NOTICE OF Council MEETING
PUBLIC AGENDA
An Ordinary Meeting of City of Parramatta Council will be held in the Cloister Function Rooms, St Patrick's Cathedral, 1 Marist Place, Parramatta on Monday, 26 September 2022 at 6:30pm.
Brett Newman
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Governance Manager |
Lord Mayor |
Chief Executive Officer |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Minute Clerk |
|
|
|
|
||||
Cr Phil Bradley |
|
Cr Lorraine Wearne
|
|
Sound |
||||||
Cr Sameer Pandey, Deputy Lord Mayor |
Cr Donna Wang
|
|
|
|||||||
Cr Paul Noack |
Cr Michelle Garrard
|
|
|
|||||||
Cr Ange Humphries |
Cr Dan Siviero
|
|
IT |
|||||||
Cr Dr Patricia Prociv |
Cr Henry Green
|
|
|
|||||||
Cr Pierre Esber |
Cr Kellie Darley
|
|
|
|||||||
Cr Cameron Maclean |
Cr Georgina Valjak
|
|
|
|||||||
Executive Director City Engagement & Experience |
Executive Director Community Services |
Executive Director City Planning & Design |
Group Manager City Strategy |
Executive Director City Assets & Operations |
Chief Finance and Information Officer |
Executive Director Property and Place |
|
|||||
|
Press |
Press |
|
|
|
|
|||||
Public Gallery |
STATEMENT OF ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS:
In accordance with clause 3.23 of the Model Code of Meeting Practice, Council is obligated to remind Councillors of the oath or affirmation of office made under section 233A of the Local Government Act 1993, and of their obligations under Council’s Code of Conduct to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest – the ethical obligations of which are outlined below:
Obligations |
|
Oath [Affirmation] of Office by Councillors |
I swear [solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm] that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the City of Parramatta Council and the City of Parramatta Council that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgement. |
Code of Conduct Conflict of Interests |
|
Pecuniary Interests |
A Councillor who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned, and who is present at a meeting of the Council at which the matter is being considered, must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting.
The Councillor must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting:
|
Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests |
A Councillor who has a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter, must disclose the relevant private interest in relation to the matter fully and on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises in relation to the matter. |
Significant Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests |
A Councillor who has a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in relation to a matter under consideration at a Council meeting, must manage the conflict of interest as if they had a pecuniary interest in the matter. |
Non-Significant Non-Pecuniary Interests |
A Councillor who determines that they have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter that is not significant and does not require further action, when disclosing the interest must also explain why conflict of interest is not significant and does not require further action in the circumstances. |
Council 26 September 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO
1 OPENING MEETING
2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF LAND
3 WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT
4 GENERAL RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT
5 APOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE OR ATTENDANCE BY AUDIO-VISUAL LINK BY COUNCILLORS
6 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Council - 12 September 2022.................................................................................... 7
7 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
Nil
11.1 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 40
12 Reports to Council - For Notation
12.1 Investment Report for August 2022................................................... 458
12.2 Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 26 May 2022........................................................................................................ 507
12.3 Quarter Four Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22.................................................................................................. 516
12.4 Environmental Sustainability Strategy Progress Report 2017-21 571
13 Reports to Council - For Council Decision
13.1 Gateway Request: Planning Proposal for the land at 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta (Riverside Theatre site) 614
13.2 Naming Proposal for Unnamed Epping Pedestrian Way (Deferred Item) 757
13.3 Community Events Grants Committee Recommendations........... 784
13.4 Public Works on Private Land - Light Up Ermington Better Neighborhood Project.................................................................................................... 788
Nil
15.1 Questions Taken on Notice - 12 September 2022 Council Meeting 796
16.1 Legal Status Report as at 31 August 2022
This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (e) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.
16.2 Tender 16/2022 Upgrade of Arthur Phillip Park, Northmead - Stage 1
This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
17 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
18 CONCLUSION OF MEETING
After the conclusion of the Council Meeting, and if time permits, Councillors will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of staff.
MINUTES OF THE Meeting of City of Parramatta Council HELD IN THE CLOISTER FUNCTION ROOMS, ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL 1 MARIST PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 12 September 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 Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Sameer Pandey and Councillors Phil Bradley, Kellie Darley, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Dr Patricia Prociv, Dan Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.
1. OPENING MEETING
The Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Sameer Pandey, opened the meeting at 6:33pm.
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF LAND
The Deputy 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 Deputy 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 Deputy 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
3965 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)
(a) That the request to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 12 September 2022 via remote means submitted by Councillor Wearne due to personal reasons be accepted.
(b) Further, that the apology by Lord Mayor, Councillor Davis due to personal reasons be accepted and leave of absence granted. |
6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
|
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 22 August 2022
|
3966 |
Resolved (Noack/Siviero)
That the minutes be taken as read and be accepted as a true record of the Meeting. |
7. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
There were no Declarations of Interest made at this meeting.
8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor
There were no Minutes of the Lord Mayor at this meeting.
9. Public Forum
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
FROM Rick Graf
|
|
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 The submission places heavy reliance on a design competition having been carried out to support the proposed DCP amendment. It is important to be aware that a design competition is not required for this site. The applicant elected to run a design competition. Council did not resolve to run the Stage 1 design competition. Council did resolve in 2018 to proceed with the second half of the design competition, noting that this was not the recommendation of staff. This in effect meant that Council directed that a design competition should be run for a pre-determined amount of floorspace on the site which is significantly greater than that allowed for by the current planning controls without the preliminary urban design analysis that would normally be carried out beforehand to set the basis for a DCP amendment, hence the initial assessment stage has been skipped. In other words, the identification of the draft planning controls that were placed on public exhibition did not follow due process.
As a result of Council resolving in 2018 to proceed with the second half of the design competition, Council staff responded accordingly and endorsed the Design Competition Brief to the parameters set by Council. The competition took place based on Council’s resolution to accommodate 85,000sqm on the site before any public consultation on that proposal had taken place, or there was an opportunity to test the proposal through preliminary urban design analysis. This is 55,000sqm above the current DCP control. This equates to approximately an extra 640 apartments.
The assertion now being made, following the first opportunity the community has had to express its views on the proposal, is that Council should discard community feedback and Council expert and professional assessment BECAUSE a design competition was held. Council is required to consider the results of the public exhibition, and the last Council resolution required these results to be reported back to Council for consideration.
The applicant states that “The recommendation to disregard this process creates a risk for industry participation in future design excellence competitions in the LGA.” By no way does this experience undermine or create risk for industry as Council has well-established and consistent processes for all other applications whereby the design competition follows the establishment of new planning controls.
The applicant states “that the report to Council and preferred scheme put forward contains errors and inconsistencies that cannot be sustained”. This is wrong. I will now respond to each of the detailed points made:
· On the matter of the report stating “that no towers, both existing and planned, currently exist within 100m of the Homebush Bay foreshore”, reference is made for comparison to the Sekisui development on the other side of Hill Road away from the Homebush Bay foreshore. The text in bold/italics in the officer report is completely accurate (see para 29 of the report on page 224). The urban design assessment explained in the report clearly articulates the difference in foreshore setback requirements and height distribution which is DIFFERENT on the west side of Hill Road along the Parramatta River foreshore compared to the east side along the Homebush Bay foreshore.
· The applicant claims that analysis of the impact of the proposal on view sharing fails to consider adjustments made in the recently submitted alternative proposal, however these adjustments are not significant and only increase building separation by 2m (see analysis on p36-37 of Attachment 2). Whereas the officer scheme co-locates towers and minimises floorplates so that the view loss resulting from the officer scheme results in about 48 less apartments being affected by view loss as opposed to the recently submitted alternative (see p37 of Attachment 2).
The principal purpose of the report is to respond to submissions received during the exhibition period and present an assessment to Council for its consideration. The alternative scheme referred to by the applicant and provided at Attachment 7 lacks detail to enable it to be accurately assessed by Council officers and to be immediately placed on public exhibition. The report outlines a preferred staff scheme and clearly articulates a preference for the applicant to submit a scheme consistent with the staff preferred scheme. This process would be the subject of an assessment, report to Council and if endorsed community consultation prior to it being finalised. |
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
FROM Mark Green
|
|
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 The submission appears to be founded on a misunderstanding of the process that has been followed. The Council officer report has in fact been founded on an analysis of the 763 submissions that were made to Council following the public exhibition of the proposal. That exhibition was the first time the public have been given an opportunity to express their views on the proposed changes to the planning controls and, as the report notes, the responses received, including one from this public forum speaker, were strongly opposed to the scale of development proposed. These concerns in turn led to Council officers reviewing matters raised and developing an alternative proposal that is more aligned with the current planning controls and seeks to address community concerns raised.
In relation to the comment concerning the lack of open space, as the report notes, the current DCP requires 10,973sqm of public open space to be provided on the Block H site. The staff recommendation notes that the configuration and proportion of proposed public open space in the applicant’s proposal does not present as being readily useable by the public, does not comply with the DCP and is insufficient to support the proposed additional floor area.
The submission states that the Community Centre and Library was paid for by contributions from the applicant via a Voluntary Planning Agreement. To clarify, the cold shell of the Wentworth Point Community Centre and Library was delivered by the developer however the fitout was partly paid for by developer contributions collected from a range of developments in the area and was also part funded by Council. It is noted that the draft Planning Agreement associated with the applicant’s original proposal offers $8 Million to Council to reimburse Council for funds it expended on the fit out of the facility.
The submission asserts that there is no comprehensive plan to address fundamental issues faced by the Wentworth Point community. In fact, Wentworth Point does have existing planning controls that were established to help provide a balance of new development and supporting community infrastructure. These controls take account of the need to consider the environmental impacts of new development, and it should be noted in that respect, that Block H itself has not been identified as having any existing natural characteristics that need special protection. The applicant’s proposal is seeking to significantly vary well-established existing planning controls for the site to be able to achieve approximately 640 additional dwellings.
Block H is one of three remaining major undeveloped sites on the peninsula, the others being the State Government owned site to the north adjoining the park, and 37-39 Hill Road to the south. Planning controls already exist for these sites and the staff recommendation reflects a concern that, if Council approves the applicant’s original or revised scheme to allow planning controls that disregard well established planning and design principles for this part of Wentworth Point to facilitate buildings of up to 50 storeys, being double the 25 storeys currently permitted by these controls, the proposed amendment could also set a precedent to allow even greater levels of development than the current controls allow on those other sites, generating a need for even more community infrastructure that they will not be able to satisfy.
The submitter’s concern that, as identified by the Department of Education, the proposal will have a very high negative impact on student access to open space and associated physical and mental wellbeing is acknowledged. It is agreed that the substantial increase in density being sought at the site by the proposed DCP amendment is likely to result in such an impact. |
9.3 |
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 3: 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 - D08686168
FROM Anna Han
|
|
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before Council. I am here tonight to speak against the Proposed amendments to DCP and draft Planning Agreement for Block H. I support the Council officers’ recommendations and ask that Council refuse the proposed amendments.
I support findings in the assessment report especially analysis of negative impacts the proposal will have on ‘Public domain and open space’ and ‘Traffic and transport’ in the local area.
I am not keen on Council’s Preferred Scheme as the optimal design or outcome for the subject site Block H. This design poses many issues and the uplift in GFA and density alone is enough to raise concern. The Applicant currently has approval to build 29,743sqm in GFA and up to 25 storeys under current controls, I don’t see why Block H must have an uplift at all. Having said that, I do understand that the Preferred Scheme is only a guideline for the Applicant should they wish to submit a new proposal. I also do not support the applicant’s revised scheme (with building height up to 45 storeys instead of 50 storeys) and agree with Council officers that the revised scheme is “largely the same as the exhibited DCP amendment”.
I would like to remind this council what residents have done over the last four years to oppose this proposal.
There were two Public Forum speeches by residents to inform council of community objections (they occurred on 09/04/2018 and 28/05/2018).
Two petitions were lodged with Council (on 23/04/2018 and 28/05/2018) to oppose the amendments. The first petition had over 100 signatures and the second petition had over 800 signatures.
I believe the council officers’ report is comprehensive and well written, their recommendations are what this community’s been waiting for over the last four years.
·
We’ve written,
translated, designed, printed and delivered over 7000 flyers to households
across Wentworth Point and Rhodes. ·
We started an online
petition that now has nearly 1700 signatures and has been submitted to
Council tonight. ·
We designed “Say NO
to Overdevelopment in Wentworth Point” T-Shirts and banners. · We’ve taken every possible opportunity to share information and raise awareness including multiple social media platforms.
I believe we have literally done everything we can therefore and now it is in your hands, the Councillors.
So many hours of work by so many residents have gone into opposing this proposal. Myself and many others would be saddened and extremely disappointed should council and councillors not adopt the recommendations in its’ entirety tonight.
There is absolutely no reason for anything short of a full and total objection to the proposed amendments. We were let down once before by the previous council, I am hopeful that we won’t be let down again by this current council.
Thank you.
STAFF RESPONSE No staff response was provided. |
10. Petitions
There were no petitions tabled at this meeting.
|
Matter of Urgency
|
|
Councillor Esber put forward the following to Council:
I would like to move a Condolence Motion to recognise the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and show our respects for her commitment to the Commonwealth.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II passed away on 8 September 2022 at the age of 96.
For 70 years, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II served the Crown, her country and the Commonwealth with grace, dignity and dedication.
The young Princess Elizabeth became Queen of England at the age of 25 after the death of her father, King George VI, in 1952. Her Coronation took place in Westminster Abbey on 2 June 1953. Her official title was Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Queen Elizabeth II went on to become the longest-reigning British monarch, Australian sovereign and leader of the Commonwealth of Nations, which she navigated for seven decades with dignity, courage and commitment.
Queen Elizabeth II visited Australia 16 times during her reign, including 12 visits to NSW.
The people of Parramatta caught their first glimpse of Her Majesty during her first tour of Australia in 1954. The Queen and Prince Philip travelled on the Royal Train from Bathurst to Sydney, waving to crowds from the train’s observation deck as they passed through Parramatta.
On Thursday 30 April 1970, The Queen, accompanied by Prince Philip, officially opened the restored Old Government House, Parramatta, as a museum.
In 1986, Queen Elizabeth II officially opened the former Parramatta Stadium, an exciting occasion for our City and a moment in history that many in our community will never forget.
In 1988, Queen Elizabeth II elevated Parramatta’s position of mayor to Lord Mayor to mark the City’s bicentenary. Parramatta is one of just four councils in NSW with a Lord Mayor.
On 21 March 2000, Queen Elizabeth II also visited Sydney Olympic Park, the site of Sydney’s 2000 Olympics. During her visit, the Queen was shown through the Games’ basketball and swimming venues, the athletes’ village and Stadium Australia.
Her Majesty The Queen is succeeded by His Majesty The King, Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
|
3967 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Garrard)
That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above.
The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter was of great urgency in accordance with clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.
|
3968 |
Resolved (Esber/Garrard)
(a) That Council acknowledge the passing of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II; (b) That Council note our own formal condolences to His Majesty The King, Charles III, and the Royal Family are being prepared and will be sent to Buckingham Palace; (c) That Council note flags are being flown at half-mast across the City of Parramatta until the day after the funeral of the late Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II; (d) That Council note condolence books are being set up at Council’s libraries and Customer Contact Centre for a one-month period for the community to pass on their condolences and Council’s website has been updated to provide the location list and link for the digital condolence book; (e) Further, that the Chamber hold a minute’s silence as a gesture of respect for Her Majesty The Queen’s passing, service and commitment to the Commonwealth. |
|
Note: Council held a minute’s silence. |
|
Matter of Urgency
|
|
Councillor Esber put forward the following to Council:
I would like to move a Condolence Motion to recognise the passing of Mr John Moxon and show our respects for his contributions to the Parramatta community.
Mr John Bruce Moxon, long-time Northmead resident, disability advocate and former member of Council’s Access Advisory Committee, passed away on Monday, 5 September 2022. John was the loving husband of Margaret Tucker Moxon and father of three.
Following an accident that left him with quadriplegia at the age of 31, Mr Moxon dedicated his life to being an energetic and powerful advocate for people living with disability.
A graduate of Macquarie University, John Moxon worked in the NSW public service as a senior policy officer with responsibility for disability policy and recruitment, before moving into mainstream HR policy, industrial relations, training and development, and strategic planning. On his departure from the public service in 1998, Mr Moxon established his own consultancy business, Moxon Green and Associates Pty Ltd.
Over more than 40 years, John Moxon was an active disability advocate with an unwavering commitment to improving outcomes for people living with disability on a local, state and national scale.
In the City of Parramatta, Mr Moxon was one of the founders of Parramatta Computer Pals for Seniors in 2007, serving on the committee for ten years. He served as a founding member and one-time Chair of Council’s Access Advisory Committee. Mr Moxon served on Council’s Access Advisory Committee for over 25 years, and was the recipient of the 2010 Parramatta City Council Senior Citizen of the Year Award.
He was a tireless advocate for local initiatives and projects to make Parramatta more accessible and inclusive for all, including advocating for accessible footpaths, parks and facilities.
Mr Moxon also advocated for celebrations for International Day for People with Disability, was President of the Telopea / Dundas International Year of Disabled Persons committee, and served as Chair of Active Job Services, a Parramatta based job placement agency for people living with disability.
At a state and national level, Mr Moxon served as coordinator of the Wheeling Free program on 2SER-FM, President of the Australian Quadriplegic Association (now SCIA), Founding President of Physical Disability Council of Australia (now Physical Disability Australia) and its state counterpart PDCN, and a Founder of Lives Worth Living, a network of senior disability rights advocates.
John also participated in the Senate enquiry which led to the establishment of the Disability Discrimination Act and in 2013 was the recipient of a National Disability Award, the Lesley Hall Award for Lifetime Achievement in Disability, for his outstanding work to improve the lives of people with disability.
John Moxon was renowned for his passion and commitment, energetic leadership, as a voice of common sense and his dedication to influencing all levels of government to have more equitable policies and practices for people with disability to improve outcomes for all.
Many pieces of social infrastructure, not least of all PHIVE and Parramatta Aquatic Centre, carry a legacy of improved accessibility and inclusion as a result of John’s efforts.
|
3969 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Valjak)
That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above.
The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter was of great urgency in accordance with clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.
|
3970 |
Resolved (Esber/Valjak)
(a) That Council acknowledge the passing of John Moxon, longtime local disability advocate, former member of the Council’s Access Advisory Committee and 2010 Parramatta City Council Senior Citizen of the Year; and (b) That the Chamber hold a minute’s silence as a gesture of respect on Mr Moxon’s passing and in recognition of his contributions to the Parramatta community. (c) Further, that the Council write to the family and offer our condolences. |
|
Note: Council held a minute’s silence. |
|
Matter of Urgency
|
|
Councillor Garrard put forward the following to the Council:
I would like to move a Motion for a report to be brought to Council in relation to the NRL Grand Final to be held in October 2022, and this is the only suitable Council meeting to make this request.
This request is with relation to the Parramatta Eels.
|
3971 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Siviero)
That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above.
The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter was of great urgency in accordance with clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice. |
3972 |
Resolved (Garrard/Siviero) (a) That Council commence discussion with the Parramatta Eels regarding pre-grand final and post-grand final celebrations.
(b) That a late report be brought back to the next Council meeting, to be held on 26 September 2022, outlining the details of the event and any associated costs.
(c) Further, that Council install the Parramatta Eels flags throughout the Local Government Area (LGA) immediately after the PHIVE opening, and provided the flags can be readily accessed. |
11. Rescission Motions
Nil
12. Reports to Council - For Notation
12.1 |
SUBJECT Investment Report for July 2022
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08638730
REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant
|
3973 |
Resolved (Maclean/Garrard)
That Council receive and note the Investment Report for July 2022. |
13. Reports to Council - For Council Decision
13.1 |
SUBJECT 2022 Local Government NSW Annual Conference
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08400890
REPORT OF Executive Officer
|
3974 |
Resolved (Esber/Humphries)
(a) That
Council nominate the following Councillors to be Council’s Voting
Delegates for Motions at the 2022 Local Government NSW Annual Conference: - Lord Mayor Councillor Donna Davis - Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Sameer Pandey - Councillor Ange Humphries - Councillor Cameron MacLean - Councillor Dan Siviero - Councillor Donna Wang - Councillor Dr Patricia Prociv - Councillor Paul Noack - Councillor Phil Bradley - Councillor Pierre Esber
(b) That Council submit the following Motions for LGNSW to consider at its Annual Conference, further detailed at Attachment 1 to the Council report:
1 Consistent
benchmarks, targets and reporting for environmental outcomes across all NSW
Councils 2 Increase
funding for Arts and Culture in Western Sydney 3 Advocating for changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 to improve design outcomes for dual occupancy development
(c) Further, that the Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, 24 October 2022, be rescheduled to Monday, 31 October 2022 to rectify the conflict with the LGNSW Annual Conference. |
13.2 |
SUBJECT Draft Community Engagement Strategy for Public Exhibition
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08555693
REPORT OF Community Engagement Senior Advisor
|
3975 |
Resolved (Darley/Maclean)
(a) That Council accept this report and its enclosures, including the Draft Community Engagement Strategy.
(b) That the revised Draft Community Engagement Strategy, as at Attachment 1, be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 14 September 2022 to 13 October 2022.
(c) That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to make any further minor technical revisions and design changes prior to the draft Community Engagement Strategy being placed on public exhibition, if required.
(d) Further, that the Draft Community Engagement Strategy be referred back to Council for consideration for adoption following the public exhibition period.
|
|
Note: 1.
Councillors Garrard, Esber & MacLean left the
Chamber at 7:38pm during consideration of the Item. 2.
Councillor MacLean returned to the Chamber at 7:41pm
during consideration of the Item. 3. Councillor Esber returned to the Chamber at 7:43pm during consideration of the Item. 4. 5. Councillor Garrard returned to the Chamber at 7:44pm during consideration of the Item. |
13.3 |
SUBJECT NSW E-Scooter Shared Scheme Trial
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08628594
REPORT OF Transport Planning Manager
|
3976 |
Resolved (Prociv/Bradley)
(a) That Council note the NSW Minister for Active Transport announced a planned e-scooter trial in May 2022, and Transport for NSW has invited interested councils to submit a Request to Participate by 30 September 2022.
(b) That
Council initiate its participation in the trial by: 1 Selecting and negotiating an agreement with a preferred
provider and preparing the Request to Participate submission to Transport for
NSW consistent with the parameters identified in this report, including: i. An initial trial
location along the Parramatta Valley Cycleway ii. Criteria for
Council to consider expansion of the trial location to the Wentworth Point,
Newington, and Carter Street area following six (6) months of operation along
the Parramatta Valley Cycleway. 2 Subject to completion of a Safety Audit for the initial trial location and approval by Transport for NSW, the e-scooter trial begin in the initial trial location.
(c) That the CEO engage with the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA) to consider any trial in Sydney Olympic Park to serve nearby precincts including Wentworth Point, Newington, and Carter Street, and, should SOPA pursue a trial, the CEO be delegated authority to enter into suitable arrangements for inclusion of these areas in any SOPA trial.
(d) Further, that the decision for expansion of the initial trial along the Parramatta Valley Cycleway to the Greater Parramatta CBD area be reported and determined by Council after six (6) months of operation along the Parramatta Valley Cycleway.
DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors Bradley, Esber, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Prociv and Siviero
NOES: Councillors Darley, Garrard, Green, Valjak, Wang and Wearne |
13.4 |
SUBJECT 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 - D08385490
REPORT OF Project Officer Land Use
|
|
Motion (Noack/Siviero)
(a) That
Council note the outcomes of the public exhibition for the proposed amendment
to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan (DCP) and Planning
Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge
Boulevard, Wentworth Point. (b) That
Council note the applicant has supplied an outline of a revised scheme that
seeks to address concerns with the exhibited proposal. (c) That
Council note further information is required to support the consideration
of the alternative scheme including: •
A detailed planning report identifying the impacts of the
changes included in the revised scheme compared to the exhibited proposal; •
A comprehensive urban design report providing an analysis of
context, view sharing, overshadowing, solar access and other relevant
matters; •
Draft DCP Amendment reflective of the revised scheme; • Technical reports that update material submitted with the exhibited proposal addressing: o Transport, traffic, parking and access o Open space/active recreation opportunities o Community facilities o
Other supporting infrastructure needs • Any
associated updates to the proposed Planning Agreement. (d) Further, that Council request the applicant submits the additional information for the revised scheme, as noted in order that a report on the revised scheme can be made to Council to enable its consideration of the revised scheme for the purposes of public exhibition.
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Prociv/Darley)
(a) That Council note the outcomes of the Public Exhibition for the proposed amendment to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point.
(b) That Council refuse the proposed amendment to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point for the following reasons:
i. The proposed development is inconsistent with
the surrounding street grid, block pattern, perimeter block and tower forms
established in Wentworth Point. ii. The proposed building height, bulk and scale: a. is inconsistent with the established built form and would result in adverse impacts on solar access to surrounding development and public domain, sky views, views from neighbouring developments and the public domain, and visual amenity. b. is inconsistent with the building height principles established by the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) where a maximum of 25 storeys has been established to ensure new development remains below the height of towers in Rhodes and Sydney Olympic Park, and to transition height to adjoining lands. c. would result in an undesirable interface with the
public domain and foreshore promenade. iii. The
proposed increased building height would set an undesirable precedent for
remaining development sites in the area and erode the established pattern of
lower height development towards the foreshore. iv. The configuration and proportion of proposed public open space does not present as being readily useable by the public, does not comply with the DCP and is insufficient to support the proposed additional floor area. (c) That any new proposal must be consistent with the urban design requirements established in the proposed officer scheme included in this report (see Attachment 2).
(d) Further, that the Applicant be advised of Council’s decision.
The Foreshadowed Motion lapsed as the Motion, when put, was declared CARRIED:
|
3977 |
Resolved (Noack/Siviero)
(a) That Council note
the outcomes of the public exhibition for the proposed amendment to the
Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan (DCP) and Planning Agreement for
Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard,
Wentworth Point. (b) That Council note
the applicant has supplied an outline of a revised scheme that seeks to
address concerns with the exhibited proposal. (c) That Council note further information is required to support the consideration of the alternative scheme including: •
A detailed planning report
identifying the impacts of the changes included in the revised scheme
compared to the exhibited proposal; •
A comprehensive urban design report
providing an analysis of context, view sharing, overshadowing, solar access
and other relevant matters; •
Draft DCP Amendment reflective of the
revised scheme; • Technical reports that update material submitted with the exhibited proposal addressing: o Transport, traffic, parking and access o Open space/active recreation opportunities o Community facilities o
Other supporting infrastructure needs •
Any associated updates to the
proposed Planning Agreement. (d) Further, that Council request the applicant submits the additional information for the revised scheme, as noted in order that a report on the revised scheme can be made to Council to enable its consideration of the revised scheme for the purposes of public exhibition.
DIVISION A division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Noack, Pandey, Siviero, Valjak, Wang and Wearne
NOES: Councillors Bradley, Darley, Maclean and Prociv
ABSTAINED: Nil
|
|
Procedural Motion
|
3978 |
RESOLVED (Garrard/Noack)
That the meeting be adjourned for ten (10) minutes. |
|
Note: The meeting was adjourned at 9:03pm for a short recess. |
The meeting resumed at 9:14pm with the following Councillors in attendance. The Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Sameer Pandey and Councillors Kellie Darley, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Dan Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.
13.5 |
SUBJECT Naming Proposal for Unnamed Laneways in North Parramatta
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08644004
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Place Services
|
3979 |
Resolved (Esber/Humphries)
(a) That Council endorse the use of Birrung Lane for the first unnamed laneway, which runs adjacent to Belmore Street in the South and Bellevue Street in the North and Whiting Lane in the East. The laneway runs parallel with Pennant Hills Road in the West. The name and location for the first unnamed laneway is illustrated in the Site Map as Laneway 1 (see Attachment 1).
(b) That Council endorse the use of Warrawal Lane for the second unnamed laneway, which runs adjacent to Belmore Street in the North, Oscar Lane to the West and Gladstone Street in the South. The laneway runs parallel with Trades Lane to the West, and Brickfield Street to the East. The name and location for the second unnamed laneway is illustrated in the Site Map as Laneway 2 (see Attachment 1).
(c) That Council endorse the use of Mula Mula Lane for the third unnamed laneway, which runs parallel to Gladstone Street in the North and Isabella Street to the South. The laneway intersects with Trades Lane to the East. The name and location for the third unnamed laneway is illustrated in the Site Map as Laneway 3 (see Attachment 1).
(d) Further, that the preferred name for each of the unnamed laneways be referred to the Geographical Names Board (GNB) of NSW for formal assignment and Gazettal under the Geographical Names Act 1996.
|
|
Note: Councillors Prociv and Bradley were not present during consideration of this matter. |
13.6 |
SUBJECT Parramatta Artists' Studios Relocation
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08612717
REPORT OF Director Parramatta Artist Studios & Cultural Services
|
3980 |
Resolved (Siviero/Wang)
(a) That Council approve the relocation of Parramatta Artists’ Studios to a Council-owned property at 3-5 Bridge Street, Granville.
(b) That Council approve the PAS Relocation Project capital expenditure budget of $638,585 (ex gst.), including $388,585 paid to Council as compensation by the State Government due to the compulsory acquisition of 68 Macquarie Street, and the allocation of $250,000 from the Property Reserve.
(c) Further, that Council grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute all agreements, contracts or deeds necessary to complete the PAS Relocation project.
|
|
Note:
|
13.7 |
SUBJECT Recommendation on the naming of facilities in the Parramatta Aquatic Centre
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08631084
REPORT OF Strategic Communication Specialist
|
|
Resolved (Noack/Darley)
(a) That Council note the outcomes of the second stage of public engagement process on naming suggestions for the elements (rooms, facilities) within the facility
(b) Further, that Council endorse the names recommended for the constituent elements within the Parramatta Aquatic Centre as identified in paragraph 4 of this report.
|
|
Note: Councillors Garrard and Prociv were not present during consideration of this matter. |
14. Notices of Motion
14.1 |
SUBJECT Amendment to the Companion Animals Act 1998
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08670336
FROM Councillor Phil Bradley |
3981 |
Resolved (Bradley/Humphries)
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.
|
|
Note:
|
14.2 |
SUBJECT Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08662872
FROM Councillor Georgina Valjak
|
3982 |
Resolved (Valjak/Darley)
(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’.
|
|
Note: Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 9:33pm returned to the Chamber at 9:38pm during consideration of the matter |
14.3 |
SUBJECT Unoccupied Dwellings in the Parramatta LGA
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08668410
FROM Councillor Phil Bradley
|
3983 |
Resolved (Bradley/Prociv)
(a) That Council write to the Minister for Local Government, the Honourable Wendy Tuckerman, 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 any additional 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.
|
|
Note: Councillor Darley left the Chamber at 9:41pm and returned to the Chamber at 9:44pm during consideration of the matter. |
15. Questions with Notice
15.1 |
SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice - 22 August 2022 Council Meeting
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08659899
REPORT OF Governance Manager
|
|
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. |
Note: Prior to moving into Closed Session, the Deputy 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
|
|
3984 |
Resolved (Esber/Garrard)
That members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting of the Closed Session and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Session be withheld. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(s) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:- 16.1 Tender 39/2021 Ermington Community Centre, Library and Carpark Accessibility Upgrade. (D08385414) - 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. 16.2 Tender 4/2022 Coffey Street and Hilder Road, Ermington between River Road and Tristram Street - Kerb & Gutter, Drainage and Associated Works. (D08440105) - 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. 16.3 Sale of land in front of 90-92 Victoria Road, North Parramatta. (D08641804) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret. 16.4 Write Off of Sundry Debtor Accounts - Bad Debts (Deferred Item). (D08660955) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (b) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains a discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer. Matter of Urgency relating to the Recruitment of a new Chief Executive Officer – This item is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains a discussion in relation to personnel matters concerning particular individuals. |
|
Procedural Motion
|
3985 |
RESOLVED (Humphries/Noack)
That Items 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4 be resolved en bloc. |
16.1 |
SUBJECT Tender 39/2021 Ermington Community Centre, Library and Carpark Accessibility Upgrade
REFERENCE F2021/02938 - D08385414
REPORT OF Major Projects Manager
|
3986 |
Resolved (Humphries/Noack)
(a) That Council approve the appointment of the preferred proponent for the Ermington Community Centre, Library and Carpark Accessibility Upgrade for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 15 of this report.
(b) That all unsuccessful tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in this matter.
(c) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and execute all necessary documents. |
16.2 |
SUBJECT Tender 4/2022 Coffey Street and Hilder Road, Ermington between River Road and Tristram Street - Kerb & Gutter, Drainage and Associated Works
REFERENCE F2022/00182 - D08440105
REPORT OF Major Projects Manager
|
3987 |
Resolved (Humphries/Noack)
(a) That Council approve appointment of the preferred proponent for the kerb & gutter, stormwater drainage and associated works at Coffey Street and Hilder Road, Ermington between River Road and Tristram Street, for the contract sum as outlined in paragraph 12 of this report.
(b) That all unsuccessful tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in this matter.
(c) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and execute all necessary documents. |
16.3 |
SUBJECT Sale of land in front of 90-92 Victoria Road, North Parramatta
REFERENCE F2019/01873 - D08641804
REPORT OF Property Officer
|
3988 |
Resolved (Humphries/Noack)
(a) That Council accept the negotiated position agreed dated 11 July 2022 (Attachment 1) and proceeds with the sale of Lot 10 DP 1282456.
(b) That the proceeds of the sale of land be allocated to Council’s Property Reserve.
(c) Further, that the CEO be delegated authority to execute all documents in relation to this matter. |
16.4 |
SUBJECT Write Off of Sundry Debtor Accounts - Bad Debts (Deferred Item)
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08660955
REPORT OF Rates Manager
|
3989 |
Resolved (Humphries/Noack)
(a) That Council approve the write-off of the outstanding bad debts for various Sundry Debtor accounts identified in Attachment 1 being $95,983.90 and Attachment 2 being $2,907.35, in accordance with section 213 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, which an aggregated total amount of $98,891.25.
(b) That Council note the current outstanding doubtful debts for various Sundry Debtor accounts identified in Attachment 2, have an aggregated total amount of $136,554.22 after designated proposed write-offs.
(c) That Council also note that a program is underway to regularly review the list of doubtful debts, attempt debt recovery and to collect both the original debt and associated recovery costs.
(d) Further, that the results of the debt recovery efforts be reported back to the Finance Committee on a quarterly basis. |
|
Matter of Urgency
|
|
Councillor Esber put forward the following to Council:
I would like to move a Motion to: ·
Acknowledge the resignation of Council’s Chief Executive
Officer, Mr Brett Newman; ·
Determine Acting CEO arrangements for the intervening period
following the departure of Mr Newman, including approvals for necessary
delegations to the Acting CEO and; · To commence the recruitment process for a new CEO of City of Parramatta Council, including the establishment of a CEO Selection Panel.
|
3990 |
RESOLVED (Esber/Prociv)
That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above.
The Deputy Lord Mayor ruled the matter was of great urgency in accordance with clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.
|
3991 |
Resolved (Esber/Prociv)
Acknowledgement of Service (a) That Council acknowledge the service of Council’s CEO Mr Brett Newman, and notes his departure effective from close of business on 30 September 2022. (b) That Council formally thanks Mr Newman for his contributions to the City, its residents, workers and visitors, and further thanks him for his strategic vision, dedication and the enormous personal effort he has brought to the role, particularly during the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Appointment of Acting CEO (c) That in the intervening period following the departure of Mr Newman and until a new CEO is appointed, Council appoint Mr Bryan Hynes as Acting CEO. (d) That pursuant to section 47 of the Interpretation Act 1987 and section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegates to the Acting Chief Executive Officer from 1 October 2022 until a new permanent CEO is appointed and commences, the functions of the General Manager to exercise Council’s powers, functions, duties and authorities contained in legislation and the functions as specified in:
1. the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and any other relevant or related subordinate legislation; and 2. any other legislation, regulations or other subordinate legislation under which Council has powers, authorities, duties or functions.
(e) That these delegations are subject to the following:
1. Any limitations or restraints under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and any other legislation, regulations or other subordinate legislation relevant to this delegation; 2. Any direction, limitations or restraints under any resolution made by Council relating to the exercise of any delegated power, function, duty or authority; 3. The Acting CEO must exercise the delegated powers, functions, duties and authorities in accordance with and subject to:
i) the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and any other relevant or related subordinate legislation; and ii) all and every policy adopted by resolution of the Council and current at the time of the exercise of the delegated powers, functions, duties and authorities.
(f) That Council delegate to the Acting Chief Executive Officer the acceptance of tenders to a maximum value of $500,000 (incl GST) per tender.
(g) That Council delegate to the Acting Chief Executive Officer the following road and traffic functions: · Line-marking (lane lines, separation lines, edge lines, barrier lines, etc); · Parking restrictions (excluding preferential and residential parking schemes); · Advisory sign posting; · Works zones; · Taxi zones / bus zones (subject to consultation with relevant associations and bodies and Transport for NSW); · Angled and disabled parking; · Light traffic thoroughfares; · Regulatory signs (other than turn restrictions and one-way restrictions); · Marked foot crossings and children crossings (other than raised crossings or where road narrowing is involved); · Temporary road closures / on-the-spot road closures for annual events (as per RMS requirements and subject to Police approval).
(h) That the delegations provided to Brett Newman at the Council Meetings dated 7 February 2022 and 14 March 2022 be revoked as at the date of the commencement of the Acting Chief Executive Officer.
Commence procurement of Executive Search Firm (i) That the process to procure a senior executive recruitment agency to facilitate the process for the recruitment of a new CEO be commenced immediately and that, as advised by the Executive Director – People, Culture and Workplace, noting that the CEO Selection Panel, once established, will be delegated the authority to select the agency. Establish CEO Selection Panel (j) That a CEO Selection Panel, comprising of the Lord Mayor, Councillor Davis, Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Pandey and Councillors Garrard, Humphries and Valjak be established to oversee the recruitment process. (l) That the CEO Selection Panel exercise the functions required to undertake the recruitment process, as outlined in the Office of Local Government’s Guidelines for the Appointment and Oversight of General Managers, including the selection of senior executive recruitment agency, determination of the position description, interview of candidates, salary package and conditions of employment. (m) Further, that the CEO Selection Panel’s recommended candidate be reported to Council for endorsement. |
|
Procedural Motion
|
3992 |
RESOLVED (Esber/ Pandey)
That the meeting resume in Open Session. |
17. REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION
The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 16.1 to 16.4 and the Matter of Urgency relating to the recruitment of a new Chief Executive Officer.
18. CONCLUSION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 10:53pm.
THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 27 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY,12 SEPTEMBER 2022 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2022.
Chairperson
Rescission Motions
26 September 2022
11.1 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................................................... 40
Council 26 September 2022 Item 11.1
ITEM NUMBER 11.1
SUBJECT 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 - D08687707
REPORT OF Councillor Dr Patricia Prociv, Councillor Phil Bradley, Councillor Kellie Darley
To be Moved by Councillor Prociv and seconded by Councillors Bradley and Darley as per Rescission Motion form signed and submitted on 12 September 2022 after the close of the meeting.
That the resolution of the Council held on 12 September 2022 in relation to 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, namely:
(a) That Council note the outcomes of the public exhibition for the proposed amendment to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan (DCP) and Planning Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point.
(b) That Council note that the applicant has supplied an outline of a revised scheme that seeks to address concerns with the exhibited proposal.
(c) That Council note that further information is required to support the consideration of the alternative scheme including:
·
A detailed
planning report identifying the impacts of the changes included in the revised
scheme compared to the exhibited proposal;
·
A comprehensive
urban design report providing an analysis of context, view sharing,
overshadowing, solar access and other relevant matters;
·
Draft DCP
Amendment reflective of the revised scheme;
· Technical reports that update material submitted with the exhibited proposal addressing:
o Transport, traffic, parking and access
o Open space/active recreation opportunities
o Community facilities
o Other supporting infrastructure needs
· Any associated updates to the proposed Planning Agreement.
(d) Further, that Council request the applicant submits the additional information for the revised scheme, as noted in order that a report on the revised scheme can be made to Council to enable its consideration of the revised scheme for the purposes of public exhibition.
be and is hereby rescinded.
In the event the rescission motion is successful, the following motion is proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
(a) That Council note the outcomes of the Public Exhibition for the proposed amendment to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point.
(b) That Council refuse the proposed amendment to the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan for Block H, Precinct B, 16 Burroway Road and part 5 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point for the following reasons:
i.
The
proposed development is inconsistent with the surrounding street grid, block
pattern, perimeter block and tower forms established in Wentworth Point.
ii. The proposed building height, bulk and scale:
a. is inconsistent with the established built form and would result in adverse impacts on solar access to surrounding development and public domain, sky views, views from neighbouring developments and the public domain, and visual amenity.
b. is inconsistent with the building height principles established by the Homebush Bay West Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) where a maximum of 25 storeys has been established to ensure new development remains below the height of towers in Rhodes and Sydney Olympic Park, and to transition height to adjoining lands.
c. would result in an
undesirable interface with the public domain and foreshore promenade.
iii. The
proposed increased building height would set an undesirable precedent for
remaining development sites in the area and erode the established pattern of
lower height development towards the foreshore.
iv. The configuration and proportion of proposed public open space does not present as being readily useable by the public, does not comply with the DCP and is insufficient to support the proposed additional floor area.
(c) That any new proposal must be consistent with the urban design requirements established in the proposed officer scheme included in this report (see Attachment 3).
(d) Further, that the Applicant be advised of Council’s decision.
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 - Council Report - 12 September 2022 Council Meeting |
16 Pages |
|
2⇩ |
Detailed Assessment Report |
48 Pages |
|
3⇩ |
Urban Design Review - July 2022 |
51 Pages |
|
4⇩ |
Exhibited Draft Development Control Plan - October 2020 |
22 Pages |
|
5⇩ |
Design Excellence Competition Jury Report - November 2019 |
104 Pages |
|
6⇩ |
Applicant Transport Study - PWC - Redacted - February 2022 |
94 Pages |
|
7⇩ |
FJMT / Billbergia Revised Scheme - May 2022 |
78 Pages |
|
Item 11.1 - Attachment 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 - Council Report - 12 September 2022 Council Meeting |
Reports to Council - For Notation
26 September 2022
12.1 Investment Report for August 2022............................................................ 458
12.2 Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 26 May 2022........................................................................................................................... 507
12.3 Quarter Four Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22.......................................................................................................................... 516
12.4 Environmental Sustainability Strategy Progress Report 2017-21.......... 571
Council 26 September 2022 Item 12.1
ITEM NUMBER 12.1
SUBJECT Investment Report for August 2022
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08680171
REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant
CSP THEME: Fair
workshop/briefing date: Nil
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the investment portfolio performance and compliance for the month of August 2022.
That Council receive and note the Investment Report for August 2022.
BACKGROUND
1. In accordance with clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 (the Regulation), a report setting out details of all money invested must be presented to Council monthly.
2. The report must include a certificate as to whether the investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act), the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and Council’s Investment Policy.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
Investment Portfolio Summary
3. The investment portfolio closing balance as at 31 August 2022 was $552.9m. The average portfolio holdings held throughout the month was $535.3m.
4. The majority of Council’s investment portfolio is in term deposits (74%). The portfolio also includes liquid floating rate notes (FRNs), cash, and the TCorp Long Term Growth Fund (LTGF).
5. Approximately 7.5% of the portfolio comprises less conservative long-term investments with exposure to credit markets and domestic and international shares. The investment portfolio is well diversified and weighted towards higher-rated institutions.
6. The table below lists the diversified range of investments held by Council as at 31 August 2022.
Table 1: Summary of investment portfolio
*COPC Internal Benchmark returns - based on Council’s individual benchmarks across
the various asset classes it invests within its own portfolio. The following
individual benchmarks are the measurements, used for each asset class.
Cash: RBA Cash Rate
Term Deposits: based on Council’s weighted average duration using
multiple ADIs average monthly rate
FRNs: AusBond Credit FRN Index
CFS Global Credit Income Fund: AusBond Credit Index
NSW TCorpIM Long-Term Growth Fund: NSW TCorpIM Internal Benchmark
7. Investment performance for the month. The investment portfolio reported a monthly- actual return of 0.16% for August 2022 (or 1.88% on an annualised basis). Outperforming the monthly Ausbond bank bill index by 4 basis points annualised.
The TCorp Fund (-0.50% actual) was the biggest detractor to performance this month, as international shares fell.
The performance is also anchored by a handful of longer-dated 2018 Term deposits with fixed rates ranging from 3.25% to 3.70%.
8. Historical investment performance. The table below provides year-to-date and historical investment performance compared to the Ausbond Bank Bill Index.
Table 2: Historical investment portfolio performance
9. Investment Revenue: As at the end of August 2022, the cumulative actual interest/income earned, was approximately $1.332m above the budget for the month, largely driven by the strong rebound of shares during July 2022.
Table 3: Cumulative Interest table
Note: Council values all managed funds, Floating rate notes, and bonds on a mark to market basis each month. Any gain or loss in valuation is capitalied to interest income based on actual monthly statements.
Table 4: Managed Fund Valuations Capitalised
During August, capital book-loss valuations on Managed funds equated to approximately -$102k, this loss has been capitalised and is included in the cumulative investment revenue shown in table 3.
The TCorp holding represents approximately 5% of Council’s total investment portfolio and returned -0.50% (actual) during August. The TCorp’s valuation fell by approximately -$141k during August. The Fund should be looked at with a long-term view, with a minimum holding period of +7 years. Given the exposure to the volatile asset of shares, Council should expect to see, on average, a negative month once every 3 months over a long-term holding period.
The CFS Global Credit fund accounts for around 2½% of Council’s total investment portfolio. The Fund returned +0.28% (actual) in August, as the market valuation of the funds assets in global credit securities rose during the month.
10. Maturities and Transactions: Overall, the portfolio remains well diversified from a maturity perspective, with around 20% of assets directed to medium term (2-5 years).
Where liquidity permits, Imperium recommend new surplus funds be directed to 1-2 year horizons given this is where the most attractive value can be found.
The following Investment transactions occurred during August 22:
Table 5: Investment Maturities
Table 6: New Investment Purchases
Any funds remaining after maturities and reinvestment, are used to replenish cash at call, and to fund weekly operational expenditure.
Table 7: Maturity profile
11. The portfolio complies with Council’s Investment Policy limits, with ample investment opportunity still available within all institutional rating, duration, and counterparty limits.
Graph 1: Investment Policy rating capacity
*BBB+/BBB limits combined under Council’s investment policy.
12. Counterparty Limits. All individual counterparty limits comply with council’s investment policy, with the following exceptions:
Table 8: Exceptions to counterparty limits
Institution
|
Policy Limit ($‘000) |
Held ($’000) |
Overweight ($’000) |
Reason |
Compliance Date |
No Exceptions |
|
|
|
|
|
As at the end of August 2022, Council did not have an overweight position to any single ADI. Overall, the portfolio is well diversified across the entire credit spectrum, including some exposure to unrated ADIs.
A full list of counterparty holdings is available on page 9 of the Imperium comprehensive report (attachment 2)
13. Current Yields - As global inflationary pressures have escalated, this has seen a significant lift in longer-term bond yields (valuations fell) as markets have reacted accordingly.
The domestic bond market continues to suggest a prolonged low period of interest rates on a historical basis (10-year government bond yields just over 3½%). Over the month, yields rose up to 55bp at the long‑end of the curve.
Councils Fixed Bonds are currently yielding between around 1.07%, with a weighted average maturity of 2.88 years.
The CFS Global Credit Fund holds a diverse range of securities across the global credit market. It remains very well diversified by issuer to mitigate default risk. It invests in nearly 600 corporate bonds from issuers in various countries and industry sectors. Any spread contraction going forward allows credit and asset-backed holdings to enjoy significant capital gains. With a running yield of around +3½-4% per annum, Council will continue to hold this fund.
Council’s term deposit portfolio (74% of the portfolio) was yielding 2.03% p.a. at month-end, with a weighted average duration of around 431 days or 1.18 years. The current average yield remains very attractive.
The deposit market has seen a significant shift in longer‑term deposit rates over the past year. The long-end of the deposit curve (+12 months) remained flat over August (compared to July) despite more rate rises in the near future, and partly driven by the market’s expectation of an impending global recession.
New’ investments above 3½% p.a. now appears likely if Council can place an allocation of its surplus funds for terms of 12 months to 2 years
Graph 2: Term Deposit Yields
14. Council engages Imperium Markets for assistance in all investment matters relating to advice, risk and portfolio weighting. Imperium monitor the portfolio daily and conduct a monthly health check review. This confirms that Council’s portfolio is being conducted in accordance with the Act, the Regulation and the Investment Policy.
15. Detailed investment performance commentary in relation to each investment product /type and counterparty, can be found in the Imperium comprehensive report attached. (Attachment 2)
Certification of Investments
16. I hereby certify the investments for the month of August 2022 have been made in compliance with the Act, the Regulations, Council’s Investment Policy, and the adviser’s recommendations.
John Angilley, Chief Financial and Information Officer
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
17. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
31 Aug 2022 |
Imperium Markets |
All Investments are within Policy guidelines and supported by Councils independent advisor.
Refer Imperium Comprehensive Report |
All Investments are within Policy limits and reconcile to the General Ledger as at 31 Aug 2022 |
John Angilley CFIO
Bruce MacFarlane Treasury & Tax Accountant |
Councillor Consultation
18. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
19. There are no legal implications resulting from this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
20. Actual investment revenue (interest and capitalised growth) exceeded the August cumulative budget by approximately $1.332m on the back of strong performance of Councils growth and credit managed funds in July. Given the longer duration of these funds, monthly performance can be volatile. Advisors therefore have recommended Council remain cautious in interest forecasts. This will be revised at the September quarterly review.
Bruce MacFarlane
Tax and Treasury Accountant
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Investment and Loans Performance Graph Aug 2022.pdf |
1 Page |
|
2⇩ |
Imperium Comprehensive Investment Report - August 22 .pdf |
34 Pages |
|
3⇩ |
List of Council Investments by maturity August 2022.pdf |
7 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ITEM NUMBER 12.2
SUBJECT Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 26 May 2022.
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08667460
REPORT OF Coordinator Internal Audit
csp theme: FAIR
PURPOSE:
To provide to Council a summary of the key discussion points of the Audit Risk and Improvement (ARIC) Committee meeting held on 26 May 2022.
That Council note the minutes of the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee meetings as provided at Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
1. Council’s Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) comprises of members appointed by the Council. The members of the ARIC currently include two (2) Councillors and three (3) independent external members.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Council’s Auditors and other Council Director(s) and Manager(s) are invited to attend the ARIC meetings as observers. This approach is consistent with the Internal Audit Guidelines issued by the Office of Local Government (then Division of Local Government) in September 2010.
3. The ARIC meets five (5) times a year with four (4) ordinary meetings and one (1) special meeting to consider Council’s audited Annual Financial Reports.
4. Under the ARIC’s Charter, all meeting minutes are required to be reported to Council. This report provides both a full copy of the minutes and a summary of the key discussion points of the ARIC meeting held on 26 May 2022.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
5. Matters arising and
action items from minutes of previous meetings were presented.
6. The Executive Director
Property & Place presented an overview of Major Projects including
extreme/significant risks. The presentation also included the Parramatta Square
Financials and an update of the Aquatic and Leisure Centre.
7. The Committee noted the
MPAC Bi-Annual Report prepared by MPAC Chair Gavin Zimmerle.
8. The Head of IT provided
an update on the Cyber Security Program. Key highlights were:
a. Current focus is to test and complete enabling MFA (Multi Factor Authentication) for all users of Office 365;
b. Continuing Monthly Security Awareness for staff;
c. Continuous modernisation – TechOne and Pathway migration to Cloud, HR system project prototype completed, GIS upgrades completed and TRIM planning underway;
d. Current status of Backup and Disaster Recovery.
9. The Internal Ombudsman provided an overview of the activities that were undertaken by the Internal Ombudsman Shared Service (IOSS) with City of Parramatta in the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022. The quarterly report included:
a. Summary of the complaints received, and advice provided
b. Summary of the investigations conducted
c. Education activities conducted
d. Probity advice provided
e. Policy review and development
f. Promotion and media activities
g. Code of conduct matters
h. Professional development.
10. The Committee received and noted
the updated report of Council’s involvement
in current work to reassess and develop strategies for the management of James Hardie Asbestos Legacy
sites in the City of Parramatta LGA.
11. The April 2022 YTD Finance Report
which had been reviewed and approved by the Executive and Finance Committees
was presented by the Chief Finance and Information Officer.
12. Nirupama Mani, Director (NSW Audit
Office) provided an update on the Audit Office activities including presenting
the scope of the Annual Engagement Plan.
13. The Report of Internal Audit
Activities for the period 12 February 2022 to 13 May 2002 included an update of
the status of the 2020/2021 Internal Audit Program. The report also included
the status of implementation of outstanding audit recommendations (internal,
external & IOSS).
14. ARIC noted the report on the
progress of Council’s Enterprise Risk Management activities tabled by the
Risk & Audit Manager.
15. The People Culture and Workplace Report presented
to the Executive Team in May 2022 was included for information purposes only.
16. The Finance & Information Report presented to the Executive Team in May 2022 was included for information purposes only.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
17. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
15 July 2022 |
Risk & Audit Manager |
No comment |
Referred draft minutes to ARIC Chair |
Risk & Audit / Corporate Services Coordinator Internal Audit |
22 July 2022 |
Chairperson of ARIC
|
Approved |
Forwarded approved final draft to ARIC members.
|
Risk & Audit / Corporate Services Coordinator Internal Audit |
25 July 2022 |
Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC)
|
No feedback received from committee members. |
Chairperson approved minutes accepted as final. |
Risk & Audit / Corporate Services Coordinator Internal Audit |
Councillor Consultation
18. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
25 July 2022 |
Councillor representatives on ARIC |
No comment received from councilor representatives. |
No further action. |
Risk & Audit / Corporate Services Coordinator Internal Audit |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
19. There are no legal implications associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
20. There are no financial implications associated with this report.
|
FY 21/22 |
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
Revenue |
NIL |
|
|
|
Internal Revenue |
|
|
|
|
External Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
NIL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
NIL |
|
|
|
Steven Unkovic
Coordinator Internal Audit
Bruce Ferguson
Risk & Audit Manager
Bernadette Cavanagh
Executive Director, People Culture & Workplace
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Minutes ARIC Meeting 26 May 2022 |
5 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ITEM NUMBER 12.3
SUBJECT Quarter Four Progress Report - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2021/22
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08656489
REPORT OF Corporate Strategy Manager
CSP THEME: FAIR
workshop/briefing date: 05 September 2022
PURPOSE:
To present Council’s Quarter Four (Q4) progress on implementing the Delivery Program 2018-22 and Operational Plan 2021/22.
That the report be received and noted.
BACKGROUND
1. The Local Government Act 1993 via the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines 2021 requires that the General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) provide progress reports to the Council with respect to the principal activities detailed in the Delivery Program at least every six months.
2. At its meeting of 28 June 2021, Council adopted an amended Delivery Program for 2018-2022 (the Plan), inclusive of the Year Four Operational Plan & Budget for 2021/22. The structure of the Plan reflects the six Strategic Goals of the City’s Community Strategic Plan (CSP) – Fair, Accessible, Green, Welcoming, Thriving, and Innovative.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
3. The Q4 Progress Report (the Report) in Attachment 1 provides an update on progress made in the fourth quarter of the 2021/22 financial year (April – June 2022) against the Principal Activities, Focus Areas and Service Measures in the Plan. The Report also summarises year end progress on each of Council's Focus Areas for 2021/22 financial year.
4. The Report is structured by the six Goals from City of Parramatta’s CSP. An Exceptions Report listing only Focus Areas ‘off track’ or ‘on hold’, and Service Measures ‘not achieved’, is provided from page 5 of the Report.
5. After notation by Council, the Report will be published on the Quarterly and Annual Reporting section of Council’s website.
Q4 status summary of Focus Areas and Service Measures
6. Recent poor weather conditions, and impacts on resourcing and changes in community behaviours due to COVID-19, had significantly affected some Council services and projects in Q4. These impacts are reflected in the Report, with a number of action items reporting these as contributors for abnormal or off target performance.
7. At 30 June
2022, 51% of Council’s 49 Focus Areas were reported as either completed
or progressing on track. A further 49% were reported as either progressing off
track or on hold.
Focus Area status |
# |
% |
Completed |
12 |
24% |
Progressing – on track |
13 |
27% |
Progressing – off track |
21 |
43% |
On hold / stopped |
3 |
6% |
Not due to start |
0 |
0% |
Total |
49 |
100% |
8. At 30 June
2022, 36% of Council’s 88 Service Measures were reported as achieved or
on track to achieve their targets. 32% were reported as not achieved, with at
least 25 of these 28 Service Measures citing COVID-19 or poor weather-related
impacts to their service. For 32% of measures, data was reported as not
available or not due in this period – the bulk of these being annual
Community Satisfaction Survey measures previously reported in Q2.
Service Measure status |
# |
% |
Achieved / on track |
32 |
36% |
Not achieved |
28 |
32% |
Data not available / Not due |
28 |
32% |
Total |
88 |
100% |
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
9. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
Jun – Aug 2022 |
Reporting officers; Executive Approvers |
All business units with reportable items in the Plan have been consulted to compile the Report. |
Final draft report finalised. |
All business units, led by City Strategy |
Councillor Consultation
10. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
5 Sep 2022 Briefing |
All Councillors invited |
N/a |
N/a |
N/a |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
11. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
12. There are no unbudgeted financial implications associated with this report.
13. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.
|
FY 21/22 |
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Internal Revenue |
|
|
|
|
External Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
Nil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
Nil |
|
|
|
Dayne Glinkowski
Corporate Strategy Manager
Nicole Carnegie
Group Manager, City Strategy
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Quarter 4 Progress Report - Delivery Program & Operational Plan 2021-22 |
51 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ITEM NUMBER 12.4
SUBJECT Environmental Sustainability Strategy Progress Report 2017-21
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08653399
REPORT OF Strategy Manager
CSP THEME: GREEN
workshop/briefing date: 4 May 2022
PURPOSE:
To present to Council the Environmental Sustainability Strategy Progress Report 2017 – 2021 at Attachment 1.
(a) That Council note and receive the Environmental Sustainability Strategy Progress Report 2017 – 2021 (Progress Report).
BACKGROUND
1. City of Parramatta Council endorsed its Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2017 (ESS) on 10 July 2017, following significant community and stakeholder engagement.
2. As part of the ESS endorsement, Council resolved to undertake an annual reporting process on its progress.
3. The Progress Report closes out the 2017 ESS resolution by providing an overview of goal progress and individual action tracking covering the four years of the 2017 ESS, June 2017 to June 2021.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
4. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
September 2021 – June 2022 |
Internal subject matter experts (SMEs) for feedback/ endorsement |
Amendments proposed |
Amendments incorporated into final draft |
City Strategy |
March – June 2022 |
Executive Team consulted for feedback/ endorsement of final draft |
Amendments proposed |
Amendments incorporated; Report finalised and designed |
City Strategy |
Councillor Consultation
5. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
4 May 2022 |
ALL - Councillor Workshop |
General discussion and comment |
Comments considered as part of report finalisation and planning for future strategic direction. |
City Strategy |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
6. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
7. 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.
|
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
FY 25/26 |
Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Internal Revenue |
|
|
|
|
External Revenue |
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Luke Wolstencroft
Strategy Manager
Nicole Carnegie
Group Manager, City Strategy
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Environmental Sustainability Strategy Progress Report 2017-2021 |
39 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Reports to Council - For Council Decision
26 September 2022
13.1 Gateway Request: Planning Proposal for the land at 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta (Riverside Theatre site)............ 614
13.2 Naming Proposal for Unnamed Epping Pedestrian Way (Deferred Item) 757
13.3 Community Events Grants Committee Recommendations.................... 784
13.4 Public Works on Private Land - Light Up Ermington Better Neighborhood Project.......................................................................................................................... 788
Council 26 September 2022 Item 13.1
ITEM NUMBER 13.1
SUBJECT Gateway Request: Planning Proposal for the land at 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta (Riverside Theatre site)
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08649901
APPLICANT/S City of Parramatta
OWNERS City of Parramatta
REPORT OF Team Leader
CSP THEME: INNOVATIVE
WORKSHOP BRIEFING DATE: 21 September 2022
Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel Nil
PURPOSE
To seek Council’s approval to forward the Planning Proposal for the land at 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta (Riverside Theatre site) to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) with a request to issue a Gateway determination.
(a) That Council approve the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 for the purposes of it being forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment to request the issuing of a Gateway Determination for the land at 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta (Riverside Theatre site) which seeks the following changes to the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011:
1. increase the Maximum Height of Building (HOB) from 15m to 28m;
2. introduce a Site-Specific Clause that prevents new development generating any additional overshadowing to the Parramatta River Foreshore between 12pm and 2pm; and
3. requires active street frontages.
(b) That the Department of Planning and Environment be requested that no public exhibition process be required in the Gateway Determination for the following reasons:
1. to support the efficient processing of the Planning Proposal and the redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre;
2. the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal publicly exhibited controls sought a greater building height, than the subject Planning Proposal;
3. the subject Planning Proposal seeks to implement the amenity controls from the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.
(c) That Council request the Department of Planning and Environment to authorise its Chief Executive Officer to exercise their plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal as authorised by Council on 26 November 2012.
(d) That Council note the Parramatta Local Planning Panel’s (LPP) advice to Council to seek a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) as per Part (a) of Council Officers’ recommendation above; however the LPP recommends a public exhibition which is inconsistent with Council Officers’ recommendation in Part (b).
(e) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the amendment process.
PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE
SUMMARY
1. The Riverside Theatre is a critical anchor performing arts facility located within the Parramatta CBD. Constructed in 1988, the current Riverside Theatre building is not fit for purpose to serve the growing community.
2. The redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre to deliver a modernised and expanded performance space is an important infrastructure priority reflected in Council’s Cultural Plan.
3. Council has progressed with the preparation of a visioning document, concept reference design, and committed funding to redevelop the theatre.
4. The Council endorsed Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP), among a number of things, sought to increase the height control on this site. This change would enable the redevelopment of the theatre in line with the vision of Council. The concept design was prepared in response to the planning controls within the Council endorsed CBD PP.
5. However, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) deferred the area north of the river from the CBD PP during its finalisation and retained the current height control for this site. The current height control does not enable the redevelopment of the site consistent with the concept reference design.
6. As a result, a site-specific Planning Proposal is needed to implement the necessary height control to allow for the concept design and redevelopment project to progress.
7. The Planning Proposal found in Attachment 1 is required for the following reasons:
· To ensure the necessary planning controls are in place to allow the timely progression and redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre.
· Waiting for a future review of the land north of the Parramatta River (which is subject to funding being provided by the State Government, is anticipated to commence in 2023 and which would take two to three years to complete) would cause delays to the progression of the Council prepared concept design for the Riverside Theatre.
· No change is sought to the existing FSR control.
· The Site-Specific Clause implements the intent of the solar access protection plane and active frontage controls within the CBD PP.
· The resulting building controls are considered to have an inconsequential impact on amenity, overshadowing, and overall bulk and scale; and is lower in height than the building height that would have resulted from the Council adopted CBD PP.
8. Table 1 compares the existing planning controls, proposed controls under the CBD PP as endorsed by Council, the proposed controls within the Planning Proposal, and the existing building height for reference.
Control |
PLEP 2011 (existing controls) |
Council adopted CBD PP |
Planning Proposal |
Existing building |
Zoning |
B4 Mixed Use |
B4 Mixed Use |
B4 Mixed Use |
B4 Mixed Use |
Height |
15m |
Height not nominated – solar access control would allow heights of 50-60m on parts of the site. |
28m |
25m |
FSR |
3:1 |
3:1 |
3:1 |
Unknown |
Table 1 - Summary of existing and proposed controls
SITE DESCRIPTION
9. The Planning Proposal applies to the land at 353A-353C Church Street (Lot 2 DP 740382) and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 DP 740382) (the site). The site is bound by Marsden Street to the west; Market Street to the north; Church Street to the east; and the Parramatta River Foreshore to the south (see Figure 1). The site has an approximate area of 7,000sqm.
Figure 1 – Site subject to the Planning Proposal
10. The site is the location of the Riverside Theatre, which is owned and operated by the City of Parramatta Council (Council). The existing building is located on the eastern side of the site, with a frontage to Church Street and the river foreshore. The building contains three separate theatres and event spaces. Above-ground parking is located on the western side of the site on the corner of Market and Marsden Street.
11. Table 1 above include the existing key planning controls that apply to the site. Further detail on the site’s context, strategic positioning within the Parramatta CBD, and other planning controls are contained within the LPP report found in Attachment 2 and the Planning Proposal found in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
12. Council’s ‘A Cultural Plan for Parramatta’s CBD 2017-2022’ (Cultural Plan) recognises the important contribution the Riverside Theatre plays in Parramatta’s cultural identity. The redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre to modernise its infrastructure and increase its capacity is a leading priority to support the growing population of both Parramatta and Greater Sydney.
13. As detailed in Attachment 2, Council has progressed with the preparation of a visioning document, concept reference design, and committed funding to redevelop the theatre.
14. Attachment 2 also includes a series of figures that show the indicative building envelope of the concept reference design from multiple perspectives, noting that the next phase of the redevelopment project will further embellish design features, building articulation, and integration with the public domain along the river foreshore. The perspectives are to provide Council and the community with an indicative form only.
15. The redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre as per Council’s concept reference design was contingent on the Council endorsed version of CBD PP being finalised. The Council adopted CBD PP established the height control needed to redevelop the theatre in line with the vision of Council - the removal of North Parramatta from the CBD PP by DPE puts the development timetable at risk.
16. Council considered its position on the changes made to the Council endorsed CBD Planning Proposal when the Minister finalised the plan at its meeting of 25 July 2022. The portion of the Council resolution relevant to North Parramatta and the subject site reads:
“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).”
17. The subject site-specific Planning Proposal meets the criteria to be considered as an exception. Proceeding with this Planning Proposal ahead of the work proposed to review the controls for North Parramatta is consistent with Council’s 25 July 2022 resolution.
DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PROPOSAL
18. The Planning Proposal (Attachment 2) seeks the following amendments to the PLEP 2011:
a. Increase the Maximum Height of Building (HOB) from 15m to 28m.
b. Introduce a Site-Specific Clause that:
i. prevents new development generating any additional overshadowing to the Parramatta River Foreshore;
ii. requires active street and river frontages.
19. No changes are proposed to the land use zoning or FSR controls.
PLANNING PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT
20. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 has been prepared in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the DPE’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals. The Planning Proposal demonstrates consistency against the relevant State Planning Policies and Ministerial Directions.
21. The LPP report in Attachment 2 includes Council Officers’ assessment of the Planning Proposal based on strategic merit and site-specific planning issues. The LPP report specifically addresses the following considerations in detail:
Urban Design, (including height, floor space ratio, overshadowing, active frontages, and design excellence);
Heritage; and
Flooding.
22. The Council Officer assessment considered the building height that would have resulted from the Council adopted CBD PP. Attachment 2 explains that the increase in height and resulting building envelope from the Planning Proposal is lower than the building height that would have resulted from the Council adopted CBD PP; and overall is considered to have an inconsequential impact on amenity, overshadowing, and overall bulk and scale.
23. Refer to the LPP report at Attachment 2 and the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 for comprehensive details of the assessment, and for figures of the concept design and a description of the proposed redevelopment.
PARRAMATTA LOCAL PLANNING PANEL
24. The Planning Proposal was considered by the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (LPP) at the meeting of 16 August 2022. Attachment 2 includes the LPP report and minutes.
25. The LPP unanimously provided the following advice:
(a) The Panel is supportive of the recommendation that Council seek a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment, for the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 for the land at 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta (Riverside Theatre site) which seeks the following changes to the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011:
1. increase the Maximum Height of Building (HOB) from 15m to 28m;
2. introduce a Site-Specific Clause that prevents new development generating any additional overshadowing to the Parramatta River Foreshore between 12pm and 2pm; and
3. requires active street frontages.
(b) The Panel is of the view that Planning Proposal should be publicly exhibited in the usual manner.
(c) The Panel in supporting the progression of the Planning Proposal had regard to the existing policy framework heights adjacent to Prince Alfred Square.
26. The LPP supported the Council Officer recommendations except in relation to the request for no public exhibition process. Part (b) of the recommendation above shows the LPP’s advice to proceed with a public exhibition process in the “usual manner”.
28. Ultimately the decision on whether exhibition will be required and how long the consultation period will run will be determined by the DPE via a condition of any Gateway Determination they may issue for this Planning Proposal.
PLAN MAKING DLEGATIONS
29. Plan making delegations were announced by the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in October 2012 allowing councils to make LEPs of local significance. On 26 November 2012, Council resolved to accept the delegation for plan making functions, and for these functions be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.
30. It is recommended that Council request to the Department of Planning and Environment to exercise its plan making delegations for this Planning Proposal. This means that after the Planning Proposal has received a Gateway Determination, complied with any conditions (including any requirements for public exhibition), Council officers can deal directly with the Parliamentary Counsel on the legal drafting and finalisation of the amendment to the LEP facilitated by this Planning Proposal.
31. This will support the efficient processing of the Planning Proposal, and in turn, the redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre. Council officers consider this suitable due to the nature and unique context of the change which are of local significance.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
32. As discussed within Table 2 of the LPP report in Attachment 2, Council has spent monies in preparing the concept design and validation work for the redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre. Council has also allocated funding for the delivery of the project which is considered separately in other reports to Council.
33. This report seeks to amend the planning controls to enable the redevelopment but does not commit Council to any expenditure to redevelop this site. For this reason the table below does not show any financial impact. The costs of processing this Planning Proposal will be funded from the existing City Planning and Design budget.
|
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 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Result |
|
|
|
|
External Costs |
|
|
|
|
Internal Costs |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Result |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
Funding Source |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
CAPEX |
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total CAPEX |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
34. Council officers recommend Council approve the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 to ensure the necessary planning controls are in place to allow the timely progression and redevelopment of the Riverside Theatre.
35. It is recommended that Council forward the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination.
36. It is also recommended that Council request no public exhibition process to enable the efficient processing of the Planning Proposal. This is because the CBD PP exhibited controls to allow greater building heights, and as this Planning Proposal seeks a lower height and implements the amenity controls from the CBD PP, a public exhibition process is not considered necessary.
Sonia Jacenko
Team Leader
Robert Cologna
Group Manager, Strategic Land Use Planning
Jennifer Concato
Executive Director City Planning and Design
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Planning Proposal - 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta - Riverside Theatre site. |
53 Pages |
|
2⇩ |
Local Planning Panel Report and Meeting Minutes 16 August 2022 |
81 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 13.1 - Attachment 1 |
Planning Proposal - 353A-353C Church Street and part of 351 Church Street, Parramatta - Riverside Theatre site. |
ITEM NUMBER 13.2
SUBJECT Naming Proposal for Unnamed Epping Pedestrian Way (Deferred Item)
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08666080
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Place Services
csp theme: THRIvING
This matter was deferred from the Council Meeting of 21 February 2022.
workshop/briefing date: Epping Ward Briefing 26 May 2022
PURPOSE:
To endorse the preferred name for an unnamed pedestrian thoroughfare that connects Forest Grove to Essex Street, Epping NSW 2121.
(a) That Council endorse the preferred name, ‘Bukbuk Walk’, for an unnamed pedestrian thoroughfare that connects Forest Grove to Essex Street, Epping NSW 2121. The name and location for the unnamed pedestrian thoroughfare is illustrated on the Site Map (see Attachment 1).
(b) Further, that this name 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 laneway is situated south of the property boundaries at 17 Forest Grove and 58 Essex St, Epping NSW 2121 and north of the property boundaries at 19 Forest Grove, 60 and 60A Essex St, Epping NSW 2121 (as shown in Attachment 1).
2. At the Council Meeting of 21 February 2022, Council deferred the naming of the pedestrian thoroughfare in Epping in order that consultation occurs with local and relevant First Nation’s bodies and groups regarding an appropriate name for the presently unnamed thoroughfare between Forest Grove and Essex Street, with a view to investigating an indigenous name.
3. Council engaged the Dharug Boorooberongal Elders Aboriginal Corporation who researched and prepared additional names for the consultation process. These proposed names were submitted to the Geographical Names Board (GNB) to check the eligibility of the proposed names.
4. This evaluation ensures that only names that meet the ‘uniqueness’ requirements of the NSW Address and User Manual (2021) are publicly exhibited and then presented to Council for consideration. Uniqueness is considered the most essential quality to be sought in proposing a new road name. Within the GNB’s evaluation, a road name will be regarded as a duplicate (and therefore rejected for use) if it is the same or similar in spelling or sound to an existing name, regardless of the road type.
5. Four GNB pre-approved names were placed on public exhibition for community feedback. All properties near the unnamed pedestrian thoroughfare were notified during consultation.
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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 (16 business days) from Monday 8 August to Monday 29 August 2022. A letter was sent via Australia Post to 485 impacted residents, and targeted social media was also utilised to alert residents and nearby businesses of the opportunity to provide feedback.
9. 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 the rejected name by the GNB) are at Attachment 2.
Proposed Name |
Context |
Bukbuk Walk |
Meaning Owl. |
Guman Walk |
Meaning Pine or Fir Tree |
Garada Walk |
Meaning Laneways or Short Paths |
Midiny Walk |
Meaning Yam (a locally grown wild potato) |
10. Overall, the opportunity to provide feedback for this project was presented to an estimated 19,000 persons culminating in 91 formal contributions. Of those that made formal contributions, the community sentiment was positive, with ‘Bukbuk Walk’ the preferred of the four exhibited names with 38% of survey respondents expressing the use of ‘Bukbuk Walk’ as the name for the unnamed pedestrian thoroughfare.
11. The name satisfies the addressing requirements of the Geographic Names Board (GNB), which has given prior concurrence for the use of the proposed name at this location.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
12. The following stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
08/08/22 – 29/08/22 |
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 1093 unique visitors and 1407 views. This resulted in a conversion of 84 completed surveys and 7 email submissions. 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 |
02/08/22 |
485 impacted residents, via direct mail out |
Verbatim responses that may have been generated following the mail out are provided in Attachment 3. |
Letters detailing the exhibition and how to submit formal feedback were sent to residents and businesses near the development site. |
Senior Project Officer, Place Services
Printing Officer, Corporate Services |
08/08/22 |
The community, via 2 corflute signs |
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 96 scans. |
Senior Project Officer, Place Services
Team Leader, Sign Shop |
08/08/22 – 21/08/22 |
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 7,545 resulting in 439 clicks to the project page. |
Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement |
17/08/22 |
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 (10,909 subscribers), seeing a 48.1% open rate. |
Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement |
13. In addition to this, there were fifteen suggestions for alternative names from the community which have been submitted through the GNB road evaluation tool to check the eligibility of the proposed names. Most of the name suggestions returned with a duplication and/or similar in spelling or sound to an existing name, regardless of the road type. Two name suggestions being Mugaharu and Narrowleaf returned zero potential issues and would require further research to determine if those proposed names met GNB requirements before they could be submitted for formal ‘pre-approval’.
Councillor Consultation
14. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
26/05/22 |
A briefing was provided to the Epping Ward Councillors |
No comments provided |
NA |
Senior Project Officer, Place Services |
17/06/22 |
Email update to the Epping Ward Councillors |
No comments provided |
NA |
Place Manager |
03/08/22 |
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
15. There are no legal implications for Council associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
16. 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. 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 and are budgeted within Service Code 420097 - Road Naming and funded from General Revenue.
b. Once the naming proposal is approved, including gazettal by the GNB, Council is the responsible authority for the fabrication and installation of street signs (including the subject street poles and sign blades).
c. The notification to relevant government authorities and publishing in the Government Gazette is currently provided without charge by the GNB.
17. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.
|
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
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 - Unnamed Pedestrian Thoroughare in Epping Engagement Evaluation Report |
18 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 13.2 - Attachment 2 |
Attachment 2 - List and description of pre-approved and rejected proposed names |
Attachment 3 - Unnamed Pedestrian Thoroughare in Epping Engagement Evaluation Report |
ITEM NUMBER 13.3
SUBJECT Community Events Grants Committee Recommendations
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08671374
REPORT OF Partnership & Sponsorship Producer
CSP THEME: WELCOMING
workshop/briefing date: 3 August 2022 - Events Grants Committee
PURPOSE:
To seek Council’s endorsement of the proposed funding allocations for the City of Parramatta Community Event Grants for the July 2022 round of Community Events Grants.
That Council adopts the expenditure recommended by the Councillor Grants Committee for the July 2022 round of Community Events Grants as summarised in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
1. Applications for the July 2022 round of the City of Parramatta Council’s Community Events Grants were held between 17 June 2022 and 22 July 2022. The application and assessment followed the requirements specified in the City of Parramatta Grants and Donations Policy, adopted in December 2016.
2. At the 11 April 2022 Council meeting, Council approved the establishment of a Grants Committee to oversee the grants assessment process and to expedite the consideration of grants. Deputy Lord Mayor Pandey and Councillors Wang, Esber, Humphries and Darley were appointed members to the Committee.
3. The total pool of funds available for the 2022/2023 Community Events Grants Program is $75,000 across two (2) rounds of funding.
4. The opening of the July grant funding round was communicated across
the following channels:
a. Notification emails were sent to 125 previous grant applicants.
b. Information about the grants was available on the City of Parramatta Council’s Community Events Grants webpage.
c. Posts were scheduled on Council’s Facebook page promoting the grants.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
5. Council received a total of eleven (11) eligible applications, requesting a total of $98,000.00.
6. All applications are listed in Attachment 1.
7. All grant applications were assessed by a panel of staff from the City of Parramatta Events & Festivals team, using the Eligibility and Assessment Criteria outlined in the Community Event Grant Guidelines: https://www.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/sites/council/files/2021-03/community-event-grant-guidelines.pdf
8. The grant objectives and eligibility criteria are listed below.
Grant objectives:
a. Events are free or a low-ticket cost to the public.
b. Events are a fresh offering, complementing the Parramatta events calendar.
c. Encourage new visitors to the city.
d. Aim to deliver social, community, recreational and cultural benefits to the people of Parramatta and visitors.
e. Are presented within the Parramatta local government area and principally benefit Parramatta residents.
Eligibility Criteria:
a. Be aware that grant funding will not be paid until after the event, after the event report has been submitted.
b. Request no more than 20% of the total event budget, with an upper limit of $10,000.
c. Ensure that the event takes place within 12 months of the grant submission closing date.
d. Be a resident of/or located in the Parramatta local government area and/or principally providing services to the residents of Parramatta.
e. Be a not-for-profit organisation, an incorporated organisation or have evidence of auspice from an incorporated organisation, and have an ABN.
f. Be in alignment with City of Parramatta’s Community Strategic Plan vision and goals.
g. Not have overdue progress or acquittal reports for previous Council grants.
h. Have no outstanding debts to Council.
i. Have all appropriate insurances and licenses.
j. Submit an application through the SmartyGrants application portal.
9. Of the eleven (11) applications presented to the Councillor Grants Committee, nine (9) applications were recommended, representing a total disbursement of $39,280.00.
10. Due to the high number of applications and the total funding request being higher than the funds available, it was recommended that several applicants would be offered less than the amount they requested.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
11. There are no legal implications for Council as a result of this report.
12. As per the Grants and Donations Policy, all recipients are required to sign a Funding Agreement prior to funds being distributed. Funding Agreements include requirements around reporting and consequences for non-compliance.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
13. Should Council resolve to adopt the recommendation proposed in this report, the grant funding amount of $39,280.00 is provided for within the current 2022/23 Financial Year operational budget for City Engagement and Experience.
Frankie Lee
Partnership & Sponsorship Producer
Jeffrey Stein
Events & Festivals Manager
Anna Pijaca
Research & Engagement Manager
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Community Event Grants Table July 2022 |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Council 26 September 2022 Item 13.4
ITEM NUMBER 13.4
SUBJECT Public Works on Private Land - Light Up Ermington Better Neighborhood Project
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08672957
REPORT OF Place Manager
CSP THEME: WELCOMING
workshop/briefing date: Nil
PURPOSE:
To seek approval to undertake minor works on private land at Ermington Shopping Centre in accordance with Section 67 of the Local Government Act 1993
(a) That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 67(2)(b) of the Act, to carry out the specified works on private land, for no fee.
BACKGROUND
1. At its meeting of 28 June 2021, Council resolved to allocate $300,000 to a minor amenity upgrade at Ermington Shopping Centre as part of a suite of projects under Council’s Better Neighbourhood Program.
2. The Centre is located on Betty Cuthbert Avenue, Ermington and comprises of 31 retail shops with a 0% vacancy.
3. The Concept Plan (see Attachment 1) proposes new paving, street furniture, tree planting, and catenary lighting. The project scope focusses on enlivening amenity at a food and beverage retail cluster along a Council-owned laneway that bisects the Centre.
4. All buildings fronting the Council-owned laneway are in private ownership under a single owner.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
5. Works to the value of approximately $2,000 are proposed on private land which includes attaching twelve (12) anchor point brackets (six on either side of the laneway) to the external walls of the privately-owned buildings fronting the Council-owned laneway.
6. The anchor point brackets will serve as an anchor point that will enable Council to suspend catenary lighting over the Council-owned laneway.
7. Subject to Council’s endorsement, Council officers have negotiated an agreement with the private property owner to allow Council to attach the anchor point bracket on the exterior wall to suspend the catenary lights, at no cost to the property owner.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder Consultation
8. The following stakeholder consultation was undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Stakeholder |
Stakeholder Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
29 August – 19 September 2022 |
Community |
· Consultation with each of the food and beverage retailers (tenants) and the private property owner; · Online community
engagement survey, live from 29 August - 19 September
2022 |
Feedback noted, traffic and parking issues will be investigated separately and do not impact this project. In addition, Council has submitted a Westinvest project application for traffic and parking works at Ermington Shopping Centre. |
Place Services |
Councillor Consultation
9. The following Councillor consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date |
Councillor |
Councillor Comment |
Council Officer Response |
Responsibility |
25 August 2022 |
Councillor Noack, Councillor Prociv and Councillor Siviero |
Project discussed at Ward Briefing. All Councillors were in support of the Concept Plan presented. |
No further response |
Place Services |
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
10. This report has been prepared to fulfill the requirements as stipulated in Section 67 of the Local Government Act. This Section stipulates the circumstances in which Council can undertake works on private land. In this circumstance, the decision to carry out the work at no fee is recommended.
11. It is noted that Council’s Legal Services Unit has drafted the Agreement. In this regard, Council’s Group Manager Legal Services has confirmed that the contract is ready for execution, following approval by Council.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
12. If Council resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution, no budget is required.
13. The total budget for the Better Neighbourhood Program is $300,000 which is included in the 2021/22 budgets.
14. The table below summarises the financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report.
|
FY 22/23 |
FY 23/24 |
FY 24/25 |
FY 25/26 |
Better Neighborhood Program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Melinda Ta
Place Manager
Bruce Mills
Group Manager Place Services
Bryan Hynes
Executive Director Property & Place
John Angilley
Chief Financial and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
1⇩ |
Attachment 1 - Concept Plan |
1 Page |
|
2⇩ |
Attachment 2 - Aerial view of project location |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Questions with Notice
26 September 2022
15.1 Questions Taken on Notice - 12 September 2022 Council Meeting..... 796
Council 26 September 2022 Item 15.1
ITEM NUMBER 15.1
SUBJECT Questions Taken on Notice - 12 September 2022 Council Meeting
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08688515
REPORT OF Governance Manager
QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 12 SEPTEMBER 2022
Subject |
Councillor |
Question |
|
NIL |
Urgent Matter – Parramatta Eels & NRL Grand Final |
Garrard |
What is the estimated time required for the Parramatta Eels flags to be installed around the Local Government Area (LGA)? |
NIL |
Urgent Matter – Parramatta Eels & NRL Grand Final |
Valjak |
Is there capacity for the new PHIVE building to be lit up in the blue and gold Parramatta Eels colours? |
13.2 |
Draft Community Engagement Strategy for Public Exhibition |
Bradley |
In relation to page 153 in the Council papers, the item for notification for demolition of a building that is not a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area, the reference is that there is no notification and it is not applicable.
How will Council consider notification of demolition of a building that may have asbestos or other safety risks involved in that demolition, and should there not be some special arrangement for notification in that case, and should this be included in the document? |
13.3 |
NSW E-Scooter Shared Scheme Trial |
Garrard |
Does Council’s current insurance provide coverage for claimants who are e-scooter users? If not included, what would the increase in premium be to provide coverage for such claimants? |
14.2 |
Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues |
Prociv |
Can we ask Schools Infrastructure NSW if there are any plans for the reinstatement of geographical catchments. |
14.2 |
Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues |
Garrard |
How many re-locatable CCTV cameras does Council have? |
14.2 |
Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues |
Garrard |
Can consideration be given to implementing a permanent or semi-permanent camera at the most problematic area near the Carlingford West Public School. |
14.2 |
Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues |
Wearne |
How may Council at a planning level implement controls concerning the determination of location and construction of schools by the state government? |
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
Matter of Urgency – Parramatta Eels and NRL Grand Final
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Garrard, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:
What is the estimated time required for the Parramatta Eels flags to be installed around the Local Government Area (LGA)?
Executive Director City Engagement & Experience:
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.
Matter of Urgency – Parramatta Eels and NRL Grand Final
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Garrard, Councillor Valjak asked the following question:
Is there capacity for the new PHIVE building to be lit up in the blue and gold Parramatta Eels colours?
Executive Director Community Services
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.
Item 13.2 – Draft Community Engagement Strategy for Public Exhibition
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Darley, Councillor Bradley asked the following question:
In relation to page 153 in the Council papers, the item for notification for demolition of a building that is not a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area, the reference is that there is no notification and it is not applicable.
How will Council consider notification of demolition of a building that may have asbestos or other safety risks involved in that demolition, and should there not be some special arrangement for notification in that case, and should this be included in the document?
Executive Director City Engagement and Experience:
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.
Item 13.3 – NSW E-Scooter Shared Scheme Trial
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Prociv, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:
Does Council’s current insurance provide coverage for claimants who are e-scooter users?
If not included, what would the increase in premium be to provide coverage for such claimants?
Executive Director People, Culture and Workplace:
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.
Item 14.2 – Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Valjak, Councillor Prociv asked the following question:
Can we ask Schools Infrastructure NSW if there are any plans for the reinstatement of geographical catchments.
Executive Director City Planning and Design:
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.
Item 14.2 – Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Valjak, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:
How many re-locatable CCTV cameras does Council have?
Executive Director Property and Place:
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.
Item 14.2 – Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Valjak, Councillor Garrard asked the following question:
Can consideration be given to implementing a permanent or semi-permanent camera at the most problematic area near the Carlingford West Public School.
Executive Director Property and Place:
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.
Item 14.2 – Carlingford West/ Cumberland High School Precinct - Traffic Issues
During discussion on the Motion moved by Councillor Valjak, Councillor Wearne asked the following question:
How may Council at a planning level implement controls concerning the determination of location and construction of schools by the state government?
Executive Director City Planning and Design:
A written response will be provided in a supplementary agenda.