Agenda of Council - Monday, 14 March 2022

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, 21 February 2022 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 Donna Davis and Councillors Phil Bradley (6:34pm), Kellie Darley (6:34pm), Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack (6:34pm), Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Dan Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.

1. OPENING MEETING

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis, opened the meeting at 6:32pm.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

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

Note: Councillors Bradley, Darley and Noack arrived at the meeting at 6:34pm.

3. WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

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

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

4. OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

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

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

SUBJECT: Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 7 February 2022

3661

RESOLVED (Bradley/Noack)

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

6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3662	RESOLVED (Noack/Bradley) That the request to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 21 February 2022 via remote means submitted by the following Councillors due to personal reasons, be accepted: - Councillor Humphries; - Councillor Wearne.

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made at this meeting.

Matter of Urgency

3663

RESOLVED (Pandey/Noack)

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to the re-establishment of the Finance Committee.

The Lord Mayor ruled the matter urgent.

3664

RESOLVED (Pandey/Garrard)

That Council re-establish the Finance Committee with a meeting to be held within two (2) weeks, and the following Councillors be elected to the Committee:

- Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Pandey, Chairperson

- Councillor Garrard

- Councillor Maclean

- Councillor Bradley

- Councillor Wearne

- Councillor Siviero (alternate)

- Councillor Darley (alternate).

8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor

8.1

SUBJECT International Women's Day 2022

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08406077

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3665

RESOLVED (Davis/Pandey)

(a) That Council note International Women’s Day 2022 is taking place on Tuesday, 8 March, and this year’s global United Nations Women theme is “Break the Bias” acknowledging the aim for a world free of bias, stereotypes and discrimination. A world that is diverse, equitable and inclusive. A world where difference is valued and celebrated, and how collectively we can all #BreakTheBias.

(b) That Council note that to celebrate International Women’s Day in 2022, City of Parramatta Council is delivering a media and communications plan to raise awareness of the various Council activities happening within the community as part of International Women’s Day.

(c) That Council note on Wednesday 9 March 2022, Council will be hosting an International Women’s Day pop-up at the Parramatta Farmer’s Market, encouraging our community to attend the Farmer’s Market, meeting the Lord Mayor and interested Councillors, and share via social media and comment cards how they are Breaking the Bias and sharing ideas about how we can all help to “Break the Bias”.

(d) Further, that Council investigate opportunities for an International Women’s Day event to be delivered in March 2023 as part of the Major and Civic Events 2022/23 program, with Councillors to be consulted on the delivery and scope of this event, and report back to Council.

8.2

SUBJECT Long Hai Day 2022

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08422725

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3666

RESOLVED (Davis/Wang)

(a) That Council note Long Hai Day is 28 February 2022, commemorating the actions in South Vietnam by forces of the 8^th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (RAR), in 1970, and note that a memorial service is not taking place in 2022 due to COVID-19 considerations.

(b) That Council note a request has been received from the 8^thRAR Association to install a plaque in honour of Lieutenant Bernard Garland, who attended Epping Boys High School, who was killed in action during his tour of duty in South Vietnam on 22 April 1970, aged 23 years.

(c) That Council note this plaque would complete the series of plaques at the Epping Cenotaph that honour those 8^th Battalion members who made the ultimate sacrifice during their tour of South East Asia, including Sgt Alan William Ahearn, who also attended Epping Boys High School.

(d) That Council approve this request, and provide assistance to the 8^th RAR Association and Epping RSL sub-Branch on the installation and dedication of this plaque, proposed to take place as part of the Long Hai Day memorial service in 2023, including:

a. Council approval of plaque and approval to fix to the Cenotaph

b. Park Booking

c. Event Risk Assessment

d. Chairs at the event for guests (60 – 70)

e. Wreaths of flowers for the Lord Mayor and Councillors who attend for laying at the service

f. COVID Safe Plan (if required)

(e) That Council allocate a budget of up to $5,000 to undertake the above, and that these funds be allocated from the Civic Program & Protocol 2022/23 operating budget.

(f) Further, that Council write a letter to the family of the late Lieutenant Bernard Garland, and the Presidents of the 8^th RAR Association, 101^st Battery Association, 4^th Field Regiment (Vietnam) Association and Epping RSL sub-Branch, confirming the installation of the plaque and in recognition of their service.

8.3

SUBJECT Welcome West Phil

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08424018

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3667

RESOLVED (Davis/Noack)

(a) That Council note West Phil – western Sydney’s exciting new philharmonic orchestra, was launched today at Riverside Theatres.

(b) That Council writes to founders Kristian Winther and Max Holzner, and the Board of West Phil, welcoming West Phil to Parramatta and Western Sydney, congratulating them on their successful launch, and inviting them to meet with Council to discuss their aims and explore opportunities in Parramatta and Western Sydney.

(c) Further, that Council writes to Kim Williams AM, welcoming him as the inaugural Patron, commending him on his support for West Phil, and his commitment to supporting the cultural development of Western Sydney communities.

8.4

SUBJECT Lunar New Year 2022

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08424183

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3668

RESOLVED (Davis/Wang)

(a) That Council note the Lunar New Year Festival, also known as the Spring Festival, took place in 2022 from 1 to 15 February 2022.

(b) Further, that Council note a series of activities were delivered by Council to recognise Lunar New Year in 2022, further detailed in the Minute background.

8.5

SUBJECT Homelessness Street Count

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08425127

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3669

RESOLVED (Davis/Pandey)

(a) That Council note City of Parramatta’s annual Homelessness Street Count is taking place tonight, Monday, 21 February into the morning of Tuesday, 22 February 2022.

(b) That Council note the aim of the count is to collect accurate data on the number of people sleeping rough or in emergency or crisis accommodation in the City of Parramatta local government area, and is a positive example of our community working collaboratively to support the extensive work that is undertaken to improve the wellbeing of vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.

(c) That Council acknowledge and thank the staff conducting the count, and write to and thank the local organisations and volunteers who support the annual Homelessness Street Count, whose support is vital to Council, not-for-profit and intergovernmental agencies in supporting our vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.

(d) Further, that a short report be provided to Council on the Homelessness Action Plan and responding to any findings from the homelessness count.

9. Public Forum

9.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: Item 13.2 - Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)

REFERENCE RZ/5/2018 - D08422098

FROM Rev Canon Bruce Morrison, St John’s Cathedral

Councillors, thank-you for the opportunity to speak. You may find it helpful to have the map on page 80 turned up as I speak.

You have it within your power this evening, to send this Planning Proposal to exhibition and to meet the timetable set out by the Department of Planning.

Almost 5 years of work has been undertaken by us and by Council. The proposal provides for many hundreds of jobs and real economic benefit for the City of Parramatta. All of this will come to nothing if you do not approve this proposal this evening. That decision would reverse the previous approval by Council back in December 2019 where it was passed with a majority of 10 votes to 3.

Sending this proposal to exhibition provides both sides with options. Stopping it from moving ahead this evening provides none.

I will start with what we agree upon. We have an agreed DCP position. The DCP recognises the evolving nature of Parramatta and the Parish while protecting St John’s Cathedral. The DCP enables a planning pathway for two outcomes; Option A - a development with the St John’s Hall removed and replaced; Option B - a development with the St John’s Hall partially retained.

We appreciate the officers’ comments that we have worked collaboratively for this outcome.

Turning to the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). We have consistently agreed on the core elements:

i. A new civic space appropriate to the front door of a heritage Cathedral,

ii. Public access provided in perpetuity through the site, and

iii. Provision for temporary and permanent vehicular access to 181 Church St., the QLD Arcade.

First, the New Civic Space to the West: This will function as an extension of Parramatta Square towards Marsden St.

Our original plans had vehicular access from Macquarie St. Transport for NSW had other ideas. Vehicular access into the basement must now come off Hunter St. We are happy to reinstate the through site link from Macquarie St. to Hunter St. as originally proposed. The impact to the square in either option is minimal, and the new square remains an excellent urban outcome.

Secondly, deed of access through the new civic space. You may not all be aware that the land around the Cathedral, including the lawns, is private property. It is owned by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. It has been suggested that we have not come to the party in providing public benefit. On the contrary, we have encouraged public access and use of this space since 1953. This has been achieved through a deed which will expire in less than 20 years.

We are happy to provide certainty of Public Access through the Cathedral grounds in perpetuity, via a Deed of Access. This does not require an easement. Indeed, The Parish of Parramatta has no legal power to provide an easement registered on title. The land is owned by the diocese in trust for the Parish of Parramatta. A change registered on title would require the approval of the Diocesan Synod. Such approval has not happened in 200 years.

We have the opportunity to seize this moment as the next chapter of Parramatta and the Parish is written. It would be a tragedy if in 20 years’ time, when existing arrangements come to an end, people look back and say that February 2022 was a missed opportunity.

Thirdly, the provision of vehicular access to Queensland arcade. It was actually Council that first approached St. John’s in 2017 regarding this access. We have tried to assist with the provision of access for vehicles to Queensland Arcade. It needs to be born in mind that this is an issue which really has nothing to do with St. John’s or our development proposal.

Nevertheless, we are prepared to provide 6m from our property, along the railway line, for a permanent vehicular access to Queensland Arcade. We have also agreed to temporary access for Queensland Arcade over our land. This will encumber the use of our land, while Council seeks to resolve a safety issue that has nothing to do with our proposed development. I reiterate - we will provide temporary vehicular access for third parties across our land. We do however need to put a limit on timing to ensure that this does not permanently encumber our land due to inaction of other parties. Providing access during construction and allowing cars through the new civic space would be untenable for anyone including Council. The permanent access solution will come as part of the redevelopment of 45 Hunter St.

Other matters of landscaping upgrade and maintenance responsibility of the civic space being undertaken by the parish can easily be accommodated as you will note from our correspondence.

Finally, there is a plaque on the wall of the Cathedral which says “To mark the co-operation of the Church and City in giving Beauty and Rest. 15 November 1953”. We sincerely hope to continue that co-operation.

Thank you for your time this evening. We would be happy to answer any questions.

STAFF RESPONSE

No staff response provided.

9.2

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 2: Item 13.2 - Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)

REFERENCE RZ/5/2018 - D08422153

FROM Cheryl Bates, Chair Parramatta Regional Branch, National Trust of Australia (NSW)

I would like to make a number of comments on this Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for St John's Cathedral.

First, I do not understand why it is necessary to have such a complicated and confusing set of recommendations for this item. Surely, the Councillors and the community would be better placed to know what is going to happen with this Planning Proposal if Council consideration was deferred until after the deadline in the report of 28 February 2022.

Second, my reading of the report suggests that the demolition of the heritage item is being balanced against the provision of additional “public purposes” through a Planning Agreement. At present and the reason for the complicated recommendations is that the applicant has not provided sufficient “public purposes” to justify the demolition of the Parish Hall. In my view, this approach is absurd. The demolition of a heritage item should be based on whether the heritage item still maintains its level of significance and not whether a significant historical feature of the City of Parramatta can be traded off for some street art or some other “public purpose” simply because it is convenient for a developer to do so.

I refer to the comments from the Department of Planning when the matter was referred to them - letter dated 8 September 2020: (page 122 Business Paper):

“There has been no strong evidence provided to allow the proposed removal of St Johns Parish Church Hall from the heritage schedule of Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011. Inconsistency between the heritage advise presented within the planning proposal introduced enough uncertainty regarding the merit of delisting these items. The merit of conserving the buildings should be assessed through the development application process when there is greater certainty for the built form and options for a variety of development outcomes can be analysed and considered.”

It cannot be accepted that the provision of some “public purposes” by the applicant is a meaningful response to this comment from the Department.

A further letter dated 8 September 2020 also from the Department states (page 124, Business Paper):

1. Prior to public exhibition, Council is to amend the planning proposal and supporting documentation as follows:

(b) all references regarding the removal of St John’s Parish Hall as an item of local heritage are to be removed.

Third, a “planning agreement “can be entered into to “change an environmental planning instrument” (s 7.4(1)(a) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act)). A Planning Agreement is generally used for amendments to development standards such as height and floor space ratio. It is also my understanding that the removal of a heritage item from Schedule 5 of LEP 2011 requires the same process as including a heritage item in Schedule 5. The Parramatta Regional Branch, and many others would certainly respond negatively to any advertising to remove the heritage listing for St John’s Parish Hall. It is simply not good enough to say “delist” a heritage item without the proper heritage consideration being given to its removal from Schedule 5.

Fourth, Section 7.5(1) of the EPA Act requires a planning agreement to be advertised. Recommendation 1 means that the advertising will raise no concerns that would prevent the progression of the Planning Agreement. I would hope that the elected councillors would have some say in the progress of the Planning Agreement based on the community response to the advertising rather than leave that decision to council staff.

Fifth, and given that this matter has had sufficient time to reach a final conclusion, the Council should simply accept that no agreement has been reached and that the Planning Proposal should not proceed, as per Recommendation 3.

In summary, and in the words of the Department in their letter to Council dated 8 September 2020, “There still remains no strong evidence to allow the removal of St John’s Parish Hall from the heritage schedule of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan”.

STAFF RESPONSE

No staff response provided.

10. Petitions

10.1

SUBJECT 1-7 Simpson Street Dundas Valley NSW 2117

REFERENCE DA/57/2022

FROM Cr Pierre Esber

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

“Please stop stop stop the development of 1-7 Simpson Street

Dundas Valley NSW 2117.”

3670

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

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

11. Rescission Motions

11.1

SUBJECT Notice of Motion of Rescission: Item 13.5 - Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08410590

REPORT OF Councillor Garrard

The rescission motion was WITHDRAWN.

12. For Notation

Nil

13. For Council Decision

13.1

SUBJECT Minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held on 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021

REFERENCE F2013/00235 - D08392636

REPORT OF Project Officer Land Use

3671

RESOLVED (Esber/Bradley)

(a) That Council receive and note the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings of 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021.

(b) That Council approve the Heritage Grants recommendations, as included in Item 12 of Attachment 2, as follows:

1. Make a grant of $2,445 for 180 Windsor Road, Winston Hills

2. Make a grant of $3,300 for Madison Gardens, Carlingford

3. Defer a decision on grant funding for 144 Good Street, Harris Park until the end of the financial year.

4. Defer a decision on grant funding for 46 Grose Street, North Parramatta until the end of the financial year.

5. Make a grant of $3,300 for 50 Marsden Street, Parramatta

6. Make a grant of $1,493 for 7 Kent Street, Epping.

13.2	SUBJECT Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church) REFERENCE RZ/5/2018 - D08385712 APPLICANT/S Jattca Pty Ltd OWNERS St John's Parramatta Endownment Fund REPORT OF Team Leader, Land Use Planning
	MOTION (Prociv/Wearne) That Council: a) Write to the Department of Planning and Environment and other relevant public authorities indicating that it will no longer progress the Planning Proposal. b) No longer pursue any of the Planning Scheme documents. c) Withdraw support for the sale of any portion of Hunter Street to the St John’s Anglican Church. d) Identify land at 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to facilitate the creation of a 6 metre wide laneway to provide future vehicle access to these three (3) sites and 181 Church Street, Parramatta, as part of a future housekeeping amendment to Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011. e) Write to the St John's Parramatta Endowment Fund confirming that the Deed of Agreement between Council and the Anglican Church Authorities, last signed and amended in1991, remains in force and continues to secure public access over the Church owned land between Church Street and Hunter Street, notwithstanding that Council withdraws support for the Planning Scheme for the St John's Anglican Church.
	FORESHADOWED MOTION (Garrard/Siviero) (a) That Council staff urgently write to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPIE) on 22 February 2022 seeking an extension of time of up to four to six weeks. (b) That Council defer consideration of this matter to an urgent Councillor Workshop to be held on 24 February 2022. (c) That following the Councillor Workshop, the Chief Executive Officer and relevant Council staff meet with the applicant to discuss the matter. (d) Further, that if the extension of time is not granted by the DPIE, that Council hold an Extraordinary Council Meeting to consider this matter. The motion moved by Councillor Prociv and seconded by Councillor Wearne on being put was declared LOST. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Maclean, Prociv and Wearne NOES: Councillors Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Noack, Pandey, Siviero, Valjak and Wang The foreshadowed motion moved by Councillor Garrard and seconded by Councillor Siviero then became the motion. The motion moved by Councillor Garrard and seconded by Councillor Siviero on being put was declared CARRIED. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Noack, Pandey, Siviero, Valjak and Wang NOES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Maclean, Prociv and Wearne
3672	RESOLVED (Garrard/Siviero) (a) That Council staff urgently write to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) on 22 February 2022 seeking an extension of time of up to four to six weeks. (b) That Council defer consideration of this matter to an urgent Councillor Workshop to be held on 24 February 2022. (c) That following the Councillor Workshop, the Chief Executive Officer and relevant Council staff meet with the applicant to discuss the matter. (d) Further, that if the extension of time is not granted by the DPE, that Council hold an Extraordinary Council Meeting to consider this matter.
	Note: The Lord Mayor vacated the Chair at 7:43pm during the consideration of Item 13.2. The Deputy Lord Mayor assumed the Chair. The Lord Mayor resumed the chair at 7:49pm.

13.3

SUBJECT Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site)

REFERENCE RZ/3/2017 – D08386005

APPLICANT/S Think Planners

OWNERS PIC Royal Investments Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Project Officer, Land Use Planning

MOTION (Garrard/Siviero)

(a) That Council notes the submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement at 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site). A summary of submissions is provided at Attachment 1.

(c) That Council forward this report and copies of all submissions received during the exhibition period including community, State and Federal Government agency submissions to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for its consideration consistent with the Gateway alteration issued on 28 October 2021.

(d) That Council approve the site specific-DCP at Attachment 4 for finalisation and inclusion within Part 10 (Site Specific Controls) of the finalised Parramatta City Centre DCP, including the minor amendments at Attachment 5 in this report, following the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, and note the City Centre DCP will be considered by Council in the first quarter of 2022.

(e) That Council approve the Planning Agreement at Attachment 6 and delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the Planning Agreement and to sign it on Council’s behalf.

(f) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor, administrative and/or non-policy amendments to the site-specific Development Control Plan and/or Planning Agreement during the finalisation processes.

The motion moved by Cr Garrard and seconded by Cr Siviero on being

put was declared LOST.

DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-

AYES: Councillors Garrard, Green, Siviero and Wang

NOES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Esber, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Prociv, Valjak and Wearne

13.4

SUBJECT Submission on the NSW Government's 'A new approach to rezonings' Discussion Paper

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08393170

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use

3674

RESOLVED (Pandey/Darley)

(a) That Council approve the submission (Attachment 1) which supports the overall intent of the reform contained in the Discussion Paper ‘A new approach to rezonings’, in particular, to provide an increasingly transparent and efficient planning system that ensures decisions about potential land-use changes are consistent with strategic planning policy, however objects to the following details of the proposed reform:

i. Appeals processes: strong objections are raised to the proposed appeals mechanism as it will remove the policy decision making power of councils.

ii. Fees and resources: the proposed fee structure is too rigid (based on categories) and Councils should instead be able to set fees. The risk of mandatory fee refunds (such as planning guarantees) will severely limit Council resources whist affecting the quality of planning decisions due to rushed assessments.

iii. Process risks: several risks to Council’s assessment of planning proposals are prevalent. These include imposing minimal timeframes to review the quality of planning proposals (and supporting documentation) prior to their exhibition, as well as a lack of power for Council to reject a planning proposal once lodged (without generating appeal rights from the applicant).

(b) That the submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) by close of the exhibition period (28 February 2022).

(c) Further, that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to strengthen the executive summary to ensure the severity of the concerns within the submission are properly highlighted and to make any amendments of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during finalisation of the submission prior to it being forwarded to the DPE.

Note: Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 8:08pm during the consideration of Item 13.4.

13.5

SUBJECT Naming Proposal for Unnamed Epping Pedestrian Way (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08386015

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Place Services

3675

RESOLVED (Maclean/Siviero)

That Council defer this matter for a period of three (3) to six (6) months and that consultation occurs with local and relevant First Nation’s bodies and groups regarding an appropriate name for the presently unnamed thoroughfare between Forest Grove and Essex Street, with a view to adopting an Indigenous name; if no suitable names arise or the Lane Way is not deemed appropriate for such a name post consultation then the original recommendation, with any further public consultation if required, be brought back to Council.

Note: Councillor Garrard returned to the Chamber at 8:17pm during consideration of Item 13.5.

14. Notices of Motion

14.1

SUBJECT Equal Employment Opportunities

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08411342

FROM Deputy Lord Mayor Sameer Pandey

3676

RESOLVED (Pandey/Noack)

(a) That Council note:

i) The diversity within the City of Parramatta and opportunities for employment.

ii) The growth and development opportunities in the LGA.

(b) Further, that a report be provided to Council by mid-August 2022:

i) Current known workforce diversity profile of Council workforce against current diversity profile within the LGA.

ii) Current Traineeship and Apprenticeship programs and potential future strategies within City of Parramatta.

iii) Current internship participation and potential opportunities for expansion.

iv) Opportunities for Traineeship and pathways for employment for people from Indigenous background as well as people with disability.

v) Options for Local employment targets.

vi) Options for embedding diversity targets in contracts that council issues.

vii) Industry benchmark for Local Government areas in diversity profile of staff.

viii) Employment assistance/opportunities for veterans.

Note: Councillor Wearne left the Chamber at 8:28pm and returned at 8:29pm during the consideration of Item 14.1.

15. Questions with Notice

15.1

SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 7 February 2022

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08408534

FROM Governance Manager

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 7 FEBRUARY 2022

Item 12.4 – Variations to Standards under Clause 4.6 of Parramatta LEP 2011, Auburn LEP 2010, Holroyd LEP 2013, The Hills LEP 2012, Hornsby LEP 2013

Does this mean that they don’t have to provide open space on the ground if they provide it on the roof?

Executive Director City Planning & Design Response

The largest portion of the communal open space is located on the roof top, being 230m2 and there is a smaller section of communal open space located at ground level, being approximately 100m2.

Item 13.1 – Chief Executive Officer Delegations

Question from Councillor Darley

How many tenders under $500k were finalised in the years 2020 and 2021?

Executive Director Corporate Services Response

In 2020 there were 6 tenders finalised under $500k

In 2021 there were 3 tenders finalised under $500k

Item 13.5 – Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land

Questions from Councillor Garrard

1. That development was finished quite a period of time ago. I know residents have actually moved in because they’ve reached out and contacted me. When was that?

2. What is the road for? What is the purpose of it?

3. For what? [does there have to be a condition for an access road to dedicate it back to Council]

4. Where is the road going to and why?

5. Why was it perceived to be acceptable as part of a VPA as open space, if in fact there is going to be a road to [God knows] where and how big through the middle of it?

Executive Director Property & Place Response

1. An Interim Occupation Certificate was issued on 25 January 2022 for 35 and 39 East Street.

2. The road acts as a service lane. A service lane is a small road usually created to allow access to the back of a building or retail shop. The proposed lane in this instance will provide access to the rear of the heritage buildings in the area.

3. The Parramatta DCP 2011 makes provision for the road.

4. The service lane goes between Cowper St and East St. The proposed lane in this instance will provide access to the rear of the heritage buildings in the area.

5. The service lane goes between Cowper St and East St and is to the eastern side of the park.

Item 14.1 – CBD Lighting Project

Questions from Councillor Garrard and Wearne

1. What is the CBD Revitalisation Program?

2. If $300k is being dedicated, if it’s granted to the CBD lighting project, where is the other $700k going?

3. Where have the funds gone from the Winterlight event?

4. Where have the funds gone from the other events?

Executive Director City Engagement & Experience Response

1. The CBD Revitalisation Program is a State Government funded program for eligible Councils, businesses and cultural institutions to run activations and events to engage their local communities and attract visitors. The funding available under the program is from $250,000 to $1 million. Applications opened for application on 17 December 2021 and closed on 17 January 2022. The outcome of the grant application will be announced on 16 February 2022.

2. Council has applied for $1 million grant under the CBD Revitalisation Program to deliver 5 programs:

Concert series on the rooftop of Eat Street car park	$175,000
Activation in the Stadium precinct in collaboration with Venues Live	$250,000
CBD Lighting Program (details provided below)	$225,000
Harris Park Precinct Activation	$250,000
Marketing	$100,000
Total	$1,000,000

CBD Lighting Program:

The CBD Lighting Program has incurred $225,000 to date, for the installation and lighting displays at River Foreshore, Parramatta Square and Centenary Square from November 2021 to January 2022. To keep the lights on for another 3 months the cost is $90,000 as per the table below. Due to the successful feedback of the Lighting Program an additional $135,000 has been suggested for additional lighting sites. Details of the costs relating to the extension are as follows:

Keeping the lights on at River Foreshore, Parramatta Square and Centenary Square from February 2022 to May 2022 at $10,000 per month, per site ($10,000 x 3 sites x 3 months = $90,000)

$90,000

New sites: Philip St, Eat Street Car Park Rooftop and Prince Alfred Square - Installation and running costs for 4 weeks in March, when Parramatta Nights event is on.

Note: This is in addition to Parramatta Nights $1.2M project costs.

$135,000

Additional cost for the CBD Lighting program - Total

$225,000

3. The annual budget allocated to Winterlight is $400,000. The event was cancelled incurring a sunk cost of $74,766. The remaining budget was allocated to Parramatta Nights and CBD Lighting program (Council’s resolution from 25 October 2021 is included as Attachment 1). Details are as follow:

Winterlight delivered in July 2021	$74,766	Expended in Q1
Parramatta Nights	$100,234	To be expended in Q4
CBD Lighting	$225,000	Expended from November to January
Total Winterlight budget	$400,000

4. To comply with COVID public health orders, several Council’s events and city activation activities have been cancelled. $1,092,475 was identified as savings from these cancellations, of which $567,475 has been reallocated to Parramatta Nights, $225,000 allocated to the CBD Lighting program (for November 2021 to January 2022), and $300,000 has been returned to Council to assist with achieving $15 million target efficiency saving for current financial year. The target saving mentioned above was outlined in section 9 of the 25 October 2021 Council paper. A copy of the resolution and report can be found at Attachment 2.

5. Further details of budget reallocation and return are provided in the tables below.

Reallocation to Parramatta Nights & CBD Lighting

Area	Event	Status	Budget	Cost	Reallocated to Parramatta Nights	Reallocated to CBD Lighting
Events	Winterlight	Cancelled	$493,000	$74,666	$100,234	$225,000
Events	New Year’s Eve	Delivered in December	$400,000	$270,000	$130,000
Events	Parramatta Lanes	Cancelled	$630,000	$355,859	$274,141
Events	Foundation Day	Cancelled	$100,000	$36,900	$63,100
Total fund reallocated to Parramatta Nights					$567,475	$225,000

Budget returned to Council

Area	Event	Status	Budget	Cost	Returned
Events	Lunar New Year	Delivering online	$100,000	Minimal	$100,000
Events	Australia Day	Postponed to March	$520,000	$445,000	$75,000
Civic	Australia Day VIP	Cancelled	$25,000	$0	$25,000
Civic	Seniors Christmas Party	Cancelled	$40,000	$0	$40,000
Activations	Activations Program	Reduced activities	$279,492	$219,492	$60,000
Total budget returned					$300,000

6. A reconciliation detailing budget for all events is provided at Attachment 3.

Note:

1. Councillor Pandey left the Chamber at 8:39pm and returned at 8:42pm during the consideration of Item 15.1.

2. Councillor Wang left the Chamber at 8:40pm and returned at 8:49pm during the consideration of Item 15.1.

3. Councillor Maclean left the Chamber at 8:40pm and returned at 8:43pm during the consideration of Item 15.1.

4. Councillor Noack left the Chamber at 8:40pm and returned at 8:43pm during the consideration of Item 15.1.

5. Councillor Dr Prociv left the Chamber at 8:44pm during the consideration of Item 15.1.

Procedural Motion

3677

RESOLVED (Bradley/Noack)

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

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 8:46pm for a short recess.

Procedural Motion

3678

RESOLVED (Davis/Pandey)

That the meeting resume.

The meeting resumed at 9:03pm with the following Councillors in attendance. The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis and Councillors Phil Bradley, Kellie Darley, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Sameer Pandey (Deputy Lord Mayor), Dr Patricia Prociv, Dan Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.

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.

16. CLOSED SESSION

3679

RESOLVED (Darley/Green)

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:-

16.1 Legal Status Report as at 31 January 2022. (D08394024) - 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.

16.2 Expression of Interest for Vacant Space at 6 Valentine Avenue, Parramatta (Valentine Avenue Substation). (D08385764) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

16.3 Re-determine Organisation Structure (Senior Staff Positions). (D08391246) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

16.1

SUBJECT Legal Status Report as at 31 January 2022

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08394024

REPORT OF Group Manager Legal Services

3680

RESOLVED (Pandey/Esber)

That Council note the Legal Status Report as at 31 January 2022

16.2

SUBJECT Expression of Interest for Vacant Space at 6 Valentine Avenue, Parramatta (Valentine Avenue Substation)

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08385764

REPORT OF Space Management Officer

3681

RESOLVED (Esber/Valjak)

(a) That Council conduct an Expression of Interest (EOI) to seek a café or small bar tenant to operate the vacant space in Valentine Avenue Substation.

(b) That Council proceed to offer the preferred applicant a Lease on the terms outlined in paragraph 24 of this report.

(d) Further, that delegation is given to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to sign all documents associated with this matter.

16.3

SUBJECT Re-determine Organisation Structure (Senior Staff Positions)

REFERENCE F2022/00173 - D08391246

REPORT OF Workplace Relations Manager

3682

RESOLVED (Pandey/Darley)

(a) That Council determine the senior staff positions within the organisation structure, including the roles and reporting lines at Attachment 1 of this report, pursuant to s332(1) of the Local Government Act 1993.

(b) That Council note the senior staff positions are the same as those previously determined by Council except for:

1. The deletion of the role, Executive Director Corporate Services;

2. The creation of the senior staff position, Chief Financial and Information Officer, who will report directly to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO);

3. The creation of the senior staff position, Executive Director People Culture and Workplace Role, who will report directly to the CEO.

(c) Further, that Council note the changes to the senior staff positions aim to improve clarity of roles and responsibilities for the relevant functions and will reduce full time staff (FTE) by two and reduce employment costs by an estimated $200,000.

Procedural Motion

3683

RESOLVED (Darley/Noack)

That the meeting resume into Open Session.

17. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 16.1 to 16.3.

18. CONCLUSION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9:22pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 20 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2022 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 14 MARCH 2022.

Chairperson

THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Council 14 March 2022 Item 12.4

FOR NOTATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.4

SUBJECT Proposed traffic improvements on Hill Road, Wentworth Point

REFERENCE F2022/00198 - D08415187

REPORT OF Traffic & Transport Team Leader

CSP THEME: ACCESSIBLE

workshop/briefing date: Nil

PURPOSE:

To respond to Council’s resolution of 7 February 2022 regarding proposed traffic signals in Hill Road at Bennelong Parkway and a roundabout at Burroway Road, Wentworth Point.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at its meeting on 7 February 2022 considered a Notice of Motion regarding traffic signals in Hill Road at Bennelong Parkway, and a roundabout and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Hill Road and Burroway Road, Wentworth Point, and resolved:

(a) That Council recognise the importance of the urgent construction of traffic lights at the intersection of Bennelong Parkway and Hill Road at Wentworth Point. The growing traffic congestion and traffic accidents of extreme concern to the resident of Wentworth Point.

(b) That Council calls for the urgent construction of the planned roundabout and street crossing at the corner of Hill Road and Burroway Road.

(c) Further, that a full report on the construction of these lights, and roundabout be presented to the 14 March Council Meeting, including costing and where the funds are coming from.

Intersection of Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway, Wentworth Point

2. Council is currently undertaking a detail design, cost estimate and Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the installation of new traffic signals at the intersection of Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway, Wentworth Point. It is anticipated that the design, cost estimate and REF work will be completed by June 2022. The current preliminary cost estimate for the entire project is $5.2m. An extract from the draft design plans for the project are provided at Attachment 1.

3. Preliminary design work commenced in 2019 following advice received from Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) Stage 2 that the Stage 2 alignment should not impede Council proceeding with the installation of traffic lights and Council can proceed with the project. The advice indicated that should Stage 2 of the Parramatta Light Rail proceed, the traffic lights can be adjusted or rebuilt as needed by PLR.

4. Funding to undertake the detail design work was secured in 2020. The design work has included consultation with TfNSW, SOPA, and various utility services. The work has included consideration of options and traffic modelling. The design has included use of subcontractors for traffic signal design, street lighting design, the REF, utility services relocation design, scanning for utility services, and checking for contaminated soils.

5. The cost estimate includes utility works that have been identified following detailed scanning investigations. The scan identified that two underground services cables (Optus and Ausgrid) run along Bennelong Parkway adjacent to the traffic island at the northeast corner of the intersection and these need to be relocated for road widening. The cost of relocating Optus cables has been quoted as $150,000 by Optus but relocation cost of Ausgrid cables is not known at this stage. However, based on the cost of undertaking similar work, an amount of $1.0m has been included in the cost estimate for both services. An update on this component will be included in the final cost estimate.

Intersection of Hill Road and Burroway Road, Wentworth Point

6. A development application (Ref. DA/763/2017) was approved on 6 June 2018 for Phase 1 of four residential flat buildings incorporating a total of 364 units at 14-16 Hill Road, Sydney Olympic Park. According to Condition No. 132 of the consent, the developer is required to undertake the following traffic works in Hill Road:

· Intersection improvement works in Hill Road at Lapwing Street (new northern property access road) and Burroway Road, and

· A median island in Hill Road between Footbridge Boulevard and Park Street North to restrict vehicle access to left-in left-out for Lapwing Street (new access road near the southern property boundary).

7. In accordance with the conditions of consent, the developer has submitted concept plans for a roundabout at the intersection of Hill Road and Burroway Road and a median island incorporating a pedestrian refuge island in Hill Road between Footbridge Boulevard and Park Street North, Wentworth Point. The plan included a combined raised pedestrian and cyclist crossing in Lapwing Street.

8. The Parramatta Traffic Committee (PTC) at its meeting of 21 January 2021 considered a report regarding this matter. Council at its meeting of 22 February 2021 considered the PTC report and approved the proposal with the addition of a raised pedestrian crossing on the northern leg of the intersection.

9. The developer has recently advised that there are stormwater design issues at the intersection of Hill Road and Burroway Road, which may result in the need to lift the road pavement. The work was previously intended for the first half of 2022, but now the timeframe is unknown. The developer is currently liaising with Council officers in addressing this issue. Council officers have written to the developer advising of Council’s resolution calling for the urgent construction of the planned roundabout and street crossing at the corner of Hill Road and Burroway Road.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

10. City of Parramatta is receiving complaints from residents and motorists regarding traffic delays in Bennelong Parkway at Hill Road during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Pedestrians and cyclists also experience difficulty crossing Hill Road to access bus stops or the parklands. The installation of traffic signals at this intersection will improve traffic flow and safety. The proposed intersection works will support the growth of the peninsula with further development occurring in the area.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. Council officers are working on the Hill Road/Bennelong Parkway traffic signals project with an aim to complete the detailed design, cost estimates, REF and obtain the required approvals from relevant stakeholders including TfNSW by June 2022. This would allow the tender process to commence in the 2nd half of 2022 and construction in the 1st half of 2023, subject to funding (as detailed below).

12. Consultation for the detailed design for the traffic signals would be undertaken when funding is confirmed for the project. Consultation will also be undertaken for Council’s Development Program and Operation Plan (DPOP) in regards to Council’s future budgets and funding for projects.

13. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to the two projects:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Various, including Developer Contributions Planning, Hill Road Masterplan, PTC items, and detail design work.	Public, SOPA, PTC Members including local State MP, utility services	Generally supportive and would like the work done as soon as possible.	N/A	Manager Traffic & Transport

Councillor Consultation

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

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

22 February 2022

Cllr Noack (mover)

Eager to have funding secured- noting potential funding options with a view to having project delivered as soon as possible

N/A

Manager Traffic & Transport

21 February 2022

Cllr Prociv

(seconder)

Supportive

N/A

Manager Traffic & Transport

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

15. There are no legal implications for Council associated with the recommendation in this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

16. Construction for the traffic signals at the intersection of Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway has an estimated total project cost of $5.2 million, however much of the design costs have already been incurred. Therefore, $4.9 million is now required to be allocated to complete this project. Council staff are investigating internal and external funding options so that the traffic signals can be constructed in the 2022/23 financial year. There are two funding options available. In order of preference, these are:

i. Federal Government’s Stimulus Funding, or

ii. Developer contributions

17. An application for Federal Funding under its Stimulus Program has been lodged with TfNSW in late 2021 for traffic signals in Hill Road at Bennelong Parkway. The application is seeking the full funding of the project. The application has been made for the 2022/23 financial year and Council is typically advised of similar grant application outcomes around the start of the financial year. However, a more accurate timing of any application outcome announcement is not known at this stage. Council staff will continue to advocate for this funding. If successful, Federal funding is considered the ideal funding source as it would cover the complete cost estimate amount and thereby have no implications for other project funding through developer contributions.

18. The second funding option is through developer contributions. Council on 12 July 2021 adopted the new City of Parramatta (Outside Parramatta CBD) Contributions Plan 2021 which became effective on 20 September 2021. Currently the starting balance for 2022/23 available for Traffic and Transport projects is $7.96m. This Plan includes the Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway traffic signals project which currently has a draft allocated funding amount of $3.85 million in the 2022/2023 financial year. Based on the $4.9 million required to deliver this project, this means an additional $1.05 million needs to be redirected from developer contributions.

19. Within the total Traffic and Transport projects reserve of $7.96m, $1.5 million is usually set aside annually for projects that sit within Council’s Active Transport Program. It is possible to redirect $1.05 million of these funds to the Hill Road traffic signal project for the 2022/2023 financial year as Council is likely to obtain other grant funding from Transport for New South Wales for Active Transport Program projects.

20. Funding allocation for this project from developer contributions if required, will be confirmed through the DPOP finalisation process.

21. While a Planning Agreement for Block H of the Billbergia site at 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point is a potential mechanism by which the intersection works at Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway may be funded, it is not considered a reliable funding source at this time. This is because there is no certainty or imminence on the outcome of the development proposal currently under consideration by Council staff.

22. Ward Councillors will be provided with an update once further information on funding becomes available.

23. The proposed work at, and near the intersection of Hill Road and Burroway Road is to be funded by the developer of the adjacent site.

24. This report is for information only. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the recommendation, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget as funding options are being investigated separately and approvals will be sought through the appropriate process.

25. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from the recommendation of this report.

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

Funding Source

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Saniya Sharmeen

Traffic & Transport Team Leader

Richard Searle

Traffic and Transport Manager

Mark Leotta

Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Proposed Traffic Signals plan for Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway Wentworth Point

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.1

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT Councillor Representation on Statutory Committees and External Bodies

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08385559

REPORT OF Governance Manager

csp theme: FAIR

workshop/briefing date: Nil

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek the appointment of Councillor representation to various statutory committees and external bodies for the current term of Council.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note the appointment of the following Councillors to the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee for the current term of Council:

Audit Risk & Improvement Committee

Deputy Lord Mayor, Cr Pandey

Cr Garrard

Cr Maclean (alternate)

Cr Valjak (alternate)

(b) That Council consider the appointment of Councillors to the following statutory committees and external bodies for the current term of Council:

CEO Performance Review Committee	Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor + 2 Councillors (1 Councillor nominated by Council) (1 Councillor nominated by CEO)
CivicRisk Mutual	1 Councillor
Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee	2 Councillors
NSW Public Libraries Association	1 Councillor
Parramatta Community Fund Advisory Group	Not required at this time
Parramatta Legal and Justice Expansion Coalition	Lord Mayor
Parramatta Light Rail Business Reference Group	Lord Mayor and one (1) Councillor
Parramatta Traffic Committee	1 Councillor
Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group	1 Councillor
Sydney Central City Planning Panel	2 Councillors + 2 Alternates
Western Sydney Academy of Sport	2 Councillors

(d) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer the following road and traffic functions:

- Linemarking (lane lines, separation lines, edge lines, barrier lines, etc);

- Parking restrictions (excluding preferential and residential parking schemes);

- Advisory signposting;

- Works zones;

- Taxi zones / bus zones (subject to consultation with relevant associations and bodies and Transport for NSW);

- Angled and disabled parking;

- Light traffic thoroughfares;

- Regulatory signs (other than turn restrictions and one-way restrictions);

- Marked foot crossings and children crossings (other than raised crossings or where road narrowing is involved);

- Temporary road closures / on-the-spot road closures for annual events (as per RMS requirements and subject to Police approval).

BACKGROUND

1. Council has an obligation to form statutory committees, which are listed below:

- Audit Risk & Improvement Committee;

- CEO Performance Review Committee;

- Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee;

- Parramatta Traffic Committee.

2. In addition, Council is also requested to provide Councillor representation to a range of external bodies, which are listed below:

- CivicRisk Mutual;

- NSW Public Libraries Association;

- Parramatta Community Fund Advisory Group;

- Parramatta Legal and Justice Expansion Coalition;

- Parramatta Light Rail Business Reference Group;

- Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group;

- Western Sydney Academy of Sport; and

- Sydney Central City Planning Panel.

3. This report seeks Councillor representation to the above statutory committees and external bodies. It is noted that a report on the establishment of Advisory Committees and Park Committees is anticipated to be presented to Council at its meeting of 28 March 2022, following a workshop with all Councillors.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. An overview of each of the statutory committees and external bodies and the number of Councillors required for appointment is listed below:

Audit Risk & Improvement Committee

Councillor Appointment: Two (2) Councillors and Two (2) Alternates

Meeting Frequency: Quarterly

The Audit Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) is a committee required under section 428A of the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016. The objective is to provide independent assurance and assistance on compliance, risk management, fraud control, financial management, governance, strategic planning and delivery program, service reviews and performance measurement data.

The Committee has three (3) independent professional members who are paid a fee to be a part of the Committee.

The current ARIC Charter provides for two (2) Councillor representatives with voting rights. It is noted that the Office of Local Government has recently released draft Guidelines for Risk Management for Internal Audit for Local Councils in NSW to guide the operations of ARICs and to require Councils to have a risk management framework and internal audit function to support and inform their operations. It is noted that any changes to the composition of ARICs will not be required until June 2027 to allow Councils five years to transition the membership of existing ARICs.

On 7 February 2022, Council resolved to elect the following Councillors to the ARIC for the current term of Council:

- Deputy Lord Mayor Cr Pandey;

- Cr Garrard;

- Cr Maclean (alternate);

- Cr Valjak (alternate).

CEO Performance Review Committee

Councillor Appointment: Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor, One (1) Councillor (nominated by governing body) and One (1) Councillor (nominated by CEO)

Meeting Frequency: Bi-Annually (half year review and end of year review)

The CEO Performance Review committee is required through a directive from the Office of Local Government. Guidelines on the management of the CEO’s performance provides for the composition of a committee to review the CEO’s performance and for the development of performance agreements.

The Guidelines recommend that the committee comprise of the Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor, a Councillor nominated by the governing body and a Councillor nominated by the CEO.

All Councillors are to be advised of the timing of each review and an annual report is tabled in a closed session of a Council Meeting (where no staff including the CEO are present).

CivicRisk Mutual

Councillor Appointment: One (1) Councillor Representative

Meeting Frequency: Bi-Annually (Annual General Meeting and Annual Strategic Planning Forum)

CivicRisk Mutual is a mutual company limited by guarantee, owned and operated entirely by Local Government Member Councils for the purpose of risk protection.

Council is entited to one (1) Councillor representative and one (1) staff representative on the Member Assembly. The Member Assembly meet to discuss and determine matters of policy and strategy for implementation by the Board and well as to consider specific matters that are referred to the Member Assembly by the Board or Members.

Meetings are held bi-annually.

Floodplain Risk Management Committee

Councillor Appointment: Two (2) Councillors

Meeting Frequency: As required

Council is required to convene a Floodplain Risk Management Committee by the State government Flood Risk Management Policy as guided by the Flood Plain Management Manual (2005).

The Committee meets on an as needs basis to discuss and advise Council on floodplain risk management planning and flood strategies. It is recommended that the Committee membership comprise fifteen (15) members, including:

- Two (2) Councillor representatives;

- Five (5) community representatives;

- Three (3) representatives of business associations or private businesses located in the LGA; and

- Up to five (5) representatives of relevant State Government agencies.

NSW Public Libraries Association

Councillor Appointment: One (1) Councillor

Meeting Frequency: Quarterly

NSW Public Libraries Association is the peak body for public libraries in NSW. The Association purpose is to act as an advisory capacity to the Council on Public Libraries in NSW, performing an advocacy role on behalf of local government libraries to State and Federal Government, in local government forums and, where appropriate, to other bodies and the wider community.

The Association allows for one (1) Councillor representative and one (1) staff representative. Meetings are conducted quarterly at different locations in the Sydney metropolitan area.

Parramatta Legal and Justice Expansion Coalition

Councillor Appointment: Lord Mayor

Meeting Frequency: As required (no less than four (4) times a year)

The Parramatta Legal and Justice Expansion Coalition is formed to advocate and promote for an expended legal and justice precinct in Parramatta. It is a centralized point of advocating for the expansion and a permanent presence of the Supreme Court of NSW in Paramatta.

The Coalition meets as the Chairperson deems necessary but not less than four (4) times a year. Coalition members are required to attend at least 50% of meetings per year to retain their membership.

The Lord Mayor is Council’s delegate to represent Council on this external body.

Parramatta Community Fund Advisory Committee

Councillor Appointment: One (1) Councillor

Meeting Frequency: Currently not active

The Parramatta Community Fund Committee is a committee of diverse members whose mission is to build philanthropic responses and resources through the Parramatta Community Fund. The Fund is aimed at addressing social needs in the Parramatta and surrounding areas, delivering social and cultural outcomes, assisting people who are suffering from disadvantage and fostering sustainable, liveable and productive communities.

The Fund comprises passionate residents, business owners and one (1) Councillor representative. The Fund is not currently active and the operational model is currently being reviewed and redeveloped.

It is recommended that Council not appoint a Councillor representative until such time as the review of the operational model is finalised.

Parramatta Light Rail Business Reference Group

Councillor Appointment: Lord Mayor and one (1) Councillor

Meeting Frequency: Quarterly.

The Paramatta Light Rail Business Reference Group is an initiative formed by Transport for NSW to provide local businesses, community members and stakeholders a forum to share advice and collaborate on initiatives to support businesses across the alignment during the construction and operations of the Parramatta Light Rail.

The Reference Group allows for two (2) Councillor representatives. Meetings are conducted quarterly.

Parramatta Traffic Committee

Councillor Appointment: One (1) Councillor

Meeting Frequency: Bi-Monthly

The Parramatta Traffic Committee is a technical review committee required by the State Government and governed by the Delegations to Council for the Regulation of Traffic Guidelines. The Committee considers traffic matters where Council has the delegation to approve, being:

Functions:

1. Authorisation of prescribed traffic control devices covered under Division 1 of Part 4 (Sections 50 and 55) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (STM Act);

2. Regulation of traffic under Division 2 of Part 8 (Sections 116 to 119) of the Roads Act 1993;

3. Authorisation of special event parking schemes under Division 2 of Part 5 (Clauses 122 and 123 of the STM Act on public roads other than classified roads).

The following decisions have historically been delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (circa 1999) and it is recommended that Council continue this arrangement:

- Linemarking (lane lines, separation lines, edge lines, barrier lines, etc);

- Parking restrictions (excluding preferential and residential parking schemes);

- Advisory signposting;

- Works zones;

- Taxi zones / bus zones (subject to consultation with relevant associations and bodies and Transport for NSW);

- Angled and disabled parking;

- Light traffic thoroughfares;

- Regulatory signs (other than turn restrictions and one-way restrictions);

- Marked foot crossings and children crossings (other than raised crossings or where road narrowing is involved);

- Temporary road closures / on-the-spot road closures for annual events (as per RMS requirements and subject to Police approval).

The Committee membership comprises:

- One (1) Councillor representative;

- One (1) NSW Police representative;

- One (1) RMS representative; and

- The local State Member of Parliament or their nominee.

Meetings are held bi-monthly.

Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group

Councillor Appointment: One (1) Councillor

Meeting Frequency: Bi-Monthly

Although not a statutory committee nor an external body, the Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group provides advice and advocacy for traffic related matters. Recommendations made by the Committee are referred to Transport for NSW advocating on behalf of the community on matters not requiring immediate construction work.

The Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group comprises the same Committee Members as the Parramatta Traffic Committee, as it allows open and transparent consideration of matters with relevant agency stakeholders.

Meetings are held bi-monthly.

Sydney Central City Planning Panel

Councillor Appointment: Two (2) Councillors and two (2) Alternates

Meeting Frequency: Regularly

The Sydney Central City Planning Panel (Panel) is decision making panel considering significant development applications and planning matters.

The types of developments the Panel considers includes:

- General development over $30 million

- Council related development over $5 million

- Crown development over $5 million

- Private infrastructure and community facilities over $5 million

- Eco-tourist facilities over $5 million

- Particular designated development; and

- Coastal subdivision.

The Panel consists of five (5) member, being three State appointed representatives including the Chair and two (2) Councillor representatives. Councillor representatives are paid a fee to sit on this Panel, as follows:

- Meeting fee of $600 for attendance at formal decision making meetings of the Sydney Central City Planning Panel;

- Additional fee of $100 per hour, minimum one hour up to a maximum of $600, for attending official organised site visits and briefings of the Panel;

- Allowance includes travel costs and time for meetings, site visits and briefings;

- Councillors paid on confirmation of attendance and hours spent at site visits and briefings.

Meetings are held regularly depending on the volume of applications required.

Western Sydney Academy of Sport

Councillor Appointment: Two (2) Councillors

Meeting Frequency: Quarterly

The Western Sydney Academy of Sport is an information sharing and ideas forum, comprising ten (10) Councils providing annual contributions forming parting of development programs for Western Sydney athletes.

As a member of the Advisory Forum, Council is able to nominate two (2) Councillor representatives. The Academy meets quarterly.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Various	Various	Input into the statutory committees and external bodies of Council	Various (see above)	Governance

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

7. It is appropriate for Councillors to be represented on various statutory committees and external bodies.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

8. There are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council associated with the appointment of Councillors to the above statutory committees and external bodies. It is noted that the Sydney Central City Planning Panel is a paid committee and these costs are provided for within Council’s 2021/2022 adopted budget.

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

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

Funding Source	NA

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

Funding Source	NA

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Patricia Krzeminski

Governance Manager

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jillian Khoo

Executive Director Corporate Services

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.2

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.2

SUBJECT Appointment of Community Representatives to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel

REFERENCE F2021/01980 - D08411416

REPORT OF Strategic Business Manager

CSP THEME: ACCESSIBLE

workshop/briefing date: 9 March 2022

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s approval to appoint community representative members to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel for the period 1 April 2022 to 29 February 2024, to coincide with the conclusion of the term of the current chair, alternate chairs, and independent expert members.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve and delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to appoint the individuals contained in Attachment 1 as community representatives to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, subject to the satisfactory completion of probity checks, for the period 1 April 2022 until 29 February 2024.

(b) Further, that Council endorse community panel members to be representatives for all wards.

BACKGROUND

1. On 14 June 2016, Council resolved to establish an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) which began operation in August 2016. The IHAP is now known as the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (PLPP).

2. The IHAP was established to provide an open and transparent framework for the consideration of planning decisions that ensures all stakeholders applicants and the community, including objectors) are appropriately consulted and to provide a means by which planning decisions can be reviewed.

3. In late 2017 changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act) mandated all Sydney councils to have a Local Planning Panel (LPP) which would operate from 1 March 2018. The LPP exercises functions under the EP&A Act for the determination of certain Development Applications (DAs) and reporting requirements for Planning Proposals (PPs).

4. The PLPP generally meets once per month on the third Tuesday. The agenda and the minutes of each meeting are published on the City of Parramatta website.

5. Under the EP&A Act, each LPP meeting is to comprise a chair, two independent expert members and a community member (who is not a councillor or Council officer).

6. Under the EP&A Act a person is not eligible to be a member of a local planning panel if the person is:

a. A Councillor of any Council, or

b. A property developer within the meaning of section 53 of the Electoral Funding Act 2018 (this includes a person who is a close associate of a property developer).

7. The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) is responsible for the recruitment and selection of LPP chairs, alternate chairs, and independent experts, which then requires endorsement by Council.

8. Council’s current chair, alternate chairs and independent experts were endorsed by Council at the meeting held on 28 June 2021 for the period 1 July 2021 until 29 February 2024.

Panel Member	Position	Area(s) of Expertise
Stephen O’Connor	Chair	Planning, Environment
Mary-Lynne Taylor	Alternate Chair	Planning, Heritage, Law
Julie Walsh	Alternate Chair	Law
Ian Armstrong	Independent Expert	Planning, Architecture, Urban Design
Paul Berkemeier	Independent Expert	Planning, Architecture, Heritage, Urban Design
Helen Deegan	Independent Expert	Planning
Steve Driscoll	Independent Expert	Planning, Urban Design, Government
Michael Evesson	Independent Expert	Planning, Environment, Economics, Government
Lindsay Fletcher	Independent Expert	Planning, Government
Sue Francis	Independent Expert	Planning, Law
Robert Hussey	Independent Expert	Planning, Traffic & Transport, Engineering, Government
David Johnson	Independent Expert	Environment
Alf Lester	Independent Expert	Planning, Architecture, Urban Design
Simone Lotz	Independent Expert	Planning, Architecture, Heritage, Urban Design, Tourism
Michael Mason	Independent Expert	Planning, Government
Alison McCabe	Independent Expert	Planning, Government
Tony Reed	Independent Expert	Traffic & Transport, Engineering, Government
Deb Sutherland	Independent Expert	Planning, Urban Design
Richard Thorp	Independent Expert	Architecture, Urban Design

9. The recruitment, selection and appointment of community representatives is the responsibility of each council.

10. Under the EP&A Act where the council is divided into wards, council is to appoint representatives of the local community for each ward. Whilst all community representatives are entitled to attend any given meeting of the LPP, only one designated by the chairperson of the panel comprises the quorum for the meeting and is entitled to vote and be heard on a matter before the panel.

11. As the City of Parramatta has wards either a community representative needs to be appointed for each ward or Council can resolve that community members represent all wards.

12. The matters considered at each PLPP meeting are generally scattered across the LGA. As the roster of members for each meeting is generally done months in advance, to ensure availability of sufficient panel members and for the members to allocate this time in their schedule, it is unknown at the time what wards the matters at each meeting will be located in. It is most practical for the operation of the PLPP if only one community representative is required to attend each meeting. Otherwise, a community representative from each ward which has a DA or PP being considered would be required to attend the meeting, potentially resulting in several community representatives attending any one meeting. This would increase the cost associated with the operation of the PLPP. It would also mean in instances where a DA or PP for a particular ward is scheduled, but that ward representative is unable to attend, there may be an expectation that the report for the DA or PP would not be considered and cause unnecessary delay in making a recommendation on that matter.

13. On 18 December 2017, Council resolved to allow community members to represent all wards not just the one in which they live. As such only one community representative is required to attend the meeting.

14. When the PLPP commenced in March 2018 Council had three community representatives (from the previous IHAP). An Expression of Interest (EOI) process was undertaken by Council in 2018 to increase the pool of community representatives. These additional representatives were appointed to the PLPP in December 2018 bringing to total pool of community representatives to ten (10). Since appointment in December 2018, there have been several resignations from the LPP, and Council currently has a pool of seven (7) community representatives.

15. Under the EP&A Act, a member of the LPP may only be appointed for a period not exceeding three years and a member of the LPP can be a member of the LPP for up to six years in total. The initial 3-year term of appointment for the community representatives expired in December 2021.

16. At the Council meeting held on 27 September 2021 Council considered a report to reappoint the current seven community representatives for an additional term until 29 February 2024, to coincide with the end of the appointment for the current chair, alternate chairs and independent experts. This would also mean that the three original community representatives would have completed a 6-year period and the additional members a 5.5-year period.

17. At the 27 September 2021 Council meeting Council resolved:

(a) That Council reappoint the current community representative members (named in paragraph 20) of the Parramatta Local Planning Panel until 31 March 2022.

(b) Further, that appropriate actions to be taken to commence the recruitment and selection and appointment of community representatives immediately with a list of suitable applicants to be reported to the next term of Council.

18. An EOI was conducted for a period of six weeks from 8 November 2021 to 19 December 2021. The EOI was advertised via the following methods:

a. Council’s website – including a slider on the homepage

b. Social media – LinkedIn

c. Parramatta Business Newsletter – November edition

d. Participate Parramatta Newsletter – November edition

e. Email to existing PLPP community representatives

19. The following selection criteria were used for the EOI for recruiting community representatives:

a. A current resident of the City of Parramatta LGA or have significant ties to the LGA and community.

b. Knowledge and understanding of the LGA and issues of concern to the local community.

c. Capacity to form independent views and to contribute constructively to the PLPP.

d. Understanding of the planning system including Council’s local environmental plans, development control plans, local strategic planning statement and community strategic plan.

e. Commitment to following the Code of Conduct for Local Planning Panel Members and the Local Planning Panels Operational Procedures and attending local planning panel meetings and completing panel business in required timeframes.

20. Council is responsible to undertaking probity checks for community representatives. Each community representative will be subject to the following probity checks prior to being appointed to the PLPP:

a. ASIC banned and disqualified register check

b. ASIC enforceable undertaking register

c. Bankruptcy record check

d. National Police check (ACIC)

e. Political Donations

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

21. At the conclusion of the EOI period, 10 applications had been received. Of those applications, six were from current community representatives. The table below provides a breakdown of the number of applicants by ward.

WARD	NUMBER OF APPLICANTS
Dundas	4
Epping	1
North Rocks	3
Parramatta	1
Rosehill	1
TOTAL	10

22. Three Senior Council Officers (David Birds – Group Manager Major Projects & Precincts, Mark Leotta – Group Manager Development and Traffic Services and Kathleen Sales – Strategic Business Manager) have reviewed all the applications received and taken into consideration the relevant qualifications and experience of the applicants as well as their responses to the selection criteria used in the EOI process. A list of all eligible applicants and a brief description of their qualifications, skills, and experience as well as an assessment against each selection criteria is provided in Attachment 1 (confidential - as it contains personal information regarding the individual applicants). The assessment against the selection criteria for each applicant was based upon the quality and detail provided in the applicant’s response to the criteria.

23. The current Chair of the PLPP has also considered the applications and asked for his views. The Chair supports the retention of the six existing panel members who applied through the EOI process. Based upon his work with them as panel members over the past few years the Chair has no hesitation in suggestion all six be appointed to the PLPP for another term. Of the other applicants, the Chair only expressed reservations regarding one who appeared only lived in the local community for the past few years and did not have skills that would be directly relevant to reviewing development proposals. Unlike one of the other candidates who has skills in architecture and the built environment. One further examination of the applicants resume they have lived in the area for nearly 30 years however had a small period of time (6-months) during that 30 years in another state. On this basis all of the applicants are considered suitable for appointment to the panel.

24. All 10 applicants meet the selection criteria and are recommended to be appointed to the panel.

25. The Chair also expressed reservations about appointing more than five or six community representatives as they will only get one or two opportunities to serve on a panel in a 12-month period. However, the Chair acknowledged that the number of community representatives in the pool is a matter for Council to decide.

26. Community representatives are allocated to LPP on a rotating basis. Each year around 15 PLPP meetings are held comprising of the monthly panel meetings and additional ad-hoc meetings. With 10 community representatives, this means each would attend 1-2 LPP meetings per year. Appointing 10 community representatives provides flexibility for scheduling panel meetings, especially ad-hoc meetings, and means that if some members resign over the term of the appointment Council will still have sufficient members in the pool. In addition, as probity checks are yet to be undertaken this may prevent some of the recommended applicants from being appointed.

27. An EOI for new community representatives will need to be undertaken during mid-late 2023 so that new community representatives can be appointed at the same time the next chair, alternate chairs and independent experts are appointed to commence in March 2024.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
8 November 2021 to 19 December 2021	Community EOI	10 applications received	All applications suitable	City Planning & Design
16 February 2022	PLPP Chair	Refer to paragraphs 23 & 25	Feedback from chair considered in deciding recommendations for community representative appointment	City Planning & Design

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
9 March 2022	Standard briefing session prior to Council meeting	Report finalised prior to briefing session	Report finalised prior to briefing session	City Planning & Design

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

30. Under the EP&A Act Council is required to operate an LPP.

31. The EP&A Act requires Council to appoint representatives for the local community to the LPP.

32. If Council does not appoint community representatives, then Council will not have any community representatives for the PLPP and this will impact on Council’s ability to hold LPP meetings and ability to exercise functions under the EP&A Act for the determination of DAs and reporting requirements for PPs.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

33. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the recommendation, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget as the costs associated with the PLPP are already included in the budget

34. In relation to community representatives the following remuneration as stipulated in the Ministerial Direction would apply:

a. Community representatives – a minimum of $500 plus GST per meeting and $71 per hour for business that is undertaken outside of meetings.

b. If the person was a member of that panel immediately prior to 1 March 2018, their existing rate of remuneration,

Whichever is the higher.

35. The minimum per meeting rate is inclusive of all work a panel member does for a meeting, including preparation, site visits, the meeting itself and any deliberation and voting by the panel on matters considered at the meeting once the meeting has closed. All members are also entitled to their reasonable travel and out on pocket expenses.

36. As Council had existing panel members when additional members were appointed in December 2018 it was considered fair and equitable for all panel members to be remunerated at the same rate. Current community representatives of the PLPP are paid at the rate of $850 plus GST per meeting and $71 per hour for business undertaken outside of meetings.

37. 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.

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

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

Funding Source

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

Funding Source	Existing	Existing	Existing	Existing

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX

Kathleen Sales

Strategic Business Manager

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

Community Representative Applicants (confidential)

2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.3

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.3

SUBJECT Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 9 February 2022

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08385533

REPORT OF Traffic and Transport Manager

csp theme: ACCESSIBLE

workshop/briefing date: Nil

PURPOSE:

For Council to consider the minutes and approve the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 9 February 2022.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note the minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 9 February 2022, as provided at Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 9 February 2022 provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications for each item.

I. ITEM 2202 A1 JUNCTION ROAD, WINSTON HILLS – PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN REFUGE

The two proposed pedestrian refuge islands in Junction Road west of Bellotti Avenue and east of Ixion Street are to be delivered by The Hills Shire Council in 2021/22, subject to the availability of funding from TfNSW. Accordingly, there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget from the construction.

II. ITEM 2202 A2 Avenue of Oceania – Proposed Combined Raised Pedestrian and Cyclists Crossing

The estimated cost for constructing a new combined raised pedestrian and cyclists crossing in Avenue of Oceania at Louise Sauvage Pathway, Newington is $240,000. This project has received funding of $18,000 from Council’s Active Transport Program to undertake detailed design in 2021/22.

There is currently no funding available for construction of this project. However, consideration will be given to fund construction of this project in 2022/23. Possible sources of funding could be through NSW Government’s Active Transport Program or Council’s Active Transport Program in 2022/23.

III. ITEM 2202 A3 Ward Street, Epping – Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing

The estimated cost to construct a new raised pedestrian crossing in Ward Street, Epping is $280,000. This project has received 100% funding from the Federal Government Stimulus Commitments on Road Safety Program (School Zone Infrastructure). Accordingly, there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget.

It is to be noted that Schools Infrastructure NSW (SINSW) will fund the construction of a footpath on the east side of Ward Street (opposite school) from Carlingford Road to Lilli Pilli Street in accordance with the conditions of consent for the State Significant Development Approval for the upgrade of Epping West Public School. This work will be undertaken separately from this pedestrian crossing project and there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget.

IV. ITEM 2202 A4 Hill Road, Wentworth Point – Proposed Pedestrian Refuge Islands

Council has allocated a total of $310,000 in 2021/22 for the Hill Road Master Plan including short-term pedestrian safety works in Hill Road. From this, $108,000 has been spent on footpath works and the lighting masterplan as well as other commitments. The remaining funds within this budget are proposed to be used on the proposed pedestrian refuge islands. Should these funds be insufficient to deliver all three facilities, Place Management will consult with the Rosehill Ward Councillors regarding the prioritisation of the project prior to commencement of construction.

V. ITEM 2202 A5 Rembrandt Street, Carlingford – Proposal to install raised pedestrian crossing

This report was withdrawn for a site meeting to be held between Ward Councillors and staff to discuss the proposal. Accordingly, there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget at this stage.

VI. ITEM 2202 A6 Orchard Road at Plympton Road, Beecroft – Proposal to install raised pedestrian crossing

The estimated cost for constructing a new raised pedestrian crossing in Orchard Road north of Plympton Road, Beecroft is $250,000. This project has received funding of $18,750 from Council’s Active Transport Program to undertake detailed design in 2021/22.

VII. ITEM 2202 A7 Alamein Avenue west of Bardia Road, Carlingford – Raised Pedestrian Crossing

The estimated cost for installing a new Raised Pedestrian Crossing located in Alamein Avenue west of Bardia Road, Carlingford is $240,000. This project has received funding of $18,000 from Council’s Active Transport Program to undertake detailed design in 2021/22. Funding is currently not available for construction. However, Council staff are exploring funding opportunities so that this project can be delivered in the 2022/23 financial year.

VIII. ITEM 2202 A8 Carter Street, Birnie Avenue and M4 Motorway Corridor, Lidcombe – Proposed SepArated Bike Paths, Shared Paths, Cyclist Bridges, Turning Bay, and Pedestrians and Cyclist Facilities - Update

The total estimated cost of construction and design of this project including pedestrian and cyclist bridges is $14,063,704. Of the total cost, $5,000,000 is to be funded through a grant received from Department of Planning’s Precinct Support Scheme (PSS) and $3,463,997 from the Developer Contributions Plan. The remaining balance of $5,599,707 would be required to be funded from other sources. Note that an application will be lodged with TfNSW to fund this project through the Active Transport Program for construction. It is intended to commence construction when the funding for the entire project becomes available.

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The most recent meeting of the Parramatta Traffic Committee was held on 9 February 2022. The Councillors that attended the meeting were: Deputy Lord Mayor Cllr Pandey, Cllr Humphries, Cllr Valjak, Cllr Green, Cllr Noack and Cllr Prociv. The minutes of that meeting and the reports to that meeting are Attachments 1 and 2 of this report.

5. The recommendations from the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting are provided below:

ITEM NO.

2202 A1 Junction Road, Winston Hills – Proposed pedestrian refuge islands

1. That a pedestrian refuge island with associated signs and linemarking be installed in Junction Road immediately east of Ixion Street, Winston Hills as shown in Figure 2 of the report.

2. That a pedestrian refuge island with associated signs and linemarking be installed in Junction Road immediately west of Bellotti Avenue, Winston Hills as shown in Figure 3 of the report.

3. That recommendations 1 and 2 are subject to the below:

3.1. PS2 bicycle logos be installed on the westbound approaches of the two pedestrian refuge islands in Junction Road, Winston Hills.

3.2. The Hills Shire Council being requested to install PS2 bicycle logos on the eastbound approaches to the two pedestrian refuge islands in Junction Road, Winston Hills.

3.3. The work being at no cost to City of Parramatta Council.

Unanimous support.

2202 A2 Avenue of Oceania – Proposed Combined Raised Pedestrian and Cyclists Crossing

1. That Council approve the construction of a new combined raised pedestrian and cyclists crossing with associated signs and linemarking in Avenue of Oceania at Louise Sauvage Pathway, Newington as shown in Figure 1 of this report.

2. That detailed design plans for the combined raised pedestrian and cyclists crossing in Avenue of Oceania, Newington as referred in recommendation 1 be submitted to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for approval prior to commencement of construction.

3. That recommendation 1 above is subject to funding being available.

Unanimous support

2202 A3 Ward Street, Epping – Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing

1. That Council approve the construction of a new raised pedestrian crossing with associated signs and linemarking in Ward Street, Epping near the proposed new main entrance to Epping West Public School as shown in Figure 1 of this report.

2. That Council approve the removal of the existing kerb extension located on the west side of Ward Street north of Carlingford Road, Epping as shown in Figure 1 of this report.

3. That Council approve the rearrangements of the existing school peak period ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Parking’ restrictions located on the west side of Ward Street north of Carlingford Road, Epping as shown in Figure 1 of this report.

4. That detailed design plans for the raised pedestrian crossing in Ward Street, Epping, as referred in recommendations 1 above, be submitted to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for approval prior to commencement of construction.

Unanimous support

2202 A4 Hill Road, Wentworth Point – Proposed Pedestrian Refuge Islands

1. That Council approve construction of a pedestrian refuge island within the painted median island in Hill Road north of Verona Drive, Wentworth Point as shown in the concept design plan attached to the report.

2. That Council approve construction of a pedestrian refuge island within the painted median island in Hill Road north of Half Street, Wentworth Point as shown in the concept design plan attached to the report.

3. That Council approve reconstruction of the existing landscaped median island in Baywater Road at Hill Road, Wentworth Point to provide a new pedestrian refuge island as shown in the concept design plan attached to the report.

4. That kerb extension be installed in Half Street at Hill Road, Wentworth Point as shown in the concept design plan attached to the report.

5. That detailed design plans for the pedestrian refuge islands in Hill Road and Baywater Road and kerb extensions in Half Street, Wentworth Point as referred in recommendations 1 to 4 above be submitted to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for approval prior to commencement of construction.

6. That recommendations 1 to 4 above are subject to funding being available.

Unanimous support

2202 A5 Rembrandt Street, Carlingford – Proposal to install raised pedestrian crossing

That this report be withdrawn for a site meeting to be held between Ward Councilors and staff to discuss the proposal.

Unanimous support

2202 A6 Orchard Road at Plympton Road, Beecroft – Proposal to install raised pedestrian crossing

1. That a raised pedestrian crossing with associated signs and pavement markings be installed on Orchard Road north of North Rocks Road and Plympton Road, Beecroft as shown in the plan attached to the report.

2. That recommendation 1 is subject to the detailed design of the raised pedestrian crossing in Orchard Road, Beecroft as referred in recommendations 1 above being submitted to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for approval prior to commencement of construction.

3. That recommendation 1 above is subject to funding being available.

Unanimous support

2202 A7 Alamein Avenue west of Bardia Road, Carlingford – Raised Pedestrian Crossing

1. That a new raised pedestrian crossing located in Alamein Avenue west of Bardia Road, Carlingford be installed as shown in the plan attached to the report.

2. That recommendation 1 is subject to the detailed design of the raised pedestrian crossing being approved by the Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) prior to the commencement of construction.

3. That the construction of the project is subject to the following:

3.1. The ‘No Stopping’ restrictions being provided in accordance with design requirements and that residents be advised of any changes.

3.2. Funding being available.

4. That Council note that the project is currently unfunded; however, consideration is currently being given to funding the project in 2022/23.

Unanimous support

2202 A8 Carter Street, Birnie Avenue and M4 Motorway Corridor, Lidcombe – Proposed SepArated Bike Paths, Shared Paths, Cyclist Bridges, Turning Bay, and Pedestrians and Cyclist Facilities – Update

1. That Council approve the construction of a separated bike path and shared path on the southern side of Carter Street, Lidcombe as shown on the plan attached to the report.

2. That Council approve in principle the construction of shared pedestrian and cyclist bridges over Haslams Creek and Hill Road with associated shared paths in the M4 corridor, Lidcombe noting that the bridges require a detailed design and an environmental assessment to be undertaken.

3. That Council approve the construction of a shared path on the western side of Birnie Avenue between Carter Street and Edwin Flack Avenue, Lidcombe.

4. That Council approve the construction of a pedestrian and cyclist refuge island in Carter Street at Birnie Avenue, Lidcombe as shown on the plan attached to the report.

5. That Council approve the construction of a right turn bay in Carter Street (westbound) for motorists turning into Uhrig Road as shown on the plan attached to the report.

6. That Council note that installation of any required turn restrictions identified during the detailed design are to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days before referring them to the Parramatta Traffic Committee and Council for approval. It is to be noted that Traffic Management Plans (TMP) for the turn restrictions are to be approved by TfNSW prior to the installation of the restriction.

7. That recommendations 1 to 5 are subject to the funding being available for the entire project and the detailed design of the proposed works including sign and linemarking plans being approved by Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) prior to the commencement of construction.

Unanimous support

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

6. Details of the consultation undertaken with the Community, Agencies and Councillors for each item, are included in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

7. There

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

9. The financial comments for each item are provided below:

Item No.
2202 A1	The proposed two Pedestrian Refuge Islands in Junction Road west of Bellotti Avenue and east of Ixion Street are to be delivered by The Hills Shire Council in 2021/22, subject to the availability of funding from TfNSW. Accordingly, there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget from the construction.
2202 A2	The estimated cost for constructing a new combined raised pedestrian and cyclists crossing in Avenue of Oceania at Louise Sauvage Pathway, Newington is $240,000. This project has received funding of $18,000 from Council’s Active Transport Program to undertake detailed design in 2021/22. There is currently no funding available for construction of this project. However, consideration will be given to fund construction of this project in 2022/23. Possible sources of funding could be through NSW Government’s Active Transport Program or Council’s Active Transport Program in 2022/23.
2202 A3	The estimated cost to construct a new raised pedestrian crossing in Ward Street, Epping is $280,000. This project has received 100% funding from the Federal Government Stimulus Commitments on Road Safety Program (School Zone Infrastructure). Accordingly, there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget. It is to be noted that State Infrastructure NSW (SINSW) will fund the construction of a footpath on the east side of Ward Street (opposite school) from Carlingford Road to Lilli Pilli Street in accordance with the conditions of consent for the State Significant Development Approval for the upgrade of Epping West Public School. This work will be undertaken separately from this pedestrian crossing project and there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget.
2202 A4	Council has allocated a total of $310,000 in 2021/22 for the Hill Road Master Plan including short-term pedestrian safety works in Hill Road. From this, $108,000 has been spent on footpath works and the lighting masterplan as well as other commitments. The remaining funds within this budget are proposed to be used on the proposed pedestrian refuge islands. Should these funds be insufficient to deliver all three facilities, Place Management will consult with the Rosehill Ward Councillors regarding the prioritisation of the project prior to commencement of construction.
2202 A5	Item deferred
2202 A6	The estimated cost for constructing a new raised pedestrian crossing in Orchard Road north of Plympton Road, Beecroft is $250,000. This project has received funding of $18,750 from Council’s Active Transport Program to undertake detailed design in 2021/22. There is currently no funding available for construction of this project. However, consideration will be given to fund construction of this project in 2022/23. Possible sources of funding could be through NSW Government’s Active Transport Program or Council’s Active Transport Program in 2022/23.
2202 A7	The estimated cost for installing a new Raised Pedestrian Crossing located in Alamein Avenue west of Bardia Road, Carlingford is $240,000. This project has received funding of $18,000 from Council’s Active Transport Program to undertake detailed design in 2021/22. Funding is currently not available for construction. However, Council staff are exploring funding opportunities so that these projects can be delivered in the 2022/23 financial year.
2202 A8	The total estimated cost of construction and design of this project including pedestrian and cyclist bridges is $14,063,704. Of the total cost, $5,000,000 is to be funded through a grant received from Department of Planning’s Precinct Support Scheme (PSS) and $3,463,997 from the Developer Contributions Plan. The remaining balance of $5,599,707 would be required to be funded from other sources. Note that an application will be lodged to TfNSW to fund this project through the Active Transport Program for construction. It is intended to commence construction when the funding for the entire project becomes available.

10. There will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget from projects that are to be delivered by external organisations.

11. For unfunded projects, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget as funding options are being investigated separately and approvals will be sought through the appropriate process.

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

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

Funding Source

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

CONCLUSION

13. Council officers recommend that the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 9 February 2022 be approved by Council.

Richard Searle

Traffic and Transport Manager

Mark Leotta

Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	PTC 2202 Minutes for the PTC meeting held on 9 February 2022	11 Pages
2 ⇩	PTC 2202 Agenda for the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 9 February 2022	105 Pages
3 ⇩	PTC 2202 Consultation and Timing for Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 9 February 2022	11 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.4

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

SUBJECT Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2022

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08385546

REPORT OF Traffic and Transport Manager

csp theme: ACCESSIBLE

workshop/briefing date: Nil

PURPOSE:

That Council consider the minutes and approve the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group at the meeting held on 9 February 2022.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note the minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2022, provided at Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2022 provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications for each item.

I. ITEM 2110 B1 REVIEW OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARLINGFORD ROAD AND HEPBURN AVENUE, EPPING

This report provides a response to a local resident and Epping Civic Trust regarding the request to relocate the proposed traffic signals from Carlingford Road/Hepburn Avenue to Carlingford Road/Pennant Parade, Epping. Therefore, this matter has no financial impact upon Council's budget. This project has been included in the list of projects to be funded by Developer Contributions.

II. ITEM 2202 B2 GIBSON ROAD AND MORTON STREET, PARRAMATTA – REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING

This report does not recommend any changes in Morton Street and Gibson Road, Parramatta. Therefore, this matter has no financial impact upon Council’s budget.

III. ITEM 2202 B3 EAT STREET CAR PARK, PARRAMATTA CBD – REVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING

This report recommends that further investigations be undertaken to increase the height clearances and number of accessible parking spaces in Eat Street Car Park. This report also provides an update on Westfield Parramatta’s progress in providing accessible parking information on their website and Council’s progress in preparing an information package on accessible parking spaces in Parramatta CBD. These recommendations will only involve staff time and the cost will be covered under existing employee budgets.

IV. ITEM 2202 B4 KENWORTHY STREET, DUNDAS – REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN CONDITION

There are no changes proposed in Kenworthy Street, Dundas. Accordingly, there are no financial implications to Council’s budget.

V. ITEM 2202 B5 NORTH ROCKS PARK DRIVEWAY ON FARNELL AVENUE, CARLINGFORD – PETITION TO REOPEN GATE

That the report on access for North Rocks Park be deferred for a site meeting with Ward Councillors and Council staff to review traffic conditions in this location.

VI. ITEM 2202 B6 CITY OF PARRAMATTA TfNSW CRASH STATISTICS JANUARY 2016 TO DECEMBER 2020

This report has no financial impact upon Council's budget.

VII. PROJECTS RECENTLY COMPLETED, PROJECTS CURRENTLY FUNDED, AND PROJECTS LISTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE FUNDING

This report has no financial impact upon Council's budget.

VIII. OUTSTANDING WORKS INSTRUCTIONS

Transport for NSW Block Grant funds for 2021/22 have been used for these works.

IX. BOLD STREET, GRANVILLE – REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS

Transport for NSW Block Grant funds for 2021/22 will be used to undertake the requested works.

BACKGROUND

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

2. The most recent meeting of the TEAG was held on 9 February 2022. The Councillors that attended the meeting were: Deputy Lord Mayor Cllr Pandey, Cllr Humphries, Cllr Valjak, Cllr Green, Cllr Noack, and Cllr Prociv. The minutes of that meeting and the reports to that meeting are Attachments 1 and 2 of this report.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The recommendations from the TEAG meeting are provided below:

ITEM NO.

2202 B1 REVIEW OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARLINGFORD ROAD AND HEPBURN AVENUE, EPPING

That Council note that the intersection of Carlingford Road and Hepburn Avenue, Epping is the preferred location for the new proposed traffic signals and that this is supported by Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

Unanimous support

2202 B2 GIBSON ROAD AND MORTON STREET, PARRAMATTA – REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING

That the installation of speed cushions in Morton Street and Gibson Road, Parramatta not be supported due to it being a low priority, not having a funding source, and not having demonstrated community support.

Unanimous support.

2202 B3 EAT STREET CAR PARK, PARRAMATTA CBD – REVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING

1. That Council note that further investigations are underway to investigate future opportunities to increase the height clearance and number of accessible parking spaces in Eat Street Car Park.

2. That Council note that Westfield Parramatta is currently working on updating its website to include information related to accessible car parking spaces on the roof of its car park including the clearance available to access this area.

3. That Council investigate whether accessible car parking can be provided at the lower ground level of the Parramatta Station car park in Wentworth Street, Parramatta.

4. That Council undertake surveys to determine the demand for accessible car parking in Eat Street car park.

5. That this report be referred to the Access Committee for feedback.

6. That a report be provided in the future Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting providing an update on accessible parking in multi-level car parks.

Unanimous support.

2202 B4 KENWORTHY STREET, DUNDAS – REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS

That Council not proceed with the project to replace the existing children’s crossing in Kenworthy Street, Dundas with a raised pedestrian crossing.

Unanimous support.

2202 B5 NORTH ROCKS PARK DRIVEWAY ON FARNELL AVENUE, CARLINGFORD – PETITION TO REOPEN GATE

That the report on access for North Rocks Park be deferred for a site meeting with Ward Councillors and Council staff to review traffic conditions in this location.

Unanimous support.

2202 B6 CITY OF PARRAMATTA TfNSW CRASH STATISTICS JANUARY 2016 TO DECEMBER 2020

That the information on TfNSW crash statistics for the City of Parramatta Council Local Government Area relating to the 5 year reporting period from January 2016 to December 2020 be received and noted.

Unanimous support.

2202 B7 PROJECTS RECENTLY COMPLETED, PROJECTS CURRENTLY FUNDED, AND PROJECTS LISTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE FUNDING

1. That Council note that three traffic projects have been completed by Council in December 2021.

2. That the information regarding progress on currently funded projects be received and noted.

3. That the Projects Lists for proposed traffic works be received and noted.

Unanimous support.

2202 B8 OUTSTANDING WORKS INSTRUCTIONS

That the information in relation to outstanding Works Instructions over the 3-month period between August and October 2021 be received and noted.

Unanimous support.

2202 B9 Bold Street, Granville – Request for maintenance of Pavement markings

That the existing faded pavement markings in Bold Street, Granville be remarked.

Unanimous support.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

4. Details of the consultation undertaken with the Community and Councillors for each of the items considered at the meeting, including the response for each item, are included in Attachment 3.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

5. There are no legal implications for Council associated with any of the items in this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

6. The financial comments for each item are provided below.

Item No.
2202 B1	This report provides a response to a local resident and Epping Civic Trust regarding the request to relocate the proposed traffic signals from Carlingford Road/Hepburn Avenue to Carlingford Road/Pennant Parade, Epping. Therefore, this matter has no financial impact upon Council's budget. This project has been included in the list of projects to be funded by Developer Contributions.
2202 B2	This report does not recommend any changes in Morton Street and Gibson Road, Parramatta. Therefore, this matter has no financial impact upon Council’s budget.
2202 B3	This report recommends that further investigations be undertaken to increase the height clearances and number of accessible parking spaces in Eat Street Car Park. This report also provides an update on Westfield Parramatta’s progress in providing accessible parking information on their website and Council’s progress in preparing an information package on accessible parking spaces in Parramatta CBD. These recommendations will only involve staff time and the cost will be covered under existing employee budgets. Accordingly, there are no financial implications to Council’s budget.
2202 B4	There are no changes proposed in Kenworthy Street, Dundas. Accordingly, there are no financial implications to Council’s budget
2202 B5	That the report on access for North Rocks Park be deferred for a site meeting with Ward Councillors and Council staff to review traffic conditions near North Rocks Park. Accordingly, there are no financial implications to Council’s budget.
2202 B6	This report has no financial impact on Council's budget.
2202 B7	This report has no financial impact on Council's budget.
2202 B8	Transport for NSW Block Grant funds for 2021/22 have been used for these works.
2202 B9	Transport for NSW Block Grant funds for 2021/22 are to be used to undertake the requested works.

7. The table below summaries the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.

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

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

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

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

CONCLUSION

8. Council officers recommend that the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2022 be adopted by Council.

Richard Searle

Traffic and Transport Manager

Mark Leotta

Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	TEAG 2202 Minutes for the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2022	8 Pages
2 ⇩	TEAG 2202 Agenda for the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2022	83 Pages
3 ⇩	TEAG 2202 Consultation and Timing for the Traffic and Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 9 February 2022	12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.5

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.5

SUBJECT Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08385527

REPORT OF Recreation Planner

csp theme: FAIR

workshop/briefing date: 16 February 2022

PURPOSE:

To report to Council the feedback received from the public exhibition of the Draft Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan, to note the changes resulting from the public exhibition and to recommend the final Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan (SSAP) at Attachment 1, noting that it commits Council to pursuing, on its own or in partnership with others, the following over the next 20 years:

1 Increase the practical capacity of Council’s sportsground network by 51 sporting fields through:

i. improving maintenance and upgrade existing sportsground facilities to increase capacity;

ii. considering the role of natural turf, hybrid and synthetic surface technology to increase field carrying capacity;

iii. delivering new sportsground facilities;

iv. increasing community access to sporting fields not owned by Council; and

v. implementing efficient management processes to support and maximise the use of sportsground facilities.

2 Apply the recommendations of the SSAP in negotiations of future voluntary planning agreements that include sportsground facilities.

3 Incorporate projects identified in the SSAP into the delivery of the contributions plan and subsequent updates.

4 Apply the recommendations of the SSAP in seeking grant and funding opportunities for sportsground facilities.

5 Apply the recommendations of the SSAP in preparing operational and capital works budgets for the short, medium, and long-term.

6 Further, that all those who provided submissions during the public exhibition period be advised of Council’s decision and thanked for their contribution to the development of the SSAP.

BACKGROUND

1. Council prepared a draft Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan (SSAP). The purpose of this Strategy is to provide a detailed roadmap for the provision of the City of Parramatta Council’s sportsground network to meet existing and future community needs. The development of this document has occurred as part of Focus Area 1.3.1.1 in the Delivery Program and Operation Plan 2018-2021.

2. On 26 July 2021, Council endorsed the draft SSAP for a round of community consultation.

3. The draft SSAP was exhibited for a 6-week period from the 1 September 2021 to 13 October 2021. During this time, the community (residents, workers, visitors, interest groups, sporting organisations, associations and clubs, non-government and non-profit organisations, state government and others) were able to comment on the draft SSAP.

4. A number of consultation mechanisms were utilised to extend the reach of the strategy. These included social media posts, email newsletters, online webinar, stakeholder interviews and throughout the duration of the exhibition period, a range of options were provided for the community to return feedback on the draft strategies. For the draft SSAP, the mechanisms utilised are detailed in Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan Engagement Report at Attachment 2.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. The revised SSAP reflects changes as a result of the public exhibition period. Of particular note are changes to the second focus area to increase capacity of fields through consideration of natural turf, hybrid and synthetic surface technologies. This refocus is supported by the existing actions to follow rigorous business case processes for each site identified for potential capacity increases. This business case process will benefit from the latest information available at that time, including, but not limited to, the imminent release of the NSW State Government guidelines from the Synthetic Turf Study in Public Open Space report.

6. Other changes made as a result of the exhibition period are noted in the table below.

Pages(s)	Key theme/ issue	Change/ addition
26-27	Innovative and new approaches to infrastructure provision	Reiterating research into infrastructure provision developed as part of Council’s CIS which inform priority areas and principles of the SSAP
34	Valuing our green spaces – social and financial return on investment	Calculated the value of the SSAP as requested by Western Sydney Local Health District
39	How we developed the draft SSAP	Updated to reflect timeline
40-41	Community engagement	New page highlighting trends found throughout the engagement period of the draft SSAP
50	Synthetic sporting fields	Change to focus area B to consider the role of natural, hybrid and synthetic turf, along with the outcome of the NSW Government Synthetic Turf Study in Public Open Space Report and subsequent guidelines. Draft SSAP: Install strategically located synthetic sporting fields to increase capacity and take demand off turf sporting fields. Final SSAP: Consider the role of natural, hybrid and synthetic turf surface technology to increase field carrying capacity.
51	Process undertaken for delivering actions within the plan	New page elaborating on what the business case process might look like for an action or project and that it includes community consultation as part of this process
53	A1 action for Barton Park	Changed to: Upgrade field to improve drainage and remove the reference to creating an additional field.
59-61	Consider the role of natural, hybrid and synthetic turf surface technology to increase field carrying capacity	Changes to section which reflect revised priority area B: • Defining turf, hybrid and synthetic innovations • Referencing NSW Government Synthetic Turf Study • Updated language to reflect that Council will consider turf innovations in increasing the practical capacity of its sportsground network
68	Increase community access to sporting fields not owned by Council	Added: safety and security to framework as requested by School Infrastructure NSW
78	Review of SSAP	Addition of paragraph detailing how often document will be reviewed in response to achieving actions and new opportunities and constraints

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. Overall, the opportunity to provide feedback for this project was presented to an estimated 119,179 persons, culminating in 2,568 engagements with the information and 62 formal contributions.

8. Emails were sent inviting feedback to a list of stakeholders:

· Sporting clubs and associations who are current hirers of sportsground facilities this covered approximately 104 contacts across 44 clubs/ associations.

· Peak sporting organisations including, AFL NSW, Football NSW, Volleyball NSW, Baseball NSW, Cricket NSW, Little Athletics NSW, Touch Football NSW, Hockey NSW, Softball NSW, NSW Rugby League, and NSW Rugby Union.

· Other stakeholders including, Department of Education, Western Sydney Parklands Trust, Office of Sport, Sydney Olympic Park Authority, Western Sydney Academy of Sport, and Western Sydney Local Health District.

Submissions

9. Thirteen submissions were received from residents, sporting organisations, interest groups and a government agency. The key themes raised related to the following:

a. General support for the SSAP and its approach and recommendations;

b. Concern with recommendations for Barton Park;

c. Confirmation of the need for additional sportsground facilities that are required to meet the future population’s needs;

d. Concerns about past or current inequitable resourcing and distribution of sportsground facilities;

e. Consideration of a variety of sports and activities being available for the community to participate in and that there are different infrastructure requirements/ preferences for these;

f. General support for best practice in the delivery of sportsground facilities including multi-purpose facilities, universal-design considerations, and private/ public partnerships;

g. Comments that collaboration across sport, community and government is more important than ever in ensuring investment has a whole of life and whole of community benefit; and

h. A mix of views from some stakeholders that support the delivery of synthetic facilities, to others who had concerns regarding synthetics to some extent, including those that raised concerns for the environmental and heat impacts.

Community survey

10. Of the 45 responses received via the community survey, the key themes and issues raised were as follows:

a. Sportsgrounds are highly valued by the community and need to be available for not only organised sport but informal sport and recreation;

b. There is low current and future provision for sportsgrounds in high growth areas like Epping and Wentworth Point;

c. Parking is important for residents and sporting groups in the development of sportsground facilities;

d. The need to ensure that the delivery of sportsground facilities keeps pace with the level of residential development;

e. That some sportsground facilities were underutilised, and in need of refurbishment, or both; and

f. The view that sportsgrounds are not to be considered in isolation and that plans for other sport/ recreation and open space facilities is crucial.

11. Parramatta Little Athletics Centre (PLAC), supported by Little Athletics NSW (LANSW), provided feedback regarding action A1 of the draft SSAP. The key concerns from the organisations were regarding the investigation into the addition of one full-size sporting field within the existing athletics track and the negative impacts that this would have on the use of Barton Park by PLAC and its functionality as an athletics venue.

12. The SSAP commits to a review every 5-years and, therefore, the ‘investigate full-size field’ component can be revisited should changes in demand be identified through detailed strategic work, analysis and consultation.

13. The following stakeholder contribution has led to changes in the revised SSAP:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
All submissions	As detailed in Paragraphs 7-11 of this report	Data on participation, responses and submissions	Report updated with details of engagement	Strategic Recreation Planner
Formal submissions	Various	Comments on value of strategic context	Further information added about innovative approaches to infrastructure provision identified in the Community Infrastructure Strategy	Strategic Recreation Planner
Formal submission	Western Sydney Local Health District	Apply the ROI from Valuing Our Green Spaces to the SSAP’s proposed investment	Calculation applied and added to the relevant section of the SSAP	Strategic Recreation Planner
Via Webinar/ Formal Submission and Stakeholder Meeting	Parramatta Little Athletics Centre (PLAC) supported by Little Athletics NSW (LANSW)	Strongly oppose the A1 action for Barton Park: · Prepare a concept plan to investigate one full-size sporting field retaining athletics functions · Relocate throwing cages and extend gate for athletics’ straight along southern track	Remove the ‘investigate full-size field’ component from the action. Revisit at 5-year review if demand requires it.	Strategic Recreation Planner
Formal submission	School Infrastructure NSW	Safety and security should be added as considerations in the utilisation of fields not owned by Council	SSAP updated to include suggestion.	Strategic Recreation Planner
Survey responses	Various	Clarity sought on review process	Details added on review process as actions are achieved or in response to constraints and opportunities	Strategic Recreation Planner

14. The key areas stakeholders and the community would like further information and planning on (outside of the SSAP):

a. Information and engagement on each project action listed within the plan when it commences, including details on the feasibility and business case process;

b. Identification of additional sportsgrounds (and other facilities/ open space) in areas with low provision and high growth planned for example through acquisition and/or precinct planning with State Government;

c. Further detailed planning for sport and recreation facilities and open spaces in conjunction with sportsground facilities for example indoor recreation facilities, walking tracks, parks and bushland; and

d. Further detailed planning for the number and type of sport and recreation facilities required to meet future population needs, for example, the number of basketball courts and/ or the number of rugby league fields.

Councillor Consultation

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

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

16/2/2022

Councillor workshop

Concern for priority area b ‘Install strategically located synthetic sporting fields to increase capacity and take demand of turf sporting fields’ following the NSW Government’s Synthetic Turf in Public Open Space Study Report

Change to priority area B to align with NSW Government Synthetic Turf Study in Public Open Space Report and subsequent guidelines

‘Consider the role of natural, hybrid and synthetic turf surface technology to increase field carrying capacity’

More detail also added on business case process.

Councillor Workshop to be held on the latest in natural, hybrid and synthetic turf surface technologies.

Strategic Recreation Planner

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

17. The SSAP provides guidance to Council to more efficiently link expenditure to identified community need in alignment with Council’s Vision and Priorities. The SSAP will be a tool for Council when negotiating funding for essential sportsground facility provision. Council’s Land Use Planning team will use the strategy as a guide for public benefit contributions and review of sportsground provision within planning proposals, master planning and precinct renewal programs. The majority of SSAP projects are linked to updated contribution plans that are designed to ensure that Council effectively plans for infrastructure to meet population growth.

18. The SSAP works program contains sportsground infrastructure projects estimated to cost approximately $148 million over 20 years from 2021 to 2041. It should be noted that the SSAP is a guiding document to be implemented progressively over a 20-year period, as funding becomes available and developer contributions are collected. Funding sources have been identified of $107 million in capital costs, leaving $41 million to be funded through external grants, partnerships and future resourcing strategies. This is equivalent to $2.05 million per year over the period of the SSAP.

19. It is noted that the SSAP will result in higher operational revenue and maintenance costs. These costs are estimated to be approximately $34 million in revenue over 20 years (approximately $1.7 million per year) and $28 million in maintenance expenditure (approximately $1.4 million per year).

20. The total funding gap (including both capital and operational) is provided at Table 1.

Table 1: Funding Gap

Total infrastructure capital costs (20 years)	$148M
Identified funding sources (Council’s long term financial plan, Draft Contributions Plan, grants)	$107M
Infrastructure funding gap	$41M
- Estimated revenue (from hire fees)	($34M)
+ Operational and maintenance costs	$28M
Infrastructure funding gap (all income and operational costs)	$35M ($1.75M/year)

21. Council’s co-contribution could be reduced over time through the following mechanisms:

a. Explore state and federal government grants, for example, between 2019-2021, Council received on average $2.7 million p/a in grants for capital works for sports facility projects;

b. Voluntary planning agreements providing additional funds or works in-kind to deliver infrastructure. For example, delivery of new open space, as part of development within the LGA’s high growth precincts; and

c. For projects that provide access to sportsgrounds not owned by Council, it is recommended that funding partnerships will need to be delivered once a Joint Partnership Agreement has been finalised and signed.

22. The SSAP identifies priorities and timeframes for delivery of the infrastructure items in the works program. Council’s annual review of available funding can also assist in determining how it prioritises delivery of capital works, including those works identified in the SSAP. This will assist with the allocation of contributions income and other funding that becomes available during the life of the SSAP, against the needs of the new population.

23. The SSAP will be reviewed every five years, to ensure that it reflects updated infrastructure demand analysis and costs, reviews funding received, considers Council’s capital works plan and identifies new opportunities and constraints.

24. There are no immediate financial impacts arising from the approval of this report. Identified actions within the report will be included in the ordinary budget setting and approval process.

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

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

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

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Megan Ryan

Strategic Recreation Planner

Gregory Radford

Recreation Facilities & Programs Manager

David Moutou

Group Manager Social and Community Services

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jon Greig

Executive Director Community Services

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1⇩	Revised Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan	80 Pages
2⇩	Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan Engagement Report	31 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.6

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.6

SUBJECT Dunlop Street Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths, Epping

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08401181

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Transport Planning

CSP THEME: ACCESSIBLE

briefing date: 28 January 2022: Epping Ward Councillor Briefing

9 March 2022

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement of the next steps for the Dunlop Street Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths in Epping.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note the feedback from the community consultation documented at Attachment 1.

(b) That Council approve the reduced scope of works to support walking and cycling to the new Epping South Public School, as set out below and at Attachment 2 for submission to the Parramatta Traffic Committee for consideration:

1 Install a shared path with separate footpath on the northern verge of Dunlop Street between Hermington Street and Neil Street, and the eastern verge of First Avenue between Dunlop Street and Grimes Lane, Epping.

2 Install a shared path on the northern verge of Dunlop Street between Neil Street and Ryde Street, and western verge of Ryde Street between Wyralla Avenue and Dunlop Street.

3 Install raised pedestrian and cyclist crossings of Neil Street and Park Street at Dunlop Street, and Dunlop Street at First Avenue, Epping.

4 Install a kerb buildout on the western side of Ryde Street at Wyralla Avenue, Epping.

(c) That subject to approval by the Parramatta Traffic Committee, an application be made to external grant bodies to fund construction of the project.

(d) Further, that all submission authors and petitioners be advised of Council’s decision.

BACKGROUND

1. On 27 September 2021 Council considered draft plans for the Dunlop Street and George Street Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths at Figure 1 and resolved:

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

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

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

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

Figure 1: Location of proposed Dunlop Street Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths shown in dashed red. Existing Epping to Carlingford on road route (in blue), School (shaded blue).

2. In line with Council’s resolution, letters were sent to local residents and businesses on 7 October 2021 inviting submissions on the proposal within 28 days. The consultation area is shown in Figure 2. On 12 October 2021, the proposal was also advertised in the local newspaper in accordance with the Roads Act 1993 and on Council’s website. “Phone a planner” sessions and remote meetings were also offered.

Figure 2: Dunlop Street Paths distribution area within Epping Ward.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The new Epping South Primary School has been approved by the Department of Planning and Environment for 600 Kindergarten to Year 6 students and 38 staff for Stage 1, and up to 1,000 students and 54 staff by Stage 3. If all students were dropped off with a private vehicle there would have significant adverse impacts to the surrounding road network and neighbourhood. By providing direct, convenient and safe paths to the school gate, students will have a healthy and pleasant alternative for their trip to and from school.

4. In addition, during earlier consultation in 2019 and 2020 on the broader Epping to Carlingford Cycling Link that was reported to Council 11 May 2020 it was identified that Dunlop Street and Ryde Street carried a higher number of vehicles compared to other on-road sections in the link. There is a small portion of the community who are comfortable riding with vehicles no matter how busy the street. However, through international research it has been identified that two-thirds of the community are “interested but concerned” about cycling, and the key factor is safety. This is the reason off road pathways are pursued on Dunlop and Ryde Streets. A link to the 11 May 2020 Council Report is provided here: Council Report Agenda of Council – 11 May 2020 (nsw.gov.au) and Council Resolution Minutes of Council – 11 May 2020 (nsw.gov.au),

5. The delivery of a new school elevates the need for this off-road infrastructure on these two streets to ensure that primary school students and their parents would feel safe and comfortable riding to and from school.

6. During public exhibition, significant challenges managing large stormwater events were uncovered on Dunlop Street, east of Ryde Street. Widening the existing footpath into a shared path would exacerbate these existing issues with adverse impacts for residents. Due to these issues and in response to the community feedback (15 of the petitioners have frontage in the section of Dunlop Street between Midson Road and Ryde Street), it is recommended that the shared path east of Ryde Street and priority crossing over Ryde Street no longer proceed. Refer to Figure 3.

Figure 3: Extent of Dunlop Street Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths (as exhibited) –section highlighted in yellow will no longer proceed.

7. Overall, the project is an opportunity to increase the accessibility and usage of a wider regional walking and cycling link, and support healthy, active access to a new primary school and contributing to reduced future traffic generation.

8. Should Council endorse the project as recommended, it would be reported to the next available Parramatta Traffic Committee (PTC) for their consideration. Should PTC approve the project it will be submitted for external grant funding for construction.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. A total of 19 individual responses were received from the community, all bar two were from within the Epping Ward. Five (5) supported the proposal, two (2) with qualified support, four (4) against and five (5) stating no preference. This feedback is provided in detail in Attachment 1 including Council Officer responses. The social media campaign reached just under 20,000 with 521 clicking through to the website. The project attracted 18 likes, 1 love, and 9 comments. At the 8 November 2021 Council meeting Councillors tabled a petition on the project from the public, and resolved:

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

(b) Further, that all Petitioners be notified of the outcome of the matter.

10. A petition objecting to the proposal has been signed by 33 of the 62 households in Dunlop Street between Midson Road and Hermington Street.

11. Key themes from all consultation are summarised below in Table 1.

Table 1: Key consultation themes

Comment / Theme	Officer Response
There are very few pedestrians and cyclists at the moment, so why build footpaths and bicycle paths / no one will use.	The new public school will generate a significant number of new trips in the peak hours. The pedestrian and cyclist paths are proposed to provide a safe, comfortable alternative so that children can actively ride and walk to school, rather than being driven and contributing to local traffic congestion.
A bike path on Willoughby Street is a better alternative to Dunlop Street.	Throughout 2019 and 2020 Council investigated potential routes and infrastructure types between Epping and Carlingford and the community was consulted on a bike path on Willoughby Street. There was not general support from the community for a facility on Willoughby Street, and on 11 May 2020, Council resolved that the preferred alignment for the broader Epping to Carlingford cycling route is Dunlop Street.
The proposal alters the existing streetscape.	Some of the existing verges do not have footpaths, meaning any pedestrian with limited mobility, pram or wheelchair have restricted accessibility. Through providing additional paths it increases the accessibility of the street to all people. This is more critical given the recently approved school. The streetscape will change, but will be comprised of public domain elements that are common across Sydney and Australia more broadly such as: footpaths, shared paths and priority crossings.
The proposal is dangerous for cyclists and mobility scooters because of: Driveways, uneven terrain.	Any vehicle using a driveway should use caution and be moving slowly as they are required to give way to any people on the verge, this includes children on scooters who may be using the current footpath that is closer to the property boundary.
A shared path is dangerous for primary school students to share with adults.	A shared path is a standard arrangement used across Australia. With the cyclists having to change direction on approach to the crossings (and therefore lose speed), it is unlikely that fast moving cyclists will use the path. They are more likely to take the road where they have priority over all side streets and turning vehicles (like other cars) and can move more quickly.
Remove the parking and put the bike path there.	It is not proposed to remove parking from one side of the street as part of this proposal so as to minimise the impact to resident parking availability.
Too much parking is being removed.	Parking is only being removed where necessary for mandatory no stopping adjacent to intersections and crossings.
Speed limits should be reduced around the new school.	Speed limits are under the control of TfNSW and new School Zones with associated speed limits will be implemented with the delivery of the new school.
Tree removal must be avoided.	Tree removal is avoided unless absolutely necessary. Substantial local offset planting locations have been identified, subject to resident consultation.
There are existing problems with drainage / stormwater / pipes.	Should the project proceed, it will be engineered to take into account services and drainage.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Officer Response	Respon- sibility
Oct 2021	School Infrastructure NSW	SINSW has reviewed the proposal and the pedestrian and cycling facilities are enthusiastically supported. These measures will reduce road safety risks for the student pedestrians/cyclists through provision of shared paths and raised crossings.	Noted.	Strategic Land Use Planning

Councillor Consultation

13. A Ward Councillor briefing was held in January, and in relation to this matter:

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Officer Response	Respon- sibility
28 Jan 2022	LM Davis, Clr Wearne, Clr Maclean	Councillors will take more time to consider all the community feedback to determine their position on this matter, and will be a part of the decision making process when the project is reported to Council.	Noted	Strategic Land Use Planning
9 March 2022	Standard briefing session prior to Council meeting	Report finalised prior to briefing session	Report finalised prior to briefing session	Strategic Land Use Planning

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

15. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the Council officer recommendation, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget as construction would be subject to a successful external grant application.

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

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

Funding Source	NA

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

Funding Source	NA

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil

Mark Crispin

Senior Project Officer Transport Planning

Robert Cologna

Group Manager, Strategic Land Use Planning

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Dunlop Street Paths - Community Consultation Summary	3 Pages
2 ⇩	Dunlop Street Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths - Updated Plans	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.7

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.7

SUBJECT Submission on the draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08385679

REPORT OF Team Leader Strategic Design

CSP theme: THRIVING

workshop/briefing date: 24 February 2022

PURPOSE:

To seek Council approval of a draft submission to the draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (DP SEPP) and its accompanying policies, guides and supporting material, released for comment by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the draft submission (Attachment 1) on the draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (DP SEPP) and its accompanying policies, guides and supporting material, and forward it to the Department of Planning and Environment, noting that it includes the following key themes:

a) Council’s support for the intent of the draft DP SEPP, focused on elevating design quality, unifying design guidance documents in NSW, and better integration with the planning process.

b) Council’s concern for the mechanisms for implementation of the draft DP SEPP, its interpretation and practical application, particularly in higher density contexts such as the Parramatta City Centre.

c) Council’s support for the requirement for accredited design skills necessary to prepare and evaluate the design merit of planning proposals, future precincts, state significant and other development, to ensure appropriately qualified design professionals are part of the assessment of good design.

d) The need for better alignment with the planning process including Planning proposal reforms, the timing of Design Review Panel (DRP) meetings in relation to development proposals and planning proposals, and the impacts of the DRP and Design Verification Requirements upon operational processes.

e) The need for further clarification and refinement of the Urban Design Guide to ensure that lack of clarity and definition do not compromise outcomes.

f) Council’s support of the strengthening of ESD considerations and resilience focus through BASIX and net zero targets however the need for further detail in the documentation.

BACKGROUND

1. The NSW Department of Planning and Environment is exhibiting a new Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (DP SEPP) 2021 and supporting guides as part of a broader review of all SEPPs.

2. The draft DP SEPP aims to simplify and consolidate how to address the need for sustainable and resilient places and deliver good design in NSW.

3. The documents that form part of the exhibited Design and Place SEPP (and considered in Council’s submission) which would apply to all of NSW include:

a) the proposed draft Design and Place SEPP 2021 – this serves as the overarching state environmental planning instrument that establishes the rules and controls for improving the design quality of the built environment;

b) proposed changes to the Environment and Planning Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation) – these changes support the administering of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and the day-to-day requirements of the planning system, including the DP SEPP;

c) proposed Direction by the Minister under section 9.1 of the EP&A Act (9.1 Direction) – this provides direction about when the DP SEPP will come into effect;

d) the revised Apartment Design Guide (ADG) - is a supporting resource and guideline to be used in conjunction with the DP SEPP to improve the planning and design of residential apartment development across NSW and supersedes the 2015 version;

e) the proposed new Urban Design Guide (UDG)- also a supporting resource to be used in conjunction with the ADG the DP SEPP to improve the planning and design of urban places;

f) updates to the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) - requirements have been updated and apply to all residential dwelling types and are part of the development application process in NSW requiring improved water and energy usage and thermal comfort performance;

g) BASIX sandbox tool – this is an online supporting software tool for developers and applicants to assist them to measure and design for improved building sustainability performance;

h) Design Review Panel Manual for Local Government (DRPM) – a new supporting document that provides advice on how to establish, manage and participate in a design review panel convened by a local council.

i) Design & Place – Cost Benefit Analysis (Summary) - an economic evaluation to provide an evidence-based assessment of the impacts of the DP SEPP.

4. The draft DP SEPP will replace SEPP 65: Design Quality and SEPP BASIX with an updated Apartment Design Guideline (ADG) and updated BASIX respectively.

5. The draft DP SEPP introduces a principle-based approach to design seeking to encourage greater creativity and innovation for the designing of buildings and places and reduce complexity in the planning system.

6. The draft DP SEPP will become a mandatory matter for consideration under section 4.15 of the EP&A Act when it comes into effect, planned for end of 2022. Thereafter, as per the Ministerial Directions under Section 9.1, Council should exercise its functions under the Act that relate to the preparation of a local environmental plan in accordance with the design principles.

7. The draft DP SEPP has five key principles including:

(a) to deliver beauty and amenity to create a sense of belonging for people,

(b) to deliver inviting public spaces and enhanced public life to create engaged communities,

(d) to deliver sustainable and greener places to ensure the well-being of people and the environment, and,

(e) to deliver resilient, diverse places for enduring communities.

8. A Councillor Briefing Note was circulated on 11 March 2021, summarising the then Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) to create a Design and Place SEPP exhibited from February to April 2021. Councillors were provided with a copy of the submission made.

9. The draft Design and Place SEPP and accompanying documents are published here: Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy - (nsw.gov.au)

CONSEQUENCES AND IMPACTS OF THE DRAFT DESIGN AND PLACE SEPP

10. There is overarching support for the draft DP SEPP and its associated documents generally. The intent of elevating good design and integrating design review within the planning process is wholly supported.

11. With the intention of fostering better design outcomes, the draft DP SEPP introduces qualitative performance and merit assessment over prescriptive outcomes through flexible application of the UDG and ADG. This strives to ensure design is responsive and considerate of its place.

12. While well intentioned, the mechanisms for implementation of the draft DP SEPP are at times unclear and Council’s submission raises concern for its interpretation and practical application, particularly in higher density contexts such as the Parramatta CBD. For example, understanding when and how frequently Design Review Panel (DRP) reviews are required for Planning Proposals; what types of development are required to go to pre-DA DRP and where there are existing DRPs, and how these are convened and their ongoing operational costs. Further clarity and consideration is required on matters such as these and it is recommended that the draft DP SEPP and its supporting guidelines be revised to provide greater clarity on how this subjective and flexible approach is applied, benchmarked and include definitions and processes that deliver certainty for Parramatta.

13. In response to the introduction of more qualitative design considerations in the assessment of planning proposals and pre-DAs, this requires more specialised and qualified design expertise - specifically urban design - which considers the broader spatial context and collection of buildings and spaces as opposed to the singular architecture of a building. The draft DP SEPP response is to introduce DRPs to qualify and provide verification of such qualitative considerations. The draft DP SEPP introduces a new Design Review Panel Manual (DRPM) that outlines a consistent design review process for all NSW local governments. Distinct from most Councils, the City of Parramatta already has established, qualified, internal urban design teams and a DRP. Accordingly, Council’s submission seeks further clarification to understand how this affects the City of Parramatta’s current design review processes, how urban design qualifications will be certified, and how certainty within the assessment process will be achieved.

14. Whilst the intention of the draft DP SEPP is to reduce complexity in the planning system and integrate good design processes into planning, particularly which supports place-based approaches for precinct planning and development, there is a lack of clarity regarding due process and alignment of the policy with the existing planning process. An example of this is how the DP SEPP aligns with the current NSW Planning Proposal reforms and how the design review process supports, and is not counterintuitive to, the government’s ambition to improve this process. The DP SEPP also misses the opportunity to inform strategic planning policies such as LEPs and DCPs, to provide greater certainty earlier in the planning process. This is necessary to achieve place-based outcomes to create a well-designed ‘collective city’ rather than site-based outcomes. It is also not clear how the draft DP SEPP applies to precinct planning including State led precinct planning, or why place strategies are not the same as precincts (i.e. Camellia is a ‘place strategy’), nor the definition of Master Plans. Council’s submission seeks further clarification on application of the UDG in these instances, particularly to ensure that lack of clarity and definition do not compromise outcomes.

15. The draft DP SEPP applies when a planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land greater than 1 hectare in area and within: (a) an existing or proposed residential, commercial, mixed use or industrial zone, or (b) any other zone in which residential development is permitted or proposed to be permitted. This largely constitutes a universal application of the DP SEPP on all planning proposals on land greater than 1 hectare, with the exception of some special uses and rural activities.

16. Notwithstanding the broad application of the draft DP SEPP, the UDG is primarily focused on residential precincts outside of established urban areas.

For the City of Parramatta, it is not clear how sites less than 1 hectare undergo design review, with the exception of those sites required to undertake a Design Competitions, which is not necessarily a safeguard for broader urban design considerations. While Clause 6(1)(c) of the draft DP SEPP appears to cover such instances by requiring a DCP or master plan, in the case of Parramatta’s LEP, these provisions do not apply. As noted in paragraph 14 above, design review is critical in the early stages of strategic planning and the development of LEPs and DCPs. Therefore, Council’s submission seeks further clarity on how sites less than 1 hectare are considered.

17. The DP SEPP introduces a requirement for starting with Country as a foundation for place-based design and planning as set out in the NSW Government Architect’s draft Connecting with Country Framework. The ambition is that connections with Country should inform the planning, design, and delivery of built environment projects in NSW in support of the health and wellbeing of Country by valuing, respecting Aboriginal culture and people. Council’s submission supports this objective.

18. Through BASIX, the DP SEPP seeks better alignment to the NSW Government’s Net Zero emissions target to strengthen environmentally sustainable development (ESD) considerations and resilience focus and well as fully integrate the planning pathway to net zero energy into the SEPP for all development types. While the supporting BASIX document proposes higher targets to strive to meet the emissions targets, the exhibited documents for consultation lack sufficient detail to make a definitive comment on the proposal.

19. Ultimately, the effect of the draft DP SEPP is that development consent must not be granted for development to which this Policy applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is consistent with the design principles and supporting guidelines. Given the matters outlined in this report and detailed in Council’s submission (Attachment 1), Council’s submission suggests that the draft DP SEPP be further refined with industry and local government and re-exhibited prior to becoming operational.

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
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
11 March 2021(Email to all Councillors informing of exhibition of Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) and inviting initial feedback)	All/Councillor Briefing Note	Phil Bradley – related to BASIX and the need for proactive engagement with local councils to develop the detail of the future SEPP.	Telephone discussions and email with Cllr Bradley discussing some of the parameters of BASIX and included in Council’s submission on EIE requesting further engagement.	City Design
4 February 2022 (Email to all Councillors informing of exhibition of draft SEPP and inviting feedback)	All	None received.	N/A	City Design
24 February 2022	All (Councillor Briefing)	Cllrs Wearne, Bradley and Siviero asked a number of questions and provided feedback relating to BASIX and environmental performance, the challenge relating to the implementation of the SEPP and how this sits within the broader context of planning reform reviews.	Submission includes relevant feedback from workshop and subsequent discussion with Cllr Bradley and Lord Mayor Cllr Davis	City Design

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

22. There are no legal implications should approve this report in accordance with the recommendation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

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

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Deena Ridenour

Team Leader Strategic Design

Kelly van der Zanden

Group Manager City Design

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Submission to draft Design and Place SEPP

27 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.8

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.8

SUBJECT Submission on the draft Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08386208

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use

CSP THEME: INNOVATIVE

workshop/briefing date: 14 february 2022

PURPOSE:

To seek Council approval of a draft submission to the Camellia- Rosehill Place Strategy, released for comment by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the draft submission (Attachment 1) on the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy, noting that Council supports the renewal of the Camellia-Rosehill precinct but objects to the current draft Place Strategy which must be further developed to address the matters identified in the submission before it is finalised, in particular:

i. The draft Place Strategy and masterplan do not provide sufficient detail and certainty that adequate infrastructure will be provided aligned with growth and delivered in a suitably staged manner.

ii. The draft Place Strategy has not addressed the funding gap of approximately $416 million identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which could be in the region of $1.47 billion when taking into account remediation costs and the extent of contributions that can be reasonably expected to be collected under a new Contributions Plan.

iii. The precinct-wide remediation strategy does not include sufficient details of the extent of capping, remediation staging, governance and funding arrangements. This must be sufficiently detailed and agreed upon by key government stakeholders prior to settling on land uses.

iv. A financially feasible and deliverable traffic and transport solution must be finalised.

v. Clear and deliverable solutions are required to the significant compatibility issues of locating residential development on a site constrained by significant flooding, contamination, fuel pipeline blast zones, and noise and odour pollution.

vi. The proposed densities within the town centre with building heights between 80m (24 storeys) to 130m (40 storeys) and floor space ratios between 4.5:1 to 5.5:1 are not supported as they are untested and require detailed modelling that also considers the existing significant environmental constraints.

vii. The shortfall of up to 28 hectares of open space, the appropriate location of the K-12 school within or closer to the town centre, and the land allocation for the community hub must be resolved consistent with the requirements of Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS).

viii. The proposed master plan must be reconsidered to ensure it delivers the optimal land use mix for the precinct including the provision of higher-order employment uses that build upon Parramatta’s strong health and education sectors that would provide greater employment density and continue to bolster innovation in Parramatta.

ix. The review required of the master plan must reconsider the scale of residential development proposed in the north-western part of the precinct, and the associated infrastructure it requires, and place greater focus on the provision of more employment compatible with the changing role of Parramatta.

(b) That Council notes that the submission:

i. Requests that the resolution of the matters identified in the submission is fundamental at this stage and must not be avoided by the inclusion of conditions within a future Ministerial Direction prior to any rezoning, the consequences of which would lead to considerable delays in future rezonings as well as poor planning and urban design outcomes.

ii. Advises the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) that sufficient housing and employment lands have been identified in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement to meet DPE’s identified jobs and dwelling targets for City of Parramatta for the period to 2036 without relying on any development taking place at Camellia-Rosehill.

iii. Requests that the DPE ensures that the resultant long-standing problems that have arisen from the shortcomings of the accelerated precinct planning processes adopted for various precincts within the City of Parramatta; such as the lack of transport options at Wentworth Point; lack of employment generation at Epping town centre; and traffic congestion at Granville; are not repeated at Camellia-Rosehill and that the development of the Place Strategy is founded on comprehensive evidence-based analysis and best practice urban design and planning.

i. Forward the submission to the DPE for its consideration.

ii. Continue meetings between senior officers of Council and the DPE with the aim of working together to address the issues raised in the submission.

(d) Further, that Council be advised of the NSW Government’s response to submissions made on the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy.

BACKGROUND

Previous Strategic Planning Work

1. The draft Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy (draft Place Strategy) is now on public exhibition and is the most recent development in the precinct planning process for the precinct. It follows key strategic planning work previously completed including:

i. In February 2018, the DPE publicly exhibited the Camellia Town Centre Masterplan which sought to facilitate a maximum of 10,000 dwellings and 25,000sqm of retail and commercial uses. Council responded with a submission indicating support for a collaborative approach while raising key issues relating to density, infrastructure delivery, contamination, flooding and environmental sustainability.

ii. The planning process was paused pending the outcome of the Greater Sydney Commission’s (GSC) final recommendation to the government under its Planning Infrastructure Compact (PIC). The PIC sought to ensure infrastructure delivery is matched with growth across the area from Greater Parramatta to the Olympic Peninsula (GPOP).

iii. In March 2020, the GSC recommended under the PIC for the precinct to be retained for urban services land until broader planning and infrastructure issues have been considered. If the NSW Government sought to progress the Camellia Town Centre, it would require detailed investigation of industrial and urban services land objectives in regional plans; a precinct wide remediation strategy with independent cost estimates; an affordable traffic and transport solution; and land use conflict matters.

iv. In May 2021, DPE initiated the development of the draft Place Strategy through a two-day Enquiry by Design workshop. This iterative process was attended by approximately 100 participants including Council officers, State agencies, landowners and consultants. Council officers provided technical advice to inform the outcomes of the workshop.

v. Between 15 September and 13 October 2020, DPE exhibited the draft Directions Paper for the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy (Directions Paper).

2. On 11 October 2021, Council resolved to approve a draft submission to the Directions Paper. The submission broadly supported precinct renewal as set out in the Directions Paper and raised key issues on aligning growth with infrastructure; roles and responsibility in infrastructure delivery and funding; and inclusion of a new (or as a minimum, provision for) a Metro Station.

3. The Directions Paper and associated consultation have informed the preparation of the draft Place Strategy. The precinct vision and strategic directions set by the Direction Paper have been embedded in the draft Place Strategy.

Key Features of the Draft Place Strategy

4. The draft Place Strategy (Attachment 2) is on public exhibition from 17 December 2021 to 4 March 2022. DPE has agreed that Council can make a late submission by 18 March 2022. It focuses on providing an integrated 20-year vision, five strategic directions, principles and actions that will guide future land-use and infrastructure investment decisions for the precinct.

5. The draft Place Strategy provides a broad vision up to 2041. It is proposed that Camellia will retain its role as an important industry and employment precinct and be enhanced with service and circular economy industries and new recreational and entertainment facilities, all enabled by better transport access.

6. The draft Place Strategy establishes five strategic directions, each with related principles and actions and are as follows:

1: Recognise and celebrate country and heritage;

2: Boost economic activity and employment opportunities;

3: Improve access and sustainable travel options and choices;

4: Deliver high-quality place outcomes; and

5: Enable a net-zero precinct by 2050 and deliver a holistic approach to environmental management and sustainability.

7. The draft Place Strategy contains a master plan (Figure 1) that identifies proposed land uses. Key infrastructure has also been identified and includes light rail route options, a K-6 school, a potential K-12 school, 43 to 50ha of public open space, potential new road and bridge connections, and indicative active transport links.

The master plan identifies three sub-precincts referred to as the Town Centre (red/orange), Urban Services (blue) and Industrial (purple). Rosehill Racecourse is to be retained as part of the Town Centre sub-precinct with potential for additional open space to the southeast (green) and entertainment uses including tourist accommodation on the western edge of the site (orange).

Figure 1: Precinct Masterplan

8. To implement the strategic directions of the draft Place Strategy, a total of 35 actions have been identified at the rezoning, development application and ongoing stages. While a range of bodies are responsible for these actions, the draft Strategy has identified 19 actions under Council’s responsibility relating to stakeholder engagement, environmental management and review and preparation of planning and technical documentation.

9. The draft Place Strategy is supported by preliminary technical studies which are also on public exhibition. The studies cover cultural heritage, air quality and odour, Connecting with Country, ecology, economic analysis, infrastructure delivery, integrated water management, landscape implementation, noise and vibration, remediation, sustainability, social infrastructure, traffic and transport and utilities infrastructure.

10. The draft Place Strategy provides an Infrastructure Delivery Program which broadly outlines staging of infrastructure, employment uses, remediation and development of sub-precincts in the short (0-5 years), medium (5-10 years) and long-term (10–20+ years). Details of the exact timing, order and detailed resolution of each sub-precinct will be resolved as part of ongoing investigations.

11. The draft Place Strategy is proposed to be implemented through a Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction under NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This will require that future rezoning and development, within the precinct be consistent with the final Place Strategy. It has been indicated that a State or Council-led rezoning will give effect to the draft Place Strategy through updated planning controls in the Local Environmental Plan supported by a funding delivery strategy, master plan and development control plan.

Key Issues

12. In summary, the submission (Attachment 1) reiterates Council’s support for the renewal of the precinct but objects to the current draft Place Strategy. The draft Place Strategy fails to adequately address key issues under the themes of infrastructure delivery, land use planning and urban design, environment, traffic and transport, cultural heritage, and implementation and governance.

13. The draft Place Strategy must be further developed to address these significant shortcomings, detailed below, prior to it being finalised. Further details are provided in the draft submission (Attachment 1).

14. Provision of infrastructure – The draft Place Strategy and master plan need to be amended to address fundamentally important critical matters relating to infrastructure delivery, staging and funding as outlined below.

i. The draft Place Strategy and masterplan do not provide certainty that adequate infrastructure will be provided. Key matters including the potential shortfall of up 28ha of open space, the appropriate location of the K-12 school within or closer to the town centre, and the land allocation for the community hub must be resolved consistent with the requirements of Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS).

ii. The draft Place Strategy and exhibited Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) lack details on how infrastructure will be aligned with growth and delivered in a suitably staged manager. The staging of sub-precincts (e.g. initial road connections), how many dwellings and jobs are envisaged over time, and the specific infrastructure and threshold triggers are undefined.

iii. The draft Place Strategy has not addressed a notional funding gap of approximately $416 million identified in the IDP nor provided the next steps for bridging the gap. Furthermore, Council officer review has identified that the actual funding gap could fall in the range of $1.23 to $1.47 billion approximately when taking into account remediation costs and the extent of contributions that can be reasonably expected to be collected under a new Contributions Plan. Accordingly, there must be greater clarity and certainty on the identified funding mechanisms and/or a re-evaluation of the proposed mix and scale of land uses as Council should not bear any unreasonable financial burden in the delivery of infrastructure.

iv. The draft Strategy, master plan and supporting documents fail to demonstrate that the optimal land use mix for the precinct has been identified, in particular in the context of the need to maximise employment density and manage residential development impacts. The land use mix currently proposed results in a significant infrastructure funding gap and needs to be re-evaluated. The proposed master plan must be reviewed to ensure it delivers the optimal land use mix for the precinct including the provision of higher order employment uses that build upon Parramatta’s strong health and education sectors that would provide greater employment density and continue to bolster innovation in Parramatta. This should also assist in addressing master planning challenges arising from an over-reliance on high residential densities within the north-western portion of the precinct to fund infrastructure. This work will also need to balance supporting existing strategically important heavy industries located in the precinct that service the broader region.

v. DPE must ensure that there is a comprehensive infrastructure funding and delivery scheme that allows for staged delivery of infrastructure to support new development as it emerges.

15. Untested built form controls – There is a poor relationship between the identified principles in the draft Strategy and the proposed spatial outcomes as represented in the masterplan. This brings to question whether the design intent can be delivered with any rigour.

Further consideration needs to be given to the role and hierarchy of the Camellia Town Centre and the suitability of the indicative building heights and floor space ratios. The proposed height and floor space ratios are comparable to planning provisions within CBDs and will result in excessive densities within the town centre. This is not appropriate in the context of Camellia’s location on the fringe of the Parramatta CBD.

It is unclear how the building heights and density/floor space controls were formulated, and whether they respond positively to the site context. This includes complex level changes associated with remediation and flood mitigation and the implications for the density that can be accommodated in the Town Centre.

The development standards are unlikely to deliver a quality urban environment. The built form outcomes in Figure 14 do not appear to comply with the Apartment Design Guide / reflect clear organisational principles or rational structural hierarchy to the streetscape.

The proposed height and floor space ratio provision are untested and require detailed modelling that also considers the significant environmental constraints.

16. Addressing significant land use compatibility issues at a precinct level - The draft Place Strategy does not provide a clear response to the significant compatibility issues of locating residential development in a site constrained by flooding, contamination, fuel pipeline blast zones, and noise and odour polluting industries. The draft Place Strategy does not provide an assured and holistic resolution of these high-risk issues. Further critically important technical work (e.g. remediation, flood and traffic/transport modelling) is required to support the precinct-wide approach and determine appropriate planning controls. The draft Place Strategy should not be finalised until all such technical work is completed and a clear precinct-wide strategy for environmental management is prepared.

17. Clarifying Council’s role and liability in implementing and monitoring orderly remediation – Council must not be burdened with onerous ongoing monitoring, management and maintenance of residual contamination given the uncertainty of contamination extents, remediation costs and ongoing financial and legal liabilities. This is not the responsibility of Council.

18. Future-proofing the addition of a Metro station in Camellia - Despite the NSW Government’s decision not to proceed with a Metro station at this stage, the master plan must allow for its potential future addition in the longer term.

19. Ensuring feasible and effective implementation of a net-zero carbon precinct – The draft Place Strategy and Sustainability Implementation Report must address the costs and feasibility of implementing a net-zero carbon precinct by 2050.

20. Clarifying implementation and governance arrangements - The draft Place Strategy must identify Council’s role as a key decision-maker in relation to the planning provisions that are put in place for Camellia. Council expects (as long as it supports the final Place Strategy) to play a leading role in the assessment of future rezoning proposals for the precinct. Therefore the matters identified in the draft submission that need further consideration before the Strategy is finalised must be fully addressed to the satisfaction of Council before any rezoning proposals can be properly considered.

21. In summary, there is a critically important need for further technical investigation and analysis to be completed to inform the consideration of the land use mix proposed in the master plan and the supporting infrastructure delivery plan before consideration can be given to finalising the draft Place Strategy. Therefore, it is proposed that DPE be requested to ensure that no Ministerial Direction enabling rezoning proposals to proceed is issued until these matters have been resolved to avoid inappropriate rezoning proposals.. The premature finalisation of the draft Place Strategy would otherwise lead to considerable delays in future rezonings as well as poor planning and urban design outcomes.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

22. No stakeholder consultation has been undertaken by Council concerning the draft Place Strategy. This is the responsibility of DPE.

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

Councillor Consultation

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

Councillor Briefing – 14 February 2022
Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response (City Planning)
i. There is insufficient technical justification to warrant proceeding with the draft Place Strategy.	Included in draft submission.
ii. A detailed Traffic and Transport study is required to manage predicted impacts.	Included in draft submission.
iii. Concern was raised that Carnarvon Street could become a rat run for traffic from Parramatta Road and congestion on Grand Avenue needs to be resolved.
iv. A network of cycleways should be included, implications of topography well considered and staging details should be provided.
v. Consider the feasibility of future proposals for decoupled parking.
vi. Further detail on infrastructure funding and staged delivery is required to support growth overtime.	Included in draft submission.
vii. Consideration be given to the impact of the Infrastructure Contributions Reform on infrastructure funding and delivery in Camellia
viii. Concern was raised towards potential funding gaps and uncertainty on decontamination cost estimates.
ix. Identify the proposed measures for ensuring that existing industrial and racecourse uses will not adversely impact future residential areas.	Included in draft submission.
x. Identify the current and projected number of jobs in the context of the future resident population.	The draft Place Strategy proposes to enable up to 14,500 jobs and around 24,000 new residents. The submission questions if the master plan proposes the most suitable mix of uses and densities. At present, it is estimated that there are a total of 4,300 jobs in the precinct.
xi. Insufficient planning on employment intensification to align with Parramatta’s core employment sectors of health and education	Included in draft submission.
xii. Concern is raised that there is insufficient open space.	Included in draft submission.
xiii. There should be dedicated provision of open space for future schools .
xiv. New public open space should not be located within the Rosehill Racecourse. Public open space must be highly accessible to future residents and not be ‘left over land’.
xv. Schools and community facilities should be located close to new dwellings.
xvi. Clear analysis of flood risks is required and must be addressed in the final Place Strategy.	Included in draft submission.
xvii. Protection of heritage items should be considered as part of the draft Place Strategy.	Included in draft submission.
xviii. The cost and implementation of foreshore remediation along Parramatta River, Duck Creek and Duck River should be considered.	Included in draft submission.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

24. There are no legal implications associated with the recommendations of this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

25. The Council submission in response to the draft Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy does not commit Council to expend any budget. Only staff time has been required in the preparation of the draft submission.

26. In relation to the implementation of the draft Place Strategy, a sustainable staged delivery plan including an infrastructure funding framework will need to be put in place at the rezoning stage to ensure that Council does not bear any unreasonable financial burden. Council would need to be informed of all relevant costs associated with the implementation of the Strategy, consequently the draft submission requires this critically important issue to be resolved before the Strategy is finalised.

27. Any projects and work involved in implementing a Ministerially endorsed Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy would be reported to Council for consideration and approval of any required Council budget allocation.

28. The table below shows no financial impacts on the budget arising from the approval of this report.

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

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

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

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

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

NEXT STEPS

29. It is recommended that Council approve the submission (Attachment 1) on the draft Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy and forward it to the DPE.

Jema Samonte

Senior Project Officer

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Draft Submission on Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy	18 Pages
2 ⇩	Draft Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy	98 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.9

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.9

SUBJECT Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site)

REFERENCE RZ/3/2017 -

APPLICANT/S Think Planners

OWNERS PIC Royal Investments Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Project Officer-Land Use Planning

csp theme: INNOVATIVE

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel Nil

NOTE: Council considered this report at its meeting of 21 February 2022 and did not make a decision on the matter.

The recommendation has since been updated to clarify the matters to be considered by Council, namely the draft site-specific development control plan and the draft planning agreement. It is noted that the Council is not required, or able, to make decisions in relation to the height and floor space ratio controls for the site as these controls will be determined by the Department of Planning and Environment through the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

(b) That Council notes the Gateway alteration issued by the (then) Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) on 28 October 2021 determining that the Planning Proposal should not proceed on the basis that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is seen as a more efficient way of achieving the objectives of the site-specific Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 2). Therefore Council is not able to further consider the Planning Proposal which will establish the height and floor space ratio controls for the site as these controls will be determined by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) through the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

(c) That Council forward this report and copies of all submissions received during the exhibition period including community, State and Federal Government agency submissions to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for its consideration as requested by the then DPIE in the Gateway alteration issued on 28 October 2021.

(d) That Council approve the site specific-DCP at Attachment 4 for finalisation and inclusion within Part 10 (Site Specific Controls) of the finalised Parramatta City Centre DCP, including the minor amendments at Attachment 5 in this report, following the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

(e) That Council approve the Planning Agreement at Attachment 6 and delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the Planning Agreement and to sign it on Council’s behalf.

SITE DESCRIPTION

1. The subject site is located at 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Lot 135 DP 748984 and Lot 4 DP388895) (Refer to Figure 1). The site has an area of approximately 3,135sqm. The site contains the Albion Hotel.

2. The site adjoins another major development site to the west known as the Cumberland Industries site (Refer to Figure 1). This site was subject to a site-specific Planning Proposal which has since been finalised and permits development at a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7:1 (8.05:1 when including Design Excellence bonus) with a range of height controls across the site including 0 metres, 76 metres (25 storeys), 97 metres (35 storeys) and 156 metres (60 storeys).

Figure 1 Site Location

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

3. The site is not listed as an item of heritage significance and is not within a Heritage Conservation Area. The site is located across the road from Robin Thomas Reserve which is listed on the State Heritage Register as an “Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape” and is listed under Schedule 5 of Parramatta LEP 2011 as being of local heritage significance as an archaeological site.

4. To the north there are several heritage items along the Parramatta River foreshore including The Gasworks Bridge and The Queens Wharf Reserve and stonewall and potential archaeological site (local items), and HMAS Parramatta Shipwreck and memorial (state item). The site is also within the vicinity of three state significant items “Harrisford”, Experiment Farm and Hambledon Cottage.

BACKGROUND

5. The site-specific Planning Proposal (RZ/3/2017) was lodged in March 2017. The Planning Proposal sought the following amendments to Parramatta LEP 2011:

a) Increase in the height control from 54 metres (14 storeys) to 166 metres (51 storeys); and

b) Increase in FSR from 4:1 to 13.5:1.

6. On 19 March 2019, the Local Planning Panel resolved to recommend Council defer the matter pending cumulative shadow analysis of part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. This analysis was conducted as part of the Overshadowing Technical Paper for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. This resulted in the identification of the southern half of the site within the Sun Access Protection Map that relates to Clause 7.4 Sun Access Protection (related to Experiment Farm) within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. The other implication for the subject site was the identification of a maximum building height control of 165.6 metres.

7. On 23 March 2020, Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal, consistent with Council officer recommendations, for the purposes of requesting Gateway determination subject to the following amendments:

a) Reduction in the floor space ratio from 13.5:1 to a mapped FSR of 10:1 (noting the design excellence, high performance buildings and the unlimited commercial floor space site specific provision allows for an FSR of 12:1 or greater subject to the proposal not exceeding 165.6 metres in height).

b) Reduction in the height of buildings control from 166 metres to a mapped height control of 144 metres noting that this provides for a total height of 165.6 metres when applying the 15% design excellence bonus.

c) Inclusion of a site specific LEP clause in keeping with the CBD PP that requires a minimum commercial floor space equivalent to an FSR of 1:1 and allows for any additional commercial floor space to be exempt from the maximum FSR subject to the development not exceeding 165.6 metres in height.

d) Provision outlining an additional FSR of 0.5:1 is achievable provided high performing building standards are met and the development does not exceed 165.6 metres in height.

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

8. On 31 July 2020, the, then Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) issued a Gateway determination subject to conditions. It is noted that effective 31 January 2022 it is now the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

9. On 22 March 2021, Council endorsed a draft site specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement for the purposes of public exhibition concurrently with the previously endorsed Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal, draft site specific DCP and Planning Agreement were subsequently exhibited from 1 September to 30 September 2021.

10. Since the exhibition, Council received a Gateway alteration from the DPIE dated 28 October 2021 which determined that the site-specific planning proposal should not proceed. The Gateway alteration was issued on the basis that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) is seen as a more efficient way of achieving the objectives of the site-specific planning proposal.

11. This report addresses the outcomes of the public exhibition and makes recommendations for progressing the draft site specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement in the context of the recent Gateway alteration.

RELATIONSHIP WITH PARRAMATTA CBD PLANNING PROPOSAL

12. Table 1 below outlines the planning controls for the site under (1) existing Parramatta LEP 2011, (2) the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and (3) the site-specific Planning Proposal. The site-specific Planning Proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal in all regards except for the mapped height control as discussed further below.

Table 1: Summary of current, CBD PP and site-specific controls

	Parramatta LEP 2011	Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal	Site-specific Planning Proposal
Site Area	3,135sqm
Land Use Zoning	B4 Mixed Use
Height of Buildings	54m (approx 14 storeys)	Endorsed (resolved on 23 March 2020) 144m – approx 44 storeys - Incentive Height (165.6m - approx 51 storeys including Design Excellence bonus).	Consistent with endorsed Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, however not consistent with exhibited heights of Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as detailed below)
Floor Space Ratio	4:1	10:1 incentive FSR (excluding design excellence) Note. Bonuses and the unlimited commercial floor space site specific provision discussed below allows for an FSR of 12:1 or greater.	As recommended in Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.
Site-specific provision		An additional FSR of 5% is achievable, provided that high performing buildings standards are met. Includes maximum car parking rates previously endorsed by Council. Minimum commercial floor space area of 1:1 Unlimited commercial floor space (within the height limit).	As recommended in Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.
Land Reservation		Proposes a 7m wide reservation on the Harris Street frontage for the purpose of local road widening.	7m wide land dedication on Harris Street frontage for the purpose of local road widening as reflected in draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement.
Heritage Provisions	The site is not listed as an item of heritage significance and is not within a Heritage Conservation Area.	Includes amendment to Clause 7.4 Sun Access Protection to ensure that any part of the proposed building does not cause additional overshadowing to the Experiment Farm heritage item between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June.	As recommended in Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.
Number of Dwellings	147	405¹	423 units²
Commercial gross floor area		4,360sqm	6,750sqm

¹ The number of dwellings has been estimated based on the maximum achievable residential gross floor area (including bonuses) divided by an average apartment size of 85m².

² The number of dwellings for the site-specific Planning Proposal reflects the Reference Design submitted by the Applicant.

Endorsed versus Exhibited Maximum Height of Buildings

13. The height control for the subject site exhibited in 2020 with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (130 metres mapped) reflected an earlier resolution of Council made on 25 November 2019. However, Council’s more recent resolution for this site made on 23 March 2020 was to apply the same height under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal as that adopted for the site-specific Planning Proposal (144 metres mapped).

14. This map drafting error was identified recently by Council Officers and was to be rectified through the site-specific Planning Proposal for the subject site.

15. Despite the Gateway alteration deeming that the site-specific Planning Proposal not proceed, the DPE are aware by Council Officers that the height control of 144 metres mapped (165.6 metres including bonuses) reflects the controls recently publicly exhibited as part of the site-specific Planning Proposal and also reflects the height tested under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, therefore the DPE has been requested to apply the height control of 144 metres for the subject site in the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

16. The endorsed height of 144 metres mapped (165.6 metres including bonuses) is the most appropriate height control for the following reasons:

a. It is compatible with the endorsed FSR control of 10:1 mapped (12:1 including bonuses). It is important for the height and FSR controls to work together to produce a relatively predictable built form that can comply with the controls within the draft site-specific DCP.

b. A lower height control would put pressure on other controls such as setbacks and potentially reduce the provision of amenities on site such as communal open space.

c. The height of 144 metres (165.6 metres including bonuses) has been tested to show that it complies with proposed Clause 7.4 under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal in that it will not overshadow Experiment Farm between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June. It will also comply with the minimum standards for maintaining acceptable levels of solar access at significant parks including Robin Thomas Reserve as prescribed under the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP.

GATEWAY ALTERATION

17. After the completion of the public exhibition period, the (then) DPIE issued a Gateway alteration dated 28 October 2021 (see Attachment 2) which determined that the site-specific planning proposal should not proceed. The Gateway alteration was issued on the basis that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is seen as a more efficient way of achieving the objectives of the site-specific planning proposal.

18. As the proposed controls within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal reflect the site-specific Planning Proposal, the DPIE’s view was that the site-specific Planning Proposal was unnecessary, and the same controls will be achieved when the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is finalised and notified. While the height control from the site-specific Planning Proposal was not publicly exhibited with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, this was a mapping error and the (then) DPIE have been advised of Council’s resolution dated 23 March 2020 to include the full mapped height of 144 metres (165.6 metres including Design Excellence bonus).

DRAFT SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

19. Council endorsed the draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for exhibition on 22 March 2021. The exhibited draft DCP (Attachment 4) covers matters including built form, setbacks, building separation, public domain, access, parking, servicing and sustainability.

20. Notwithstanding that the site-specific planning proposal is not proceeding, the controls from the site-specific planning proposal will still be achieved through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. As such, the draft DCP is still relevant and will provide greater level of controls. If Council endorses, it is proposed that the draft site-specific DCP be included within Part 10 (Site Specific Controls) of the finalised Parramatta City Centre DCP, following the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. It is expected that the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP will be considered by Council in the first quarter of 2022.

21. Since the public exhibition, Council Officers have identified some minor issues with the draft DCP that require correction and State Agencies have requested amendments as follows:

a. Reinstatement of labelling that was inadvertently removed from the controls for the adjoining Cumberland Industries site prior to exhibition;

b. Identification of road widening on all relevant diagrams;

c. Replacement of the phrase, “European heritage” with “environmental heritage”;

d. Inclusion of controls for loading and servicing;

e. Strengthening of controls relating to the vegetation of communal gardens and protection of trees within adjoining open space.

22. The changes recommended to the draft DCP are described in detail at Attachment 5. It is considered that the changes described are minor in nature and would not trigger the need to re-exhibit the draft DCP.

DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT

23. Council endorsed the draft Planning Agreement for exhibition on 22 March 2021. The exhibited draft Planning Agreement (Attachment 6) makes provision for the following:

i. A monetary contribution of $2,821,500 for the purposes of public amenities in the Parramatta CBD;

ii. Dedication of land for road widening along Harris Street to Council, up to a width of 7 metres, the width to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

iii. Dedication of land for the purpose of a splay corner on the corner of George Street and Harris Street, the dimensions to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

iv. Granting of public easement rights over the 12 metre wide east-west link;

v. Granting of public easement rights under the proposed 6 metres wide public pedestrian access at the western edge of the site; and

vi. Public domain embellishment works of land that will be subject to public easements. This includes such as landscaping, amenities, furniture and seating.

24. Since the public exhibition of the draft Agreement, Council has endorsed a change in its approach to infrastructure funding in the Parramatta CBD through its endorsement of the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan (endorsed by Council at its meeting of 25 October 2021). Under this Plan, Council is no longer seeking funding for local infrastructure within the CBD by securing monetary contributions through Planning Agreements. Rather, the Plan seeks to increase the percentage rate applicable to developments in the CBD under Section 7.12 (formerly known as Section 94A contributions). It should be noted that Council cannot apply the increased percentage levy until the Minister endorses the Contributions Plan. At the time of the preparation of this report, the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan had been forwarded to the Minister and has yet to be approved.

25. The preparation of the draft Planning Agreement anticipated this issue with the inclusion of clause 8.1(h) (refer to Attachment 6) which provides that the monetary contribution under the Planning Agreement is not required in the case that a development condition is imposed on a consent for the site which applies the higher percentage levy under the new Contributions Plan.

26. Despite the site-specific Planning Proposal not proceeding, there is considerable merit to Council proceeding with the associated draft Planning Agreement. Most significantly, the draft Planning Agreement is a cost-effective method of Council obtaining the land dedication for road widening and provides greater certainty to the developer and the community regarding the community benefits resulting from the development.

27. Council endorsed the draft Planning Agreement for exhibition on 22 March 2021. The exhibited draft Planning Agreement (Attachment 6) makes provision for a monetary contribution of $2,821,500 for the purposes of public amenities in the Parramatta CBD and the dedication of land for road widening, creation of public easements and public domain embellishment works within the site. The monetary contribution will no longer apply under Clause 8.1(h) of the Agreement due to Council’s recent endorsement of the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan (subject to Ministerial approval). This Plan allows for a Section 7.12 levy to be conditioned on the development approval which will be comparable to the monetary contribution under the Planning Agreement.

28. Therefore the Planning Agreement that is being recommended to be finalised consists of:

i. Dedication of land for road widening along Harris Street to Council, up to a width of 7 metres, the width to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

ii. Dedication of land for the purpose of a splay corner on the corner of George Street and Harris Street, the dimensions to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

iii. Granting of public easement rights over the 12 metre wide east-west link;

iv. Granting of public easement rights under the proposed 6 metres wide public pedestrian access at the western edge of the site; and

v. Public domain embellishment works of land that will be subject to public easements. This includes such as landscaping, amenities, furniture and seating.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

29. The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement were publicly exhibited from 1 September to 30 September 2021, alongside supporting appendices including:

a. Planning Agreement Explanatory Note;

b. Applicant’s reference design;

c. Heritage Issues Identification;

d. Overshadowing in the Parramatta CBD - Technical Paper;

e. Gateway Determination and subsequent Alterations;

f. Local Planning Panel Minutes and Reports (19 March 2019); and

g. Council Minutes and Reports (8 April 2019, 23 March 2020, 22 March 2021).

30. The public exhibition included:

a. Letters to neighbouring landowners and occupiers, as well as nearby landowners and occupiers anticipated to be impacted by overshadowing.

b. Letters to relevant State and Federal Government agencies.

c. A notice in the ‘Parra News’ newspaper on 31 August 2021.

d. Exhibition materials were available placed on Council’s Participate Parramatta website. Note hard copies were not available as Council’s Customer Contact Centre was closed due to directives by NSW Health at that time.

31. Fifteen (15) submissions were received during the public exhibition period. This includes six (6) from public agencies and nine (9) from community members. A detailed summary of all submissions and Council officer responses is provided at Attachment 1. The submissions and response are discussed further in the following sections of this report.

PUBLIC AGENCY SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY AND RESPONSE

32. Six (6) submissions were received from the following public agencies:

a. Heritage NSW;

b. Transport for NSW (TfNSW);

c. Endeavour Energy;

d. NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Environment, Energy and Sciences (DPIE-EES);

e. Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications; and

f. Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

33. The applicant was provided with a copy of all of the Agency submissions, several of which raised issues which they recommend the applicant address prior to preparing any development application for the site.

34. The submissions generally raise issues that will be addressed through the development application process. A summary and response to the public agency submissions is provided in Attachment 1. Some changes have been requested to the Planning Proposal and draft DCP as follows:

a. The DPIE - EES has requested that the building footprint be altered to allow for tree planting on site and to require rooftop gardens to be mandated through the development control plan.

b. Heritage NSW has requested that the wording of the draft DCP be amended to replace the phrase “European elements” with the phrase: “environmental heritage” as it is more inclusive language.

c. TfNSW requested a Satisfactory Arrangements Clause for the Planning Proposal is required to ensure equitable funding of state and regional infrastructure as a result of the proposed development at the DA stage.

d. TfNSW requested the provision of bicycle parking rates and end-of trip facilities as outlined in their submission (refer to Attachment 1 for further detail).

e. TfNSW requested that loading and servicing provisions be made on site.

35. The changes requested by State Agencies are recommended to be made to the draft DCP although items (c) and (d) are already addressed within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and associated draft City Centre DCP. With regard to the request from the DPIE – EES to reduce the footprint of the podium, the redevelopment of the Parramatta CBD under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) is predicated on a model of redevelopment where new buildings define streets and public spaces; while the towers above are tall and slender and are set back to allow daylight, views and circulation of air to the streets and public spaces below. As such, the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP prescribes nil setbacks for ground floor podiums. The draft site-specific DCP also provides for nil setbacks except where variations are needed for specific objectives such as road widening and pedestrian access.

Notwithstanding, the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP contains provisions to increase vegetation and tree planting in the CBD with the subject site identified as being within the area where street trees have priority over awnings. Section 8.5 Urban Cooling of the Parramatta City Centre DCP also contains provisions requiring that 75% of the area of rooftops and podiums that are not being used for communal open space are to be vegetated and 50% of rooftops and podiums that are to be used as communal open space are to be under shade including through the use of vegetation and shade trees.

36. A more detailed response to all of the State Agency submissions is contained in Attachment 1.

COMMUNITY SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY AND RESPONSE

37. All of the nine (9) community submissions object to the Planning Proposal. A summary of the main concerns raised is as follows:

a. Objection is raised to the loss of the Albion Hotel building as it is of value to the community for its heritage character;

b. Objection is raised to the loss of the Albion Hotel building as it is of value to the community as a live music venue;

c. The proposed development will create unacceptable levels of overshadowing to surrounding residents, schools and parks;

d. The proposed development will create traffic congestion; and

e. Parramatta has too many high density apartments many of which are empty.

38. No changes are proposed to the draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement in response to the submissions with the issues raised summarised below:

a. It is acknowledged that the existing Albion Hotel building is an attractive building and is valued for its contribution to the streetscape. However, this by itself does not enable Council to require the retention of the building and prohibit redevelopment of the site. The building is not listed under the Parramatta LEP 2011 as an item of heritage significance. Further, Council’s then Heritage Advisor and the NSW Heritage Office have not raised concerns with the Planning Proposal subject to heritage issues being addressed at the development application stage.

b. Council is committed to the activation of Parramatta’s night-time economy including live music. At its meeting on 10 February 2020, Council resolved to endorse the Parramatta Night City Framework 2020-2024. The Framework includes an Action to develop a Live Music Strategy for the City which may help to offset any loss of a live music venue at this site.

c. Underpinning the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal were several technical studies including the Overshadowing Technical Paper which analysed the overshadowing impacts on open space areas including Robin Thomas Reserve across the road from the subject site. There are no schools that will be overshadowed by the proposal. (Noting that the Rowland Hassall School previously to the south of the site, has relocated to a new site in Chester Hill). The Robin Thomas Reserve will be overshadowed, however, the Overshadowing Technical Paper found that the level of solar access to the park can still comply with the benchmark of 50% of the total park area to receive 4 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Since the preparation of the Overshadowing Technical Paper, the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP has been publicly exhibited and contains minimum standards for maintaining acceptable levels of solar access at significant parks including Robin Thomas reserve directly to the east of the site. Shadow diagrams prepared by Council officers indicate that the proposal at a height of 165.6 metres can meet these minimum standards.

d. The site-specific Planning Proposal is consistent with the controls proposed for the site under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. This density of development and the resulting traffic impacts were assessed as part of the Parramatta CBD Strategic Transport Study. The Study noted that the improvements to the transport network that will be provided by the Parramatta Light Rail and the proposed Sydney Metro West combined with reducing the capacity to support on-site car parking in future developments by adopting lower car parking rates will ameliorate the impacts of increasing densities in the Parramatta CBD.

e. Council’s Local Housing Strategy includes a housing demand analysis which demonstrated that the Parramatta CBD will experience strong demand for housing due largely to the growth of the Parramatta CBD as a centre for economic activity and employment, higher house prices in the eastern areas of Sydney, the expansion of the Greater Sydney region and the rearrangement of strategic centres and transport links.

39. A more detailed summary and response to each of the concerns outlined above is included in the table at Attachment 1.

HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESPONSE

40. On 15 April 2021, the Heritage Advisory Committee (the Committee) considered the matter prior to the public exhibition of a Planning Proposal for the subject site. A summary of their comments are as follows:

a. The Design Competition should include a requirement that there be a site interpretation of the area’s river trade history;

b. Concerned is raised regarding overshadowing of heritage sites in the area and Robin Thomas Reserve; and

c. Concern is raised regarding lines of sight and visual relationship between heritage items.

41. The Committee’s comments and the Council Officer response is included as Table 3 within the Summary of Submissions in Attachment 1. It is noted that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal contains a clause which prohibits any new development from overshadowing Experiment Farm between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 July. Further, the Overshadowing Technical Paper conducted as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal identified that the cumulative overshadowing expected from the development of the site and surrounding sites would be within acceptable limits. The Heritage Issues Identification Paper submitted by the applicant with the Planning Proposal considered historic view corridors and found that the proposal will not obstruct any significant views. The Committee’s comments have also been provided to Council’s City Architect for their information in relation to the Design Competition.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
15 April 2021	Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee	As described in Table 3 of Attachment 1.	As described in Table 3 of Attachment 1.	City Planning and Design
1 September to 30 September 2021	Public exhibition	As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1).	As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1).	City Planning and Design
6 September 2021	State and Federal Agency consultation	As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1)	As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1)	City Planning and Design

Councillor Consultation

43. The following Councillor consultation will be undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
9 February 2022 Briefing Session	All Councillors (except Cr Garrard)	Questions on proposal	Responses provided at briefing	City Planning and Design

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

44. Any work to progress the finalisation of the draft site-specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement would be prepared by Council Officers and therefore would be within the existing Major Projects and Precincts budget.

45. The items within the draft Planning Agreement (i.e., the dedication of land for road widening, creation of public easements and public domain embellishment works) are proposed to be obtained through the draft Planning Agreement.

46. The conditions of the draft Planning Agreement stipulate that the areas relating to the public easements and embellishment are to be cared and maintained at the expense of the private landowner, therefore at no cost to Council. The table below represents the estimated cost to Council of treating the future road reservation as an interim asphalted/landscaped pedestrained area until the Gasworks Bridge Widening project is undertaken (between 10-15 years). This is based on the assumption that the dedication of the road reserve to Council will occur in the short term.

47. Attachment 7 is provided under confidential cover as it contains information relating to the potential costs to Council.

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal				$100,000
Other
Total CAPEX				$100,000

Funding Source				General Revenue

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

48. The Gateway alteration issued by the DPIE may have implications for the draft Planning Agreement which is discussed in Attachment 7. This attachment is provided under confidential cover as it contains information relating to legal advice received in relation to the draft Planning Agreement.

CONCLUSION

49. It is noted that the site-specific Planning Proposal is no longer proceeding as per the Gateway Alteration issued by DPE on 28 October 2021. The site will be subject to the controls to be introduced through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

50. It is recommended that Council:

a. approve the draft site specific-DCP at Attachment 4 for finalisation and inclusion within Part 10 (Site Specific Controls) of the finalised Parramatta City Centre DCP, including the minor amendments at Attachment 5 in this report; and

b. approve the Planning Agreement at Attachment 6 and that the CEO be delegated authority to enter into the Planning Agreement.

Felicity Roberts

Project Officer-Land Use

Bianca Lewis

Team Leader Land Use Planning

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Summary Table of Submissions	15 Pages
2 ⇩	Alteration of Gateway determination	2 Pages
3 ⇩	Site-specific Planning Proposal as publicly exhibited	58 Pages
4 ⇩	Site-specific Development Control Plan as publicly exhibited	18 Pages
5 ⇩	Recommended changes to draft site-specific DCP	2 Pages
6 ⇩	Draft Planning Agreement as publicly exhibited	50 Pages
7	Financial and Legal Implications (confidential)	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.10

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.10

SUBJECT Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08413617

APPLICANT/S Think Planners

OWNERS Century 888 Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Project Officer Land Use

CSP THEME: THRIVING

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel Nil

WORKSHOP/BRIEFING DATE: 9 March 2022

PURPOSE

To detail submissions received during the public exhibition of a Planning Proposal, draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta and respond to issues raised. The report recommends that Council approve the Planning Proposal, site-specific DCP and Planning Agreement for finalisation.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes the submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta. A summary of submissions is provided at Attachment 1.

(b) That Council approve for finalisation the Planning Proposal for land at 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta (provided at Attachment 2), which seeks to amend Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as follows:

i. Maintaining the R4 High Density Residential zone for the developable part of the site (3,825sqm) and extending the RE1 Public Recreation zone for the undevelopable land (1,200sqm) affected by the Natural Resources - Biodiversity control;

ii. Increasing the maximum Height of Building (HOB) control from 11 metres to 22 metres across the R4 High Density Residential zoned part of the site, and removing the HOB control from the RE1 Public Recreation zoned part of the site;

iii. Increasing the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control from 0.8:1 to 1.3:1 across the R4 High Density Residential zoned part of the site, and removing the FSR control from the RE1 Public Recreation zoned part of the site;

iv. Removing No.85 Thomas Street from the Land Reserved for Acquisition Map, subject to execution of the Planning Agreement; and

v. Amending the Minimum Lot Size control to apply to the proposed R4 High Density Residential land only and remove this control from the proposed RE1 Public Recreation zoned land.

(c) That Council approve the site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) at Attachment 3 for finalisation and insertion into the Parramatta Development Control Plan (PDCP) 2011.

(d) That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to;

i. finalise the draft Planning Agreement at Attachment 4 and to sign it on Council’s behalf.

ii. exercise the plan-making delegations as granted by the Gateway Determination for this Planning Proposal once the Planning Agreement has been executed by Council.

iii. make any minor, administrative and/or non-policy amendments to the Planning Proposal, site specific DCP and Planning Agreement during the finalisation processes.

(e) Further, that Council note the Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council is not in support of the Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 5), which is not consistent with the Council Officer’s recommendation in the report.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

SITE DESCRIPTION

1. The site at 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta is 6,321sqm in area and contains four separate lots (85, 87, 89 and 91 Thomas Street). The site currently contains detached single dwelling houses facing Thomas Street and bushland to the rear. The site is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Location Map - Subject site outlined in yellow

2. The site is situated within a R4 High Density Residential zoned area between Parramatta River, Macarthur Street, Victoria Road and James Ruse Drive. The surrounding area currently has a mix of low-rise residential flat buildings and detached single dwelling houses, but this is expected to change over time considering the current high-density residential zoning.

BACKGROUND

3. On 19 May 2020, the Local Planning Panel (LPP) provided advice to Council recommending it endorse a Planning Proposal for the purposes of requesting a Gateway Determination for the site with a maximum floor space ratio of 1.3:1, a maximum height control of 22 metres, land use zoning and land acquisition map changes.

4. At its meeting on 9 June 2020, Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal for the purpose of requesting a Gateway Determination and to amend the height of buildings and floor space ratio controls, land use zoning and land acquisition map consistent with the recommendation of the Council officers and Local Planning Panel. Council also resolved to prepare a draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement to be exhibited with the Planning Proposal. A more detailed summary of the Planning Proposal is provided in the following section of this report.

5. On 18 August 2020, the now Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) issued a Gateway determination which allowed the Planning Proposal to proceed to public exhibition. The Gateway determination stipulated an expiry date of 18 August 2021, and requested the Planning Proposal be amended to update the explanation of provisions to outline the intended outcomes regarding the proposed changes to the minimum lot sizes. The Gateway determination authorises Council’s Chief Executive Officer to exercise the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal.

6. On 15 June 2021, Council resolved to endorse for the purposes of public exhibition the draft site-specific DCP for the site and authorised the commencement of the legal drafting of the Planning Agreement. Council also resolved that the draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement be placed on exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal. A more detailed summary of the draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement is provided in the following section of this report.

7. The Planning Proposal, draft site specific DCP and Planning Agreement were publicly exhibited from 26 August 2021 to 23 September 2021. This report addresses the outcomes of that exhibition and makes recommendations for progressing the matter.

8. On 27 October 2021, the DPE issued a revised Gateway determination extending the timeframe for completing the LEP to 28 February 2022.

9. On 15 February 2022 the LPP resolved to advise Council to not support the Planning Proposal (refer Attachment 5). A response to the Panel’s advice is detailed further in the report below.

PLANNING PROPOSAL

10. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the planning controls in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 for 85-91 Thomas Street as described below in Table 1.

11. A key outcome of the Planning Proposal is to adjust the land use zoning boundaries, reduce the developable portion of the land and increase the land dedicated to public recreation. As such the maximum building height and floor space ratio within the proposed R4 High Density Residential portion of the site are proposed to increase to the same densities as what was allowable under the planning controls that were in place when the Planning Proposal was lodged in June 2016 as noted in Table 1.

12. The Council initiated Planning Proposal to amend the Land Reservations Acquisition and Natural Resources Maps to various properties across the LGA known as ‘Parramatta LEP 2011 - Amendment 20’, introduced RE1 zoning, land acquisition and riparian and biodiversity controls on the site. The gazettal of Amendment 20 on 28 July 2017 reduced the development potential of the site and as such, the subject Planning Proposal is seeking to redistribute the FSR that could be achieved across the whole site and apply it only to the reduced R4 High Density Residential zone portion of the site. Therefore, in order to maintain the same approximate yield, this results in the FSR increasing from 0.8:1 across the whole site to 1.3:1 for the developable portion of the site.

13. A key outcome of the Planning Proposal is to adjust the land use zoning boundaries, reduce the developable portion of the land and increase the land dedicated to public recreation. As such the maximum building height and floor space ratio within the proposed R4 High Density Residential portion for the site are proposed to increase to the same densities as what was allowable under the planning controls that were in place when the Planning Proposal was lodged in June 2016 as noted in Table 1.

Table 1 – Current and proposed controls

Parramatta LEP 2011	Planning Controls before 28 July 2017 (prior to ‘Amendment 20’)	Current Controls	Planning Proposal Recommendation
Land Use Zoning	R4 – High Density Residential (6,321sqm)	Part R4 High Density Residential (5,025sqm), Part RE1 Public Recreation (1,296sqm)	Part R4 High Density (developable portion approx. 3,825sqm), Part RE1 Public Recreation (undevelopable portion approx. 2,496sqm)
Maximum HOB	11 metres (3 storeys)	Part 11 metres (3 storeys) (R4 land) and part no HoB (RE1 land)	22 metres (6 storeys) (R4 land only) and part no HoB (RE1 land)
Maximum FSR	0.8:1 (entire site area)	0.8:1 (R4 land only) and part no FSR (RE1 land)	1.3:1 on R4 land (with land dedication) and part no FSR (RE1 land)
Maximum GFA	5,057sqm (based on the total site area)	4,020sqm (based on R4 High Density Residential only)	Approx. 4,973sqm (based on developable site area)
FSR on Developable Portion	1.32:1	1.05:1	1.3:1
Maximum Dwelling yield Council Calculation= (Maximum GFA / 85sqm for high density dwellings)	59 dwellings	47 dwellings	59 dwellings

14. Plans in the LPP Report (Attachment 5) illustrate the current controls and proposed amendments to height of buildings, floor space ratio and additional local provisions as part of this Planning Proposal

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

15. The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a site-specific DCP (Attachment 3) which is a draft amendment to the Morton Street section of Parramatta DCP. The draft amendment proposes to include a new “Area 5 – 85-91 Thomas Street” which includes specific controls in relation to building height and massing; streetscape, building setbacks and separation; deep soil, landscaping and future open space; and ecology and river foreshore. These controls complement the Planning Proposal and set the parameters for a proposed building envelope to address relationships with adjacent development and the surrounding area.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL OUTCOMES

16. On 15 February 2022, the Local Planning Panel provided advice in relation to the public exhibition outcomes of the Planning Proposal, draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement (refer Attachment 5 for copy of the Panel report and minutes). The Panel advised the following:

“The Local Planning Panel does NOT support the Council Officer recommendations to proceed with the Planning Proposal and Site Specific Development Control Plan for the following reasons:

1. The proposed Planning Proposal lacks strategic and local planning merit as it relates to one site in an otherwise consistent urban environment with development generally in accordance with the existing and future 11 metre height limit and the existing and future density controls (noting that Council is not planning to change these controls), which would result in an incongruous and undesirable future built form.

2. The visual impact of a future 22-metre building from both Thomas Street and the public domain and public walkway to the south would be unacceptable.

3. Should Council consider upzoning Thomas Street from James Ruse Drive to at least Pemberton Street then rezoning of the subject site could be considered in that context.

4. The submissions received to the Planning Proposal during public exhibition raised relevant concerns relating to increased density, visual impact, overshadowing the existing development and the Public Reserve. Public submissions noted that the proposed dedication of the land at NIL cost to Council does not outweigh the adverse impacts of the isolated rezoning of this site.”

17. Each of the matters raised by the Panel is addressed by Council Officers below.

The proposal lacks strategic and local planning merit, relates to one site, and would result in an incongruous and undesirable built form.

18. On 6 June 2016, the applicant lodged the Planning Proposal with Council. The Proposal has been subject to multiple significant refinements based upon detailed input from Council officers leading to an amended Proposal being submitted by the applicant to Council on 4 February 2020. The Planning Proposal is a legacy proposal and predates key Council strategic planning documents. Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) was published on 31 March 2020. The LSPS provides strategic direction on how the City of Parramatta is planning for the next 20 years.

19. It is acknowledged that although the site is zoned R4 High Density Residential, it is not in an area identified within LSPS for additional growth. However as shown in Table 1 above, the key principle under which Council Officers have sought amendments to the originally lodged Planning Proposal was to ensure that there was no net increase in gross floor area (or density) achievable on the site before Amendment 20. Notwithstanding this, the proposal facilitates high density residential development on the parts of the site that are not environmentally sensitive and secures the strategic aims of long term protection of the environmentally sensitive area and the maintenance of the strategically important Parramatta River foreshore.

20. Matters relating to the built form are addressed below.

Should Council consider upzoning Thomas Street from James Ruse Drive to at least Pemberton Street then rezoning of the subject site could be considered in that context.

21. Council Officers have undertaken a desktop assessment of surrounding properties (refer Figure 2) that have already been redeveloped for high-density residential purposes including townhouses/villa development at 81-83 Thomas Street (0.8:1 density and 11m height) and 12 and 14 Pemberton Street and a residential flat building at 93-95 Thomas Street (0.8:1 density and 11m height). It is unlikely that these subdivided sites will ‘turnover’ to increased density or height comparable to that proposed for the subject site.

22. Furthermore, unlike the subject site, surrounding sites are not affected by land acquisition and natural resources planning controls and are able to mass their gross floor area (GFA) proportionately across their site area within their height limit (refer Figure 2). Council Officers consider that it is reasonable that a site-specific Planning Proposal for the subject site be considered in these particular and differing circumstances.

A picture containing graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 Analysis of surrounding properties and the subject site

The visual impact of a future 22-metre building from both Thomas Street and the public domain and public walkway to the south would be unacceptable.

23. While the Planning Proposal represents a change in scale for built form on the site, the proposed building envelope aims to address the scale of adjacent development and as viewed from the foreshore.

24. It is considered that the building envelopes appropriately distribute the residential floorspace generated from the undevelopable land in a sensitive manner. Building footprints have been reduced with additional height resulting in greater setbacks and separation distances to improve built form transition to neighbouring development. The proposed draft DCP controls provide for two apartment blocks with spacing of 12 metres between lower storeys and 18 metres between the two upper storeys. See elevations at Figure 3. These setbacks exceed the minimum requirements of the Apartment Design Guide and Parramatta DCP 2011.The setbacks also ensure the length and scale of the building is minimised as well as allowing landscaping to be planted to integrate and soften the built form and compliment the bushland foreshore area.

25. Furthermore additional upper level setbacks for the upper two storeys assist with providing a transitioning scale and separation to the scale of development nearby and public domain (refer elevations at Figure 3).

Figure 3 - Elevation view of setback and separation controls

The proposed dedication of the land at nil cost to Council does not outweigh the adverse impacts (relating to increased density, visual impact, overshadowing the existing development and the Public Reserve) of the isolated rezoning of this site.

26. As detailed above, the recommended changes to the FSR (density) control seeks to redistribute the FSR that could be achieved across the whole site and apply it only to the developable portion of the site. Therefore, in order to maintain the same approximate yield, this results in the FSR increasing from 0.8:1 across the whole site to 1.3:1 for the developable portion of the site.

27. The proposed concept design and draft DCP controls have been developed as a result of extensive urban design testing. The proposed site specific DCP includes controls that will maintain a generous 10 metre setback from the existing neighbouring properties on both sides. Landscaping controls will also help to create a buffer between the development and provides greater privacy to adjoining properties.

28. In relation to overshadowing impacts, the proposed orientation of the buildings to the south as per the controls under the draft site-specific DCP, allow for reasonable solar access to be maintained. There will be no overshadowing impacts on the adjacent property to the west of the site, and the overshadowing to the east is considered minimal with the overall impact being less than 14% at midwinter and only between 2pm and 3pm (refer Figure 4 and 5), and as such within an acceptable standard as measured by the Parramatta DCP 2011.

Figure 4 – Overshadowing at 2pm midwinter Figure 5 – Overshadowing at 3pm mid winter

29. Detailed analysis has been carried out of the shadowing impacts modelled in the PTI Architecture report on the wetlands by Cumberland Ecology and both consultant reports form attachments to the LPP Report (Attachment 5. The reports show that the proposed development will only shade the wetlands for part of each day (several hours) all winter, and for half of spring and half of autumn. Shading will not occur for the warmer months of the year (half of spring, half of autumn and all summer). Although the RE1 Public Recreation land will be overshadowed to an extent it will only be overshadowing vegetation which is not considered to be easily accessible public open space. Cumberland Ecology have concluded that the proposal will not have a significant detrimental effect on the wetland.

30. The cycleway will also experience some overshadowing, but it is not an area where people dwell and as such will not have significant impact on individuals. The DCP controls ensure that the development is to demonstrate no significant impact to the RE1 land as result of overshadowing.

31. Matters relating to the dedication of land as proposed in the Draft Planning Agreement Offer, including financial implications if the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement do not proceed, are addressed in the section of this report ‘Planning Agreement’ below.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION

32. A total of twenty-three (23) submissions were received comprising twenty-one (21) from the community and two (2) from public agencies (refer Attachment 1). Nineteen (19) community submissions objected to the proposal, two (2) community submissions only queried the expiration of the Gateway Determination and the two (2) agency submissions neither stated objection nor support. A brief summary of key issues raised during submission is at Table 2 below. Refer to the Local Planning Panel report at Attachment 5 for full details of the public exhibition.

33. A number of submissions received during the public exhibition period raised concerns regarding the proposed amendments, with the key issues relating to building heights and overshadowing, amenity and privacy, traffic and parking, biodiversity impacts, flooding impacts and about a boarding house development application which was lodged on the same site. Refer to the Local Planning Panel report at Attachment 5 for further details on the key issues raised and Council officer responses and recommendations. A table of all concerns raised and Council officer responses is provided at Attachment 1.

Table 2 – Summary of key issues and Council Officer responses.

Key Issue

Council Officer Response

Building Heights and Overshadowing

Concern over the proposed building heights being excessive and impacts on local character. In addition, the potential overshadowing impacts of increased height on the neighbourhood and foreshore.

· The proposed building heights are a result of extensive urban design testing and are considered to enable an appropriate built form in relation to surrounding development.

· Changes to the FSR control only seek to redistribute the FSR that could be achieved across the whole site and apply it only to the developable portion of the site.

· The proposed orientation of the buildings to the south allows for reasonable solar access to be maintained.

· The proposed site-specific DCP includes controls that will improve amenity and impacts to surrounding residential development.

Amenity and Privacy Concerns over the impact of future development on privacy, potential safety issues and waste and impact on local character.

· The proposed site specific DCP includes setback and landscaping controls to help to create a buffer between the development and neighbouring properties.

· Issues relating to waste and safety and design of the development will be considered as part of the development application.

Traffic and Parking Impacts

Concern regarding the potential traffic impacts on the existing road network, if the development would generate too much traffic and add additional pressure on on-street parking and traffic safety concerns.

· A precinct traffic study is not required given that the overall density is not increasing.

· TfNSW raised no issues regarding traffic.

· Any future development application would be required to satisfy off street parking and traffic safety requirements in line with Parramatta DCP 2011 and relevant traffic regulations.

Impacts on Biodiversity

Concern over the impacts of any future development on the adjacent natural area and biodiversity.

· The ecological assessment states the proposed development will not have a significant impact upon either mangroves or saltmarsh.

· Environment, Energy and Science had no comments on the Planning Proposal.

· The draft DCP includes ecology and foreshore controls to protect biodiversity.

Flooding Impacts

Concerns that future development will increase the risk of flooding impacts on adjacent properties.

· The proposed building footprint is outside the land affected at the rear on the southern side of the site.

· Flooding impacts will be considered and addressed at DA stage.

Boarding House DA

Concern over approval of a boarding house development application which has been lodged on the site (DA/312/2021).

· Development application DA/312/2021 seeks development consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of two x 8 storey boarding house buildings consisting of 237 boarding rooms over 2 levels of basement parking. The development application was also reported to the 15 February 2022 LPP meeting for determination and was refused by the LPP.

· It is noted that the applicant has lodged an appeal with the Land and Environment Court on 11 February 2022 against the deemed refusal of the DA by Council.

· Although the DA was lodged with the intent of assessment concurrently with the Planning Proposal it exceeds the FSR and the 6 storeys height limit set out in the Planning Proposal.

Planning Agreement

Concerns in relation to the draft planning agreement and its relationship to the Planning Proposal, some submissions asserting that “the planning agreement facilitates the dedication of land at nil cost. This is a conflict of interest as it is an incentive for Council to approve the development.”

· The negotiation of the draft planning agreement has been carried out in accordance with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy 2018.

· The NSW legislative framework allows for the negotiation of planning agreements to run in parallel with planning proposals and that they must be publicly exhibited.

· It is reasonable and appropriate for Council to seek contributions towards local infrastructure from a proponent to support a proposal that has been subject to a merit-based assessment, and the dedication of part of 85 Thomas Street is consistent with the current Parramatta LEP 2011 and with the Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan 2021 as it is identified for acquisition and future open space.

34. Council Officers consider that the matters raised in submissions have been adequately addressed and therefore recommend that Council support the finalisation of the Planning Proposal.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

35. The Draft Planning Agreement is for the dedication to Council at no cost a total of 2,496sqm (approximately 0.25 hectares) of open space and ecologically sensitive land. The land dedication comprises of two parts (refer Figure 6).

i. 1,296sqm of land at the rear of No.85 currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation and shown as land reserved for acquisition for local open space, and

ii. 1,200sqm of land at the rear of Nos.89-91 currently zoned R4 High Density Residential identified to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation with associated natural resources - biodiversity provisions.

Figure 6 – Proposed Land dedication in Planning Agreement

36. The draft Planning Agreement was exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP. The Draft Planning Agreement is for the dedication to Council at no cost a total of 2,496sqm (approximately 0.25 hectares) of open space and ecologically sensitive land. Further details about the Planning Agreement can be seen in the LPP report at Attachment 5 and the draft Planning Agreement at Attachment 4.

37. As part of the exhibition, submissions were received raising concerns that the planning agreement facilitates a conflict of interest as it is an incentive for Council to approve the development. In response, Officers note that the negotiation of the draft planning agreement has been carried out in accordance with the City of Parramatta’s Planning Agreements Policy 2018 and it is reasonable and appropriate for Council to seek contributions towards local infrastructure from a proponent to support a proposal that has been subject to a merit-based assessment.

38. Furthermore, the items included in the Planning Agreement have been considered in consultation with Open Space Team who have confirmed that the items included in the Planning Agreement serve an identified need and are consistent with Council’s adopted Community Infrastructure Strategy, and the land dedication of (part of) 85 Thomas Street is consistent with the current Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan 2021 which identifies it for acquisition. Therefore, no changes are recommended by Council officers as a result of the submissions made during the public exhibition.

39. The issues raised during public exhibition in relation to the draft Planning Agreement and Officer responses are included in the Submissions Table at Attachment 1.

40. The advice of the Local Planning Panel is for Council to not proceed with the Planning Proposal and associated draft Planning Agreement. The implications of not supporting the proposal are summarised as follows:

a) That part of 85 Thomas Street (refer Figure 6) is currently on the Land Acquisition Reservation Map of the Parramatta LEP 2011 and therefore in the future Council is required to acquire that parcel of land. It is estimated that this would be in the order of $1.3 - $1.5M. Cycleway access along the Parramatta River foreshore would remain via the existing easement.

b) The part of 89-91 Thomas Street (refer Figure 6) is currently on the Proposed Natural Resources - Biodiversity Map and although zoned R4 High Density Residential and having an associated FSR of 0.8:1 and Height limit of 11 metres due to its environmental constraint would likely not be able to be developed on that portion of land. There is no current proposal for Council to acquire this part of the foreshore land in the future via the PLEP 2011 or Contributions Plan. Existing cycleway access along the Parramatta River will remain via the existing easement.

41. Council Officers consider that the dedication of river foreshore land at nil cost is of significant public benefit and offers better protection of the biodiversity value of the land. It is unlikely that the purchasing of the land could be paid for by development contributions as contributions need to be divided and shared as per the contributions plan. Furthermore, the proposed land dedication reflects the intended use of the site by clearly delineating the developable portion of the site from the portion of the site that is currently zoned open space or has been identified as having ecological value.

CONSULTATION AND TIMING

42. As noted above, the Planning Proposal, draft site-specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement were subject to public and agency consultation. Further details on consultation can be found in the LPP report at Attachment 5 and the Submissions Table at Attachment 1.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

43. The legal implications associated with this report relate to the Planning Agreement that is proposed to be entered into between Council and the developer. Council’s legal team were assisted by an external legal expert in the drafting of the Planning Agreement and ensuring that the agreement was satisfactory to both parties for the purposes of public exhibition.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

44. Any work to progress the finalisation of the Planning Proposal would be prepared by Council Officers and therefore within the existing City Planning budget. Should this matter progress, a Planning Agreement will be entered into between the applicant and Council.

45. The planning agreement will facilitate the proposed land dedication at nil cost to Council. The future maintenance will be budgeted through Council’s Operational Plan and Budget and the Parramatta River Foreshore Contract. Council’s Open Space team notes the estimated maintenance cost of this land is approximately $2,500 per financial year.

46. If the 1,296sqm of privately owned RE1 zoned, affected by the land acquisitions at No.85 Thomas Street is not dedicated at no cost as part of Planning Agreement negotiations, Council officers estimate this land could cost approximately $1.3-1.5 million. If the remaining 1,200sqm of privately owned R4 zoned land affected by the Natural Resources – Biodiversity control at numbers 89 and 91 Thomas Street is not dedicated to Council, given that the current proposal seeks to extract the FSR from this portion of the site and redistribute it on the developable site area, it is estimated that this land would hold nominal to no monetary value as a result.

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

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
External Revenue	Nil	Nil	Nil	$1.3-1.5 million
Total Revenue	Nil	Nil	Nil	$1.3-1.5 million

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Operating Result
External Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Internal Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil	$2,500
Depreciation	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Other	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Total Operating Result	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

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

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

48. It is recommended that Council approve the Planning Proposal for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta as exhibited and for Council to exercise its plan-making delegations as granted by the Gateway Determination and work with the Parliamentary Counsel Office on the legal drafting and mapping of the amendment. The LEP amendment will then be signed by the CEO before being notified on the NSW Legislation website. Additionally, the Planning Proposal needs to be finalised by the DPIE Gateway Determination deadline of 31 March 2022.

49. It is recommended that Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP for finalisation which provides detailed design controls in support of the Planning Proposal and are intended to improve interpretation of controls and better reflect the intended outcomes detailed in the objectives.

50. It is recommended that Council endorse the draft Planning Agreement for finalisation which is the mechanism for Council to acquire the subject land for future open space and biodiversity protection at nil cost.

Rafael Morrissey

Project Officer Land Use

Bianca Lewis

Team Leader Land Use Planning

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Caroline Nuttall

Solicitor

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Submissions Table	37 Pages
2 ⇩	Planning Proposal	59 Pages
3 ⇩	Draft Site-Specific DCP	7 Pages
4 ⇩	Draft Planning Agreement	32 Pages
5 ⇩	LPP Minutes & Report - 15 February 2022	326 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 14 March 2022 Item 13.11

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.11

SUBJECT Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement for 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08412894

APPLICANT/S Fabcot Pty Ltd

OWNERS J L Dunrose Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Project Officer

CSP THEME: INNOVATION

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel Nil

WORKSHOP/BRIEFING DATE: 9 March 2022

PURPOSE

To detail submissions received during the public exhibition of a Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement relating to land at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks. The report seeks Council’s approval to finalise the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement for 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks.

(b) That Council approve the Planning Proposal (Attachment 2) for land at 1 Windsor Road, North Parramatta for finalisation that seeks to amend Schedule 1 in Parramatta (formerly The Hills) Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 by adding ‘retail premises’ as an additional permitted use (limited to a maximum of 3,800m²) to facilitate a supermarket and liquor store.

1. Dedicate a portion of the land to Council free of cost (the Dedication of Land) for the purpose of a possible future road widening of James Ruse Drive.

2. Register a public access easement at no cost to Council, over that part of the Land on which the Bridge Works and the Council Works will be located, in favour of Council (the Easement).

3. That upon receipt of development consent for the site, the developer construct a lightweight steel bridge structure (3m wide) that is to provide further pedestrian access to the Land from North Rocks Road (the Works).

4. That upon receipt of development consent for the site, the developer pay a monetary contribution of $500,000 to Council (the Contribution) to facilitate the construction of a future footbridge connection.

(d) That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to:

1. finalise the draft Planning Agreement at Attachment 3, and to sign the Planning Agreement on Council’s behalf.

2. exercise the plan making delegations as granted by the Gateway Determination for this Planning Proposal once the Planning Agreement has been executed by Council.

3. make any minor administrative and/or non-policy amendments to the Planning Proposal, and Planning Agreement during the finalisation processes.

(e) Further, that Council note the Local Planning Panel considered and endorsed the Planning Proposal at its meeting on 15 February 2022 and recommended that Council approve the planning proposal.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

SITE DESCRIPTION

1. The site is located on the corner of Windsor Road and James Ruse Drive. The site comprises two lots and is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 112482 and Lot 6 in DP 247452, with a total area of approximately 2.52ha (25,200m²). See Figure 1.

2. The site is currently occupied by a large warehouse building (occupied by a vacant Bunnings Warehouse), with a gross floor area of 7,405m². At grade car parking is provided on site, with 260 spaces located predominantly to the south of the building with the remainder to the north and west.

Figure 1 – Location of 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks subject to the Planning Proposal

BACKGROUND

3. On 28 October 2019, Council received a planning proposal application relating to land at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks, known as Lot 1 DP 112482 and Lot 6 DP 247452. The planning proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of the Parramatta (formerly The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012 by adding ‘retail premises’ as an additional permitted use (limited to a maximum of 3,800 m²) to facilitate a Woolworths supermarket and a liquor store.

4. The matter was reported to the Local Planning Panel on 16 June 2020 and the Panel recommended the Planning Proposal not proceed given its location outside of an established retail centre. Notwithstanding, at its meeting on 27 July 2020, Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal (Attachment 2) and to seek a Gateway Determination, noting that additional information provided by the applicant indicated that there were no other suitable locations in the area for a development of this size within an established centre.

5. A Gateway Determination was issued by the now Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) on 3 November 2020. As part of this determination DPE authorised Council as the local plan-making authority, which means that should the matter proceed, Council officers will deal directly with the Parliamentary Counsel Office on the legal drafting and mapping of the amendment. The LEP amendment will then be signed by the CEO before being notified on the NSW Legislation website. The timeframe for completing this LEP amendment is 31 March 2022.

6. On 23 February 2021, Council received a letter of offer to enter into a Planning Agreement to provide infrastructure to support the Planning Proposal. On 9 August 2021, Council resolved that the draft Planning Agreement be placed on exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal.

7. The Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement were publicly exhibited for 28 days from 19 November to 17 December 2021 as required by the Gateway Determination.

8. The Local Planning Panel considered this Planning Proposal at its meeting on 15 February 2022, their advice is consistent with Council officer’s recommendation in this report to proceed with the Planning Proposal for finalisation.

DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PROPOSAL

9. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Parramatta (formerly The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012 to allow for an additional permissible use (‘retail premises’) at No.1 Windsor Road, North Rocks, in the form of a supermarket and liquor shop on the site, to a maximum of 3,800m². The remaining 3,015m² gross floor area of the warehouse will be used as a non-retail warehouse and distribution centre that is proposed to be utilised for home deliveries associated with the supermarket use.

10. The planning proposal addresses a significant undersupply of supermarket floor space within the local area and it is anticipated it would result in an additional 1,196 jobs being created both directly and indirectly.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

11. The exhibited draft Planning Agreement (Attachment 3) includes the following key elements:

Items		Value for Planning Agreement
Local Items
1.	Construction of a lightweight, steel bridge structure 3m wide that provides pedestrian access to the site from North Rocks Road (shaded in green and red in Figure 2) - prior to the issue of the final Occupation Certificate	$640,000 (estimate)
2.	Registration of an easement for public access in favour of Council for proposed footpath connection (in the location hatched in red labelled “Easement dedicated to Council for proposed footpath connection” in Figure 2) - prior to the issue of the final Occupation Certificate	$75,000 (estimate)
3.	Monetary Contribution towards construction of the proposed footpath connection prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate	$500,000
Total value of local items		$1.215 million
State Items
4.	Dedication to Council of approximately 515 sqm of land to facilitate James Ruse Drive widening (being the land marked “Land to facilitate possible future James Ruse Drive widening” in (Figure 2)) - prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate. Until such time as Transport for NSW advises, there is no current plan for the widening of the James Ruse Drive off ramp to Windsor Road. Dedication to Council ensures the land is available for future widening.	$370,000 (estimate)
Total Value		$1.585 million

	Easement dedicated to Council for potential future widening of James Ruse Drive
	Minimum extent of footbridge required
	Easement dedicated to Council for proposed footbridge
	Additional extent of footbridge required

Figure 2 – Map showing items included in the planning agreement.

12. The draft Planning Agreement assists in delivering active transport and Green Grid links along Darling Mills Creek, as identified in the adopted Parramatta Ways Walking Strategy. Additionally, the development of pedestrian facilities will provide direct access to the supermarket for residents on the northern side of James Ruse Drive.

13. The dedication of land to Council for the potential future widening of the James Ruse Drive off ramp to the Windsor Road intersection is key to addressing future traffic network upgrades in this area, and will negate the need for future land acquisitions when these upgrades are undertaken.

14. The draft planning agreement provides high value infrastructure and the potential to assist in addressing local traffic congestion.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION OUTCOME

15. A total of nine (9) submissions were received during the public exhibition period comprising six (6) from the community and three (3) from Government agencies (NSW State Emergency Services, Transport for NSW and Heritage NSW). Overall, one submission supported the proposal and the draft Planning Agreement in full, two objected in full, and three raised comments suggesting changes without expressing support or objection to the proposal.

16. Key issues raised in the community submissions received during the public exhibition period related traffic and parking, and site accessibility/safe access. However, the issues raised are primarily matters that will be addressed as part of the detailed assessment once a development application is lodged for the site. Refer to the Council officer report to the Local Planning Panel at Attachment 1 for further details on the key issues raised and Council officer responses and recommendations.

17. The Government agency responses did not raise objections to the proposal but identified various detailed issues to be resolved. These are identified and responded to in the Council officer report to the Local Planning Panel at Attachment 1.

18. Following consideration of the results of the public exhibition and the Local Planning Panel recommendations, the Planning Proposal is recommended to proceed for finalisation as exhibited.

PARRAMATTA LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

19. The Local Planning Panel considered this matter at its meeting on 15 February 2022. The Panel’s advice is consistent with the Council officer’s recommendation in this report to proceed with the Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement for finalisation. The Council officer report to the Panel and minute of the Panel decision are at Attachment 1.

20. The previous concerns raised by the Local Planning Panel regarding the location of the supermarket were examined in the post-exhibition consideration of the proposal at this meeting and the Panel did not raise any objection to this aspect of the proposal.

21. During its consideration of the matter the Panel acknowledged that concerns raised in submissions relating to traffic generation are adequately addressed by the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

22. Community and agency consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the issued Gateway determination.

Councillor Consultation

23. Councillors were briefed on the Planning Proposal, key issues and recommendations on 22 July 2020 prior to the 27 July 2020 Council meeting and raised no concerns.

24. Councillors were briefed on the planning proposal, draft planning agreement key issues and recommendations on 4 August 2020 prior to the 9 August 2020 Council meeting. This briefing clarified that the culverts under North Rocks Road were not included in the draft planning agreement as they are a separately funded (Federal Government and Council) project. Council endorsed the officer recommendation at this meeting to request a Gateway Determination.

PLAN MAKING DELEGATIONS

25. Council is delegated as the plan-making authority as granted by the Gateway Determination 3 November 2020. The Gateway Determination has set the timeframe for completion of this Planning Proposal as 31 March 2022.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

27. Any work to progress the finalisation of the Planning Proposal would be prepared by Council Officers and accommodated within the existing City Planning and Design budget. Should this matter progress, a Planning Agreement to the value of $1.585 million will be entered into between the applicant and Council, as described in the Planning Agreement section above. The $500,000 received in financial year 22/23 relates to the contribution that would be made to the footpath connection and bridge under the Planning Agreement. Further, at development application stage, development contributions in keeping with the current rates will be applied to the development.

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

	FY 21/22	FY 22/23	FY 23/24	FY 24/25
Revenue
Internal Revenue
External Revenue		500,000
Total Revenue		500,000

Funding Source	N/A

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

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	N/A

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

29. The Planning Proposal (Attachment 2) and Planning Agreement (Attachment 3) are consistent with the documents endorsed by Council on 27 July 2020 and have been publicly exhibited as required by the Council resolution and Section 25D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

30. The submissions raised during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement have been considered and are responded to in detail at Attachment 1. It is noted that the advice of the Local Planning Panel is to proceed with the Planning Proposal for finalisation.

31. It is recommended that Council approve the Planning Proposal for 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks as exhibited and for Council to exercise its plan-making delegations as granted by the Gateway Determination and work with Parliamentary Counsel Office on the legal drafting and mapping of the amendment. The LEP amendment will then be signed by the CEO before being notified on the NSW Legislation website. Additionally, the Planning Proposal needs to be finalised by the DPIE Gateway Determination deadline of 31 March 2022.

32. It is recommended that Council endorse the draft Planning Agreement for finalisation which is the mechanism for Council to provide improved pedestrian access to the site, as well as the provision of land for future potential widening of the James Ruse Drive off ramp.

Dot Hepburn

Project Officer

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Local Planning Panel Minutes and Report - 15 February 2022	152 Pages
2 ⇩	Planning Proposal (as exhibited)	39 Pages
3 ⇩	Draft Planning Agreement (as exhibited)	35 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Governance Manager		Lord Mayor Cr Donna Davis	Chief Executive Officer

	Minute Clerk
Cr Phil Bradley				Cr Lorraine Wearne	Sound
Cr Sameer Pandey, Deputy Lord Mayor				Cr Donna Wang
Cr Paul Noack				Cr Michelle Garrard
Cr Ange Humphries				Cr Dan Siviero	IT
Cr Dr Patricia Prociv				Cr Henry Green
Cr Pierre Esber				Cr Kellie Darley
Cr Cameron Maclean				Cr Georgina Valjak

Obligations
Oath [Affirmation] of Office by Councillors	I swear [solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm] that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the City of Parramatta Council and the City of Parramatta Council that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgement.
Code of Conduct Conflict of Interests
Pecuniary Interests	A Councillor who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned, and who is present at a meeting of the Council at which the matter is being considered, must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting. The Councillor must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting: a) At any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or b) At any time during which the Council is voting on any question in relation to the matter.
Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests	A Councillor who has a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter, must disclose the relevant private interest in relation to the matter fully and on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises in relation to the matter.
Significant Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests	A Councillor who has a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in relation to a matter under consideration at a Council meeting, must manage the conflict of interest as if they had a pecuniary interest in the matter.
Non-Significant Non-Pecuniary Interests	A Councillor who determines that they have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter that is not significant and does not require further action, when disclosing the interest must also explain why conflict of interest is not significant and does not require further action in the circumstances.

ITEM	COST
CBD Lighting & Projection Displays	225,000.00
Terrace Amphitheatre Concert series at CommBank Stadium	250,000.00
Eat St Rooftop Popup Bar concerts	140,000.00
Harris Park Precinct Activation	225,000.00
Advertising, Media, and Marketing	160,000.00
TOTAL COSTS	1,000,000.00

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
14 Jan 2022	Carly Rogowski - Executive Director, City Engagement & Experience	Supportive	Support noted	Events and Festivals Manager
14 Jan 2022	Gisella Velasco, Night Time Economy, City Strategy	Supportive	Support noted
Venues Live (CommBank Stadium)	Jordan Kerry Business Dev Manager, Venues Live NSW	Confirmed commitment to participate	Accepted offer of commitment	Events and Festivals Manager
Westfield Parramatta	Jacqueline Charalambous Snr Brand Experience Mgr	Confirmed commitment to participate	Accepted offer of commitment	Events and Festivals Manager
Park Royal Parramatta	Charmaine Hardwick Director of Sales & Marketing NSW Pan Pacific Hotels Group	Confirmed support and sponsorship	Accepted offer of commitment	Events and Festivals Manager

1 ⇩	Investment and Loans Performance Graph December 2021.pdf	1 Page
2 ⇩	Imperium Comprehensive Investment Report - December 21.pdf	35 Pages
3 ⇩	List of Council Investments by maturity December 2021.pdf	9 Pages

1 ⇩	Investment and Loans Performance Graph January 2022.pdf	1 Page
2 ⇩	City of Parramatta Investment Holdings 31 Jan 21.pdf	7 Pages
3 ⇩	Imperium Comprehensive Investment Report - January 22 .pdf	36 Pages

Item	Subject	Councillor	Question
13.1	Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held on 21 October and 25 November 2021	Garrard	Please provide details of the Heritage Grant Program, including how long are applications open for, the selection application criteria; how often can applicants apply and the maximum amount of Heritage grants.
15.1	Questions Taken on Notice from the Council Meeting – 7 February 2022	Garrard	1. When will the Chamber endorse the five programs identified for the CBD Revitalisation Program Grant? 2. When will the Chamber endorse the extension of the CBD Lighting Project? 3. Can the relevant Executive Director please contact me to discuss these matters?
16.1	Legal Status Report as at 31 January 2022	Pandey	1. What is Council’s legal expenditure budget and how much has been spent to date? 2. an we include these rolling details into each of these reports to Council?
16.3	Re-determine Organisation Structure (Senior Staff Positions)	Bradley	1. What was the budget allocation for redundancies for the previous financial year? 2. What is the budget allocation for redundancies for the current financial year?


	Press	Press

Public Gallery