NOTICE OF Council MEETING
SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLIC
AGENDA - A
An Ordinary Meeting of City of Parramatta Council will be held in the Cloister Function Rooms, St Patrick's Cathedral, 1 Marist Place, Parramatta on Monday, 12 September 2022 at 6:30pm.
Brett Newman
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO
9 Public Forum
9.1 PUBLIC
FORUM 1: Item 13.4 - Proposed Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan
Amendment and draft Planning Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway
Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point........................................................................................ 3
9.2 PUBLIC FORUM 2: Item 13.4 - Proposed Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan Amendment and draft Planning Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point........................................................................................ 5
14 Notices of Motion
14.1 Amendment
to the Companion Animals Act 1998............................... 7
14.2 Carlingford
West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues 9
14.3 Unoccupied Dwellings in the Parramatta LGA................................... 12
15 Questions with Notice
15.1 Questions Taken on Notice - 22 August 2022 Council Meeting..... 15
After the conclusion of the Council Meeting, and if time permits, Councillors will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of staff.
Council 12 September 2022 Item 9.1
ITEM NUMBER 9.1
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: Item 13.4 - Proposed Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan Amendment and draft Planning Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08683385
The Billbergia Group is disappointed in the report and recommendation, listed at item 13.4 on the proposed Homebush Bay West DCP Amendment.
We find it difficult to understand the apparent about-face on the 2-stage design excellence competition process run by City of Parramatta and supported by Council decisions through each stage of the process across 2017, 2018 & 2020. The recommendation to reject an international design excellence process run by Council, based on Council’s brief, and reject the independent jury findings that were accepted by Council - in favour of a new Council officer’s design scheme is disappointing.
At its most basic level, it does not give due recognition to the credentials of the internationally recognised architectural firms that participated in the process and the highly qualified independent expert jury including the City of Parramatta’s City Architect.
Billbergia invested more than a million dollars participating in the Council’s design excellence process over 6 years. The recommendation to disregard this process creates a risk for industry participation in future design excellence competitions in the LGA.
We contend that the report to Council and preferred scheme put forward contains errors and inconsistencies that cannot be sustained, including:
1. Report commentary on building heights and setbacks setting “an undesirable precedent” and “that no towers, both existing and planned, currently exist within 100m of the Homebush Bay foreshore”.
A recommendation accepted by the previous Council of October 2021 for a similar location (known as Sanctuary by Sekisui) included built form of 3 x 40 storey towers, one of which is located within 32m of the Parramatta River foreshore.
2. Report commentary stating the “proposed towers visually converge creating a ‘wall’ of development” fails to consider recent amendments to reposition the proposed towers improving view sharing.
On analysis, the alternative preferred scheme in the report includes a wall of buildings along Burroway Road, with a 25-storey tower immediately facing an existing building on Wentworth Place, maximising view loss for residents from this development.
3. The proposed location of buildings in the report’s preferred scheme creates additional overshadowing of the 'Urban Park' during the critical daylight hours between 11am and 1pm, does not meet Council’s own DCP guidelines and is not the best outcome for the site.
In summary, Billbergia has been involved in Wentworth Point for more than 15 years and remains committed to creating a sustainable community with the services and amenities to make it a great place to live. Today, Wentworth Point has been recognised for excellence nationally across all industry bodies as a multi-award-winning master planned community development. Our Block H proposal has the potential to make Wentworth point even better.
We have worked in good faith with Council through a 2-stage design excellence competition process and have subsequently reduced building heights and repositioned the tower locations in response to community consultation.
Since public exhibition 2 years ago, Government funding commitments for Metro West rail, PLR2 and traffic improvements at Hill Road/Bennelong Parkway intersection and Australia Avenue roundabout have addressed all conditions set by the previous Council, with traffic modelling being endorsed by Transport for NSW.
Unfortunately, the recommendation in the report to Council does not appear to consider the amendments and relegates the scheme to attachment 7 of the Council Report.
Council is now being asked to endorse the report recommendation and an officer’s preferred reference scheme that has not been subject to third-party design process or community consultation, and has been publicly available for less than 7 days.
As the proponent and on behalf of the community, we strongly urge Council to reject the report recommendation and instead approve or alternatively re-exhibit the design scheme at attachment 7 of the Council report to enable proper consultation.
STAFF RESPONSE
If required, a written staff response will be provided in a further supplementary agenda.
There are no attachments for this report.
Council 12 September 2022 Item 9.2
ITEM NUMBER 9.2
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 2: Item 13.4 - Proposed Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan Amendment and draft Planning Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08683436
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I wish to express my concerns about the Council's recommendations for Block H. I am speaking primarily as a concerned resident of Wentworth Point who is involved in a number of Wentworth Point Community groups. I bring the perspective of a Strata & Community Association representative, a member of two Council Advisory groups, a teacher and a grandparent.
My concerns primarily relate to what I see as the lack of any comprehensive plan to address the fundamental issues faced by the Wentworth Point community. I have read the Council report on the proposed development and I am extremely concerned that it has had no input from the community, fails to address the chronic lack of open space and community infrastructure and accepts the almost certain destruction of our unique natural environment.
For those that are unaware of the unique nature of Wentworth Point and dare I say with Councillor Noack present I doubt that any Councillor in this chamber is unaware of Wentworth Point.
Wentworth Point is located on the junction of the Parramatta River & Haslams Creek and is the most easterly point of the City of Parramatta. According to the 2021 Census we have close to 13,000 residents, though the true figure is significantly higher because some of the apartment buildings are still classified as Sydney Olympic Park. There is only one old industrial road in and one road out of Wentworth Point. All residents live in apartments and according to the census we have a population density of 21,700 people per kilometre. This makes Wentworth Point one of the highest density postcodes in Australia.
To quote Councillor Noack, Wentworth Point is our version of Manhattan. The issue for myself and the community is that we don’t have parks, ovals, playgrounds or infrastructure to support the population. Local Rosehill Ward Councillor Siviero made the point recently that it is wrong to say that the infrastructure is insufficient to support the community because it is actually non-existent. We have no parks or playgrounds and one tiny private childcare centre. The only community owned facility is the Community Centre & Library which was paid for by Voluntary Planning Contributions from the same applicant.
It isn’t that we don’t have children in Wentworth Point. In fact, we have over 1,000 babies & toddlers, a primary school with 610 kids and expanding rapidly and 219 high school age children. The lack of infrastructure is not something that Council and planners are unaware of.
As early as 2013 Auburn Council & the Department of Planning highlighted the need to deliver community facilities as part of the planning for Wentworth Point to become an Urban Activation precinct.
We are now left with the proposal for Block H which is the last major private development site but no plan for how the needs of our community will be met. In fact, we are aware that the only piece of land remaining, a piece of Crown land adjoining the Peninsula is the subject of negotiations for future residential development. This adhoc planning approach has left myself and other residents frustrated and disillusioned.
You may wonder why we moved to Wentworth Point given the clear lack of infrastructure and services. Firstly, residents were promised, almost a decade ago, as part of the urban activation precinct that all levels of government would work together and with the private sector to provide the infrastructure and services for our unique community. Secondly, Wentworth Point is surrounded by exceptional natural beauty. Our Peninsula is on the tip of Homebush bay and our neighbours include the Badu Wetlands & Newington Nature Reserve. Homebush bay is Sydney’s most important site for migratory birds protected under the Ramsar convention. Wentworth Point Peninsula has remnant coastal saltmarsh which is protected under Biodiversity Conservation legislation. The Council’s recommendations don’t address the need to preserve and enhance this exceptional natural environment.
Finally, I wish to quote from the social impact assessment for the new High School at Wentworth Point by Urbis Pty Ltd for the Department of Education. “The proposal will have a very high negative impact on student access to open space and associated physical and mental health and wellbeing. This impact is likely to be more pronounced for Wentworth Point students given the existing deficit of open space throughout the suburb’.
STAFF RESPONSE
If required, a written staff response will be provided in a further supplementary agenda.
There are no attachments for this report.
Council 12 September 2022 Item 14.1
ITEM NUMBER 14.1
SUBJECT Amendment to the Companion Animals Act 1998
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08670336
FROM Councillor Phil Bradley
That Council write to Local Government NSW (LGNSW) requesting they advocate for the NSW Government to amend the Companion Animals Act 1998, in consultation with Councils, to introduce best practice domestic cat containment requirements to keep cats securely protected at home.
BACKGROUND
1. Pet cats, despite their valued role as companion animals, are a major threat to native wildlife. Research by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program reports that, on average, each roaming pet cat kills 186 animals per year including reptiles, birds and mammals. Collectively pet cats kill 390 million animals per year in Australia which is more animals killed, than by feral cats.
2. The research found that cats have played a leading role in most of Australia’s 34 mammal extinctions since 1788 and are a big reason why populations of at least 123 other threatened native species are declining. Notwithstanding these impacts, 4 out of 10 people did not realise that their pet cat was roaming at night. Many residential areas in the City of Parramatta Council local government area are located in close proximity to bushland reserves and domestic cats with natural hunting instincts are able to roam in these areas, posing a threat to our native wildlife.
3. Keeping cats securely contained at home is the only way to prevent them from killing lots of Australia's native animals.
4. Additionally, our neighbourhoods and gardens provide important habitat for birds, reptiles and mammals. Many residents delight in having wildlife visit and live around their homes, due to the safe and predator free environment many residential properties can offer. Allowing pet cats to roam, impacts the ability of other residents to enjoy this aspect of urban living.
5. The introduction of requirements to keep cats at home also has significant emotional and financial benefits for cat owners such as reducing threat of injury, disease and death, allowing beloved cats to live a longer, healthier life. Keeping cats safe indoors or in an outdoor enclosure, alleviates the possibility of them being hit by a car, injury through fighting with other animals, catching life threatening diseases, or being poisoned by local toxic plants or fox baits.
6. The Companion Animals Act 1998 does not currently contain requirements for cats to be secured at home and council officers can only take action if a cat is a nuisance, interfering with the well-being of a neighbour or damaging property. However, other States such as the ACT, SA and Victoria have introduced legislation to address cat containment or provide powers to councils to make local laws to prohibit or regulate the presence of cats.
7. It is appropriate to explore opportunities for the introduction of cat containment legislation in consultation with our communities to ensure the environmental impacts of domestic cats is managed in a sensitive and responsible way. It is acknowledged that any proposed changes may have some resource implications for councils and therefore, councils should be consulted as part of the process along with opportunities for community awareness and education programs to ensure cat owners are aware of their responsibilities.
STAFF RESPONSE
8. Councils Regulatory Services Group Manager can draft and forwarded a detailed letter to the Office of Local Government NSW (OLG) requesting they advocate for the NSW Government to amend the Companion Animals Act 1998, in consultation with Councils, to introduce best practice domestic cat containment requirements to keep cats securely protected at home.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
9. There are no budget or resourcing implications in undertaking this task.
Phil Bradley
Councillor
John Warburton
Executive Director, City Assets & Operations
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
There are no attachments for this report.
Council 12 September 2022 Item 14.2
ITEM NUMBER 14.2
SUBJECT Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08662872
FROM Councillor Georgina Valjak
a) That Council note the representations from residents regarding the extreme levels of congestion currently occurring near Carlingford West Public School in peak school times due to the increase in student numbers that has occurred in recent years.
b) That Council relay the concerns of local residents regarding the traffic congestion to the Department of Planning and Environment and to Schools Infrastructure NSW.
c) Further, that as a result of the continued parking infringements, Council consider the installation of cameras in those streets adjacent to CWPS identified as the most problematic following the recent Council parking ‘blitz’.
BACKGROUND
1. Cumberland High School (CHS) has grown from 801 students to a proposed increase of 2,040 students, primarily driven by:
· The proposed Telopea Precinct Redevelopment will result in 4,700 dwellings and 17,600 population generating some additional 625 high school students. This has been identified as an issue in the submission by City of Parramatta to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (NSW DPE).
· The CHS catchment area has been impacted by massive urban consolidation over the last 40 years particularly in the suburbs of Rydalmere, Dundas, Dundas Valley, Ermington, Oatlands and the massive Telopea Precinct Redevelopment area referred to above.
· In respect of Carlingford West Public School (CWPS), a permanent cap of 555 students has been increased to a proposed 1,800, and is being driven by catchment area issues and increased development resulting in an excess in the school catchment area addresses to have their child(ren) enrolled in the school and thereafter allowing enrolment of any further younger siblings even if they have moved from the catchment area, and despite the school population being well in excess of its permanent cap. The lengths to which families from out of the catchment area go to enrol is well noted.
· Department of Education (in particular SINSW) failure to adhere to their stated planning policy i.e. SASP 2016 – cluster planning or planning in School Community Groups in close geographical proximity, which if followed allows Department of Education planners to more thoroughly consider the impacts on neighbouring schools when making decisions on new projects This failure has resulted in the polarisation of student numbers between overcrowded Carlingford West Primary School (approx. 1,900 students with a cap of 550) and under-utilised (circa only approx. 80 – 300 students) in, for example, Telopea, Yates Avenue, Oatlands, other neighbouring local area primary schools.
2. The result of these overpopulated school numbers has resulted in significant traffic issues for the surrounding residents in small cul-de-sacs that residents find crippling, including not being able to access or leave their homes during peak school hours
STAFF RESPONSE
3. Council officers acknowledge the concerns raised by our community regarding traffic congestion in the local streets around Carlingford West Public School and Cumberland High School. Council officers share concerns that during the morning and afternoon school drop off and pick up periods, local residents are significantly impacted by school related traffic to a point where reasonable access to and from private property is compromised, including access for emergency vehicles.
4. It is noted that under the NSW public education system, public schools must accept all students who reside within the school catchment boundaries. A significant increase in higher density residential development within the area over time, as well as likely future development associated with the Telopea Precinct has pushed student numbers well beyond the intended student cap and will continue to do so.
5. Schools Infrastructure NSW (SINSW) is looking to proceed with a State Significant Development Application for the school redevelopment, with an estimated lodgement to the Department of Planning and Environment in late 2022. SINSW is also currently using the Review of Environmental Factors provisions in State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) to deliver a link road between Dunmore Ave and Blenheim Rd. This process enables SINSW to self-assess and self-approve the link road without Council or the Department of Planning and Environment having a role in the approval process.
6. Council officers are able to write to the Department of Planning and Environment as well as School Infrastructure NSW (SINSW) raising the concerns of residents for further consideration. Council will also request a copy of the traffic study used by SINSW to inform them of options to mitigate traffic congestion, noting that the study provided to Council to date is only for the Review of Environmental Factors and does not include the growth in student numbers for the State Significant Development proposal.
7. Council would be able to use relocatable CCTV with the capability to record vehicle licence plate numbers to enable issuing of infringements. Council’s City Safe team has advised that image quality over distance with existing Council equipment is sufficient for this purpose. As an alternate to cameras, Council could continue the active on ground monitoring and enforcement program with the aim of educating and adjusting driver behaviour. This can be done within existing budget and resources in the short term without impacting enforcement activities on other parts of the Local Government Area.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
8. The preparation of a letter to the two State Government departments referred to in point (b) of the recommendation can be prepared within existing resources and therefore within existing budgets. The installation of cameras referred to in point (c) of the recommendation would sit within existing budget as it would involve existing equipment and staff resources.
Georgina Valjak
Councillor
Jennifer Concato
Executive Director City Planning and Design
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
There are no attachments for this report.
Council 12 September 2022 Item 14.3
ITEM NUMBER 14.3
SUBJECT Unoccupied Dwellings in the Parramatta LGA
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08668410
FROM Councillor Phil Bradley
(a) That Council write to the Minister for Local Government, the Honourable Shelley Hancock, and the Minister for Planning and Homes, the Honourable Anthony Roberts requesting they:
1. Explore more fully methods to identify unoccupied dwellings;
2. Consider reforms to the Local Government Rating System, and the NSW
Land Tax System to provide a financial disincentive for property owners to keep
their investment properties unoccupied rather than for the purposes of
residential accommodation;
3. Consider urging or directing Councils to use rate revenue derived from such unoccupied dwellings towards acquisition of key workers/ affordable housing and/or public social housing.
(b) Further, that Council, recognising unoccupied dwellings is an issue across the Sydney Metropolitan area and NSW, write to the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO), adjoining Councils and Local Government NSW (LGNSW) seeking support for joint letters calling for the actions in points 1 to 3 above.
BACKGROUND
1. Across Australia, including here in Parramatta, we are struggling through a dual rental availability and housing affordability crisis. We have a very low local rental vacancy rate - making rental properties difficult to come by. Based on the latest census data, local residents have faced significant rental price hikes since COVID - with many now paying more than $2,000 a month in rent. While these prices may be affordable for professional residents on higher incomes, this has completely priced out other essential workers - including child and aged care workers, police, nurses, paramedics, fire fighters, State Emergency Services workers, teachers, retail staff and others in low to middle income brackets, who help keep our community running. The whole community suffers, when essential workers are priced out of an area. While this is a multi-faceted problem, one key driver of the rental shortage and housing affordability crisis is the increasing number of properties sitting vacant.
2. The 2021 census revealed that across Australia, more than 1 million homes are sitting empty. In the Parramatta LGA, we have just over 10% of our total private dwellings, 10,236 unoccupied - as of census night 2021. We should not have a system whereby people are encouraged (via financial or tax incentives) to leave properties vacant - particularly when so many families are struggling to find a place to call home. Housing is a basic human right - it is something that we should be able to provide.
3. While this is not a problem the City of Parramatta Council can solve alone, there are steps that can be taken to help advocate for reform. Other Councils have written to the Minister for Local Government, calling for reform of the Local Government rating system, and the NSW land tax system, to provide a financial incentive for property owners to ensure their investment property holdings are being utilised for residential accommodation purposes. These reforms should have a meaningful impact on the housing affordability crisis. It also has the potential to help revitalise communities and bring in more essential workers and more business for our local economy - if we have buildings fully occupied, rather than sitting vacant.
STAFF RESPONSE
4. The census captures data at a point in time and does not necessarily reflect the true number of properties that have been unoccupied for a long period of time.
5. Council does not have access to data to understand with accuracy the true number of properties that have been/are unoccupied on a long term basis. Consequently, it is not possible to calculate the rate revenue generated from these properties.
6. Despite this, the rate revenue received from a property is significantly less than the value of the property. Therefore, the use of rate revenue from unoccupied dwellings to purchase properties for affordable housing purposes will be significantly less than the number of unoccupied properties and this diversion of rate revenue will have a negative impact on Council’s ability to fund other projects and services.
7. Advocating for the redirection of rate revenue for the purposes of purchasing unoccupied properties, without understanding the data and financial and social impact of such a proposal is not recommended.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
8. Should Council resolve in accordance with the motion, a letter stating Council’s resolved position can be prepared using existing resources and therefore would be within budget.
Phil Bradley
Councillor
Jennifer Concato
Executive Director City Planning and Design
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
There are no attachments for this report.
Council 12 September 2022 Item 15.1
ITEM NUMBER 15.1
SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice - 22 August 2022 Council Meeting
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08659899
REPORT OF Governance Manager
QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 22 AUGUST 2022
|
Item |
Subject |
Councillor |
Question |
|
13.8 |
Future Waste Services |
Garrard |
How many residents have opted for a 240L general waste bin at this current time? |
|
13.8 |
Future Waste Services |
Valjak |
What is the cost of replacing every 140L bin with an 80L bin? |
|
14.1 |
CBD Footpaths Audit and Pavement Replacement Program |
Bradley |
Could an estimate be provided of what proportion of complying developments lodge an appropriate security bond or deposit with Council. This is with reference to the event of pavement damage occurring during works.
Further, it is my understanding that if a security bond is not provided, we cannot take direct action against the developer. Is that true? |
|
14.2 |
Name Change at Wentworth Point – Jewel and Sanctuary Buildings |
Garrard |
Under the proposed change, would the postcodes remain the same? |
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 13.8 – Future Waste Services
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Maclean, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:
How many residents have opted for a 240L general waste bin at this current time?
Executive Director City Assets and Operations Response
4744 residents have opted for a 240L bin, equating to approximately 5% of households.
Item 13.8 – Future Waste Services
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Maclean, Councillor Valjak asked the following question:
How much is it going to cost to replace every 140L bin with an 80L bin?
Executive Director City Assets and Operations Response
It should be noted that the replacement of all bins has been costed to occur at the beginning of the new FOGO contract(s) and has been timed to coincide with the end of the useful life of the current bins. The plastic bins have a very hard and limited life and are replaced using the Domestic Waste Reserve approximately every ten years. In addition, the next bin replacement will allow the implementation of technology such as RFID chips to assist in monitoring aspects of the waste process. In any case, there are currently approximately 40,000 households that would need an 80L bin under the new contract. The cost of replacing these bins would be approximately $2.4M.
Item 14.1 – CBD Footpaths Audit and Pavement Replacement Program
During discussion on the Motion moved by Deputy Lord Mayor Pandey, Councillor Bradley asked the following question:
Could an estimate be provided of what proportion of complying developments lodge an appropriate security bond or deposit with Council. This is with reference to the event of pavement damage occurring during works.
Further, it is my understanding that if a security bond is not provided, we cannot take direct action against the developer. Is that true?
Executive Director City Assets and Operations Response
Under the section 157 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, a complying development as specified in the regulation requires to lodge “Payment of Security” when the estimated cost of the development is $25,000 or more.
Historically, only about 20% of the complying developments within the LGA appears to have lodged the payment of security or security bond with very large numbers failing to do so.
Unfortunately the legislation does not provide Council any specific power to take action when the complying development fail to lodge payment of security. Section 157 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 does not have an associated Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN) available to council to issue for the non-payment, it would have to proceed by way of Court Action, which would in most circumstances be cost prohibitive.
In accordance with Section 4.17(6)(a), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, security bonds payable to Council for the protection of the adjacent road pavement and public assets during construction works. The bond(s) are to be lodged with Council prior to the issue of any application/approval associated with the allotment, (being a Hoarding application, Construction Certificate) and prior to any demolition works being carried out where a Construction Certificate is not required.
Council has the availability to issue a PIN for the non-payment of bonds or levy’s noted in a Development Consent, as a breach of consent. This action is rarely undertaken given the current intent and guideline of the Regulatory Enforcement Policy. Payments not made as prescribed as part of a council approved development consent are generally followed up with at least two reminder letters to the developer/PCA.
Item 14.2 – Name Change at Wentworth Point – Jewel and Sanctuary Buildings
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Noack, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:
Under the proposed change, would the postcodes remain the same?
Executive Director Property and Place Response
The current postcode for SOPA and Wentworth Point is the same 2127 and will remain unchanged.