Late Items Agenda of Council - Monday, 25 July 2022

Council 25 July 2022 Item 9.1

PUBLIC FORUM

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: Item 13.4 - 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 - D08618897

FROM Cheryl Bates OAM – Chair, National Trust (NSW) Parramatta Regional Branch

Dear Lord Mayor and Councillors,

I wish to speak to you on behalf of the National Trust's Parramatta Regional Branch about item 13.4 Response to the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and changes made by the Department of Planning and Environment (Deferred Item).

The National Trust’s Parramatta Regional Branch feels it necessary to raise concerns over the developer lobby’s opposition to the Parramatta LEP 2011 - Amendment 56.

In identifying Parramatta as the second city, Government set identifiable targets for the city’s future development to “allow the right balance between growth in the CBD and protecting the amenity and heritage of the city.” It has taken nine years for Council to finalise their CBD plan, years plagued by delays created by site-specific planning proposals (rezonings).

The community naively believes that an LEP is created through a consultative process, subsequently endorsed by Council and the Department, that will properly address the interests of the different groups that make up a city and not just one group with self-interest to maximise their profits and then leave. The Branch participated in this process to have some certainty about orderly development that will not adversely affect the significant heritage of Parramatta.

Over the past four years, I have participated in Council and LPP meetings where developers have spoken about working with Council and believing their rezoning would be granted even though the CBD Plan was not finalised. The people seeking these increased height and floor space are hardened developers who know that there is no final decision until the Department has signed off the Plan, despite discussions they have had with Council.

Council’s role is to provide a balanced outcome for Parramatta based on Government guidelines for growth and not merely an outcome to satisfy developers. The future role for Parramatta is too important for this to happen.

We believe the community would not unreasonably expect that rezoning applications received during an active LEP review process, would not be considered until a proper planning framework has been established. Instead, we see rezonings pushing Parramatta towards a haphazard, sunless city of wind tunnels where already approved rezonings are inconsistent with the ultimate CBD Plan determination.

Further, Council’s statement about outstanding rezonings is concerning that “applicants may want to pursue these SSPPs on their individual merits, given the CBD Plan has not delivered the policy outcomes they were expecting.” Developer expectations are not what determines a proper CBD Plan but what is best for the future balanced growth of Parramatta.

Whilst the Branch would have preferred lower heights within the CBD, we are happy to accept the decision of the Department as stated in May 2022 as the “umpire’s decision”.

In summary, we reiterate our full support for the Department’s changes to:

1. Remove Parramatta North from the CBD and retain its current controls pending further investigation; and

2. Remove the Phillip Street Block and retain its current controls.

STAFF RESPONSE

No response has been provided.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council 25 July 2022 Item 14.1

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT Reclassification of the Bennelong Bridge T-Way Lanes to Bus Lanes to Allow Safe Passage of Pedestrians and Cyclists

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08584327

FROM Councillor Patricia Prociv

MOTION

(a) That the Lord Mayor urgently meet with the Mayor of Canada Bay Council with a view to making a submission to the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Roads regarding the large volume of pedestrians and cyclists using the shared path on the Bennelong Bridge, Wentworth Point.

(b) That the submission:

· request that the existing T-Way lanes, currently for use by authorised busses, be reclassified as ‘Bus Lanes’ to allow cyclists to legally ride on that part of the bridge currently restricted to busses;

· include pedestrian and cyclist data that shows the current situation exceeds national guidelines;

· explain that from a pedestrian and cycling perspective, the current situation is not safe or acceptable.

(c) Further, that Council officers be authorised to collect pedestrian and cyclist usage data for the bridge to demonstrate how pedestrian and cyclist usage is exceeding current guidelines.

BACKGROUND

1. No background was provided.

Patricia Prociv

Councillor

STAFF RESPONSE

2. Council has previously made representations in 2018 and 2019 (in response to a Council resolution made on 27 August 2018) to the Ministers for Roads and Transport seeking Transport for NSW’s consent to allow bicycles to use the bus lanes on the Bennelong bridge. The request sought to allow access to address the pedestrian / cyclist conflicts arising on the relatively narrow pedestrian pathway on the bridge. The Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure in April 2019 advised they did not support this change due to the safety issues and delay to buses arising from cyclists using the bus lanes.

3. This matter was the subject of a report to the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) Meeting held on 25 May 2022. The report identified that to accommodate the current pedestrian and cyclist usage (including over several hundred pedestrians per hour, counted in 2019) would require wider, separated paths under Austroads national road planning guidelines, rather than the existing 3.25m shared path. Requiring cyclists to use the narrow shared path increases conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. Allowing cyclists to use the roadway provided for buses would reduce these conflicts. The report identified two options for amending current bus operations to allow bicycle use of the bus lanes whilst addressing the previously specified TfNSW concerns.

4. Council considered the TEAG minutes at its meeting of 27 June 2022 and resolved as follows:

(b) “Further, that Council approve the recommendations of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 25 May 2022 as provided at Attachment 1 and in this report, noting the following financial implications of each item.

ii. ITEM 2205 B2 – BENNELONG BRIDGE, WENTWORTH POINT – PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS CONFLICT BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS USING SHARED PATH

This report requests Transport for NSW to consider the options proposed to address conflict between pedestrians and cyclists using the shared path on Bennelong Bridge, Wentworth Point. Therefore, this matter has no financial impact upon Council’s budget.”

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

5. This NOM is not required to proceed as the issues it seeks to address are already being pursued using existing resources as a result of the Council resolution of 27 June 2022. Council is already consulting with both Transport for NSW and City of Canada Bay to pursue options that addresses the safest way to manage pedestrian, cycle and bus trips on the bridge.

Patricia Prociv

Councillor

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council 25 July 2022 Item 15.1

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

ITEM NUMBER 15.1

SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice - 11 July 2022 Council Meeting

REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08608506

REPORT OF Governance Manager

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

Item	Subject	Councillor	Question
13.4	Application to seek Minister’s Consent to Grant a Lease over Community Land at 358Z North Rocks Road Carlingford	Wang	How much are we going to receive from the acquisition? Can we use the money for the North Rocks community?
14.1	Preservation of Publicly Owned Land at Wentworth Point for Open Space and Recreation	Darley	Landcom has outlined that in Stage one (1) of the works, they will be doing the walkway and cycleway around the peninsula. Is the sea wall specifically covered within the existing development application or is a separate approval required?
14.1	Preservation of Publicly Owned Land at Wentworth Point for Open Space and Recreation	Bradley	On the site referred to by Councillor Noack, there was a series of swamp oaks. They were removed. I understand they are an iconic species of endangered ecological communities. I note there was a DA issued. Did the DA include approval for the removal of those swamp oaks?
16.1	Sydney Metro West Western Tunnelling Package Interface Agreement	Bradley	Question asked in closed session. An email was sent to Councillors by the Executive Director City Planning & Design responding to this question.

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 13.4 – Application to seek Minister’s Consent to Grant a Lease over Community Land at 358Z North Rocks Road Carlingford

Question from Councillor Wang

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Valjak, Councillor Wang asked the following question:

How much are we going to receive from the acquisition?

Can we use the money for the North Rocks community?

Chief Finance and Information Officer Response

In relation to the first question, just to clarify, this is a proposed grant of lease (not an acquisition) of a portion of land at North Rocks Park to Vodafone, in order for Vodafone to operate its telecommunications facility at North Rocks Park. Subject to the Minister for Local Government consenting to the lease being granted, the per annum rental is $17,000 (plus GST), for a term of 10 years (constituted by two consecutive five year leases). The rental increases will be 3.5% per annum.

In relation to the second question, this site is governed by The Hills Parkland Generic Plan of Management 2012 (‘PoM’). This PoM states that the rent payable to Council for this site is to be ‘used for the embellishment of the reserve in which the facility is located’. In other words, the use of the rental income would need to be allocated to the embellishment of North Rocks Park.

Item 14.1 – Preservation of Publicly Owned Land at Wentworth Point for Open Space and Recreation

Question from Councillor Darley

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

Landcom has outlined that in Stage one (1) of the works, they will be doing the walkway and cycleway around the peninsula.

Is the sea wall specifically covered within the existing development application or is a separate approval required?

Executive Director, City Planning and Design Response

Yes the seawall upgrade is included in the consent issued for the infrastructure works by the then Auburn City Council in 2015.

Item 14.1 – Preservation of Publicly Owned Land at Wentworth Point for Open Space and Recreation

Question from Councillor Bradley

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

On the site referred to by Councillor Noack, there was a series of swamp oaks. They were removed. I understand they are an iconic species of endangered ecological communities. I note there was a DA issued. Did the DA include approval for the removal of those swamp oaks?

Executive Director, City Planning and Design Response

Tree removal was approved under the original Auburn consent issued for the infrastructure works in 2015. The tree removal plan indicates all trees are to be removed (mainly pine trees from what the survey suggests) with the exception of the fig trees and saltmarsh. Refer to plan below.

It is also noted a tree approval (TA/592/2021) was granted by City of Parramatta on the 30 November 2021 for the removal of 4 x stands of swamp she oak primarily on the proposed high school site and partially adjoining the mixed use site. This is NOT part of the identified park area. These 4 x stands included 22 identified swamp she oaks (range of young, semi-mature and mature) which were permitted to be removed to allow for remediation testing to be carried out. These trees were not an Endangered Ecological Community. The removal of these trees had already been allowed via the Auburn consent referred to above.

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL