Agenda of Council - Monday, 25 July 2022

MINUTES OF THE Meeting of City of Parramatta Council HELD IN THE CLOISTER FUNCTION ROOMS, ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL 1 MARIST PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 11 July 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.

1. OPENING MEETING

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis, opened the meeting at 6:34pm.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF LAND

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

3. WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

The Lord Mayor, advised 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 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. GENERAL 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. APOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE OR ATTENDANCE BY AUDIO-VISUAL LINK BY COUNCILLORS

3875

RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)

(a) That the request to attend the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 11 July 2022 via remote means submitted by the following Councillors due to personal reasons, be accepted:

− Councillor Humphries;

− Councillor Wearne.

(b) Further, that leave of absence be granted to Councillor Noack for the Council meetings to be held on 25 July 2022 and 8 August 2022, as he will be overseas.

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

SUBJECT: Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 27 June 2022

3876

RESOLVED (Noack/Bradley)

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

7. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Councillor Esber declared a pecuniary interest in Item 13.6/ 13.7 – Response to the Finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and Changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment as he owns a property in North Parramatta. He retired from the meeting during consideration of the matter.

Councillor Green declared a pecuniary interest in Item 13.6/ 13.7 – Response to the Finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and Changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment as he owns a property in the Parramatta CBD. He retired from the meeting during consideration of the matter.

Matter of Urgency

Councillor Pandey put forward the following to Council:

I would like to move two condolences, and I would like to acknowledge the former Lord Mayor, Councillor Andrew Wilson, who is also in the gallery tonight, whose mother passed away on Wednesday, Ms Carol Wilson.

Carol Wilson, mother of former Lord Mayor Andrew Wilson passed away on Wednesday, 6 July 2022 at the age of 84. Carol Wilson had been sick with complications from her diabetes for many years. From a very young age she had been active in a number of courses, this included the drive to have children wear yellow rain coats, efforts to host international students and charities associated with Miss Australia Quest. And from time to time she was interested in local politics. She was mother of three (3) children. And she was active in toastmistress, the former female version of toast masters and running a public speaking program in Hurstville.

3877

RESOLVED (Pandey/Garrard)

That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above.

The Lord Mayor ruled that the matter was of great urgency in accordance with clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

3878

RESOLVED (Pandey/Garrard)

That the Council acknowledge the passing of Ms Carol Wilson, mother of former Lord Mayor Councillor Andrew Wilson.

Matter of Urgency

Councillor Pandey put forward the following to Council:

I rise today to offer my condolences to the people in Japan and those from Japanese origin living in Australia for the tragic death of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Mr Abe passed away last week, and it was a tragic assassination. I would like Councillors to join me to pay tribute to the leadership of Mr Abe who has been a tremendous force behind Japan’s progress in recent years.

3879

RESOLVED (Pandey/Maclean)

That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above.

The Lord Mayor ruled that the matter was of great urgency in accordance with clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

3880

RESOLVED (Pandey/Maclean)

That the Council acknowledge the passing away of Shinzo Abe, former Prime Minister of Japan.

8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor

8.1

SUBJECT Acknowledging Jim Stefan's Service

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08605077

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3881

RESOLVED (Davis/Garrard)

(a) That Council note Jim Stefan stepped down from his role as Group Manager City Assets and Environment on 4 July 2022, after thirty (30) years of service across various leadership roles at the City of Parramatta.

(b) Further, that Council thank Jim for his leadership and contributions to the City of Parramatta in his work over the thirty (30) years.

8.2	SUBJECT Council's Customer Service Charter and Service Standards REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08605080 REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis
	Motion (Davis/Darley) (a) That Council note a review of how Council’s Customer Service Policy (the Policy), Customer Service Charter (Charter) and standard Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are communicated to the community is being undertaken by Council officers; (b) That Council note the review of how the Policy, Charter and SLAs are communicated will include: a. How the Policy, Charter and SLAs are currently communicated and how the communication could be improved; b. How Council communicates the steps taken by Council following the lodgement of a Service Request; c. Viability of Customer Service FAQs detailing Council’s standard SLAs and response times on common Service Request categories; d. How Council’s Customer Service Dashboards and supporting SLAs data are currently communicated on Council’s website; e. Advice on the escalation process for Service Requests and complaints, and how this is communicated; and f. A desktop review of how peer councils in NSW communicate their Policies, Charters and SLAs. (c) That, as part of this review, a workshop will be held to seek the input and feedback of Councillors; (d) Further, that a report be brought back to Council within six months on the implementation of opportunities identified in the review, including financial implications for Council on proposed actions.
	Amendment (Garrard/Siviero) That Council defer consideration of the matter to the Policy Review Committee at the earliest possible time. The Amendment was put and declared LOST. Debate resumed on the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED:
3882	RESOLVED (Davis/Darley) (a) That Council note a review of how Council’s Customer Service Policy (the Policy), Customer Service Charter (Charter) and standard Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are communicated to the community is being undertaken by Council officers; (b) That Council note the review of how the Policy, Charter and SLAs are communicated will include: a. How the Policy, Charter and SLAs are currently communicated and how the communication could be improved; b. How Council communicates the steps taken by Council following the lodgement of a Service Request; c. Viability of Customer Service FAQs detailing Council’s standard SLAs and response times on common Service Request categories; d. How Council’s Customer Service Dashboards and supporting SLAs data are currently communicated on Council’s website; e. Advice on the escalation process for Service Requests and complaints, and how this is communicated; and f. A desktop review of how peer councils in NSW communicate their Policies, Charters and SLAs. (c) That, as part of this review, a workshop will be held to seek the input and feedback of Councillors; (d) Further, that a report be brought back to Council within six months on the implementation of opportunities identified in the review, including financial implications for Council on proposed actions.
	Note: Councillor Humphries left and returned to the meeting during debate on the item.

8.3

SUBJECT Future use of Roxy Theatre

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08604711

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3883

RESOLVED (Davis)

(a) That Council note that the recent NSW Budget contained no funding for work to investigate the acquisition of the Roxy Theatre by the NSW Government..

(b) That the Lord Mayor write to the Minister for the Arts, the Hon. Ben Franklin and the Minister for Heritage, The Hon. James Griffin:

i. noting that Create NSW has identified the historic Roxy Theatre as critical to plans to increase the number of performance and entertainment spaces in Greater Sydney and revive the Parramatta CBD after COVID;

ii. noting that the June NSW Budget contained no funding for the potential acquisition of the Roxy Theatre, despite funding being committed to the development of a business case for the potential acquisition of The Minerva Theatre in Kings Cross; and

iii. requesting that the NSW Government fund the development of a business case to explore the viability of purchasing and restoring the Roxy Theatre as a performance and entertainment venue.

8.4

SUBJECT Parramatta Light Rail: Accessibility and safety concerns for the vision impaired

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08605104

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

3884

RESOLVED (Davis/Darley)

(a) That Council note the concerns raised by representatives from the community, including Guide Dogs NSW/ACT, regarding safety concerns for vision impaired pedestrians as a result of the construction of the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR).

(b) That the Lord Mayor write to the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Disability Services to call on the NSW Government to urgently address safety concerns for vision impaired pedestrians as a result of the construction of the Parramatta Light Rail.

(c) That Council advocate for the NSW Government to ensure that PLR Stage 2 is designed to an inclusive and accessible standard.

(d) Further, that the Lord Mayor invite the Project Director for the PLR and the Local State Member Geoff Lee to come and observe the safety issues with the PLR.

9. Public Forum

9.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: Item 13.7 - Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08602132

FROM ROSS GROVE

The Property Council of Australia and Business Western Sydney are pleased to provide a united voice on behalf of our collective membership.

We support the staff recommendation in tonight’s report.

The last last-minute amendments to the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal introduced by the state government defy more than eight years of careful planning, deliberation and consultation initiated by this council.

Council’s final draft positioned the city to grow in terms of commercial floorspace and employment while blending-in strong positive design and liveability outcomes for the city.

The changes introduced by the state government are a blow to certainty and investor confidence which if left unaltered will result the flight of capital to other jurisdictions, both interstate and overseas.

Our two organisations have engaged Urbis and Think Planners to properly assess the negative economic impact of these changes in terms of lost jobs and consumer spending, and we have sought advice from them on specific planning solutions to the issues raised by our members.

We are asking the Minister for Planning to consider options to revisit the gazetted LEP amendment.

Council’s recommendation to address the challenges arising from the state government’s lastminute changes by way of a SEPP amendment is the most effective mechanism to ensure the capital flowing into the city is retained, and the shared vision for the city is able to move forward with confidence.

We also support the calls for additional funding and planning resources to be provided by the NSW Government to address the other items in this report.

Once again, the Property Council of Australia and Business Western Sydney congratulate the City of Parramatta for its vision and advocacy for the city’s future, and we look forward to working with Council to its goals for the city going forward.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING & DESIGN RESPONSE

No response was provided.

9.2

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 2: Item 13.7 - Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08603724

FROM ROS SEARLE

Dear Lord Mayor and Councillors,

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed overturning of development controls in Parramatta and especially North Parramatta. North Parramatta and surrounds hold a vast amount of the history of not only of First Australians in terms of ancient sites but also of early colonial history.

There is much yet to be discovered for both, but what is known and recognized must be valued and indeed cherished, for present generations and future. The amenity afforded by the Parramatta River, its tributaries and adjacent parklands will be greatly diminished in the face of increasing development.

Not only will increasing building density create a hotspot for the city of Parramatta, or alternatively chasms of overshadowed living spaces, but over development will also greatly devalue current, land, houses and apartments.

I wish to add my utmost condemnation of moves by developers to subtract from the rich history of Parramatta and detract greatly from the livability of the area and its surrounds.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING & DESIGN RESPONSE

No response was provided.

Note: As Ros Searle was not present to address Council, the submission was read out by the Lord Mayor.

9.3

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 3: Item 13.7 - Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08604411

FROM SUZETTE MEADE – SECRETARY NORTH PARRAMATTA RESIDENTS ACTION GROUP INC.

Dear Lord Mayor and Councillors,

NPRAG strongly supports Recommendation (d) regarding a dedicated planning study for North Parramatta. NPRAG notes the importance placed by the Department of Planning on the requirement for further consideration to be given “to the Light Rail, transitions, solar access, lower building heights and FSR along the river…the adjoining HCA and heritage attributes generally, community concerns, amenity and character”.

NPRAG seeks opportunities for input into the Council review of planning provisions within the planning investigation areas, as referred to on p.15. Item 30 of the Council report of 11 July.

NPRAG asserts its role as a key stakeholder in any planning exercise for North Parramatta and expects the Council to respect that role by ensuring that NPRAG is directly involved in the associated public participation process and ongoing planning program.

NPRAG strongly believes that until the Study is complete there should be a moratorium on further site-specific planning proposals and development applications which involve works other than small-scale private residential and commercial projects in North Parramatta [defined roughly as the area bounded by the river on the south and west, Church Street -Isabella Street on the north, and Brickfield-Elizabeth Streets on the east].

With regard to the Phillip Street Block, NPRAG awaits the outcome of the Council’s request for a SEPP and reserves its right to comment at the appropriate time in the preparation of that SEPP.

NPRAG records its strong concern and dis-satisfaction with the apparent late decision by the Council to extend the time available for public submissions on the subject Report to Council to Monday 11 July. Given that the report was not available on line until Friday 8th July, the public effectively had 2 days to read and respond to the 125 page document. That makes a mockery of Council’s public consultation policy and is to be condemned as a miscarriage of natural justice. In such circumstances, NPRAG requests the Council to extend for at least two weeks the deadline for public submissions, and to defer dealing with the subject report until all such submissions have been received and addressed.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING & DESIGN RESPONSE

No response was provided.

9.4

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 4: FOR NOTATION ONLY Item 13.7 - Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08603794

FROM MARK MARUSIC

I wish to object to a move by development lobby groups such as the Property Council and Urban Taskforce Australia to overrule the Department of Planning’s sensible CBD reductions in floor space densities. These lobby groups seek to reinstate unlimited commercial floor space ratios with buildings up to 243 metres AHD (max 75 storeys) in some areas.

If the wishes of these lobby groups are met, there would be a wave of overdevelopment from North Parramatta to the CBD. The future of Parramatta as an attractive and livable place would be severely undermined without adequate controls on overdevelopment.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING & DESIGN RESPONSE

No response was provided.

9.5

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 5: FOR NOTATION ONLY: Item 13.7 - Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08604422

FROM YANA TAYLOR

Dear Lord Mayor and Councillors,

While I cannot be present to speak I would like the following statement to be distributed to Councillors.

Statement in support for the Dept of Planning and Environment changes to final Parramatta CBD plan from resident of Parramatta Ward.

When notified in May of the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD planning proposal, the work of the Department of Planning NSW seemed sensible. It was also the result of rounds of consultation, that did include people who live in the LGA who presented well-informed arguments. It struck me then that those arguments from people with lived experience of the localities impacted by the CBD development plan to create a liveable, attractive and distinctive city were to some degree understood in the amendments to the earlier CBD proposal. NSW Planning Department’s amendments are conservative, not radical.

It is distressing that vested interests with significant administrative resources, lobbying access & behind-closed-doors influence whose dominant goals are to pursue unlimited development and profit making, seek to have well-considered decisions overturned where it doesn’t suit them. It will both give the impression that council divisions/decisive staff groupings are unduly sympathetic to these corporate interests. Influential industry lobby groups and building developers cannot be allowed to believe they can repeatedly overturn proposed regulations that don’t suit them.

Already the guidelines for development in this LGA are very supportive of their interests. It is not the responsibility of an LGA to make up for the difficulties with builders/developers’ business models in the current climate.

With the multiple cases of appalling faults in tall buildings there is widespread lack of public trust in building developers. If the amendments by NSW planning are rescinded under pressure from developer lobby groups it could well tar the Council’s planning processes with the same brush.

The example of capture of the Wollongong Council’s planning processes loom large in the public memory. The scrutiny that followed that Council’s failure pointed to how important it is that corruption need not only occur but that it is equally important that it is not perceived to be the case by the public.

The amenity and distinctiveness of the district need to be protected. Not for nostalgia’s sake but to give the district a chance of being an attractive place people wish to live and work in, especially in the places that contain conservation areas and heritage items.

The constellation of cultural and economic settings has changed since the major plans for the development in Parramatta were proposed. These shifts overtake claims by Council administration of planning. These changes are longer term changes. So the major justifications for not embracing the amendments by the Dept of Planning and Environment in the finalisation of the CBD plans no longer apply. Here are 8 factors that have changed in these settings.

• The proposed increase in population by 2036 has not kept up with the academic projections from UNSW and are not likely to do so over the next decade. [the shortfall is about 1-2000 per year since the predictions were made pre-covid]**

• Vacancy rates have increased in the current over-provision of high-density properties with thousands of still-empty units and offices across greater Sydney. Office market growth has reversed in contrast to the claim statement of need in the original CBD proposal with the decrease in employees and the self-employed commuting to work in office buildings

• The continuing economic instability and recurring waves of the pandemic – Covid 19, for e.g. continued shift of younger people and families out of LGA to secure housing out lower cost

• The large downturn of international travel,

• Significant downturn in migration and downturn in OS investment

• The contraction in university research and education and its increased expense [with several universities in the district this is of serious concern] have reduced demand for overseas student accommodation as well.

• The signs of dwindling popularity accompanying the increases in controversy over local development plans, for e.g the withdrawal of 2 sets of entities previously interested in investing the Fleet St heritage area and rapidly growing concerns with the urban heat effects due to loss of canopy [Parramatta LGA is 6th worse in greater Sydney]

• Abandonment and delays in several large transport infrastructure.

The changes from the Department of Planning and Environment to the CBD should be incorporated and adopted. Especially excising Parramatta North from the extension of the unlimited height policies of the CBD plans due to it potential to continue to trash the distinctive environment of the built environment via overshadowing, building an excessively tall built ‘gully’ along Church St section of the Light Rail [which is also poised to be concentrated heat sink]. This mammoth construction is in total contradiction with the two parallel conservation areas immediately adjacent. These areas require genuine consideration, not be hamstrung by legalistic interpretations of development guidelines. Sections 1 and 2 listed below address building codes that would adversely impact on development north of Victoria Rd. While serious studies are welcome too often research studies are excuses for delaying decisions. Keeping the current height guidelines does give clear decisive guidelines for investment – so if the Council asserts these principles as the foundation there can be certainty for investment. But doesn’t cater for the persistent lobbying by developers and current owners.

Linking support for community infrastructure should not be linked to any ‘reward’ via height increasing incentives. The LGA expects provision of community infrastructure. It is now a usual not an unusual community expectation.

The minimal and moderate proposed changes 1-6 of the CBD plan should be adopted.

1. Opportunity Sites – the Opportunity Sites control which allowed for a bonus 3:1 FSR for certain sites has been removed.

2. Unlimited Commercial Premises FSR – the unlimited commercial premises FSR control in certain parts of the B4 Mixed Use zone has been removed.

3. Unlimited Office Premises FSR – the unlimited office premises FSR control in the B3 Commercial Core zone has been removed.

4. Community Infrastructure Principles – the community infrastructure principles provision has been removed (and base/incentive height/FSR maps merged accordingly).

5. North Parramatta – the area north of the river has been removed from the proposal and will retain its existing controls at this stage. A further review of this area will be required.

6. Phillip Street Block – the street block bound by the river, Charles, Phillip and Smith Streets has been removed from the proposal and will retain its existing controls.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING & DESIGN RESPONSE

No response was provided.

9.6

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 6: FOR NOTATION ONLY: Item 13.7 - Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08604464

FROM JEANETTE BROKMAN

Dear Lord Mayor and Councillors,

I have previously made detailed submissions in response to the proposed uplift for the CBD; specifically in relation to the absence of the completion of council's new Flood Study, which given Climate Change should have been completed prior to council's final decision about its Planning Proposal.

I have today been alerted by a post on NPRAG's albeit I have only just seen the FB post; i.e. that the proposal is being reconsidered by council after representations were made by vested interest groups.

I was not notified about this despite having lodged previous submissions. This includes my previous representations to Councillors.

Within the time allowed, I am unable to provide feedback to the detailed report, other than to express my concerns about the absence of due process. In response, I urge council to postpone the item to allow proper consideration and feedback by the public.

Thank you for considering this matter.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING & DESIGN RESPONSE

No response was provided.

10. Petitions

10.1

SUBJECT Pedestrian Crossing on Bartlett Street, Ermington

FROM Councillor Pierre Esber

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

“We the undersigned show support to instate a pedestrian crossing on Bartlett Street, Ermington.”

Note: The petition tabled by Councillor Esber was received and, as a matter of practice, the petition will be referred to the relevant Council officer/s, and a copy of the petition distributed to all Councillors.

11. Rescission Motions

Nil

12. Reports to Council - For Notation

Nil

13. Reports to Council - For Council Decision

13.1

SUBJECT Expression of Interest - Selection of Independent Members for Smart City Advisory Committee

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08575558

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer

3885

RESOLVED (Esber/Noack)

(a) That Council appoint Meredith Hodgman, Peter Runcie, Sarah Barns, Scott Thomson and Ian Opperman to the Smart City Advisory Committee for the period of this Council term.

(b) Further, that Council thank all unsuccessful applicants who expressed interest in joining the Smart City Advisory Committee.

13.2

SUBJECT Viability of Employing a Grants Officer

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08570855

REPORT OF Student Project Officer

3886

RESOLVED (Prociv/Darley)

(a) That Council employ a permanent Strategic Grants Officer within City Strategy to coordinate Council’s external grant applications, to align with our city and corporate objectives with a strategic and proactive approach.

(b) That the Strategic Grants Officer position be funded through grants awarded to Council where the grant funding agreements permit.

13.3	SUBJECT Recommendation on the Naming of Parramatta's New Aquatic Facility (Deferred Item) REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08521533 REPORT OF Strategic Communication Specialist
	Motion (Maclean/Esber) (a) That Council endorse “Parramatta Aquatic Centre”, as set out in paragraph 7(a) of the Council report, for the name of the new aquatic centre in Parramatta. (b) That Council note 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 Memorial Swimming Club. (c) That Council endorse ‘Memorial Pool’ as the name of the 50-metre outdoor pool. (d) That Council endorse another stage of public engagement to vote on naming suggestions for the elements (rooms, facilities) within the facility that follow Dharug/English dual naming principles and be based around the theme of local fauna naming suggestions from the broader community and Dharug representatives. (e) That Council note the public engagement process will garner feedback on a common theme to be applied to the naming of the elements. (f) Further, that reports be returned to Council by September 2022 to consider the outcomes of the second stage of public engagement process.
	Amendment (Bradley/Darley) (a) That Council endorse dual name “Parramatta Pool, Barramada Badu Ngurra”, as set out in paragraph 7(c) of the Council report, for the name of the new aquatic centre in Parramatta. (b) That Council note 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 Memorial Swimming Club. (c) That Council endorse ‘Memorial Pool’ as the name of the 50-metre outdoor pool. (d) That Council endorse another stage of public engagement to vote on naming suggestions for the elements (rooms, facilities) within the facility that follow Dharug/English dual naming principles and be based around the theme of local fauna naming suggestions from the broader community and Dharug representatives. (e) That Council note the public engagement process will garner feedback on a common theme to be applied to the naming of the elements. (f) Further, that reports be returned to Council by September 2022 to consider the outcomes of the second stage of public engagement process. The Amendment was put and declared LOST. Debate resumed on the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED:
3887	RESOLVED (Maclean/Esber) (a) That Council endorse “Parramatta Aquatic Centre”, as set out in paragraph 7(a) of the Council report, for the name of the new aquatic centre in Parramatta. (b) That Council note 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 Memorial Swimming Club. (c) That Council endorse ‘Memorial Pool’ as the name of the 50-metre outdoor pool. (d) That Council endorse another stage of public engagement to vote on naming suggestions for the elements (rooms, facilities) within the facility that follow Dharug/English dual naming principles and be based around the theme of local fauna naming suggestions from the broader community and Dharug representatives. (e) That Council note the public engagement process will garner feedback on a common theme to be applied to the naming of the elements. (f) Further, that reports be returned to Council by September 2022 to consider the outcomes of the second stage of public engagement process.
	Note: Councillor Bradley and Darley requested their names be recorded as having voted against the decision taken in this matter.

13.4	SUBJECT Application to seek Minister's consent to grant a lease over community land at 358Z North Rocks Road Carlingford REFERENCE F2016/07550 - D08560927 REPORT OF Asset Manager
	Motion (Valjak/Wang) That Council make an application to the Minister for Local Government seeking consent to grant the proposed lease with Vodafone: 1 Over the community land described as Lot 26 in Deposited Plan 230685 and located at 358Z North Rocks Road, Carlingford (also known as North Rocks Park); 2 On commercial terms approved at the Council meeting of 22 November 2021; and 3 Pursuant to section 46(1)(b)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).
	Amendment (Humphries/) That the matter be deferred. The Amendment moved by Councillor Humphries was WITHDRAWN. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED:
3888	RESOLVED (Valjak/Wang) That Council make an application to the Minister for Local Government seeking consent to grant the proposed lease with Vodafone: 1 Over the community land described as Lot 26 in Deposited Plan 230685 and located at 358Z North Rocks Road, Carlingford (also known as North Rocks Park); 2 On commercial terms approved at the Council meeting of 22 November 2021; and 3 Pursuant to section 46(1)(b)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).
	Note: Questions were taken on notice by Council staff for this item.

13.5

SUBJECT Compulsory Acquisition of 1C-1D Unwin Street Rosehill by Sydney West Metro

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08564181

REPORT OF Development Manager Property Development

3889

RESOLVED (Esber/Wearne)

(a) That Council approve the sale by Compulsory Acquisition of 1C-1D Unwin Street Rosehill being Lots 22, 23, 24 in DP17742 and Lots 102,103 in DP734615.

(b) That Council accept the Valuer General determination of compensation for Market Value and Disturbance (if any), as detailed in item 6 of this report.

(c) Further, that Council delegate authority to the CEO to execute all documents required to complete the transaction in a timely manner.

Note: Councillor Humphries left the meeting at 7:52pm and returned at 7:53pm during debate on the item.

Procedural Motion

3890

RESOLVED (Davis/Pandey)

That the meeting be adjourned for a short recess.

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 7:57pm for a short recess.

The meeting resumed at 8:28pm with the following Councillors attendance: The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis and Councillors Phil Bradley, Kellie Darley, Michelle Garrard, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Sameer Pandey (Deputy Lord Mayor), Dr Patricia Prociv, Dan Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.

13.7		SUBJECT LATE REPORT: Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08601296 REPORT OF Group Manager, Strategic Land Use Planning
		Motion (Prociv/Darley) (a) That the matter be deferred for an urgent Councillor briefing with senior Department of Planning and Council Officers. (b) That the letter from Mr Raimond to Mr Newman dated 3 May 2022 be made publicly available and included with the report. (c) Further, that the matter be brought back to the next Council meeting.
		Amendment (Wearne/Garrard) Guiding Principles (a) That in responding to the changes the Department of Planning and Environment (‘Department’) made to the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (‘CBD PP’) Council seek to address the following ‘Key Planning Outcomes’: i. Restore office and commercial floor space market certainty and investment confidence in the CBD ii. Ensure Activation of Parramatta River iii. Provide a Planning Framework for land north of the Parramatta River (b) That Council seek to address the ‘Key Planning Outcomes’ in accordance with the following ‘Key Principles’: i. Principle 1 - Equitable process and opportunity for involvement ii. Principle 2 - Consistent application of policy iii. Principle 3 - Efficient use of resources for Council and applicants iv. Principle 4 - Manage planning risk for Council and applicants v. Principle 5 - Timely delivery of new planning controls Commercial Floorspace and Phillip St Block (c) That Council write to the Minister for Planning and the Department seeking: (1) An increase to the permitted commercial floor space as resolved by Council on 15 June 2021 in the existing B3 Commercial Core and shown in Figure 1 via the preparation of a State Environmental Planning Policy (‘SEPP’), and that the SEPP become effective at the same time as the CBP PP (Amendment 56), that is 14 October 2022. (2) That the Department prepare a separate SEPP as shown in Figure 2 for certain land zoned B4 Mixed Use and B3 Commercial Core (not covered by the SEPP referred to in (c)(1) above), to introduce additional floor space that allows for commercial uses consistent with Council’s resolution of 15 June 2021, that is informed by a study prepared in consultation with Council and addresses the concerns raised by the Department in its ‘Plan Finalisation Report’ dated April 2022 when the CBD PP was finalised, and that this SEPP become effective by December 2022. (3) That the Department provide advice on amendments to the exhibited Draft Parramatta CBD Development Control Plan to align with the proposed SEPPs above for Council’s consideration. (4) Confirmation from the Department that existing and any new Site Specific Planning Proposals (‘SSPPs’) may continue to be assessed by Council, after the preparation of the relevant SEPP, and note that this will necessitate an extension to the timeframe within the Gateway Determination for the St John’s Planning Proposal. (5) That Council be consulted on the draft SEPPs. (6) That should any SEPP process described above result in an increase in permitted density for the Phillip Street block that: a. The Parramatta CBD Local Contributions Plan endorsed by Council on 14 June 2022 and subsequently forwarded to the Department for consideration be amended to apply the following rates to the Phillip Street Block: · Residential Accommodation or Mixed-Use Development where the total development cost is over $250,000 — 5% · Other development where the total development cost is over $250,000 — 4% · Any development where the total development cost is $250,000 or less — Nil. b. The Minister be requested to ensure enabling changes required to the regulations, to enable the application of the higher rate proposed in the Parramatta CBD Contributions Plan, also reflect this change to the Plan. North Parramatta (d) That Council write to the Minister for Planning and the Department: (1) Seeking funding for a Study for North Parramatta that incorporates urban design, heritage and economic analysis and additional temporary staff to manage the project (estimated at up to $500,000). (2) Advising that Council will not commence the Study until confirmation of funding and in-kind support has been provided. (3) Seeking advice on how Council manage any new SSPPs lodged for sites north of the river prior to completion of the Study and associated plan amendment. EXCEPTIONS (e) Further, that Council note that new SSPPs for sites within any part of the CBD that do not: 1 seek any increase in FSR, or 2 seek to amend other planning controls that are being considered in the SEPP process(es) described in (c) above will be processed by Council (examples include proposals for minor changes in height with no increase in FSR or changes to parking rates or land reservation acquisitions). The Amendment moved by Councillor Wearne and seconded by Councillor Garrard was put and declared LOST: DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Garrard, Siviero, Valjak, Wang and Wearne NOES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey and Prociv Debate resumed on the Motion.
		Note: During consideration of Item 13.7, the Lord Mayor vacated the Chair at 9:03pm. The Deputy Lord Mayor assumed the Chair. The Lord Mayor resumed the chair at 9:18pm.
		Procedural Motion (Garrard/Siviero) That the Motion be put.
		The Motion moved by Councillor Prociv and seconded by Councillor Darley was put and declared CARRIED:
	3891	RESOLVED (Prociv/Darley) (a) That the matter be deferred for an urgent Councillor briefing with senior Department of Planning and Council Officers. (b) That the letter from Mr Raimond to Mr Newman dated 3 May 2022 be made publicly available and included with the report. (c) Further, that the matter be brought back to the next Council meeting. DIVISION A division was called, the result being:- AYES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey and Prociv NOES: Councillors Garrard, Siviero, Valjak, Wang and Wearne
		Note: Having previously declared a conflict of interest in Item 13.6/ 13.7, Councillors Esber and Green retired from the Chamber during consideration of the matter. Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 9:13pm and returned at 9:15pm during debate on the matter.

After retiring from the Chamber during consideration of Item 13.6/ 13.7 - Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment, Councillors Esber and Green did not return to the meeting.

14. Notices of Motion

14.1

SUBJECT Preservation of Publicly Owned Land at Wentworth Point for Open Space and Recreation

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08584912

FROM Councillor Paul Noack

3892

RESOLVED (Noack/Prociv)

(a) That Council approve an advocacy program to the NSW Government to convert that part of the Transport for NSW (TfNSW) site at Wentworth Point which is currently proposed to be redeveloped by TfNSW (with Landcom as the developer) (“Site”) to public open space purposes.

(b) That Council write to the Minister for Transport, Local Member for Parramatta Geoff Lee, TFNSW, Local Member for Auburn Lynda Voltz and Landcom to:

a. Advocate for the Site to be converted to public open space; and

b. Seek meetings with the relevant Ministers, CEO of Landcom and Secretary of TfNSW.

(c) Further, that Council note that converting the TfNSW/Landcom development site east of the High School, currently planned for residential development, to public open space will provide health benefits to residents and the broader community, being that it will:

· Increase the area of public space through expanded access and availability of community and recreational areas in Wentworth Point.

· Enhance the peninsula’s liveability through access to outdoor community sporting facilities and promote community interaction and healthy lifestyles in and around Wentworth Point.

· Provide a major increase in open space with direct access to the High School and proposed marina and waterfront activity at Wentworth Point.

Note:

Questions were taken on notice by Council staff for this item.
Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 9:37pm and returned at 9:41pm during debate on the matter.
Councillor Wearne left the meeting at 9:39pm and returned at 9:45pm during debate on the matter.

15. Questions with Notice

15.1

SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice - 27 June 2022 Council Meeting

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08588952

REPORT OF Governance Manager

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 27 JUNE 2022

Item	Subject	Councillor	Question
8.4	Aboriginal Flag in the Parramatta CBD	Garrard	Do we have an indication as to when the building will be completed and the Australian flag will be back up?
13.7	Post-Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategic Plan 2018-38	Prociv	With relation to grasses in G.4., does grasses include playing fields?
13.7	Post-Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategic Plan 2018-38	Prociv	Are the shrub layers height-related? Meaning, is there a height for shrubs, and anything above that counts as a tree?
13.7	Post-Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategic Plan 2018-38	Prociv	In “thriving”, why don’t we have universities and higher education providers as key partners? And then, for “innovative”, is there a reason why TAFE and industry groups are not included as key partners?
13.7	Post-Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategic Plan 2018-38	Pandey	Do we have interim targets? If not, why not? And would we be able to put some interim targets in so that we can measure something in this term of Council? Can staff come back with a plan as to what can be done to include interim targets.
16.2	Write Off of Sundry Debtor Accounts – Bad Debts	Esber	Question asked in closed session. See below note*
16.2	Write Off of Sundry Debtor Accounts – Bad Debts	Pandey	Question asked in closed session. See below note*
16.2	Write Off of Sundry Debtor Accounts – Bad Debts	Prociv	Question asked in closed session. See below note*

*Please note, for the questions taken on notice with regard to Item 16.2 – Write Off of Sundry Debtor Accounts – Bad Debts, as the questions were raised in closed session, responses to the questions will be provided to Councillors by the relevant ED separately.

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 8.4 – Aboriginal Flag in the Parramatta CBD

Question from Councillor Garrard

During discussion on the motion moved by Lord Mayor Davis, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:

Do we have an indication as to when the building will be completed and the Australian flag will be back up?

Executive Director, Community Services Response

The current target date for the completion of the Town Hall capital works is the 31st October 2023.

Item 13.7 – Post-Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategic Plan 2018-38

Question from Councillor Prociv

During discussion on the motion moved by herself, Councillor Prociv asked the following question:

With relation to grasses in G.4., does grasses include playing fields?

Group Manager, City Strategy Response

Yes, these are considered vegetation under the 2016 Office of Environment and Heritage dataset.

Further detail on the methodology used in the creation of the dataset can be found here.

Greater Sydney Region Urban Vegetation Cover to Modified Mesh Block 2016 | Dataset | SEED (nsw.gov.au)

Item 13.7 – Post-Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategic Plan 2018-38

Question from Councillor Prociv

During discussion on the motion moved by herself, Councillor Prociv asked the following question:

Are the shrub layers height-related? Meaning, is there a height for shrubs, and anything above that counts as a tree?

Group Manager, City Strategy Response

Yes, the 2016 Office of Environment and Heritage dataset identifies the percentage of vegetation coverage and includes a further breakdown based on the following vegetation height categories - grass (0 to 0.5m), shrub (0.5 to 3m), trees in three height classes (3 to 10m, 10 to 15m, greater than 15m).

Item 13.7 – Post Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategyc Plan 2018-38

Question from Councillor Prociv

During discussion on the motion moved by herself, Councillor Prociv asked the following question:

In “thriving”, why don’t we have universities and higher education providers as key partners?

And then, for “innovative”, is there a reason why TAFE and industry groups are not included as key partners?

Group Manager City Strategy Response

As agreed in the Council meeting, higher education providers and TAFE will be added as key partners as part of the administrative/proofing adjustments prior to publication.

Item 13.7 – Post Exhibition: Endorsement of the Amended Community Strategic Plan 2018-38

Question from Councillor Pandey

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Prociv, Councillor Pandey asked the following question:

Do we have interim targets? If not, why not?

And would we be able to put some interim targets in so that we can measure something in this term of Council?

Can staff come back with a plan as to what can be done to include interim targets.

Group Manager City Strategy Response

Broadly the CSP does not contain interim targets as most of the indicators are trend based (i.e. "increase year on year") or fixed (e.g. "100% of actions on track").

An interim target is included for the community emissions reduction target G.3 (50% by 2030, 70% by 2038).

As part of the upcoming refresh of key Council strategies, more specific indicators will be identified for Council in the medium term to support the broader outcomes and indicators in the CSP. This may involve a combination of linear targets calculated on the long-term target to assess progress, or more specific staged targets.

		Matter of Urgency Councillor Humphries put forward the following to Council: The matter is in relation to the recent flooding event in Parramatta. It is urgent as the incident occurred after the last meeting of Council, and after the deadlines for inclusion in the business paper for this Council meeting had closed. It is important to take the time to congratulate the SES members for their contributions in these major flooding evens.
3893		RESOLVED (Humphries/Maclean) That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above. The Lord Mayor ruled that the matter was of great urgency in accordance with clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.
3894		RESOLVED (Humphries/Maclean) (a) That the Lord Mayor write to the Unit Commissioner of the NSW State Emergency Services (SES), Mr Timothy Dykes, to congratulate him and his hardworking crew at the SES who supported the residents of Parramatta during the flooding and storm damage over the past week and worked diligently during this recent weather event. (b) Further, that the Lord Mayor write to the State Government of NSW seeking their consideration in declaring the City of Parramatta Local Government Area as a natural disaster area.
		Note: Councilor Pandey left the Chamber at 9:59pm and returned at 10:01pm during debate on the urgent matter. Councillor Darley left the Chamber at 10:01pm and returned at 10:03pm during debate on the urgent matter. Councillor Maclean left the Chamber at 10:03pm and returned at 10:05pm during debate on the urgent matter.

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

16. CLOSED SESSION

3895

RESOLVED (Maclean/Siviero)

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 Sydney Metro West Western Tunnelling Package Interface Agreement. (D08468948) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

16.2 Proposed Road Closure of Lane between Rawson Street and Beecroft Road, Epping. (D08561340) - 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 Update on WestInvest Business Case at Wentworth Point. (D08594268) - 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 Sydney Metro West Western Tunnelling Package Interface Agreement

REFERENCE F2022/01466 - D08468948

REPORT OF Sydney Metro West Project Interface Manager; Group Manager Infrastructure Planning & Design

3896

RESOLVED (Prociv/Pandey)

a) That Council enter into the Interface Agreement with Sydney Metro West in respect of Western Tunnelling Package (WTP) Scope provided at Attachment 1.

b) That the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to execute the Interface Agreement (Attachment 1) with Sydney Metro West in respect of the WTP Scope and that the Common Seal of Council be affixed to this Interface Agreement with Sydney Metro West as required.

c) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to:

a. make any minor or non-policy amendments to the Interface Agreement and related documents; and

b. execute all necessary documents, ancillary agreements (including the form of any agreements attached to the Interface Agreement) and other land dealings identified in the Interface Agreement necessary to implement and manage Council’s obligations under the WTP Scope.

Note: Questions were taken on notice by Council staff for this item.

16.2

SUBJECT Proposed Road Closure of Lane between Rawson Street and Beecroft Road, Epping

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08561340

REPORT OF Development Manager

3897

RESOLVED (Maclean/Noack)

(a) That Council permanently close a portion of lane between Rawson Street and Beecroft Road, Epping – labelled Lot 1 in Attachment 1, in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Roads Act 1993.

(b) That Council classify the portion of land – labelled Lot 1 at Attachment 1, as Operational Land upon formal gazettal of the road closure.

(c) That Council officers commence commercial negotiations on the proposed sale of Lot 1 with Winton Lyon Group as the only adjoining owner.

(d) That a report be provided to Council after the road closure has been formalised to approve any proposed sale, including the sale price.

(e) Further, that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to sign all documents in relation to the road closure and its classification.

16.3

SUBJECT Update on WestInvest Business Case at Wentworth Point

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08594268

FROM Councillor Paul Noack

3898

RESOLVED (Noack/Siviero)

(a) That Council staff provide an update on the submission of a business case to the Westinvest Fund for Wentworth Point for the purposes of public open space.

(b) That Council approve an advocacy program to the NSW Government for the support of the above business case and use of Westinvest funds.

(c) That Council write to the Minister for Transport, Local Member for Parramatta Geoff Lee and Local Member for Auburn Lynda Voltz.

Procedural Motion

3899

RESOLVED (Maclean/Darley)

That the meeting resume into Open Session.

17. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

The Executive Director Property and Place read out the resolutions for Items 16.1 to 16.3.

18. CONCLUSION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 10:23pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 29 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON Monday, 11 July 2022 AND CONFIRMED ON Monday, 25 July 2022.

Chairperson

Council 25 July 2022 Item 13.1

REPORTS TO COUNCIL - FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT Expression of Interest - Selection of Members for the Floodplain Risk Management Committee

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08585454

REPORT OF Catchment Systems Coordinator

CSP THEME: GREEN, THRIVING

workshop/briefing date: NIL

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval of the proposed members for the Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council appoint Neil Benning (Dundas Ward), Nadine Goss (Rosehill Ward) and Angela Hansford (Dundas Ward) as the community members for the Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

(b) That Council appoint the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce, ParraCAN and Western Sydney University as the business members for the Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

(c) Further, that Council appoint NSW Emergency Service, the Department of Planning and Environment, Transport for NSW (TfNSW), Sydney Water and Sydney Olympic Park Authority as State Government members for the Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

BACKGROUND

1. Floodplain Risk Management Committees are a requirement of the NSW Floodplain Risk Management process and acts as oversight for Council’s work to mitigate the impacts of flooding through this process.

2. All councils are required to develop flood studies (modelling) and management studies and plans, which set out the actions Council will take to mitigate the impact of flooding on its communities.

3. Currently, Council is developing two flood studies:

a) For the Parramatta River and tributaries, as defined by the pre-amalgamation LGA boundary, and including overland flow. This work is approaching the community consultation phase.

b) For the A’ Becketts Creek catchment. This work is in the initial data collection phase.

4. The FRM Committee is also able to technically support Council’s work in implementation projects like FloodSmart Parramatta, in changes to DCP/LEP policy and studies into evacuation and emergency planning.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. At its meeting held on 23 May 2022, Council approved the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Floodplain Risk Management Committee. Under the TOR, membership for the committee is to be as follows:

The Committee will comprise such members as are appointed by Council from time to time, including:

a. Up to two (2) current serving Councillors as nominated by Council as its representative on the Committee;

b. Up to five (5) community representatives, preferably with at least one person from across each of the five (5) wards

c. Up to three (3) representatives of business associations or private businesses located in the LGA

d. Up to five (5) representatives from relevant State Government Departments such as the SES, Office of Environment and Heritage

e. Council staff from relevant Departments (eg, Catchment Management, City Strategy, etc.

6. At its meeting held on 14 March 2022, Council appointed Councillors Phil Bradley and Patricia Prociv to the Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

7. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to finalise appointment of representatives across community, business associations/ private businesses and state government departments.

8. The FRM Committee follows Council’s standard TOR for Advisory Committees, including in relation to the expression of interest process. An Expression of Interest for community members was publicly advertised from 8 June 2022 to 30 June 2022. Information was available through the CoP website and advertised through social/local media.

9. Local business and state agency groups will be invited to nominate an individual representative, once the list of agencies proposed for appointment has been approved by Council.

10. Community Representatives

Three (3) Expressions of Interest were received for Community representation:

a) Neil Benning – Dundas Ward

Previous FRMC member, history of flood engineering.

b) Nadine Goss – Rosehill Ward

Previous FRMC member, local resident whose property is flood affected.

c) Angela Hansford – Dundas Ward

New member, passionate about local flood risk and reducing the impacts of flooding in Parramatta, lives next to the river.

There were only three applications submitted. All applicants have experience or relevant knowledge. Therefore, it was decided to propose appointment of all three without a selection panel.

11. Business Representatives

It is proposed to approach the following business associations or private businesses located in the LGA to nominate a representative:

· Parramatta Chamber of Commerce

· ParraCAN

· Western Sydney University

12. State/Government/Other Agency representation

It is proposed to approach the following relevant State Government Departments to nominate a representative:

· NSW State Emergency Service

· Dept. Planning and Environment

· Transport for NSW

· Sydney Water

· Sydney Olympic Park Authority

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
8^th June – 30^th June	Community members EOI	Three responses	NA	CA&O, Catchment Management

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

15. A standing Floodplain Risk Management Committee is part of the NSW Floodplain Risk Management guidelines and a requirement for funding under the floodplain management grant process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

16. A standing Floodplain Risk Management Committee is part of the NSW Floodplain Risk Management guidelines and a requirement for funding under the floodplain management grant process.

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	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Christopher Gooch

Catchment Systems Coordinator

John Warburton

Executive Director, City Assets & Operations

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Jennifer Concato

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 25 July 2022 Item 13.2

REPORTS TO COUNCIL - FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.2

SUBJECT Post-exhibition: Adoption of the Delivery Program 2022-26, Operational Plan & Budget 2022/23, Fees & Charges 2022/23

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08567704

REPORT OF Corporate Strategy Manager; Financial Planning and Analysis Manager

CSP THEME: FAIR

workshop/briefing date: 29 June 2022

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek adoption of the final draft Delivery Program 2022-26 (inclusive of Operational Plan & Budget 2022/23), and the Fees & Charges 2022/23.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the four-year Delivery Program (2022/23 – 2025/26) and one-year Operational Plan (2022/23) (DPOP), inclusive of:

1 The Annual Budget 2022/23

2 The Schedule of Fees and Charges 2022/23 (to commence from 1 August 2022).

(b) That Council note the submissions received via the public exhibition process, and as outlined in the Engagement Outcomes Report (Attachment 4), have been taken into consideration in the finalisation of the Delivery Program 2022-26 and Operational Plan 2022/23.

(c) That Council adopt expenditure totalling $520.4m in the Operational Plan 2022/23 (which incorporates the draft operating and capital budgets) and the funds to cover such expenditure be voted.

(d) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make administrative proofing adjustments such as formatting, design or typographical errors as required in the DPOP, Budget and Fees & Charges before print and publication.

BACKGROUND

1. Under s404(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to establish a Delivery Program for a four-year period following each ordinary election of Councillors. The Delivery Program specifies Council’s principal activities in response to the high-level goals and strategies in the Community Strategic Plan (CSP), including the services to be delivered, projects, and methods to measure success.

2. The draft Delivery Program 2022-26 is inclusive of an Operational Plan & Budget for 2022/23. The Operational Plan component outlines the projects, programs and budget for Year One (2022/23). It also includes a schedule of fees and charges and a proposed rates structure for 2022/23.

3. Following endorsement by Council on 23 May 2022, the draft DPOP, Budget and Fees & Charges were placed on public exhibition for a 28 day period from 25 May to 22 June 2022. During this time, 13 submissions were received, as outlined at Attachment 4.

4. The final draft DPOP, Budget, and Fees & Charges 2022/23 (Attachments 1, 2 and 3) are now presented to Council for adoption.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. The draft DPOP comprises of four (4) parts:

a. Part 1: Provides a context and overview of City of Parramatta, the DPOP
and how it was developed.

b. Part 2: Details Council’s principal activities (services) to deliver on the
Community Strategic Plan over the next four years.

c. Part 3: Provides details of Council’s services and projects as resourced in
2022/23, including key performance indicators and targets.

d. Part 4: Details the draft Budget, including our Revenue Policy and Rating
and Charges Structure for 2022/23.

e.      Part 5: Details the schedule of fees and charges for 2022/23, inclusive of
             an explanation of Council’s pricing policy and any proposed
             changes from the current 2021/22 financial year.

6. A number of changes are proposed to the draft DPOP in response to Councillor, community and internal stakeholder feedback received through the public exhibition period. An overview of these changes can be found at Attachment 5. These changes include, but are not limited to:

a. Minor edits and design improvements to improve accuracy and readability;

b.      Part 2: Adjustments to relevant Goals and Strategic Actions from the
           Community Strategic Plan following its endorsement on 27 July
           2022;

c. Part 3: Clarifications to service descriptions and inclusion of a number of
additional strategic and operating projects and KPIs;

d. Part 3: Confirmation of, and/or adjustment to, project due dates based on
the most recent available reporting information.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

7. Initial community engagement was undertaken in 2021 including an open survey for all community members (‘Your Voice. Your Vision. Your Ideas. Your Parramatta’ – see engagement outcomes in Attachment 7).

8. In accordance with statutory requirements, a 28 day public exhibition was undertaken from 25 May to 22 June 2022 (see engagement outcomes in Attachment 4).

9. The following table summarises stakeholder consultation undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
November 2021	Community Survey	Five key themes identified in feedback (see Engagement Outcomes Report attached.)	Feedback incorporated into drafts.	City Strategy
October 2021 – April 2022	Executive Directors; Group Managers	Involvement in draft DPOP, draft budget development.	Drafts compiled.	Finance; Corporate Strategy
25 May – 22 June	Public exhibition	Summarised in Attachment 4 – Public Exhibition Engagement Outcomes Report.	Feedback considered in development of final drafts.	Finance; Corporate Strategy.

Councillor Consultation

10. 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 plans & budgets.	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	Finance / City Strategy
4 March	Councillor Workshop	Discussion of Q2 2021/22 DPOP & Quarterly Budget Review reports and opportunities.	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	Finance / City Strategy
7 March	Councillor Workshop	Discussion on draft plans.	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy
1 April	Councillor Strategy Day	Detailed discussion on draft plans & budgets.	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	Finance / City Strategy
13 April	Councillor Workshop	Detailed discussion on draft plans & budgets.	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	Finance / City Strategy
20 April	Finance Committee Meeting	Detailed discussion on draft budgets & ASV proposal	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	Finance
1 June	Councillor Workshop	Discussion of document structure, and projects and KPIs represented in draft DPOP.	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy
6 June	Cr Kellie Darley	Discussion of projects and KPIs represented in draft DPOP.	Questions taken and comments considered for final drafts.	City Strategy
20 June	Lord Mayor, Cr Donna Davis	Discussion of projects and KPIs represented in draft DPOP.	Questions taken and comments considered for final drafts.	City Strategy
29 June	Councillor Workshop	Presentation of public exhibition feedback, final changes proposed to DPOP and Budget	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy; Finance

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

12. Parts 4 and 5 of the Plan (see Attachment 2 “DPOP Part 4” (Budget) and Attachment 3 “DPOP Part 5” (Fees & Charges) provide details about the draft budget, rating, and fees and charges structures for 2022/23.

13. In 2022/23, Council is budgeting for a $2.6m surplus in Statutory Net Operating Result from continuing operations (before capital grants and contributions), with key highlights as below:

a. Improvements in revenue as the impact of Covid-19 reduces and economic activity improves, Additional Special Variation (ASV) of 1.8% in Rates, improved Domestic Waste Annual Charges, User Fees and Parking fines, offset by;

b. Increased expenses from the soon to be operational 5 Parramatta Sq i.e. PHIVE and the new aquatic and wellness facility in Parramatta.

c. The budget includes improvement to the operating result totaling $2.2m from Service Reviews which are to be delivered in FY22/23

d. IPART rate pegging was initially approved at 0.7%, giving an overall uplift of $1.1m to the budgeted revenue and unrestricted funds. However, after the subsequent approval from IPART for a 1.8% Additional Special Variation (ASV), an additional revenue uplift of $2.8m has been included.

14. In 2022/23, Council is budgeting for an Unrestricted Net Operating Result deficit of ($3.3m), while the Unrestricted Cash position is budgeted for a surplus of $7.0m, significantly supported by:

a. discontinuation of the Transfer to CBD Infrastructure Reserve Funds of $2.4m

b. movement of outstanding loan payments of $3.6m from General Reserve to Property Reserve.

c. Approval from IPART to raise rates by the ASV, contributing $2.8m.

15. In 2022/23, Council is budgeting to spend $209.0m on capital works, including:

a. $30.5m on the new aquatic and wellness facility in Parramatta.

16. Part 5 of the plan provides details about the draft fees & charges for 2022/23, to commence from 1 August 2022. The draft fees & charges for 2022/23 provide for a general increase of 5%. Select fees have varied from the standard increase after considering delivery costs and community benefits. Statutory fees are as per determination. Council’s fees and charges have been classified into 12 categories. The attachment “Draft Fees and Charges – Key Changes” includes a list of fees and charges that are new, removed or have either increased/decreased by more than 5%.

Dayne Glinkowski

Corporate Strategy Manager

Nicole Carnegie

Group Manager, City Strategy

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Jennifer Concato

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Final Draft Delivery Program 2022-26, Operational Plan 2022-23 (DPOP Parts 1-3)	52 Pages
2 ⇩	Final Draft Budget 2022-23 (DPOP Part 4)	21 Pages
3 ⇩	Final Draft Fees & Charges 2022-23 (DPOP Part 5)	46 Pages
4 ⇩	DPOP Engagement Evaluation & Summary Report	12 Pages
5 ⇩	Summary of Changes to DPOP Post Exhibition	2 Pages
6 ⇩	Key Changes to Fees & Charges 2022-23	70 Pages
7 ⇩	Your Voice Your Vision Engagement Evaluation and Summary Report	15 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 25 July 2022 Item 13.3

REPORTS TO COUNCIL - FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.3

SUBJECT 2022/2023 Making of the Rates and Annual Charges

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08568663

REPORT OF Rates Manager

CSP THEme FAIR

workshop/briefing date: 29 June 2022

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to make the Rates and Charges for 2022/23 and adopt the interest rate payable on overdue rates and charges.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council:

(i) Make the Rates and Charges for the 2022/23 rating year as outlined in this report using the land values with a base date valuation of 1 July 2019;

(ii) Make two (2) ordinary rates, being Residential and Business;

(iii) Categorise the Business rate into:

· Business General;

· Central Business District;

· Central Business District – Centre of Activity No 2;

· Industrial Centres of Activity

(iv) Continue with the minimum rate/ ad-valorem basis of rating

(b) That Council take up the Additional Special Variation of 2.5% for 2022/23 as approved by IPART.

(c) That Council note that the City of Parramatta continues to recognise that certain ratepayers in the community may have difficulty in meeting their Rates & Charges commitments due to genuine hardship and prescribes policy and procedures to provide financial assistance to these ratepayers.

(d) That Council:

(i) Make the ordinary rates for all rateable land within the City of Parramatta, which is categorised as Residential land (Residential), an ordinary rate-in-the-dollar of zero point zero zero one seven four five five eight (0.00174558) upon the land value.

(ii) Note the minimum amount of the Residential rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of this land categorized as Residential land (Residential) is seven hundred and twenty five dollars and eighteen cents ($725.18).

(iii) Make the ordinary rates for all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business General (Business General) land (and is not within the subcategories of Business land referred to in paragraphs v to ix below), an ordinary rate-in-the-dollar of zero point zero zero four one zero two three nine (0.00410239) upon the land value.

(iv) Note the minimum amount of the Business General rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of this land categorized as Business General land is five hundred and twelve dollars and fifty cents ($512.50).

(v) Make the ordinary rates for all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as business land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District (CBD), an ordinary rate-in-the-dollar of zero point zero one one zero six six five four (0.01106654) upon the land value.

(vi) Note the minimum amount of the Business CBD rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of this land categorized as business land within the sub-category of Central Business District (CBD) as seven hundred and forty three dollars and twelve cents ($743.12).

(vii) Make the ordinary rates for all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District – Centre of Activity Area No 2 (CBD #2), an ordinary rate-in-the-dollar of zero point zero two three six five five zero nine (0.02365509) upon the land value.

(viii) Make the ordinary rates for all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land and is within the sub-category of “Industrial Centres of Activity” (Business ICA) because it is within the suburbs of Camellia, Chester Hill, Clyde, Eastwood, Ermington, Granville, Guildford, Melrose Park, Merrylands, Northmead, North Parramatta, Old Toongabbie, Parramatta, Pendle Hill, Rosehill, Rydalmere, Seven Hills, Toongabbie, Wentworthville, Silverwater, North Rocks, an ordinary rate-in-the-dollar of zero point zero zero eight zero zero one one zero (0.00800110) upon the land value.

(ix) Note the minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of this land categorized as Business land within the sub-category of “Industrial Centres of Activity” is seven hundred and forty three dollars and twelve cents ($743.12).

(e) Domestic Waste Management Charges

That Council, in the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta Council, for which a Domestic Waste Management (DWM) service is provided or proposed to be provided in accordance with s496 of the Local Government Act 1993 set the following Domestic Waste Management Charges:

(i) A Domestic Waste Management Charge of four hundred and thirty six dollars and five cents ($436.05) for:

· Removal once weekly of the contents of an 80-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested; and

· The removal once fortnightly of an additional 240-litre recycling bin for all recyclable material such as paper, glass, PET plastics and the like, and to make a further pro-rata charge of one hundred and twenty three dollars and eighty cents ($123.80) for each additional fortnightly recycling service;

· The removal once fortnightly of an additional 240-litre garden waste bin for all grass clippings, pruning, leaves, woodchip and the like, and to make a further pro-rata charge of one hundred and twenty three dollars and eighty cents ($123.80) for each additional fortnightly garden waste service;

(ii) A Domestic Waste Management Charge of four hundred and seventy six dollars and seventy cents ($476.70) for:

· Removal once weekly of the contents of a 140-litre capacity garbage container (including shared services), and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested; and

(iii) A Domestic Waste Management Charge of seven hundred and eighteen dollars and seventy five cents ($718.75) for:

· The removal once weekly of the contents of a 240-litre capacity garbage container (including shared services), and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested; and

(iv) A Domestic Waste Management Charge of one thousand eight hundred and ten dollars and twenty cents ($1,810.20) for:

· The removal once weekly of the contents of a 660-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested.

(v) A Domestic Waste Management Charge of two thousand four hundred and eighty one dollars and seventy five cents ($2,481.75) for:

· The removal once weekly of the contents of an 1100-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested.

(vi) A Domestic Waste Management Availability Charge of eighty five dollars and sixty cents ($85.60), where a domestic waste service is available to vacant residential land and where service is available but not used.

(f) Commercial Garbage Charges:

That Council, in the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta for which a Commercial Waste Management service is provided or proposed to be provided, in accordance with s501 of the Local Government Act 1993, set the following Commercial Garbage Charges:

(i) 140-litre Commercial Garbage Charge of four hundred and ninety three dollars and thirty five cents ($493.35) for

· Removal once weekly of the contents of a 140-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested

(ii) 240-litre Commercial Garbage Charge of seven hundred and forty three dollars and thirty cents ($743.30) for

· Removal once weekly of the contents of a 240-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested

· The removal once weekly 240-litre recycling bin for all recyclable material such as paper, glass, PET plastics and the like, and to make a further pro rata charge of one hundred and thirty dollars and eighty cents ($130.80) for each additional weekly recycling service

· The removal once fortnightly of a 240-litre garden waste bin for all grass clippings, pruning, leaves, woodchip and the like, and to make a further pro-rata charge of one hundred and thirty dollars and eighty cents ($130.80) for each additional fortnightly garden waste service;

(iii) 660-litre Commercial Garbage Charge of one thousand eight hundred and sixty one dollars and thirty cents ($1,861.30) for

· Removal once weekly of the contents of a 660-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested

(iv) 1100-litre Commercial Garbage Charge of two thousand six hundred and eleven dollars and seventy five cents ($2,611.75) for

· Removal once weekly of the contents of a 1100-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested

(v) 660-litre Commercial Recycling Charge of six hundred and thirty one dollars and five cents ($631.05) for

· Removal once weekly of the contents of a 660-litre capacity recycling container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested

(vi) 1100-litre Commercial Recycling Charge of eight hundred and fifty four dollars and eighty cents ($854.80) for

· Removal once weekly of the contents of a 1100-litre capacity recycling container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested

(vii) 80-litre Commercial Waste Charge four hundred and forty four dollars and fifty cents ($444.50) for:

· Removal once weekly of the contents of an 80-litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro-rata charge for each additional service requested:

(g) Stormwater Management Services Charges

That Council make the following Stormwater Management Service Charges:

(i) In the case of all parcels of rateable urban land (excluding strata properties and vacant land) within the City of Parramatta which are categorised as Residential or Residential CBD an annual charge of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per assessment.

(ii) In the case of all rateable strata properties within the City of Parramatta which are categorised as Residential or Residential CBD an annual charge of twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50) per assessment.

(iii) In the case of all parcels of rateable urban land within the City of Parramatta which are categorised or sub-categorised as Business properties (excluding vacant land) an annual charge of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per 350 square metres or part thereof capped at five hundred dollars ($500.00).

(iv) In the case of all rateable strata properties within the City of Parramatta which are categorised as Business or Business CBD an annual charge of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per 350 square metres or part thereof capped at five hundred dollars ($500.00). This charge is then divided according to the unit entitlements of each lot, with a minimum amount payable of $5.00.

(h) Further, that Council adopt and charge the maximum rate of interest payable on overdue rates and charges for the period 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 being 6.0% per annum.

BACKGROUND

1. The draft Rates & Annual Charges for 2022/23 were included in the DPOP placed on a statutory 28 day public exhibition period between 25 May 2022 to 22 June 2022.

2. General increases in Council Rates are governed by IPART. For the 2022/23 rating year IPART had determined that the maximum allowable general increase of 0.7%.

3. It was announced by IPART that Council could make application for a permanent Additional Special Variation (ASV) to general rates income and seek an increase from 0.7% to 2.5%. The DPOP contained draft rates-in-the-dollar for both increases.

4. On 20 June 2022 IPART announced that Council’s permanent ASV application was approved.

5. To make the Rates and Annual Charges for the 2022/23 rating year Council is required to resolve the making of all rates and annual charges in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 & Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.

RATES FOR 2022/2023

6. It is recommended the Rates & Charges rates be made and levied for the 2022/23 financial year as per the Recommendation.

Interest on Overdue Rates & Charges

7. In accordance with s566(3) of the Act, the Minister for Local Government has determined that the maximum rate of interest payable on overdue rates and charges for the 2022/23 rating year will be 6%. It is recommended that the maximum interest rate allowable of 6% be adopted and applied for the 2022/23 rating year.

Rates & Charges Hardship

8. The City of Parramatta recognises that certain ratepayers in the community may have difficulty in meeting their Rates & Charges commitments due to genuine hardship. Attachment 1 contains the current prescribed hardship policy and procedures to provide financial assistance to ratepayers in difficulty, which include provisions for assistance by periodical payment arrangements and writing off accrued interest and costs.

9. The City of Parramatta also offers eligible pensioners an additional voluntary rebate of up to $100 for those pensioners owning property within the municipality for five or more years. This is in addition to the mandatory rebate of up to $250 to eligible pensioners, as prescribed under s575 of the Local Government Act 1993.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. Following endorsement by Council on 23 May 2022, the DPOP inclusive of the draft Rates and Annual Charges 2022/23 was placed on public exhibition.

11. The Engagement Outcomes report raised no concerns or questions regarding the rating information.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

25/5/2022 -

22/06/2022

(28 days)

Public Exhibition

Summarised in Attachment 4 – Public Exhibition Engagement Outcomes Report previously tabled

Feedback considered in development of final drafts.

City Strategy; Finance

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
20 April 2022	Finance Committee	Presentation of DPOP, Budget and proposed Additional Special Variation (ASV) application	Questions taken regarding ASV, rates harmonisation and guidance incorporated.	Finance
29 June 2022	Councillor Workshop	Presentation of public exhibition feedback, final changes proposed to DPOP and Budget	Questions taken and guidance incorporated into draft plans.	City Strategy; Finance

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

14. To avoid any adverse legal implications, Council is required to resolve the making of all rates and annual charges in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 & Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

15. Financial implications are set out in Council’s 2022/23 Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Todd Cowan

Rates Manager

Ian Woodward

Group Manager Legal Services

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Jennifer Concato

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Rates Hardship Policy

10 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 25 July 2022 Item 13.4

REPORTS TO COUNCIL - FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

SUBJECT Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08605712

REPORT OF Land Use Planning Team Leader

CSP THEME: INNOVATIVE

workshop/briefing date: 11, 18 & 30 May,15 June, 6 & 13 July 2022

PURPOSE:

The Department of Planning and Environment (‘Department’) finalised the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (‘CBD PP’) on 6 May 2022. In finalising the CBD PP, the Department made several key policy changes to the final version of the CBD PP (as endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021). The purpose of this report is to establish Council’s response to the key policy changes made by the Department.

RECOMMENDATION

Guiding Principles

(a) That in responding to the changes the Department of Planning and Environment (‘Department’) made to the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (‘CBD PP’) Council seek to address the following ‘Key Planning Outcomes’:

i. Restore office and commercial floor space market certainty and investment confidence in the CBD

ii. Ensure Activation of Parramatta River

iii. Provide a Planning Framework for land north of the Parramatta River

(b) That Council seek to address the ‘Key Planning Outcomes’ in accordance with the following ‘Key Principles’:

i. Principle 1 - Equitable process and opportunity for involvement

ii. Principle 2 - Consistent application of policy

iii. Principle 3 - Efficient use of resources for Council and applicants

iv. Principle 4 - Manage planning risk for Council and applicants

v. Principle 5 - Timely delivery of new planning controls

Commercial Floorspace and Phillip St Block

(1) An increase to the permitted commercial floor space as resolved by Council on 15 June 2021 in the existing B3 Commercial Core and shown in Figure 1 via the preparation of a State Environmental Planning Policy (‘SEPP’) and to address the concerns raised by the Department in its ‘Plan Finalisation Report’ dated April 2022 when the CBD PP was finalised, and that the SEPP become effective at the same time as the CBP PP (Amendment 56), that is 14 October 2022.

(2) That the Department prepare a separate SEPP as shown in Figure 2 for certain land zoned B4 Mixed Use and B3 Commercial Core (not covered by the SEPP referred to in (c)(1) above), to introduce additional floor space that allows for commercial uses consistent with Council’s resolution of 15 June 2021, that is informed by a study prepared in consultation with Council and addresses the concerns raised by the Department in its ‘Plan Finalisation Report’ dated April 2022 when the CBD PP was finalised, and that this SEPP become effective by December 2022, with periodic updates for the community provided during its preparation.

(3) That the Department provide advice on amendments to the exhibited Draft Parramatta CBD Development Control Plan to align with the proposed SEPPs above for Council’s consideration.

(4) Confirmation from the Department that existing and any new Site Specific Planning Proposals (‘SSPPs’) may continue to be assessed by Council, after the preparation of the relevant SEPP.

(5) That Council be consulted on the draft SEPPs.

(6) That should any SEPP process described above result in an increase in permitted density for the Phillip Street block that:

a. The Parramatta CBD Local Contributions Plan endorsed by Council on 14 June 2022 and subsequently forwarded to the Department for consideration be amended to apply the following rates to the Phillip Street Block:

· Residential Accommodation or Mixed-Use Development where the total development cost is over $250,000 — 5%

· Other development where the total development cost is over $250,000 — 4%

· Any development where the total development cost is $250,000 or less — Nil.

b. The Minister be requested to ensure enabling changes required to the regulations, to enable the application of the higher rate proposed in the Parramatta CBD Contributions Plan, also reflect this change to the Plan.

North Paramatta

(d) That Council write to the Minister for Planning and the Department:

(1) Seeking funding for a Study for North Parramatta that incorporates urban design, heritage and economic analysis and additional temporary staff to manage the project (estimated at up to $500,000).

(2) Advising that Council will not commence the Study until confirmation of funding and in-kind support has been provided.

(3) Seeking advice on how Council manage any new SSPPs lodged for sites north of the river prior to completion of the Study and associated plan amendment.

EXCEPTIONS

(e) Further, that Council note that new SSPPs for sites within any part of the CBD that do not:

1 seek any increase in FSR, or

2 seek to amend other planning controls that are being considered in the SEPP process(es) described in (c) above

will be processed by Council (examples include proposals for minor changes in height with no increase in FSR or changes to parking rates or land reservation acquisitions).

BACKGROUND

1. This report was previously considered at the Council Meeting held on 11 July 2022 (Items 13.6 and 13.7 on the Business Paper). At this meeting Council resolved as follows:

(a) That the matter be deferred for an urgent Councillor briefing with senior Department of Planning and Council Officers.

(b) That the letter from Mr Raimond to Mr Newman dated 3 May 2022 be made publicly available and included with the report.

(c) Further, that the matter be brought back to the next Council meeting.

2. Consistent with part (a) of the resolution, a briefing session was held with Councillors and senior officers from the Department and Council on 13 July 2022. At the briefing session, background to the further work being proposed was outlined and responses to Councillor questions provided. Key matters discussed and outcomes were:

a. The preparation of the SEPPs to introduce additional floor space is a continuum of the intended work aligned with the broader policy framework resolved by Council in June 2021 for the Parramatta CBD;

b. The strong preference is for the Department and Council to partner together on the work to prepare the SEPPs to address the concerns raised by the Department in its ‘Plan Finalisation Report’ dated April 2022 when the CBD PP was finalised;

c. The Department has resources available to enable the work to be prepared expeditiously and efficiently; and

d. The Department and Council to provide regular updates to the community on the progression of the work.

3. Consistent with part (b) of the Resolution, a copy of the letter from Mr Raimond to Mr Newman dated 3 May 2022 is provided at Attachment 1 to this report; and consistent with part (c) of the Resolution, this report is updated and provided in the Business Paper for the 25 July 2022 Council Meeting.

4. Preparation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (‘CBD PP’) has occurred over many years. The planning process has involved significant research and studies and extensive consultation with various stakeholders. The purpose of the CBD PP is to establish a new planning framework for the Parramatta CBD so as to ensure the area achieves its full potential as Greater Sydney’s “Central City”.

5. In summary, the CBD PP, as endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021, pursued the following outcomes:

a. Significant increases to development capacity for the Parramatta CBD, allowing for an increase of over 59,100 additional jobs and almost 15,340 additional dwellings (including an allowance of about 13,000 additional jobs not previously accounted to estimate a yield for the unlimited office space policy in the B3 Commercial Core zone).

b. Over 1.97 million sqm of additional new commercial floor space (including the allowance of about 312,000 sqm of office space under the unlimited office space policy in the B3 Commercial Core zone).

c. The land area where tall towers would be permissible would have more than quadrupled from the current planning controls, allowing for towers up to 243m in height (approx. 60 storeys commercial, 75 storeys residential), which will completely transform the city skyline.

d. Protects solar access to key public spaces and also improves the environmental performance of new towers.

e. Mandate a network of active streets throughout large sections of the Parramatta CBD and broadens the scope for where design excellence competitions are required in new towers.

f. Establish a new framework to better manage flood risk in new developments.

g. Significantly minimise traffic impacts through lowering maximum parking controls and allowing for some road widening.

h. Improves heritage controls above the normal standard requirements and also preserves existing controls in and around the World Heritage Item at Old Government House.

6. The CBD PP was publicly exhibited from 21 September 2020 to 2 November 2020. Following the exhibition period and detailed consideration of the submissions received, on 15 June 2021, Council resolved to finalise the CBD PP and submit it to the Department of Planning and Environment (‘Department’) for finalisation. Accordingly, the CBD PP was submitted to the Department on 1 July 2021 in accordance with the Council resolution.

7. Following an assessment process by Department officers, the Department finalised the CBD PP on 6 May 2022 through notification of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No 56) (‘LEP Amendment 56’) on the NSW Legislation website. LEP Amendment 56 formalises the planning control changes as proposed under the CBD PP and formally takes effect on 14 October 2022. A copy of LEP Amendment 56 is provided at Attachment 2. In finalising the CBD PP, the Department made several key policy changes to the original version endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021. These key policy changes include:

a. Opportunity Sites – the Opportunity Sites control which allowed for a bonus 3:1 FSR for certain sites has been removed.

b. Unlimited Commercial Premises FSR – the unlimited commercial premises FSR control in certain parts of the B4 Mixed Use zone has been removed.

c. Unlimited Office Premises FSR – the unlimited office premises FSR control in the B3 Commercial Core zone has been removed.

d. Community Infrastructure Principles – the community infrastructure principles provision has been removed (and base/incentive height/FSR maps consolidated accordingly).

e. North Parramatta – the area north of the river has been removed from the proposal and will retain its existing controls at this stage. A further review of this area will be required.

f. Phillip Street Block – the street block bound by the river, Charles, Phillip and Smith Streets has been removed from the proposal and will retain its existing controls.

8. A copy of the Department’s letter to Council dated 3 May 2022 is provided at Attachment 1 and Plan Finalisation Report is provided at Attachment 3, which provides their supporting justification for these changes.

BROADER IMPACTS OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S DECISION

9. Most critically the Minister for Planning’s decision has decreased the floor space that can be developed to deliver jobs in the CBD PP due to the removal of the unlimited commercial and office space provisions.

10. A secondary impact is that a reduction in residential capacity has also occurred particularly due to the deferral of changes to planning controls in North Parramatta and the Phillip Street block and removal of opportunity sites FSR bonus.

11. The policy changes resulted in a reduction of theoretical development capacity across the CBD, equating to an estimated loss of 15,280 jobs and 3,440 dwellings. Most of this loss, approximately 13,000 jobs, is due to the removal of the “unlimited” office floor space control in the B3 Commercial Core zone. Office floor space capacity should be maximized to ensure the maximum number of jobs is provided in the CBD, i.e. that sites are not under-developed.

12. Council Officers are of the view that the Key Planning Outcomes Council should consider as part of its response to the changes to the CBD PP are:

Key Planning Outcome 1 – Restore office and commercial floor space market certainty and investment confidence in the CBD

• The focus should be on increasing density south of the river to support capacity for jobs.

Key Planning Outcome 2 – Ensure Activation of Parramatta River

• Ensure regeneration along the southern side of the river is facilitated by reviewing the controls in the Phillip Street block whilst addressing the Department’s concerns about transition in building form.

Key Planning Outcome 3 – Provide a Planning Framework for land north of the Parramatta River

• Provide certainty for redevelopment along the light rail route and more broadly north of the river by developing a planning strategy that addresses the Department’s urban design and heritage concerns.

13. The State Government’s decision has created planning risk. There is no assurance that the Department would support a Site Specific Planning Proposal (‘SSPP’) for additional density without sufficiently addressing their concerns in a cumulative and holistic manner. This creates uncertainty for Council and applicants for SSPPs. It means decisions to progress new planning controls via a SSPP have a higher degree of risk. This high-risk planning environment creates an uncertain investment environment for development in the City.

14. Council has a significant role in influencing and managing this risk, by providing leadership and sound planning guidance to address the concerns of the Department and industry. It is important that developments that will deliver jobs capacity for the Parramatta CBD are not lost or unnecessarily delayed. Sustainable and efficient investment patterns occur when investors have increased certainty and confidence about planning application outcomes. Council officers are therefore recommending that the Department amend the LEP via a SEPP to address the concerns regarding commercial floorspace and the Phillip Street Block (as described in the recommendation). A SEPP process is the most efficient and effective way to address Key Planning Outcomes 1 and 2.

15. The principles that have influenced the Council officer’s recommendation are:

Principle 1 - Equitable Process and Opportunity for Involvement

• All landowners/stakeholders should follow the same consistent process and/or have the same opportunity to be involved in the process.

Principle 2 - Consistent Application of Policy

• Council should establish, support and advocate a policy framework that is applied consistently. This represents good decision making and maximises certainty and confidence for the investment market.

Principle 3 - Efficient Use of Resources

• Minimise the resources/ time Council and applicants use to get to final outcomes.

Principle 4 - Manage Planning Risk for Council and Applicant

• Obtaining the Department’s formal agreement and approach to address the concerns of Council and industry to minimise uncertainty and risk.

Principle 5 - Timely

• Council should seek to provide market certainty as soon possible.

ISSUES/OPTIONS

Unlimited Commercial Premises FSR / Unlimited Office Premises FSR

16. The CBD PP that was endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021 allowed for:

a. unlimited commercial premises FSR on certain land in the B4 Mixed Use zone as shown on the Additional Local Provisions Area Map.

b. unlimited office premises FSR in the B3 Commercial Core zone.

17. Both provisions were only meant to apply to sites that had an area of at least 1,800sqm. The intention of these provisions was to facilitate more employment generating development in the Parramatta CBD. Council Officers estimate that just in the Commercial B3 zoned land there was capacity for approximately 13,000 additional jobs in the CBD, which is now foregone due to their removal.

18. In finalising the CBD PP, the Department has removed both of these bonus provisions. The Department’s Plan Finalisation Report notes the following in relation to this matter:

“However, in finalising the proposal the Department undertook built form modelling which identified concerns that maximum building heights, inclusive of bonus (up to 243m) and unlimited FSR provisions could lead a proliferation of bulky buildings, homogenous built form outcomes, poor solar outcomes, walls of development fronting the Parramatta River, Church Street, George Street

and Prince Alfred Park, all areas of key historical importance. Concerns were also raised about the loss of blue-sky, potential for wind tunnel effects and a lack of built form transition.”

19. Council officers in briefings to Councillors on 11, 18 and 30 May and 15 June 2022 have discussed progression of an urban design study and economic study to retrieve jobs capacity lost because of the Department changes. The studies, at a cost of $60,000, could be undertaken by Council and inform a Council led Planning proposal to seek to change the controls.

20. Council officers have since held discussions with officers from the Department who introduced another option for Council to consider when responding to these issues. The Department is considering pursuing a State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) which would amend the LEP.

21. The Department have suggested that this mechanism could be used to introduce some of the floorspace previously proposed by Council but would seek to introduce an additional planning clause to address the urban design issues raised by the Department in it’s Plan Finalisation Report (refer to Attachment 3).

22. This SEPP (first SEPP) would introduce unlimited office floorspace in the B3 Commercial Core as shown in Figure 1, and that it could proceed without any public exhibition/consultation as the provision for unlimited office floorspace was exhibited as part of the CBD PP process endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021.

23. Council officers are recommending that a second SEPP be pursued to introduce additional FSR for commercial uses on certain land in the B4 Mixed Use zone as shown on the Additional Local Provisions Area Map, as well as B3 Commercial Core zoned land (not covered in the first SEPP) as shown in Figure 2. Council endorsed additional FSR on the land to be included in the second SEPP when the CBD PP was endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021. The difference however now is the FSR that would be introduced through this second SEPP would be allocated or specified (i.e. not unlimited commercial FSR) and based on urban design analysis prepared by the Department and in consultation with Council that addresses the issues identified in the Department’s Plan Finalisation Report.

24. The senior officers from the Department at the briefing session with Councillors on 13 July 2022 clarified that the further work being undertaken to address the issues in the Department’s Plan Finalisation Report is a continuum of Council and the Department’s policy framework for the Parramatta CBD. The Department wants to partner with Council to prepare this work expeditiously and efficiently utilising Department resources, and strongly supports regular communication updates with the community.

Figure 1: SEPP Amendment for the Commercial Core

25. Table 1 below assesses the original option presented to Councillors (Option 1) being that Council prepare the required studies that inform a Council-led Planning Proposal, and the SEPP option (Option 2) against the planning principles described above.

Table 1: Comparison of Council led Planning Proposal v SEPP process to restore office floorspace capacity

	Option 1 – Council pursue studies and Council led Planning Proposal	Option 2 - Department led SEPP process (as recommended – i.e. 2 SEPPs)
Key Planning Outcome 1 - Restore office and commercial floor space market certainty and investment confidence in the CBD.	Council process would address this, albeit it the process will take longer	The Department’s option would address this quickly
Principle 1 - Equitable Process and Opportunity for Involvement	Allows applicable land to be considered via one process.	Prioritises increasing FSR for office uses in the B3 zoned commercial area as shown in Figure 1; and then considers increases to FSR for commercial and office uses in areas in Figure 2.
Principle 2 - Consistent Application of Policy	Allows for a consistent application of policy	Allows for a consistent application of policy.
Principle 3 - Efficient Use of Resources	It would only be efficient if Council did not process SSPPs.	SEPP process is the most efficient way to amend the LEP compared to a Planning Proposal with lower impact on council resources.
Principle 4 - Manage Planning Risk for Council and Applicant	Manages planning risk as it provides an assessment framework, albeit it the process will take longer	Manages planning risk as it provides assessment framework for all sites in CBD quickly.
Principle 5 - Timely	Timely if Council does not pursue SSPPs at the same time otherwise both Council study and SSPPs will be slowed down	Provides a more timely outcome

26. Council officers note that the Department legally can pursue the SEPP approach without Council’s agreement; however, the strong preference is for the Council and the Department to partner together and undertake the work collaboratively, with regular updates to the community on the progression of the work. It is noted that some landowners in the areas subject to the possible SEPPs, have been advocating to senior Council officers about the need to reflect Council endorsed position in the final LEP, and have also advised they have been making similar representations to the Minister for Planning and the Department. The areas subject to the SEPPs are strategically important areas. Promoting jobs growth and investment in these precincts is a key pillar in delivering economic and other complementary benefits to the CBD and the residents of Parramatta and Western Sydney, and there has been substantial development interest in this precinct in recent years.

Figure 2: Areas to be subject of the second SEPP amendment recommended by Council officers (area hatched)

27. Given the benefits to the City, it is recommended that:

a. Council request the Department pursue a SEPP to increase commercial floor space in the existing B3 Commercial Core (as per Figure 1); and

b. Council request the Department to pursue a SEPP to increase commercial floor space on certain land in the existing B4 Mixed Use and B3 Commercial Core zones not covered by the first SEPP (as per Figure 2), that is based on urban design analysis in consultation with Council.

28. If the Department agreed to pursue the SEPP processes this would deliver amended planning controls in a manner that achieves the key planning outcomes and be more equitable, efficient in terms of resources and timely than a Council led approach. This approach would also better address the principles Council officers are recommending should guide the process.

Phillip Street Block

29. The CBD PP endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021 included the street block bound by Parramatta River, Charles, Phillip and Smith Streets (referred to as the “Phillip Street Block”) for up-zoning. The CBD PP allowed for an incentive FSR of 10:1 (12:1 with bonuses), incentive height of 211m(RL) (243m(RL) with bonuses), unlimited commercial premises FSR and also Opportunity Sites FSR of 3:1.

30. In finalising the CBD PP, the Department has removed this area. As a consequence of this removal, the Phillip Street Block retains its existing controls, which allow for a height of 80m (25 storeys) (92m/100m* (32 Storeys) with bonuses) and 6:1 FSR (6.9:1/7.5:1* with bonuses).

*Note. A 25% bonus would be applicable for a purely commercial development under existing controls.

31. The Department notes urban design related issues as justification for its removal of this precinct from the CBD PP. The Department’s Plan Finalisation Report notes the following in relation to this matter:

“Submissions from the National Trust of Australia (NSW Branch) raised concerns about the proposal in relation to river, advising it considered the heights of the buildings and their setbacks adjacent to the river need to acknowledge the cultural and historical significance of this landscape.

The Department’s built form modelling similarly raised concerns that the proposed building heights and FSRs along the river foreshore permit development that would visually dominate the scale of the river. In response to Department’s modelling an independent rapid urban design assessment was commissioned.

This report found that Parramatta has a unique relationship with its river and the CBD PP risks jeopardising this relationship for future generations. The report also notes recent development along the river appears to commercialise the foreshore and visually dominates the river corridor. This type of development is similar to Barangaroo in Sydney, but the river is substantially different in scale and aspect to Sydney Harbour. The resulting massing controls could result in built form that detracts from the character of the river and could adversely impact Parramatta’s identity and its desirability as a place to live and work.”

32. The option Council officers presented at Councillor briefings on 11, 18 and 30 May and 15 June 2022 was for Council to pursue an urban design analysis. However, it is now recommended that this block be included in the second SEPP. Council Officers could work with the Department in a partnership that deliver a more timely response to restore market confidence. The justification for this is as follows:

a. Significant urban design analysis has already been undertaken in this precinct. This previous study work just needs to be reworked in a form that supports a new SEPP.

b. Based on the previous analysis undertaken, Council officers are comfortable that an FSR greater than the current FSR of 6:1 can be achieved in this precinct, without adversely impacting the river.

c. Given the concerns raised by the Department pursuing the previously endorsed planning controls is unlikely to be successful.

d. In accordance with Key Planning Outcome 2 Council needs to make regeneration of these sites feasible if we are going to get a better interface with the river, including with active frontages. It is noted that the existing buildings in this precinct ‘turn their backs’ to the river and there is a poor interface currently. Some up-zoning is required to encourage urban regeneration. This will help to facilitate Council’s vision for the river as a vibrant and activated public space.

North Parramatta

33. The CBD PP endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021 included the area north of the Parramatta River for up-zoning as a part of the overall CBD precinct. The endorsed CBD PP generally allowed for incentive heights of 80m (25 storeys) (92m (29 storeys) with bonuses) and incentive FSRs of 6:1 (7.2:1 with bonuses).

34. In finalising the CBD PP, the Department has removed the area north of the Parramatta River from the proposal and consequently the area will retain its existing planning controls. Existing controls generally allow for 24m/36m height (7-11 storeys) and 3:1/4:1 FSR, although it is noted that there are two sites currently with higher FSRs of 4.8:1 and 6:1 and higher heights of 49m and 80m, (15 or 25 storeys) respectively. The Department notes a number of urban design and heritage concerns as justification for their position on the removal of this area. The Department’s Plan Finalisation Report notes the following in relation to this matter:

“In response to these concerns the Department recommends the area of land known as Parramatta North not be progressed as part of this plan. This allows further consideration to be given to the provision of development within proximity to the Parramatta Light Rail, transitions, solar access, lower building heights and FSR along the river, consideration of the adjoining HCA and heritage attributes generally, community concerns, amenity, and character. It is noted that Council is currently undertaking a review of planning provisions within the planning investigation areas and this may provide opportunity to review holistically providing a more complete picture of future character and built form transition.”

35. Council officers recommend Council pursue a comprehensive study for North Parramatta that incorporates urban design, heritage and economic analysis, and then following this study, prepare a Precinct Planning Proposal to implement the findings of this study.

36. The issues identified in the Department’s Plan Finalisation Report for North Parramatta have a level of complexity that is greater than the issues south of the river. The following issues contribute to the complexity of resolving planning controls:

· The Department suggested any future review should consider adjoining areas, so a review of the study area boundary is required

· The previous studies undertaken may not cover some of the areas included in any future study area. South of the river any review would be assisted by previous studies; however, this may not be the case north of the river

· Council received numerous submissions when the CBD PP was exhibited highlighting community concern about the future character of this area with potentially disparate view of how any change should be managed. There is a broader consensus south of the river that greater densities are required to support the growth of the CBD than there are north of the river

37. In order to address the complexity above, Council officers are of the view that Council are better placed to review the controls and determine what the future character of the North Parramatta area should be.

38. However, this exercise would involve significant resources (estimated cost – up to $500,000), and Council should seek funding from the Department to undertake this work given the significant expense of previous studies prepared and that it was the Department’s decision to have the precinct removed from the CBD PP. The justification for this approach is as follows:

a. In accordance with ‘Key Planning Outcome 3’ regeneration of this area should be supported given the introduction of Parramatta Light Rail - it would be a missed opportunity not to review the controls in this area in light of the significant infrastructure investment by Government. Further, the area is already identified as a part of the “Parramatta City Centre” under the current Parramatta LEP 2011.

b. The Department has agreed to provide assessment criteria for the review so as to ensure their heritage and urban design concerns are addressed in this new phase of work.

c. Enables a visioning/consultation exercise with landowners and other stakeholders, including Councillors, to be undertaken so as to help guide the future for this precinct. A visioning document could then be endorsed by Council which would then inform a Precinct Planning Proposal.

39. The planning controls for North Parramatta are a contentious issue with 76 submissions being received during the CBDPP consultation period. During the preparation of the CBD PP various studies were pursued to look at the contentious issues. Areas were deferred from the CBD PP to enable further analysis. The removal of these precincts led the Department to conclude in their Plan Finalisation Report that Council has not looked at the precinct holistically.

40. It is important that stakeholders are engaged and differing views about the future character of the precinct dealt with transparently so that a holistic approach can be taken. It is for this reason that Council officers recommend that consultation to establish a vision be undertaken and that the vision be endorsed by Council prior to commencing a Planning Proposal process. It will be important to involve and inform stakeholders during this process.

41. It is expected that the next 6 months would involve securing funding from the State Government, using the funding to recruit a Project Manager and then engaging consultants to enable work to commence in 2023. The Project would involve the following key milestones:

· Quarter 3 and 4 of 2022 – Secure funding, engage Project Manager and consultants, and determine revised study area based on the Department’s Plan Finalisation Report

· Quarter 1 and 2 of 2023 –Engage with community, landowners and key stakeholders to establish a vision for North Parramatta

· End of Quarter 2 2023 – Council endorse a vision document for the purposes of public consultation

· End Quarter 3 2023 – Council endorse commencement of Council led Planning Proposal

· Mid 2024 – Expected finalisation of Planning Controls

42. This timetable is contingent on receiving funding from the Department, how SSPPs are managed in this area and the Department agreeing to pursuing the recommended 2 SEPPs for land identified in Figures 1 and 2.

Opportunity Sites

43. “Opportunity Sites” were identified in the CBD PP as endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021. Opportunity Sites were shown mapped on an Opportunity Sites Map, and were significantly reduced by Council following a review in response to a Gateway Determination condition prior to exhibition. These sites were able to access a bonus FSR of 3:1, generally taking them from an FSR of 12:1 (including bonuses) to an FSR of 15:1, subject to meeting certain requirements, including:

a. Minimum site area of 1800sqm and minimum dimensions of 40m x 35m (corner sites) and 40m x 40m for all other sites.

b. Preparation of a site-specific DCP.

44. In finalising the CBD PP, the Department removed the Opportunity Sites control and supporting map. The Department’s Plan Finalisation Report discusses urban design related concerns in the rationale for their position, including the pressure an FSR of 15:1 would have on setbacks, resulting in bulky built form, and the impacts this would have on tower slenderness and tower separation.

45. Council officers recommend Council not pursue any controls that seek to re-introduce the Opportunity Sites bonus as removed by the Department. The justification for this is as follows:

a. Opportunity Sites were only intended to apply to a limited number of particular sites in the B4 Mixed Use Zone. The removal of the control does not have a broader effect on the wider CBD area.

b. Opportunity Sites were originally introduced as part of Council’s proposed infrastructure funding strategy, linked to a “Phase 2” value uplift of 50%. This has been replaced by the new s7.12 contributions plan and is no longer relevant.

c. In accordance with Key Planning Outcome 1 detailed in the previous section of the report any additional floor space to be pursued on these sites should be focused on jobs rather than housing.

d. Bonus FSR on these sites could be considered as part of the response to the removal of the Unlimited Commercial Floor Space bonus (refer to discussion below).

e. Council already undertook a review of Opportunity Sites in response to a Gateway Determination condition, so there is potentially little value in undertaking a further review given the previous work undertaken.

Community Infrastructure Principles

46. The CBD PP endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021 included a provision that allowed for community infrastructure principles. The provisions were intended to operate in a way that required development to comply with the community infrastructure principles to access increased heights and FSRs. The draft plan contained base height and FSR controls which identified the controls in place prior to the CBD PP commencing with the new higher FSR and height shown on incentive maps. To be able to develop to the incentive height and FSR a contribution to community infrastructure was required. The contribution was based on a value capture model where the contribution would be calculated as a proportion of the land value uplift attributable to the extra development potential allowed by the incentive height and FSR.

47. The origin of these provisions related to Council’s infrastructure funding strategy through a proposed value sharing mechanism that was changed as a result of the release of a Department Practice Note on Planning Agreements that restricted the use of value capture (and was then effectively replaced with a S7.12 Contributions Plan). The proposed community infrastructure principles read as follows:

(a) Public access to the community infrastructure network has been maximised in the design of the development.

(b) There is appropriate community infrastructure in place or planned to meet the needs of the proposed development acknowledging the additional density permissible under this clause.

(c) The development includes community infrastructure where the size of the site, the location of the site, and the nature of the development will allow for the provision of that community infrastructure.

48. In finalising the CBD PP, the Department has removed the community infrastructure principles provisions and also consolidated the base/incentive FSR and height maps into standard format FSR and height maps, with the incentives height and FSR identified as the maximum provisions for each site. The Department’s Plan Finalisation Report notes the following in relation to this matter:

“In February 2021 the Department released the Practice Note on Planning Agreements confirming that value capture should not be the primary purpose of planning agreements. In its post exhibition consideration of the proposal, Council noted this policy and amended the planning proposal to include community infrastructure principles, rather than requirements. Council has also since adopted a draft 7.12 contribution plan to capture contributions towards local infrastructure, which is currently being considered by the Department due to the requested increase levy rate requiring approval of the Minister.

The Department acknowledges that Council has sought to address this policy direction through its post exhibition changes and that work is underway to plan strategically for the delivery of local infrastructure. It is considered that the amended proposal’s community infrastructure principles would still suggest a level of value capture is required to access the higher planning controls. As such, the Department has made a further post exhibition change to remove the community infrastructure clause and consolidate the building height and FSR provisions into one map, retaining the incentive provisions as the maximums. This will also provide greater certainty to potential development outcomes and allow for ease of understanding when viewing controls.”

49. Council officers recommend Council not pursue any controls that seek to re-introduce Community Infrastructure principles in the LEP. The justification for this is as follows:

a. These principles were originally recommended to support the Council’s infrastructure funding strategy through a proposed value-sharing approach. This approach was changed due to the effect of a Department Practice Note on Planning Agreements that restricted their use for value capture.

b. Given that Council has now switched to a Section 7.12 Contributions Plan with higher rates to fund infrastructure this is no longer relevant.

Site-Specific Planning Proposals in the Parramatta CBD

50. Council currently has eight (8) site-specific planning proposals (‘SSPPs’) in the CBD area that are under assessment. Some of these SSPPs have now been adversely affected by the changes made by the Department to the CBD PP, as they were relying on policy outcomes that had been previously endorsed by Council in the CBD PP, for example the unlimited office premises FSR provisions being removed. As result of this, Council officers are anticipating that applicants may want to pursue these SSPPs on their individual merits, given the CBD PP has not delivered the policy outcomes they were expecting. Further, Council officers are anticipating the lodgment of new SSPPs for other sites that were relying on the policy outcomes of the original CBD PP as endorsed by Council. These new SSPPs are also likely to argue their case to be considered on their own individual merits.

51. There are numerous learnings Council officers have gained whilst pursing the CBD PP process. One key issue that significantly contributed to the CBD PP timeframe (it took 9 years to reach finalisation) was the impacts of progressing SSPPs. At its peak the number of SSPPs in the CBD was in the order of 30 applications. Progressing these applications had the following impacts:

a. Early in the process it created a difficult environment where SSPPs were being assessed at the same time as the detailed analysis to support the CBD PP framework was being progressed. There was significant planning risk at that time. This meant SSPPs would sit dormant for long periods because Council Officers were unable to progress them without a policy framework. Pre-lodgment meetings, responding to applicant enquires and preliminary assessment of these SSPPs meant resources were diverted away from formulating the CBD PP framework. This delayed both the CBD PP and caused frustration for applicants and Councillors about the time it was taking to process SSPPs.

b. Once Council had endorsed the CBD PP for the purpose of requesting a gateway it was possible to assess these against Council’s endorsed policy framework. The SSPP applications could proceed because there was a clear framework but there was a significant number of SSPPs all trying to be progressed at once. Both the CBD PP and SSPPs were proposing to deliver the same set of planning controls but in a very inefficient manner. Council was effectively pursuing two separate processes to achieve exactly the same planning policy outcome on these sites. This resulted in significant delay for both SSPPs and the CBD PP.

c. Progressing of some of these SSPPs ultimately resulted in inconsistent policy outcomes. Some SSPP sites achieved opportunity site bonuses and unlimited FSR because they were able to be finalised before the CBD PP and before the Department made its decision to amend the CBD PP.

52. Progressing SSPPs at the same time as Council is progressing a Council led Planning Proposal (in the case for North Parramatta), or the Department is pursuing a SEPP based review is inconsistent with the guiding principles officers are suggesting should be pursued refer to Table 2.

Table 2 – Consistency of SSPPs with the Guiding Principles

Principle 1 - Equitable Process and Opportunity for Involvement

SSPPs require Council to consider some sites via a different process to those being pursued by a Council or Department led process.

For Planning Proposals there are different exhibition periods at different times and the ability to consider cumulative impact issues is significantly decreased.

Principle 2 - Consistent Application of Policy

Progressing SSPPs and the CBD PP at the same time meant some sites in the CBD achieved controls (ie 470 Church Street achieved 6:1 in North Parramatta, 2 Valentine Avenue achieved unlimited commercial floor space in B4 Zone) that by the end of the process were not part of the controls finalised by the Department through Amendment 56.

SSPPs significantly increase the risk the planning policy will not be applied consistently.

Principle 3 - Efficient Use of Resources

Pursuing SSPPs and Council led PP/ Department led SEPPs at same time is effectively pursuing the same outcome via two separate and parallel processes. It is not efficient to pursue two processes to achieve the same outcome. When the task is complete one of the processes will have been a waste of time.

The experience with the CBD PP and SSPPs is recent evidence of this and results in significant delays and longer periods of uncertainty.

Principle 4 - Manage Planning Risk for Council and Applicant

Pursuing SSPPs without the foundation of a Planning Policy Framework increases the risk that SSPPs will not be supported by Council and/or Department officers and that Council and applicants will utilise resources to pursue SSPPs that do not lead to any of the Key Planning Outcomes being achieved.

Principle 5 - Timely

The experience with the CBD PP is that the insistence by applicants that they could not wait for the CBD PP led to an influx of SSPPs that resulted in very long processing times for SSPPs and contributed to the CBD PP process extending across 9 years.

Focusing on a Council led PP or Department led SEPPs without SSPP to deflect resources and attention will result in a more timely outcome for all parties in the CBD.

SSPPs for sites south of the River within the areas subject to the two SEPPs

53. Council officers remain concerned that submission of a number of SSPPs at the same time as Council or the Department are undertaking a review will delay achievement of an amended planning framework in a timely manner. However, the extent of the impact depends on the Department’s approach. If the Department are willing to undertake a review of the identified land in Figures 1 and 2 via two SEPP based reviews within the timeframe as recommended, the likelihood that Council will receive an influx of new SSPPs is reduced.

54. Table 3 below identifies the SSPPs that will be influenced by the two SEPPs.

Table 3 – status of SSPPs within the areas subject to the two SEPPs

SSPP Site

Status

Zoning / Location

110 George Street

SSPP not reported to Council as controls were consistent with that being delivered via CBD PP. The Minister’s decision to remove unlimited office floor space means the SSPP is now inconsistent with the Minster endorsed CBD PP (through Amendment 56).

B3 Commercial Core

Located within the area that will be addressed by the first SEPP process.

90-96 Phillip Street

SSPP not yet reported to Council. Proposed controls consistent with Council endorsed CBD PP but inconsistent with Minster endorsed CBD PP (through Amendment 56).

B4 Mixed Use

Located in the area that will be addressed by the second SEPP process.

57 Macquarie Street

SSPP not yet reported to Council. SSPP not consistent with Council or Minister endorsed PP due to sliding scale application.

B4 Mixed Use

Would not be subject to the second SEPP as the site is not shown on the Additional Local Provisions Map in the CBD PP, therefore will continue as a SSPP post finalisation of the second SEPP

St John’s Church Site

Revised Gateway issued by Department on 12 July 2022 requires SSPP to be finalised by 30 November 2022. SSPP seeks FSR consistent with the principles of the CBD PP, but not as endorsed by the Minister through Amendment 56.

An understanding of the analysis/outcome of the SEPPs is required prior to progression of this SSPP.

The recommendation of the report for the Council Meeting on 11 July noted the necessity for an extension to the timeframe within the Gateway Determination for the finalisation St John’s Planning Proposal. Reference removed from the recommendation of this report (for 25 July 2022 Council Meeting) as the Department issued an extension on 12 July 2022 as described above.

B4 Mixed Use seeking part rezoning to B3 Commercial Core

SSPPs for sites north of the Parramatta River

55. Council have had discussions with a number of applicants interested in lodging SSPPs north of the Parramatta River to seek to progress FSR increases of a similar scale to those proposed in the Council endorsed CBD PP. Until the study discussed in the previous section of this report for this area is complete and sufficiently addresses the concerns of the Department, Council will have no framework to assess these SSPPs. For this reason it is recommended that Council write to the Department/Minister seeking advice on how new SSPPs north of the River should be managed.

56. The only current SSPP with Council in this area is for the McDonalds site (corner of Victoria Road and Church Street) which seeks to apply a site specific car parking rate for the McDonalds restaurant. The applicant has advised that they are considering their position and it is possible that this application will be withdrawn. However, this SSPP does not involve any increase in density and there is no planning reason why this application can not proceed.

57. It is noted that the applicant originally sought a site specific FSR of 6:1 consistent with the CBD PP as endorsed by Council in June 2021 to enable a new mixed use development including new McDoanlds restaurant. However, during the assessment process, those planning controls consistent with the CBD PP were removed from the SSPP, and therefore the car parking rate remained the only matter for the SSPP.

Development Contributions Plan

58. The Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan endorsed by the Council on 25 October 2021 proposed Section 7.12 levies within the entire Parramatta City Centre be increased from the current 3% to the following:

a. Residential Accommodation or Mixed-Use Development where the total development cost is over $250,000 — 5%

b. Other development where the total development cost is over $250,000 — 4%

c. Any development where the total development cost is $250,000 or less — Nil.

59. The CBD PP the Minister endorsed on 6 May 2022 did not permit any increase in permitted density in the Phillips Street block (as defined previously in this report) or any land north of the Parramatta River. As a result, a further report was presented to Council on 14 June 2022 advising that given no uplift in density had been permitted, developers of sites in these precincts should not be required to pay the increased contribution rate but instead retain the current rate of 3%.

60. If the Department is willing to pursue the second SEPP this results in increases in the permitted FSR for the Phillips Street block, the increased rates described above should be applied to this block.

61. Any changes to the rates applied for the land north of the Parramatta River should be considered as part of future studies and process described above in this report.

Exceptions

62. Planning Proposals in any part of the CBD that do not seek increases in the permitted density of development will not impact on these studies and can still be assessed ahead of the studies being finalised. Examples include changes to planning standards such as parking rates or land reservations. One example that officers are pursing is a minor increase in the building height at the Riverside Theatre site to enable the redevelopment of the theatre without any increase in FSR proposed for the site.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
18 May 2022	Department	General discussion about CBD PP finalisation.	Council officers advised that Council is currently formulating its response to the Department’s changes (which includes consultation with Councillors).	Strategic Land Use Planning Team
28 June 2022	Property Council and Western Sydney Business Chambers including impacted members	Raised concerns about timing of response, impact on investment and any proposal to limit progression of SSPPs	Issues addressed in body of this report. The Department’s proposal to pursue a SEPP is likely to address the concerns of a number of these stakeholders.	Executive Director City Planning and Design
29 June 2022	Department – Senior Executive	Department is proposing to lead a review and utilise a SEPP to amend CBD planning controls to the existing B3 zoned area to address commercial floor space capacity.	Officers support this approach but consider it should be used to address concerns across a wider portion of the CBD.	Executive Director City Planning and Design
7 July 2022	Department – Senior Executive	Department in response to issues raised by Council officers on 29 June 2022 are supportive of a second SEPP for certain B4 and B3 land.	Officers support this approach	Executive Director City Planning and Design

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
11, 18 & 30 May and 15 June 2022	Councillor Workshops	Councillors were broadly supportive of Officer positions about the Key Planning Outcomes but there were varying views on whether a SSPP moratorium should be supported	This report has sought to address the concerns raised by Councillors.	Strategic Land Use Planning Team
6 July 2022	Councillor briefing session	Councillors were broadly supportive of Council officer positions in regard to the SEPPs; and emphasised the importance of Department consultation with Council particularly in relation to the preparation of the study that will inform the second SEPP.	This supplementary report has sought to address the concerns raised by Councillors.	Strategic Land Use Planning Team
13 July 2022	Councillor briefing session	Following a presentation by senior officers from DPE, Councillors asked questions of DPE and Council officers about the SEPP processes, scope, timing and consultation.	The report as it appeared on the Business Paper for the 11 July 2022 Council Meeting has been updated to address matters arising from the 13 July briefing session being: continuum of work on the policy framework for the CBD, updates for the community and partnership between Council and DPE to prepare the work. The updates to the report are at the Recommendation (c)(1) and (2); and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8, 24, 26 and 54; and this paragraph (No. 64).	Strategic Land Use Planning Team

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

65. There are no legal implications for Council in association with this matter.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

66. In relation to the comprehensive study incorporating urban design, heritage and economic analysis at North Parramatta that is estimated to cost up to $500,000, including staff resources and consultant study costs, this work is not proposed to commence until there is a funding commitment from the Department to fully fund the project work program. This work is not budgeted within existing staff resources and consultancy budgets and therefore cannot be undertaken without Department funding. However, should funding be received from the Department then the work could be undertaken and consequently there would be no financial implications for Council in relation to this matter.

67. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of the Council officer recommendations, as detailed in this report.

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

Funding Source

Operating Result
External Costs
Internal Costs
Depreciation
Other
Total Operating Result	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Janelle Scully

Land Use Planning Team Leader

Robert Cologna

Group Manager, Strategic Land Use Planning

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Jennifer Concato

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	CBD PP Post LEP Notification - Letter to Council to CEO from Department Deputy Secretary dated 3 May 2022	1 Page
2 ⇩	Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No 56) as made	24 Pages
3 ⇩	Amendment 56 Plan Finalisation Report - NSW Department of Planning and Environment	63 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 25 July 2022 Item 13.5

REPORTS TO COUNCIL - FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.5

SUBJECT Draft Community and Crown Land Plan of Management

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08386012

REPORT OF Senior Open Space & Natural Area Planner

csp theme: GREEN

workshop/briefing date: Nil

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the draft Community and Crown Land Plan of Management for referral to the Department of Planning and Environment (Crown Lands) and for public exhibition in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse the draft Community and Crown Land Plan of Management for public exhibition for a minimum of 42 days in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

(b) That Council seek approval from the Department of Planning and Environment (Crown Lands) to publicly exhibit the draft Community and Crown Land Plan of Management.

(c) That Council refer the draft Community and Crown Land Plan of Management to the owners of land under Council care, control and management for comment prior to public exhibition.

(d) Further, that a report be submitted to Council upon the completion of the public exhibition period for consideration of any submissions received and approval of the final Community and Crown Land Plan of Management.

BACKGROUND

1. Council manages 380 parks and reserves that comprise over 1500 parcels of land reserved for public purposes and community use, such as parks, sporting fields and bushland. This includes ‘Community’ land managed under the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) as well as ‘Crown’ land managed in accordance with the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLM Act).

2. Community land comprises land under Council ownership and land owned by other government agencies under the Council care, control and management (excluding Crown land). The LG Act requires that all Community land be managed in accordance with a plan of management (PoM) consistent with the prescribed core objectives for the land category assigned to the land. It prescribes that a PoM is to:

· categorise the land based upon its characteristics and intended use/s

· identify core objectives, performance targets and actions

· authorise permissible activities and uses (including leases and licences)

3. Crown land is owned by the NSW Government and can be reserved or dedicated for a public purpose, such as Public Recreation or Environmental Protection, under the CLM Act. Council can be appointed as ‘Crown Land Manager’ to manage the land on behalf of the NSW Government. It must be managed consistent with the gazetted reserve purpose/s.

4. The CLM Act commenced on 1 July 2018 and authorises Council to manage Crown land for which it has been appointed as Crown Land Manager as public land under the LG Act. This legislation requires Council categorise and prepare a new PoM for all dedicated and reserved Crown land under its management.

5. Local government boundary changes in May 2016 created the City of Parramatta LGA and facilitated the transfer of Community and Crown land formerly managed by five (5) different LGAs (Auburn, Holroyd, Hornsby, Parramatta and The Hills) to the City of Parramatta LGA. These changes resulted in thirteen (13) different PoMs adopted between 1997 and 2014 now applying to Community and Crown land managed by Council. This has created an inconsistent and unnecessarily complex management framework.

6. The existing PoMs adopted by Auburn, Holroyd, Hornsby, Parramatta, and The Hills LGAs previously categorised most of the Community land now managed by Council. Any Community land recently transferred under Council ownership and not covered by the existing thirteen (13) PoMs requires categorisation in accordance with the guidelines under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.

7. The CLM Act also required Council to assign an initial land category to all Crown Land under its management. This was to be based upon the category most closely aligned to the purposes for which the land was dedicated or reserved, being:

Reservation Purpose	LG Act Category
Access	General Community Use
Cemetery	General Community Use
Environmental Protection	Natural Area
Public Recreation	Park

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. Community and Crown land is currently managed under thirteen (13) PoMs adopted between 1997 and 2014. These existing PoMs require significant update to reflect legislative and policy changes, as well as current community values and evolving management issues. Significant population growth and increasing urban densities also requires Council to maximise the activation and capacity of its Community and Crown land.

9. The draft Community and Crown Land Plan of Management (CCLPoM) consolidates and updates the existing PoMs (Attachment 1). It will apply to all parks and reserves under Council management to ensure legislative compliance, remove unnecessary duplication and provide a consistent and transparent decision-making framework based on community values, key management issues and other Council strategies, plans and policies.

10. The draft CCLPoM provides a broad management framework and is not intended to facilitate any significant changes to ongoing management or use. It does not include any provisions specific to individual parks and reserves. Site-specific landscape masterplans, as well as other Council strategies and plans, such as the Community Infrastructure Strategy, will continue to guide upgrades and other on-ground works.

Infrastructure and Use

11. The CCLPoM permits a broad range of activities, facilities and uses to maximise the activation and enjoyment of Community and Crown land. It also authorises a diversity of purposes for which Council can grant leases, licences and other estates over Community and Crown land based upon the land categorisation as required under the LG Act. These authorised purposes are consistent with the community land category core objectives, as well as the dedication or reservation purpose for Crown land to ensure compliance with legislative requirements.

12. Any works undertaken on or use of Community and Crown land must be in the public interest and compatible with the carrying capacity and intended function of the land as well as the wider surrounding community and environmental context. All proposed activities and infrastructure will continue to be assessed on an individual case-by-case basis and are subject to other applicable legislative assessment or approval requirements.

Community Values

13. Community values are essential consideration in the management of Community and Crown land to ensure that it meets current and future needs and expectations. A community survey was undertaken to capture current community values and to provide insights into community use of Council parks and reserves to inform the draft CCLPoM. This engagement identified the following key values for Community and Crown land:

· natural settings including shade trees, bushland and habitat

· places and facilities to walk, exercise, and train/compete for sport

· free and accessible places for people of all ages and abilities

· clean waterways and good water quality

· well-maintained places free from waste, weeds and pests, antisocial behaviour and vandalism

14. A Social Return on Investment assessment of Council parks and sportsgrounds has also highlighted Community and Crown land benefits to the community. It identifies the following values that have also provided a basis for the draft CCLPoM actions and performance targets:

· Access to quality green open space is beneficial for physical and mental health and wellbeing

· Green open space improves social connections and supports the development of vibrant communities by providing a place for activity and opportunities to interact

· Accessible and safe green open spaces foster active play, which is associated with physical, cognitive and social benefits for children

· Residents in high rise dwellings benefit from the provision of accessible green space.

Core Objectives and Management Issues

15. Council must manage Community and Crown land in accordance with the core objectives prescribed for the assigned land category under the LG Act. This legislation also requires that a PoM includes:

· core objectives and performance targets

· means by which Council proposes to achieve the objectives and performance targets (Actions)

· manner in which Council proposes to assess performance with respect to objectives and performance targets (Indicators).

16. A review of existing PoMs and internal stakeholder team workshops identified key management issues that can impact community values and core objectives for Community and Crown land. The draft CCLPoM identifies performance targets, actions and indicators to address these management issues, which include:

· Access and Connectivity

· Biodiversity and Ecology

· Community Education and Involvement

· Contamination

· Cultural Heritage

· Domestic and Pest Animals

· Erosion and Stormwater

· Fire Management

· Litter and Dumping

· Maintenance

· Planning

· Recreational Facilities and Use

· Safety and Risk Management

· Unauthorised Use and Encroachments

Land Categorisation

17. Community land categorisation must be in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 (Attachment 2). This includes one or more of the following categories:

· General Community Use

· Natural Area (Bushland, Wetland, Escarpment, Watercourse, Foreshore)

· Park

· Sportsground

· Area of Cultural Significance

Multiple categories can apply to an individual park or reserve but are not to overlap. Where multiple categories apply, they are to be clearly illustrated by maps within a PoM.

18. The CCLPoM does not categorise any Community or Crown Land as an ‘Area of Cultural Significance’ consistent with the existing PoMs. Any land subsequently identified with Aboriginal, aesthetic, archaeological, historical, technical or research significance could be considered for future categorisation as an ‘Area of Cultural Significance’ and would require a specific PoM.

19. The majority of Crown land under Council management were initially required to be categorised as ‘Park’ as has been dedicated or reserved for a ‘public recreation’ purpose. This initial categorisation is inconsistent for land that comprises bushland or sporting fields. The draft CCLPoM provides the mechanism to re-categorise Crown reserves to reflect their characteristics and intended use/s more appropriately.

20. A review of existing land categorisation was undertaken to ensure that categories are applied consistently for all Community and Crown land within the CCLPoM in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. Most parks and reserves covered by existing PoMs have retained their existing land categorisation or are only subject to minor refinements to improve consistency throughout the LGA. No significant changes to categorisation are proposed within the CCLPOM except where there have been substantial landuse changes, such as a new sportsground, or where the Crown land reservation purpose is inconsistent with the land characteristics.

21. Any new or amended categorisation proposed within the CCLPoM will be subject to a public hearing during the public exhibition period as required under the LG Act. This will include land recently transferred under Council ownership and any significant alteration of existing categorisation to better reflect land characteristics and ensure overall consistency. The hearing is required to be chaired by an independent facilitator and will provide the community with an opportunity to review the proposed categorisation/s and discuss any concerns.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

22. The draft CCLPoM includes land under Council care, control and management that is owned by other government authorities. Section 39 of the LG Act requires that a draft PoM be referred to relevant government landowners for comment prior to public exhibition. As the CCLPoM will amend the initial land categorisation applied to some Crown reserves, the CLM Act also requires Ministerial approval prior to public exhibition.

23. Section 38 of the LG Act requires a draft PoM be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days with a minimum 42-day submission period. A community engagement plan has been developed to guide community and stakeholder engagement in accordance with legislative requirements. This includes a minimum of 42-day public exhibition period following government landowner consultation and Ministerial approval of the draft CCLPoM. An independently chaired public hearing will also be held during the public exhibition period.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
3 Dec 2019 (Internal Workshops)	Representatives from Community Capacity, Events, Parks, Place Services, Property, Regulatory, OS&NR, Recreation teams	8 workshops with internal stakeholder teams to identify key management issues	Feedback collated to develop a Community and Crown land management issues paper. Refer Attachment 3.	Open Space and Natural Resources
16 Nov – 14 Dec 2020 (Stage 1 Consultation)	Community Survey (Stage 1)	116 submissions. Refer Key Findings Report at Attachment 4	Feedback informed the community values and key management issues in the draft plan of management	Open Space and Natural Resources
Sep – Oct 2021 (Draft CCLPoM Internal Review)	Capital Projects, City Strategy, Cleansing, Community Capacity, Events, Parks, Place, Property, Regulatory, OS&NR, Recreation Urban Design teams	Draft CCLPoM referred to internal stakeholder teams for review and feedback	Feedback collated and minor amendments incorporated into draft CCLPoM	Open Space and Natural Resources
12 Oct 2021 (Draft CCLPoM Legal Review)	Legal Services	Draft CCLPoM referred to Legal Services team to ensure compliance with legislative requirements	Advised the draft CCLPoM complies with relevant legislation	Open Space and Natural Resources

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
9 Nov 2020 (Briefing Note)	All Councillors	No feedback received	Advise Councillors of Stage 1 Community Consultation	Open Space and Natural Resources
24 June 2022	All Councillors	TBC	Brief Councillors on the draft CCLPoM prior to seeking public exhibition endorsement	Open Space and Natural Resources

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

26. Under the CLM Act, Council is required to ensure Crown land is managed in accordance with the requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (NT Act). Whilst there are no current native title claims over Crown land under Council management, any proposed public works on Crown land require Council to notify the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative body in accordance with procedural rights under the NT Act.

27. The NT Act also requires that the advice of a qualified ‘native title manager’ be obtained for a PoM that authorises public works or tenure over the land that may affect native title. A ‘native title manager’ has reviewed the draft CCLPoM and provided written advice to Council as required under the NT Act (Attachment 5). This advice confirms that activities authorised under the draft CCLPoM are valid ‘future acts’ under the NT Act subject to minor amendments that have now been incorporated.

28. The LG Act permits Council to grant leases and licences over Community land for a period of up to 30 years (including any period for which they could be renewed by the exercise of an option). It requires that any leases, licences or other estates (with the exception of filming or public utilities) must be ‘expressly authorised’ in a PoM. These must be consistent with the applicable land category core objectives under the LG Act as well as the reservation or dedication purpose for Crown land under the CLM Act. Any activities authorised under the CCLPOM may also require development consent, permits or approvals under other legislation.

29. Council is required to adopt a new PoM for Crown land that ensures authorised lease and licence purposes are a valid ‘future act’ consistent with reservation or dedication purpose. As Crown land manager, Council is permitted to grant temporary licences for up to 12 months or to renew existing leases and licences pending the adoption of a new compliant PoM.

30. Council is therefore not able to grant new leases, or licences greater than 12 months, over Crown land without a new compliant PoM being in-force. This new draft CCLPoM will ensure a consistent approach to leases and licenses over Community land.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

31. The consultancy fees for preparation of the CCLPoM were funded by a $33K grant from the NSW Office of Local Government. Public exhibition is to be undertaken in partnership with Councils Community Engagement Team, which will primarily utilise the ‘Participate Parramatta’ engagement portal. Costs associated with advertising, translation, social media, and a public hearing can be funded from existing approved Open Space budgets.

32. The draft CCLPoM is a broad legislative document that provides a framework for the ongoing management of Community and Crown land. The document does not propose any specific park upgrades or other on-ground works. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the recommendation, there are no unbudgeted financial implications for Council’s budget.

33. 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	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

Troy Holbrook

Senior Open Space & Natural Area Planner

James Smallson

Manager Open Space and Natural Resources

Ian Woodward

Group Manager Legal Services

John Warburton

Executive Director, City Assets & Operations

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Jennifer Concato

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Draft Community and Crown Land Plan of Management	194 Pages
2 ⇩	Local Government Act Land Categorisation Guidelines	5 Pages
3 ⇩	Community and Crown Land Management Issues Paper	38 Pages
4 ⇩	Stage 1 Consultation - Key Findings and Engagement Evaluation Report	14 Pages
5 ⇩	Native Title Manager Advice Summary	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 25 July 2022 Item 13.6

REPORTS TO COUNCIL - FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER 13.6

SUBJECT Naming Proposal for Unnamed new road infrastructure in Carlingford

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08573449

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Place Services

CSP THEME: THRIVING

workshop/briefing date: Ward Briefing: 25 May 2022.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement for the preferred name for the unnamed roadway in Carlingford, NSW 2118.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse the preferred name of Wulaba Place for the unnamed roadway forming part of the BaptistCare development at 264-268 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford.

(b) Further, that the preferred name for the unnamed roadway be referred to the Geographical Names Board (GNB) of NSW for formal assignment and Gazettal under the Geographical Names Act 1996.

BACKGROUND

1. The unnamed roadway is new road infrastructure forming part of the BaptistCare development at 264-268 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford. The unnamed roadway is parallel to Pennant Hills Road, adjacent to Martins Lane in the East and Homelands Avenue to the South and will service an affordable housing development comprising of 162 apartments. The naming of this roadway provides a street address for the new apartments as well as addressing for essential services and deliveries. The name and location for the unnamed roadway is illustrated in Attachment 1.

2. BaptistCare worked closely with the Bidjawong Aboriginal Corporation to ensure Aboriginal Culture and Connection to Country informed the design of their site. Part of the project scope for this development is the use of Dharug naming with appropriate meaning for the entire site and the unnamed road.

3. BaptistCare provided Council with a list of potential names they believed reflected the history of their site. Of these names, ‘Yallambi’ was BaptistCare’s preferred name for the new roadway.

4. These potential names were submitted to the NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB) for ‘pre-approval’ to check the eligibility of the proposed names. This evaluation ensures that only names meeting the uniqueness requirements of the NSW Address and User Manual (2021) are publicly exhibited and presented to Council for consideration. Uniqueness is considered the most essential quality in proposing a new road name. A road name will be regarded as a duplicate by the GNB (and therefore rejected for use) if it is the same or similar in spelling or sound to an existing nearby roadway name, regardless of the type of road.

5. The initial set of names, including ‘Yallambi’, were rejected by GNB as they were “Duplicated within proximity”. For ‘Yallambi’, this included YALLAMBEE COURT, ALLAMBIE AVENUE and ALLAMBIE STREET.”

6. BaptistCare then worked with Bidjawong Aboriginal Corporation to identify two new GNB pre-approved names which were placed on public exhibition for community feedback. All impacted properties near the unnamed roadway were notified during consultation.

7. Under City of Parramatta Council’s Road Naming Policy (Policy 283) and the NSW Address Policy and User Manual (May 2021) developed by NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB), Council is the responsible authority for the provision of address numbering to all properties and road names to all local and private roads situated within the Parramatta Local Government Area (LGA). Council is also responsible for endorsing the authoritative road name and ensuring it is endorsed by the GNB.

8. The naming of road infrastructure is necessary to provide accurate addressing for deliveries within the development, to not only to identify an owners’ individual property, but also for navigation, emergency response, service delivery (utilities, post) and for statistical analysis.

9. To ensure that all road naming is comprehensible, clear, accepted, unambiguous and readily communicated, property addresses and road names must comply with Chapter 6 “Addressing Principles” of the NSW Address Policy and User Manual (2021). In the preparation of this project, Council utilised preferred sources in line with this policy and section 3.2 in Council’s Road Naming Policy (Policy 283), which identifies desirable sources as:

a. Aboriginal names,

b. Local history, including early explorers, settlers, and other eminent persons,

c. Thematic names such as flora and fauna,

d. Landmarks, and

e. Names appropriate to the physical, historical or cultural character of the area.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

10. Council’s Research & Engagement team developed and arranged public consultation on the proposed names via Council’s engagement portal, Participate Parramatta. Public consultation ran for three weeks (17 business days) from Wednesday 1 June to Thursday 23 June 2022. A letter was sent via Australia Post to 355 impacted residents, and targeted social media was also utilised to alert residents and nearby businesses of the opportunity to provide feedback.

11. The exhibited names, pre-approved for use by the GNB are listed with their description in the table below. A list of all shortlisted names (including those rejected by the GNB due to ‘duplication’) are at Attachment 2.

Proposed Name

Context

Wulaba Place

Rock Wallaby - exciting for visitors as an introduction to the endemic Fauna, which once spent time in the rocky landscape of Carlingford.

Gamarada Court

Meaning Friend or comrade - as the street leads to friendship, creating curiosity and kinship – this is country where friendships are made.

12. Overall, the opportunity to provide feedback for this project was presented to an estimated 25,049 persons culminating in 19 formal contributions. Of those that made formal contributions, the community sentiment was positive, with Wulaba Place the preferred of the two-exhibited names, with 53% of survey respondents expressing support for this name for the unnamed roadway.

13. All names satisfy the addressing requirements of the Geographic Names Board (GNB), which has given prior concurrence for the use of the proposed names at this location.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Stakeholder Consultation

14. The following stakeholder consultation was undertaken in relation to this matter:

Date	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
11.02.22	BaptistCare	Developer provided a written submission with proposed names	Council reviewed the submission and provided a response based on GNB criteria and Council’s Road Naming Policy	Senior Project Officer, Place Services
01.06.22 – 23.06.22	The community, via Council’s Participate Parramatta Engagement Portal	Feedback was captured through a survey hosted on the project page. Verbatim responses provided by community members is provided in Attachment 3.	The project page saw 401 unique visitors and 488 views. This resulted in a conversion of 17 completed surveys and 2 emails. Responses received from the community were reviewed against the Geographical Names Board of NSW ‘NSW Address Policy and User Manual’ (May 2021) guidelines for naming roads. No feedback identified the proposed names to be offensive, racist, derogatory or demeaning.	Senior Project Officer, Place Services Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement
30.05.22	355 impacted residents and business’ via direct mail out	Verbatim responses that may have been generated by accessing the survey from the poster’s QR code are provided in Attachment 3.	Letters detailing the exhibition and how to submit formal feedback were sent to residents and businesses near the unnamed roadway.	Senior Project Officer, Place Services Printing Officer, Corporate Services
01.06.22	The community, via 4 corflute signs placed around the development site	Verbatim responses that may have been generated by accessing the survey from the poster’s QR code are provided in Attachment 3.	A poster was designed to support and promote the exhibition. The poster also included a QR code which received a total of 33 scans.	Senior Project Officer, Place Services
01.06.22 – 14.06.22	The community, via Social Media	Feedback was captured through a survey hosted on the project page. Verbatim responses provided by community members is provided in Attachment 3.	A paid campaign across Facebook and Instagram. Overall, the social media combined campaign garnered a reach of 6,342 resulting in 323 link clicks to the project page.	Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement
23.06.22	The community, via Participate Parramatta Newsletter	Verbatim responses provided by community members and a summary of engagement findings is provided in Attachment 3.	Electronic direct notification was issued via the Participate Parramatta Newsletter (10,753 subscribers), seeing a 42.4% open rate.	Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement

15. In addition to this, there were three suggestions for alternative names from the community, which were submitted to the GNB for ‘pre-approval’ to check the eligibility of the proposed names. All three community-suggested names were rejected by the GNB (“Duplicated within proximity”) due to the same or similar in spelling or sound to an existing name, regardless of the road type, in the vicinity.

Councillor Consultation

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

Date	Councillor	Councillor Comment	Council Officer Response	Responsibility
25.05.22	A briefing was provided to the Dundas Ward Councillors	No comments provided	NA	Senior Project Officer, Place Services
27.05.22	All - via a Councillor Briefing Note distributed through the Councillor Portal and the Councillor Weekly Newsletter.	No comments provided	NA	Senior Project Officer, Place Services

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

18. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution, the financial impact on the budget is set out in the table below. Council should note:

a. The services provided by Council for the developer in relation to this report will be invoiced as per item 4.85 in Council’s adopted Fees and Charges 2021-22 following approval, with external revenue received to be allocated to Service Code 420097 – Road Naming.

b. External operating costs associated with this project are $200 for paid advertisements to support engagement as part of the community consultation component of this project.

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

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

19. The financial impacts to the budget, as set out in this section, will be included in the FY22/23 budget.

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

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

Funding Source

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

Funding Source

CAPEX
CAPEX
External
Internal
Other
Total CAPEX		Nil

Kim Marsh

Senior Project Officer Place Services

Bruce Mills

Group Manager Place Services

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Attachment 1 - Site Plan	1 Page
2 ⇩	Attachment 2 - List and description of pre-approved and rejected proposed names	2 Pages
3 ⇩	Attachment 3 - Naming of new cul-de-sac in Carlingford Engagment Evaluation Report	15 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Governance Manager		Lord Mayor Cr Donna Davis	Chief Executive Officer

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

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

1 ⇩	Investment and Loans Performance Graph June 2022.pdf	1 Page
2 ⇩	Imperium Comprehensive Investment Report - June 22 .pdf	35 Pages
3 ⇩	List of Council Investments by maturity June 2022.pdf	7 Pages


	Press	Press

Public Gallery