Late Items Agenda of Council - Monday, 27 March 2023

Council 27 March 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

8 Minutes of the Lord Mayor

8.1 Ramadan 2023.......................................................................................... 3

9 Public Forum

9.1 PUBLIC FORUM 1: DEFERRED ITEM: Item 13.4 Boundary Adjustment between Harris Park & Parramatta........................................................ 4

9.2 PUBLIC FORUM 2:FOR INFORMATION ONLY: DEFERRED ITEM: Item 13.4 Boundary Adjustment between Harris Park & Parramatta........ 5

14 Notices of Motion

14.5 NOTICE OF MOTION: LATE REPORT: Concern for State Heritage Listed Broughton House, Parramatta.............................................................. 23

15 Questions with Notice

15.1 LATE REPORT: Questions Taken on Notice -13 March 2023 Council Meeting..................................................................................................... 25

After the conclusion of the Council Meeting, and if time permits, Councillors will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of staff.

Council 27 March 2023 Item 8.1

MINUTE OF THE LORD MAYOR

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Ramadan 2023

REFERENCE F2021/02779 - D08921421

REPORT OF Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

CSP THEME: WELCOMING

workshop/briefing date: Nil

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this Lord Mayor Minute is to recognise Ramadan and Eid celebrations across the City of Parramatta from 23 March to 21 April 2023.

Recommendation:

(a) That Council recognise Ramadan and Eid celebrations across the City of Parramatta from 23 March to 21 April 2023; and

(b) Further that Council staff consider including Ramadan banners in the 2023/24 marketing budget to support Ramadan celebrations across the City in 2024.

BACKGROUND

1. The Holy month of Ramadan is observed from 23 March to 21 April 2023. Ramadan and the Eid celebration are a very special time for Parramatta’s Muslim community.

2. The Lord Mayor and Councillors are pleased to join with the community in recognising this special time and will be attending a number of Iftar dinners at mosques and with community groups across the City.

3. Council wishes everyone observing Ramadan across our City a happy and blessed month. May the holy month bring you peace, happiness and prosperity.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

4. There are no new financial implications for Council as a result of this Lord Mayor Minute.

Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 March 2023 Item 9.1

PUBLIC FORUM

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: DEFERRED ITEM: Item 13.4 Boundary Adjustment between Harris Park & Parramatta

REFERENCE F2022/03176 - D08922534

FROM Adam Byrnes

Mayor and Councillors

We seek your endorsement of commencing a process to enact a suburb boundary adjustment. The process then moves to the Geographical Names Board to review further.

This is a commonsense request. The Parramatta CBD has clear boundaries at the southeastern corner. It is Harris Street with Robin Thomas Reserve to the east. And it is Parkes Street, where towers are permitted and under construction on the north side of Parkes Street, and then the lower form of development and heritage conservation area of Harris Park on the south side of Parkes Street.

The current boundary between Parramatta and Harris Park suburbs does not follow this logic.

This boundary is:

• Not logically recognised by the community

• Is extremely irregular

• Splits lots (there is one property in two suburbs)

• Not consistent with what the Geographic Names Board sets out as preferred suburb boundary conditions

Our client has sent through to you separately more detailed arguments for the relocation of the boundary, addressing the requirements of the Geographic Names Board.

In addition to those technical arguments, I submit to you the Councillors that there is a logic at play that seeks to align the suburb boundaries with the common understanding of the members of the community. This is a practical request that in our view would reduce confusion in the community. This proposal affects 19 landowners. Our client has been successful in speaking to 13 of these landowners so far. All 13 are in agreement.

You are not being asked to make the final decision on this matter, but to allow it to be considered by the Geographic Names Board. We would appreciate your resolution to permit with this investigation.

STAFF RESPONSE

Nil

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council 27 March 2023 Item 9.2

PUBLIC FORUM

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 2:FOR INFORMATION ONLY: DEFERRED ITEM: Item 13.4 Boundary Adjustment between Harris Park & Parramatta

REFERENCE F2022/03176 - D08908894

FROM David Hamilton

I would first like to note that I am here on behalf of and representing the owners and body corporations of 13 out of the 15 properties affected. We appreciate Council giving us the opportunity to provide further clarification on items in the Councils report, and to outline other items not mentioned in it.

We would like to note the following:

As per the GNB guidelines and correspondence with Council officer Jeffrey Chan in February 2021, it was said that community consultation will be required, and an ‘overwhelming majority’ needed to support the decision. Where applicable we have attended the strata meetings of each of the affected properties, consulted with the residents and received their approval and support.

The application made to Council in November 2022 includes all these letters. Extensive community consultation has been undertaken, as we have reached out all property owners affected by the change, the only property owners that we did not receive a response from were foreign overseas owners (in the case of 56 Station Street) or under administration for the case of 114-116 Harris Street.

It is evident that Harris Park is one of the smaller suburbs in the Parramatta LGA, however the reduction is less than 0.2% of the overall suburb size, and Harris Park would remain similarly sized to other suburbs like Camellia, Constitution Hill, Clyde, Beecroft and Wentworth Point.

The proposed suburb change is in line with a number of the GNB’s guidelines including:

Address locality boundaries shall follow clear and easily distinguishable lines such as rivers, railways, major road centrelines. Currently the boundary criss-crosses a range of individual lot boundaries with no distinguishable line. Our proposal is for it to have continued alignment along Parkes Street, being a main arterial road of the suburb. Suburb boundaries should be regularly reviewed especially in areas subject to urban development.

It should be noted that the suburb boundary realignment we propose would be consistent with the boundary for Parramatta CBD within the latest Parramatta City LEP. Address locality boundaries should be determined as early in the planning process as possible – which is why this has been timed to run alongside the recent Gazettal and activation of the CBD planning proposal.

Boundary Creep: GNB states “it is recognised that with changing demographics in various areas there will be ongoing need to redefine address locality boundaries to suit popular usage”. We would appreciate a fair and thorough review of the submission made by the applicant and the numerous letters of support from the local community.

Thank you

STAFF RESPONSE

I thank Mr Hamilton for his submission.

Mr Hamilton is correct in noting that the proposed suburb boundary realignment would be consistent with the boundary for Parramatta CBD within the latest Parramatta City LEP. However, Council’s CBD Planning Team advises that “The CBD Planning Proposal does not intend to, and cannot make changes to, suburb boundaries or names. The CBD Planning Proposal is only seeking to amend planning controls under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.”

Mr Hamilton is also correct in noting that Harris Park is one of the smaller suburbs in the Parramatta LGA, and that the proposed reduction is less than 0.2% of the overall suburb size.

However, staff research indicates that Harris Park at 65.1 hectares is one of the smallest localities in the City of Parramatta Local Government Area and is not similarly sized to the suburbs of Constitution Hill at 123.3 hectares, and Beecroft at 481.3 hectares. Both of those suburbs are larger than the Geographic Names Board preferred minimum 100ha area for a locality. Camellia at 74.2 hectares and Clyde at 68.1 hectares are under the GNB preferred minimum 100ha area for a locality but are slightly larger than Harris Park and Council does not propose to further reduce the size of those localities. Wentworth Point is currently 56.8 hectares but Council has endorsed a submission to the GNB to expand the size of the Wentworth Point locality to 68.4 hectares through a boundary adjustment, making Wentworth Point also larger than Harris Park.

The NSW Address Policy and User Manual (APUM) provides clear guidelines on when an amendment of a suburb boundary should be considered. Section AP3 states that:

“The need to amend an address locality boundary will arise when there are difficulties with the efficient delivery of services to an area, problems assigning addresses or further land development and construction of new roads.”

That section further states:

“The following criteria are relevant to any proposal to amend an existing address locality:

• The spread of urban development has resulted in an area becoming too large for one address locality

• A major new road, particularly a controlled access road, has divided a community, providing an opportunity to rename part to a new address locality.

• The address locality name is duplicated in New South Wales in one or more local government areas.”

It does not appear that the proposal meets the criteria for the need to amend a suburb boundary, nor does there appear to be an issue with the existing suburb boundary.

Further, Section 6.8 of the Principles of Address Locality Naming and Boundaries states that “submissions seeking changes to address locality boundaries for reasons of perceived status or financial benefit will not be supported.”

In addition, whilst the proposed boundary adjustment would reduce the footprint of the Harris Park locality by approximately 1000 square meters, the GNB Guidelines at 6.8.4. under ‘Boundary Definition’ state that “Address locality boundaries shall be of a reasonable size for practical purposes, such as including a shopping precinct or community school. Within urban areas an ideal size is around 500ha, with a preferred minimum area of 100ha.” The locality size of Harris Park at 65.1 hectares is already significantly less than the minimum locality size of 100 hectares provided by GNB.

Fundamentally, changing suburb boundaries is based on meeting addressing objectives. Providing an unambiguous address facilitates the delivery of services, in particular, the provision of emergency services. With that in mind it is important that the authoritative suburb is used to reduce any potential confusion. Section 6.8 of the Principles of Address Locality Naming and Boundaries also states “promotion or use of an unofficial, urban place or name other than the officially gazetted address locality name in an address (particularly in real estate marketing), is considered to be misleading or deceptive practice as defined under the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010.”

Based on multiple policy guidelines, and as noted in the Council report, the proposed change would reduce the size of an already small suburb where there is no evidence of service provision issues. In this instance, the change to the boundary is unlikely to be supported by the GNB Board, noting that the GNB Board is the ultimate decision-maker.

If Council was minded to progress this boundary adjustment irrespective of the aforementioned policy guidelines, Council would conduct the required consultation per GNB Guidelines. The GNB provides guidance for NSW Councils considering a boundary change request under ‘Address Localities’ stating “It is recommended that Local Government consult with the immediate community who directly utilise the addresses assigned to sites affected by a boundary change. This includes, but is not limited to, residents, ratepayers and businesses.” In addition, noting that the proposal would further reduce the locality of Harris Park, which is already well under the minimum locality size recommended by the GNB, community consultation should also include residents, ratepayers and businesses in Harris Park as an impacted stake-holder group per Council’s adopted Engagement Strategy.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

2022-11-03-suburb-boundary-realignment-application

15 Pages

Council 27 March 2023 Item 14.5

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.5

SUBJECT NOTICE OF MOTION: LATE REPORT: Concern for State Heritage Listed Broughton House, Parramatta

REFERENCE F2022/03176 - D08921109

FROM Councillor Kellie Darley

MOTION

That Council write to the Minister for Environment and Heritage requesting Heritage NSW investigate the condition of the State heritage listed Broughton House and it’s compliance with the Heritage Act (1977), given the obvious dilapidation and further deterioration of the property over the last few years.

BACKGROUND

1. Broughton House is a State heritage listed property (1999), located at 43a Thomas Street in Parramatta. It was built in 1838 and believed to be designed by John Verge. Broughton House started life as a residence on a farm, then became a school and until a few years ago, was a nursing home.

Figure 1: Broughton House, August 2019

2. Broughton House is a notable example of a Victorian Regency style house that reflects the social and economic status of the wealthier free settler who played an essential part in the establishment of New South Wales. It has strong associations with the Marsden family and the King's School, and is the sole remaining home of a series of quality residences which faced south over the Parramatta River such as the Vineyard (Subiaco), Newlands (Athole) Pemberton Grange and Waddon Estate (Palmer Family)(Brown 1998).

3. In 2019, a s60 application was partly approved by NSW Heritage Office for ’Remediation works to help stop the further dilapidation of the house, and to stop further decay of structural members.’ It is unknown whether those works were completed.

4. The proponent also sought a Heritage Minor Works (HMW) approval from Council for more extensive works, around the same time. This was declined as the works were considered more than minor and the proponent was advised to seek a DA. To date this has not been lodged.

5. In July 2022, complaints were received from residents about the deteriorating condition of the property and lack of maintenance work. Heritage NSW was contacted, however to date a response has not been received.

6. There appears to have been little to no work done to the building over the last few years.

Figure 2: Broughton House, August 2022

Kellie Darley

Councillor

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

John Angilley

Chief Financial and Information Officer

Bryan Hynes

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

Council 27 March 2023 Item 15.1

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

ITEM NUMBER 15.1

SUBJECT LATE REPORT: Questions Taken on Notice -13 March 2023 Council Meeting

REFERENCE F2022/03176 - D08921061

REPORT OF Governance Manager

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 13 March 2023

Item

Subject

Councillor

Question

13.5

2023 ALGA National General Assembly - Motions

Bradley

It relates to a request from the Australian Local Government Association President, Linda Scott, who has requested that councils consider that a motion asking the Federal Government to deliver the climate fund of $200m to support local governments in responding to climate change. It is across Australia and not a big sum when you divide by the number of councils but if we were to support that motion, if it has not already gone forward by other councils, I would ask if we have that opportunity to add that. I am supporting that current proposal but I just ask if we might need to consider a second one.

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

Climate Fund

During discussion of the Agenda Item 13.5 2023 ALGA National General Assembly - Motions, Councillor Bradley asked the following question:

Executive Director Finance & Information

There has been no Notice of Motion from the floor to write to the Federal

Government in relation to the $200m on climate fund set aside for local governments. Staff will write to the Federal Government on the matter once there is a Notice of Motion and resolution of Council.

Bryan Hynes

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: