Agenda of Council - Monday, 9 May 2022

MINUTES OF THE Meeting of City of Parramatta Council HELD IN THE CLOISTER FUNCTION ROOMS, ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL 1 MARIST PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Tuesday, 26 April 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, Dan Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne (joined at 6:43pm).

1. OPENING MEETING

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis, opened the meeting at 6:30pm.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF LAND

The Lord Mayor, acknowledged the Burramattagal people of The Darug Nation as the traditional owners of this land, and paid respect to their ancient culture and 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 11 April 2022

3736

RESOLVED (Maclean/Noack)

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

6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3737	RESOLVED (Esber/Valjak) That the request to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 26 April 2022 via remote means submitted by Councillor Wearne and Councillor Humphries due to personal reasons be accepted.

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Garrard declared a non-pecuniary and less than significant interest in Item 8.1 - City of Parramatta Citizenship Ceremonies being an employee of the organisation. She remained in the Chamber during the discussion of this matter.

8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor

8.1

SUBJECT City of Parramatta Citizenship Ceremonies

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08496666

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3738

RESOLVED (Davis/Pandey)

(a) That Council note the important role local government and our City plays in the delivery of citizenship ceremonies, and that we value this important symbolic and legal role in formally welcoming new Citizens into the Australian community.

(b) That Council note plans are in place for a further six Citizenship Ceremonies to be delivered by Council on 17 & 18 May 2022, with approximately 2,400 attendees expected to be conferred with Citizenship.

(c) That Council note in the first quarter of 2022, Home Affairs approved 1,487 applicants to the City of Parramatta LGA waitlist, and it is anticipated another 1,487 will be approved in the second quarter of 2022.

(d) That Council note the additional pressures placed on Council to deliver ceremonies in a timely manner to meet the high number of conferees placed on the City of Parramatta LGA waitlist by Home Affairs on an ongoing basis.

(e) Further, that Council writes to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship, and the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs regarding the additional pressures experienced by councils in the delivery of ceremonies, seeking:

a. Consideration of funding contributions to councils to assist in the delivery of citizenship ceremonies; and

b. The re-establishment of the regular meetings with the network of council officers responsible for the delivery of citizenship ceremonies to understand the increasing budgetary and logistical pressures to deliver citizenship ceremonies in a timely, practical manner.

8.2

SUBJECT Macquarie Boys' Technology High School Site

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08499779

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3739

RESOLVED (Davis/Darley)

(a) That Council note the announcement of the NSW Government in October 2018 – ‘Planning begins for new Rydalmere Education Precinct’ regarding plans for a new school on the site of the former Macquarie Boys’ Technology High School.

(b) Further, that Council write to the Hon Dr Geoff Lee MP, Member for Parramatta, and the Hon Sarah Mitchell MLC, Minister for Education and Early Learning, to seek an update on the planning for an educational institution on this site including the delivery timeline.

8.3

SUBJECT Memorial for Margaret McCartney

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08500434

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3740

RESOLVED (Davis/Maclean)

(a) That Council approve the installation of a memorial bench and tree in Forest Park, Epping, in honour of the late Margaret McCartney,

(b) That Council note the memorial bench and tree can be funded from within the existing Public Trees Program (100120) and Cemeteries and Memorials Program (100030) 2021/22 budgets.

(c) Further, that Council writes to the family of Margaret McCartney, Epping Civic Trust and the Friends of Forest Park, advising them of this outcome and to consult with them on the preferred locations within Forest Park for the installation of the bench and tree.

Note: Councillor Wearne joined the meeting (via audio-visual link) at 6:43pm during the discussion of LMM 8.3.

8.4

SUBJECT Promotion of Harris Park as Little India

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08502501

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3741

RESOLVED (Davis/Noack)

(a) That Council note the letter sent to Harris Park businesses and the forum held on Thursday 21 April 2022 by the Hon Dr Geoff Lee MP, Member for Parramatta.

(b) That Council note the 15 June 2021 resolution where Council approved the use of Little India for a defined trading area of Marion St, Wigram St, and Station St East in Harris Park, for both local businesses and Council officers to run limited promotional and marketing activity relating to the defined trading area.

(c) That Council note officers have been progressing this resolution of Council, with further consultation required following advice from the NSW Government’s Geographical Names Board.

(d) That Council officers provide an update to all Councillors and to local stakeholders, including members of the Little India Reference Group, on the progress of this resolution and next steps.

(e) That Council notes a series of activations are planned by Council for the Harris Park precinct in May and June 2022, with the aim of increasing visitation from across Greater Sydney to support local businesses. These will be promoted through Council’s various communication channels and the media.

(f) Further, that the Lord Mayor write to the Hon Dr Geoff Lee MP, Member for Parramatta, providing an update on actions taken to date and Council’s next steps.

Note: Councillor Darley left the Chamber at 6:49pm and returned at 6:51pm during the discussion of LMM 8.4.

9. Public Forum

Nil

10. Petitions

There were no petitions tabled at this meeting.

11. Rescission Motions

Nil

Procedural Motion

3742

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

That Items, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 be resolved en bloc.

12. For Notation

12.1

SUBJECT Investment Report for March 2022

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08482593

REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant

3743

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

That Council receive and note the Investment Report for March 2022.

12.2

SUBJECT Returns for Designated Persons

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08472195

REPORT OF Governance Manager

3744

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

(a) That Council receive and note the Disclosures of Interest and Other Matters in Written Returns tabled at the meeting in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Code of Conduct.

(b) Further, that Council notes the Disclosures of Interest and Other Matters in Written Returns will be included in the Register of Returns Disclosing Interests in accordance with Section 440AAB of the Local Government Act 1993.

12.3

SUBJECT ARIC Annual Report 2021

REFERENCE F2022/00452 - D08464600

REPORT OF Coordinator Internal Audit

3745

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

That Council receives and notes the 2022 Annual Report from the ARIC.

12.4

SUBJECT Quarter Two Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22 (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08469627

REPORT OF Corporate Strategy Manager

3746

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

That the report be received and noted.

12.5

SUBJECT Response to Council’s resolution on trees in the Parramatta CBD

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08386013

REPORT OF Strategy Manager

3747

RESOLVED (Pandey/Green)

(a) That Council receive and note the report.

(b) Further, that Council note a Councillor Workshop will be held on the Environmental Sustainability Strategy including the matters contained in this report.

13. For Council Decision

13.1

SUBJECT Quarterly Budget Review - December 2021 (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08469630

REPORT OF Financial Planning and Analysis Manager

3748

RESOLVED (Maclean/Darley)

(a) That Council adopt the December 2021 Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) and the Responsible Accounting Officer’s report on the financial position of the Council (Attachment 1).

i) Further, that Council approve the revised budget for the 2021/22 financial year:
an operating surplus of $34.1m

ii) capital revenue of $86.2m

iii) capital expenditure of $313.6m.

13.2	SUBJECT Additional Special Variation (ASV) Application REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08480375 REPORT OF Chief Finance and Information Officer
	MOTION (Esber/Prociv) (a) That Council approve an application for a permanent ASV to general income to be made to IPART under section 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, seeking an increase of the rate peg from 0.7% to 2.5%. (b) That Council note it will receive an additional $2.84m in general income for the 2022/23 financial year if the ASV application is approved. (c) That Council note it will use the funds generated by the ASV application to meet Net Operating Deficit results from continuing operations. (d) That Council note that the additional average residential rates payable, attributable to the ASV application in 2022/23, will be $18 or $0.35 per week. (e) That Council note the impact on ratepayers as outlined in the Ratepayer Impact Table and considers the impact reasonable if the permanent ASV is approved. (f) That Council publicly exhibit the permanent ASV rate increase in its 2022/2023 Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Budget and Fees & Charges suite of documents to be placed on public exhibition for the minimum period of 28 days. (g) Further, that the results of Council’s application to IPART be reported back to Council as part of the consideration of the final 2022/23 Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Budget and Fees and Charges suite of documents, following notification by IPART of its decision in late June 2022.
	FORESHADOWED MOTION (Garrard/Wearne) That there be no rate increase in the Financial Year 2022-2023. The motion moved by Councillor Esber and seconded by Councillor Prociv on being put was declared CARRIED. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Esber, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey and Prociv NOES: Councillors Garrard, Green, Siviero, Valjak, Wang and Wearne
	Note: Councillor Garrard provided four images in reference to low maintenance, around Dundas Ward during discussion of Item 13.2.
3749	RESOLVED (Esber/Prociv) (a) That Council approve an application for a permanent ASV to general income to be made to IPART under section 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, seeking an increase of the rate peg from 0.7% to 2.5%. (b) That Council note it will receive an additional $2.84m in general income for the 2022/23 financial year if the ASV application is approved. (c) That Council note it will use the funds generated by the ASV application to meet Net Operating Deficit results from continuing operations. (d) That Council note that the additional average residential rates payable, attributable to the ASV application in 2022/23, will be $18 or $0.35 per week. (e) That Council note the impact on ratepayers as outlined in the Ratepayer Impact Table and considers the impact reasonable if the permanent ASV is approved. (f) That Council publicly exhibit the permanent ASV rate increase in its 2022/2023 Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Budget and Fees & Charges suite of documents to be placed on public exhibition for the minimum period of 28 days. (g) Further, that the results of Council’s application to IPART be reported back to Council as part of the consideration of the final 2022/23 Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Budget and Fees and Charges suite of documents, following notification by IPART of its decision in late June 2022.

13.3

SUBJECT Draft Code of Meeting Practice for Public Exhibition

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08385486

REPORT OF Governance Projects Officer

3750

RESOLVED (Prociv/Darley)

(a) That the draft Code of Meeting Practice be placed on public exhibition for the prescribed period of 42 days.

(b) Further, that a report be presented to Council at the expiration of the public exhibition process considering any submissions received and presenting a final draft Code of Meeting Practice for adoption.

Note:

1. Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 7:26pm and returned at 7:27pm during the consideration of Item 13.3.

2. Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 7:26pm during the consideration of Item 13.3.

13.4

SUBJECT Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 23 March 2022

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08385424

REPORT OF Traffic and Transport Manager

3751

RESOLVED (Noack/Green)

(a) That Council note the minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 23 March 2022, as provided at Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 23 March 2022 provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications for each item.

i. ITEM 2203 A1 PARK PARADE, PARRAMATTA – PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

This report was deferred to the next Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting for further consultation on the proposal with the representative of the Parramatta PAC. Accordingly, there will not be any direct impact on Council’s budget at this stage.

ii. ITEM 2203 A2 PHILLIP STREET AND CHARLES STREET, PARRAMATTA – PROPOSED RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

The Phillip Street ‘Smart Streets’ – Stage 2 currently has an allocated budget of $5,396,508 under Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan. The estimated cost of the proposed raised pedestrian crossing including related drainage works is $450,000 and will be funded from the budget allocated for the Phillip Street ‘Smart Street’ project.

iii. ITEM 2203 A3 PARRAMATTA RIVER FORESHORE, GEORGE STREET, NOLLER PARADE AND RIVER ROAD WEST, PARRAMATTA – PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST PATHS IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION

The total estimated cost of construction of this project is $3,125,963 and will be subject of a future application to the TfNSW Active Transport Program for 100% funding. It is intended to commence construction when the funding for the entire project becomes available.

13.5

SUBJECT Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 23 March 2022

REFERENCE F2021/00521 - D08385430

REPORT OF Traffic and Transport Manager

3752

RESOLVED (Noack/Wang)

(a) That Council note the minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 23 March 2022, as provided at Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 23 March 2022 as provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications of each item.

i. ITEM 2203 B1 PROJECTS RECENTLY COMPLETED, PROJECTS CURRENTLY FUNDED, AND PROJECTS LISTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE FUNDING

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

ii. ITEM 2203 B2 Proposed traffic improvements on Hill Road, Wentworth Point

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

14. Notices of Motion

14.1

SUBJECT Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08488196

FROM Councillor Paul Noack

3753

RESOLVED (Noack/Siviero)

That Council notes with concern the recent NSW Government announcement that major projects in Western Sydney including the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2, are under review and accordingly resolves the following;

1. That the Lord Mayor write to the Premier and Minister for Transport calling on them to commit to this important infrastructure for our LGA, and calling for a meeting to discuss this matter

2. This project if delayed will further increase costs, and given the projected development of housing and increased population in the relevant Parramatta suburbs will further see transport infrastructure lag behind development, and the needs of our growing communities will be ignored

3. Council further notes this project will provide thousands of jobs for our local community, and will provide the connectivity our LGA needs

Note: Councillor Garrard returned to the Chamber at 7:31pm during the consideration of Item 14.1.

15. Questions with Notice

15.1

SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 11 April 2022

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08489558

FROM Business Governance Officer

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 11 APRIL 2022

Item 13.1 - Advisory Committees of Council

Question from Councillor Bradley

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Garrard, Councillor Bradley asked the following questions:

1. Do any of those committees have significant deadlines in terms of timing, like for Grants Committee, that we might need to give special consideration to in the timing of it going to the Policy Committee and determining the Terms of Reference?

2. Is it intended that for the Bushland & Environment Advisory Committee and the Light Rail Committee that the current reference to Terms of Reference be guidance until further notice from the Council?

Chief Financial and Information Officer Response

1. Other than the Grants Committee, staff are not aware of any critical deadlines for Advisory Committees, over the next 4 weeks. In relation to the Grants Committee, the Committee will convene to consider the 2022 Grants round, which closed in early March, as a decision of expenditure needs to be made prior to the end of FY21/22. Note the Committee will use the terms of reference for this Committee from the previous term of council, as guide if needed.

2. Yes. The Bushland & Environment Advisory Committee has a draft Terms of Reference considered by Council on 11 April and is subject to be reviewed by the Policy Review Committee. The Parramatta Light Rail Advisory Committee will use the terms of reference for this Committee from the previous term of Council, as guide if needed, until a new terms of reference is considered by the Policy Review Committee.

Item 13.1 - Advisory Committees of Council

Question from Councillor Garrard

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Garrard, Councillor Garrard asked the following questions:

3. Do the terms of reference that are currently for each of those committees stay in place until such time that the Policy Committee amends and reviews the terms of reference presented?

Chief Financial and Information Officer Response

3. In general, Advisory Committees may use their respective terms of reference from the previous term of Council, as a guide if needed, to assist in governance and decision making until such time as Council resolves to approve a new terms of reference. The application of the previous terms of references for committees without community representation is viable.

However, where community representatives are members of a committee, the expression of interest process will be delayed until such time as the Council approves the new terms of reference due to:

a. the possible impact the terms of reference may have on assessment and selection of community representatives.

b. the terms of reference forming a part of advertising, assessment and recommendation of community representatives to Council.

c. the terms of reference also form an agreement between Council and community members nominated onto the committee and to change this soon after a committee is convened creates the risk that members appointed may not be agreeable to the changes or no longer meet the criteria for membership.

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

3754

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

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

16.1 Legal Status Report as at 31 March 2022. (D08457182) - 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 Tender 32/2021 Disposal of General Waste Cleansing Services. (D08398878) - 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.

16.3 Approval of Supplier for works associated with CBD Outdoor Dining. (D08469386) - 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.

16.4 Lease Extension - 126 Church Street, Parramatta and Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam St, Parramatta. (D08466081) - 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.

16.1

SUBJECT Legal Status Report as at 31 March 2022

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08457182

REPORT OF Group Manager Legal Services

3755

RESOLVED (Prociv/Pandey)

That Council note the Legal Status Report as at 31 March 2022.

16.2

SUBJECT Tender 32/2021 Disposal of General Waste Cleansing Services

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08398878

REPORT OF Act Cleansing Manager

3756

RESOLVED (Esber/Maclean)

(a) That Council approve the appointment of the preferred proponent for Tender 32/2021 Disposal of General Waste, Cleansing Services, for the terms outlined in paragraph 11 and 12 of this report.

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

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

16.3

SUBJECT Approval of Supplier for works associated with CBD Outdoor Dining

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08469386

REPORT OF Place Manager

3757

RESOLVED (Garrard/Pandey)

(a) That Council approve Alfresco Shade for supply and installation of blinds to the 50 existing outdoor dining umbrella structures along Church Street Parramatta (between Lennox Bridge and south of Phillip Street), infills to bridge gaps between certain existing umbrella structures, and installation of additional umbrella structures where permitted by Transport for NSW and the Light Rail Operator for the sum at paragraph 11.

(b) Further, that Council approve an exception to tender pursuant to section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

i. The warranty on the 50 existing umbrella structures will be voided if the installation of blinds and bridging of umbrella gaps is performed by a provider not authorised by Alfresco Shade.

ii. Alfresco Shade has the proprietary knowledge to assess and approve the design and safety of any additional components and associated weight that is added on the existing umbrella structures.

iii. Alfresco Shade has a design copyright on the existing umbrella structure design and no other supplier can provide the same umbrella structure to ensure that outdoor dining in the precinct remains aesthetically similar and functional.

16.4

SUBJECT Lease Extension - 126 Church Street, Parramatta and Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam St, Parramatta

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08466081

REPORT OF Group Manager Property Development

3758

RESOLVED (Pandey/Bradley)

(a) That Council approve the extension of the 126 Church St, Parramatta lease to expire 30 June 2024,.

(b) That Council approve the extension of Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam St, Parramatta lease up to 30 June 2024.

(c) That Council note the rental costs associated with the lease extension at 126 Church St and Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam St are included in Council’s draft Budget for FY 22/23 and Long Term Financial Plan.

(d) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate, finalise and execute documents related to these matters.

Procedural Motion

3759

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

That the meeting resume in Open Session.

17. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 16.1 to 16.4.

18. CONCLUSION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 8:00 pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 13 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY/EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON Tuesday, 26 April 2022 AND CONFIRMED ON Monday, 9 May 2022.

Chairperson

Council 9 May 2022 Item 12.1

FOR NOTATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT CBD Revitalisation Grant Program (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08461662

REPORT OF Events & Festivals Manager

CSP THEME: WELCOMING

workshop/briefing date: Nil

Note: This item was deferred from the Council Meeting of 14 March 2022 for a Councillor Workshop which was held on 20 April 2022. This report has been updated to reflect the outcome of Council’s application to the CBD Revitalisation Grant Program and is provided to Council for notation.

PURPOSE:

To inform Council about Investment NSW’s grant program for revitalisation of the CBD, in which City of Parramatta applied for $1,000,000.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Council, at its meeting of 7 February 2022, resolved to receive a report on the CBD Revitalisation Grant Program. This report provides information to Councillors on the Grant Program in response to that resolution.

2. Since the 7 February 2022 meeting, the following consultation regarding the grant program and event budget has occurred:

a. Council workshop: Events and Festivals FY22 Update including CBD Grant, 16 February 2022

b. Council report: CBD Revitalisation Grant Program, 14 March 2022 (deferred)

c. Councillor Garrard meeting: CEO and ED, City Engagement & Experience on Event Program, Event Budget, and CBD Grant, 29 March 2022

d. Council Workshop: Events and Festivals Update including CBD Grant, 20 April 2022

3. The NSW Government is investing $50 million across three rounds of funding allocation in the CBDs Revitalisation Program to encourage people back into CBDs across Greater Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle and boost the state’s economic activity. The minimum grant amount is $250,000. The maximum grant amount is $1 million.

4. The first round of the program commenced in December 2021 providing $12.23 million to six events, including Sydney’s Open For Lunch. The City of Parramatta was awarded $200K from this round and utilised this funding to host one of the four Open For Lunch events on 3 December.

5. For Round 2, 17 CBDs and urban centres were nominated as eligible to apply for funding, including Parramatta. The round was announced on the Friday prior to Christmas, 17 December 2021 and closed on 17 January 2022.

6. Round 3 is expected to be announced in early 2022.

7. Examples of eligible events and activations activities include:

· one-off events that encourage ongoing visitation to an eligible CBD

· event series that encourage ongoing visitation to an eligible CBD.

8. City of Parramatta submitted an application in Round 2 on 1 January 2022 and an announcement regarding the application’s success was to be made on 16 February. This was later moved to the end of February 2022.

9. City of Parramatta requested a grant of $1,000,000 to support a program of events, lighting and activations that will encourage ongoing visitation to the Parramatta CBD. The grant conditions state that the program must be completed by 1 May 2022. This was subsequently changed to June 2022.

10. The event program put forward in the submission involves:

a) A partnership with CommBank Stadium to present a series of family-style and mainstream rock concerts in a new venue – the Terrace Amphitheatre - between stadium and the river.

b) A partnership with Westfield to present family activities through the CBD.

c) New lighting and projection installations through the CBD and Harris Park, to make the CBD precincts more appealing in night and day times.

d) A program of music and dance – popular, cultural, and eclectic – through Harris Park – supporting small businesses and retailers to engage performers, musicians, and DJs to enliven the precinct.

e) A series of concerts at the Eat Street carpark rooftop

f) Sponsorship from Park Royal via accommodation deals for visitors to the events.

11. The grant application topline budget breakdown of the proposal was follows:

ITEM	COST
CBD Lighting & Projection Displays	225,000.00
Terrace Amphitheatre Concert series at CommBank Stadium	250,000.00
Eat St Rooftop Popup Bar concerts	140,000.00
Harris Park Precinct Activation	225,000.00
Advertising, Media, and Marketing	160,000.00
TOTAL COSTS	1,000,000.00

12. Following the announcement from the Investment NSW, on 28 February 2022, Council was granted $850,000 from the program. In keeping with the grant application, the funding allocation is currently being programmed to the following budget estimates:

13. Commbank Stadium has advised they will put additional financial support into the event program, currently estimated at $140K.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

14. Council has received confirmation that a $850,000 grant has been awarded to the City of Parramatta Council. The event schedule has been adjusted to ensure adequate Council resources are available to execute this significant event program.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
14 Jan 2022	Carly Rogowski - Executive Director, City Engagement & Experience	Supportive	Support noted	Events and Festivals Manager
14 Jan 2022	Gisella Velasco, Night Time Economy, City Strategy	Supportive	Support noted
Venues Live (CommBank Stadium)	Jordan Kerry Business Dev Manager, Venues Live NSW	Confirmed commitment to participate	Accepted offer of commitment	Events and Festivals Manager
Westfield Parramatta	Jacqueline Charalambous Snr Brand Experience Mgr	Confirmed commitment to participate	Accepted offer of commitment	Events and Festivals Manager
Park Royal Parramatta	Charmaine Hardwick Director of Sales & Marketing NSW Pan Pacific Hotels Group	Confirmed support and sponsorship	Accepted offer of commitment	Events and Festivals Manager

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
NA Note: The Grant Round commenced on 17 December and finished 17 January - in a period before new Council was announced.
16 February 2022	Councillor Workshop – to provide an update on the FY22 Events and Festivals Program	Nil	Noted	City Engagement & Experience
6 April 2022	Cr Garrard	Requested input into future grants and additional consultation on the event program	Noted	City Engagement & Experience
20 April 2022	Councillor Workshop – to provide an update on the CBD Revitalisation Grant Program and responses to two Notices of Motion	Requested support of Lunar Moon and cultural events such as Parramasala in overall annual program as well as local Ward events	Noted	City Engagement & Experience

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

17. Council has been awarded funding under the CBD Revitalisation Grant Program in the amount of $850,000. A funding agreement has been prepared in consultation with Council’s legal team and executed by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

Jeffrey Stein

Events & Festivals Manager

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Carly Rogowski

Executive Director, City Engagement & Experience

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 9 May 2022 Item 13.1

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT Draft Community Strategic Plan 2018-38 (Amended) for Public Exhibition

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08470255

REPORT OF Corporate Strategy Manager

CSP THEME: FAIR

workshop/briefing date: 13 April 2022

PURPOSE:

To request that the draft updated Community Strategic Plan 2038 – “Butbutt Yura Barra Ngurra” – be endorsed for the purpose of public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the draft updated Community Strategic Plan 2038 for placing on public exhibition for 28 days from 10 May 2022 to 7 June 2022 inclusive.

BACKGROUND

1. The Community Strategic Plan (CSP) is a statutory requirement of the NSW Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) Framework for councils, as legislated by the Local Government Act, section 402.

2. The CSP represents the highest level of strategic planning undertaken by Council and sits above all other Council plans and policies in the planning hierarchy. The purpose of the Plan is to identify the community’s main priorities and aspirations for the future, and plan strategies to achieve them.

3. City of Parramatta’s CSP – a 20 year plan – is only four years old, initially developed and endorsed by Council in 2018 after considerable community engagement. It includes a long term vision and six strategic goals for the City of Parramatta and its community, along with supporting strategies to achieve them.

4. According to the Local Government Act, section 402(2), Council must review the CSP before 30 June following an ordinary election.

5. The strategic objectives and strategies link to the activities set out in Council’s draft Delivery Program 2022-26.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. In accordance with IP&R requirements, the CSP has been reviewed and updated following a period of research and engagement in 2021 and 2022.

7. The draft CSP must be placed on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days before the plan is endorsed by Council. This draft (Attachment 1) is now presented to Council for endorsement to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days from 10 May to 7 June 2022.

8. Any proposed revisions to the draft Plan arising from the exhibition consultation will be discussed at a Councillor Workshop, prior to seeking endorsement of the final Community Strategic Plan at Council’s 27 June meeting.

9. The review of the CSP was undertaken with the following principles and objectives:

a. The Vision, Community Goals and general structure of the plan are sound, having been endorsed only four years ago.

b. The review will include the identification of Community Outcomes (‘What does success look like?’) to articulate the City’s vision for each Goal.

c. The review will be based on Parramatta’s strategic direction (strategies adopted last 3-4 years), community engagement, and 2022 context.

d. The CSP’s Strategic Actions to deliver these Outcomes (‘How do we get there?’) will be updated and strengthened as required.

e. For each Community Outcome, an indicator for long-term success will be identified, ensuring data is measurable and available.

f. Since Council is not the sole agency responsible for delivering the CSP, Council’s role in delivering each Strategic Action (Deliver, Partner, or Advocate) will be articulated clearly.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. In order to ascertain the community’s priorities and aspirations for the future, the Community Strategic Plan was informed by an extensive program of community engagement before its endorsement in 2018. Council drew on the views of more than 15,000 community members and stakeholders in this period.

11. Supplementary engagement was undertaken in 2021 including Youth Focus Groups, an open survey for all community members (see Attachment 2), and discussions with several of Council’s advisory committees.

12. This review also considered feedback from other strategic projects from the past 3-4 years, Council’s annual Community Satisfaction Survey, and biennial Perceptions Tracker Survey.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
June 2021	Youth Focus Groups	Discussion on youth experiences in City of Parramatta.	Feedback considered in development of drafts.	City Strategy
November 2021	Community-wide Survey	Broad feedback on the existing CSP. (See attached Engagement Outcomes Report.)	Feedback considered in development of drafts.	City Strategy
28 September 2021	CoP Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee	Discussion of current CSP, background and requirements.	Feedback considered in development of drafts.	City Strategy
19 October 2021	CoP Access Advisory Committee	Advice on strengthening the ‘Accessible’ Goal and engagement	Feedback considered in development of drafts.	City Strategy
25 November 2021	CoP Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee	Discussion of IP&R process and requirements.	Feedback considered in development of drafts.	City Strategy

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
17 February	Councillor Induction Session	Introduction to requirements; summary of process; draft plan.	Guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy
7 March	Councillor Workshop	Discussion on draft plan.	Guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy
22 March	Cr Siviero	Discussion on draft plan.	N/A	City Strategy
1 April	Councillor Strategy Day	Detailed discussion on draft plan.	Guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy
6 April	Cr Darley	Discussions on draft plan	N/A	City Strategy
13 April	Councillor Workshop	Detailed discussion on draft plan.	Guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

16. There are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget.

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

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

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

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Dayne Glinkowski

Corporate Strategy Manager

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Nicole Carnegie

Group Manager, City Strategy

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Draft CSP for Exhibition	33 Pages
2 ⇩	CSP/DPOP Engagement Evaluation and Insights Report	15 Pages
3 ⇩	Summary of changes to the Draft Community Strategic Plan	7 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 9 May 2022 Item 13.2

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.2

SUBJECT Planning Proposals for sites at WSU Parramatta North Campus and at 1-21 Hope Street, 27-43 Oak Street and 126-130 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08452384

APPLICANT/S Refer to report

OWNERS Refer to report

REPORT OF Project Officer

CSP THEME: INNOVATIVE

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel – Nil

PURPOSE

This report seeks Council’s endorsement to not proceed with two Planning Proposals, thereby formally ending the Planning Proposal process.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council not proceed with the Planning Proposal at 70 Pemberton Street, 260 & 260A Victoria Road, 178-184 & 190-200 James Ruse Drive, and 15-19 Collet Parade, Parramatta (Western Sydney University – Parramatta North Campus) for the following reasons:

i. The preparation of a draft Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) to assess traffic and transport impacts in the area, in accordance with the Council resolution dated 8 October 2019, has been delayed due to the formal withdrawal of the adjacent Planning Proposal for 266 Victoria Road and 26 Kissing Point Road, Rydalmere, which required a TMAP be prepared for the two sites.

ii. The Applicant has not sought to independently advance the preparation of a draft TMAP to date and has indicated that the Planning Proposal will not progress for a further 6-12 months.

(b) That Council not proceed with the Planning Proposal at 1–21 Hope Street, 27–43 Oak Street and 126–130 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill for the following reasons:

i. The applicant has not met the Council’s preferred density and scale requirements.

ii. Inconsistency with the Local Strategic Planning Statement and Local Housing Strategy as the site is not within an identified Growth Precinct and the proposed development is not required to meet Council’s adopted housing and employment targets.

iii. The proposed density and heights would result in overdevelopment of the site, are inconsistent with the density and heights of nearby high-rise development and are overbearing of nearby lower scale development (particularly to the west and southwest).

iv. The proposed urban design outcome lacks a suitable transition to nearby lower-scale development and a cohesive arrangement of buildings and spaces.

v. Failure to address flood affectation issues.

vi. Inadequate protection of the Historic View Corridor No. 12 (Elizabeth Farm).

vii. Failure to demonstrate that the proposal can satisfactorily address traffic flow, parking and access impacts arising from the proposed development.

PLANNING PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED NOT TO PROCEED

1. An overview of each Planning Proposal is provided below.

70 Pemberton Street, 260 & 260A Victoria Road, 178-184 & 190-200 James Ruse Drive, and 15-19 Collet Parade, Parramatta

Planning Proposal: RZ/22/2017

Applicant: AECOM

Landowner: Western Sydney University

Figure 1: Location of the subject site - 70 Pemberton Street, 260 & 260A Victoria Road, 178-184 & 190-200 James Ruse Drive and 15-19 Collet Parade, Parramatta

2. On 21 December 2017, a Planning Proposal was lodged with Council seeking to amend the planning controls for the subject land. An overview of the existing and proposed controls for the Planning Proposal are detailed in Table 1. As per the Applicant’s preferred scheme, the Planning Proposal would result in approximately 1,110 new dwellings and a maximum gross floor area of 101,283sqm. A summary of the Planning Proposal, including an overview of sought planning controls and previous report recommendations, is provided at Attachment 1.

Table 1: Existing and proposed controls applying to the site at 70 Pemberton Street, 260 & 260A Victoria Road, 178-184 & 190-200 James Ruse Drive and 15-19 Collet Parade, Parramatta

	Existing Controls under Parramatta LEP 2011	Proposed Controls under the Applicant’s Preferred Scheme
Zoning	Part SP2 Educational Establishment, part R3 Medium Density Residential and part R4 High Density Residential	Part R4 High Density Residential and part B4 Mixed Use
Height of Building	Part 11m (3 storeys) and part no height control	Maximum of part 28m (8 storeys) and part 84m (25 storeys)
Floor Space Ratio	Part 0.6:1, part 0.8:1 and part no floor space ratio control	Maximum of 1.59:1

3. The subject Planning Proposal has been with Council for over four years and was reported to Council on 8 October 2019, when Council resolved to defer the Planning Proposal subject to the preparation of a draft Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) required to support the Planning Proposal on the adjacent site at 266 Victoria Road and 26 Kissing Point Road, Rydalmere. This study was required to understand the cumulative traffic and transport impacts of this development within the broader area. Further, Council also resolved to defer the Planning Proposal subject to the finalisation of Council’s corridor structure plan from Harris Park to Carlingford. This study has since been superseded by Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and Local Housing Strategy.

4. The adjacent Planning Proposal for 266 Victoria Road and 26 Kissing Point Road, Rydalmere [RZ/23/2016] has been formally withdrawn. The corresponding Gateway Determination for that site was amended on 25 March 2021, ending the Planning Proposal process.

5. Whilst the Planning Proposal at 266 Victoria Road and 26 Kissing Point Road, Rydalmere, has been withdrawn, it is anticipated that a new Planning Proposal for that site may be lodged with Council in the future. Once this occurs, a full assessment of the potential traffic and transport impacts of development on both sites will be able to be undertaken.

6. Council officers advised the Applicant via written correspondence on 28 March 2022 that the Planning Proposal for the subject land should not proceed given the insufficient information available to assess the application (being the lack of a TMAP). The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to formally withdraw and end the Planning Proposal process prior to the matter being reported to Council.

7. On 14 April 2022 the applicant provided a response advising they will not be seeking withdrawal of the Planning Proposal due to the work undertaken to date. The applicant advised Council they are committed to the completion of traffic studies and the preparation of a precinct based Traffic Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP). They anticipate advancing the Planning Proposal within the next 6-12 months, subject to the completion of the TMAP.

8. Council staff need to progress planning proposals submitted for assessment. If a proposal is not capable of being finalised within a reasonable timeframe it is appropriate that it be withdrawn or the assessment process be concluded. A new application can be submitted at a later date if a proponent wishes to progress a finalised proposal. In the case of this application it is considered that a further delay of potentially 12 months or more in the completion of important material that would enable assessment to proceed is too long, and that it is more appropriate that a new application be submitted when the proponent has finalised all supporting material required.

9. Notwithstanding this, Council officers will continue to work with the applicant to help guide the completion the required study in order to support the lodgment of a new Planning Proposal for the site that can then be assessed in a more concise and agreed time frame.

10. It is therefore recommended that Council not proceed with the Planning Proposal at 70 Pemberton Street, 260 & 260A Victoria Road, 178-184 & 190-200 James Ruse Drive, and 15-19 Collet Parade, Parramatta (Western Sydney University – Parramatta North Campus) for the following reasons:

ii. The Applicant has not sought to independently advance the preparation of a draft TMAP to date and has indicated that the Planning Proposal will not progress for a further 6-12 months.

1–21 Hope Street, 27–43 Oak Street and 126–130 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill

Planning Proposal RZ/20/2015

Applicant: Toplace Pty Ltd

Landowners:

“Private owners names have been excluded from the public report in order to meet the obligations under the PPIP Act. To establish any potential declarations of interest, Councillors have received this information in a confidential briefing prior to this Council meeting.”

Property Owner	Address
Olea Investments Pty Ltd	1 Hope Street and 126 James Ruse Drive
Private owner	5 Hope Street
Private Owner & Olea Investments Pty Ltd	7 Hope Street
Rosehill Panorama Pty Ltd	9-21 Hope Street, 27 Oak Street, 35-43 Oak Street and 128-130 James Ruse Drive

A high angle view of a city

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 2: Location of the subject site - 1–21 Hope Street, 27–43 Oak Street and 126–130 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill

11. On 8 October 2015, a Planning Proposal was lodged with Council seeking to amend the planning controls for the subject land. The Planning Proposal has progressed through several iterations as summarised in Table 2 below. A summary of the Planning Proposal, including an overview of the planning controls sought and previous report recommendations, is provided at Attachment 2.

Table 2: Summary of Planning Proposal Progression

Control	PLEP 2011 (existing)	Original PP By applicant October 2015	Revised PP1 By applicant June 2016	Revised PP 2 By applicant August 2018	Revised PP 3 Council officers December 2018	Revised PP 4 By applicant November 2019
Zoning	Part B4 Mixed Use Part R4 High Density Residential	B4 Mixed Use	B4 Mixed Use	Part B4 Mixed Use Part R4 High Density Residential	Part B4 Mixed Use Part R4 High Density Residential	Part B4 Mixed Use Part R4 High Density Residential
FSR	None	7:1	Part 5:1 Part 4:1 Site extended to include 19-21 Hope and 27 Oak St.	Part 3:1 Part 4.5:1	2.5:1	Part 3:1 Part 4.5:1 Minimum 1.65:1 tourist & visitor accommodation Maximum 2.85:1 residential
Height	Part RL14 - 6-8m building height based on topography Part 9.2m and Part 13m - 2 - 4 storeys	15m - 5 storeys Up to 108m – 35 storeys	15m – 5 storeys 75m – 25 storeys	Part 28m – 9 storeys Part 44m – 14 storeys Part 85m - 25 storeys	26m- 8 storeys Part 65m- 20 storeys (James Ruse Dr tower)	Part 9m- 3 storeys Part - 8 storeys Part - 12 storeys Part 85m - 25 storeys

Control

PLEP 2011 (existing)

Original PP

By applicant

October 2015

Revised PP1

By applicant

June 2016

Revised PP 2

By applicant August 2018

Revised PP 3

Council officers December 2018

Revised PP 4

By applicant November 2019

Zoning

Part B4

Mixed Use

Part R4

High Density Residential

Mixed Use

Part B4

Mixed Use

Part R4

High Density Residential

Part B4

Mixed Use

Part R4

High Density Residential

Part B4

Mixed Use

Part R4

High Density Residential

FSR

None

7:1

Part 5:1

Part 4:1

Site extended to include 19-21 Hope and 27 Oak St.

Part 3:1

Part 4.5:1

2.5:1

Part 3:1

Part 4.5:1

Minimum 1.65:1 tourist & visitor accommodation

Maximum 2.85:1 residential

Height

Part RL14 -

6-8m building height based on topography

Part 9.2m and

Part 13m -

2 - 4 storeys

15m -

5 storeys

Up to

108m –

35 storeys

15m –

5 storeys

75m –

25 storeys

Part 28m –

9 storeys

Part 44m –

14 storeys

Part 85m -

25 storeys

26m-

8 storeys

Part 65m-

20 storeys (James Ruse Dr tower)

Part 9m-

3 storeys

Part -

8 storeys

Part -

12 storeys

Part 85m -

25 storeys

12. An overview of the existing and currently proposed controls for the Planning Proposal is detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: Existing and proposed controls applying to the site at 1–21 Hope Street, 27–43 Oak Street and 126–130 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill

	Existing Controls under Parramatta LEP 2011	Proposed Controls under the Applicant’s Preferred Scheme (PP4)
Land Use Zoning	Part B4 Mixed Use Part R4 High Density Residential	Part B4 Mixed Use Part R4 High Density Residential
Height of Buildings	Part 9.2m (2 storeys) Part 13m (3 storeys) Part 14m (4 storeys)	Part 28m (8 storeys) Part 44m (13 storeys) Part 85m (25 storeys)
Floor Space Ratio	No FSR	Part 3:1 Part 4.5:1 Minimum 1.65:1 tourist & visitor accommodation Maximum 2.85:1 residential

13. The subject Planning Proposal has been with Council for over six years and was last reported to Council on 17 December 2018.

14. Council officers reported the applicant’s PP2 scheme to the Local Planning Panel (LPP) Meeting on 28 November 2018. The Council officer report raised concerns with the proposed density, traffic and urban design issues, and identified additional work required to manage significant flooding issues.

15. The Council officer report to the LPP recommended a reduction in density to address the issues raised by the LPP with a maximum FSR of 2.5:1 and building heights of part 26m (8 storeys) and part 65m (20 storeys). The Council officer report included a recommended revised scheme (PP3) that incorporated these provisions.

16. After considering the report, the LPP resolved to recommend Council endorse Council’s preferred scheme (PP3) as per the Council officer recommendation to reduce density and building heights. In addition, the LPP recommended that prior to Gateway determination, the applicant must resolve and incorporate:

a. Council’s preferred urban design outcomes, as described in paragraph 12;

b. Issues relating to flooding and onsite stormwater management;

c. Heritage view lines and the interface with Elizabeth Farm; and

d. Traffic flow, parking and access.

17. At the Council meeting on 17 December 2018, Council resolved to defer consideration of the PP3 scheme and require the additional work including a revised Planning Proposal which responds to Council officer recommendations relating to FSR, building heights, flooding and heritage, to be completed before a further report back to Council.

18. On 26 November 2019, the applicant provided Council with the PP4 scheme, supported by an urban design report justifying the higher FSR (part 3:1 and 4.5:1). The revised scheme does not consider the strategic or immediate context of the Planning Proposal, nor does it refer to any applicable planning policy, nor issues raised by Council officers. Council officers have consistently raised concerns about the excessive height and FSR proposed and maintain that an FSR of 4.5:1 and height of 85m (25 storeys) is not acceptable.

19. Council officers met with the applicant in January 2020, where it was agreed that Council would provide an optimum (or preferred) scheme that included urban design principles to underpin any design for the site. On 6 March 2020, the following was provided to the applicant:

· An optimum design scheme prepared by Council’s Urban Design Team (this required reduced FSR and height, re-orientated buildings, and the flood affected part of the site to comprise open space in response to the Council resolution of 17 December 2018); and

· Urban Design principles to underpin design for the site.

20. On 9 April 2020 and the applicant, in part, provided Council the following response:

· Indicated it is not economically viable to incorporate the land at 27 Oak and 19-21 Hope Street, Rosehill in the Planning Proposal, and that the owners would act on the development consent for those properties (DA/629/2014 for the construction of 62 units in a five-storey building).

· Requested a delay until after the Easter break (in 2020) to remodel the site excluding the above parcels of land, prepare updated sketches and then liaise with Council officers regarding the impact changes might have on the reminder of the site and the resultant density.

21. On 28 March 2022 Council officers requested that the Planning Proposal be withdrawn, otherwise the Planning Proposal would be reported to Council with a recommendation not to proceed.

22. On 6 April 2022 the applicant provided a response advising they were not seeking withdrawal and requested that the PP4 scheme proceed to Council for determination. Additional justification was also provided concerning the proposed density, flooding and public open space considerations, bulk and scale of development, heritage view lines impacts and ongoing communication with Council officers (detailed in Attachment 2).

23. The additional justification provided on 6 April 2022 relates to the applicant’s PP4 scheme and does not address Council’s concerns in relation to density as resolved at the Council meeting on 17 December 2018 (detailed in Attachment 2). The Planning Proposal is therefore being reported to Council with a recommendation not to proceed. While the applicant has noted in their submission that they have been in contact with Council as recently as 2021 to progress this Planning Proposal, Council has no record of receiving any correspondence from the applicant since April 2020.

24. A summary of the applicant’s additional justification supplied on 6 April 2022 and a Council Officer response is provided in Attachment 2.

25. The applicant’s preferred scheme (PP4) received on 26 November 2019 does not respond to the resolution of the Council meeting 17 December 2018, which required the submission of a scheme demonstrating lower density for the site. Council officers recommend that Council not proceed with this Planning Proposal for the following reasons:

a. The applicant has not met the Council’s preferred density and scale requirements.

b. Inconsistency with the Local Strategic Planning Statement and Local Housing Strategy as the site is not within an identified Growth Precinct and the proposed development is not required to meet Council’s adopted housing and employment targets.

c. The proposed density and heights would result in overdevelopment of the site, are inconsistent with the density and heights of nearby high-rise development and are overbearing of nearby lower scale development (particularly to the west and southwest).

d. The proposed urban design outcome lacks a suitable transition to nearby lower-scale development and a cohesive arrangement of buildings and spaces.

e. Failure to address flood affectation issues.

f. Inadequate protection of the Historic View Corridor No. 12 (Elizabeth Farm).

g. Failure to demonstrate that the proposal can satisfactorily address traffic flow, parking and access impacts arising from the proposed development.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

26. There are no direct financial implications for Council as a result of the recommendations in this report. It is considered that these Planning Proposals are not eligible for a refund of Planning Proposal application fees, due to staff resources that have already been expended managing the assessment of the proposals. There would be efficiency benefits from no longer processing these Planning Proposals in the form of additional staff resources that would be released to progress high-priority planning projects.

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

Funding Source	N/A

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

Funding Source	N/A

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	N/A

CONSULTATION & TIMING

27. This section demonstrates the consultation undertaken for this Planning Proposal to date.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

70 Pemberton Street, 260 & 260A Victoria Road, 178-184 & 190-200 James Ruse Drive, and 15-19 Collet Parade, Parramatta

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Various correspondence between 2019 and 2022	Applicant and Council	Refer to Attachment 1 for a detailed list of stakeholder consultation.

1–21 Hope Street, 27–43 Oak Street and 126–130 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
Various correspondence between 2016 and 2022	Applicant and Council	Refer to Attachment 2 for a detailed list of stakeholder consultation.

Councillor Consultation

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

70 Pemberton Street, 260 & 260A Victoria Road, 178-184 & 190-200 James Ruse Drive, and 15-19 Collet Parade, Parramatta

Date	Councillor/s	Councillor Comment/s	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
3 October 2019	All - Councillor Workshop	No issues raised.	N/A	City Planning & Design
8 October 2019	All – Council Meeting	See Attachment 1 for Council Resolution.	N/A	City Planning & Design

1–21 Hope Street, 27–43 Oak Street and 126–130 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill

Date	Councillor/s	Councillor Comment/s	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
16 November 2015	All – Councillor Workshop	Significant concerns regarding height and density of the proposal given the sensitives of the precinct (heritage proximity and high flood risk) Requested Council Officers advise the applicant that the current proposal is excessive and is not supported.	Council Officers met with the applicant in January 2016 to support modifications to the preliminary planning proposal (as described above)	City Planning & Design
12 December 2018	All - Councillor Workshop	No issues raised.	N/A	City Planning & Design
17 December 2018	All – Council meeting	Council report seeking endorsement of the Planning Proposal meets Council’s preferred design scheme, resolving issues relating to flooding, heritage interface, urban design and density and traffic modelling is undertaken prior to seeking a Gateway determination. Council carried a motion to defer the matter until the additional information is provided to Council Officers. (item 15.6)	Council Officers provided written advice to the applicant requiring them to address issues raised in the Council meeting in January 2019. Additionally, officers met with the applicant 30 April 2019 to support modifications to the preliminary planning proposal (as described above)	City Planning & Design

Grace Haydon

Project Officer

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1⇩	Western Sydney University Planning Proposal	4 Pages
2⇩	Hope and Oak Streets and James Rouse Drive Planning Proposal	14 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 9 May 2022 Item 13.3

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.3

SUBJECT Process for naming Parramatta's new aquatic facility

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08429607

REPORT OF Group Manager Social and Community Services

CSP THEME: FAIR

workshop/briefing date: Monday 4 April 2022

PURPOSE:

To endorse a process for the selection of a name for the new Parramatta aquatic facility and constituent elements within the facility.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse one of the names set out in paragraph 8 as the name for the new aquatic and wellness facility in Parramatta.

(b) That Council note if the Dharug place name option is chosen then further consultation with the Dharug community will be undertaken and a recommendation brought back for Council approval.

(c) That Council notes the resolution of 28 September 2020 in relation to the grandstand seating by the 50m outdoor pool within the new facility to be known as the Kevin Hession Stand after the late member of the Parramatta War Memorial Swimming Club.

(d) That Council seek the views of Parramatta RSL Sub-branch and Parramatta War Memorial Swimming Club on naming of the 50m outdoor pool within the facility the Memorial Pool.

(e) That Council endorse a two stage public engagement process be conducted seeking suggestions from the broader community and Dharug representatives for names for other elements within the facility, aligned to the following three criteria:

1. Landmarks within the City of Parramatta LGA and its waterways

2. Deceased individuals from the City of Parramatta community who have made a contribution to health, wellbeing and swimming culture

3. Deceased individuals or events that recognise the history of the Mays Hill site

(f) Further, that reports be returned for Council’s consideration on the outcomes of the naming assessment by July 2022 and the outcomes of the public engagement process by September 2022.

BACKGROUND

1. The new aquatic and wellness facility being built in the Mays Hill Precinct replaces the Parramatta War Memorial Swimming Centre (PWMSC), which was opened in 1959 and closed in 2017 as part of the expansion of, what is now, CommBank Stadium. The new, larger stadium required a greater surrounding radius, including circulation zones for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access.

2. In the 1950s and 1960s, inspired by the hosting of the Melbourne Olympics and the memory of World War II, war memorial pools were established by communities across New South Wales. Pools in Blacktown, Camden, Lismore, Baulkham Hills, Kogarah, Bega, Moruya are just some of those that were created as part of this movement. Over time a number of these facilities have changed their names, such as in Blacktown and Baulkham Hills, and chosen other ways to commemorate the fallen through commemorative gardens or other memorial sites.

3. The new facility in the Mays Hill Precinct, designed by Andrew Burges Architects, Grimshaw Architects and McGregor Coxall Landscape Architects as the result of an international Design Excellence Competition, exceeds in scope and aspiration what existed at the former PWMSC – it has a 50m outdoor pool and landscaped leisure area, indoor 25m pool, programming pool, water play area, spa, steam and sauna. It also includes a large café, and a full sized wellness centre with gym floor and program rooms.

4. The new facility delivers a heritage and interpretation suite of elements throughout the building that tells the story of the indigenous history of the site, in line with requirements from the Heritage Council of NSW, and the long social history of swimming in Parramatta, including the community campaigns to both establish PWMSC and protest its closure. The development of this suite has involved detailed engagement with Dharug community representatives and cultural knowledge holders and Councillors.

5. The project to build the new facility has been known as the Aquatic and Leisure Centre for Parramatta project. This was never intended as a permanent name for the facility. The new facility is awaiting confirmation of a name that expresses the scale and aspiration of the facility, while remaining recognisable and functional to the successful operation of the facility.

6. This report sets out a process for confirming the permanent name and for engaging the community in the naming process for some key elements within the facility.

7. At its meeting of 28 September 2020, Council resolved that the grandstand seating in the new facility should be named after Kevin Hession, who was closely associated with PWMSC over many years. The former grandstand bleachers at PWMSC was named after Mr Hession.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. It is recommended that a simple, functional name be confirmed for the facility, a name that provides most flexibility for branding and the best chance of becoming part of the local vernacular. Four options have been provided that reflect this objective:

a. Parramatta Aquatic Recreation Centre. The design excellence process for the creation of this facility has been grounded in the historic legacy and contemporary opportunity of a pool in the park. This name offers the chance to herald the experience of a Pool in the PARC and incorporates the pool elements and gymnasium and wellness elements of the building, and the diversity of customer experience with the facility.

b. Barramada Aquatic Centre. Through the development of the heritage and interpretation elements that will be throughout the facility, a panel of cultural knowledge holders from the Dharug community have been providing advice to Council. A focus of this work has been on the long history of this site and the associated language, culture and people who have a continuing connection to the place. This proposed name seeks to link this work to the identity of the facility. Permission will be sought from that same Dharug panel for the use of the word Barramada in the facility name.

c. Parramatta Aquatic Centre. This name option offers a simple and flexible description of what the facility is, a simplicity that provides some continuity for the vernacular “Parra Pool”.

d. Parramatta Pool at <Dharug place name>. This name option continues the simplicity of form and the vernacular legacy of the former facility and offers a format for including Dharug language as part of the facility’s identity. For this name, the Dharug panel will be asked to provide Dharug language name connected to the history, present and future of the Mays Hills precinct.

9. If Option (b) or (d) are selected, consultation with Dharug community representatives will take place and a report provided back to Council on the outcomes of this work.

10. There are several elements within the facility that would benefit from naming that reflects the character, location and identity of the facility. These elements include physical elements and spaces such as various pools, program rooms and outdoor areas, and could also extend to some services offered through the facility, like Learn to Swim group programs.

11. To mark and honour the legacy of the former PWMSC, it is proposed that the 50m outdoor pool be named the Memorial Pool. This proposal will be further consulted with Parramatta RSL Sub-branch and the Parramatta War Memorial Swimming Club.

12. For the naming of elements within the facility, a public engagement process is planned to seek suggestions for names for these elements within the facility against a set of criteria. At the same time, Council will engage with local Dharug community representatives for some suggested name options against the same criteria. A shortlist of publicly submitted names will be presented back to the community, together with the submissions from the Dharug engagement, and, as part of phase two of the public engagement, the community will be invited to vote on a preferred set of names that will then be allocated to elements as deemed most appropriate.

13. Within the public engagement process the community will be invited to suggest names that align with one or more of the following criteria:

a. Landmarks within the City of Parramatta LGA and its waterways

b. Deceased individuals from the City of Parramatta community who have made a contribution to health, wellbeing and swimming culture.

c. Deceased individuals or events that recognise the history of the Mays Hill site

CONSULTATION & TIMING

14. If options (d) is selected as the preferred facility name, the results of consultation with the Dharug community representatives will be reported back to Council by July 2022.

15. The first stage of community engagement and Dharug consultation will be conducted over a three-week period in May and June 2022. This first stage will seek suggestions of names for elements within the facility submitted by the broader community and Dharug community representatives.

16. A second stage community engagement will take place over a three-week period in July 2022, where the community will have the opportunity to vote for their favoured names from those that were submitted in stage 1. Potential elements to be named will form part of the engagement materials and communication.

17. A report will be provided to Council in August 2022 that will provide the results of this process and recommendations for names to be allocated to selected elements within the facility.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
March – April 2022	Internal stakeholders	Views sought for the process to be followed in selecting a name for the facility and elements within it.	Feedback has helped guide the proposals within this report	Community Services / City Engagement and Experience

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
4 April 2022	Councillor Workshop	Context, timeframe and options for processes presented.	Preferred process to be further defined for consideration by a follow-up workshop.	Community Services / City Engagement and Experience
20 April 2022	Councillor Workshop	Name options discussed and refined. Process discussed.	Refined options and process to be presented for Council’s consideration.	Community Services / City Engagement and Experience

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

20. Trademark provisions and obligations will be explored for all name options to protect the commercial and community interests of Council as operator of the facility.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

21. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget. Council has previously endorsed a pre-opening operating budget for the new facility which provides for community engagement and the development of brand identity and marketing strategies.

22. The existing construction contract does include the delivery of signage across the facility. The finalization of name and brand identity is required by September 2022 to inform the final design, fabrication and delivery of signage elements.

23. 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	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Funding Source

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

David Moutou

Group Manager Social and Community Services

Justin Day

Group Manager Property Development

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Christopher Snelling

A/Executive Director Community Services

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 9 May 2022 Item 13.4

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

SUBJECT Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) 2022-2026

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08451789

REPORT OF Group Manager Social & Community Services

CSP THEME: FAIR

workshop/briefing date: Monday, 9 March 2022

PURPOSE:

To obtain Council approval to place the draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan on public exhibition in order to seek feedback from the community and other key stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan (Attachment 1) to be placed on public exhibition for a period of four (4) weeks.

(b) Further, that a consultation process be undertaken to engage with the community, and other key stakeholders, on the draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan and that, upon completion of the public exhibition period, all feedback and submissions are reported back to Council, together with a revised Disability Inclusion Action Plan, for consideration.

BACKGROUND

1. The current Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) was introduced in 2017 in response to a legislative mandate of the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (NSW). It outlined the practical steps Council committed to take over the subsequent four years to create a more inclusive community for people with disability and how Council proposed to address the four key focus areas:

· Developing positive community attitudes and behaviours

· Creating liveable communities

· Supporting access to meaningful employment; and

· Improving access to services through better systems and processes.

2. Council’s first DIAP was due to expire on 30 June 2021. All Local Councils were required to have a new DIAP finalised by July 2021. However, the then Minister for Families and Communities, and Minister for Disability, the Hon. Gareth Ward issued a letter to Council in May 2021 confirming that all DIAPs would be extended for 12 months, noting the challenges presented by COVID-19 and the upcoming Local Government elections in the renewal process for Councils. Councils must now have a new DIAP endorsed by Council by July 2022.

3. At its conclusion in June 2021, Council was able to deliver on 92% of the actions contained within the DIAP, with 30% of actions completed entirely and 62% in progress and on schedule.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Planning for the renewal of the DIAP commenced in early 2021 and a Project Plan and Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan have been developed to guide this work. Council officers have worked with Corporate Strategy to ensure there is reasonable alignment with the process of developing a new Community Strategic Plan.

5. A key feature of the renewal process to date, has been an extensive stakeholder engagement process. This process involved both external and internal engagement which included the following key activities:

a. Scoping Sessions – initial discussions with staff from each Directorate to obtain feedback on current DIAP - 11 sessions held with 49 staff across the organisation led by the Community Capacity Building team.

b. Access Advisory Committee – the previous term of the Committee was provided an overview of renewal process; regular updates on progress and conducted a consultation session at their June 2022 meeting.

c. Sector Workshops: two workshops were held: 18 August and 22 September – led by the Community Engagement Team - 24 participants representing 20 organisations. Four of the 26 participants identified as a person with a disability (PwD).

d. Research with People with a Disability and Carers - led by the then Research & Insights team. Over 40 people participated in group sessions and six in-depth interviews held with Carers.

e. General Community Consultation – consultation opportunity with the broader community on the new DIAP was provided through the Participate Parramatta platform throughout November. The opportunity to provide feedback was presented to over 135,000 people with 24 formal contributions received.

f. Staff Survey – a survey was made available in late November/early December to provide all staff with an opportunity to share their views and provide feedback. Surveys were completed by 64 employees completed.

g. Staff Workshops – nine workshops were held across Council Directorates with 46 staff participating.

6. Many of the actions in the previous DIAP relate to activities that Council has committed to deliver over the long term. Many of these can now be described as business as usual (BAU) – see Appendix 2. These are clearly reflected in the new DIAP (“Our Ongoing Commitments”) in compliment with the new actions to provide a wholistic picture of what Council is doing to improve disability inclusion in our LGA going forward.

7. The previous DIAP contained 81 separate actions. The new DIAP proposes 17 new actions that are aimed at responding to gaps identified from the previous DIAP’s delivery and stakeholder feedback as much as possible and allow Council to make further progress in achieving greater inclusion.

8. It is important to note that reduction in the number of proposed actions in the new DIAP from the previous DIAP is reflective of the level of activity already being undertaken by Council as BAU and the need to ensure that this work is consolidated and, where necessary, improved and mainstreamed as required.

9. All expenditure associated with implementing the Action Plan are within existing staff costs and budgets allocated within the long-term financial plan. This budget includes three temporary roles aligned to actions within the plan.

External funding opportunities have started to be explored for subsequent actions that may emerge out of the investigative actions, including in the space of employment opportunities.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
January to March 2021	Internal Scoping Sessions with Staff	See Appendix 3	Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP	Community Capacity Building Team
June 2021	Council’s Access Advisory Committee	See Appendix 3	Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP	Community Capacity Building Team
August and September 2021	Sector Workshops	See Appendix 3	Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP	Research and Engagement Team, City Engagement & Experience
September – October 2021	Research with People with a Disability and Carers	See Appendix 3	Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP	Research and Engagement Team, City Engagement & Experience
November 2021	General Community Consultation	See Appendix 3	Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP	Research and Engagement Team, City Engagement & Experience
November/December 2021	Staff Survey	See Appendix 3	Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP	Research and Engagement Team, City Engagement & Experience
December 2021 to January 2022	Staff Workshops	Action Planning	New actions confirmed	Community Capacity Building Team

Councillor Consultation

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

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

9 March 2022

Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor & Clrs.

Bradley, Darley, Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Noack, Prociv, Siviero, Valjak, Wang, Wearne

More information sought on training that had taken place under previous DIAP and opportunities to increase employment at Council for PwD.

Request for individual briefings for Councillors to provide input

Information provided as requested.

Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP

Invitations sent for individual briefings

Group Manager Social and Community Services

Various dates across March 2022

Deputy Lord Mayor, Clrs Green, Humphries, Prociv

Individual discussions to provide input, specifically in the areas of employment opportunities, education activities, young people and broader inclusion strategies

Feedback considered and incorporated into new DIAP

Group Manager Social and Community Services

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

12. Council has legal responsibilities related to access and inclusion under the Commonwealth Discrimination Act 1992 and the NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014 including a requirement by the NSW Government to have a new plan endorsed by July 2022.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

13. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget. The budgets to be considered by Council as part of the ordinary four year budget setting process includes a total budget of $358,508 in 2022/23 and into ongoing years to cover the employment costs and education activity costs directly associated with the Plan.

14. 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	nil	nil	nil	nil

Funding Source

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX

Rodrigo Gutierrez

Group Manager Social & Community Services

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

David Moutou

A/Executive Director Community Services

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Appendix 2 - DIAP 2017-2021 Business as Usual Actions	3 Pages
2 ⇩	Appendix 3 - DIAP 2022-2026 Stakeholder Engagement Summary	9 Pages
3 ⇩	Draft DIAP 2022-2026	41 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 9 May 2022 Item 13.5

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.5

SUBJECT Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08478808

REPORT OF Recreation Planner

csp theme: FAIR

workshop/briefing date: 16 February 2022

Note: This matter was deferred from the Council Meeting of 14 March 2022 for a Councillor Workshop.

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve the Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan (SSAP) at Attachment 1, noting that it sets out the strategy for Council’s pursuit, on its own or in partnership with others, of the following over the next 20 years:

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

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

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

iii. delivering new sportsground facilities;

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

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

2. Incorporating projects identified in the SSAP into the delivery of the contributions plan and subsequent updates.

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

4. Applying the recommendations of the SSAP in seeking grant and funding opportunities for sportsground facilities, and in negotiations of future voluntary planning agreements that include sportsground facilities.

(b) That Council note that any site specific assessment and business case process recommending the use of synthetics and/or hybrid sporting surfaces will be reported to Council for consideration and approval.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The draft Sportsground Strategy and Action Plan (SSAP) has been developed to provide a detailed roadmap for the City of Parramatta regarding the provision of sportsgrounds, in a networked approach, to meet existing and future community needs. The development of this document has occurred as part of Focus Area 1.3.1.1 in the Delivery Program and Operation Plan 2018-2021.

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

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

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

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

CONSULTATION & TIMING

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

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

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

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

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

Submissions

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

a) General support for the draft SSAP, its approach and recommendations;

b) Concern with recommendations for Barton Park;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor Consultation

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

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

16/2/2022

Councillor workshop

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

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

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

More detail also added on business case process.

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

Strategic Recreation Planner

4/4/2022

Councillor workshop

Presented with further information on the Plan’s development and the control measures around the use of synthetics

Additional recommendation added requiring Council Chamber endorsement of any future hybrid and/or synthetic surface project’

Group Manager Social and Community Services

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

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

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

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

Table 1: Funding Gap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

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

Funding Source	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Megan Ryan

Strategic Recreation Planner

Gregory Radford

Recreation Facilities & Programs Manager

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

David Moutou

A/ Executive Director Community Services

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

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

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 9 May 2022 Item 14.1

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT Events Budget (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08461645

FROM Councillor Michelle Garrard

Note: This item was deferred from the Council Meeting of 7 February 2022 for a Councillor Workshop, held on 16 February 2022. It was further deferred from the Council Meeting of 14 March 2022 until after a further Councillor Workshop which was held on 20 April 2022.

MOTION

(a) That Council endorse the Events Budget be reallocated to the same event the following year or be reallocated to another event with the endorsement of the Chamber.

(b) Further, that Council endorse any events that are postponed or cancelled due to inclement weather.

BACKGROUND

1. Council funded events such as Australia Day 2021 have been postponed or cancelled and the allocated budget has been the same either cancelled or postponed.

2. Council endorse and allocated funding to our events program, it only seems fitting that we also have oversight regarding events being cancelled / postponed with the exception of last minute cancellations due to weather events etc.

Michelle Garrard

Councillor

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY ENGAGEMENT & EXPERIENCE RESPONSE

3. Under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is responsible for setting and approving strategies such as the program Council will adopt for community events.

4. Once a strategy is adopted by Council, Council staff are responsible for implementing the strategy under the operational direction of the CEO

5. Staff consult with Councillors on the annual events program in April / May each year and the program changes from year to year having regard to the evolving nature of both Parramatta and community events.

6. Any decision to cancel an event is not made lightly and cancellations only occur in circumstances where there are significant operational risks such as WHS, public health considerations and/or the event cannot be delivered because there are no providers able to deliver the event content.

7. Management is responsible for assessing these operational risks and making operational decisions and consults with the Lord Mayor on such decisions.

8. Having regard to the above, it is noted that the following events were cancelled or modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with savings either allocated to Parramatta Nights and CBD Lighting,or returned to Council operating budget to assist with achieving target efficiency savings in line with resolution from 25 October 2021 Council meeting. Details of budget re‑allocation and return are as follows:

FY22 Event		Original Budget	Revised Budget	FY22 Saving	Status
Winterlight		$400,000	$75,000	$325,000	Cancelled after 2 nights. $225,000 allocated to CBD Lighting (November to January), $100,000 allocated to Parramatta Nights
Science Festival		$25,000	$11,000	$14,000	Modified to online event. Savings allocated to Parramatta Nights
Parramatta Lanes		$630,000	$356,000	$274,000	Modified event. Savings allocated to Parramatta Nights
Foundation Day		$100,000	$37,000	$63,000	Modified event. Savings allocated to Parramatta Nights
Carols in the Crescent/ Christmas		$160,000	$120,000	$40,000	Modified event. Savings allocated to Parramatta Nights
New Year’s Eve		$493,000	$360,000	$133,000	Modified to smaller events. Savings allocated to Parramatta Nights
	Total savings allocated to other events				$849,000	$225,000 allocated to CBD Lighting, $624,000 to Parramatta Nights

FY22 Event/Activity	Original Budget	Revised Budget	FY22 Saving	Status
Australia Day	$520,000	$445,000	$75,000	Modified and postponed. Savings returned to operating budget
Lunar New Year	$100,000	$0	$100,000	Cancelled. Savings returned to operating budget
Seniors Christmas Concert	$40,000	$0	$40,000	Cancelled. Savings returned to operating budget
Australia Day VIP	$25,000	$0	$25,000	Cancelled. Savings returned to operating budget
Activations	$279,000	$219,000	$’60,000	Some activations were cancelled. Savings returned to operating budget
Total savings returned to operating budget			$300,000

9. Consideration of the FY23 events budget is being undertaken as part of the 2022/23 budget process.

10. Council staff have convened a Councillor workshop on 27 April 2022 for feedback as part of the development of the FY23 event program.

11. Council will receive an events program for endorsement prior to the commencement of the FY23 program.

12. Council will be advised of major event postponements and cancellations via a briefing note or workshop.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

13. It is not Council’s practice to ‘roll over’ operating expenditure from one year to the next.

14. The Budget for FY 22/23 will be put to Council in March/April for approval and will subsequently be placed on public exhibition. Following this, the Budget will be submitted to Council for adoption.

15. It is good fiscal management practice to consider specific budget items, such as the events program, at the time of the review and approval of the entire budget. Bringing forward individual budget items for approval in advance of that process prevents this discipline from occurring.

16. If Council wished to consider the Events Programs at the time of the 22/23 Budget, Council may wish to consider making a resolution to the following effect:

“That Council:

(i) Endorse an amount equivalent to the Events Budget for 2021/22 be included in the draft 2022/23 Budget for consideration and approval by Council in March / April 2022/23;

(ii) A report on Events Program for 2022/23 be prepared for Endorsement by Council prior to commencement of the program.”

17. Given the current operating losses of Council it is recommended that all savings generated as a result of the event cancellations be returned to enable Council to meet its efficiency targets endorsed by Council during the September quarterly review.

Michelle Garrard

Councillor

Carly Rogowski

Executive Director, City Engagement & Experience

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

Council 9 May 2022 Item 15.1

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

ITEM NUMBER 15.1

SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 26 April 2022

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08504743

FROM Business Governance Officer

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 11 APRIL 2022

Item	Subject	Councillor	Question
12.2	Returns for Designated Persons	Bradley	1. Why have we redacted more than what the IPC guidelines say we should be redacting?
13.1	Quarterly Budget Review – December 2021 (Deferred Item)	Bradley	2. Why has the income of the City Strategy Unit decreased from $4000 to $2000 and is there opportunity to recover some of that income?
13.5	Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 23 March 2022	Noack	3. Can we be provided with an update on meetings Council staff have had with developers for the planned round about and street crossing on the corner of Hill Road and Burroway Road? 4. Can we be provided with an update on the traffic lights on Bennelong and Hill Road?
16.1	Legal Status Report	Prociv Davis	5. Refer to Attachment 1, as the question related to a confidential matter under section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act. 6. Refer to Attachment 1, as the question related to a confidential matter under section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act.
16.3	Approval of Supplier for works associated with CBD Outdoor Dining	Garrard	7. Refer to Attachment 1, as the question related to a confidential matter under section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act

BACKGROUND

1. Paragraph 9.23 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states:

“Where a councillor or council employee to whom a question is put is unable to respond to the question at the meeting at which it is put, they may take it on notice and report the response to the next meeting of the Council.”

STAFF RESPONSE

Item 12.2 – Returns for Designated Persons

Question from Councillor Bradley

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Esber, Councillor Bradley asked the following question:

1. Why have we redacted more than what the IPC guidelines say we should be redacting?

Chief Financial and Information Officer Response

1. A written staff response will be included in a supplementary agenda to be distributed to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting

Item 13.1 – Quarterly Budget Review – December 2021 (Deferred Item)

Question from Councillor Bradley

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Maclean, Councillor Bradley asked the following question:

2. Why has the income of the City Strategy Unit decreased from $4000 to $2000 and is there opportunity to recover some of that income?

Chief Financial and Information Officer Response

2. A written staff response will be included in a supplementary agenda to be distributed to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting

Item 13.5 – Minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 23 March 2022

Question from Councillor Bradley

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Noack, Councillor Noack asked the following questions:

3. Can we be provided with an update on meetings Council staff have had with developers for the planned round about and street crossing on the corner of Hill Road and Burroway Road?

4. Can we be provided with an update on the traffic lights on Bennelong and Hill Road?

Executive Director City Planning & Design Response

3. A written staff response will be included in a supplementary agenda to be distributed to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.

4. A written staff response will be included in a supplementary agenda to be distributed to Councillors prior to the Council Meeting.

Item 16.1 – Legal Status Report

Question from Councillor Prociv

5. During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Prociv, Councillor Prociv asked a question. As the question related to a confidential matter under section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act, the question and staff response is provided in a confidential Attachment 1.

Questions from Lord Mayor, Councillor Davis

6. During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Prociv, Councillor Davis asked a question. As the question related to a confidential matter under section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act, the question and staff response is provided in a confidential Attachment 1.

Item 16.3 – Approval of Supplier for works associated with CBD Outdoor Dining

Question from Councillor Garrard

7. During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Garrard, Councillor Garrard asked a question. As the question related to a confidential matter under section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act, the question and staff response is provided in a confidential Attachment 1.

Sahar Shahin

Business Governance Officer

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

Questions Taken with Notice during Confidential Session of 26 April 2022 Council Meeting (confidential)

1 Page

Governance Manager		Lord Mayor Cr Donna Davis	Chief Executive Officer

	Minute Clerk
Cr Phil Bradley				Cr Lorraine Wearne	Sound
Cr Sameer Pandey, Deputy Lord Mayor				Cr Donna Wang
Cr Paul Noack				Cr Michelle Garrard
Cr Ange Humphries				Cr Dan Siviero	IT
Cr Dr Patricia Prociv				Cr Henry Green
Cr Pierre Esber				Cr Kellie Darley
Cr Cameron Maclean				Cr Georgina Valjak

Obligations
Oath [Affirmation] of Office by Councillors	I swear [solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm] that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the City of Parramatta Council and the City of Parramatta Council that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgement.
Code of Conduct Conflict of Interests
Pecuniary Interests	A Councillor who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned, and who is present at a meeting of the Council at which the matter is being considered, must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting. The Councillor must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting: a) At any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or b) At any time during which the Council is voting on any question in relation to the matter.
Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests	A Councillor who has a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter, must disclose the relevant private interest in relation to the matter fully and on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises in relation to the matter.
Significant Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests	A Councillor who has a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in relation to a matter under consideration at a Council meeting, must manage the conflict of interest as if they had a pecuniary interest in the matter.
Non-Significant Non-Pecuniary Interests	A Councillor who determines that they have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter that is not significant and does not require further action, when disclosing the interest must also explain why conflict of interest is not significant and does not require further action in the circumstances.

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX

Funding Source


	Press	Press

Public Gallery