NOTICE OF Council MEETING
PUBLIC AGENDA
An Ordinary Meeting of City of Parramatta Council will be held in the Cloister Function Rooms, St Patrick's Cathedral, 1 Marist Place, Parramatta on Monday, 28 March 2022 at 6:30pm.
Brett Newman
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Governance Manager |
Lord Mayor |
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
|
|
|
|||||||
Executive Director City Engagement & Experience |
Executive Director Community Services |
Executive Director City Planning & Design |
Group Manager City Strategy |
Executive Director City Assets & Operations |
Chief Finance and Information Officer |
Executive Director Property and Place |
|
|||||
|
Press |
Press |
|
|
|
|
|||||
Public Gallery |
STATEMENT OF ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS:
In accordance with clause 3.23 of the Model Code of Meeting Practice, Council is obligated to remind Councillors of the oath or affirmation of office made under section 233A of the Local Government Act 1993, and of their obligations under Council’s Code of Conduct to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest – the ethical obligations of which are outlined below:
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. |
Council 28 March 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO
1 OPENING MEETING
2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS
3 WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT
4 OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT
5 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Council - 14 March 2022............................................................................................ 7
6 APOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
7 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Nil
12 For Notation
12.1 Response to Notice of Motion - Activate, Regulate and Create Safe Underpasses............................................................................................ 44
12.2 Quarter Two Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22..................................................................................................... 66
12.3 NOTE LATE REPORT: Quarterly Budget Review - December 2021 122
13.1 Counting of petitions for referral of a development application to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel...................................................... 126
13.2 Condition of the heritage listed property at 10 New Zealand Street, Parramatta............................................................................................. 134
13.3 CBD Carparking Strategy.................................................................... 139
13.4 Draft Melrose Park South Site-Specific Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement............................................................................. 245
14.1 Peninsula Park, Wentworth Point...................................................... 448
14.2 Smoke Free Parramatta Square........................................................ 455
Nil
16.1 Legal Status Report as at 28 February 2022
This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (e) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.
16.2 Epping Laneway - Sale of Land
This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
17 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION
18 CONCLUSION OF MEETING
After the conclusion of the Council Meeting, and if time permits, Councillors will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of staff.
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, 14 March 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, Kellie Darley, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.
1. OPENING MEETING
The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis, opened the meeting at 6:33pm.
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF LAND
The Lord Mayor, acknowledged Burramattagal people of The Darug Nation as the traditional owners of land, and paid respect to their ancient culture and to their elders past, present and emerging.
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 21 February 2022
|
3683 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Bradley)
That the minutes be taken as read and be accepted as a true record of the Meeting. |
6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
3684 |
RESOLVED (Bradley/Darley)
(a) That the request to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 14 March 2022 via remote means submitted by the following Councillors due to personal reasons, be accepted: - Councillor Humphries; - Councillor Wearne.
(b) Further, that the apology received from Councillor Siviero due to personal reasons be accepted and leave of absence granted. |
7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Green declared a non-pecuniary and less than significant interest in Item 14.7 – Police & Citizens Youth Club (PCYC) Parramatta at CommBank Stadium being that he is a Club member of PCYC Parramatta. He remained in the Chamber during debate and voting on the matter.
8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor
8.1 |
SUBJECT February / March 2022 NSW Floods
REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08448016
REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis
|
3685 |
RESOLVED (Davis/Bradley)
(a) That Council note the significant weather event occurring across eastern New South Wales and Queensland, resulting in impacts from flood and storm conditions in the City of Parramatta.
(b) That Council note that these devastating floods have resulted in the known loss of 22 lives, 13 in Queensland and 9 in New South Wales, including the tragic loss of two lives in Wentworthville.
(c) That Council note the impacts to residents and businesses in our community, with many facing potential damage to property due to rainfall and localised flooding.
(d) That Council note that the City of Parramatta is one of 17 local government areas in NSW to have been declared a disaster area 22 February, with individuals and Councils eligible for flood assistance support through Service NSW.
(e) That Council thanks the NSW State Emergency Services, NSW Police, emergency services personnel and other agencies who have responded to calls for help across the City.
(f) That Council thanks the Council staff who have worked day and night throughout the severe weather and flooding experienced since 22 February to inspect sites, assist emergency services, provide resources and commence the clean-up, including Council’s Local Emergency Management Officer.
(g) That Council note Resilience NSW has established a Greater Sydney Region Recovery Committee, to lead the recovery efforts for the storm and flood impacted LGAs and communities, with City of Parramatta Council a member of this Committee.
(h) That Council note the Office of Local Government has activated the Local Government Emergency Recovery Support Group to co-ordinate support activities between Council’s across the state, with City of Parramatta a part of this.
(i) That Council note members of the community wishing to donate to relief and recovery efforts are encouraged to do so through GIVIT or the Australian Red Cross as outlined in the Minute background, and that Council donate $10,000 through GIVIT to the NSW Floods Appeal.
(j) Further, that Council promote GIVIT and the Australian Red Cross on Council's social media platforms. |
8.2 |
SUBJECT War in Ukraine
REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08447889
REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis
|
3686 |
RESOLVED (Davis/Esber)
(a) That Council condemn the unprovoked war being waged against the people of Ukraine and their democratically elected government, and call on the Commonwealth Government to do whatever is possible to assist the people of Ukraine in this time of need.
(b) That Council write to the Prime Minister, Federal Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and local Members of Parliament, calling on the Commonwealth Government to adopt a generous and timely approach to assisting Ukrainian citizens who may need asylum and sanctuary in Australia.
(c) That Council note the City of Parramatta is a proud multicultural community and a Refugee Welcome Zone, and welcomes those who may seek refuge in Australia.
(d) That Council write to the Embassy of Ukraine in Australia.
(d) Further, that Council observe a minutes silence in the Chamber in respect of the innocent lives lost as a result of the war in Ukraine.
|
|
Note: Council observed a minute’s silence. |
8.3 |
SUBJECT Condolence Motion Peter Herlinger
REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08447867
REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis
|
3687 |
RESOLVED (Davis/Pandey)
(a) That Council acknowledge the passing of former Holroyd Mayor, Peter Herlinger.
(b) Further, that the Chamber hold a minute’s silence as a gesture of respect on Mr Herlinger’s passing and in recognition of his contributions to the local community.
|
|
Note: Council observed a minute’s silence. |
8.4 |
SUBJECT Don't Leave Local Communities Behind - 2022 ALGA Federal Election Campaign
REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08448218
REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis
|
3688 |
RESOLVED (Davis/Esber)
(a) That Council supports the national funding priorities of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA).
(b) That Council agrees to support and participate in the Australian Local Government Association’s advocacy for their endorsed national funding priorities by writing to the local Federal Member(s) of Parliament, all known election candidates in local Federal electorates and the President of the Australian Local Government Association to: a. express support for ALGA’s funding priorities; b. identify priority local projects and programs that could be progressed with the additional financial assistance from the Federal Government being sought by ALGA; and c. seek funding commitments from the members, candidates and their parties for these identified local projects and programs.
(c) Further, that Council note participation in this national advocacy campaign does not preclude City of Parramatta from advocating on additional local needs and issues, but will strengthen the national campaign and sector wide support for all 537 Australian Local Governments. |
|
Matter of Urgency
|
3689 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Garrard)
That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to the passing of Shane Warne and Rodney Marsh.
The Lord Mayor ruled the matter urgent.
|
3690 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Noack)
(a) That Council acknowledge the passing of former Australian cricketers Shane Warne and Rodney Marsh.
(b) That the Lord Mayor write to Cricket Australia acknowledging the passing of Mr Warne and Mr Marsh.
(c) Further, that Council observes a minute’s silence as a gesture of respect on the passing of Mr Warne and Mr Marsh and in recognition of their contribution to Australian cricket.
|
|
Note: Council observed a minute’s silence. |
9. Public Forum
9.1 |
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: Item 13.10 - Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08443668
FROM Mr Greg McDonald
|
|
Dear Lord Mayor and Councillors,
I wish to speak before you this evening in relation to item 13.10 proposed rezoning of 85-91 Thomas Street Parramatta for consideration at tonight’s Council meeting. I wish to speak against the proposal.
I urge you to support Parramatta Local Planning Panels’ recommendation to Council on 15 February 2022. The Panel stated "Nil costs to Council do not outweigh the adverse impacts of the isolated rezoning of the Site”.
I am one of the many adverse impacts. Nine years ago I bought a town house on Thomas Street, with its appealing mix of three storey town houses and older freestanding cottages, as my retirement home.
Today I find I may be living next door to two large eight storey boarding room buildings where the overshadowing is so great that the maximum sunlight my residence will receive is three hours daily. I, along with other residents in my complex and the larger complex on the other end of the site are asked to sacrifice our quiet enjoyment of our homes and street. I speak to other residents on Thomas Street and surrounding streets, all also zoned residential R4. They are distressed about the precedence this sets for their streets, for the negative impact on our wildlife, our River, the heritage listed Wetlands and mangroves.
It doesn’t seem a fair exchange for the grant to Council of 2, 496sqm of land which can’t be built upon in any case.
In closing, I do not accept that council will have to purchase this land if this development is refused and developer wishes to proceed and the developer will have to build units to comply with the already existing R4 11 metre maximum height zoning.
Following is a extract from DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL Nil WORKSHOP/BRIEFING DATE: 9 March 2022
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.
STAFF RESPONSE
No staff response provided.
|
|
Note: Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 7:13pm and returned at 7:14pm during the consideration of Public Forum 1. |
9.2 |
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 2: Item 13.10 - Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08446174
FROM Ms Gillean Opoku
|
|
· Affects the development will have over the apartment block 93-95 on Thomas Street, in particular my apartment - Severe overshadowing. 3 hours is not enough sunlight · Concern the council is not acting on behalf their residents if this is approved · Turning this side of Parramatta into a concrete jungle · Congestion on the street.
STAFF RESPONSE
No staff response provided. |
9.3 |
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 3: Item 13.10 - Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08442326
FROM Ms Maskini Chahine
|
|
Dear Lord Mayor and Councillors
I wish to speak before you this evening in relation to item 13.10 for consideration at tonight’s meeting (14 March 2022).
My public forum:
85-91 Thomas Street Parramatta should NOT be rezoned and the maximum building height of these four blocks should be kept in-line with the zoning of the rest of Thomas Street which is currently set at 11m.
I raise this as an issue because if the building height was doubled, there would be detrimental effects to the environment and to the community, 85-91 Thomas Street Parramatta is situated on the northside directly abutting the Baludarri Wetland which has endangered and protected species.
According to the City of Parramatta Council ‘Baludarri Wetland Plan of Management’ (2010), key features of the Baludarri Wetland include: Coastal saltmarsh, which is listed as threatened species Freshwater wetlands which is listed in conservation acts.
Migratory birds and migratory bird habitats which are protected under Australian Federal Government and inter governmental agreements. Heritage listed mangroves The Baludarri Wetland Plan of Management’ states that:
“Reducing pollution, avoiding vegetation removal and protecting wetland biological diversity and integrity are important activities that maintain and improve the resiliency of saltmarsh ecosystems under changed climatic conditions”.
Having a 22m high building directly adjacent to the wetlands with cause shading, storm water run-off and litter onto the adjacent wetlands.
Other Issues relate to the population density in the area - Parramatta has already exceeded population density targets. The residents in the area object. For example, there were over 300 signatures on a petition objecting to a Development Application for a 6-storey, 4-block wide structure at this site.
The developer has not met the conditions of the gateway determination regarding this site, which were made by the A/Director of the NSW Dept of Planning, Industry and Environment, and the timeframe for the gateway determination has now lapsed - it lapsed in August 2021.
On the 15 February 2022, the Parramatta Planning Panel recommended against changes to the zoning and against doubling maximum allowable building height for this site
A grand scale development does not suit the current and foreseeable infrastructure of Thomas Street. There is not enough parking on Thomas Street and the site is too far from services e.g. it is a 25 minute walk from Parramatta shopping precinct and Parramatta Train Station.
Traffic concerns: Thomas Street already has a number of traffic issues which are likely to worsen when the changes to the Pemberton St/Victoria Road intersection come into effect.
In summary, in relation to this site, I am seeking that Council keep the current zoning and current maximum building height which is set at 11m.
Thank you.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING & DESIGN RESPONSE
The impacts of the Planning Proposal including building height, amenity, biodiversity and traffic concerns raised in this and the other public forum statements are addressed in the Council report, including in detail in Attachment 1 which addresses the matters raised in submissions during the public exhibition.
This particular public forum states that the conditions of the Gateway Determination have not been met and the Gateway Determination timeframe has lapsed. These statements are incorrect. All of the Gateway Determination conditions have been addressed. Whilst the Gateway Determination originally stipulated a completion date of 18 August 2021, the then Department of Planning, Industry and Environment issued an amended Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal on 27 October 2021 which provides for a revised completion date of 31 March 2022. It is noted that the amended Gateway Determination was issued by the Department after the public exhibition period. |
10. Petitions
There were no petitions tabled at this meeting.
11. Rescission Motions
Nil
|
Procedural Motion
|
3691 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Garrad)
That the order of business be amended to permit Item 13.10 – Post‑exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta to be considered at the commencement of consideration of Council business. |
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
|
3692 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Darley)
(a) That Council, as the plan-making authority, not finalise the Planning Proposal for land at 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta 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.
(b) Further, that Council does not support the Planning Proposal for the following reasons: i. The Planning Proposal lacks strategic planning merit as it seeks to increase height above the surrounding area’s maximum height of 11 metres which would result in an incongruous and undesirable future-built form; ii. The visual impact of a future 22-metres high building from Thomas Street, the public domain and public walkway along the Parramatta River foreshore would be unacceptable; and iii. The Planning Proposal will negatively impact on the privacy and amenity of surrounding development and impact on local character.
DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Prociv, Valjak, Wang and Wearne
NOES: Nil |
12. For Notation
12.1 |
SUBJECT Investment Report for December 2021
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08423166
REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant
|
3693 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Noack)
That Council receive and note the Investment Report for December 2021. |
12.2 |
SUBJECT Investment Report for January 2022
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08407506
REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant
|
3694 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Noack)
That Council receive and note the Investment Report for January 2022. |
|
Procedural Motion
|
3695 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Wearne)
That the order of business be amended to permit Item 12.3 - CBD Revitalisation Grant Program to be considered after the adjournment. |
Note: Item - 12.3:CBD Revitalisation Grant Program has been moved to another part of the document.
12.4 |
SUBJECT Proposed traffic improvements on Hill Road, Wentworth Point
REFERENCE F2022/00198 - D08415187
REPORT OF Traffic & Transport Team Leader
|
3696 |
RESOLVED (Noack/Garrard)
(a) That a monthly update be provided to Ward Councillors regarding the status of the Federal Funding application under its Stimulus Program.
(b) That should the outcomes of the Federal Funding be unsuccessful or not received by end of July 2022, that Council will endeavour to secure alternative funding for the traffic signal upgrade at Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway, to ensure these works are completed in the 2022/23 financial year.
(c) That Council continue to contact 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.
(d) Further, that updates on both projects referred to in this report be provided to each meeting of the Parramatta Traffic Committee and included in the minutes reported to Council until the projects are complete |
13. For Council Decision
13.1 |
SUBJECT Councillor Representation on Statutory Committees and External Bodies
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08385559
REPORT OF Governance Manager
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3697 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)
(a) That Council note the appointment of the following Councillors to the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee for the current term of Council:
(b) That Council approve the appointment of Councillors to the following statutory committees and external bodies for the current term of Council:
(c) That the respective bodies be advised of these appointments.
(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). |
13.2 |
SUBJECT Appointment of Community Representatives to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel
REFERENCE F2021/01980 - D08411416
REPORT OF Strategic Business Manager
|
3698 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Valjak)
(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. |
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
|
3699 |
RESOLVED (Maclean/Noack)
(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.
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.
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. |
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
|
3700 |
RESOLVED (Maclean/Noack)
(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. |
13.5 |
SUBJECT Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan
REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08385527
REPORT OF Recreation Planner
|
3701 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Garrard)
That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop. |
13.6 |
SUBJECT Dunlop Street Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths, Epping
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08401181
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Transport Planning
|
3702 |
RESOLVED (Maclean/Wearne)
(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. |
13.7 |
SUBJECT Submission on the draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08385679
REPORT OF Team Leader Strategic Design
|
3703 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Bradley)
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.
|
|
Note: Councillor Darley left the Chamber at 7:56pm and returned at 7:59pm during the consideration of Item 13.7. |
|
Procedural Motion
|
3704 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Esber)
That the meeting be adjourned for ten (10) minutes.
|
|
Note: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00pm for a short recess. |
|
Procedural Motion
|
3705 |
RESOLVED (Davis/Pandey)
That the meeting resume. |
The meeting resumed at 8:17pm 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, Dr Patricia Prociv, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.
12.3 |
SUBJECT CBD Revitalisation Grant Program
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08408588
REPORT OF Events & Festivals Manager
|
3706 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Pandey)
That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop. |
13.8 |
SUBJECT Submission on the draft Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy
REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08386208
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use
|
|
MOTION (Prociv/Noack)
(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.
(c) That Council undertake the following: 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.
|
|
AMENDMENT (Bradley/Esber)
(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.
(c) That Council undertake the following: 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) That Council be advised of the NSW Government’s response to submissions made on the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy.
(e) Further that, the submission be amended at page 10, Section 3.3 Ensuring feasible and effective implementation of a net-zero carbon precinct to read:
“The precinct vision to implement a net-zero precinct by 2050 is broadly supported, but the Australian Climate Council recommendation for net-zero emissions by 2035 is preferrable”.
Councillor Prociv, as mover of the original motion, accepted the amendment as part of the motion.
MOTION (Prociv/Noack)
(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.
(c) That Council undertake the following: 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) That Council be advised of the NSW Government’s response to submissions made on the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy.
(e) Further that, the submission be amended at page 10, Section 3.3 Ensuring feasible and effective implementation of a net-zero carbon precinct to read:
“The precinct vision to implement a net-zero precinct by 2050 is broadly supported, but the Australian Climate Council recommendation for net-zero emissions by 2035 is preferrable”.
|
3707 |
RESOLVED (Prociv/Noack)
(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.
(c) That Council undertake the following: 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) That Council be advised of the NSW Government’s response to submissions made on the Camellia-Rosehill Place Strategy.
(e) Further that, the submission be amended at page 10, Section 3.3 Ensuring feasible and effective implementation of a net-zero carbon precinct to read:
“The precinct vision to implement a net-zero precinct by 2050 is broadly supported, but the Australian Climate Council recommendation for net-zero emissions by 2035 is preferrable”. |
13.9 |
REFERENCE RZ/3/2017 – D08426898
APPLICANT/S Think Planners
OWNERS PIC Royal Investments Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Error! No document variable supplied.
|
3708 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Esber)
(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.
(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.
(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.
DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors Darley, Davis, Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Valjak, Wang and Wearne
NOES: Councillors Bradley and Prociv |
Note: Item - 13.10 Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 85-91 Thomas Street, Parramatta has been moved to another part of the document.
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
|
3709 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Valjak)
(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.
(c) That Council approve the draft Planning Agreement for finalisation (Attachment 3), that proposes to: 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.
DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Prociv, Valjak, Wang and Wearne
NOES: Nil |
14. Notices of Motion
14.1 |
SUBJECT Fish Kill and Reducing Organic Matter in Our Waterways
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08434227
FROM Councillor Kellie Darley
|
3710 |
RESOLVED (Darley/Noack)
(a) That Council note over 4,000 fish sadly died recently in Parramatta River, due to fish kills at Rydalmere and Haslams Creek. The NSW Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have confirmed that the fish kills were caused by a combination of repeated heavy rain, large tidal currents and increased amounts of organic matter in the river leading to critically low levels of oxygen in the water, especially near the bottom of the river. It should be further noted that analysis of water samples did not detect any chemical or common organic contaminants, such as pesticides, that could cause a fish kill and the affected fish showed no visible effects consistent with either acute or chronic chemical contamination.
(b) That Council write to EPA to request the final report on the fish kills in Parramatta River be made publicly available to assist the public to better understand how this event occurred.“
(c) That Council ask the PRCG stormwater subcommittee to consider the final report on the fish kills in Parramatta and specifically the most successful and cost-effective actions that could be implemented across the Catchment to stop excessive and harmful amounts of organic matter reaching our waterways, the subcommittee should consider in their review the effectiveness of the following actions: i. Best practice park maintenance work to limit the about of grass clippings and other organic matter available to wash into the stormwater network, ii. Best practice street-cleaning operations to reduce the amount of organic matter building up on our streets iii. Best practice management practices for gross pollutant traps (GPT’s), such as increased cleaning of traps before forecasted major weather events iv. Best practice Education campaign to inform residents and local businesses on the impact of organic (and non-organic) matter washing into drains and our waterways, such as stencilling on City of Parramatta (COP) drains to remind residents that only rain should go down the drain and all drains lead to our river.
(d) That a report be brought back to Council within six (6) months covering the EPA and PRCG findings and provide recommendations on the associated cost on how these recommendations could be implemented.
(e) That Council, in the event of a fish kill happening again, proactively inform the community of the event and the action being taken to investigate and clean up the fish kill, via social media, website and signage.
(f) That Council commend its officers for the prompt action they took on this matter when notified.
(g) Further, that Council thank the many community members who alerted the EPA to these events.
|
|
Note: Councillor Valjak left the Chamber at 8:45pm and returned at 8:46pm during the consideration of Item 14.1. |
14.2 |
SUBJECT Summary of Council Meetings
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08434596
FROM Councillor Kellie Darley
|
3711 |
RESOLVED (Darley/Prociv)
(a) That Council provide a summary of the matters discussed and decisions made at each Council meeting to the general public, via its website and social media, shortly after the Council meeting, but no later than the Thursday following the Council meeting.
(b) Further, that a short review be made in three months’ time to see how the initiative is being received and identify any adjustments that may need to be made. |
14.3 |
SUBJECT Improving Access to Council Business Papers
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08435007
FROM Councillor Kellie Darley
|
3712 |
RESOLVED (Darley/Bradley)
That Council make the necessary IT and administrative adjustments to the Business Papers website to ensure members of the general public can access an accurate and chronological listing of all Council meetings where a particular matter was discussed, with links to the relevant business papers, within the next 6 months. |
14.4 |
SUBJECT Events Budget (Deferred Item)
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08408604
FROM Councillor Michelle Garrard
|
3713 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Pandey)
That Council defer consideration of this matter until after the Councillor Workshop on the CBD Revitalisation Grant Program is held.
|
|
Note: Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 8:54pm and returned at 8:57pm during the consideration of Item 14.4. |
14.5 |
SUBJECT CBD Lighting Project (Deferred Item)
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08430479
FROM Councillor Michelle Garrard
|
3714 |
RESOLVED (Prociv/Noack)
That Council defer consideration of this matter until after the Councillor Workshop on the CBD Revitalisation Grant Program is held.
|
14.6 |
SUBJECT Lack of Mobile Service in Wentworth Point
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08428209
FROM Councillor Dr Patricia Prociv
|
3715 |
RESOLVED (Prociv/Noack)
(a) That a report, based on correspondence sent and received from Telstra Corporation, Singtel Optus and TPG Community, seeking updated information on the planned and existing Australian Mobile Network Base Stations, as listed on the RFNSA website at Wentworth Point, be presented to Council no later than 11 April 2022.
(b) That the report contains: (i) copies of correspondence sent to Telstra Corporation, Singtel Optus and TPG Community in response to the original motion; and (ii) Details of correspondence received from Telstra Corporation, Singtel Optus and TPG Community, on their current and future construction and activation plans to construct and/or upgrade individual facilities in Wentworth Point.
(c) Further, that the Lord Mayor and CEO write to the Federal Minister of Telecommunications and Shadow Minister of Telecommunications on this matter as Council is eager to work with the Telcos to find a solution. |
14.7 |
SUBJECT Police & Citizens Youth Club (PCYC) Parramatta at CommBank Stadium
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08432719
FROM Councillor Donna Wang
|
3716 |
RESOLVED (Wang/Garrard)
That the Lord Mayor write to the Deputy Premier for Police , The Hon. Paul Toole MP and the Minister for Tourism and Sport, The Hon. Stuart Ayres MP and Venues NSW, requesting an urgent update to the progress of the redevelopment of the new Police & Citizens Youth Club (PCYC) Parramatta to CommBank Stadium. |
15. Questions with Notice
15.1 |
SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting – 21 February 2022
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08426972
FROM Governance Manager
|
||||||||
|
QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 21 FEBRUARY 2022
Item 13.1 – Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held on 21 October and 25 November 2021
Question from Councillor Garrard
During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor xxx, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:
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.
Executive Director City Planning & Design Response
Item 15.1 – Questions Taken on Notice from the Council Meeting – 7 February 2022
Question from Councillor Garrard
Further questions were asked on Item 15.1 – CBD Lighting Program, by Councillor Garrad:
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?
Executive Director City Engagement & Experience Response
1. At the Council meeting of 14 March 2022, item number 12.3 will identify the programs that this grant will benefit. 2. At the Council meeting of 14 March 2022, item number 12.3 Council will be notified of the expanded lighting program which will commence on 18 March 2022, in conjunction with Parramatta Nights. 3. The Executive Director has sent an email request dated 7 March 2022, to discuss the CBD Lighting Program and updates have been included in recent communications dated 22 February 2022; and 28 February 2022.
Item 16.1 – Legal Status Report as at 31 January 2022
Questions from Councillor Pandey
During discussion on the motion, Councillor Pandey asked the following question:
1. What is Council’s legal expenditure budget and how much has been spent to date? 2. Can we include these rolling details into each of these reports to Council?
Executive Director Corporate Services Response
The Corporate Services budget includes a Legal Services consultancy budget of $530,000 of which spend to 31 December 2021 was $302,000, and a People and Culture legal consultancy budget of $80,000 of which spend to 31 December 2021 was $21,000.
Tracking performance against the budget controlled by the legal team will be included in future legal services reports to Council. These funds are expended in connection with planning appeals and external consultants.
In addition to this budget the following directorates hold and control their own legal consultancy budgets of which spend to 31 December 2021 is as follows:
· Property and Place - budget $593,000, spend of $183,000 · City Assets and Operations – budget $220,000, spend of $164,000 · City Planning and Design – budget $90,000, spend of $45,000 · Executive Office – budget $50,000, spend is $nil · City Engagement and Experience – budget $32,000, spend of $900.
These budgets are drawn upon to obtain specialist legal advice in connection with key major capital projects, voluntary planning agreements, Council property dealings (easements, covenants) and transactions, and to support Council in its regulatory functions.
Item 16.3 – Re-determine Organisation Structure (Senior Staff Positions)
Questions from Councillor Bradley
During discussion on the motion by Councillor xxx, Councillor Bradley asked the following questions:
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?
Executive Director Corporate Services Response
1. Redundancy provision of $4,679,164 was raised last year (2020/21) for employees impacted in 2021/22. 2. This financial year, currently, $3,190,184 remains in the provision. |
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
|
|
3717 |
RESOLVED (Darley/Esber)
That members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting of the Closed Session and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Session be withheld. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(s) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:- 16.1 Compulsory Acquisition of 70 Macquarie Street by Metro. (D08419910) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
|
|
Note: Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 9:24pm and did not return. |
16.1 |
SUBJECT Compulsory Acquisition of 70 Macquarie Street by Metro
REFERENCE F2021/00105 - D08419910
REPORT OF Development Manager Property Development
|
3718 |
RESOLVED (Pandey/Noack)
(a) That Council approve the acceptance of the offer of market value for the property Lot E in DP402952 and known as 70 Macquarie Street Parramatta in the terms as detailed in paragraph 7(a) of this report.
(b) That Council acknowledge the confidentiality of the offer and acceptance.
(c) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to complete and execute all documentation and correspondence related to this matter. |
|
Procedural Motion
|
3719 |
RESOLVED (Noack/Bradley)
That the meeting resume into Open Session. |
17. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION
The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolution for Item 16.1.
18. CONCLUSION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 9.28pm.
THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 34 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 14 MARCH 2022 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 28 MARCH 2022.
Chairperson
For Notation
28 March 2022
12.1 Response to Notice of Motion - Activate, Regulate and Create Safe Underpasses............................................................................................................................ 44
12.2 Quarter Two Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22 66
12.3 NOTE LATE REPORT: Quarterly Budget Review - December 2021... 122
Council 28 March 2022 Item 12.1
ITEM NUMBER 12.1
SUBJECT Response to Notice of Motion - Activate, Regulate and Create Safe Underpasses
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08386006
REPORT OF Place Manager
csp theme: THRIVING
workshop/briefing date: Nil
PURPOSE:
To respond to Notice of Motion – Activate, Regulate and Create Safe Underpasses tabled at the Council Meeting of 14 September 2020, moved by Councillor Pandey.
That Council receive and note the contents of this report.
BACKGROUND
1. On 14 September 2020, Council resolved as follows:
18.3 SUBJECT NOTICE OF MOTION: Activate, Regulate and Create Safe Underpasses
RESOLVED (Pandey/Issa)
(a) That Council work with TfNSW to develop an MoU, with a multiyear outcome, that sets out the basis to keep the space under the railway bridges clean, well lit, safe and allows Council to regulate and activate the underpasses.
(b) That, subject to approval/formalisation of an MoU from TfNSW, Council include these spaces in its activation programs, including through the Council’s Street Activity Policy or other means available.
(c) That Council look at the financial implication and benefits of leasing the two shop-fronts under the Church Street rail bridge with a view to activating that space.
(d) That Council explore open space and other grant options towards activating these underpasses, subject to MoU/approval from TfNSW.
(e) That, acknowledging that the MoU could take some time, Council write to TfNSW that TfNSW Officers be requested to include frequent scheduled monitoring of the areas where TfNSW has ownership, control and maintenance responsibilities including the railway underpasses and regulate them in line with councils’ regulatory approach. In the event if TfNSW is not supportive of regulating the underpasses, this responsibility be delegated to Council following discussion with TfNSW and Local State Member to ensure appropriate funding is provided to Council.
(f) Further, that a report be brought back to Council by December 2020.
2. Following the Council resolution in September 2020 Council Officers contacted the relevant internal and external stakeholders responsible for the maintenance and regulation of the Church Street Railway bridge underpass and the Parramatta Bus / Rail Interchange areas (refer to Attachment 1 for map of Parramatta Interchange area). A meeting was scheduled for December 2020.
3. The December 2020 meeting between internal and external stakeholders revealed significant discrepancies between stakeholders understanding in terms of responsibility for the maintenance and cleansing of the Church Street Railway bridge underpass and Parramatta interchange. As a result, the stakeholders agreed to develop an asset register identifying ownership and ongoing maintenance of assets located within the public domain of Parramatta Interchange area, which includes the Church Street Railway bridge underpass and the Parramatta Bus / Rail Interchange areas.
4. Development of the asset register (refer to Attachment 2) was an extensive and lengthy process involving the input of all stakeholders, including review of original planning documents to identify boundaries and legal reviews of existing agreements. All stakeholders agreed to their respective areas of cleansing and maintenance in a meeting held in October 2021. From late 2021, all stakeholders are cleansing and maintaining their respective areas in the Church Street Railway bridge underpass and the Parramatta Bus / Rail Interchange areas.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
5. TfNSW own Church Street Railway Bridge, the two retail properties and the western footpath within the Church Street Railway underpass. Council own the Darcy Street road corridor and eastern footpath within the Church Street Railway underpass area.
6. On 28 October 2016, Council entered into a ‘Revised Interface Agreement Managing Risks to Safety Due to Rail – Road Crossings’ (the Agreement) with TfNSW to inspect and maintain civil infrastructures under and around several bridge underpasses in the City of Parramatta. The agreement extends to cover Church Street underline bridge area.
7. As a part of the agreement Council is responsible for the ongoing cleansing and physical maintenance of assets located within the Church Street underline bridge area. The scope includes:
a. Road pavement under the bridge;
b. On-road markings under the bridge;
c. Signage for RMV’s including speed limit signs;
d. Drainage facilities in the road reserve;
e. Lighting facilities under the bridge;
f. Public art facilities under the bridge;
g. Walkway facilities under the bridge;
h. Kerbing under the bridge;
i. Graffiti, vegetation clearing and cleaning in the road reserve facing pedestrians and RMV’s;
8. The 2016 agreement is in line with the stakeholder discussions and agreements that occurred in 2021.
9. Council has a Street Activity Policy that regulates buskers performing on streets, footpaths, laneways, malls, and squares. This policy applies to land owned by Council only. Council does not have the statutory power under the Local Government Act to regulate the western pedestrian footpath because it is privately owned land.
10. Section 31 of Transport Act allows TfNSW to delegate its function to enable Council to manage and regulate the western pedestrian footpath. However, there are no provisions in the Transport Act or any other relevant Acts that would allow TfNSW to delegate its enforcement powers, i.e. to issue Penalty Infringement Notices. This means that Council could only provide a verbal direction to individuals busking on the western pedestrian footpath to move along. As enforcement is not viable a separate agreement between Council and TfNSW is not recommended for this purpose.
11. The two retail properties within the Church Street underline bridge area are owned by TfNSW and managed by external property manager JLL as a single tenancy. The current retail lease agreement is due to expire on 6 September 2025 and TfNSW intention is to take the premises to market to secure the next tenancy. Until such time as the tenancies are placed on the market Council are unable to assess the financial implications or benefit potential the two retail properties have.
12. TfNSW is the asset owner of the Parramatta Bus / Rail Interchange area and Sydney Trains are responsible for the ongoing physical and cleansing maintenance of this area, including the walkway from Fitzwilliam Street to Argyle Street.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
13. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
Fri 11 Dec 2020 |
Prerrna Kapoor / TfNSW; Dimitri Hondros / Sydney Trains; Jim Chen / TfNSW; Council’s Place Services & Cleansing team members;] |
Site inspection was conducted to inspect assets located within Parramatta Interchange area. A follow up meeting was suggested to create a Parramatta Interchange Asset register. |
Agreed to follow up meeting with asset owners to commence the drafting of Parramatta Interchange Asset register. |
Place Services / Property & Place / CBD Place Manager; |
Fri 26 Mar 2021 |
Katrina Farah / TfNSW; Prerrna Kapoor / TfNSW; Dimitri Hondros / Sydney Trains; Jim Chen / TfNSW; Representatives from Council’s Place Services, Cleansing, Regulatory & Civil Assets teams;] |
Reviewed TfNSW draft Parramatta Interchange Asset register. |
Council provided feedback / commentary on asset ownership and ongoing maintenance arrangements. |
Place Services / Property & Place / CBD Place Manager; |
Wed 8 Sep 2021 |
Adam Dillon / Centre Manager Parramatta – Scentre Group |
Provided list of Scentre Group owned assets within Parramatta Interchange area |
Information was forwarded to TfNSW for inclusion |
Place Services / Property & Place / CBD Place Manager; |
Wed 27 Oct 2021 |
Jim Chen / TfNSW; Paul Bartolo / Sydney Trains; Representatives from Council’s Place Services, Cleansing, Regulatory & Civil Assets teams; |
Revised final draft copy of Parramatta Interchange Asset Register. |
Council provided feedback / commentary on asset ownership and ongoing maintenance arrangements. |
Place Services / Property & Place / CBD Place Manager; |
Councillor Consultation
14. 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
15. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report.
16. Legal Services have reviewed and confirmed the Revised Interface Agreement Managing Risks to Safety Due to Rail – Road Crossings is current and no further agreement is required.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
18. 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
Nil |
|
|
|
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
Nil |
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
Eva Farlow
Place Manager
Bruce Mills
Group Manager Place Services
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Caroline Nuttall
Solicitor
Bryan Hynes
Executive Director Property & Place
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Map of Parramatta Interchange Area |
1 Page |
|
2⇩ |
Parramatta Interchange Asset Register |
15 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ITEM NUMBER 12.2
SUBJECT Quarter Two Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08446730
REPORT OF Corporate Strategy Manager
CSP THEME: FAIR
workshop/briefing date: Nil
PURPOSE:
To present Council’s Quarter Two (Q2) progress on implementing the Delivery Program 2018-22 and Operational Plan 2021/22.
That the report be received and noted.
BACKGROUND
1. The Local Government Act 1993 via the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines 2021 requires that the General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) provide progress reports to the Council with respect to the principal activities detailed in the Delivery Program at least every six months.
2. At its meeting of 28 June 2021, Council adopted an amended Delivery Program for 2018-2022 (the Plan), inclusive of the Year Four Operational Plan & Budget for 2021/22. The structure of the Plan reflects the six Strategic Goals of the City’s Community Strategic Plan (CSP) – Fair, Accessible, Green, Welcoming, Thriving, and Innovative.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
3. The Q2 Progress Report (the Report) in Attachment 1 provides an update on progress made in the second quarter of the 2021/22 financial year (September - December 2021) against the Principal Activities, Focus Areas and Service Measures in the Plan.
4. The Report is structured by the six Goals from City of Parramatta’s CSP. An Exceptions Report listing only Focus Areas ‘off track’ or ‘on hold’, and Service Measures ‘not achieved’, is provided in pages 5 to 17 of the Report.
5. After notation by Council, the Report will be published on the Quarterly and Annual Reporting section of Council’s website.
Q2 status summary of Focus Areas and Service Measures
6. COVID-19 public health orders and changes in community behaviours significantly affected some Council services and projects in Q2. These impacts are reflected in the Report, with a number of action items reporting this as a contributor for abnormal or off target performance.
7. At 31 December
2021, 75% of Council’s 49 Focus Areas were reported as either completed
or progressing on track. A further 25% were reported as either progressing off
track or on hold.
Focus Area status |
# |
% |
Completed |
5 |
10% |
Progressing – on track |
32 |
65% |
Progressing – off track |
11 |
23% |
On hold / stopped |
1 |
2% |
Not due to start |
0 |
0% |
Total |
49 |
100% |
8. At 31 December
2021, 43% of Council’s 88 Service Measures were reported as achieved or
on track to achieve their targets. 33% were reported as not achieved, with at
least 19 of these 29 Service Measures citing COVID-19 or election postponement
related impacts to their service. For 24% of measures, data was reported as not
available or not due in this period.
Service Measure status |
# |
% |
Achieved / on track |
38 |
43% |
Not achieved |
29 |
33% |
Data not available / Not due |
21 |
24% |
Total |
88 |
100% |
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
9. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
Jan – Feb 2022 |
Reporting officers; Executive Approvers |
All business units with reportable items in the Plan have been consulted to compile the Report. |
Final draft report finalised. |
All business units, led by City Strategy |
Councillor Consultation
10. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
11. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
12. There are no unbudgeted financial implications associated with this report.
13. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.
|
FY 21/22 |
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Internal Revenue |
|
|
|
|
External Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
Nil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
Nil |
|
|
|
Dayne Glinkowski
Corporate Strategy Manager
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Nicole Carnegie
Group Manager, City Strategy
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Q2 Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22 |
52 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ITEM NUMBER 12.3
SUBJECT NOTE LATE REPORT: Quarterly Budget Review - December 2021
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08443317
REPORT OF Financial Planning and Analysis Manager
CSP THEME: FAIR
workshop/briefing date: Councillor Induction, 3 March 2022
Finance Committee, 15 March 2022
Strategy Day, 19 March 2022
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to present to Councillor the second quarterly budget review to December 2021.
That Council note that a late report will be included in a supplementary agenda and distributed to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.
BACKGROUND
1. Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 requires the Responsible Accounting Officer (Chief Finance and Information Officer) to prepare and submit to the Council a Quarterly Budget Review Statement that shows by reference to the estimates of income and expenditure set out in the Operational Plan, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for the full financial year.
2. The Responsible Accounting Officer is also required to report whether the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
3. A report on the quarterly budget review – December 2021 quarter will be included in a supplementary agenda to be circulated to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
4. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
Full details to be provided in supplementary report. |
Councillor Consultation
5. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
Full details to be provided in supplementary report. |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
6. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
7. A report on the quarterly budget review – December 2021 quarter will be included in a supplementary agenda to be circulated to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.
Amit Sharma
Financial Planning and Analysis Manager
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
REFERENCE MATERIAL
For Council Decision
28 March 2022
13.1 Counting of petitions for referral of a development application to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel.................................................................................... 126
13.2 Condition of the heritage listed property at 10 New Zealand Street, Parramatta 134
13.3 CBD Carparking Strategy............................................................................. 139
13.4 Draft Melrose Park South Site-Specific Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement....................................................................................................... 245
Council 28 March 2022 Item 13.1
ITEM NUMBER 13.1
SUBJECT Counting of petitions for referral of a development application to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08415668
REPORT OF Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services
CSP THEME: ACCESSIBLE
workshop/briefing date: NIL
PURPOSE:
To respond to Council’s resolution made on 22 November 2021, specifically relating to how petitions and form letter submissions are counted for the purposes of a referral of a development application to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel.
(a) That Council note the changes to Council’s website to assist the community in making submissions on development applications.
(b) Further, that Council write to the Minister of Planning and Homes advocating for a change to how petitions and form letter submissions are counted for the purposes of referral of a development application to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel.
BACKGROUND
1. Council at its meeting on 22 November 2021, resolved:
That the following actions be undertaken to improve the information to residents when making a submission on a Development Application:
i. Revise information on Council’s website to explain what constitutes a unique submission;
ii. Revise information on Council’s website to explain the importance of unique submissions as they relate to triggers for determination of a DA by the Parramatta Local Planning Panel;
iii. Revise information on Council’s website to provide advice on how to write a unique submission;
iv. Investigate whether a generic template can be generated to assist residents structure their submission when making an on-line submission;
v. Revise information on Council’s website to further explain how petitions and form letter submissions are counted;
vi. Provide a report to the Policy Advisory Committee (for subsequent approval by Council) investigating appropriate policy changes on how petitions with a significant number of signatories may be counted.
2. The actions listed i to vi in Council’s resolution have been addressed as follows:
3. In respect of action (i), information on Council’s website has been revised to explain what constitutes a unique submission (Submissions | City of Parramatta (nsw.gov.au))
4. In respect of action (ii), Information on Council’s website has been revised to explain how this relates to referral of applications to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel. Clarification has been provided to advise that petitions and form letters are counted as a single submission in line with guidance from the Department of Planning and Environment (Common questions about Local Planning Panels - (nsw.gov.au). Information on the Department’s website relevantly advises:
When a DA is the subject of 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection it must be referred to the panel for determination. What is considered a ‘unique’ submission?
For a submission to be counted it would need to be in substance unique, distinctive or unlike any other submission.
By way of example, this would preclude form letters and petitions being counted more than once toward the total number of unique submissions. Similarly, a single submission signed by 10 people would count as one unique submission.
One individual, or one household, could potentially submit multiple unique submissions. Separate unique submissions can be made in relation to the same issue.
Council assessment staff are best placed to determine whether a submission is ‘unique’.
5. In respect of action (iii), Council’s website has been updated to explain what constitutes a unique submission and a generic template with advice notes has been created to assist our community in preparing a unique submission.
6. In respect of action (iv), a generic submission template has been created to assist the community structure their submission. The use of the template is entirely voluntary (refer Attachment 1).
7. In respect of action (v), please refer to comments under (ii) above.
8. In respect of action (vi) terms of referral for application to a Local Planning Panel (Panel) are set by Ministerial direction of 23 February 2018 (effective 1 March 2018). The updated Ministerial direction of 30 June 2020 continues to refer to unique submissions. This includes specifying a minimum number of submissions as one of the ‘triggers’ for referral. The Ministerial direction specifies that those submissions must be by way of objection, and must be unique. The following section explains this in further detail.
COUNTING OF PETITIONS
9. The Panels will only consider applications where the pre-requisite number of unique submissions has been met. The Panel uses the Department’s definition of what constitutes a unique submission as stated in paragraph 4.
10. The Ministerial direction relating to Panels relates to all councils with a Panel across New South Wales. The guidance on what constitutes a unique submission as published by the Department of Planning and Environment also applies across the State.
11. Council is obligated to ensure that only unique submissions are counted when referring any applications to the Panel. In defining what constitutes a unique submission, Council must be guided by the Department of Planning and Environment. This ensures consistency and clarity for submitters as well as applicants across all development applications. This ensures Council is meeting its legal obligation in terms of operation of the Panel, which itself is a constituted obligation under Division 2.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
12. This also avoids any operational problems with the Panel and creation of false expectations among our community who may have signed a petition and/or provided a form letter expecting that to be sufficient to trigger referral to a Panel meeting.
13. However, if Council is of a view that all persons who sign a petition or submit a form letter should be counted as individual submissions or petitions depending on the number of signatories be counted a particular way, then it is recommended that Council write to the Minister for Planning and Homes, The Honourable Anthony Roberts MP, and advocate for inclusion of petitions and form letters as individual submissions.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
14. No stakeholder consultation was undertaken or is considered necessary based on the current Council resolution as the matter of unique submissions relates to legislation in the constituting of Local Planning Panels, Ministerial direction in setting the terms of reference to the Panels and in guidance from the Department of Planning and Environment on what constitutes a unique submission. This matter has not been forwarded to the Policy Advisory Committee as any potential change to how petitions or form letters are counted would be a legislative change.
Stakeholder Consultation
15. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
NIL |
|
|
|
|
Councillor Consultation
16. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
8 March 2022 |
Councillor Garrard |
Acknowledged that unique submissions are noted in Ministerial Direction and definition of unique provided in guidance by the Department of Planning & Environment |
Noted |
Group Manager Development & Traffic Services |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
17. The Minister’s direction requires councils to count only unique submissions when confirming what applications must be determined by Local Planning Panels. This requirement has existed since 2018. The Department of Planning and Environment has provided guidance to councils on what constitutes a unique submission. Should Council decide to count petitions and form letters as multiple submissions, this would be contrary to the Minister’s direction as written and applied to date.
18. Based on the Minister’s direction the Panel is bound only to consider unique submissions as the trigger for Panel referral and in their deliberations. A proposal to count petitions and form letters as multiple submissions would create operational confusion as the Panel would still only consider unique submissions. This would have implications for community expectations with Council potentially treating petitions and form letters differently from State requirements for referral to a Local Planning Panel.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
There are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council associated with this matter. The letter can be written using existing staff resources.
|
FY 21/22 |
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
Revenue |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Internal Revenue |
|
|
|
|
External Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|||
Depreciation |
|
|||
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
|
|
|
Mark Leotta
Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Jennifer Concato
Executive Director City Planning and Design
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Submissions template |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ITEM NUMBER 13.2
SUBJECT Condition of the heritage listed property at 10 New Zealand Street, Parramatta
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08417925
REPORT OF Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services
CSP THEME: ACCESSIBLE
workshop/briefing date: Nil
PURPOSE:
To respond to Council’s resolution of 22 November 2021 regarding the heritage listed property at 10 New Zealand Street, Parramatta, known as Wavertree.
(a) That Council note that there are no legal powers available to Council to require a property owner to maintain a locally listed heritage item.
(b) Further, that the Lord Mayor write to the Minister for Planning and Homes and the Minister for Environment and Heritage requesting the investigation of powers councils could be given through amendments to current NSW planning and heritage legislation to prevent the deterioration of locally list heritage properties through owner neglect.
BACKGROUND
1. At the Council meeting of 22 November 2021, Council resolved:
RESOLVED (Prociv/Wilson)
(a) That Council liaise with the Office of Heritage to ensure the James Houison designed "Wavertree" located at 10 New Zealand Street, Parramatta is not in a state of disrepair.
(b) Further, that a report be provided to Council in February 2022 on the status of the matter.
2. The motion, moved by Councillor Prociv, arose from a concern raised by a member of the public, whose family had a prior association with the property in question, that Wavertree was in need of repair.
3. The property at 10 New Zealand Street, Parramatta is a locally listed heritage item under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is known as Wavertree.
ISSUES
4. Council staff, including Council’s Heritage Advisor and Group Manager Development and Traffic Services, as well as an officer from Council’s Regulatory Services team have investigated this matter.
5. In December 2021, the property owner was contacted. Council was informed the owners are overseas, and therefore, a representative of the owner responded to Council. Staff have been in subsequent discussion with the representative. The representative advised they were unaware of any maintenance repair work required and would check the property. Council staff also sought an on-site inspection with the representative if the property owner was agreeable. To date there has been no further update from the property owner’s representative in respect of any repairs that may be needed or the request for an on-site inspection. Council staff have sought an update on several occasions.
6. Council’s Heritage Advisor has inspected the site from the street frontage only. This location afforded a limited view of the property and building. However, Council’s Heritage Advisor did identify items requiring a level of repair. These included deteriorating front fence palings, sagging gutters and movement of some roof tiles which may allow the ingress of water.
7. Unfortunately, there are no legal powers conferred under either the Local Government Act 1993 nor the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to enable Council to enter the property for the purposes of an inspection nor compel a property owner to undertake repairs or maintenance works to their property, whether those works be urgent or otherwise, to a local heritage item listed in the Local Environmental Plan. Only in circumstances of a risk to public safety can Council compel a property owner to maintain their property, which is not the case with this property.
8. Council’s Heritage Advisor has contacted the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage who have confirmed that they also hold no legislative powers in such matters and cannot advise whether or not Wavertree is in a state of disrepair. It should be noted that under the Heritage Act 1977 there are provisions relating to maintenance and repair to items on the State Heritage Register only. These provisions do not extend to locally listed heritage items though.
9. On the basis that there is no legislated ability to enter the property or compel a property owner to undertake repair and maintenance works to a local heritage item, should such work be in fact required, Council staff can take no action to affect any repair or maintenance work.
10. Council staff wrote to the property owner and their representative on 21 February 2022 to explain the heritage significance of the dwelling and seek their cooperation in completing any repairs to the dwelling that may be required in a timely manner and on an ongoing basis. Council staff have also informed the property owner of Council’s Local Heritage Fund scheme which may be of assistance in funding some of the maintenance works needed. The property owner would be required to make an application for the funds and this would be subject to assessment against the relevant criteria before it could be awarded. This scheme offers funding up to 25% of the value of the work, up to a maximum of $3,300. At the time of finalising this report, Council had not received a response from the property owner.
11. It is recommended that the Lord Mayor write to the Minister for Planning and Homes and the Minister for Environment and Heritage requesting an investigation of powers that could be given to councils through amendment to current NSW planning and heritage related legislation to prevent the deterioration of heritage properties through owner neglect.
12. The absence of sufficient legislation available to councils to protect or prevent locally listed heritage properties failing into a state of disrepair through neglect, has also prompted City of Sydney Council to resolve in May 2021 to also advocate for legislation changes with the relevant Ministers.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
13. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
Various Dec 2021 |
Property owner |
Telephone conversations Owner advised they would inspect property |
Requested an update on property condition and permission to view the property |
Council Heritage Advisor Regulatory Services compliance officer |
22 Dec 2021 |
Property owner |
No response to email from Council |
Noted |
Council Heritage Advisor |
18 Jan 2022 |
Property owner |
No response to email from Council |
Noted |
Council Heritage Advisor |
18 Feb 2022 |
Heritage NSW |
No legislative ability to compel site inspection or repairs |
Noted |
Council Heritage Advisor |
21 Feb 2022 |
Property owner |
No response to email from Council |
Noted |
Group Manager Development & Traffic Services |
Councillor Consultation
14. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
7 March 2022 |
Councillor Prociv |
Concern with ongoing neglect and absence of legislation to assist council |
Noted. Recommendation is to advocate for legislative change |
Group Manager Development & Traffic Services |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
15. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this matter.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
There are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council associated with this matter. The letter can be written using existing staff resources.
|
FY 21/22 |
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
Revenue |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Internal Revenue |
|
|
|
|
External Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|||
Depreciation |
|
|||
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
|
|
|
Mark Leotta
Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Jennifer Concato
Executive Director City Planning and Design
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
There are no attachments for this report.
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Council 28 March 2022 Item 13.3
ITEM NUMBER 13.3
SUBJECT CBD Carparking Strategy
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08434912
REPORT OF Group Manager Property Development
CSP THEME: THRIVING
workshop/briefing date: 27 October 2021
PURPOSE:
To provide Council with feedback received through public exhibition and subsequently approve the amended CBD Carparking Strategy.
(a) That Council
notes the submissions made during the public exhibition of the draft CBD
Carparking Strategy.
(b) That Council
approves the CBD Carparking Strategy at Attachment 1.
(c) Further, that Council note that ten million dollars from the Property Reserve has been allocated to implement the CBD Carparking Strategy.
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta is growing into Sydney’s Central City a strategic Centre of services and infrastructure which will drive employment and growth.
2. As the Parramatta CBD grows the strategic approach to parking needs to adapt to reflect the significant change contemplated in the Community Strategic Plan and evident through the current scale of development activity in the City.
3. The required adaptation in parking strategy is influenced by the supply and demand factors arising from the CBD’s growth and the City’s strategic planning objectives detailed in the CBD Planning Proposal and Integrated Transport Plan.
4. A draft CBD Carparking Strategy modelled using 2019 as the ‘base year’ (as 2020 is distorted by COVID19) has been prepared to inform the recommendations and implementation plan.
5. The CBD Carparking Strategy has been peer reviewed by a specialised traffic consultant with considerable knowledge of public sector parking and transport (Ken Kanofski Advisory);
6. Following Council’s endorsement of the draft CBD Carparking Strategy it was publicly exhibited from 25th August 2021 to 28th September 2021.
7. The purpose of community engagement was to:
· Inform key stakeholders, including businesses located in the Parramatta CBD, and the community about the proposed strategy for the Parramatta CBD car parks
· Invite comments and feedback on the strategy
· Use the feedback from consultation to determine if the strategy requires additional investigations and refinements
· Promote extra capacity and benefits of alternate multi-level car parks in the CBD
· Raise awareness about the need for a parking strategy and benefits/implications of the proposal
8. The community was able to provide feedback via an online survey accessed through Council’s engagement portal, ‘Participate Parramatta’ participate.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/; as well as via written correspondence and email.
9. During the consultation period, the engagement portal indicates the draft strategy was viewed 1,301 times and the document was downloaded 264 times.
10. Council received ten (10) survey responses, nine (9) email submissions and seven (7) written submissions.
11. Overall submissions mostly showed support for the CBD Carparking Strategy with areas of refinement to be considered, a full findings and evaluation report is at Attachment 2.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
12. Of the ten online survey responses received the key feedback themes and the way the strategy addresses these is in the table below:
Strategy/Response |
|
The loss of the two carparks and resultant loss of spaces were not addressed in the short-term strategy.
|
Council has lost two major car parks being Riverbank and Horwood Place. The short-term strategy addresses the loss of car spaces in a multifaceted approach by recommending: - Upgrading car park technology to increase efficiency in current car parks - Increase the utilization of existing parking infrastructure through higher occupancy (from 65% to 90%) driven by the efficiencies new technology will deliver - Seek to utilize the spare capacity of secondary sites that could provide additional parking (Parramatta Leagues Club and Rosehill Racecourse) |
Council should reduce the number of car parking spaces to encourage active and public transport options.
|
The continuation in modal shift to public transport and other means of sustainable transport from private vehicles reduces parking demand and is a key objective of CoP’s Integrated Transport Plan (targeting 40% of office workers using private vehicle as the primary means of travelling to work by 2036 versus the current 46% of workers).
The strategy supports the modal shift objectives through: - Taking a whole of CBD approach to parking to understand and influence the efficient / effective use of private and public parking as a City-wide resource; - Develop the optimum parking capacity and pricing strategy which supports reasonable availability, encourages modal shift and drives a higher level of utilisation of CoP’s parking infrastructure; - Increase capacity, if required, through partnerships with owners of private parking assets where additional demand can be accommodated.
|
431 Church St, Parramatta should be utilized as a multi-storey carpark. |
431 Church St is the Council owned Fennell St on-grade carpark (currently under licence to Light Rail until the line is operational in 2023). The redevelopment of Fennell St is a long term strategic opportunity identified in the strategy |
Capital should be invested in Parramatta Station carpark. |
The strategy recommends reinvestment in all Council multi-deck carparks to improve functionality, aesthetics an presentation. |
13. The following is a summary of the key feedback related to the seven written submissions received and the way the strategy addresses these is in the table below:
Feedback |
Strategy/Response |
Transport for NSW |
|
‘Council need to strategically align their maximum car parking rates within their DCP & LEP to those provided by the Eastern Harbour City and in particular the reduced maximum rates of the City of Sydney Council’ |
The Parramatta LEP and DCP sets maximum parking allocation for commercial development where parking is provided for the use of the building’s occupants. These controls are appropriate in a Parramatta context. These controls are reviewed periodically and amended if required. It is not deemed appropriate to mirror the City of Sydney’s parking controls.
|
‘Council needs to strategically align maximum car parking rates with those of the City of Sydney. City of Parramatta Council should adopt the City of Sydney’s approach to maximum car parking rates and categorisation methods being land use and transport integration and / or public transport accessibility levels’ |
Parramatta provided 1 car space for every 1.8 workers in 2019, conversely Sydney CBD provides 1 car space for every 6 workers. The draft parking strategy sought to balance the future provision of public parking with forecast growth in office workers, general daytime visitation and tourism in the context of Parramatta’s future growth.
There is not a ratio or formula that is used to calculate the ‘right’ amount of parking for a CBD. Multiple factors come in to play: - Access to public transport and the quality of the services provided; - Quality networks to support cycling and walking; - The availability of land for car park development; - The access to capital for car par development and commercial hurdles; - The urban design priorities; - Land use planning objectives; - Road network capacity and existing congestion; - Traffic and transport priorities; - Residential growth; - Commercial growth.
|
‘The current draft lacks a clear vision of what Council wants i.e a City reliant on commuter / long stay parking / public parking, or one that encourages a strong shift to other modes’ |
The strategy outlines that as the CBD grows the strategic approach to parking needs to adapt to reflect the significant change contemplate in the Community Strategic Plan. The required adaptation in parking strategy is influenced by the supply and demand factors arising from the CBD’s growth and the City’s strategic planning objectives detailed in the CBD Planning Proposal and Integrated Transport Plan.
The approach adopted in the draft CBD Parking Strategy is multi-faceted and recommends a combination of options to support the provision of parking in the Parramatta CBD. An important consideration in formulating the recommendations is the existence of two distinct parking markets: 1. Short stay visitor parking (< 4 hours): supporting the visitor economy, local retail and service businesses; 2. Long stay commuter parking (> 4 hours): office workers driving to work.
That the draft strategy support the objectives and strategic context of CoP’s Integrated Transport Plan (Existing Situation and Future Direction, September 2020), in particular a balanced approach to modal shift.
|
‘…it is considered that a key principle for the Strategy should be to define how parking can be used to facilitate strong modal shift.’
|
The draft parking strategy was informed by Council’s Integrated Transport Plan, which has extensive focus on modal shift. The draft parking strategy used modal shift data in its modelling of future parking demand to estimate future parking supply requirements. The following is an extract from the draft parking strategy “The continuation in modal shift to public transport and other means of sustainable transport from private vehicles reduces parking demand and is a key objective of CoP’s Integrated Transport Plan (targeting 40% of office workers using private vehicle as the primary means of travelling to work by 2036 versus the current 46% of workers). Modal shift can be accelerated through pricing of the long stay (> 4 hours) parking utilised by office workers. The current long stay parking rates are significantly less than major suburban CBD’s across Sydney. The current range in long stay rates ranges from $14 / day to $ 21 / day in CoP’s multi level car parks. A rate of $24 / day is more in line with comparable suburban CBD’s.”
|
‘It is noted that the broader objective of this strategy is to create a vibrant centre for businesses and an increasing amount of residents. However, in general, freight and servicing activity is not sufficiently addressed.’
|
An analysis of freight and servicing activity was not in the scope of the draft carparking strategy, which specifically focused on public parking demand and supply.
|
‘The Car Parking Strategy mentions several CBD fringe locations (i.e. Parramatta Leagues Club, Rosehill race course, Fennell St Commercial Development) as locations for future public parking. Council needs to ensure that each of these sites provides a necessary high-frequency public transport service.’ |
The following is an extract from the draft parking strategy that addresses this comment (Page 38), with supplementary parking referring to the locations in Transport’s comment:
Secure agreements for the use of supplementary parking: CoP staff to prepare a logistics and management strategy for the implementation of a supplementary parking arrangement: - Operating parameters; - Transport to and from the CBD to supplementary car parks; - Communications plan; - Budget; - Management framework (internally or externally managed)
|
‘Parking occupancy levels of 90% have been identified as a target without providing a rationale. Existing research indicates occupancy rates above 85% induce urban congestion as drivers circle to find car parking.’
|
This point is noted. The strategy relied on extensive research undertaken by the internationally recognized authority on parking, Professor D. Shoup, in which he adopts 90% as an occupancy target. |
‘It is unclear how…the provision of Parramatta Light Rail will only remove 200 cars off the road network in the AM peak, especially considering the project is expected to have a ridership of 28,000 per day.’
|
Transport’s estimated daily Light Rail ridership is a 2026 forecast, the draft parking strategy is a forecast to 2024, with the intention it be updated as the impact of COVID19 on travel patterns and preferences is better understood. Transport has not released public data on Light Rail usage forecasts from the commencement of its operation.
|
Business Western Sydney |
|
‘Council should consider the creation of a CBD parking strategy taskforce of major car park operators in the Parramatta CBD’ |
A recommendation of the draft parking strategy is to take a whole of CBD approach to parking, including non-Council operated car park owners and operators, to understand parking on a CBD-wide basis. This is aligned with Business Western Sydney’s suggestion.
|
‘Encourage greater car share in residential communities in the CBD – investigate and support opportunities to increase car share in the Parramatta CBD’
|
This is outside the scope of the draft parking strategy. |
‘Naming conventions of car parks – review naming conventions of major Council car parks in the CBD to ensure that visitors can find them more easily.’
|
Noted and will be investigated as part of the recommendation to invest in upgrading Council’s multi-level car parks. |
‘Food delivery pick up zones…provide dedicated short-term spaces for food delivery pick-up.’
|
This is outside the scope of the draft parking strategy. |
‘Expand the park and pay App to Parramatta – work with NSW Government to expand the trial of the Park and Pay App to include Parramatta CBD in conjunction with updating parking technology in Parramatta’ |
The NSW Government intends to onboard additional Local Council’s, we will evaluate the benefits when the roll-out is made available to City of Parramatta. The Smart Parking tender is currently ‘in-market’ its principle objective is to update the City’s parking technology.
|
‘Park & Ride on key routes into Parramatta – partner with Transport for NSW to assess the main origin points for car travel to Parramatta from surrounding suburbs and identify opportunities to bolster public transport connections from those areas.’
|
Council’s Traffic and Transport Officers are in regular discussion with Transport to facilitate this suggested opportunity. |
‘Bankwest Stadium Car Park – identify opportunities to leverage the Bankwest stadium car park’ |
Noted, discussion is ongoing with Bankwest management to utilise their spare capacity on non-event days.
|
‘Additional underground or integrated car parking in future developments…longer term opportunities to replace multi-level car parks.’ |
This has been considered in the draft parking strategy as a longer-term option as part of a potential commercial development of Council owned land.
|
Parramatta Chamber of Commerce |
|
‘A model of the ½ hour city should be adopted for Parramatta so that we can properly plan and review our transport systems; An underground heavy rail line should be prioritised north/south through Parramatta; Maintaining Parramatta as a professional services centre should be elevated as a primary objective Light rail should be linked better into heavy rail routes north and south of the city The Chamber is interested to learn more about future investment in technologies and how they will be adopted into Parramatta’s innovative landscape with Autonomous vehicles.’ |
These comments are outside the scope of the draft parking strategy. |
Bankwest Stadium |
|
‘Bankwest Stadium provided an overview and insights into their operations. They made mention of the availability of their commercial car park for commuters and local business use.’
|
Noted. |
Coronation Property Group |
|
‘There are concerns that the strategy does not adequately address or consider the availability of long-stay commuter car parking within the Parramatta CBD. The strategy exacerbates these concerns by further reducing the publicly available 540 long stay car spaces with the Eat Street Car Park over the course of the next 12 months.’
|
The draft parking strategy focuses on two distinct parking markets: 1. Long-stay commuter parking (> 4 hours) 2. Short-stay visitor parking (< 4 hours), with the strategies recommendations focused on the needs of these distinct segments (Executive Summary - Page 3) |
‘The strategy also does not acknowledge other user groups that would utilise long stay public car parking spaces…tertiary students, transitory workers including construction and trade workers.’ |
The car park usage data modelled in the draft strategy and does not break-down occupancy by industry group, specific worker’s and students, it takes aggregate numbers from data on vehicles entering and exiting the multi-level car parks the duration of their stay and hourly usage of on-Street meters.
|
‘There is little justification to support the removal of long stay parking within the Eat Street car park. Although the Strategy outlines that 72% of its weekday usage is short stay visitor car parking there is no indication when these spaces are utilised or evidenced…’ |
The conversion of Eat Street to dedicated short-stay parking to support the Eat Street restaurants and local business was a strategic decision based on analysis of parking data and peak time usage and implemented when Horwood Place multi-level car park closed. Long-stay parking was directed to Parramatta Station car park and Justice Street car park, both of which had the capacity to accommodate long stay parking.
|
Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Council (DLAC) |
|
‘DLAC recommend additional improvements to parking signage in the CBD that would allow easier access for the proposed shuttle bus service to the goal including signage for pedestrians.’
|
This is outside the scope of the strategy but will be passed on to the relevant Council officer responsible for directional and pedestrian signage for consideration.
|
‘DLAC recommends Council consider the implications of metered parking on the surrounding Streets near the goal.’ |
It is intended that the community be consulted in relation to any proposed increase to on-Street metered parking.
|
‘DLAC supports the long term action to develop the former Fennell Street car park site for public parking.’
|
Noted. |
Member of the community |
|
‘I have concerns, regarding this proposal to increase on-street parking…given the strategy has not identified the areas being considered.’
|
The community will be consulted prior to any increase in on-Street metered parking. |
‘The upper levels of the Parking Stations…should be dedicated for Public open spaces and play areas and exercise locations for the residents…’ |
The analysis in the draft parking strategy indicates that the upper levels of the multi-level car parks is required to support current and future demand for commuter and visitor parking.
|
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
14. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
23/04/2021 |
Local MP Minister Lee |
Generally supportive of the draft strategy. |
Comments reflected in the draft strategy |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
25/08/2021 to 28/09/2021 |
Community via Participate Parramatta Survey |
Refer to paragraph 12 above |
Refer to paragraph 12 above |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
25/08/2021 to 28/09/2021 |
Transport for NSW |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
25/08/2021 to 28/09/2021 |
Business Western Sydney |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
25/08/2021 to 28/09/2021 |
Parramatta Chamber of Commerce |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
25/08/2021 to 28/09/2021 |
Bankwest Stadium |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
25/08/2021 to 28/09/2021 |
Coronation Property Group |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
25/08/2021 to 28/09/2021 |
Member of community |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Refer to paragraph 13 above |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
Councillor Consultation
15. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
9/12/2020 |
All |
N/A |
N/A |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day. |
24/02/2021 |
All |
N/A |
N/A |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
15/03/2021 |
All |
N/A |
N/A |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
21/04/2021 |
All |
N/A |
N/A |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
10/05/2021 |
All |
Council Meeting -Draft endorsed.
Cr. Bradley: potential to include photo voltaic (PV) cells in the shade structures and electric vehicle (EV) charging |
Both PV cells & EV charging have been included in the strategy |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
26/08/2021 |
All |
N/A |
N/A |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
27/10/2021 |
All |
N/A |
N/A |
Property and Place. Property Development Group. Justin Day |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
16. There are no legal implications arising from this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
17. Ten million ($10M) from the compulsory acquisition of Horwood Place has been allocated in Council’s forecast and budget to implement the actions within the strategy over the next three financial years.
18. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget.
19. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.
|
FY 21/22 |
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Internal Revenue |
|
|
|
|
External Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
Justin Day
Group Manager Property Development
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Bryan Hynes
Executive Director Property & Place
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Parramatta CBD Parking Strategy |
45 Pages |
|
2⇩ |
Parramatta CBD Parking Strategy - Public Exhibition - Key Findings & Engagement Evaluation |
49 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Parramatta CBD Parking Strategy - Public Exhibition - Key Findings & Engagement Evaluation |
ITEM NUMBER 13.4
SUBJECT Draft Melrose Park South Site-Specific Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08433159
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer
PREVIOUS ITEMS 17.4 - FOR APPROVAL: Gateway Request: Planning Proposal for land at 112 Wharf Road and 30 & 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington - Council - 09 Nov 2020 6.30pm
CSP THEME: INNOVATIVE
workshop/briefing date: 23 March 2022
applicant: Holdmark Property Group
landowner: Holdmark Property Group
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY CENTRAL CITY DISTRICT PLANNING PANEL: Nil
PURPOSE:
The seek Council’s approval to place on public exhibition the draft Melrose Park South Site-Specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and associated Planning Agreement relating to 112 Wharf Road and 30 & 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington concurrently with the Planning Proposal for the sites, noting that Council has already resolved to adopt the Planning Proposal for exhibition.
(a) That Council approve the draft Melrose Park South Site-Specific Development Control Plan (DCP) provided at Attachment 2 for the purposes of public exhibition.
(b) That Council give delegation to the CEO to draft the Planning Agreement based on the submitted Letter of Offer provided at Attachment 3 for the purposes of public exhibition.
(c) That the draft DCP and Planning Agreement be placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal that was adopted by Council on 9 November 2020 for a period of 28 days, and that a report be provided to Council on the outcomes of the public exhibition.
(d) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct and anomalies of minor non-policy nature that may arise during the public exhibition process.
BACKGROUND
1. At its meeting of 9 November 2020, Council resolved to proceed with the Planning Proposal, known as the Holdmark Planning Proposal, for land at 112 Wharf Road and 30 & 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington (see Figure 1) and that it be forwarded to the (then) Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for approval to place on public exhibition (known as a Gateway determination).
2. Council also resolved at that meeting to endorse the preparation of a site-specific DCP for Melrose Park South and commence negotiations with the proponent relating to an associated Planning Agreement.
3. Council officers and the proponent have since progressed the drafting of the Site-Specific DCP currently applicable to the two Holdmark-owned sites in the southern precinct (refer to Attachment 2). This document will be progressively amended as proposals for additional sites within the southern precinct are prepared.
4. Council officers also subsequently commenced negotiations for the Planning Agreement which resulted in a Letter of Offer being submitted by the proponent on 8 March 2022 (Attachment 3).
5. Following the Council resolution to proceed with the Planning Proposal it was subsequently forwarded to the then DPIE seeking a Gateway determination which was issued on 17 August 2021. The Gateway determination requires the Planning Proposal to be submitted to DPIE by 31 June 2022 for finalisation to occur by 31 August 2022.
6. Refer to Attachment 1 for further detail on the background of the Planning Proposal and a summary of the current and proposed planning controls on the East and West sites.
SITE CONTEXT
7. The southern precinct of Melrose Park is bound by Hope Street to the north, Wharf Road to the east, Parramatta River to the south and Atkins Road to the west. It is located approximately 6km east of the Parramatta CBD and adjoins the City of Ryde Local Government Area (LGA), with Wharf Road being the boundary between the two LGAs.
8. The subject sites are located on the eastern and western sides of the southern precinct and are referred to as “East” and “West” respectively within this report. The East site, which relates to 112 Wharf Road and 30 & 32 Waratah Street, is approximately 42,692m2 (4.2ha). The West site which relates to 82 Hughes Avenue site is approximately 51,607m2 (5.1ha). The two sites under Holdmark’s ownership equate to approximately 49% of the southern precinct with a combined total of approximately 9.4ha of the 19ha southern precinct. Refer to Figure 1 for the locations of the sites within the southern precinct.
9. The sites are currently largely developed and occupied by a variety of industrial premises. Surrounding land uses include low density residential in both the Parramatta and Ryde LGA to the east and west, Parramatta River to the south and industrial land to the north between the sites and Hope Street.
Figure 1. Sites subject to the Holdmark Planning Proposal, draft DCP and Planning Agreement highlighted yellow. Melrose Park southern precinct is outlined blue.
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN
10. A Development Control Plan (DCP) supports the provisions within the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) by providing detailed development controls relating to design, character and the environment to ensure the desired outcome for the site is achieved. The LEP is a higher-order planning instrument than the DCP which contains the overarching planning provisions such as building height, zoning and Floor Space Ratio (FSR), and establishes the permissible uses within each zone and other land use planning standards. The Planning Proposal for the Holdmark sites, which was approved by Council on 9 November 2020 for public exhibition, sets out the proposed amendments to the planning provisions applicable to these sites. The draft DCP now being considered will provide specific development requirements for the Melrose Park South precinct and is required to be consistent with the new LEP controls that will be set by the Planning Proposal.
11. The Melrose Park South Site-Specific DCP (refer to Attachment 2) has been drafted using the Melrose Park North DCP (adopted by Council on 11 October 2021) as a template with changes made where necessary to respond to the context of the southern precinct. As with the north, a collaborative approach has been taken in working with the proponent to finalise the draft DCP.
12. The draft DCP reflects and is consistent with the key development standards and desired outcome of the Holdmark Planning Proposal.
Primary DCP Objectives
13. The draft DCP will guide development and contain specific requirements that must be addressed during the design stage of the planning process and future development applications, having regard to the local context and detailed design requirements for the two sites. The detailed design requirements include planning controls relating to:
· Built form, including building envelopes, setbacks, and solar access
· Street and block layout
· Parking requirements
· Public domain and open space
· Stormwater management
· Sustainability.
14. Details on the draft DCP sections, design requirements, appendices and key elements is provided within Section 2 of Attachment 1.
15. Refer to Figure 3 within Attachment 1 for the proposed building schemes on both sites.
OUTCOMES OF PLANNING AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
16. At its meeting of 9 November 2020, Council resolved to proceed with Planning Agreement negotiations with the proponent to ensure that an appropriate contribution is made to meet the infrastructure need that will be generated by the proposed development.
17. Council officers commenced negotiations and based discussions on the Infrastructure Needs List (INL) that has been prepared by Council officers and approved by Council for the entire Melrose Park precinct and is used to inform all current and future planning agreements in this area. A copy of the INL is included at Attachment 4. The INL comprises local infrastructure items identified as necessary to support the incoming population and is based on Council’s adopted Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS) (July 2020) and Council’s Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan works schedule. Proponents are able to suggest and propose to include alternative infrastructure items in their offer that are not included in the INL for consideration by Council officers.
18. To apply a consistent approach to negotiating Planning Agreements within the Melrose Park precinct, it has been determined that the value of each Planning Agreement within the precinct will be calculated on a fixed per-dwelling contribution amount, being $19,349 per dwelling subject to the proponents agreeing to Council’s other requirements in the Planning Agreement. This approach has to date only been endorsed by Council for the Planning Agreement with Payce in the northern precinct, but in the interest of applying a fair and equitable approach to all landowners in Melrose Park, has been offered to Holdmark providing they comply with the requirements set my Council officers to ensure that each development makes an appropriate and equitable contribution towards delivery of the required local infrastructure.
19. In addition to the Planning Agreement, proponents will be subject to paying the 1% levy as prescribed under the former Parramatta Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2017 at the development application stage. The rationale for this approach was outlined as part of the adoption of the Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan on 12 July 2021 and was adopted by Council to ensure the best possible outcome for the delivery of essential local infrastructure throughout the entire Melrose Park Precinct. This rationale includes the ability of Council to secure the quantity of public open space required to support the precinct and ensures the open space is delivered at an appropriate stage in the redevelopment. This approach also places no acquisition burden on Council for the land proposed to be dedicated as public open space. Should the Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan rates apply to redevelopment within the Melrose Park precinct there is no guarantee that these funds would be directed towards delivering the required infrastructure within the precinct. This would potentially result in a high-density residential area being under supported or having to wait for a lengthy time for the necessary infrastructure.
20. Should proponents wish to negotiate their Planning Agreement based on a lower per-dwelling amount, then the contribution rates prescribed in the Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contributions Plan 2021 will apply in addition to any Planning Agreement. Due to Melrose Park requiring a significant amount of local infrastructure investment, Council officers prefer Planning Agreements to be negotiated based on the $19,349 per-dwelling rate plus the 1% Section 94A levy as this ensures that funds will be directed towards delivering the local infrastructure items required to support the precinct. It also avoids the potential for funds to be collected twice for infrastructure items that are identified in both the INL and the Parramatta (Outside CBD) Contribution Plan 2021 works schedule for Melrose Park.
21. As a result of negotiations with Holdmark, the proponent submitted a Letter of Offer on 8 March 2022 for Council officers’ assessment (refer Attachment 3) to the value of $37,246,825. This offer is the result of extensive negotiations over the past 12 months and is considered to be an appropriate contribution towards the provision of local infrastructure and is consistent with the INL. A summary of the offer is provided in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Summary of Holdmark’s Planning Agreement Offer
No |
Item |
Contribution Value |
1. |
Affordable rental housing (24 units with a minimum of 34 bedrooms) dedicated to Council in perpetuity. |
$16,169,411 |
2. |
Dedication of land to be used as public open space to Council at no cost. Embellishment of new public open space to Council’s requirements with a 50% offset* included in the Planning Agreement for the cost of works. |
$21,077,414 |
3. |
Delivery of cycleways and new roads with a 50% offset* for the cost of works included in the Planning Agreement.
|
|
|
TOTAL VALUE OF OFFER |
$37,246,825 |
Per Unit Contribution |
$19,349 |
* A 50% offset is included in the Planning Agreement as an acknowledgement by Council that the subject works will benefit the broader community and not just the residents within the development. It means that half of the identified cost of delivering this infrastructure is offset by Council and half is offset by the developer.
State Infrastructure
23. The State infrastructure identified includes items such as road upgrades (primarily on Victoria Road) as identified in the Transport Management Accessibility Plan (TMAP) prepared for the precinct, a proposed new primary school in the northern precinct, and the potential bridge over the Parramatta River to Wentworth Point (proposed to be delivered as part of Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 (PLR2)). Further detail on the delivery and funding of State infrastructure is provided in Attachment 1. At this stage, it is not intended that a separate Regional Infrastructure Contribution (RIC) or State Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) will be applied as all contributions towards the delivery of State infrastructure will be facilitated via the respective Planning Agreements between each landowner and the State Government.
PLANNING PROPOSAL
24. The Gateway determination issued by DPE permitting the draft Planning Proposal to proceed to exhibition included nine (9) conditions that are required to be addressed prior to the draft Planning Proposal being placed on exhibition. The conditions relate to fixing minor typographical errors in the document and ensuring specific documents, such as the Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) and INL are placed on exhibition with the draft Planning Proposal. These conditions and how they have been addressed are detailed in Attachment 1.
25. The Height of Building map has been also amended to reflect the refinements made to the development scheme since this Gateway determination was issued. The maximum permissible height of 77m (approximately 22 storeys) endorsed by Council on 9 November 2020 has not been amended as part of these refinements, it is the distribution of the lower building heights which are subject to the change. The proposed LEP mapped building heights now comprise 25m (approximately 6 storeys), 31m (approximately 8 storeys on the West site), 34m (approximately 8 storeys on the East site), 68m (approximately 20 storeys) and 77m (approximately 22 storeys) noting that the LEP Height of Buildings map shows the upper height limit permitted on each development block. The reason for 8 storeys being represented by two different heights in metres is due to the differences in slope on the East and West sites. The height map within the draft DCP shows how these are to be represented in storeys. These refinements will provide a better transition to the surrounding low-density development and provide a more consistent height scheme within the precinct.
26. The Gateway determination sets a deadline within which the Planning Proposal must be progressed by Council and submitted to DPE for finalisation of 31 June 2022. The Planning Proposal is then required under the Gateway determination to be finalised by DPIE by 31 August 2022.
27. Whilst the Planning Proposal has already been approved by Council for the purposes of public exhibition, the updated draft Planning Proposal is contained in Attachment 5 for information purposes and will be provided to DPE.
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 |
March 2021 to /present |
Holdmark |
Various comments in relation to finalising the draft DCP and Planning Agreement. |
Extensive consultation has been undertaken to date with the proponent to finalise the draft DCP and VPA. These represent an agreed position for the purposes of seeking Council endorsement to exhibit the draft DCP and VPA in conjunction with the Planning Proposal endorsed by Council on 9 November 2020. |
City Planning and Design / Property and Place |
29. In addition to the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the conditions of the Gateway determination, community consultation will be undertaken as follows:
· Notification of the exhibition on Council’s website and social media platforms
· Mail out to landowners within both City of Parramatta and City of Ryde LGAs within a radius of approximately 1km of the site, which is consistent with previous public exhibitions for the Melrose Park precinct.
· Direct notification to City of Ryde Council
· Direct consultation with City of Ryde staff
· Hard copy exhibition material will be available at Council’s Customer Contact Centre, City of Parramatta Library and Ermington Branch Library.
30. Following the conclusion of the exhibition period, a report will be prepared for the Local Planning Panel’s and then Council’s consideration detailing the submissions received and recommended actions. Should Council resolve to endorse the Planning Proposal, it will be forwarded to DPE for finalisation, subject to any required changes being made as a result of the exhibition process.
Councillor Consultation
31. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
4 November 2020 - briefing session |
All |
Various questions relating to density and infrastructure provisions |
Responses provided to Councillors at that time |
City Planning and Design |
23 March 2022 - standard briefing session before the Council meeting |
All |
Not known at time of writing the report. |
Not known at the time of writing the report. |
City Planning and Design / Property and Place |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
32. The legal implications associated with this report relate to the Planning Agreement that is proposed to be entered into between Council and proponent, Holdmark. Details of the Planning Agreement are provided earlier in this report. The Planning Agreement will be subject to legal drafting prior to finalisation. Council will not enter into any formal legal agreement associated with the proposed Planning Agreement until this matter has been considered and the Planning Agreement has been subsequently adopted by Council following the public exhibition period.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
33. The decision being made by Council to endorse the draft Planning Agreement for exhibition will have no direct impact on the budget which is the reason the table below is empty. At the time the Planning Agreement is executed (post exhibition), Council can then plan to incorporate the infrastructure and other Planning Agreement deliverables into Council budget and asset management strategies. Although land will be dedicated to Council as part of the Planning Agreement, Council will have no financial obligations for the maintenance of this land for a period of 5 years. After this time, the cost of maintaining this land will be Council’s responsibility.
|
FY 21/22 |
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
Revenue |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Internal Revenue |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
External Revenue |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Total Revenue |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
External Costs |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Internal Costs |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Depreciation |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Other |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Total Operating Result |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
CAPEX |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
External |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Internal |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Other |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
Total CAPEX |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
CONCLUSION
34. The draft DCP is consistent with the adopted Planning Proposal and thus reflects the established intended outcomes for the precinct from a built form perspective. The draft planning agreement with Holdmark with a value of $37,246,825 will help deliver essential community infrastructure to the precinct and beyond and is considered to be an appropriate contribution. It is recommended that the report be endorsed as recommended.
Amberley Moore
Senior Project Officer
Michael Rogers
Land Use Planning Manager
David Birds
Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts
Bryan Hynes
Executive Director Property & Place
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Jennifer Concato
Executive Director City Planning and Design
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Background and Further Information |
11 Pages |
|
2⇩ |
Draft Melrose Park South Site-Specific DCP |
101 Pages |
|
3⇩ |
Letter of Offer |
4 Pages |
|
4⇩ |
Infrastructure Needs List |
1 Page |
|
5⇩ |
Updated Planning Proposal |
75 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Notices of Motion
28 March 2022
14.1 Peninsula Park, Wentworth Point................................................................ 448
14.2 Smoke Free Parramatta Square................................................................. 455
Council 28 March 2022 Item 14.1
ITEM NUMBER 14.1
SUBJECT Peninsula Park, Wentworth Point
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08453092
FROM Councillor Paul Noack
(a) That Council advocate to the State Government on the future of the mixed-use site adjacent to Peninsula Park at Wentworth Point.
(b) Further, that Council advocate to Transport for NSW (as landowner) and Landcom (as developer) for commencement of work in the Peninsula Park to occur promptly.
BACKGROUND
1. No background information provided.
Paul Noack
Councillor
STAFF RESPONSE
2. A written staff response will be included in the supplementary agenda and distributed to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
3. A written staff response will be included a supplementary agenda and circulated to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.
Paul Noack
Councillor
Bryan Hynes
Executive Director Property & Place
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Peninsula Park Map |
6 Pages |
|
ITEM NUMBER 14.2
SUBJECT Smoke Free Parramatta Square
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08453832
FROM Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Sameer Pandey
That Council:
1. Undertake consultations with customers frequenting Parramatta Square and the wider Parramatta community to gauge support for smoke-free options within Parramatta Square.
2. Develop relevant and appropriate measures to understand the impact of implementing smoke free options in Parramatta Square (e.g. community perceptions).
3. Identify a suitable, acceptable and enforceable smoke-free option for Parramatta Square that addresses stakeholder feedback, health and environmental considerations.
4. Implement a policy to support the selected smoke-free option.
5. Deliver a communication campaign to inform stakeholders of the new smoke-free measures in Parramatta Square.
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta CBD is growing fast with its high-density mixed-use developments around the commercial core. A very important challenge for us is to get the balance right between development, economic growth, and social and green infrastructure.
2. The City of Parramatta’s Night Time Economy Strategy aims to provide a safe and family-friendly experience during night retail trading, food markets and other venues. Reducing smoking and smoke-exposure may attract and encourage additional consumers to spend more time in the precinct, boosting business and the night economy. Research into NSW smoke-free legislation shows that 78% of people are bothered by exposure to other people’s smoke, and that many businesses express strong support for smoke-free dining.
Sameer Pandey
Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY ASSETS & OPERATIONS RESPONSE
3. A written staff response will be included a supplementary agenda and circulated to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
4. A written staff response will be included a supplementary agenda and circulated to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.
Sameer Pandey
Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor
Carly Rogowski
Executive Director, City Engagement & Experience
John Warburton
Executive Director, City Assets & Operations
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer