-making role on Committee membership as well as on applications to the Local Heritage Fund (which are reported to Council via these periodic reports when such applications have been considered).

3. Due to the current Covid-19 situation, Committee meetings were initially suspended until August 2020. However, normal meeting schedules were recommenced and the last meeting of 2020 was held on 26 November 2020. This report summarises key discussion points of this meeting for Council’s information. The minutes of the meeting are provided at Attachment 1.

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS

4. The key points discussed at the meeting are summarised below.

Presentation - Best Practice in Promoting Visitor Experience (Item 4)

5. Cassandra Farquharson, Western Sydney University (WSU) Student Project Officer, gave a presentation on best practice visitor experience and opportunities as applied to parts of Parramatta.

6. The Committee responded with suggestions to:

· extend the free CBD bus service to Harris Park;

· include the Eels festival in the visitor experience so as to involve the Darug culture;

· include Lebanese Week and tours because of the importance of the religious aspect;

· incorporate cultural landscapes including streetscapes, views and vistas;

· incorporate the Smart City app into the visitor program; and

· investigate appropriate grant applications and opportunities for shared funding to help overcome the biggest barrier of adequate funding.

7. The Committee’s suggestions have been referred to Council’s Cultural Heritage and Tourism Manager for possible inclusion in Council's visitor experience program.

Cultural Heritage and Visitor Services Update (Item 5)

8. An update was provided by Council's Cultural Heritage and Tourism Manager on the following matters:

· Parramatta History & Heritage Website: Includes work on a number of anniversaries and Foundation day videos, videos on the A-Z of things in Parramatta, 12 online biographies of historical and contemporary Parramatta people and continued digitisation of Council records.

· Heritage assets: A 360 degree virtual map and tour of the City of Parramatta precincts and heritage attractions is in development that is designed to raise the profile of destination experiences.

· Willow Grove: It is proposed to undertake further work to capture the historical significance of this 19th-century building.

9. There was a general discussion at the meeting on heritage signs, wayfinding signs and national heritage trail signs around Rosehill. Committee members and attendees stressed that it was important that the investigation of heritage mapping and signage should also apply to other parts of the LGA, such as Epping, Carlingford and Sydney Olympic Park. It was also suggested that the Toongabbie area should be investigated to determine if there are any properties with heritage value. The Committee agreed that these issues would be considered at a future meeting, and Council staff will ensure that these matters are included on the agenda for the Committee's next meeting on 18 February 2021.

Business Arising (Item 7)

10. The Committee was briefed on the Development Application for the Parramatta Aquatics Centre.

11. The Committee was also briefed on the outcome of investigations into the problems with Council's Development Application Tracker. The Committee and attendees raised a number of further concerns on the difficulty of use of the Development Application Tracker. The particular concerns of the Committee together with a response from Council's Group Manager Development and Traffic Services to these concerns are detailed in Table 1 below. This response has been circulated to Committee members.

Table 1: Concerns with Council's Development Application Tracker

Concerns of Committee	Response - Group Manager Development & Traffic Services
There is a lack of any information on the DA Tracker from Councils that have recently been amalgamated with the City of Parramatta for properties with heritage significance.	Digitally held planning determinations are typically available for view on Council’s DA Tracker regardless of whether they are from a former Local Government Area. Please note though that the DA Tracker will not display all records held against a property address that are either not planning determinations or that are not held digitally by Council. If there are specific examples of what needs to be displayed that can be looked at in consultation with the IT project team.
Some features are no longer available to view in the new DA Tracker making it very difficult for people to make submissions.	The submissions portal is available outside the DA Tracker and anyone can make submissions. This has now also been linked to the DA Tracker to assist with easier submissions. If there are other aspects of the DA Tracker functionality that are concerning the Committee we would welcome specific feedback so we can focus on those features. We are currently improving functionality in relation to viewing documentation associated with development applications for tree removal.
It is difficult to choose the right pathway to find a development application – certain areas of the DA Tracker need to be modified so as to locate new development applications, particularly those located in Conservation Areas.	If there are aspects of the DA Tracker interface that are concerning the Committee in terms of ease of access we would welcome specific feedback so we can focus on those features. This would appear to relate to the features of the DA Tracker and would need IT project team input.
Only some documents relating to development applications are now on-line – it is questioned whether it is the intention to have all documents on-line or whether the public will have to contact the Council officer to obtain further information.	There has been no deliberate reduction in the level of information viewable on the new DA Tracker compared to the older version. It is unclear whether the Committee is also hoping to be able to view non-planning documents relating to a particular address via the DA Tracker. There is no project at this time for that level of access to property information.

Development Applications (Item 8)

12. The Committee was briefed by Council's Heritage Advisor on 10 Development Applications. The Committee did not raise any significant issues with these applications nor on the Heritage Advisor’s proposed recommendations for the same.

13. Council’s Heritage Advisor advised that, in future, he will forward an email to Committee members giving them advance notification of DAs with heritage significance. This notification will take place shortly after DAs have been received by Council.

City Planning Update (Item 9)

14. The Committee was briefed on a number of Planning Proposals located within the Parramatta CBD. Table 2 below details the content of the briefing together with the Committee's response and action proposed by Council staff.

Table 2: Briefing of CBD Planning Proposals

Planning Proposal (or site-specific DCP where relevant)	Briefing content	Committee's response and staff action
20 Macquarie Street, Parramatta	A site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement are on exhibition from 25 November 2020 to 15 January 2021. The DCP contains an objective to protect heritage. Exhibition details were emailed to the Committee on 25 November 2020.	N/A
197 Church Street, Parramatta	This planning proposal and a site-specific DCP and draft planning agreement are on exhibition from 16 November to 16 December 2020.	The Committee sought a 15m tower setback from Church Street to open up views to and from Centenary Square and St John's Cathedral and the Church Street heritage streetscape. The Committee's comments have been referred to the City Planning Team to be treated as a submission to the exhibition of this Planning Proposal.
87–91 George Street, Parramatta	Confirmation that the Committee's previous recommendation for a 10m setback to the western boundary of adjacent heritage listed Perth House has been referred to the Applicant. This matter will be reported to Council in the first quarter of 2021.	N/A
St John's Cathedral site / adjacent land holdings	The Committee was updated on this project. While Council resolved to de-list the Church Hall this proposal has not been endorsed by the Department of Planning who have required the listing to remain. Any decision to allow demolition of the Hall will now need to be considered by the relevant determining Panel as part of a Development Application Process. This has presented some challenges in terms of what content should be included in any site specific DCP for the site. In normal circumstances a DCP would not include controls that promote the demolition of a listed heritage item.	N/A
8 – 14 Great Western Highway, Parramatta	The Committee had previously commented on this Planning Proposal during initial assessment. A draft DCP and VPA are going to Council on 7 December for endorsement for public exhibition (Note: after this briefing to the Committee, the DCP/VPA were endorsed for public exhibition by Council on 7 December 2020). The DCP contains controls to address impact on nearby heritage items. The report to Council on 7 December states that if endorsed for public exhibition, a draft DCP will be presented to the Committee and their comments will be provided in the post exhibition report.	The Committee commented that all points under section D of its submission on the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal are relevant and should be taken into account in considering this site-specific Planning Proposal. These comments have been referred to the City Planning Team for consideration as appropriate.

General Business (Item 11)

15. The Committee agreed that, until issues relating to the DA Tracker outlined in paragraph 10 of this report are resolved, they would like to be notified of relevant Development Applications via other means. They agreed to advise staff if they prefer to be notified of Development Applications by email, mail or both.

16. Council officers are awaiting advice from the Committee confirming the preferred method of notification for relevant Development Applications. Once received, this advice will be referred to Council’s Development and Traffic Services Group for action.

17. If a response from the Committee is not received prior to the next Committee meeting (scheduled for 18 February 2021), Council staff will raise it again under “general business” at that meeting.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ISSUE

18. The Chairperson of the Committee, Professor Liston, has recently advised of a change in personal circumstances. From the end of February 2021 she will no longer work in the Parramatta LGA. Neither does she live in Parramatta. She has sought advice as to whether the change of circumstances will affect her membership of the Heritage Advisory Committee.

19. The Terms of Reference for the Heritage Advisory Committee have the following membership requirements:

4.2 Applicants for membership of the Heritage Advisory Committee must have a proven commitment, sensitivity, and understanding of issues relating to heritage issues in the City of Parramatta LGA.

4.3 In addition, applicants for membership should:

4.3.1 live, work, or study in the City of Parramatta LGA, and or

4.3.2 be an employee or member of an organisation whose primary function relates to the preservation of heritage.

20. Council officers acknowledge that Professor Liston will in future no longer work in the Parramatta LGA, however, officers understand that she will be continuing her research through Western Sydney University (which is based in the LGA) and thus will continue to study within the LGA.

21. Further, Council officers consider that Professor Liston satisfies the critical membership requirement (4.2 above) of having a proven commitment, sensitivity and understanding of issues relating to heritage issues in the City of Parramatta LGA. In particular, Professor Liston is a historian specialising in the 19th century and the convict period, with a special emphasis on the history of Western Sydney. She is a co-author of the history of Parramatta, ‘Parramatta – a past revealed’, and a former member of the Heritage Council of NSW (1990s) with experience in researching and assessing the significance of the built environment. Prof. Liston has been a member of the Committee since its inception in the 1990s, including for several years recently as chair.

22. In conclusion, Council officers consider that Professor Liston continues to meet the criteria for membership and recommend that she remain as a member of the Committee for the current term of Council. However, because there are no provisions that cover changes in personal circumstances for members of Council committees, and because Council’s role in the matter is to determine membership of committees, Council officers consider it prudent to inform Council of the change in Professor Liston’s circumstances and recommend that Council confirm her continued membership for the current term of Council.

23. Following the next Council election, the membership of the Committee will be subject to a new process wherein returning and prospective new members will be invited to submit applications for membership. Professor Liston may submit a new application for membership following the next Council election based on her circumstances at that point in time.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

25. Any actions arising from Minutes will be managed within existing budget allocations.

Paul Kennedy

Project Officer Land Use

Sarah Baker

A/Team Leader Land Use Planning

Robert Cologna

Land Use Planning Manager

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Kelly van der Zanden

Acting Executive Director, City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Minutes of Meeting held 26 November 2020

10 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 8 February 2021 Item 17.2

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.2

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Gateway Request - Planning Proposal to increase commercial floorspace in Epping Town Centre

REFERENCE F2018/03032 - D07797520

REPORT OF Team Leader Land Use Planning

PREVIOUS ITEMS 14.5 - Epping Town Centre Traffic Study and other Epping Planning Review Matters - Council - 09 Jul 2018 6.30pm

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to progress a Planning Proposal to mandate an increase in commercial floor space on certain land within the Epping Town Centre. This report recommends giving approval for the CEO to prepare a Planning Proposal based on planning approach ‘Option 3’ (as detailed in this report) then forwarding a Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment with a request for a Gateway Determination.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a planning proposal which seeks the following amendments to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 applying to all land in the B2 Local Centre zone in the Epping Town Centre, with the exception of 6-14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street, relating to Option 3 detailed in this report that:

i. Introduces new clauses which:

§ Mandate a minimum amount of non-residential uses to be provided on the ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street of up to a maximum of 1:1 floor space ratio (FSR) of non-residential floorspace in addition to the mapped maximum floor space ratio. The clause shall also indicate that the FSR of residential development permitted on the site should not increase as a result of this requirement.

§ Allow for an increase in maximum height of buildings from 48 metres in some parts of Epping and 72 metres in some parts of Epping up to 80 metres (approx. 24 storeys) where sites have a mapped FSR of 4.5:1 and from 72 metres up to 90 metres (approx. 28 storeys) where sites have a mapped FSR of 6:1, only where developments provide a minimum amount of non-residential uses of ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street.

§ Ensure any change of use proposed on the first three levels would not allow residential uses.

§ Apply an exception to that part of a building that faces a service lane or is required for entrances and lobbies, access for fire services or vehicular access associated or servicing residential accommodation above.

ii. Introduces a requirement that the proposed controls of the Planning Proposal apply to development applications determined once a Gateway Determination has been issued for this Planning Proposal.

(b) That the Chief Executive Officer forwards the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to request the issuing of a Gateway Determination on behalf of Council.

(c) That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to prepare amendments to the relevant sections of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 and Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 to support the Planning Proposal relating to the following design controls, and place these on public exhibition with the Planning Proposal:

i. podium height controls;

ii. minimum floorplate dimensions;

iii. floor to ceiling heights for non-residential uses;

iv. location of services; and

v. building and podium setback controls.

(d) That Council advises the DPIE that the Chief Executive Officer will be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal as authorised by Council on 26 November 2012.

(e) That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan-making process.

(f) That within 5 years of the planning controls being made as an LEP amendment, that a review be undertaken of the effectiveness of the controls relating to the mandatory provision of a minimum level of commercial floorspace in the B2 Local Centre zone within the Epping Town Centre and any associated recommendations and this review be reported to Council.

(g) That Council continue to work with the State Government to resolve traffic issues in Epping.

(h) Further that, Council note the Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council at its meeting of 15 December 2020 is in support of the Planning Proposal, which is consistent with the Council Officer’s recommendation in this report.

SUMMARY

1. The loss of commercial floor space within the Epping Town Centre was a key planning issue examined by Council as part of Phase 1 of the Epping Planning Review (Review) undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The Review identified that since the 2014 Epping Urban Activation Precinct rezoning, new development within the B2 Local Centre zoning (refer Figure 1) has reduced the amount of commercial floor space (and therefore jobs) within the Epping Town Centre. Recent developments are typically replacing large and small-scale offices with shop top housing. These developments only provide ground floor retail or business premises with residential towers above and little or no floor space for other job generating activities.

2. This development type is inconsistent with the strategic vision set out in the Central City District Plan and Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement. This report seeks to provide options for Council to address this inconsistency.

3. This report considers three potential planning options in relation to the provision of commercial floor space in Epping, as follows:

a) Option 1 – no change to planning controls, that is, based on current development trends, provision of only ground floor retail/business floor space; or

b) Option 2 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space within the current maximum floor space ratio (FSR) and height controls; or

c) Option 3 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space in addition to the current permitted maximum floor space ratio and height controls.

4. This report outlines the potential advantages and disadvantages of each Option. The Council Officer assessment concludes that Option 3 should be pursued. This recommendation is based on the market’s likely response to the proposed planning controls (as opposed to Option 2). Council Officers believe this approach will be the most likely to achieve the forecast additional demand for commercial floorspace in the Epping Town Centre.

5. It is acknowledged that there would be some adverse impact by pursing Option 3 in relation to increased overshadowing and traffic impact. However, on balance the impact is considered an acceptable compromise in order to practicably deliver the additional commercial floor space required to realise Epping as a thriving and vibrant employment centre.

6. It is noted that the three potential planning Options were presented to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (Panel) at its meetings of 29 September and 15 December 2020. In its advice to Council at its meeting of 15 December 2020 the Panel is in support of the Planning Proposal, which is consistent with the Council Officer’s recommendation in this report.

CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS

7. This planning matter relates to B2 Local Centre zoned land in the Epping Town Centre. As indicated on Figure 1 the Epping Town Centre is divided by two sets of planning controls - the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 and Hornsby Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013.

Figure 1: B2 Zoned Land within the Epping Town Centre shown in blue

8. Council’s current Harmonisation Planning Proposal seeks to consolidate into one Planning Instrument a set of controls that will replace the controls in the five different Local Environmental Plans that currently apply in different parts of the City of Parramatta. This Planning Proposal has received Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) and at the time of writing this report, was placed on public exhibition between 31 August and 12 October 2020. There is no change proposed to the extent of the B2 Local Centre zoning within the Epping Town Centre under the Harmonisation Planning Proposal.

9. Table 1 summarises the planning controls, which apply to the B2 Local Centre zoning, both currently and under the Harmonisation Planning Proposal.

Table 1 Summary of Planning Controls within the B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre

	Maximum FSRs	Maximum Height of Building	Permitted Land Uses/Relevant clauses
Hornsby LEP 2013	6:1 & 4.5:1	72m & 48m	- Commercial uses, shop top housing, tourist and visitor accommodation and community facilities
Parramatta LEP 2011	6.1; 4.5:1 & 3:1	72m, 48m & 21m	- Commercial uses, shop top housing, tourist and visitor accommodation and community facilities
Harmonisation Planning Proposal	As above (no change)	As above (no change)	- Permissible land uses as above. - Clause requiring B2 zoned sites to include non-residential on the ground floor.

BACKGROUND

Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Process

10. On 14 March 2014, the then Department of Planning and Environment (Department) finalised the Epping Urban Activation Precinct (UAP) amendments to the Hornsby and Parramatta Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) via State Environmental Planning Policy (Epping Town Centre) 2013 (“the SEPP Amendment”). The SEPP Amendment provided capacity for approximately 10,000 additional dwellings and sought to revitalise the commercial and retail core adjacent to a major transport hub.

11. The FSR and height controls arising from the UAP are supported by controls in the relevant Parramatta and Hornsby DCPs. The provisions in both DCPs encourage new development within the Epping Town Centre to allocate a proportion of the development to non-residential uses. Hornsby DCP currently requires a 2 to 3 storey podium and Parramatta DCP currently requires ‘up to’ 4 storeys for commercial uses. Under current planning legislation, the role of DCPs have been weakened relative to their historical role, and are considered to be a guide, which can be varied as part of the development application process.

12. Therefore, since the 2014 rezoning, new development within the B2 Local Centre zoning has resulted in the development of residential floorspace at the expense of existing office floorspace. That is, development of shop top housing, with ground floor retail or business uses and residential towers above. This issue and others relating to the consequences of the loss of commercial floorspace is discussed in more detail below.

Epping Planning Review Project – Stage 1

13. In December 2016, the Epping Planning Review (Review) was commenced by the City of Parramatta Council. The scope of the Review was to address the unintended consequences of the planning control amendments brought into effect in March 2014. One of the key issues explored by the Review was the loss of commercial floorspace within the Epping Town Centre. Background on the Review and a summary of key issues as outlined in the Epping Planning Review Discussion Paper (refer Section 8 for commercial floorspace) can be found at https://www.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/councilprecinct-planning/epping-planning-review.

14. As part of the Review, Council commissioned SGS Economics and Planning to undertake a Commercial Floor Space Study to understand the loss of commercial floor space and Epping’s role as a centre and therefore the future demand for retail and commercial floorspace. The Commercial Floor Space Study (the Study) is provided at Attachment 1.

15. Key issues identified in the Study include:

a. Recent development activity has seen the development of new residential floor space at the expense of existing commercial floor space. The market has determined that residential is the highest yielding land use, at the expense of existing commercial floor space.

b. The current planning controls are likely to continue to result in the loss of commercial floor space and, best case, replacing current ground level retail offerings.

c. Due to some landowner desire to maintain the redevelopment potential of their land, there is currently very little commercial floor space on a long-term lease or a lease without a demolition clause. This creates an environment of uncertainty for existing and potential commercial tenants which has seen commercial uses unable to access appropriate floor space to support their business.

16. In order to address these key issues, the Study modelled three employment scenarios for Epping:

a. Low scenario - where Epping is a population serving centre and represents a further reduction in office floor space;

b. Medium scenario - where Epping is a local centre (meeting the demands of a local catchment) and forecasts demand for 31,845sqm to 2036 of office floor space. This is in line with current provision; and

c. High scenario, where Epping fulfils its function as a sub-district centre (as a professional services hub) and forecasts demand for 55,616sqm to 2036 of office floor space.

17. The Study concluded:

a. The office space demand for Epping is likely to sit between the medium and high scenario and therefore supportable demand of between 40,000sqm and 45,000sqm at 2036 is considered the most likely limit for office floor space for Epping. It is noted that the Study’s reference to office floor space includes knowledge intensive, population serving and health and education.

b. The forecast demand for retail floor space in Epping to 2036 is 13,000sqm.

18. Current patterns of development are unlikely to deliver the quantum of commercial floor space required by 2036. The market is more likely to deliver an acceptable level of retail floor space at ground level. Therefore, the Study recommends applying a non-residential floor space ratio (excluding visitor and tourist accommodation) within the B2 Local Centre zone to ensure these uses are accommodated in a truly mixed-use development providing services for the local and surrounding population.

Council Reports and Resolutions

19. On 9 July 2018, a report was considered by Council that detailed the findings of the Epping Planning Review, including the findings of the Commercial Floor Space Study and community feedback in relation to the loss of commercial floor space in Epping Town Centre. The 9 July 2018 Council report and minutes can be found at Item 18.4: https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/OC_09062020_AGN_585_AT_WEB.HTM and the resolution at: https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/OC_09062020_MIN_585.HTM#PDF2_ReportName_9025.

20. Specifically in response to the loss of commercial floor space, Council (part) resolved at its meeting of 9 July 2018:

(l) That a Planning Proposal including all necessary background studies and analysis be prepared to progress the recommended LEP amendments detailed in this report relating to new controls to require the provision of commercial floor space in the Town Centre and that the Planning Proposal and associated material be reported to Council for endorsement before it is forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking any Gateway Determination for the planning proposal.

21. Further, it is noted that Council at its 9 July 2018 meeting resolved to not support any planning proposal or preliminary planning proposal which seeks to deliver additional housing to what can be achieved under the current planning controls, unless it seeks to address a planning issue identified in the Council’s Epping Planning Review process related to:

a. commercial floor space in Epping Town Centre; or

b. the planning controls that should apply to the heritage conservation areas or areas that interface with the High Density Residential zones surrounding Epping Town Centre.

KEY ISSUES

Fulfilling Epping’s role as a Strategic Centre

22. Epping is identified as a Strategic Centre in the Greater Sydney Commission Central City District Plan (2018) (District Plan),and as a result of this was also identified as a Strategic Centre in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). Further details on the objectives/vision for Epping set out in these documents is included in paragraphs 31 – 40 of the report considered by the Local Planning Panel which can be viewed utilising this link. https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/LPP_29092020_AGN_641_AT.PDF

23. The employment targets for Epping Town Centre in the District Plan and Council LSPS and compared to the recommendations of the Commercial Floor Space Study are outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Summary of job targets for Epping Town Centre

Strategy/ Study	Job Target / Project Demand to 2036	Notes
Central District Plan (March 2018)	7,000 – 7,500
Epping Commercial Floor Space Study (SGS Economics 2017)	5,674- 9,353	The jobs forecast range is based on between a ‘medium’ to ‘high’ employment forecast scenario. The SGS Study notes the high scenario is aspirational and in light of the competitive offer of Epping, the supportable demand for office floor space sits between 40,000 & 45,000sqm (by 2036) and 13,000sqm of retail floor space (by 2036).
Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020)	9,400	This jobs forecast is based on a ‘high employment scenario’ as per the Commercial Floor Space Study (SGS) and as identified in the Study, the high scenario is aspirational.

24. The Census employment figures for the Epping Town Centre indicate a loss of 1,827 jobs over a 5 year period, as follows:

- 2011 Census – 5,550 jobs; and

- 2016 Census – 3,723 jobs.

It is expected that this loss will continue with the types of development occurring in the Town Centre.

25. Council Officers have undertaken analysis of sites which have redevelopment potential zoned B2 Local Centre within the Epping Town Centre (excluding those sites that have already realised redevelopment potential). The analysis assumes that future development of these sites would include ground floor retail and first and second floor commercial (or other non-residential uses).

26. The analysis found that there is potential for these sites to yield approximately 57,000sqm of non-residential floor space comprising:

a. Approximately 10,750sqm of retail floor space on the ground floor; and

b. Approximately 46,250sqm of commercial or non-residential floor space on the first and second storeys.

27. The above analysis demonstrates that by providing non-residential within the first three levels of development, that the projected demand identified in the SGS Commercial Floor Space Study of between 40,000 and 45,000sqm of office floor space may be met, and the projected demand of 13,000sqm of retail floor space by 2036 could be met (noting that the existing non-residential floor space is not included in calculations).

28. It is important to note that larger sites in Epping (over 6,500sqm in site area) that were included in the projections above, could accommodate significantly more non-residential floor space through their redevelopment within the Epping Town Centre and therefore the projected overall non-residential floor space may further increase.

Options for Achieving Non-Residential Floor Space

29. In order to achieve commercial floor space targets for Epping (described above), there are three potential planning approaches, as follows:

a. Option 1 – no change to planning controls and let market conditions dictate the commercial floor space achieved, based on recent development trends this may result in only ground floor commercial (retail) being delivered however market conditions could change over time; or

b. Option 2 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space within the current maximum floor space ratio controls; or

c. Option 3 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space in excess of the current maximum floor space ratio (FSR).

30. The Commercial Floor Space Study concludes that Option 1 would likely result, based on current development trends and permissibility of shop top housing within the B2 Local Centre Zone, in retail or business on the ground floor with residential towers above. Therefore, over time this would result in further commercial floor space and job loss within the Epping Town Centre.

31. Options 2 and 3 would provide for future commercial and retail floor space targets for Epping to be met, and would require changes to planning controls, that is, an amendment to the Hornsby LEP 2013 and Parramatta LEP 2011 via a Planning Proposal. Therefore, an assessment of these two options is presented in more detail in this report below.

Commercial Floor Space Traffic Study

32. In order to understand and compare the traffic impact of the planning options for increasing commercial floor space in the Epping Town Centre, Council commissioned EMM Consulting to undertake a traffic study. The Commercial Floor Space Traffic Study (February 2020) is provided at Attachment 2.

33. The Commercial Floor Space Traffic Study (the Traffic Study) modelled three planning scenarios at the year 2026:

a) Scenario 0 – Baseline - a forecast development scenario of the existing pattern of development.

b) Scenario 1 - a minimum 3 storeys be provided of non-residential uses within the existing FSR (i.e. Option 2).

c) Scenario 2 – a minimum of 3 storeys be provided of non-residential uses in addition to the existing FSR (i.e. Option 3).

34. Each of the key impacts under the morning and afternoon peaks are described below. Note that the term ‘level of service’ refers to how well the road intersection is operating from a commuter’s perspective. Typically, six levels of service are defined and each is assigned a letter designation from A to F, with level of service ‘A’ representing the best operating conditions, and level of service ‘F’ the worst.

Traffic Impact at the Morning Peak

35. The key results in relation to the morning peak are summarised in Table 3 below. It is noted that four key intersections will be already operating under the Baseline Scenario (at 2026) at highly congested traffic conditions (level of service F) – these are Carlingford Road/Midson Road; Carlingford Road/Ray Road/Rawson Street; Carlingford Road/Beecroft Road; and Epping Road/Essex Street. Both Scenarios 1 and 2 will further increase the delays to three of these intersections during the morning peak. In addition, two intersections will experience changes to the level of service under both Scenarios.

Table 3. Summary of Impact on Key Intersection at Morning Peak for each Scenarios

Intersection	Summary of Impact of Scenarios 1 & 2 against Base Case
Carlingford Rd/Ray Road/Rawson Street	Will continue to operate at level of service F - with increase in intersection delays less under Scenario 1 (59.3 sec) than Scenario 2 (134.2 sec).
Carlingford Road/Beecroft Road	Will continue to operate at level of service F - with increase in intersection delays slightly greater under Scenario 1 (17.8 sec) than Scenario 2 (17.4 sec).
Epping Road/Blaxland Road/Langston Place	Will change from a level of service C (baseline) to level of service D (both Scenarios).
Epping Road/Pembroke Street	Will change to a level of service A (baseline) to level of service B. Both levels of service A and B are acceptable levels of service.
Epping Road/Essex Street	Will continue to operate at level of service F - with increase in intersection delays under both Scenarios 1 and 2. The increase in delay time is less in Scenario 1 (17.7 sec) than under Scenario 2 (19.7 sec).
Carlingford Rd/Midson Road	Will continue to operate at level of service F – with increase in intersection delays slightly greater under Scenario 1 (17.8 sec) than under Scenario 2 (17.4 sec).

Traffic Impact at the Afternoon Peak

36. In the afternoon, peak traffic conditions generally perform better than the morning peak, which is primarily believed to be due to the Epping Bridge widening relieving westbound traffic flows.

37. There are no changes to service levels for any of the key intersections under Scenarios 1 or 2 (as compared to Baseline 2026). However, the Carlingford Road/Beecroft Road intersection, which will be operating at over capacity traffic conditions (level of service F), will experience increases in the level of delay (37 and 49.5 seconds respectively) under Scenarios 1 and 2.

Traffic impact - Conclusions

38. It is acknowledged that there are, and will be, highly congested traffic conditions in Epping under the current planning controls, and that the proposal to mandate additional non-residential floor space will result in additional delays at identified intersections in the peak (in the short to medium term). Notwithstanding this, it is recommended the mandating of non-residential floor space within Epping Town Centre be pursued.

39. As a result of changes to planning controls, there will be a short to medium term adverse traffic impact, however this must be balanced with the long term pursuit of the strategic goal of making Epping a thriving Town Centre. There are demonstrable benefits from having an activity and employment based centre which is best placed to serve the needs of the broader community.

40. Furthermore, Council will continue to focus its efforts on delivering and advocating for the necessary traffic and transport improvements required in Epping. By taking advantage of Epping as a public transport hub this will continue to assist in resolving the road based transport issues, and seeking improvements in public transport provisions in areas east and west of Epping to reduce the levels of private vehicle through traffic, which is currently the primary source of congestion problems in the Epping Town Centre.

41. Whilst this approach would result in additional short term congestion, in the longer term it would help establish Epping as a thriving centre with a sustainable mix of use, and rely on future transport improvements that encourage use of other forms of transport to resolve the road based transport issues.

Height of Buildings and Potential Overshadowing

42. If Option 3 was pursued as a Planning Proposal, it would result in an increase in density and height controls on B2 zoned sites within the Epping Town Centre. Table 4 and Figure 2 indicate the current maximum FSR and heights available under the LEPs and proposed FSR and heights that would be required to accommodate the additional commercial floor space provision under Option 3. This is based on a modelled development of a 3 storey commercial podium and residential tower above.

Table 4: Proposed FSR and Height of buildings under Option 3

Current Maximum FSR and Height of Building (HoB) Controls on B2 sites in Epping	Proposed Maximum FSR and Height of Building (HoB) Controls on B2 sites in Epping
6:1 and 72 metres (22 storeys)	7:1 FSR and 90m (28 storeys)
4.5:1 and 72 metres (22 storeys)	5.5:1 FSR and 80m (24 storeys)
4.5:1 and 48 metres (15 storeys)	5.5:1 FSR and 80m (24 storeys)
3.5:1 and 21 metres (6 storeys)	No change proposed. As detailed below the sites are at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street and have shadow impact on adjacent residential heritage areas.

Figure 2: Proposed Building Height and FSR changes in Epping Town Centre

43. Comprehensive urban design analysis was undertaken by Council’s City Design Unit to devise proposed maximum FSR and heights. Background to the urban design analysis and resultant FSR and heights are detailed in the Local Planning Panel reports of 29 September (refer to paragraphs 76 to 82) and 15 December 2020 (refer to paragraphs 17 to 25) which can be viewed utilising these links. https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/LPP_29092020_AGN_641_AT.PDF

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/LPP_15122020_AGN_576_AT.PDF

44. The urban design testing highlights the need for additional height to accommodate the additional commercial floor space (between 2 to 5 storeys depending on the size and shape of the site).

45. Additional height is also required to rectify the historical ‘mismatch’ between the current height and density (FSR) controls for B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre. Those areas within the B2 zone where the increase in height goes from 48m to 80m is outlined above in Table 4 and Figure 2. As detailed in the Local Planning Panel report of 29 September 2020, the increase in height is justified due to the history of consistent use of Clause 4.6 for substantial height variations and the need to gain better tower form and separation outcomes on those sites which have irregular subdivision patterns. It is acknowledged that not all sites will require this additional height.

46. An impact of additional density and height (and therefore taller buildings) is an increase in overshadowing. The difference in overshadowing extent between Option 2 (current planning controls) and Option 3 (additional height and density to the current planning controls) was calculated by Council’s City Design Unit via a 3D model for all B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre. The shadows cast were analysed on an hourly basis between 10am and 2pm on 21 June (winter solstice), as this is the time of the year that the sun is lowest in the sky and the shadows cast are the longest and is provided at Attachment 3.

47. Figures 3 and 4 below provide a snapshot from the shadow analysis at 11am and at 1pm on 21 June. The pink shaded area indicates the potential net increase in overshadowing caused by increasing the height and density to accommodate an increase in commercial floor space. It is noted that the grey areas include both the shadow under the existing planning controls (Option 2) and shadow from Option 3 (therefore no resultant net increase of shadow).

Figures 3 and 4: Net shadowing increase (shown in pink) between Option 2 and Option 3 on B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre on 21 June at 11am and at 1pm.

48. The overshadowing analysis at Attachment 3 shows that any additional overshadowing (shown in pink) falling on the edge of Boronia Park, the residential areas to the south west of the Epping Town Centre and over the railway line between 10am and 11am, is marginal and has progressed further eastward by 12 midday. Therefore the overall net additional overshadowing caused by Option 3 for the majority of B2 sites is considered acceptable.

49. However it is noted that the additional net shadow (shown in pink) caused by additional height and density at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street largely impacts those sites to its immediate south for the majority of time between 10am and 2pm (refer Attachment 3 and Figure 5). Figure 5 below highlights the overshadowing impact at 12pm as a result from an increase in density and height from these sites. The sites impacted are located along Rawson and High Streets, are low density residential areas and sit within the Epping Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area under the Parramatta LEP 2011. It is therefore recommended that the B2 Local Centre sites 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street be excluded from any planning proposal for Option 3.

50. The exclusion of these sites would not impact substantially on the delivery of commercial floor space in the future, as the sites have a current maximum FSR of 3:1 and height of buildings of 21 metres, the lowest density and height controls in the Epping Town Centre.

Figure 5: Additional overshadowing at 12 midday (shown in pink) onto the Epping Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area and residential area (shown in red hatched line) by sites along Bridge and High St (shown in black dash line).

Market Response

51. Another key issue to consider when examining how to achieve an increase in commercial floor space in Epping Town Centre is how the market - developers and/or landowners - will respond to Options 2 and 3.

52. A key risk for the implementation of Option 2 (to mandate a minimum amount of commercial floor space within the current height and FSR controls), is that the market will attempt to avoid the amendment to the planning controls. Based on development trends since the 2014 rezoning of Epping Town Centre, the market has determined for Epping that residential is the highest yielding land use, that is, residential floor space gains higher financial returns than commercial floor space. Option 2 will result in displacing current allowable residential floor space for commercial floor space within shop top housing development.

53. The timeframe for a planning proposal to be finalised, that is, the legal amendment to the local environment plan (LEP), is between 12 and 18 months. In the time it takes to process the planning proposal for Option 2, it is anticipated that landowners / developers will lodge development applications for shop top housing developments to ensure that they realise the land’s development potential. A standard length of a development approval is for 5 years. Therefore the key achievement of increasing commercial floor space may be lost within the timeframe for processing the planning proposal and the length of time a development approval stands.

54. Alternatively Option 3, would result in an increase in commercial floor space whilst maintaining the residential development potential on any site. It is anticipated that the market would respond positively to Option 3 and the delivery of an increase in commercial floorspace in Epping Town Centre.

PLANNING PROPOSAL – OPTION 2 OR 3

55. Three potential planning approaches have been identified in relation to the provision of commercial floor space in Epping. As Option 1 will likely continue to result in the loss of commercial floor space and does not address Epping as a Strategic Centre it is recommended that this option is not pursued.

56. As Options 2 and 3 would require potential changes to planning controls, they each would result in the need to prepare a planning proposal to amend the Hornsby LEP 2013 and Parramatta LEP 2011. Council Officers recommend pursuing Option 3 as a planning proposal. An assessment of the relative merits Options 2 and 3 is summarised below.

Option 2 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space within the current maximum floor space ratio and height controls.

57. As detailed in the assessment section of this report, Option 2 results in some short to medium term traffic impact, however Council will continue to build, plan for and advocate for improvements to the road network in Epping and to take advantage of the public transport centre it has become.

58. Although on paper Option 2 would deliver an increase in non-residential floor space, practicably it is unlikely the market would respond favourably to the proposed controls. Council may experience a rush of development applications lodged for sites in Epping by landowners and developers in order to avoid the proposed controls. This would result in a lost opportunity to deliver commercial floor space within Epping Town Centre, in most cases a permanent loss due to the strata of residential units, which would be unlikely to be redeveloped again within 50 to 80 years.

Option 3 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space in excess of the current maximum floor space ratio (FSR).

59. Option 3 involves increasing the commercial floor space requirements by amending the height and density (FSR) controls to retain, where it results in minimal impact, an FSR for residential equivalent to existing levels. This would mean increases in overall density and building heights but makes delivery of more commercial floor space more viable.

60. Landowners or developers may support Option 3 as it would not decrease the residential potential available on a site, which is currently viewed by the market as the highest yielding land use. However it is acknowledged that concerns in relation to any increase in building height and density of development in and around Epping are issues local residents and other stakeholders raised during the Epping Planning Review.

61. Traffic impact in the morning peak, in the short to medium term, would be greater than Option 2 (refer to paragraphs 38-41 above), however as stated above, this must be balanced with the long term pursuit of creating a vibrant employment based Town Centre. It is also recognised that further traffic and transport improvements need to be advocated for and undertaken by Council to ease congestion.

62. The overshadowing analysis discussed suggests the impact earlier in this report is within acceptable limits except for the shadow cast by sites at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street and therefore it is recommended that these sites be excluded from the planning proposal.

Recommendation - Option 3

63. Council Officers recommend that Council proceed with Option 3, to mandate a minimum amount of commercial floor space in addition to the existing height and density controls. Specifically, it is recommended to prepare a planning proposal which applies to the B2 Local Centre zoning of the Parramatta LEP 2011 and Hornsby LEP 2013 within the Epping Town Centre to:

a. Introduce a new clause which mandates a minimum amount of non-residential uses to be provided on the ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street of up to a maximum of 1:1 floor space ratio (FSR) of non-residential floorspace in addition to the mapped maximum floor space ratio. The clause shall also indicate that the FSR of residential development permitted on the site should not increase as a result of this requirement.

b. Allow for an increase in maximum height of buildings from 48 metres in some parts of Epping and 72 metres in some parts of Epping up to 80 metres (approx. 24 storeys) where sites have a mapped FSR of 4.5:1 and from 72 metres up to 90 metres (approx. 28 storeys) where sites have a mapped FSR of 6:1, only where developments provide a minimum amount of non-residential uses of ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street.

c. Ensure any change of use proposed on the first three levels would not allow residential uses. Apply an exception to that part of a building that faces a service lane or is required for entrances and lobbies, access for fire services or vehicular access associated or servicing residential accommodation above.

d. Introduce a requirement that the proposed controls of the planning proposal apply to development applications determined once a Gateway Determination has been issued for this Planning Proposal.

64. Regardless of which option is pursued, it is recommended for reasons of expedience that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) be granted delegation to prepare and forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to request the issuing of a Gateway Determination on behalf of Council.

PARRAMATTA LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

65. As per the Ministerial direction issued on 27 September 2018, Council is required to refer all planning proposals prepared after 1 June 2018 to the Local Planning Panel (Panel) for advice before Council considers whether or not to forward them to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a Gateway Determination. The Panel considered this matter at its meetings on 29 September and 15 December 2020.

66. The Panel meeting on 29 September 2020 considered a detailed assessment of the three planning Options for increasing commercial floorspace described in this report. The Panel Report and Minutes can be found at Item 5.2:

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/LPP_29092020_AGN_641_AT.PDF

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/LPP_29092020_MIN_641.PDF

67. The Panel advice to Council was consistent with the Council Officer recommendation to proceed with Option 3, however the Panel provided additional recommendations relating to the following matters.

a. That a savings clause be explored whereby a development application must consider the proposal at a certain date, in order to prevent a rush of development applications being lodged to avoid providing a mandated minimum provision of commercial floorspace.

b. That a more equitable solution to the amount of additional floor space awarded as bonus should be restricted to not more than 0.5:1, thereby reducing the potential overshadowing and other potential environmental impacts.

c. That a review be undertaken of the proposed amendments and their effectiveness, no later than 3 years from the commencement of the LEP and it be written into the Planning Proposal.

d. That Council undertake a campaign to advocate use of public transport and help find new ways to encourage its use over the private car.

68. Following the September 2020 Panel meeting Council Officers undertook additional analysis to address these recommendations. A further report was presented to the Panel on 15 December 2020 to address these matters. In addition further urban design testing that had been undertaken resulted in further clarification being provided to the Panel on the amount of additional floorspace that would be required to achieve the commercial floor space targets in the Epping Town Centre.

69. The 15 December 2020 Panel Report and Minutes can be found at Item 6.1:

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/LPP_15122020_AGN_576_AT.PDF

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/LPP_15122020_MIN_576.PDF

70. The Panel advice to Council was consistent with the Council Officer recommendation to proceed with Option 3 and advised Council to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for the purposes of requesting a Gateway Determination.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

71. If Option 2 or 3 were pursued as a planning proposal, supporting controls would be drafted as an amendment to the Epping Town Centre controls contained in the Hornsby DCP 2013 and Parramatta DCP 2011. Potential draft DCP controls would relate to the following:

a. setting podium height controls to ensure appropriate height of podium at street level;

b. minimum floorplates dimensions for non-residential uses to ensure that floorplates are flexible for both office, and other non-residential uses to be located;

c. floor to ceiling heights for non-residential uses (which are higher than residential floor to ceiling heights);

d. location of services (to prevent the first three floors filling up with ‘services’); and

e. new building and podium setback controls.

72. It is recommended that Council delegate authority to the CEO to prepare amendments to the relevant sections of the Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011 and Hornsby Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013 to support the planning proposal relating to design controls and place these on public exhibition with the Planning Proposal.

POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

73. Under Council’s Planning Agreement Policy (adopted 26 November 2018) Council may, at its discretion, enter into a planning agreement for a Planning Proposal. The landowner would be required to provide infrastructure contributions that are valued at least 50 per cent of the land value uplift under Council’s policy.

74. In relation to Option 2, the proposed amendments to the planning controls do not result in any additional density or land uplift, therefore the Policy is not applicable. Furthermore, any future development (residential or non-residential uses) would need to pay development contributions to fund local infrastructure in accordance with the relevant development contributions plan.

75. In relation to Option 3, the proposed amendments to the planning controls would result in additional density and land uplift from commercial land uses. Council Officers recommend that no planning agreement be applied to these sites for the following reasons:

a. Based on the historic pattern of development to date, the market has been reluctant to deliver additional commercial floor space, therefore any additional monetary payment requirement may further dissuade commercial floor space provision;

b. This is line with Council’s policy position contained in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal which is to prioritise employment-generating floor space and to not subject this floor space to community infrastructure provisions;

c. No planning agreements were in place at the time of the 2014 Epping rezoning for those B2 Local Centre zoned sites already developed;

d. It is not practical to require a VPA with every individual landowner in Epping to achieve a contribution and it is unlikely in the view of Council Officers that the DPIE would support a community infrastructure mechanism such as the one proposed in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal for a lower order centre such as Epping; and

e. Development contributions will apply at the time of development.

PLAN MAKING DELEGATIONS

76. Delegations were announced by the Minister for Planning in October 2012, allowing councils to make LEPs of local significance. On 26 November 2012 Council resolved to accept the delegation for plan making functions. Council also resolved that these functions be delegated to the CEO.

77. Should Council resolve to proceed with this planning proposal, Council should exercise its plan-making delegations. This means that after the planning proposal has been to Gateway, undergone public exhibition and been adopted by Council, Council officers will deal directly with the Parliamentary Counsel Office in the drafting of the LEP amendment, which is then signed by the CEO before being notified on the NSW Legislation website.

78. It is therefore recommended that Council request the DPIE that Council be granted plan-marking delegation for this Planning Proposal

CONSULTATION

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

22 September 2020

Email advising of the report being considered by the Local Planning Panel at its meeting of the 29 September 2020 to:

- President of the Epping Civic Trust

- President of the Epping Chamber of Commerce

Two members of the Epping Civic Trust addressed the Panel and raised concerns in relation to the proposed height and density of Option 3. One member was supportive of Option 1 and the other was supportive of a business zoning to be established in Epping Town Centre.

Local Planning Panel (LPP) considered the stakeholder comment. (Note these matters have been addressed in the LPP and Council report).

LPP

4 December 2020

Email advising of the report being considered by the Local Planning Panel at its meeting of the 15 December 2020 to:

- President of the Epping Civic Trust

- President of the Epping Chamber of Commerce

- Hornsby Shire Council

None

N/A

LPP

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
28 July 2020	Epping Ward Councillors	Supportive of a planning approach to increase commercial floorspace in Epping Town Centre as per resolution of 9 July 2019.	Council Officers have subsequently provided the Epping Ward Councillors with updates on the drafting of the Planning Proposal including providing prior notification to them on the reports made to the Local Planning Panel on 29 September and 15 December 2020.	City Planning Unit

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

79. The preparation of the Planning Proposal and development control plan amendments and any subsequent public exhibition material would be prepared by Council Officers and therefore the costs are within the existing City Planning budget.

NEXT STEPS

80. If Council resolves to proceed with a Planning Proposal for Options 2 or 3, Council Officers will prepare a planning proposal document under the CEO delegation and it will be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination.

81. If a Gateway determination is issued, the Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition in conjunction with an associated site specific DCP and the outcomes will be reported to the Local Planning Panel if any submissions are received. If no submissions are received, the matter will be reported directly to Council post-exhibition.

Bianca Lewis

Team Leader Land Use Planning

Robert Cologna

Land Use Planning Manager

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

David Birds

Acting Executive Director, City Planning & Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Epping Commercial Floorspace Study	78 Pages
2 ⇩	Commercial Floorspace Traffic Study	64 Pages
3 ⇩	Shadow Analysis Epping Town Centre	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 8 February 2021 Item 17.3

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 17.3

SUBJECT FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal to 'Switch Off' Clause 4.6 Variation as it applies to FSR for sites within the Epping Town Centre

REFERENCE F2018/03031 - D07797530

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

PURPOSE:

To report to Council on the outcome of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal – Amendments to Clause 4.6, as it applies to the floor space ratio development standard within the Epping Town Centre, and to seek Council’s endorsement to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes the summary of submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal – Amendments to Clause 4.6 of Epping Town Centre at Attachment 1.

(b) That Council endorse for finalisation the Planning Proposal (at Attachment 2) to amend Clause 4.6 in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 by disabling the use of Clause 4.6 variations in relation to floor space ratio controls for the following types of development in the Epping Town Centre:

i. In Parramatta LEP 2011 - residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation, or a mixed use development that includes these uses within Zone B2 Local Centre, or residential accommodation in Zone R4 High Density Residential; and

ii. In Hornsby LEP 2013 - residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation, or a mixed use development that includes these uses within Zone B2 Local Centre.

(c) That Council submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) requesting its finalisation, noting that Council does not have plan-making delegation for this Planning Proposal.

(d) That Council authorises the CEO to correct any minor policy inconsistencies and any anomalies that are of an administrative nature relating to the Planning Proposal that may arise during the finalisation process.

(e) Further, that Council note that the Parramatta Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council (Attachment 3) is consistent with the recommendations of this report.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

P59#yIS1

BACKGROUND

1. Traffic impact in and around the Epping Town Centre was a key issue examined by Council as part of Phase 1 of the Epping Planning Review (Review) undertaken between 2017 and 2018.

2. The Epping Town Centre Traffic Study (2018) commissioned by Council, identified significant traffic impacts associated with new development resulting from the rezoning of the Epping Town Centre via the Epping Urban Activation Precinct in 2014. The Study found that when traffic associated with the new development is introduced to a road network that already has significant congestion due to through traffic on the major roads that pass through the Epping Town Centre, the traffic impacts are significant and difficult to manage.

3. At its meeting on 9 July 2018, Council considered the consultation outcomes and technical analysis of the Review in relation to partly addressing the traffic issues and resolved (in part):

(c1) … that Council adopts the position that it does not support any

a. Development applications seeking an increase in residential density via clause 4.6 of the PLEP 2011.

And that council write to both the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) and the Greater Sydney Commission advising them this will remain Council’s position until the State Government has provided infrastructure to resolve the through traffic issues within the Epping Town centre.

(c2) That a Planning Proposal including all necessary background studies and analysis be prepared to amend Clause 4.6 of PLEP 2011 so that it cannot be used to seek a FSR greater than that permitted on the Floor Space Ratio Map for sites within the Epping Town centre.

4. Consistent with Council’s resolution of 9 July 2018, a Planning Proposal was prepared to amend the Parramatta LEP 2011 (PLEP 2011) and Hornsby LEP 2013 (HLEP 2013) by disabling the use of Clause 4.6 variations in relation to floor space ratio controls for the following types of development in the Epping Town Centre:

a) In Parramatta LEP 2011 - residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation, or a mixed use development that includes these uses within Zone B2 Local Centre, or residential accommodation in Zone R4 High Density Residential; and

b) In Hornsby LEP 2013 - residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation, or a mixed use development that includes these uses within Zone B2 Local Centre.

5. It is noted that this Planning Proposal relates to preventing an increase in floorspace greater than that permitted under the current maximum FSR controls for residential and tourist and visitor accommodation uses only and that Clause 4.6 variations to Development Standards for increases in non-residential FSR may still be utlised.

6. The Planning Proposal was reported to and endorsed by the Local Planning Panel on 16 April 2019. The Planning Proposal was subsequently endorsed by Council at the 13 May 2019 meeting for the purposes of requesting a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment (DPIE). The 13 May 2019 Council Report and Minutes can be found at Item 15.2:

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2019/OC_13052019_AGN_496_AT.PDF

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2019/OC_13052019_MIN_496.PDF

7. The DPIE issued a Gateway Determination on 10 March 2020, enabling the Planning Proposal to be placed on public exhibition, subject to conditions which are detailed in paragraph 9 below.

PLANNING PROPOSAL

8. The Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 2) applies to R4 High Density Residential and B2 Local Centre zoned land in PLEP 2011, and B2 Local Centre zoned land in HLEP 2013, within the Epping Town Centre. The area to which this Planning Proposal is to apply is identified in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Land subject to the Planning Proposal

9. In accordance with the Gateway Determination issued by the DPIE, the Planning Proposal was amended in response to certain conditions prior to public exhibtion to enable:

a) A sunset clause which will automatically remove the Clause 4.6 exemption for FSR:

i. After 3 years to enable the effectiveness of the provision to be further assessed having regard to planned infrastructure improvements and other mitigation measures that have been identified for the Epping Town Centre (Condition 1 (b)(i)); or

ii. If Clause 4.6 under the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan is amended (Condition 1 (b)(ii)); and

b) A savings provision which will prevent the proposed Clause 4.6 exemption applying to development applications lodged, but not determined, prior to a draft LEP being made (Condition 1 (c)).

10. Furthermore, DPIE did not give Council plan-making authority in relation to this Planning Porposal as it intends to alter clauses under the Standard Instrument LEP.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

11. The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited from 19 August 2020 to 25 September 2020. The subject Planning Proposal - Epping Town Centre Clause 4.6 was exhibited in accordance with relevant provisions of the Gateway Determination and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

12. The Planning Proposal was jointly exhibited with two other planning proposals within Epping (Rosebank Aveue and East Epping) and draft amendments to the Hornsby Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013. The outcomes of the submissions of these planning proposals and draft DCP amendments will be reported to the Local Planning Panel in 2021.

13. A total of fourteen (14) submissions were received during the public exhibition period. These include submissions from Transport for NSW, Heritage NSW, Hornsby Shire Council and eleven (11) from local residents, businesses or developers. It is noted that Transport for NSW, Heritage NSW and Hornsby Shire Council raised no objections to the Planning Proposal. A summary of all submissions and Council officer responses are provided at Attachment 1.

14. Table 1 below summarises the key issues raised by submissions during public exhibition and provides a summary response. A detailed response to each of the concerns is included in the Submission Table at Attachment 1.

Table 1: Summary of key issues raised during public exhibition and Council Officer response

Key Issue Raised During Public Exhibiton

Reponse (Summary)

Submissions misinterpreting intent of the Planning Proposal – including objecting to increases in building height, the potential for the Planning Proposal to further exacerbate traffic issues and pressure on infrastructure, such as schools.

Council Officers note that it is the intent of the Planning Proposal to respond to traffic congestion issues that were identified as part of the Epping Planning Review. This mechanism will limit the opportunity for applications to seek additional density over and above the level already permitted under the relevant LEP. It will act to limit or cap requests for further density that might exacerbate issues Epping is experiencing related to increasing density of development.

Unfairly applies to future development and not past developments.

While it is acknowledged that the proposal, if finalised by DPIE, would apply to future development in the Epping Town Centre, the intent of the Planning Proposal is to address traffic issues that have arisen since the NSW Government’s rezoning in 2014, and the unprecedented rate of development in the Epping Town Centre since that time.

It is noted since 2015, development applications which have utilised Clause 4.6 have been in relation to building height. The clause has rarely been use for, with FSR variations. The intended effect of the Planning Proposal limits anticipated growth in the Epping Town Centre to FSRs within the currently allowable densities in the mapped planning controls. To date there have not been significant clause 4.6 variations granted so past applications have not benefited from increased FSR using this mechanism. The claim that there is some form of inequitable treatment of previous applications is not accepted.

In addition, the effectiveness of the proposed Clause 4.6 exemption will be reviewed after 3 years as per the sunset clause required in the Gateway Determination to assess the effectiveness of the clause.

Will adversely impact on the provision of commercial floorspace.

The intention of this amendment is to limit the use of Clause 4.6 to prevent a level of floor space greater than that permitted by the FSR controls for the site for residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation only. Therefore it will not limit the opportunity for developments to utilise Clause 4.6 for additional floorspace for commercial floorspace purposes.

It should be noted that in order to address the issue of loss of commercial floorspace in Epping Town Centre and to respond to an outcome of the Epping Planning Review, a planning proposal which mandates a proportion of floor space as commercial within a new development in the B2 Local Centre zone is currently being prepared by Council, and is considered in a separate report included in the same Council business paper as this report.

If a developer was to lodge a development application that is consistent with Council’s proposed policy for commercial floor space, providing the required amount, Clause 4.6 would still be available as a mechanism to approve this prior to the Commercial Floor Space Planning Proposal being finalised.

Will undermine the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979, in relation to the objectives of promoting orderly economic use of land, and promoting good urban design and amenity for the built environment.

There is no evidence provided to suggest that the Planning Proposal will prevent development achieving these objectives. The objective can continue to be achieved via development consistent with the current development standards within the Hornsby and Parramatta LEPs.

Clause 4.6 variations are required to provide flexibility for development proposals and will reduce the viability of these developments.

Clause 4.6 for FSR variations have rarely been exercised by mixed use developments within the Epping Town Centre since 2015, in most cases the variation to building height has been used. Based on the rate of development activity in the Epping Town Centre, and the use of Clause 4.6 variations in these approvals, there is no evidence to suggest that switching off Clause 4.6 variations for FSR will impact on the future development of undeveloped sites.

The proposed restriction does not fetter the existing FSR controls currently available under Parramatta LEP 2011 or Hornsby LEP 2013. Instead, it means additional floor space beyond the controls cannot be sought.

The Planning Proposal applies only to restricting an increase in density sought for residential and tourist and visitor accommodation. Therefore there are a range of other non-residential uses that may still utilise the Clause 4.6 FSR variation.

This proposed change has no effect on Section 4.55 (formerly Section 96) Modification Applications under the EP&A Act 1979 (Note: a Section 4.55 modification application allows minor modifications to be made to a consent when the development is demonstrated to be substantially the same development). Accordingly, modifications to FSR controls can still be made for a development application that seeks additional FSR above the control via a Section 4.55 modification application. Any such modification application would be considered on its merits, having regard to traffic and other issues and therefore any Section 4.55 modification seeking a significant increase in FSR above that permitted in the controls would be unlikely to be supported.

The Planning Proposal is an inefficient method for addressing traffic generation.

The Planning Proposal was informed by the Epping Town Centre Traffic Study, which concluded that traffic will continue to deteriorate, even with potential local and State road improvements recently in place and further works proposed (for example the widening of Epping Road Bridge).

It is acknowledged that the proposed changes will not in and of themselves address traffic and infrastructure provision issues within the town centre, but will work to help affect cumulative change and complement other strategic initiatives, including (but not limited to):

a) Reduction in car parking rates in the Parramatta DCP 2011 and Hornsby DCP 2013 (noting this was completed in 2019);

b) Identifying, costing and funding local road improvements that Council can deliver (noting that Council has included local improvements in its Draft Contributions Plan which was considered by Council on 30 November 2020);

c) Identifying State traffic and transport infrastructure improvements for Council to advocate for the NSW Government to deliver (noting that Council continues to advocate for identified improvements, e.g. 244 Beecroft Road state significant development application, following up on Epping Road Bridge widening project); and

d) Council’s current position that it will not support any Planning Proposal which seeks to deliver additional density (other than that allowable under existing controls), unless it seeks to address issues of the loss of commercial floorspace and heritage interface issues.

15. Council Officers do not consider that any changes are required to the Planning Proposal as a result of the submissions received.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

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

17. The Local Planning Panel considered this matter at its meeting on 15 December 2020. In issuing its advice to Council, the Panel supported Council officers’ recommendations and advised Council to forward the Planning Proposal to DPIE so that the Planning Proposal can be finalised (Local Planning Panel Report and minute is at Attachment 3).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

18. Any work to progress the finalisation of the Planning Proposal would be prepared by Council Officers within the existing City Planning budget.

19. The level of developer contributions paid could increase marginally if more development was permitted to be approved via Clause 4.6 variations but the costs / negative impacts associated with the additional development are likely to outweigh benefits the community would gain by expending these additional funds on local infrastructure. Council Officers consider that this impact is appropriate and consistent with Council’s strategic direction for the Epping Town Centre.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

20. Council Officers recommend that Council support the recommendation that the Planning Proposal (as exhibited) be referred to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

21. Council does not have plan-making delegation for the subject Planning Proposal so Council will forward the Proposal to the Depatment of Planning Industry and Envrionment for the plan to be finalised so it comes into force.

Bianca Lewis

Team Leader Land Use Planning

Robert Cologna

Land Use Planning Manager

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Kelly Van Der Zanden

Acting Executive Director, City Planning & Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Submissions Table	13 Pages
2 ⇩	Planning Proposal	78 Pages
3 ⇩	Local Planning Panel Report and Minutes 15 December 2020	98 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 8 February 2021 Item 18.5

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 18.5

SUBJECT NOTICE OF MOTION: Lighting at Hill Road, Wentworth Point and the LGA

REFERENCE F2019/04433 - D07780794

FROM Councillor Wilson

MOTION

(a) That a report be prepared into street lighting to be completed by 1 March 2021.

(b) That the report examine:

i. The lighting of Hill Road and why there is an inordinate amount of time needed to replace a burned-out light;

ii. Examine the level of lighting in the city; and

iii. Examine where lights have been requested but not installed.

(c) Further, that the report identify strategies for seeing lights replaced in a reasonable time and when Council can impose financial penalties on providers where they have not fulfilled their contract.

BACKGROUND

1. The street lighting at Hill Road have been out since around May 2020 due to power fluctuation blowing up the existing lamps.

2. Council officers have been informed by Ausgrid that those street-lights are not owned and maintained by them, and that they have been maintained by the previous Auburn Council prior to the 2016 Council mergers.

3. Council officers have held several discussions with Ausgrid in 2020 to resolve the ownership issue, however, this has not been resolved to date and hence the delay in the repair of the faulty lamps.

STAFF RESPONSE

4. Council typically does not own streetlights in the road reserve. The bulk of the streetlights in the City of Parramatta LGA are owned and maintained by Endeavour Energy and a small number are owned and maintained by Ausgrid.

5. Council owns and maintains a handful of streetlights in the Parramatta CBD in Centenary Square, Smith Street, Macquarie Street, Phillip Street and Church Street. These lights are connected via metered switch panels.

Street lighting in Hill Road

6. Council is in dispute with Ausgrid over the ownership of the streetlights in part of Hill Road and nearby streets. These street lighting assets were not listed in the transferred assets from the former Auburn Council. To date, Ausgrid has not been able to provide evidence of the transfer of ownership to Council.

7. Ausgrid acknowledges the ownership of the underground power network in Hill Road that powers those streetlights.

8. Ausgrid keeps restructuring and retrenching staff. This has made it difficult for Council staff to maintain the right contacts to manage this street lighting issue in Hill Road. Council staff was informed that a new Ausgrid manager to look after these streetlights is being appointed in February 2021.

9. Council’s electrical contractor had previously indicated that there were large voltage fluctuations in the street lighting circuit in Hill Road that was leading to failures of those streetlights.

10. Rather than to continue blowing replacement lamps, Council decided to try to replace the luminaires with LED luminaires in an attempt to provide more resilient luminaires.

11. Council had to gather spatial data for the location of these existing light poles for contractors to be able to undertake lighting design necessary for the procurement process.

12. Ausgrid has specified that there are limited models of LED luminaires that they will allow to be connected to their power network and which service providers they would allow to replace the luminaires.

13. Due to the ongoing delays and safety concerns, in December 2020, Council replaced all the faulty lamps “like for like” in the existing streetlights in Hill Road despite the possibility that some lamps could shortly be blown again.

14. Thirty-seven (37) streetlights were identified as in disputed ownership. All 37 lamps were replaced. 5 luminaires failed to work even with new lamps. These 5 faulty streetlight luminaries will have to be replaced with modern LED luminaires. The replacement of these luminaires will be subject to further negotiation with Ausgrid following the appointment of their new manager.

15. Further negotiations will take place between Council & Ausgrid in early 2021 to try and resolve the ownership issue and how the troublesome luminaires in Hill Road can be replaced with more reliable LED luminaires.

Level of lighting in the City

16. The required street lighting levels to AS1158 for the Parramatta CBD & business districts are set out in the Public Domain Guidelines available on Council’s website.

17. Most of the local roads in Council’s LGA are already at P4 or P5 which is adequate lighting levels according to AS1158. This is generally demonstrated by a luminaire on every second power pole or approximately every 85m.

18. Requests for additional streetlights is provided for by installing luminaires on existing poles on the street lighting circuit that currently do not have a luminaire installed. Most requests for additional street lighting are supported and implemented.

19. Affected residents and owners are notified for their feedback on the proposed new streetlight. Any objection may prevent the installation of a streetlight as the street lighting level may already be adequate.

20. Requests for streetlights in laneways are not normally supported. Laneways are much closer to habitable areas of residential buildings and may cause light intrusion that is not permissible under Australian Standard 4282.

Strategies for seeing lights replaced in a reasonable time and when Council can impose financial penalties on providers where they have not fulfilled their contract.

21. Council would not be able to impose any financial penalties.

22. Ausgrid indicated Council is not and has not been paying for any of the power consumed by the streetlights in Hill Road. A specific contract will have to be entered into unless Ausgrid can be convinced to take on these street lighting assets and then the general Ausgrid charges and service levels will apply.

23. If Council must retain ownership of the streetlights & poles, then Council will need to enter into a service contract to patrol Hill Road and nearby streets at night and report back any faults with these lights.

24. If Council is required to retain ownership of these streetlights in Hill Road then Council should negotiate with Ausgrid to allow for LED Luminaires with NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) 7 Pin sockets to allow Council to install smart lighting controllers that should be capable of reporting back to Council any streetlight failures.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

25. Until the ownership issue has been clarified it is impossible to know the financial implications. As noted in Paragraph 22 a further report will be produced detailing the financial and resource implications once this occurs.

26. The financial impacts to the budget, as set out in this section, will be included in the next Quarterly Budget Review for endorsement by Council.

27. The Financial Implication for preparing the response to the NOM is staff time, estimated at $300. It is not possible to provide further information on the Financial Implication until the ownership of the street lighting assets under dispute is resolved.

28. In the interim, Council has resolved the street lighting outage by replacing the luminaires on a “like for like” basis.

29. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this Motion.

	FY 20/21	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24
Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs	300
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	300

Funding Source	Staff costs	Yet to be determined	Yet to be determined	Yet to be determined

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX

Funding Source

Andy Ling

Manager Civil Infrastructure, City Assets & Operations

John Warburton

Executive Director, City Assets & Operations

Paul Perrett

Chief Financial Officer

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Governance Manager		Lord Mayor Clr Bob Dwyer	Chief Executive Officer

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
9 December 2020	Risk & Audit Manager and Executive Director Corporate Services	No comment	Referred draft minutes to ARIC Chair	Risk & Audit / Corporate Services Coordinator Internal Audit
14 December 2020	Chairperson of ARIC	No comment	Referred draft minutes to ARIC	Risk & Audit / Corporate Services Coordinator Internal Audit
16 December 2020	Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC)	Comments received from ARIC member	Comments incorporated in final draft minutes	Risk & Audit / Corporate Services Coordinator Internal Audit

1 ⇩	Minutes of Meeting 22 October 2020	5 Pages
2 ⇩	Minutes of Meeting 26 November 2020	5 Pages

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Round 1 June 2020 (3 weeks)	Community Consultation - Letter to surrounding residents and businesses - What’s Happening Here Signs on Site - Project Page on Council Web site - Social media promotion	Parking is an issue for local businesses; there is not enough of it, and cars are parked illegally, dumping of waste also an issue for the area	Raised a service request and Council rangers went down and patrolled the area, timed parking spaces were also included as part of the concept design	Place Services
Round 2 28 September – 12 October 2020 ( 2 weeks)	Community Consultation - Letter to surrounding residents and businesses - What’s Happening Here Signs on Site - Project Page on Council Web site - Social media promotion - Face to face meetings with local businesses	Supportive of upgrade, want to ensure there will be enough tables and chairs for customers and that works do not impact access to their businesses	Showed the concept plan to business owners, talked through designs and confirmed we would coordinate the start date of construction with the shop owners	Place Services
25 August 2020	Owner of 11 Brodie Street - Email - Face to face meeting	Supportive of mural and happy for Council to paint whatever they want	Explained that Council was going to be doing some upgrade works to the streetscape and wanted to paint a mural on the building. Confirmed Council would continue to negotiate with them about the possibility and details of the mural in coming months.	Place Services

1 ⇩	Minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting - 22 September 2020	8 Pages
2 ⇩	Minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting - 27 October 2020	5 Pages

1 ⇩	Rates Exhibition Engagement Evaluation	4 Pages
2 ⇩	Proposed New Rates Structure	1 Page


	Press	Press

Public Gallery