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, 21 February 2022 at 6:30pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brett Newman

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

Governance

Manager

 

Lord Mayor
Cr Donna Davis

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

Cr Phil

Bradley

 

 

Cr Lorraine Wearne

 

 

 

 

 

Sound

Cr Sameer Pandey, Deputy Lord Mayor

 

Cr Donna Wang

 

 

 

Cr Paul

Noack

 

Cr Michelle Garrard

 

 

 

Cr Ange Humphries

 

Cr Dan

Siviero

 

 

 

IT

Cr Dr Patricia Prociv

 

Cr Henry Green

 

 

 

Cr Pierre

Esber

 

Cr Kellie Darley

 

 

 

Cr Cameron Maclean

 

Cr Georgina Valjak

 

 

 

 

Executive Director City Engagement & Experience

Executive Director Community Services

Executive Director City Planning & Design

Group Manager City Strategy

Executive Director City Assets & Operations

Executive Director Corporate Services

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:

a)      At any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or

b)      At any time during which the Council is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests

A Councillor who has a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter, must disclose the relevant private interest in relation to the matter fully and on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises in relation to the matter.

Significant Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interests

A Councillor who has a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in relation to a matter under consideration at a Council meeting, must manage the conflict of interest as if they had a pecuniary interest in the matter.

Non-Significant Non-Pecuniary Interests

A Councillor who determines that they have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter that is not significant and does not require further action, when disclosing the interest must also explain why conflict of interest is not significant and does not require further action in the circumstances.

 


Council                                                                                                        21 February 2022

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                               PAGE NO

 

1       OPENING MEETING

2       ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

3       WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

4       OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

5       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Council - 7 February 2022.......................................................................................... 7

6       APOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

7       DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

8       Minutes of the Lord Mayor

9       Public Forum

10     Petitions

11     Rescission Motions

11.1           Notice of Motion of Rescission: Item 13.5 - Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land (Deferred Item).................................. 32

12     For Notation

Nil

13     For Council Decision

13.1           Minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held on 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021......................................................................... 38

13.2           Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)................... 76

13.3           Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site)............................................................................................... 278

13.4           Submission on the NSW Government's 'A new approach to rezonings' Discussion Paper.................................................................................. 438

13.5           Naming Proposal for Unnamed Epping Pedestrian Way (Deferred Item)                                                                                                                  477

14     Notices of Motion

14.1           Workforce Diversity.............................................................................. 510

15     Questions with Notice

15.1           Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 7 February 2022 514

 

16     Closed Session

16.1           Legal Status Report as at 31 January 2022

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

16.2           Expression of Interest for Vacant Space at 6 Valentine Avenue, Parramatta (Valentine Avenue Substation)

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

16.3           Re-determine Organisation Structure (Senior Staff Positions)

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

167   PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

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, 7 February 2022 AT 6:30pm

 

These are draft minutes and are subject to confirmation by Council at its next meeting. The confirmed minutes will replace this draft version on the website once confirmed.

 

PRESENT

 

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis and Councillors Phil Bradley, Kellie Darley,  Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Dan Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.

 

1.      OPENING MEETING

 

The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis, opened the meeting at 6:32pm.

 

2.      ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

 

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

 

3.      WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

 

The Lord Mayor advised that this public meeting is being recorded and streamed live on the internet. The recording will also be archived and made available on Council’s website.

 

The Lord Mayor further advised that 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.      OTHER 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.      CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

 

SUBJECT:         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 22 November 2021

 

3625

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Pandey)

 

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

 


 

 

 

SUBJECT:         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 January 2022

 

3626

RESOLVED      (Esber/Garrard)

 

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

 

6.      APOLOGIES/REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

3627

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Bradley)

 

That the request to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 7 February 2022 via remote means submitted by the following Councillors due to personal reasons, be accepted:

-       Councillor Lorraine Wearne.

 

7.      DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Darley declared a non-pecuniary and less than significant interest in Item 13.7 – Post Exhibition – Planning Proposal for land at 64 Victoria Road, North Parramatta being that she has visited the Patisserie and posted and shared her experience on social media. She remained in the Chamber during debate and voting on the matter.

 

Councillor Green declared a non-pecuniary but significant interest in Item 17.1 – Tender 23/2021 Hygiene Services being that he uses the services of this company for one of his properties. He retired from the meeting prior debate and voting on the matter.

 

8.      Minutes of the Lord Mayor

 

8.1

SUBJECT          Condolence Motion: Arnima Hayat

 

REFERENCE   F2021/02779 - D08406248

 

REPORT OF     Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

 

3628

RESOLVED      (Davis/Pandey)

 

(a)     That Council acknowledge the passing of Arnima Hayat and observe a minute’s silence in respect of her passing, and in recognition of all those who have lost their lives due to domestic and family violence.

 

(b)     Further, that Council note the Parramatta Cumberland Family and Domestic Violence Prevention Committee is hosting a community candlelight vigil in memory of Arnima on Thursday, 10 February 2022.

 

 

Note: Council observed a minute’s silence.

 

8.2

SUBJECT          Condolence Motion: Peggy McGovern

 

REFERENCE   F2021/02779 - D08405668

 

REPORT OF     Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

 

3629

RESOLVED      (Davis/Green)

 

(a)     That Council acknowledge the passing of Peggy McGovern, long time member of and teacher at the City of Parramatta Art Society.

 

(b)     Further, that the Chamber hold a minute’s silence as a gesture of respect on Mrs McGovern’s passing and in recognition of her contributions to the Parramatta community.

 

 

Note: Council observed a minute’s silence.

 

8.3

SUBJECT          Condolence Motion: Most Reverend Bishop Joseph Hitti

 

REFERENCE   F2021/02779 - D08407937

 

REPORT OF     Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

 

3630

RESOLVED      (Davis/Esber)

 

(a)     That Council note the passing of the Most Reverend Bishop Joseph Hitti, Maronite Bishop Emeritus of Australia, on 3 February 2022.

 

(b)     That Council write to Our Lady of Lebanon Co-Cathedral and Bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay OLM to pass on our condolences.

 

(c)     That Council note a mass in his memory will be held on Thursday 10 February 2022 at 6pm at Our Lady of Lebanon Co-Cathedral, Harris Park.

 

(d)     Further, that Council observes a minute’s silence in respect of his passing.

 

 

Note: Council observed a minute’s silence.

 

8.4

SUBJECT          2022 Australia Day Honours

 

REFERENCE   F2021/02779 - D08405422

 

REPORT OF     Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

 

3631

RESOLVED      (Davis/Pandey)

 

(a)     That Council congratulate the following recipients of the Order of Australia’s 2022 Australia Day Honours for their contributions to the Parramatta community, being:

 

a.      Member (AM) in the General Division

i.        Ms Sally Ruston AM

ii.       The Very Reverend Father Peter Gregory Williams AM

 

b.      Medal (OAM) in the General Division

i.        Clinical Professor Catherine Birman OAM

ii.       Miss Patricia D’Apice OAM

iii.      Mr Greg Davies OAM

iv.      Dr Peter Ellis OAM

v.       Professor Elizabeth McCusker OAM

vi.      Dr Rosalie Pockett OAM

vii.     The late Mr Brian Powyer OAM

 

c.       Public Service Medal (PSM) – COVID-19 Honour Roll

i.        Professor Dominic Dwyer, Director of the ICPMR Centre for Infectious Diseases at Westmead Hospital.

 

(b)     Further, that Council congratulate Dr Daniel Nour, founder of Street Side Medics, who was recognised as Australia’s Young Australian of the Year in the 2022 Australian of the Year Awards.

 

8.5

SUBJECT          2021 Higher School Certificate Results

 

REFERENCE   F2021/02779 - D08406527

 

REPORT OF     Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

 

3632

RESOLVED      (Davis/Bradley)

 

(a)     That Council note the success of local schools in the 2021 NSW Higher School Certificate (HSC), with the following City of Parramatta schools recognised in the top 150 schools Honour Roll:

a.      James Ruse Agricultural High School (1)

b.      Tara Anglican School for Girls (34)

c.       The King’s School (51)

d.      Parramatta Marist High School (53)

e.      Arden Anglican School (71)

f.       Our Lady of Mercy Parramatta (99)

g.      Cumberland High School (110)

h.      Maronite College of the Holy Family – Parramatta (112)

i.        St Patrick’s Marist College (129)

j.        Carlingford High School (133)

k.       Redeemer Baptist School (136).

 

(b)     That Council note the following local students achieved first place in an HSC course, and achieved a result in the highest band (Band 6 or Band E4):

a.      Oscar Dong, James Ruse Agricultural High School, in Agriculture

b.      Piper Stenz, Arden Anglican School, in Industrial Technology

c.       Kevin Wang, The King’s School, in Mathematics Advanced

d.      Faeza Karimi, Secondary College of Languages Arthur Phillip Campus, in Persian Continuers.

 

(c)     Further, that Council write to these local schools to congratulate them on their success, and to recognise the resilience of their students and teachers as they undertook Years 11 and 12 and the HSC exams in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

8.6

SUBJECT          Congratulations Felicity Castagna

 

REFERENCE   F2021/02779 - D08407026

 

REPORT OF     Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis

 

3633

RESOLVED      (Davis/Prociv)

 

(a)     That Council congratulates local author Felicity Castagna for winning the 2022 Victorian Premier’s Literary Award for Writing for Young Adults for her novel Girls in Boys’ Cars.

 

(b)     Further, that Council write to Felicity Castagna congratulating her on this achievement.

 

 

Matter of Urgency

 

3634

RESOLVED      (Esber/Pandey)

 

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency to permit Councillors to make an inaugural speech at the meeting.

 

The Lord Mayor ruled the matter urgent.

 

3635

RESOLVED      (Esber/Pandey)

 

That Councillors be permitted to make an inaugural speech at the meeting.

 

 

Note:

1.         Councillor Wearne left the Chamber at 7:08pm and returned at 7:28pm during the consideration of the matter of urgency.

2.         Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 7:28pm and returned at 7:28pm during the consideration of the matter of urgency.

3.         Councillor Darley left the Chamber at 7:36pm and returned at 7:37pm during the consideration of the matter of urgency.

 

 

Matter of Urgency

 

3636

RESOLVED      (Siviero/Garrard)

 

That a procedural motion be granted to allow consideration of a matter of urgency in relation to the volcano eruption in Tonga.

 

The Lord Mayor ruled the matter urgent.

 

 

MOTION             (Siviero/Garrard)

 

(a)       That Council acknowledge the tragic events leading up to and on 15 January 2022 following a volcano explosion and subsequent tsunami resulting in the loss of life, injury and missing persons in the Tongan community.

 

(b)       Further, that Council provide a donation in the amount of $5,000 to the High Commission of the Kingdom of Tonga – Fakalikutonga Relief Fund, to be funded from the Councillor Support donations budget.

 

 

AMENDMENT  (Esber/Siviero)

 

(a)       That Council acknowledge the tragic events leading up to and on 15 January 2022 following a volcano explosion and subsequent tsunami resulting in the loss of life, injury and missing persons in the Tongan community.

 

(b)       That the consideration of a donation be deferred until the next Council Meeting for a detailed financial report to be presented from the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

 

(c)       Further, that Council observe a minute’s silence in memory of those who lost their lives in this tragic event.

 

The amendment moved by Councillor Esber and seconded by Councillor Siviero was WITHDRAWN.

 

The motion moved by Councillor Siviero and seconded by Councillor Garrard was amended:

 

MOTION             (Siviero/Garrard)

 

(a)       That Council acknowledge the tragic events leading up to and on 15 January 2022 following a volcano explosion and subsequent tsunami resulting in the loss of life, injury and missing persons in the Tongan community.

 

(b)       That Council provide a donation in the amount of $5,000 to the High Commission of the Kingdom of Tonga – Fakalikutonga Relief Fund, to be funded from the Councillor Support donations budget.

 

(c)       Further, that Council observe a minute’s silence in memory of those who lost their lives in this tragic event.

 

The motion moved by Councillor Siviero and seconded by Councillor Garrard on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

3637

RESOLVED      (Siviero/Garrard)

 

(a)       That Council acknowledge the tragic events leading up to and on 15 January 2022 following a volcano explosion and subsequent tsunami resulting in the loss of life, injury and missing persons in the Tongan community.

 

(b)       That Council provide a donation in the amount of $5,000 to the High Commission of the Kingdom of Tonga – Fakalikutonga Relief Fund, to be funded from the Councillor Support donations budget.

 

(c)       Further, that Council observe a minute’s silence in memory of those who lost their lives in this tragic event.

 

 

Note: Council observed a minute’s silence.

 

9.      Public Forum

 

There were no public forums submitted to the meeting.

 

10.    Petitions

 

10.1

SUBJECT          21 Bellevue St, North Parramatta

 

FROM                 Michelle Garrard

 

 

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

 

We, the undersigned, call on Parramatta Council to DECLINE the Development Application (and any further submissions relating to the site of a similar nature) for DA/1123/2021, Property 21 Bellevue St NORTH PARRAMATTA Lot 16 DP 5211. Applied by ARCHIDROME.

 

3638

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Esber)

 

That the petition be received and copy of the petition be circulated to all Councillors.

 

11.    Rescission Motions

 

Nil

 

12.    For Notation

 

12.1

SUBJECT          Investment Report for November 2021

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08385786

 

REPORT OF     Tax and Treasury Accountant

 

3639

RESOLVED      (Pandey/Esber)

 

That Council receive the Investment Report for November 2021.

 

12.2

SUBJECT          Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 26 August 2021 and 30 September 2021

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08385911

 

REPORT OF     Coordinator Internal Audit

 

3640

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Pandey)

 

That Council notes the minutes of the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee meetings as provided at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

 

12.3

SUBJECT          Minutes of the Access Advisory Committee Minutes held on 19 October 2021

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08386181

 

REPORT OF     Community Capacity Building Officer, Community Capacity Building

 

3641

RESOLVED      (Bradley/Noack)

 

That Council note the minutes of the Access Advisory Committee meeting held on 19 October 2021 (Attachment 1).

 

12.4

SUBJECT          Variations to Standards under Clause 4.6 of Parramatta LEP 2011, Auburn LEP 2010, Holroyd LEP 2013, The Hills LEP 2012, Hornsby LEP 2013

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08386190

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager - Development and Traffic Services

 

3642

RESOLVED      (Esber/Maclean)

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

13.    For Council Decision

 

13.1

SUBJECT          Chief Executive Officer Delegations

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08385936

 

REPORT OF     Governance Manager

 

 

MOTION             (Pandey/Garrard)

 

(a)     That pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate to Brett Newman the functions of the General Manager (the Chief Executive Officer) 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.

 

(b)     That the delegation be subject to:

          1.       Any limitation or restrains under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and any other legislation, regulations or other subordinary legislation relevant to this delegation.

          2.       Any direction, limitations or restrains under any resolution made by Council relating to the exercise of any delegated power, function, duty or authority;

          3.       The General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) must exercise the delegated powers, functions, duties and authorities in accordance with and subject to:

                   A.      The provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and any other relevant or related subordinate legislation; and

                   B.      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.

 

(c)     That Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the acceptance of tenders to a maximum value of $500,000 (incl GST) per tender.

 

(d)      That regular reporting on decisions made under delegation be provided by way of quarterly briefing notes to Councillors, reporting on tenders determined under CEO delegation and include copies of the relevant tender reports.

 

(e)      That the delegations provided to Brett Newman at the Council Meeting dated 9 September 2019 be revoked as at the date of this resolution.

 

(f)        That Council approve the change to all relevant policies arising from (c) above.

 

(g)      Further, that a report on the review of the tender limits detailed in paragraph (c) above be brought back to the Council Chamber after 12 months.

 

 

AMENDMENT  (Wearne/Wang)

 

(a)     That pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate to Brett Newman the functions of the General Manager (the Chief Executive Officer) 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.

 

(b)     That the delegation be subject to:

          1.       Any limitation or restrains under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and any other legislation, regulations or other subordinary legislation relevant to this delegation.

          2.       Any direction, limitations or restrains under any resolution made by Council relating to the exercise of any delegated power, function, duty or authority;

          3.       The General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) must exercise the delegated powers, functions, duties and authorities in accordance with and subject to:

                   A.      The provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and any other relevant or related subordinate legislation; and

                   B.      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.

 

(c)     Further, that the delegations provided to Brett Newman at the Council Meeting dated 9 September 2019 be revoked as at the date of this resolution.

 

The amendment moved by Councillor Wearne and seconded by Councillor Wang on being put was declared LOST.

 

The motion moved by Councillor Pandey and seconded by Councillor Garrard on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

3643

RESOLVED      (Pandey/Garrard)

 

(a)     That pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate to Brett Newman the functions of the General Manager (the Chief Executive Officer) 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.

 

(b)     That the delegation be subject to:

          1.       Any limitation or restrains under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and any other legislation, regulations or other subordinary legislation relevant to this delegation.

          2.       Any direction, limitations or restrains under any resolution made by Council relating to the exercise of any delegated power, function, duty or authority;

          3.       The General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) must exercise the delegated powers, functions, duties and authorities in accordance with and subject to:

                   A.      The provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and any other relevant or related subordinate legislation; and

                   B.      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.

 

(c)     That Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the acceptance of tenders to a maximum value of $500,000 (incl GST) per tender.

 

(d)      That regular reporting on decisions made under delegation be provided by way of quarterly briefing notes to Councillors, reporting on tenders determined under CEO delegation and include copies of the relevant tender reports.

 

(e)      That the delegations provided to Brett Newman at the Council Meeting dated 9 September 2019 be revoked as at the date of this resolution.

 

(f)        That Council approve the change to all relevant policies arising from (c) above.

 

(g)      Further, that a report on the review of the tender limits detailed in paragraph (c) above be brought back to the Council Chamber after 12 months.

 

 

Note:  Councillors Bradley and Wearne requested that their names be recorded as having voted against the decision taken in this matter.

 

13.2

SUBJECT          Membership of the City of Parramatta Audit Risk and Improvement Committee

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08386176

 

REPORT OF     Coordinator Internal Audit

 

3644

RESOLVED      (Esber/Noack)

 

(a)     That Council thank outgoing members Mark McCoy and Donna Rygate for their commitment to the Committee over the last 2 terms of the Committee.

 

(b)     That Council approves Dr Col Gellatly AO to continue as independent external member on the Committee for a second term of three years commencing 1 March 2022.

 

(c)     That Council approve David Pendleton and Jessie Jo as the new independent external members to the Committee for a term of three years, commencing 1 March 2022.

(d)     That Council approves Dr Col Gellatly AO be appointed as Chair of the Committee commencing 1 March 2022.

 

(d)      Further, that Council appoint the following Councillor representatives to the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee for the current term of Council:

-       Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Pandey

-       Councillor Garrard

-       Councillor Maclean (alternate)

-       Councillor Valjak (alternate).

 

 

Procedural Motion

 

3645

RESOLVED      (Esber/Garrard)

 

That the meeting be adjourned for ten (10) minutes.

 

 

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35pm for a short recess.

 

 

Procedural Motion

 

3646

RESOLVED      (Davis/Pandey)

 

That the meeting resume.

 

The meeting resumed at 8:47pm with the following Councillors in attendance. The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis and Councillors Phil Bradley, Kellie Darley, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Sameer Pandey (Deputy Lord Mayor), Dr Patricia Prociv, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.

 

13.3

SUBJECT          Local Government NSW Special Conference

 

REFERENCE   F2021/02778 - D08386008

 

REPORT OF     Executive Officer

 

3647

RESOLVED      (Esber/Prociv)

 

(a)     That the following Councillors be nominated as Council’s Voting Delegates for Motions at the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) Special Conference:

-           Councillor Davis, Lord Mayor

-           Councillor Bradley

-           Councillor Green

-           Councillor Maclean

-           Councillor Noack

-           Councillor Pandey, Deputy Lord Mayor

-           Councillor Prociv

-           Councillor Valjak.

 

(b)     That Councillors advise the Chief of Staff by COB Tuesday, 8 February 2022 of their interest in attending the Special Conference as a Voting Delegate.

 

(c)     Further, that Council note the following Motions have been submitted to LGNSW to consider for inclusion in the Special Conference Business Paper, included for reference in Attachment 1:

1.      Prevention of Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

2.      Ban Property Developers from running for Council.

 

 

Note: Councillor Siviero returned to the Chamber at 8:50pm during the consideration of Item 13.3.

 

13.4

SUBJECT          12 Grand Avenue Boundary Adjustment (Deferred Item)

 

REFERENCE   DA/671/2020 - D08386010

 

REPORT OF     Property Officer

 

3648

RESOLVED      (Prociv/Noack)

 

(a)     That Council approve in accordance with conditions set out in DA/671/2020:

i.        to transfer the land coloured green in Attachment 1 (A) to the applicant;

ii.       to acquire the land coloured green in Attachment 1 (B) as consideration of the above land transfer

(b)     That Council note the area and value of the land coloured green in Attachment 1 (A) is approximately equivalent to the area and value of the land coloured green in Attachment 1 (B).

(c)     That Council approve to classify the portion of land, coloured green on Attachment 1 (B), as operational upon transfer.

(d)     Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign all documentation, including but not limited to landowner’s consent, in connection with this matter.

 

13.5

SUBJECT          Classification of Lot 5 DP1238944 as Operational Land (Deferred Item)

 

REFERENCE   DA/961/2015 - D08386009

 

REPORT OF     Manager Property Plan & Program

 

 

MOTION             (Prociv/Noack)

 

(a)     That Council in accordance with section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, classify Lot 5 DP1238944 (Attachment 1) as ‘Operational’ land for the purposes outlined at paragraph 3 and 4 of the report.

 

(b)     That upon dedication of the proposed road, the balance of Lot 5 DP1238944, be classified as ‘Community’ land as outlined at paragraph 5 of the report.

 

(c)     Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign all documentation in connection with this matter.

 

 

AMENDMENT  (Garrard/Siviero)

 

That Council defer consideration of this matter until such time as the additional questions raised at the Council Meeting regarding the access road have been answered.

 

The amendment moved by Councillor Garrard and seconded by Councillor Siviero on being put was declared LOST.

 

The motion moved by Councillor Prociv and seconded by Councillor Noack on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

3649

RESOLVED      (Prociv/Noack)

 

(a)     That Council in accordance with section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, classify Lot 5 DP1238944 (Attachment 1) as ‘Operational’ land for the purposes outlined at paragraph 3 and 4 of the report.

 

(b)     That upon dedication of the proposed road, the balance of Lot 5 DP1238944, be classified as ‘Community’ land as outlined at paragraph 5 of the report.

 

(c)     Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign all documentation in connection with this matter.

 

Note:  A Notice of Motion of Rescission signed by Councillors Garrard, Wang and Siviero was lodged after the close of the meeting in relation to this matter.

 

13.6

SUBJECT          Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal, Draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan, and Planning Agreement for land at 23-25 Windsor Road, Northmead

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08385873

 

APPLICANT/S  Hamptons Property Services Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS          Owners Corporation of Strata Plan 47006

 

REPORT OF     Project Officer, Land Use

 

3650

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Esber)

 

(a)     That Council receives and notes the submissions (summarised in Attachment 2) made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement for 23-25 Windsor Road, Northmead.

 

(b)     That Council approve for finalisation the Planning Proposal for land at 23-25 Windsor Road, Northmead (provided at Attachment 3), which seeks to amend Parramatta (formerly The Hills) Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 as follows:

i)       Amend the Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control that applies to the R4 High Density Residential zoned land from no FSR to 1.8:1.

ii)      Amend the Maximum Building Height (HOB) control that applies to the R4 High Density Residential zoned land from 16 metres (5 storeys) to 30 metres (9 storeys).

 

(c)     That Council approve the site-specific DCP at Attachment 5 for finalisation and insertion into The Hills Development Control Plan (DCP) 2012.

 

(d)     That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the draft Planning Agreement at Attachment 4, and to sign the Planning Agreement on behalf of Council.

 

(e)     That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the plan-making delegations as granted by the Gateway Determination for this Planning Proposal once the Planning Agreement has been executed by Council.

 

(f)      That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments and corrections of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan amendment process relating to the Planning Proposal, Development Control Plan and Planning Agreement during the relevant finalisation processes.

 

(g)     Further, that Council note the Local Planning Panel considered and endorsed the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement at its meeting on 16 November 2021 and recommended that Council approve the site-specific DCP for finalisation and insertion into The Hills Development Control Plan (DCP) 2012, subject to refinement of landscaping controls.

 

DIVISION           A division was called, the result being:-

 

AYES:                Councillors Darley, Davis, Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Siviero, Valjak, Wang and Wearne

 

NOES:                Councillors Bradley and Prociv

 

13.7

SUBJECT          Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal for land at 64 Victoria Road, North Parramatta

 

REFERENCE   F2022/00105 - D08385892

 

REPORT OF     Project Officer

 

3651

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Esber)

 

(a)     That Council receives and notes the submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal for 64 Victoria Road, North Parramatta.

 

(b)     That Council approve the Planning Proposal (at Attachment 2) for land at 64 Victoria Road, North Parramatta for finalisation that seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011) to allow ‘take away food and drink premises’ as an additional permitted use (limited to a maximum gross floor area of 100m2 ).

 

(c)     That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the plan-making delegations as granted by the Gateway Determination for this Planning Proposal.

 

(d)     That Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments and corrections of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan amendment process relating to the Planning Proposal.

 

(e)     Further, that Council note the Local Planning Panel considered and endorsed the Planning Proposal at its meeting on 16 November 2021 and recommended that Council approve the planning proposal.

 

DIVISION           A division was called, the result being:-

 

AYES:                Councillors Bradley, Darley, Davis, Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Prociv, Siviero, Valjak, Wang and Wearne

 

NOES:                Nil

 

13.8

SUBJECT          Submissions to DPIE and IPART on the Development Contributions Reform

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08386016

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Infrastructure Planning & Design

 

 

MOTION             (Pandey/Noack)

 

That Council endorse the submissions to the Independent Regulatory and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) at Attachments 2 and 3 respectively, noting the following key points:

i.        The combined reforms may reduce development contributions in the City of Parramatta by up to $626M, significantly impacting the ability of Council to fund necessary infrastructure to support NSW Government and Council agreed growth targets;

ii.       Council’s request for the State Government to approve the draft Section 7.12 Parramatta CBD Contributions Plan, with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, as co-dependent documents, to ensure that the contributions in that Plan can be collected and that Council is no worse-off under the reforms;

iii.      Council’s position that Community facilities should not be excluded from the Essential Works List; and

iv.      Council’s view that infrastructure benchmarks in the IPART report  significantly underestimate actual market costs, and the report lacks comprehensive analysis of infrastructure upgrade costs in established urban areas with increasing density.

 

 

AMENDMENT  (Bradley/Wearne)

 

(a)      That Council endorse the submissions to the Independent Regulatory and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) at Attachments 2 and 3 respectively, noting the following key points:

i.        The combined reforms may reduce development contributions in the City of Parramatta by up to $626M, significantly impacting the ability of Council to fund necessary infrastructure to support NSW Government and Council agreed growth targets;

          ii.       Council’s request for the State Government to approve the draft Section 7.12 Parramatta CBD Contributions Plan, with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, as co-dependent documents, to ensure that the contributions in that Plan can be collected and that Council is no worse-off under the reforms;

          iii.      Council’s position that Community facilities should not be excluded from the Essential Works List; and

         iv.      Council’s view that infrastructure benchmarks in the IPART report significantly underestimate actual market costs, and the report lacks comprehensive analysis of infrastructure upgrade costs in established urban areas with increasing density.

 

(b)     That Council undertake the following advocacy activities:

i.        Write to the Minister for Planning requesting a meeting to discuss Council’s submission

ii.       Continue meetings between Executives of Council and the Department of Planning and Environment

iii.      Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer continue advocacy for the City of Parramatta and with other councils and LGNSW

iv.      Continue media campaign  

 

(c)     Further, that Council be advised of the NSW Government’s response to submissions made on the reforms.

 

Councillor Pandey, as mover of the original motion, accepted the amendment as part of the motion.

 

MOTION             (Pandey/Noack)

 

(a)      That Council endorse the submissions to the Independent Regulatory and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) at Attachments 2 and 3 respectively, noting the following key points:

i.        The combined reforms may reduce development contributions in the City of Parramatta by up to $626M, significantly impacting the ability of Council to fund necessary infrastructure to support NSW Government and Council agreed growth targets;

          ii.       Council’s request for the State Government to approve the draft Section 7.12 Parramatta CBD Contributions Plan, with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, as co-dependent documents, to ensure that the contributions in that Plan can be collected and that Council is no worse-off under the reforms;

          iii.      Council’s position that Community facilities should not be excluded from the Essential Works List; and

         iv.      Council’s view that infrastructure benchmarks in the IPART report significantly underestimate actual market costs, and the report lacks comprehensive analysis of infrastructure upgrade costs in established urban areas with increasing density.

 

(b)     That Council undertake the following advocacy activities:

i.        Write to the Minister for Planning requesting a meeting to discuss Council’s submission

ii.       Continue meetings between Executives of Council and the Department of Planning and Environment

iii.      Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer continue advocacy for the City of Parramatta and with other councils and LGNSW

iv.      Continue media campaign  

 

(c)     Further, that Council be advised of the NSW Government’s response to submissions made on the reforms.

 

3652

RESOLVED      (Pandey/Noack)

 

(a)      That Council endorse the submissions to the Independent Regulatory and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) at Attachments 2 and 3 respectively, noting the following key points:

i.        The combined reforms may reduce development contributions in the City of Parramatta by up to $626M, significantly impacting the ability of Council to fund necessary infrastructure to support NSW Government and Council agreed growth targets;

          ii.       Council’s request for the State Government to approve the draft Section 7.12 Parramatta CBD Contributions Plan, with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, as co-dependent documents, to ensure that the contributions in that Plan can be collected and that Council is no worse-off under the reforms;

          iii.      Council’s position that Community facilities should not be excluded from the Essential Works List; and

         iv.      Council’s view that infrastructure benchmarks in the IPART report significantly underestimate actual market costs, and the report lacks comprehensive analysis of infrastructure upgrade costs in established urban areas with increasing density.

 

(b)     That Council undertake the following advocacy activities:

i.        Write to the Minister for Planning requesting a meeting to discuss Council’s submission

ii.       Continue meetings between Executives of Council and the Department of Planning and Environment

iii.      Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer continue advocacy for the City of Parramatta and with other councils and LGNSW

iv.      Continue media campaign  

 

(c)     Further, that Council be advised of the NSW Government’s response to submissions made on the reforms.

 

 

Note:

1.         Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 9:23pm and returned at 9:25pm during the consideration of Item 13.8.

2.         Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 9:25pm and returned at 9:27pm during the consideration of Item 13.8.

3.         Councillor Prociv left the Chamber at 9:38pm and returned at 9:43pm during the consideration of Item 13.8.

 

14.    Notices of Motion

 

14.1

SUBJECT          CBD Lighting Project

 

REFERENCE   F2022/00105 - D08396765

 

FROM                 Councillor Michelle Garrard

 

MOTION             (Garrard/Siviero)

 

That Council endorse the ongoing lights in the CBD throughout February and March 2022.

 

 

AMENDMENT  (Pandey/Esber)

 

(a)      That Council defer consideration of the CBD Lighting Project until the outcome of the grant application is known.

 

(b)      That a report providing an update on the CBD Revitalisation Program Grant be presented to the next Council Meeting.

 

(c)       Further, that Council continue to keep the lights on for the next two (2) weeks, within the Council budget.

 

The amendment moved by Councillor Pandey and seconded by Councillor Esber on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

The amendment then became the motion.

 

The motion moved by Councillor Pandey and seconded by Councillor Esber on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

3653

RESOLVED      (Pandey/Esber)

 

(a)      That Council defer consideration of the CBD Lighting Project until the outcome of the grant application is known.

 

(b)      That a report providing an update on the CBD Revitalisation Program Grant be presented to the next Council Meeting.

 

(c)       Further, that Council continue to keep the lights on for the next two (2) weeks, within the Council budget.

 

 

Note:

1.         Councillor Darley left the Chamber at 9:45pm and returned at 9:47pm during the consideration of Item 14.1.

2.         Councillor Noack left the Chamber at 10.09pm and returned at 10:11pm during the consideration of Item 14.1.

 

14.2

SUBJECT          Events Budget

 

REFERENCE   F2022/00105 - D08396770

 

FROM                 Councillor Michelle Garrard

 

 

MOTION             (Garrard/Siviero)

 

(a)      That Council endorse the Events Budget be reallocated to the same event the following year or be reallocated to another event with the endorsement of the Chamber.

 

(b)      Further, that Council endorse any events that are postponed or cancelled due to inclement weather.

 

 

AMENDMENT  (Pandey/Humphries)

 

That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop.

 

The amendment moved by Councillor Pandey and seconded by Councillor Humphries on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

The amendment then became the motion.

 

The motion moved by Councillor Pandey and seconded by Councillor Humphries on being put was declared CARRIED.

 

3654

RESOLVED      (Pandey/Humphries)

 

That Council defer consideration of this matter to a Councillor Workshop.

 

 

Note:

1.         Councillor Maclean left the Chamber at 10:14pm and returned at 10:17pm during the consideration of Item 14.2.

2.         Councillor Esber left the Chamber at 10.26pm and returned at 10:30pm during the consideration of Item 14.2.

 

14.3

SUBJECT          Traffic Lights at Bennelong Parkway - Hill Road Intersection

 

REFERENCE   F2022/00105 - D08395818

 

FROM                 Councillor Paul Noack

 

3655

RESOLVED      (Noack/Siviero)

 

(a)      That Council recognise the importance of the urgent construction of traffic lights at the intersection of Bennelong Parkway and Hill Road at Wentworth Point. The growing traffic congestion and traffic accidents of extreme concern to the resident of Wentworth Point.

 

(b)      That Council calls for the urgent construction of the planned roundabout and street crossing at the corner of Hill Road and Burroway Road

 

(c)       Further, that a full report on the construction of these lights, and roundabout be presented to the 14 March Council Meeting, including costing and where the funds are coming from.

 

14.4

SUBJECT          Acknowledgement of all Faith

 

REFERENCE   F2022/00105 - D08396775

 

FROM                 Deputy Lord Mayor

 

3656

RESOLVED      (Pandey/Esber)

 

(a)      That Council defer consideration of this matter for a period of eight (8) weeks until 11 April 2022.

 

(b)      Further, that a Councillor Workshop be held to discuss this matter.

 

 

Note:  Councillor Green left the Chamber at 10.41pm during the consideration of Item 14.4.

 

15.    Questions with Notice

 

Nil

 

16.    Innovative

 

Nil

 

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

 

17.     CLOSED SESSION

 

3657

RESOLVED      (Esber/Pandey)

 

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:-

17.1  Tender 23/2021 Hygiene Services. (D08385838) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

17.2  Horwood Place Compulsory Acquisition by Sydney Metro West. (D08385811) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

17.1

SUBJECT          Tender 23/2021 Hygiene Services

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08385838

 

REPORT OF     Business Support Officer

 

3658

RESOLVED      (Humphries/Pandey)

 

(a)     That Council approve the appointment of Rentokil Initial Trading As Initial Hygiene for the costs as outlined in paragraph 12 of this report.

 

(b)     That all unsuccessful tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in this matter.

 

(c)  That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and execute all necessary documents.

 

(d)  Further, that a review be undertaken to ensure that Council's tender processes are being rated against Council's sustainability criteria and that a report come back to Council in three months.

 

Note: Councillor Green returned to the Chamber at 10:51pm after the consideration of Item 17.1.

 

17.2

SUBJECT          Horwood Place Compulsory Acquisition by Sydney Metro West

 

REFERENCE   F2021/00521 - D08385811

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Property Development

 

3659

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Pandey)

 

(a)     That Council approve the commencement of Class 3 proceedings in the Land and Environment Court objecting to the amount of compensation for the Horwood Place, determined by the Valuer General.

 

(b)     That Council approve the budget and allocation of up to $1,630,000, from the Property Reserve, for the professional fees and expenses to run the Class 3 proceedings.

 

(c)     Further, that Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree, in consultation with the Lord Mayor, the amount of compensation for the Horwood Place, within the parameters outlined in paragraph 14 of this report.

 

 

Procedural Motion

 

3660

RESOLVED      (Esber/Bradley)

 

That the meeting resume into Open Session.

 

18.    REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

 

The Chief Executive Officer read out the resolutions for Items 17.1 to 17.2.

 


 

19.    CONCLUSION OF MEETING

 

The meeting terminated at 10:55pm.

 

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 21 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2022 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

Chairperson

 


 

Rescission Motions

 

21 February 2022

 

11.1           Notice of Motion of Rescission: Item 13.5 - Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land (Deferred Item)................................................................. 32


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 11.1

RESCISSION MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         11.1

SUBJECT                  Notice of Motion of Rescission: Item 13.5 - Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE            F2022/00105 - D08410590

REPORT OF              Councillor Garrard        

 

To be Moved by Councillor Garrard and seconded by Councillors Wang and Siviero as per Rescission Motion form signed and submitted on 7 February 2022 after the close of the meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the resolution of the Council held on 7 February 2022 in relation to Item 13.5 – Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land (Deferred Item), namely:

 

(a)     That Council in accordance with section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, classify Lot 5 DP 1238944 (Attachment 1) as ‘Operational’ land for the purposes outlined at paragraph 3 and 4 of the report.

 

(b)     That upon dedication of the proposed road, the balance of Lot 5 DP1238944, be classified as ‘Community’ land as outlined at paragraph 5 of the report.

 

(c)     Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign all documentation in connection with this matter.

 

be and is hereby rescinded.

 

 

Attachments:

1

Item 13.5 - Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 sa Operational Land (Deferred Item)

4 Pages

 

 

 


Item 11.1 - Attachment 1

Item 13.5 - Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 sa Operational Land (Deferred Item)

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

For Council Decision

 

21 February 2022

 

13.1           Minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held on 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021................................................................................................ 38

 

13.2           Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)...................................................... 76

 

13.3           Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site)         278

 

13.4           Submission on the NSW Government's 'A new approach to rezonings' Discussion Paper............................................................................................................... 438

 

13.5           Naming Proposal for Unnamed Epping Pedestrian Way (Deferred Item) 477


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 13.1

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER         13.1

SUBJECT                  Minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held on 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021

REFERENCE            F2013/00235 - D08392636

REPORT OF              Project Officer Land Use        

 

 

CSP THEME:             Innovative

 

workshop/briefing date:  NIL

 

PURPOSE:

 

To inform Council of key discussion points from the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings on 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a) That Council receive and note the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings of 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021.

 

(b) Further, that Council approve the Heritage Grants recommendations, as included in Item 12 of Attachment 2, as follows:

1.   Make a grant of $2,445 for 180 Windsor Road, Winston Hills

2.   Make a grant of $3,300 for Madison Gardens, Carlingford

3.   Defer a decision on grant funding for 144 Good Street, Harris Park until the end of the financial year.

4.   Defer a decision on grant funding for 46 Grose Street, North Parramatta until the end of the financial year.

5.   Make a grant of $3,300 for 50 Marsden Street, Parramatta

6.   Make a grant of $1,493 for 7 Kent Street, Epping.

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.   This report summarises, for Council’s information, the key discussion points of the ordinary bi-monthly meetings of Council’s former Heritage Advisory Committee held on 21 October 2021 and 25 November 2021. The minutes of the meetings are provided at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

 

2.   The purpose of the Committee is to advise Council on how best to conserve, promote and manage heritage within the City of Parramatta Local Government Area (LGA) for current and future generations. Council receives periodic reports detailing the minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee meetings, in order to keep Council informed of the advice of the Committee. Council has a decision-making role on Committee membership as well as on applications to the Local Heritage Fund (which are reported to Council via these periodic reports when such applications have been considered).

 

3.   A report regarding the reinstatement of the Heritage Advisory Committee along with other Advisory Committees is intended to be provided to the Council meeting of 28 March 2022.

 

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS – MEETING 21 OCTOBER 2021

 

Proposal for Old Parramatta Gaol

 

4.   Representatives of the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council addressed the Committee on proposals for the Gaol. The former Gaol is to be
re-purposed as a cultural facility with provision for activities and events such as; markets, music events and festivals, conferences, recreational facilities, weddings and receptions, education facilities and administration offices.

 

5.   The Land Council representative responded to questions from the Committee on the following issues:

 

·    Aboriginal artefacts recovered in Parramatta Park being held at the gaol

·    Whether the Land Council has funding to undertake essential maintenance

·    The purpose of proposed openings in the gaol wall on the river side of the gaol

·    Concern on possible loss of open green space area.

 

Boundary Stone in Alfred Street, Harris Park

 

6.   The Committee was briefed by Council’s heritage consultant for the project, who advised that whilst the proposed works for the pedestrian cycle upgrade in Alfred Street (between Alice and Weston Streets) are taking place the boundary stone located in the vicinity of the works will be removed to an off-site location and once completed the boundary stone will be reinstalled as close to its original location as possible. The Committee made suggestions for the repair and protection of the stone that have been referred to the Alfred Street project team to allow this issue to be addressed when the stone is returned.

 

Introduction to New Heritage Advisor (Item 5)

 

7.   Council’s new Heritage Advisor, Andrea Giusa was introduced to the Committee who gave a brief overview of his credentials and history. The Chairperson welcomed the Heritage Advisor’s participation on the Committee and encouraged him to use the Committee and its membership as a resource to assist in his work.

 

 

Business arising matters (Item 8)

 

8.   In response to Committee information and update requests, advice was provided on the following matters:

·    Council’s Group Manager Development and Traffic Services provided information on what triggers advertising in regard to heritage properties and on Council’s general notification processes and requirements.

·    The Royal Oak site, including stables, is part of residue land that is now with the Transit Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales. The land will be developed at some stage in the future and the heritage listed stables will be retained.

 

City Planning and Design Directorate Update (Item 14)

 

9.   The outcome of consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee (ASTI) on the Governor Phillips campsite located at the junction of Toongabbie and Darling Mills Creeks, Parramatta was provided to the Committee.

 

10. The ASTI Committee considered that the site is significant because it formed part of Governor Phillip’s overall expedition and was a prelude to settlement of Parramatta. However, the ASTI Committee considered that the site should not be heritage listed but some recognition should be given to the site through signage and interpretation.

 

11. The Committee noted the views of the ASTI Committee, but sees the site important from a European heritage viewpoint and seeks that the possibility of listing should be pursued with continued consultation with the ASTI Committee and that Council’s Heritage Advisor should be requested to review the previous decision to not list the site.

 

12. Council’s Heritage Advisor has been requested to assess whether the site meets the criteria for listing.

 

13. After the convenor addressed the Committee in relation to additional information provided on the Ralph Symonds factory site, Wentworth Point the Committee requested that Council’s Heritage Advisor review the Council staff recommendation to the Committee on 19 August 2021 that heritage listing not be supported.

 

14. Council’s Heritage Advisor has been requested to assess whether the site meets criteria for listing.

 

General business (Item 17)

 

15. Following discussion of a Development Application to add a verandah and glass structure to the southern side of the Parramatta Town Hall the Committee agreed for members to make any comments on the application by 3 November 2021 and also requested comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor on this proposal.

 

16. Council’s Heritage Advisor was requested to provide comments on this proposal to the November meeting of the Committee.

 

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS – MEETING 25 NOVEMBER 2021

 

Refined interpretation design development – 5 Parramatta Square (Item 5)

 

17. Staff of the Cultural Heritage and Tourism Unit made a presentation to the Committee on the refined interpretation designs for the proposed showcases and artefact displays for the new Council building at 5 Parramatta Square. Committee members raised a number of questions regarding display subjects that were responded to by Council staff.

 

18. The Committee’s comments have been referred to the Cultural Heritage and Tourism Unit for its information and consideration as appropriate.

 

Draft Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan (Item 6)

 

19. A presentation on this Plan with a particular focus on heritage provisions was provided by Council staff and a heritage consultant. This Plan was on exhibition from 15 November until 13 December 2021. Committee members raised a number of questions and issues on subjects including the following:

·    Protection of individual buildings such as St John’s Church and Roxy Theatre

·    Impact of developments up to 6 storeys high on heritage properties

·    Provision for archaeological controls

·    The sustainability benefit of retaining heritage buildings (as it minimises wastage in construction)

·    Impact of high-rise buildings on North Parramatta Heritage Conservation Areas

·    Implication of proposed changes for Harris Park West Conservation Area

 

20. Committee members agreed to lodge any individual submissions by the closing date.  In addition, the Committee’s comments have been referred to the City Planning and Design directorate for its consideration in the report back to Council on the exhibition outcomes.

 

Development applications (Item 10)

 

21. The following Development Applications and proposals were considered:

 

·    7 Parramatta Square – Parramatta Town Hall: Council’s Heritage Advisor noted that his recommendation to reduce the number of openings in the southern part of the auditorium from two rather than four has been accepted.

 

·    DA/1004/2021 – 21A Caloola Road, Constitution Hill – Construction of Telecommunications Facility: The Committee considered it inappropriate to locate such a facility on the site listed in the State Heritage and that has played an important part in Parramatta’s history, namely the 1804 uprising. This comment has been referred to Council’s Group Manager Development and Traffic Services for consideration as part of the Development Application assessment.

 

 

City Planning and Design Directorate Update (Item 11)

 

22. The Committee was briefed on a proposed site-specific Development Control Plan for 27 – 31 Argyle Street, Parramatta that is located opposite the State Heritage listed St John’s Anglican Cemetery. It was noted that the DCP indicates that the proposed building envelope will partially overshadow the Cemetery. In response, the Committee considered that it would be desirable to ensure that the proposed development complies with the intent of the new draft CBD DCP, it being noted that this DCP includes controls for the solar protection of St John’s Cemetery. The Committee’s comments have been referred to the City Planning & Design directorate for assessment as part of the Draft DCP preparation.

 

Local heritage fund (Item 12)

 

23. Council operates a Local Heritage Fund that provides small grants to owners of heritage items and properties in conservation areas for work that will improve the heritage value of a property. Fund limits are 25% of the value of the work, up to a maximum of $3,300. Applications for completed works are processed and reported three times a year to the Heritage Advisory Committee and then to Council for endorsement. The budget for the current financial year is $35,500 including a grant of $5,500 from Heritage NSW.

 

24. The Committee recommended that Council endorse the recommendations detailed in Table 1 below relating to applications for funds from Council’s Local Heritage Fund as they address relevant funding criteria of the Local Heritage Fund Guidelines for reasons given:

 

 

Table 1: Applications for Local Heritage funds

Address

Work undertaken

Recommendation on funding

Reasons for recommendation

180 Windsor Road, Winston Hills

Replace verandah flooring

Make grant of $2,445

Enhances heritage integrity of item

Madison Gardens, Carlingford

Maintenance of listed trees

Make grant of $3,300

Well help maintain health of trees and enhance value and appearance of heritage treed Avenue

144 Good Street, Harris Park

Make new chimney pots

Defer decision until end of financial year

Whilst the work is of heritage value, the application exceeds the guideline limit of more than one application lodged per two years. See discussion below

46 Grose Street, North Parramatta

Replacement of roof lead flashing and attachment of leaf guard to guttering

Defer decision until end of financial year

Whilst the work is of heritage value, the application exceeds the guideline limit of more than one application lodged per two years. See discussion below

50 Marsden Street, Parramatta

Internal work, including replastering of walls, new ceilings, new floor and subflooring

Make grant of $3,300

Enhances heritage value and integrity of item

7 Kent street, Epping

Replacement of electrical wiring and board

Make grant of $1,493

Enhances heritage integrity of dwelling and electrical board is sensitively placed on side of house

 

 

25. It is considered inappropriate to approve funding for the grant applications for 144 Good Street, Harris Park and 46 Grose Street, North Parramatta at this stage as it may deprive other applicants of funding in this financial year that have not made a grant application in the last two years. A decision on this grant application should be deferred until the last meeting of the Committee in the financial year. If at that time the other grant applications that have been received that better address the guidelines do not utilise all the Heritage Grants budget, this application can be reconsidered.

 

26. The Committee noted that the total of $7,568 to be granted is less than the $11,667 allocated for this assessment period. The balance of $4,099 will be carried through to the next assessment period.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

28. The report recommends that Council endorse the payment of four grants to a total of $7,568 which is available from Council's Local Heritage Fund. The total remaining in the 2021/22 budget will be $27,932 after the $7,568 is allocated. It is noted that there are two further grants to a total value of $4,972 that have been deferred for consideration to the end of the financial year.

 

29. There are no other financial implications for Council associated with this report.

 

 

FY 20/21

FY 21/22

FY 22/23

FY 23/24

Operating Result

 

 

 

 

External Costs

 

 

 

 

Internal Costs

 

 

 

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

Total Operating Result

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funding Source

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPEX

 

 

 

 

CAPEX

 

 

 

 

External

 

 

 

 

Internal

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

Total CAPEX

Nil

 

 

 

Funding Source

NA

 

 

 

 

Paul Kennedy

Project Officer Land Use

 

Janelle Scully

Team Leader –Land Use Planning

 

Robert Cologna

Group Manager, Strategic Land Use Planning

 

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Meeting minutes of 21 October 2021

16 Pages

 

2

Meeting minutes of 25 November 2021

15 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 13.1 - Attachment 1

Meeting minutes of 21 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.1 - Attachment 2

Meeting minutes of 25 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 13.2

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER         13.2

SUBJECT                  Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)

REFERENCE            RZ/5/2018 - D08385712

APPLICANT/S           Jattca Pty Ltd

OWNERS                    St John's Parramatta Endownment Fund

REPORT OF              Team Leader –Land Use Planning

 

csp theme:             INNOVATIVE

 

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel     Nil

 

PURPOSE

 

This report seeks Council’s direction on a Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement (Planning Scheme) for the land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church).

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.    That IF, prior to 28th February 2022, the Council and the Applicant agree on a Planning Agreement on terms satisfactory to Council, including the minimum conditions in Table 2 paragraph 41 of this report; THEN

a)   Council endorse for public exhibition the Planning Scheme (Refer to Attachments 11 and 12 for the St John's Anglican Church Site acknowledging the Planning Proposal includes amendments as described in 1.b) below).

b)   The Planning Proposal will be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking endorsement for amendments to the Gateway Determination, being a proposed new clause requiring a staged DA process and a 2 week extension to the required exhibition date (28 February 2022) and finalisation date (30 June 2022).

c)   The outcome of the public exhibition be reported to Council.

d)   Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to complete negotiations of the Planning Agreement on terms referred to in Table 2 and paragraph 41 and to correct any minor inconsistencies or anomalies of an administrative nature, relating to the Planning Scheme documents, that may arise during the drafting and exhibition processes.

 

2.    That should the Planning Scheme proceed to public exhibition, then Council endorse the Chief Executive Officer to:

a)   Continue negotiations with the Applicant regarding the possible closure and sale of part of Hunter Street as part of the project.

b)   Continue discussions with the Owners of 181 Church Street, Parramatta regarding their use of alternate vehicle access options.

c)   Report back to Council the outcomes of these discussions with the report to Council on the outcomes of the planning scheme public exhibition.

 

3.    Further, that IF agreement between Council and the Applicant cannot be achieved by 28 February 2022, Council will:

a)   Write to the Department of Planning and Environment and other relevant public authorities indicating that it will no longer progress the Planning Proposal.

b)   No longer pursue any of the Planning Scheme documents

c)   Withdraw support for the sale of any portion of Hunter Street to the St John’s Anglican Church.

d)   Identify land at 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to facilitate the creation of a 6 metre wide laneway to provide future vehicle access to these three (3) sites and 181 Church Street, Parramatta, as part of a future housekeeping amendment to Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011.

e)   Write to the St John's Parramatta Endowment Fund confirming that the Deed of Agreement between Council and the Anglican Church Authorities, last signed and amended in1991, remains in force and continues to secure public access over the Church owned land between Church Street and Hunter Street, notwithstanding that Council withdraws support for the Planning Scheme for the St John's Anglican Church. 

 

 

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

 

Drafting of DCP/VPA 
Report DCP & VPA to Council
Timeline

Description automatically generated

SUMMARY

 

1.      This report seeks Council’s endorsement of a decision making process in relation to the Planning Scheme for the land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Cathedral Anglican Church) noting that for the purpose of this report the Planning Scheme consists of the Planning Proposal, Draft Development Control Plan and any Planning Agreement agreed.

 

2.      Progression of the Planning Scheme cannot be recommended because the terms offered by the Applicant in their Planning Agreement Letter of Offer dated 21 January 2022,

i.    Do not outweigh the loss of a local heritage item; and

ii.   Are not consistent with the City of Parramatta Council’s Planning Agreements Policy (Amendment 1) adopted by Council 26 November 2018; and

iii.  Do not include compensation for the 25% reduction in the area of the civic space.

 

3.      The recommendation is that Council officers and the Applicant continue negotiations up until 28th February 2022. If prior to this date, the following conditions summarised below and detailed at Table 2 of this report are agreed, then the Planning Scheme can proceed to public consultation and following this the exhibition outcomes reported to Council: 

i.    Terms within the Planning Agreement to outweigh the loss of a local heritage item; and

ii.   Terms within the Planning Agreement to ensure alignment with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy; and

iii.  Terms within the Planning Agreement to compensate for the 25% reduction in the area of the civic space. 

 

4.      If an agreement between Council and the Applicant cannot be reached by this date (28 February 2022), the Planning Scheme will no longer be progressed.

 

5.      The Council’s resolved position as detailed in the 16 December 2019 Council Report (Item 18.4) in relation to key elements of the Applicant’s proposal are:

i.    Additional density on the site is generally appropriate and consistent with the current policy framework for sites in the CBD as set out in the draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

ii.   Delisting from the Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011 of St John’s Parish Church Hall may be appropriate if the public benefits accruing to the community by the proposal are greater than the loss associated with potential demolition of the heritage listed Parish Hall.

iii.  Inclusion of a 6 metre wide strip of land on the Land Reservations Acquisitions Map in the Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011 to facilitate a laneway for vehicle access to 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street and 181 Church Street, Parramatta.

 

6.      The Applicant and Council officers have worked to progress the preparation of site-specific Development Control Plan controls for the site to support the changes being made under the Planning Proposal, as well as a Planning Agreement.  The purpose of the Planning Agreement is to deliver infrastructure and public benefits for the community based on the matters outlined in the 16 December 2019 Council Report and Resolution, and in particular, whether the net public benefit accruing to the community from the new infrastructure and public benefits outweighs the loss the community will experience by having a locally listed heritage item demolished.

 

7.      The Applicant’s ‘Letter of Offer’ (also referred to as a Planning Agreement) dated 21 January 2022 sets out the public benefits offered to the community by the proposal, subject to Development Consent being granted to remove St John's Parish Church Hall being:

i.    Item No. 1: an enlarged and embellished open space around the Cathedral.

ii.   Item No. 2: contribution of a stratum parcel of land to be formed into a section of a new laneway from Marsden Street to the rear parking area of 181 Church Street.

iii.  Item No. 3: enabling temporary vehicle access to and from the rear parking area of 181 Church Street over Church-owned land to and from the existing Hunter Street cul-de-sac.

iv.  Item No. 4: in perpetuity licence that permits members of the public to access and use the open space.

 

8.      Many elements of the Applicant’s current 2021 offer remain the same as the original offer in 2019. Elements such as the Church’s control of public access to the open space, the request that the applicant be able to halt temporary access arrangements that might be put in place for 181 Church Street are consistent in both offers. However, the changes to the area of open space and consideration of the further detail now provided on maintenance and liability issues, and the implications of the applicant being able to halt temporary access arrangements, mean that the proposal has been re-assessed in its totality to ensure Officers remain convinced that the public benefit from the Planning Agreement outweighs the loss the community would bear if the heritage item was demolished.

 

9.      Despite engagement there remains disagreement between the Applicant and Council officers about the matters to be included in the Planning Agreement and the resulting level of public benefit accruing to the community through the loss of the St John’s Harish Church Hall.

 

10.    It is recommended that the Applicant be given a final opportunity to agree to arrangements which satisfy Council that sufficient public benefit will be provided in the Planning Agreement to offset the demolition of the Heritage item. Unless this can occur prior to the Department of Planning and Environment’s deadline for public exhibition of the Planning Proposal (which is 28 February 2022), the Planning Scheme in its entirety should not progress. 

 

SITE DESCRIPTION

 

11.    The subject site contains 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta. These properties comprise of twelve (12) allotments currently owned by the Anglican Church Property Trust, Diocese of Sydney, as Trustee for the Parish of Parramatta and the St John’s Parramatta Endowment Fund (see Figures 1 and 2). The subject site is irregular in shape and has a total site area of 10,857 square metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures 1 and 2: The subject site and surrounds


 

12.    In the location shown in Figure 3, the subject site contains a State heritage item known as St John’s Anglican Cathedral (I011805) and several local listed items including:

·    St John’s Parish Church Hall (Local Listing I713);

·    Warden’s (Verger’s) Cottage (Local Listing I653); and

·    St John’s Building (façade included in local listing I651 for Centenary Square and adjoining buildings).

 

 

Figure 3: Heritage items within and adjacent to the subject site

 

 

 

13.    These items as they relate to their respective allotments, contribute to the setting and curtilage of the St John’s Anglican Cathedral. The subject site and its surrounds are part of a critical heritage precinct in the Parramatta CBD with a number of heritage items on adjacent sites. 

 

14.    There is currently one (1) site-specific Planning Proposal being processed for land at 57 Macquarie Street (corner of Marsden Street and Macquarie Street) adjoining the Church site to the west (see Figure 2).  At the time of writing this report, this application had not yet been reported to Council as part of the pre-Gateway assessment. 

 

15.    A State Significant Development process is also underway for land at 41-43 Hunter Street, Parramatta (corner of Marden Street and Hunter Street) and adjoining the Church site to the west (see Figure 2).  Council provided comments on the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) in February 2021 and a Design Excellence Competition administered by the NSW Government Architect was held in December 2021.  At the time of writing this report, an Environmental Impact Statement had yet to be lodged with the Department to assess the State Significant application for a private hospital. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

16.    On 29 May 2018, Jattca Property Solutions (the Applicant) lodged a Planning Proposal to Council on behalf of the landowner (Anglican Church Property Trust Diocese of Sydney, as Trustee for the Parish of Parramatta and the St John’s Parramatta Endowment Fund) in relation to land at 195 Church Street and 68-79 Macquarie Street and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta. The subject site is commonly referred to as the St John’s Church site or the Church site.

 

17.    The applicant’s Planning Proposal as originally submitted to Council is based on a 100-year plan envisaged for the subject site and includes,

·    A new setting for the state heritage listed St John’s Anglican Cathedral through an enhanced and enlarged open space comprised of the provision of a new square (proposed to remain under the ownership of the Church but accessible by the public) requiring the closure of part of Hunter Street;

·    A new northern tower comprised of 45-storeys (approximately 192 metres) which requires the demolition of the existing locally heritage listed Church Hall located immediately north west of the State listed Cathedral;

·    A new southern tower comprised of 43-storeys (approximately 152 metres) containing ground floor active uses with residential accommodation above; and

·    Shared basement car parking extending from the north of the site, to the south of the site with proposed vehicular access off Macquarie Street.

 

18.    The applicant’s preference is to remove the existing local heritage item identified as St John’s Parish Hall and replace it with an office tower and enlarged open space around the Cathedral, and to provide a better connection of Church facilities within the new office tower and the Cathedral. The applicant is also seeking to provide a basement car park under the enlarged open space connecting the two development sites, with both the basement and enlarged open space dependent on the closure of a portion of Hunter Street. 

 

19.    On 16 December 2019, Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal for the purpose of requesting a Gateway determination; and to prepare a draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement to be exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal.  A link to the 16 December 2019 Council Report and Resolution is provided here: Council Report Agenda of Council - 16 December 2019 (nsw.gov.au) and Council Resolution Minutes of Council - 16 December 2019 (nsw.gov.au). 

 

20.    On 8 September 2020, the then Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (the Department) issued a Gateway determination which allowed the Planning Proposal to proceed to public exhibition. The Gateway determination is provided at Attachment 4.  Condition 1(b) of the Gateway requires all references regarding the removal of St John’s Parish Hall as an item of local heritage significance are to be removed, as the LEP requires consideration of heritage issues as part of any development application process

 

21.    Further advice has also been received from Transport for NSW dated in July 2021 confirming that access from Macquarie Street is not encouraged and vehicle access should be provided from Hunter Street as the preferred alternative. A copy of the advice is provided at Attachment 6

 

22.    On 10 November 2021, the Department issued an Alteration to the Gateway Determination (copy provided at Attachment 5) which requires the Planning Proposal to commence public exhibition by 28 February 2022; and for the LEP amendment to be finalised by 30 June 2022.

 

SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN AND PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

23.    The draft site-specific Development Control Plan for the subject site sets relevant development controls for:

i.        heritage conservation,

ii.       the form of the buildings and public domain,

iii.      vehicle access,

iv.      parking and servicing,

v.       management of flood and rainwater risks; and

vi.      environmental sustainability.

 

24.    In drafting these controls, the following policy issues have been considered:

i.     The site-specific Planning Proposal for the St John’s Anglican Cathedral site,

ii.    Council resolution dated 16 December 2019 which set out criteria to be considered when preparing the DCP,

iii.   Conditions of the Gateway determination dated 8 September 2020

iv.   Draft amendments to Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan dated 11 October 2021 and publicly exhibited at the end of last year. 

 

25.    The Applicant and Council officers worked in an iterative manner in mid to late 2021 to progress a site-specific DCP that reconciled the stated commercial imperatives of the Applicant and various public domain, heritage and policy issues. The majority of matters in the site-specific DCP have ultimately been agreed upon by both sides, and the site-specific DCP at Attachment 11 reflects the outcome of that collaboration.

 

26.    The draft site-specific DCP has been drafted to include controls for the two scenarios for the St John’s Parish Hall being, Option A, removal and replacement, and Option B, partial retention of the hall.

 

27.    Attachment 10 provides the following additional information on the DCP:

i.    The overall intent of the DCP controls,

ii.   Background to the Heritage, Public Domain and Built Form DCP controls,

iii.  Outline of the site-specific DCP controls not consistent with the draft Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2021. 

iv.  The proposed planning pathway that reflects the two re-development options for the site, specifically a Stage 1 DA and relationship to the new site-specific LEP clause discussed below and in Attachment 12

 

28.    The site specific Planning Proposal for the subject site was initially endorsed by Council on 16 December 2019.  As a result of the Gateway condition, amendments to the Planning Proposal to remove any reference to de-listing of the Church Halls as a heritage item was necessary. This issue has also led Council Officers to recommend the introduction of an additional clause. In order to avoid the applicant having to do two design competitions as part of a future approval process – one with the Hall retained, and one without the Hall - the clause will require a staged approval approach where a decision on the removal of the Hall and building envelope is made in a DA first, with the design competition then proceeding as the next step. The design competition would then know whether the design must retain or remove the Hall. Once the design competition is complete, a DA that is more procedural in nature will then approve the final design to allow development to proceed. The introduction of this clause requires the Planning Proposal to be amended and endorsed via an alteration to the Gateway determination by the Department prior to any exhibition.

 

29.    The critical matter is understanding the heritage significance of the St John’s Parish Church Hall prior to undertaking a Design Competition to provide certainty regarding the proposed form of development to occur on the site.  To achieve this principle, the new site specific clause will require the following matters to be addressed by a Stage 1 DA: 

·          design principles drawn from an analysis of the site and its context,

·          heritage conservation and interpretation including a Conservation Management Plan. 

·          the suitability of the land for the development,

·          impact on, and improvements to open spaces,

·          vehicle access, basement design and pedestrian safety,

·          the location of any tower proposed, having regard to the need to achieve an acceptable relationship with other towers on neighbouring sites in terms of separation, setbacks, amenity and urban form.

 

30.    Notwithstanding the general support for the site-specific DCP and Planning Proposal, there remains disagreement between the Applicant and Council officers about the matters to be included in the Planning Agreement and the resulting level of public benefit accruing to the community through the loss of the St John’s Harish Church Hall.

 

31.    The next steps in relation to the site specific DCP and Planning Proposal are dependent on Council’s decision in relation to the Applicant’s draft Planning Agreement, which is discussed in the next section of this report. 

 

 

PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

32.    The 16 December 2019 Council report (Item 18.4) listed the public benefits offered by the Applicant as part of the Planning Proposal for the St John’s Church site as,

i.    New civic space and laneway (with public access over both);

ii.   Immediate temporary vehicle access to 181 Church Street; and

iii.  Future permanent vehicle access along the rear of 45 Hunter Street.

 

33.    This Council report also outlined the framework for the negotiation and assessment of the public benefits offered by the Applicant being,

i.    The value of the public benefits accruing to the community by the proposal and whether these benefits are greater than the loss associated with potential demolition of the local heritage item.

ii.   Council’s policy and procedures relating to Developers and Council entering into Planning Agreements under Section 7.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as set out in the City of Parramatta Council Planning Agreements Policy (Amendment 1) 2018 (Policy). 

 

34.    Since this time Council officers and the Applicant have worked to progress a Planning Agreement to deliver infrastructure and public benefits for the community based on the matters outlined in the 16 December 2019 Council Report and Resolution, as well as new information being,

i.    The Department would not support de-listing of the heritage item (see Attachment 4), and

ii.   Transport for NSW advice that makes it highly likely vehicle access will be from Hunter Street which has changed the context for what infrastructure can be delivered (see Attachment 6).

 

35.    Despite engagement there remains disagreement between the Applicant and Council officers about the terms of the items offered by the Applicant and the resulting level of public benefit accruing to the community through the loss of the Hall.  A detailed assessment of the Applicant’s offer is provided at Attachment 1.

 

36.    A copy of the Applicant’s original Letter of Offer dated 12 September 2019 is provided at Attachment 3, and a copy of the Applicant’s latest Letter of Offer dated 21 January 2022 is provided at Attachment 2. A comparison of the headline public benefits in each offer is outlined in Table 1.  

 

37.    Many elements of the Applicant’s current 2021 offer remain the same as the original offer in 2019. Elements such as the Church’s control of public access to the open space, the request that the applicant be able to halt temporary access arrangements that might be put in place for 181 Church Street are consistent in both offers. However, the changes to the area of open space and consideration of the further detail now provided on maintenance and liability issues, and the implications of the applicant being able to halt temporary access arrangements, mean that the proposal has been re-assessed in its totality to ensure Officers remain convinced that the public benefit from the Planning Agreement outweighs the loss the community would bear if the heritage item was demolished.

 

 

Table 1: Comparison of public benefits offered

Public benefits within the Applicant’s Letter of Offer dated 12 September 2019, and reported to Council on 16 December 2019.

Public benefits within the Applicant’s Letter of Offer dated 21 January 2022, and the subject of this report to Council. 

Subject to development consent granting the right to remove St John's Parish Church Hall, the following public benefits are offered:

 

1.    New civic space and pedestrian laneway;

2.    Future permanent vehicle access along the rear of 45 Hunter Street.

3.    Immediate temporary vehicle access to 181 Church Street; and

4.    Access and use of Civic Space Land and laneway

Subject to development consent granting the right to remove St John's Parish Church Hall, the following public benefits are offered:

 

1.    New civic space;

2.    Future permanent vehicle access along the rear of 45 Hunter Street

3.    Immediate temporary vehicle access to 181 Church Street; and

4.    Access and use of Civic Space Land.

Importantly, the conditions within the Applicant’s latest planning agreement have reduced the ‘value’ of the civic space land.  This is discussed in this report below and in Attachment 1.

 

38.       The pedestrian laneway was removed from the Applicant’s January 2022 offer because vehicle access to the site, now required by TfNSW to be from Hunter Street, would result in a pedestrian-vehicle conflict point decreasing the value of the laneway. Secondly, the size of the civic area that the applicant could make available to the public is also effectively reduced by the driveway through part of the civic area linking to Hunter Street. The area used for the driveway cannot be considered to provide public benefit for the purpose of this assessment.

 

Figure 4: Diagrammatic map prepared by Council officers illustrating the proposed public benefits on and adjacent to the St John’s Church site as offered by the Applicant in the 21 January 2022 Letter of Offer. 

 

 

39.    Despite the changes to the laneway and civic space because of the TfNSW advice, the public benefits offered by the Applicant have the potential to reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflict in two separate locations thereby enlivening and improving part of the pedestrian network in the Parramatta CBD, and at the same time, providing for passive recreation opportunities in an area adjacent to the active public spaces at Centenary Square and Parramatta Square.

 

40.    However, after considering the issues that have arisen since the previous report to Council and the additional detail provided by the Applicant as part of the continued negotiation of the agreement contained in the 21 January 2022 Letter of Offer, Council officers are no longer satisfied that these public benefits outweigh the loss of a local heritage item for the following reasons:

 

i.    The extent of the area of the open space for public access has decreased by 25% from approximately 2,750sqm to 2,050sqm (see Figure 5 below). This is due to the removal of the through site link and introduction of a driveway from Hunter Street, with no additional compensatory offer for the reduced civic space area offered by the Applicant as requested by Council in August 2021. 

 

 


Figure 5: Comparison of the area of the civic space

 

ii.   The conditions/ restrictions that the Church proposes to include in the agreement allow the Church to limit any use they choose by the general public and require a significant maintenance contribution from Council, without Council having any proprietary interest.  Council currently maintains the open area around the Cathedral between Hunter Street and Church Street (rubbish removal, cleaning, mowing the lawn) at a cost to the Council budget of $108,600 per annum.  It is a reasonable expectation that these costs will increase given the enlargement of the area through the inclusion of a portion of Hunter Street (approximately 530sqm), higher embellishment standard and additional Council responsibilities as outlined in the offer from the Church (removal of graffiti and vandalism, and any repairs for wear and tear and maintenance of the public domain elements). Given the costs and benefits associated with these conditions, the public benefits previously considered to be accruing from the Church allowing access to this land do not appear as significant as initially understood.

 

iii.  The Applicant has not provided any supporting documentation outlining the lifecycle costs to Council, including operation or ongoing service delivery, as well as likely maintenance and replacement costs. The additional maintenance costs the Applicant is in the agreement proposing to be borne by Council are an unknown and potentially significant imposition on Council budget.

 

iv.  Further, the lack of a monetary contribution (or similar) for the maintenance works is inconsistent with other negotiations and planning agreements between Council and developers for similar projects as required by objective (d) in Section 1.5 of Council’s Planning Agreements Policy, and also section 2.3 part (h) of Council’s Policy in that the impact of the proposed planning agreement contributions on Council’s insurance liability and asset management strategy, including the ongoing operational and maintenance costs of unplanned infrastructure, that Council will under this agreement be responsible for, cannot be assessed. 

 

v.   The immediate temporary access to 181 Church Street if achievable would provide a benefit to the community. Currently vehicle access to 181 Church Street (known as the Queensland Arcade site) involves occupants driving over a pedestrianised portion of Church Street near the rail underpass and adjacent to Parramatta Square and Centenary Square. This is not ideal from a pedestrian safety and risk management viewpoint. The Church’s offer to allow the vehicles to access the site over their land would assist in resolving this issue. However, the Church requires all costs to be borne by Council and they reserve the right to require the temporary access to cease at any time. Ideally Council would seek an arrangement that gave a guarantee that access for 181 Church Street would never have to occur from Church Street in the future. The fact that there remains a risk that access via Church Street would need to be re-instated if the Church withdrew from the temporary arrangements, compromises the public benefit of this part of the offer.

 

41.    It is proposed to allow time for negotiations to continue until the 28 February 2022.  Table 2 below provides the minimum terms considered by Council Officers to sufficiently demonstrate the public benefit resulting from the loss of the heritage item which will form a critical part of these negotiations. 

 

Table 2: Amendments the Applicant could make to the offer to address issues with the latest offer from the Applicant dated 21 January 2022.  

Column 1

Column 2

Reasons why the latest offer from the Applicant is not acceptable

Amendments the Applicant could propose to make the offer acceptable

1.   The terms of the latest offer do not outweigh the loss of a local heritage item (St John’s Parish Hall)

In addition to the other amendment terms (in the rows below), the Applicant’s offer should include more favourable and generous terms that would outweigh the loss of a local heritage item, being:

1.1   An easement in favour of Council over the open space in perpetuity; and

1.2   Conditions for access and use by the community and Council within the easement (as required at 1.1) that are unfettered; and

1.3   Alternate vehicle access arrangement (not the current access) for 181 Church Street be made available that require the applicant to provide for an alternate access to be available until the permanent access via the new laneway becomes available; and

1.4   Upscaling the planting offer for the civic space to provide 8-10 trees @ 2000 litre pot size .

 

2.   The terms of the latest offer are not consistent with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy

In addition to the other amendment terms (in the row above and below), the Applicant’s offer should be amended to align with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy, being:

2.1   Provision of an easement over the open space in perpetuity; and

2.2   Lifecycle costs for the operation and ongoing service delivery, as well as maintenance and replacement costs, of the civic space and and vehicle access for 181 Church Street (temporary, alternate and permanent) to be borne by the Applicant.

 

3.   The terms of the latest offer do not include an alternate offer to compensate for the loss of civic space

In addition to the other amendment terms (in the rows above), the Applicant’s offer should include an alternate offer to address the loss of civic space, being:

3.1    A monetary contribution to the value of the 25% reduction in civic space land to be expended to fund or part fund infrastructure identified in Council’s Draft CBD Contributions Plan schedule of works; and

3.2    Acknowledgement that the civic space embellishment works will be undertaken with a nil value ascribed. 

 

 

IMPLICATIONS IF THE PLANNING AGREEMENT DOES NOT PROGRESS

 

42.       A Planning Agreement associated with the Planning Proposal was critical to the 16 December 2019 Report recommendation made by Council officers to de-list the Heritage listed Church Hall. The Department’s decision in September 2020 to block the de-listing of the Church Hall in the Gateway Determination meant that negotiations and DCP preparations have proceeded on the basis that the site-specific DCP controls and Planning Agreement would include conditions/ requirements that would only apply if the Applicant was able to obtain development consent granted via a future development application for demolition of the Hall despite the heritage listing.

 

43.       The Planning Proposal also involved a change in Zoning of the land and also the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and Height of Building controls compared to that provided in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal that was endorsed by Council in June 2021. Table 3 outlines the proposed changes to the planning controls.  The proposed zoning, FSR and Height of Building controls are shown on the maps in Figure 6.

 

Table 3: Comparison of the planning controls in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal as endorsed by Council in June 2021, with the planning controls for the subject site in the Gateway Determination issued by the Department in September 2020. 

 

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

 

Existing (Parramatta LEP 2011)

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as endorsed by Council for finalisation in June 2021)

Site-specific Planning Proposal (as per the Gateway Determination issued in September 2020

Zoning

Part B4 Mixed Use, part SP1 Special Activities.

Part B4 Mixed Use, part SP1 Special Activities.

Part B4 Mixed Use, part B3 Commercial Core, part SP1 Special Activities.

Maximum Height of Building

Part 24m, part 18m, part 36m and part no height control.

Part 24m, part 18m, part 12m, part 36m, part 211RL and part no height control.

 

Refer Clause 7.6 Sun Access Protection, 6 Parramatta Square and Block A.

Part 12m, Part 211RL and part no height control.

 

Refer Clause 7.6 Sun Access Protection, 6 Parramatta Square and Block A.

Maximum FSR

Part 3:1, part 10:1 and part no FSR shown.

Part 3:1, part 10:1 and part no FSR shown.

Part 10:1 and part no FSR shown (refer to special clauses). Note unlimited commercial floor space clause would also apply which would allow an FSR exceeding 10:1 shown on the FSR map

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal Special Clauses

Sliding-scale applies

Sliding-scale applies

 

Aeronautical investigation clause

 

Refer Clause 7.6F Active Street Frontage.

 

Refer Clause 7.6L Floodplain Risk Management.

 

Sliding-scale applies

 

Aeronautical investigation clause

 

Refer Clause 7.6F Active Street Frontage.

 

Refer Clause 7.6L Floodplain Risk Management.

 

Unlimited FSR on Proposed B3 Commercial Core fronting Macquarie Street

Site-specific clauses

Nil

Nil

Additional permitted use to allow basement parking on part of SP1 Special Activities zoned land.

Heritage status Church Hall

Listed

Listed

Listed

Land Reservation Acquisition

Nil

Nil

Land Reservation Acquisition Plan, 6m wide laneway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: Maps illustrating the proposed zoning, FSR and Height of Building controls  

44.       If the site specific Planning Proposal does not proceed, the planning controls that will be in place for the site once the Draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal comes into force are those in the third column of Table 3 above. The major differences relate to the area between the Church Hall and Macquarie Street with the land,

 

i.    remaining zoned B4 Mixed Use rather than B3 Commercial Core, and

ii.   not being able to accommodate a taller tower building as the height is limited to 36 metres (9-11 storeys) rather than 211RL as proposed in the Applicant’s site specific PP which would allow towers up to 55-60 storeys depending on the design. 

 

45.       Another implication of Council not progressing the Applicant’s Planning Proposal as submitted is Council cannot implement the proposed Land Reservation over a 6m wide area of land at the rear of 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street, as shown in Figure 6 below. This laneway is proposed as the long term solution to resolving the vehicle access issue for 181 Church Street discussed previously in this report.  

 

Figure 6: Land Reservation Acquisition Plan

46.       A State Significant Development (SSD) application has been lodged for 41 and 43 Hunter Street that adjoins the Church site (at 45 Hunter Street) and these sites are also part of the proposal to create a service laneway as shown in Figure 6. In discussions with Officers of the Department it appears the SSD application has provision for Council to access the relevant parts of these sites to allow the laneway to be created.

 

47.       Without the Applicant’s Planning Proposal to impose the Land Reservation or a Planning Agreement to secure legal access to the relevant part of 45 Hunter Street which is owned by the Church, there is no clear mechanism to acquire the portion of 45 Hunter Street and secure the alternate access for 181 Church Street.

 

48.       Given the importance of planning for and delivering a long term permanent alternate access for 181Church Street it is recommended that the Land Reservation instead be imposed via the next appropriate Council-initiated Planning Proposal to deal with housekeeping or other site-specific amendments in the Parramatta CBD if the subject Planning Scheme does not proceed.

 

 

CONSULTATION AND TIMING

 

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

 

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

End 2019 to present.

Multiple

Various comments in relation to finalising the draft DCP and VPA.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken to date with internal sections of Council, the applicant and relevant State agencies, including the DPE and TfNSW in order to progress the planning proposal, draft DCP and planning agreement to this point.

 

This includes numerous meetings and detailed correspondence between all parties.

City Planning & Design / Property & Place

 

50.    Should negotiations result in the draft Planning Agreement between the Church and Council and the draft site-specific DCP being publicly exhibited with the Planning Proposal, consultation is anticipated to be undertaken as follows:

·    Consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the conditions of the Gateway Determination.

·    Commencement of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal by 28 February 2022 or extension provided by the DPE.

·    Notification of public exhibition will be published on Council’s website and social media platforms.

·    Notification via email and or mailout of relevant public authorities and organisations. 

·    Mail out to landowners within a radius of approximately 1 kilometre of the site.  

 

51.    Following the conclusion of any exhibition period, a report will be prepared for the Local Planning Panel’s and Council’s consideration detailing the submissions received and recommended actions. Should Council resolve to endorse the Planning Proposal, it will be forwarded to the DPE for finalisation, subject to any required changes being made as a result of the exhibition process. In accordance with Condition 6 of the Alteration of Gateway Determination, the LEP must be completed by 30 June 2022.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

52.    The legal implications associated with this report are discussed as follows. 

 

Draft Planning Agreement:

 

53.    As discussed in this report and in Attachment 1, the terms of the Planning Agreement could not be agreed by Council officers and the Applicant and therefore the Planning Agreement and associated Deeds of Agreement have not been legally drafted.

 

54.    The CEO should be granted delegation to endorse the draft Planning Agreement documentation for the purpose of public exhibition.  

 

Right of pedestrian access over the Church owned land:

 

55.    The draft Planning Agreement was to include revised terms for enduring access by the public over the Church owned land. Currently this right of pedestrian access between Church Street and Hunter Street around the Cathedral is provided for in a Deed of Agreement between Council and the Church, last signed in 1991. 

 

56.    Council and the Church first entered into a Deed of Agreement in relation to the Civic Space Land in 1953, with Amendment Deeds signed in 1971 and 1991 (copy provided at Attachments 7 and 8).

 

57.    The 1991 Deed granted for a 50-year period, a right for Council to carry out agreed works on the Church land and permits members of the public use of the paved footways. This Deed is due to expire on 19 August 2041, and if not replaced by a new Deed before this date, the Church and Council may at the Church’s authority negotiate the continuation of the Deed of Agreement, with or without amendments, for another set period of time.

 

58.    The works on the Church land that Council regularly carries out includes maintenance and repair works (mowing, removing rubbish, cleaning) for the Civic Space Lands at a cost of $108,600 per year.

 

59.    Should this Planning Agreement not proceed to supersede these agreements this report recommends that Council write to the St John's Parramatta Endowment Fund and affirm that the Deed of Agreement between Council and the Church last signed in 1991 secures public access by the community between Church Street and Hunter Street despite the withdrawal of Council support for the Planning Proposal. 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

60.    This report has flagged that if Council is unable to secure the dedication of required land for the vehicle laneway from Marsden Street to the rear parking area of the 181 Church Street, Parramatta through the development of 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street, Council may also need to acquire the land. An estimate of the cost of acquiring the land would be provided to Council at the time a housekeeping amendment to include this land on the Parramatta LEP 2011 Land Reservation Acquisition Map is reported to Council.

 

61.    Given that 45 Hunter Street is a small site there may still be scope to negotiate arrangements for the relevant strip of land to be accessible to Council and to vehicles from 181 Church Street. If the Church when they develop the site wish to benefit from development rights below or in the airspace above the 6m wide strip of land, there may be scope for further negotiations as part of any future DA process.  However, if an agreement cannot be reached Council would need to acquire the land and fully compensate the owners (the Church). 

 

62.    Any on-going negotiations should consider the following:

 

i.    Council has endorsed a change in approach to infrastructure funding in the Parramatta CBD.  At its meeting on 25 October 2021, Council endorsed the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan.  Under this Plan, Council is no longer seeking funding for local infrastructure within the CBD by securing monetary contributions through Planning Agreements.  Rather, the Plan seeks to increase the percentage rate applicable to development applications in the CBD under Section 7.12 (formerly known as Section 94A contributions) from 3% of the development cost to 4% and 5%, depending on the natyre of the development. This case is different however because the contribution is not related to an uplift in development potential but instead to offset the loss of a heritage item. In this context the Planning Agreement remains appropriate.

ii.   It should be noted that Council cannot apply the increased percentage levy until the Minister endorses the Contributions Plan.  At the time of the preparation of this report, the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan had been forwarded to the Minister and has yet to be approved.

iii.  The exact value of the Section 7.12 development contribution for the redevelopment of the Church site would be calculated as part of the DA assessment based on a Quantity Survey Report, with the required contribution amount included as a condition of any DA consent.

 

63.    If terms can be agreed preparing the draft Planning Agreement documents will require the engagement of Council’s external solicitor. As part of any agreement the cost of this would be billed to the Applicant.  Any work by Council officers to progress the draft Planning Agreement as well as the draft site-specific DCP would be within the existing City Planning & Design directorate budget.

 

64.    The decision being made by Council on whether to progress the Planning Proposal and associated Planning Agreement has no direct impact on the budget which is the reason the table below is empty.

 

 

FY 21/22

FY 22/23

FY 23/24

FY 24/25

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

 

 

 

 

 

Funding Source

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

 

65.    The recommendation is that Council and the Applicant continue negotiations up until 28th February 2022. If prior to this date, the conditions detailed at Table 2 of this report can be agreed, then the Planning Scheme can proceed to public consultation and following this, the exhibition outcomes reported to Council. If an agreement cannot be reached by this date, the Planning Scheme will no longer be progressed.

 

 

 

Janelle Scully

Team Leader –Land Use Planning

 

Robert Cologna

Group Manager, Strategic Land Use Planning

 

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

ATTACHMENT 1 - Detailed assessment of the Planning Agreement for St Johns final

15 Pages

 

2

ATTACHMENT 2 - Applicant Letter of Offer (21 January 2022)

4 Pages

 

3

ATTACHMENT 3 - Applicant Letter of Offer (12 September 2019)

2 Pages

 

4

ATTACHMENT 4 - Gateway Determination (8 September 2020)

4 Pages

 

5

ATTACHMENT 5 - Alteration of Gateway Determination (10 November 2021)

3 Pages

 

6

ATTACHMENT 6 - Email from Transport for NSW (July 2021)

1 Page

 

7

ATTACHMENT 7 - Deed of Agreement Council-Church (1953)

5 Pages

 

8

ATTACHMENT 8 - Deed of Agreement Council-Church (1991)

24 Pages

 

9

ATTACHMENT 9 - St John's Heritage Advice

26 Pages

 

10

ATTACHMENT 10 - SSDCP Assessment final

9 Pages

 

11

ATTACHMENT 11 - Draft Final DCP controls

30 Pages

 

12

ATTACHMENT 12 - Planning Proposal Document Final

51 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 13.2 - Attachment 1

ATTACHMENT 1 - Detailed assessment of the Planning Agreement for St Johns final

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 2

ATTACHMENT 2 - Applicant Letter of Offer (21 January 2022)

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 3

ATTACHMENT 3 - Applicant Letter of Offer (12 September 2019)

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 4

ATTACHMENT 4 - Gateway Determination (8 September 2020)

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 5

ATTACHMENT 5 - Alteration of Gateway Determination (10 November 2021)

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 6

ATTACHMENT 6 - Email from Transport for NSW (July 2021)

 

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 7

ATTACHMENT 7 - Deed of Agreement Council-Church (1953)

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 8

ATTACHMENT 8 - Deed of Agreement Council-Church (1991)

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 9

ATTACHMENT 9 - St John's Heritage Advice

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 10

ATTACHMENT 10 - SSDCP Assessment final

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 11

ATTACHMENT 11 - Draft Final DCP controls

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.2 - Attachment 12

ATTACHMENT 12 - Planning Proposal Document Final

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 13.3

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER         13.3

SUBJECT                  Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site)

REFERENCE            RZ/3/2017

APPLICANT/S           Think Planners

OWNERS                    PIC Royal Investments Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Project Officer-Land Use Planning

 

csp theme:             INNOVATIVE

 

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel     Nil

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council notes the submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement at 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Albion Hotel site). A summary of submissions is provided at Attachment 1.

 

(b)       That Council notes the Gateway alteration issued by the (then) Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) on 28 October 2021 determining that the Planning Proposal should not proceed on the basis that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is seen as a more efficient way of achieving the objectives of the site-specific Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 2) therefore Council is not required to further consider the Planning Proposal.

 

(c)        That Council forward this report and copies of all submissions received during the exhibition period including community, State and Federal Government agency submissions to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for its consideration consistent with the Gateway alteration issued on 28 October 2021.

 

(d)       That Council approve the site specific-DCP at Attachment 4 for finalisation and inclusion within Part 10 (Site Specific Controls) of the finalised Parramatta City Centre DCP, including the minor amendments at Attachment 5 in this report, following the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, and note the City Centre DCP will be considered by Council in the first quarter of 2022.

 

(e)       That Council approve the Planning Agreement at Attachment 6 and delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the Planning Agreement and to sign it on Council’s behalf.

 

(f)        Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor, administrative and/or non-policy amendments to the site-specific Development Control Plan and/or Planning Agreement during the finalisation processes.

 

 

 

 

SITE DESCRIPTION

 

1.      The subject site is located at 135 George Street and 118 Harris Street, Parramatta (Lot 135 DP 748984 and Lot 4 DP388895) (Refer to Figure 1). The site has an area of approximately 3,135sqm. The site contains the Albion Hotel.

 

2.      The site adjoins another major development site to the west known as the Cumberland Industries site (Refer to Figure 1).  This site was subject to a site-specific Planning Proposal which has since been finalised and permits development at a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7:1 (8.05:1 when including Design Excellence bonus) with a range of height controls across the site including 0 metres, 76 metres (25 storeys), 97 metres (35 storeys) and 156 metres (60 storeys).

 

Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 1: Site Location (subject site shown in blue)

3.      The site is not listed as an item of heritage significance and is not within a Heritage Conservation Area. The site is located across the road from Robin Thomas Reserve which is listed on the State Heritage Register as an “Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape” and is listed under Schedule 5 of Parramatta LEP 2011 as being of local heritage significance as an archaeological site.

 

4.      To the north there are several heritage items along the Parramatta River foreshore including The Gasworks Bridge and The Queens Wharf Reserve and stonewall and potential archaeological site (local items), and HMAS Parramatta Shipwreck and memorial (state item). The site is also within the vicinity of three state significant items “Harrisford”, Experiment Farm and Hambledon Cottage.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

5.      The site-specific Planning Proposal (RZ/3/2017) was lodged in March 2017. The Planning Proposal sought the following amendments to Parramatta LEP 2011:

a.   Increase in the height control from 54 metres (14 storeys) to 166 metres (51 storeys); and

b.   Increase in FSR from 4:1 to 13.5:1.

 

6.      On 19 March 2019, the Local Planning Panel resolved to recommend Council defer the matter pending cumulative shadow analysis of part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.  This analysis was conducted as part of the Overshadowing Technical Paper for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.  This resulted in the identification of the southern half of the site within the Sun Access Protection Map that relates to Clause 7.4 Sun Access Protection (related to Experiment Farm) within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.  The other implication for the subject site was the identification of a maximum building height control of 165.6 metres.

 

7.      On 23 March 2020, Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal, consistent with Council officer recommendations, for the purposes of requesting Gateway determination subject to the following amendments:

a.   Reduction in the floor space ratio from 13.5:1 to a mapped FSR of 10:1 (noting the design excellence, high performance buildings and the unlimited commercial floor space site specific provision allows for an FSR of 12:1 or greater subject to the proposal not exceeding 165.6 metres in height).

b.   Reduction in the height of buildings control from 166 metres to a mapped height control of 144 metres noting that this provides for a total height of 165.6 metres when applying the 15% design excellence bonus.

c.   Inclusion of a site specific LEP clause in keeping with the CBD PP that requires a minimum commercial floor space equivalent to an FSR of 1:1 and allows for any additional commercial floor space to be exempt from the maximum FSR subject to the development not exceeding 165.6 metres in height.

d.   Provision outlining an additional FSR of 0.5:1 is achievable provided high performing building standards are met and the development does not exceed 165.6 metres in height.

e.   Inclusion of a site-specific clause that ensures the proposed building does not cause additional overshadowing to the Experiment Farm heritage item between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June consistent with the draft amendment to Clause 7.4 under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

 

8.      On 31 July 2020, the, then Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) issued a Gateway determination subject to conditions. It is noted that effective 31 January 2022 it is now the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

 

9.      On 22 March 2021, Council endorsed a draft site specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement for the purposes of public exhibition concurrently with the previously endorsed Planning Proposal.  The Planning Proposal, draft site specific DCP and Planning Agreement were subsequently exhibited from 1 September to 30 September 2021.

 

10.    Since the exhibition, Council received a Gateway alteration from the DPIE dated 28 October 2021 which determined that the site-specific planning proposal should not proceed.  The Gateway alteration was issued on the basis that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) is seen as a more efficient way of achieving the objectives of the site-specific planning proposal.

 

11.    This report addresses the outcomes of the public exhibition and makes recommendations for progressing the draft site specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement in the context of the recent Gateway alteration. 

 

RELATIONSHIP WITH PARRAMATTA CBD PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

12.    Table 1 below outlines the planning controls for the site under (1) existing Parramatta LEP 2011, (2) the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and (3) the site-specific Planning Proposal.  The site-specific Planning Proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal in all regards except for the mapped height control as discussed further below. 

Table 1: Summary of current, CBD PP and site-specific controls

 

Parramatta LEP 2011

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

Site-specific Planning Proposal

Site Area

3,135sqm

Land Use Zoning

B4 Mixed Use

Height of Buildings

54m (approx 14

storeys)

Endorsed (resolved on 23

March 2020)

144m – approx 44

storeys - Incentive

Height

(165.6m - approx 51

storeys including

Design Excellence

bonus).

Consistent with endorsed Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, however not consistent with exhibited heights of Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as detailed below)

 

Floor Space Ratio

4:1

10:1 incentive FSR (excluding design excellence)

Note. Bonuses

and the unlimited

commercial floor space

site specific provision

discussed below

allows for an FSR of

12:1 or greater.

As recommended in Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

 

Site-specific provision

 

An additional FSR of

5% is achievable,

provided that high performing

buildings

standards are met.

 

Includes maximum

car parking rates

previously endorsed

by Council.

 

Minimum commercial

floor space area of

1:1

 

Unlimited commercial

floor space (within the

height limit).

As recommended in Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

 

Land Reservation

 

Proposes a 7m wide

reservation on the

Harris Street frontage

for the purpose of

local road widening.

7m wide land dedication on Harris Street frontage for the purpose of local road widening as reflected in draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement.

Heritage Provisions

The site is not listed as an item of heritage significance and is not

within a Heritage Conservation Area.

Includes amendment to Clause 7.4 Sun Access Protection to ensure that any part of the proposed building does not cause additional overshadowing to the Experiment Farm heritage item between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June.

As recommended in Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

 

Number of Dwellings

147

4051

423 units2

Commercial gross floor area

 

4,360sqm

6,750sqm

 

1 The number of dwellings has been estimated based on the maximum achievable residential gross floor area (including bonuses) divided by an average apartment size of 85m2.

2 The number of dwellings for the site-specific Planning Proposal reflects the Reference Design submitted by the Applicant.

 

 

Endorsed versus Exhibited Maximum Height of Buildings

 

13.    The height control for the subject site exhibited in 2020 with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (130 metres mapped) reflected an earlier resolution of Council made on 25 November 2019. However, Council’s more recent resolution for this site made on 23 March 2020 was to apply the same height under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal as that adopted for the site-specific Planning Proposal (144 metres mapped).

 

14.    This map drafting error was identified recently by Council Officers and was to be rectified through the site-specific Planning Proposal for the subject site. 

 

15.    Despite the Gateway alteration deeming that the site-specific Planning Proposal not proceed, the DPE are aware by Council Officers that the height control of 144 metres mapped (165.6 metres including bonuses) reflects the controls recently publicly exhibited as part of the site-specific Planning Proposal and also reflects the height tested under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, therefore the DPE has been requested to apply the height control of 144 metres for the subject site in the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

 

16.    The endorsed height of 144 metres mapped (165.6 metres including bonuses) is the most appropriate height control for the following reasons:

a.   It is compatible with the endorsed FSR control of 10:1 mapped (12:1 including bonuses).  It is important for the height and FSR controls to work together to produce a relatively predictable built form that can comply with the controls within the draft site-specific DCP. 

b.   A lower height control would put pressure on other controls such as setbacks and potentially reduce the provision of amenities on site such as communal open space. 

c.   The height of 144 metres (165.6 metres including bonuses) has been tested to show that it complies with proposed Clause 7.4 under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal in that it will not overshadow Experiment Farm between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 June.  It will also comply with the minimum standards for maintaining acceptable levels of solar access at significant parks including Robin Thomas Reserve as prescribed under the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP.

 

GATEWAY ALTERATION

 

17.    After the completion of the public exhibition period, the (then) DPIE issued a Gateway alteration dated 28 October 2021 (see Attachment 2) which determined that the site-specific planning proposal should not proceed.  The Gateway alteration was issued on the basis that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is seen as a more efficient way of achieving the objectives of the site-specific planning proposal

 

18.    As the proposed controls within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal reflect the site-specific Planning Proposal, the DPIE’s view was that the site-specific Planning Proposal was unnecessary, and the same controls will be achieved when the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is finalised and notified.  While the height control from the site-specific Planning Proposal was not publicly exhibited with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, this was a mapping error and the (then) DPIE have been advised of Council’s resolution dated 23 March 2020 to include the full mapped height of 144 metres (165.6 metres including Design Excellence bonus).

 

DRAFT SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

19.      Council endorsed the draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for exhibition on 22 March 2021. The exhibited draft DCP (Attachment 4) covers matters including built form, setbacks, building separation, public domain, access, parking, servicing and sustainability.

 

20.    Notwithstanding that the site-specific planning proposal is not proceeding, the controls from the site-specific planning proposal will still be achieved through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.  As such, the draft DCP is still relevant and will provide greater level of controlsIf Council endorses, it is proposed that the draft site-specific DCP be included within Part 10 (Site Specific Controls) of the finalised Parramatta City Centre DCP, following the finalisation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. It is expected that the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP will be considered by Council in the first quarter of 2022.

 

21.      Since the public exhibition, Council Officers have identified some minor issues with the draft DCP that require correction and State Agencies have requested amendments as follows:

a.   Reinstatement of labelling that was inadvertently removed from the controls for the adjoining Cumberland Industries site prior to exhibition;

b.   Identification of road widening on all relevant diagrams;

c.   Replacement of the phrase, “European heritage” with “environmental heritage”;

d.   Inclusion of controls for loading and servicing;

e.   Strengthening of controls relating to the vegetation of communal gardens and protection of trees within adjoining open space.

 

22.    The changes recommended to the draft DCP are described in detail at Attachment 5.  It is considered that the changes described are minor in nature and would not trigger the need to re-exhibit the draft DCP.

 

DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

23.    Council endorsed the draft Planning Agreement for exhibition on 22 March 2021.  The exhibited draft Planning Agreement (Attachment 6) makes provision for the following:

i.      A monetary contribution of $2,821,500 for the purposes of public amenities in the Parramatta CBD;

ii.   Dedication of land for road widening along Harris Street to Council, up to a width of 7 metres, the width to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

iii.  Dedication of land for the purpose of a splay corner on the corner of George Street and Harris Street, the dimensions to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

iv.  Granting of public easement rights over the 12 metre wide east-west link;

v.   Granting of public easement rights under the proposed 6 metres wide public pedestrian access at the western edge of the site; and

vi.  Public domain embellishment works of land that will be subject to public easements.  This includes such as landscaping, amenities, furniture and seating. 

 

24.    Since the public exhibition of the draft Agreement, Council has endorsed a change in its approach to infrastructure funding in the Parramatta CBD through its endorsement of the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan (endorsed by Council at its meeting of 25 October 2021).  Under this Plan, Council is no longer seeking funding for local infrastructure within the CBD by securing monetary contributions through Planning Agreements.  Rather, the Plan seeks to increase the percentage rate applicable to developments in the CBD under Section 7.12 (formerly known as Section 94A contributions).  It should be noted that Council cannot apply the increased percentage levy until the Minister endorses the Contributions Plan.  At the time of the preparation of this report, the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan had been forwarded to the Minister and has yet to be approved

25.    The preparation of the draft Planning Agreement anticipated this issue with the inclusion of clause 8.1(h) (refer to Attachment 6) which provides that the monetary contribution under the Planning Agreement is not required in the case that a development condition is imposed on a consent for the site which applies the higher percentage levy under the new Contributions Plan.

26.    Despite the site-specific Planning Proposal not proceeding, there is considerable merit to Council proceeding with the associated draft Planning Agreement.  Most significantly, the draft Planning Agreement is a cost-effective method of Council obtaining the land dedication for road widening and provides greater certainty to the developer and the community regarding the community benefits resulting from the development.

27.    Council endorsed the draft Planning Agreement for exhibition on 22 March 2021.  The exhibited draft Planning Agreement (Attachment 6) makes provision for a monetary contribution of $2,821,500 for the purposes of public amenities in the Parramatta CBD and the dedication of land for road widening, creation of public easements and public domain embellishment works within the site.  The monetary contribution will no longer apply under Clause 8.1(h) of the Agreement due to Council’s recent endorsement of the Parramatta CBD Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan (subject to Ministerial approval).  This Plan allows for a Section 7.12 levy to be conditioned on the development approval which will be comparable to the monetary contribution under the Planning Agreement.

 

28.    Therefore the Planning Agreement that is being recommended to be finalised consists of:

i.    Dedication of land for road widening along Harris Street to Council, up to a width of 7 metres, the width to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

ii.   Dedication of land for the purpose of a splay corner on the corner of George Street and Harris Street, the dimensions to be agreed with the Council and Transport for NSW;

iii.  Granting of public easement rights over the 12 metre wide east-west link;

iv.  Granting of public easement rights under the proposed 6 metres wide public pedestrian access at the western edge of the site; and

v.   Public domain embellishment works of land that will be subject to public easements.  This includes such as landscaping, amenities, furniture and seating. 

 

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

 

29.    The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement were publicly exhibited from 1 September to 30 September 2021, alongside supporting appendices including:

a.    Planning Agreement Explanatory Note;

b.    Applicant’s reference design;

c.    Heritage Issues Identification;

d.    Overshadowing in the Parramatta CBD - Technical Paper;

e.    Gateway Determination and subsequent Alterations;

f.     Local Planning Panel Minutes and Reports (19 March 2019); and

g.    Council Minutes and Reports (8 April 2019, 23 March 2020, 22 March 2021).

 

30.    The public exhibition included:

a.    Letters to neighbouring landowners and occupiers, as well as nearby landowners and occupiers anticipated to be impacted by overshadowing.

b.    Letters to relevant State and Federal Government agencies.

c.    A notice in the ‘Parra News’ newspaper on 31 August 2021.

d.    Exhibition materials were available placed on Council’s Participate Parramatta website.  Note hard copies were not available as Council’s Customer Contact Centre was closed due to directives by NSW Health at that time.

 

31.    Fifteen (15) submissions were received during the public exhibition period. This includes six (6) from public agencies and nine (9) from community members.  A detailed summary of all submissions and Council officer responses is provided at Attachment 1.  The submissions and response are discussed further in the following sections of this report.

 

PUBLIC AGENCY SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY AND RESPONSE

 

32.    Six (6) submissions were received from the following public agencies:

a.   Heritage NSW;

b.   Transport for NSW (TfNSW);

c.   Endeavour Energy;

d.   NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Environment, Energy and Sciences (DPIE-EES);

e.   Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications; and

f.    Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

 

33.    The applicant was provided with a copy of all of the Agency submissions, several of which raised issues which they recommend the applicant address prior to preparing any development application for the site.

 

34.    The submissions generally raise issues that will be addressed through the development application process.  A summary and response to the public agency submissions is provided in Attachment 1.  Some changes have been requested to the Planning Proposal and draft DCP as follows:

a.   The DPIE - EES has requested that the building footprint be altered to allow for tree planting on site and to require rooftop gardens to be mandated through the development control plan.

b.   Heritage NSW has requested that the wording of the draft DCP be amended to replace the phrase “European elements” with the phrase: “environmental heritage” as it is more inclusive language.

c.   TfNSW requested a Satisfactory Arrangements Clause for the Planning Proposal is required to ensure equitable funding of state and regional infrastructure as a result of the proposed development at the DA stage.

d.   TfNSW requested the provision of bicycle parking rates and end-of trip facilities as outlined in their submission (refer to Attachment 1 for further detail).

e.   TfNSW requested that loading and servicing provisions be made on site.

 

35.    The changes requested by State Agencies are recommended to be made to the draft DCP although items (c) and (d) are already addressed within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and associated draft City Centre DCP.  With regard to the request from the DPIE – EES to reduce the footprint of the podium, the redevelopment of the Parramatta CBD under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) is predicated on a model of redevelopment where new buildings define streets and public spaces; while the towers above are tall and slender and are set back to allow daylight, views and circulation of air to the streets and public spaces below.  As such, the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP prescribes nil setbacks for ground floor podiums.  The draft site-specific DCP also provides for nil setbacks except where variations are needed for specific objectives such as road widening and pedestrian access. 

Notwithstanding, the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP contains provisions to increase vegetation and tree planting in the CBD with the subject site identified as being within the area where street trees have priority over awnings.  Section 8.5 Urban Cooling of the Parramatta City Centre DCP also contains provisions requiring that 75% of the area of rooftops and podiums that are not being used for communal open space are to be vegetated and 50% of rooftops and podiums that are to be used as communal open space are to be under shade including through the use of vegetation and shade trees.

 

36.    A more detailed response to all of the State Agency submissions is contained in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

COMMUNITY SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY AND RESPONSE

 

37.    All of the nine (9) community submissions object to the Planning Proposal.  A summary of the main concerns raised is as follows:

a.   Objection is raised to the loss of the Albion Hotel building as it is of value to the community for its heritage character;

b.   Objection is raised to the loss of the Albion Hotel building as it is of value to the community as a live music venue;

c.   The proposed development will create unacceptable levels of overshadowing to surrounding residents, schools and parks;

d.   The proposed development will create traffic congestion; and

e.   Parramatta has too many high density apartments many of which are empty.

 

38.    No changes are proposed to the draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement in response to the submissions with the issues raised summarised below:

a.    It is acknowledged that the existing Albion Hotel building is an attractive building and is valued for its contribution to the streetscape.  However, this by itself does not enable Council to require the retention of the building and prohibit redevelopment of the site.  The building is not listed under the Parramatta LEP 2011 as an item of heritage significance.  Further, Council’s then Heritage Advisor and the NSW Heritage Office have not raised concerns with the Planning Proposal subject to heritage issues being addressed at the development application stage.

b.    Council is committed to the activation of Parramatta’s night-time economy including live music.  At its meeting on 10 February 2020, Council resolved to endorse the Parramatta Night City Framework 2020-2024.  The Framework includes an Action to develop a Live Music Strategy for the City which may help to offset any loss of a live music venue at this site. 

c.    Underpinning the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal were several technical studies including the Overshadowing Technical Paper which analysed the overshadowing impacts on open space areas including Robin Thomas Reserve across the road from the subject site.  There are no schools that will be overshadowed by the proposal.  (Noting that the Rowland Hassall School previously to the south of the site, has relocated to a new site in Chester Hill).  The Robin Thomas Reserve will be overshadowed, however, the Overshadowing Technical Paper found that the level of solar access to the park can still comply with the benchmark of 50% of the total park area to receive 4 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  Since the preparation of the Overshadowing Technical Paper, the draft Parramatta City Centre DCP has been publicly exhibited and contains minimum standards for maintaining acceptable levels of solar access at significant parks including Robin Thomas reserve directly to the east of the site.  Shadow diagrams prepared by Council officers indicate that the proposal at a height of 165.6 metres can meet these minimum standards.

d.  The site-specific Planning Proposal is consistent with the controls proposed for the site under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.  This density of development and the resulting traffic impacts were assessed as part of the Parramatta CBD Strategic Transport Study.  The Study noted that the improvements to the transport network that will be provided by the Parramatta Light Rail and the proposed Sydney Metro West combined with reducing the capacity to support on-site car parking in future developments by adopting lower car parking rates will ameliorate the impacts of increasing densities in the Parramatta CBD.

e.  Council’s Local Housing Strategy includes a housing demand analysis which demonstrated that the Parramatta CBD will experience strong demand for housing due largely to the growth of the Parramatta CBD as a centre for economic activity and employment, higher house prices in the eastern areas of Sydney, the expansion of the Greater Sydney region and the rearrangement of strategic centres and transport links.

 

39.    A more detailed summary and response to each of the concerns outlined above is included in the table at Attachment 1.

 

HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESPONSE

 

40.    On 15 April 2021, the Heritage Advisory Committee (the Committee) considered the matter prior to the public exhibition of a Planning Proposal for the subject site.  A summary of their comments are as follows:

a.   The Design Competition should include a requirement that there be a site interpretation of the area’s river trade history;

b.   Concerned is raised regarding overshadowing of heritage sites in the area and Robin Thomas Reserve; and

c.   Concern is raised regarding lines of sight and visual relationship between heritage items.

 

41.    The Committee’s comments and the Council Officer response is included as Table 3 within the Summary of Submissions in Attachment 1.  It is noted that the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal contains a clause which prohibits any new development from overshadowing Experiment Farm between the hours of 10.00am and 2.00pm on 21 July.  Further, the Overshadowing Technical Paper conducted as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal identified that the cumulative overshadowing expected from the development of the site and surrounding sites would be within acceptable limits.  The Heritage Issues Identification Paper submitted by the applicant with the Planning Proposal considered historic view corridors and found that the proposal will not obstruct any significant views.  The Committee’s comments have also been provided to Council’s City Architect for their information in relation to the Design Competition. 

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

Stakeholder Consultation

 

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

 

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

15 April 2021

Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee

As described in Table 3 of Attachment 1.

As described in Table 3 of Attachment 1.

City Planning and Design

1 September to 30 September 2021

Public exhibition

As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1).

As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1).

City Planning and Design

6 September 2021

State and Federal Agency consultation

As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1)

As described in this report (refer also to Attachment 1)

City Planning and Design

 

Councillor Consultation

43.    The following Councillor consultation will be undertaken in relation to this matter:

 

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

9 February 2022
Briefing Session

All Councillors (except Cr Garrard)

Questions on proposal

Responses provided at briefing

City Planning and Design

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

44.    Any work to progress the finalisation of the draft site-specific Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement would be prepared by Council Officers and therefore would be within the existing Major Projects and Precincts budget.

 

45.    The items within the draft Planning Agreement (i.e., the dedication of land for road widening, creation of public easements and public domain embellishment works) are proposed to be obtained through the draft Planning Agreement.

 

46.    The conditions of the draft Planning Agreement stipulate that the areas relating to the public easements and embellishment are to be cared and maintained at the expense of the private landowner, therefore at no cost to Council. The table below represents the estimated cost to Council of treating the future road reservation as an interim asphalted/landscaped pedestrained area until the Gasworks Bridge Widening project is undertaken (between 10-15 years). This is based on the assumption that the dedication of the road reserve to Council will occur in the short term.

 

47.    Attachment 7 is provided under confidential cover as it contains information relating to the potential costs to Council.

 

FY 21/22

FY 22/23

FY 23/24

FY 24/25

Operating Result

 

 

 

 

External Costs

 

 

 

 

Internal Costs

 

 

 

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

Total Operating Result

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funding Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPEX

 

 

 

 

CAPEX

 

 

 

 

External

 

 

 

 

Internal

 

 

 

$100,000

Other

 

 

 

 

Total CAPEX

 

 

 

$100,000

 

 

 

 

Funding Source

 

 

 

General Revenue

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

48.    The Gateway alteration issued by the DPIE may have implications for the draft Planning Agreement which is discussed in Attachment 7.  This attachment is provided under confidential cover as it contains information relating to legal advice received in relation to the draft Planning Agreement.

 

CONCLUSION

 

49.    It is noted that the site-specific Planning Proposal is no longer proceeding as per the Gateway Alteration issued by DPE on 28 October 2021. The site will be subject to the controls to be introduced through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

 

50.    It is recommended that Council:

a.    approve the draft site specific-DCP at Attachment 4 for finalisation and inclusion within Part 10 (Site Specific Controls) of the finalised Parramatta City Centre DCP, including the minor amendments at Attachment 5 in this report; and

b.    approve the Planning Agreement at Attachment 6 and that the CEO be delegated authority to enter into the Planning Agreement.

 

Felicity Roberts

Project Officer-Land Use

 

Bianca Lewis

Team Leader Land Use Planning

 

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

 

 

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Summary Table of Submissions

15 Pages

 

2

Alteration of Gateway determination

2 Pages

 

3

Site-specific Planning Proposal as publicly exhibited

58 Pages

 

4

Site-specific Development Control Plan as publicly exhibited

18 Pages

 

5

Recommended changes to draft site-specific DCP

2 Pages

 

6

Draft Planning Agreement as publicly exhibited

50 Pages

 

7

Financial and Legal Implications (confidential)

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 13.3 - Attachment 1

Summary Table of Submissions

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.3 - Attachment 2

Alteration of Gateway determination

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.3 - Attachment 3

Site-specific Planning Proposal as publicly exhibited

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.3 - Attachment 4

Site-specific Development Control Plan as publicly exhibited

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.3 - Attachment 5

Recommended changes to draft site-specific DCP

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.3 - Attachment 6

Draft Planning Agreement as publicly exhibited

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 13.4

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER         13.4

SUBJECT                  Submission on the NSW Government's 'A new approach to rezonings' Discussion Paper

REFERENCE            F2022/00105 - D08393170

REPORT OF              Senior Project Officer Land Use        

 

 

CSP THEME:             INNOVATIVE

 

workshop/briefing date: 31 January 2022 and 9 February 2022

 

PURPOSE:

 

For Council to approve a submission (Attachment 1) to the Department of Planning and Environment in response to the Discussion Paper ‘A new approach to rezonings’.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a) That Council approve the submission (Attachment 1) which supports the overall intent of the reform contained in the Discussion Paper ‘A new approach to rezonings’, in particular, to provide an increasingly transparent and efficient planning system that ensures decisions about potential land-use changes are consistent with strategic planning policy, however objects to the following details of the proposed reform:  

 

i.    Appeals processes: strong objections are raised to the proposed appeals mechanism as it will remove the policy decision making power of councils.

 

ii.   Fees and resources: the proposed fee structure is too rigid (based on categories) and Councils should instead be able to set fees. The risk of mandatory fee refunds (such as planning guarantees) will severely limit Council resources whist affecting the quality of planning decisions due to rushed assessments.

 

iii.  Process risks: several risks to Council’s assessment of planning proposals are prevalent. These include imposing minimal timeframes to review the quality of planning proposals (and supporting documentation) prior to their exhibition, as well as a lack of power for Council to reject a planning proposal once lodged (without generating appeal rights from the applicant).

 

(b) That the submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) by close of the exhibition period (28 February 2022).

 

(c)  Further, that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make any amendments of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during finalisation of the submission prior to it being forwarded to the DPE.

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.   In December 2021, the NSW Government (Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)) released a Discussion Paper titled ‘A new approach to rezonings in NSW’. The Discussion Paper provides options for potential changes to how planning proposals are assessed and determined under the NSW Planning System. The intention is to streamline the planning proposal process to cut down on assessment time, boosting confidence and transparency in the planning system. The Discussion Paper envisions the following changes:

 

a)   Changes to the roles of local and state government, state agencies and private applicants in the planning proposal process

b)   New planning proposal categories and corresponding timeframes for completion

c)   Changes to the steps involved in the finalisation of a planning proposal

d)   New fee structure

e)   New appeal pathways.

 

2.   In addition to the above changes, it is further noted the Discussion Paper proposes changes to terminology relevant to the planning proposal process.

 

KEY ISSUES

 

3.   The submission (Attachment 1) supports the overall intent of the reform, in particular, to provide an increasingly transparent and efficient planning system that ensures decisions about potential land-use changes are consistent with strategic planning policy. However, the submission objects to the following details of the proposed reform:  

 

a.   Appeals processes: strong objections are raised to the proposed appeals mechanism as it will remove the policy decision making power of councils.

 

b.   Fees and resources: the proposed fee structure is too rigid (based on categories) and Council should instead be able to set fees. The risk of mandatory fee refunds (such as planning guarantees) will severely limit Council resources whist affecting the quality of planning decisions due to rushed assessments.

 

c.   Process risks: several risks to Council’s assessment of planning proposals are prevalent. These include imposing minimal timeframes to review the quality of planning proposals (and supporting documentation) prior to their exhibition, as well as a lack of power for Council to reject a planning proposal once lodged (without generating appeal rights from the applicant).

 

4.   In addition to these key objections, the submission also includes general comments in response to the proposed changes. The remainder of this report summarises the key changes and comments provided by Council officers.

 

a)   Changes to the roles of local and state government, state agencies and private applicants in the planning proposal (new proposed term: rezoning application) process

 

5.   The new approach seeks to change the roles of applicants, councils and the DPE in the assessment and determination of rezoning applications. Figure 1 below illustrates the roles anticipated based on application categories 1-4. Details of the categories are provided in the following section and Table 1 of this report.

Table 1 – the roles of councils and the department under the new approach

 

6.   In addition, the new approach suggests an enhanced role for state agencies to provide technical information pertaining to a rezoning application at the new scoping phase. The new approach anticipates all issues with state agencies will be identified during this period rather than during the formal exhibition period. The Discussion Paper suggests applicants are given access to state agencies to seek relevant information and that agencies comply with strict timeframes for response.

 

Officer comment:

·    Currently, planning proposals are reported to the Local Planning Panel (LPP) prior to exhibition of a planning proposal. However, the new approach does not identify any involvement of the LPP. The DPE should clearly define the intended role of LPPs in the rezoning application process under the new approach.

·    It is noted that although councils will assess proponent led planning proposals with far less input from the DPE than is currently the case, this is not anticipated to provide councils with additional control on the final determination, noting proponents will be allowed to appeal the decision of councils under the new approach.

 

b)  Introduction of new planning proposal ‘categories’ and corresponding timeframes for completion

 

7.   It is proposed to categorise planning proposals based on complexity, which will in turn inform timeframes for their completion, public exhibition requirements and fees. Four categories are proposed with corresponding timeframes. These are summarised in Table 1 below. 

 

Category

Description

Exhibition Period

Completion timeframe

Category 1 (Basic)

Administrative, housekeeping and minor local matters such as:

·      Local heritage item listings

·      Land reclassification

·      Attaining consistency with an endorsed local strategy

·      Attaining consistency with section 3.22 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (fast-tracked changes to environmental planning instruments).

4 weeks

26 weeks

Category 2 (Standard)

Site specific rezoning applications seeking a change in planning controls consistent with strategic planning, such as:

·      Changes to land use zones

·      Changes to principle development standards in a LEP

·      Adding a permissible land use of additional permitted use in a LEP

·      Attaining consistency with an endorsed local strategy or local strategic planning statement

·      Land reclassification.

6 weeks

37 weeks

Category 3 (Complex)

Planning Proposals that may not be consistent with strategic planning, including proposed changes not captured under category 1 and 2, such as:

·      Changes to land use zones and/or principal development standards, which would increase infrastructure demand or preparation of a development contribution plan

·      Responding to changes in circumstances, such as investment in new infrastructure or changing demographic trends

·      Requiring significant amendment or preparation of a development contribution plan or a related infrastructure strategy

·      Amendments that aren’t captured as principal LEP, standard or basic planning proposal categories.

8 weeks

48 weeks

Category 4 (Principal LEP)

A comprehensive or housekeeping rezoning application led by council, proposing broad scale policy change to the LEP for the whole LGA.

6 weeks

50 weeks

Table 1 – Proposed categories and timeframes for planning proposals

 

Officer comment:

·    The benchmark timeframes do not consider rezoning applications that require a Development Control Plan amendment or contributions plan, or that have an accompanied planning agreement. It is recommended timeframes for Category 3 (complex applications) are revised to consider these aspects.

·    A six-week exhibition period for Category 4 rezoning applications is considered insufficient. There should be an opportunity for significant rezoning proposals involving large numbers of landholdings and/or stakeholders to be exhibited for up to 12 weeks. Council would not need to consult for 12 weeks on all Category 4 rezoning applications. It is recommended the Council have discretion to consult for between 6 and 12 weeks depending on the complexity of the planning proposal. 

 

c)   Changes to the steps involved in the processing of a rezoning application

 

8.   The key changes proposed under the new approach are:

 

a.   Introduction of a ‘scoping phase’: A mandatory pre-lodgement stage intended to enable early feedback on a rezoning application and to clarify lodgement requirements. Applicants must prepare a scoping report addressing consistency with Council’s strategic policy framework.

 

b.   Changed processes for lodgement: Once a rezoning application is lodged, Council will have 7 days to review the adequacy of the material. If adequate, this will trigger exhibition of the application. If inadequate, Council can reject the lodgement.  The exhibition automatically commences after 7 days unless Council stops the process due to insufficient information.

 

c.   Exhibition: Exhibition periods will vary between 14 and 42 days, depending on the category of rezoning application (noted in Table 2 above). Applicants will be required to respond to submissions received and work with state agencies to resolve any objections. 

 

Council officer comment:

·    It is suggested rezoning applications can be refused at the scoping phase if it is clearly inconsistent with Council’s strategic policy framework. This will prevent speculative applications from being lodged and save time and resources required to process them. Additionally, such applications would be prevented from proceeding to exhibition, thereby avoiding the risk of unnecessarily generating community concern about proposals that lack strategic merit. It is noted that notwithstanding the above, the applicant is likely to have a right of appeal against such a decision. 

·    It appears the proposed 7 day timeframe between lodgment and commencement of exhibition is intended to only check that documentation lodged complies with Council’s scoping requirements. However, it does not appear to envision an opportunity for Council to check the quality of the information received. In this regard, a 7 day timeframe would be generally insufficient. It is recommended this timeframe be reconsidered to include quality checking lodged documentation. The length of the timeframe should be adjustable depending on the complexity of the application.

·    It is suggested that there be a mandatory requirement for the exhibition material to include a statement from Council on its initial consideration of the application. Noting the limited timeframe available for its preparation, this would be based on discussions held with Council staff during the scoping/pre-lodgement stage.

 

d)  New fee structure

 

9.   The Discussion Paper considers three options for how fees could be calculated for a rezoning application. These are:

 

Option 1: Fixed assessment fees

o Based on rezoning application category and sub-categories that vary based on what the application seeks to do.

o Associated costs (such as peer reviews) are not covered.

o If the rezoning application is withdrawn, the applicant is entitled to a set percentage of fee refund, depending on the progress of the proposal.

Option 2: Variable assessment fees

o Fees are an estimate of costs depending on rezoning application category and staff hours allocated to processing the application.

o Associated costs (such as peer reviews) would be charged based on the actual costs incurred by Council in processing the rezoning application. 

o If an application is withdrawn the applicant could be entitled to a refund of fees not yet expended by Council.

 

Option 3: Fixed and variable assessment fees

o A fixed fee charged upfront based on rezoning application category. A variable fee is charged once the application is finalised, and only if actual staff hours allocated to processing the application exceeds the upfront charge.

o Associated costs (such as peer reviews) would be charged based on actual costs incurred by Council in processing the application. 

o To reduce the risk of non-payment of variable fees, a bank guarantee will be required for issue to Council at lodgement.

 

10. In addition to the options above, the Discussion Paper seeks to introduce ‘planning guarantees’. These are fee refunds to the applicant if Council exceeds the benchmark timeframes for assessment and determination of a rezoning application as noted in Table 1 of this report. Even where a fee refund is given, the assessment and determination of a rezoning application will continue.

 

Council officer comment:

·    Councils should be given the ability to adopt their preferred option.

·    While full cost recovery for councils is supported, further clarification on how cost recovery is calculated must be provided. It is considered any costs expended during the scoping phase should be fully recoverable. 

·    The submission objects to the introduction of planning guarantees given the implication this would have to council resourcing. There is no guidance provided to how fee refunds in this context would be calculated.

 

e)   New appeal pathways

 

11. Under the new approach, it is proposed to allow a review opportunity for applicants due to delay in assessment or if the applicant is dissatisfied with Council’s final determination. These appeal pathways are not available under the current approach that limit review of decisions that refuse a planning proposal to proceed to exhibition stage (known currently as ‘Gateway Determination’).

 

12. The new approach does not propose any appeal mechanisms for public authorities. This means that the abovementioned appeal pathways would not be available for planning proposals where Council is the applicant.

 

Council officer comment:

·    The submission objects to the appeal pathways. The new appeals processes remove council’s policy decision making powers by delegating such functions to unelected officials who are not accountable to the community for any policy decisions made. The appeal pathway will effectively give the Court power to override the statutory policy decision making of councils.

·    It is assumed the appeal mechanisms already available to private applicants at Gateway Determination stage would still be available (however the Discussion Paper should clarify this). The new mechanisms would create additional delay in the assessment and determination of rezoning applications.

·    If the appeals process is to be introduced it is proposed that councils should also be granted appeal rights should they not concur with a determination. Provision should also be made for councils to be able to recover their costs.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

Councillor Consultation

 

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

 

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

31.01.2022

Councillor workshop

Councillors requested direct links to the exhibition material posted online on the DPE website.

Councillors were provided with direct links to the online exhibition material on 1 February and invited to provide feedback

City Planning & Design

8.02.2022

Circulation of draft submission to Councillors and invited to provide feedback

No feedback received.

Not required

City Planning & Design

9.02.2022

Councillor briefing session

General support for the draft submission. Request that submission refers to ability of Council to recover costs associated with the proposed appeal process.

Submission addresses appeals recovery costs matter

City Planning & Design

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

15. The Discussion Paper proposes a new fee structure and mandatory refund mechanisms that if adopted by the DPE, would hold financial implications for Council. Forecast implications include a detailed revision of the fees Council currently charges for its planning proposal pre-lodgment services, as well as fees generally charged to lodge and process a planning proposal.

 

16. The potential implications for Council regarding mandatory fee refunds will need to be investigated more closely if and when these changes are adopted by the DPE and it is clear which of the funding mechanisms exhibited is implemented by the State Government.

 

17. The table below shows no financial impacts on the budget arising from approval of this report, that is making the submission.

 

 

FY 21/22

FY 22/23

FY 23/24

FY 24/25

Revenue

 

 

 

 

Internal Revenue

 

 

 

 

External Revenue

 

 

 

 

Total Revenue

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

Funding Source

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Kashfia Hasan

Senior Project Officer Land Use

 

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

 

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Draft Submission - Rezoning Application Reforms

8 Pages

 

 

 

 

 


Item 13.4 - Attachment 1

Draft Submission - Rezoning Application Reforms

 

 

 

SUBMISSION

To the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)

 

In response to the exhibition of Discussion Paper: A new approach to rezonings

Review of the proposed solutions to create a better rezoning process and appeals or review framework

 

Submission by City of Parramatta Council

 

 


 


CONTENTS

 

1.    Executive Summary

2.    Introduction / Background

3.    Objections & Comments

 

3.1    Changes to the roles of local and state government, state agencies and private applicants

3.2    Introduction of new planning proposal ‘categories’ and corresponding timeframes for completion

3.3    Changes to the steps involved in the processing of a rezoning application

3.4    New fee structure

3.5    New appeal pathway

 

4.    Conclusion

 

Appendix A -  Detailed Assessment Issues


1.   Executive Summary

 

As part of the Planning Reform Action Plan initiated by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, a Discussion Paper was released by the NSW Government titled ‘A new approach to rezonings in NSW’. The Discussion Paper provides options for potential changes to how planning proposals (new proposed term: “rezoning applications”) are assessed and determined.  

 

The overall intent of the reform is supported by Council, in particular, to provide an increasingly transparent and efficient planning system that ensures decisions about potential land-use changes are consistent with strategic planning policy. Council however objects to the following details of the proposed changes:

 

·    Appeals processes: strong objections are raised to the proposed appeals mechanism as it will remove the policy decision making power of councils.

 

·    Fees and resources: the proposed fee structure is too rigid (based on categories) and Councils should instead be able to set fees. The risk of mandatory fee refunds (such as planning guarantees) will severely limit Council resources whist affecting the quality of planning decisions due to rushed assessments.

 

·    Process risks: several risks to Council’s assessment of planning proposals are prevalent. These include imposing minimal timeframes to review the quality of planning proposals (and supporting documentation) prior to their exhibition, as well as a lack of power for Council to reject a planning proposal once lodged (without generating appeal rights from the applicant).

 

The overarching concern is the undermining of strategic planning, with any appeal process taking critical policy decisions away from elected officials (government). Responses are also provided in the submission to the specific questions posed by DPE throughout the Discussion Paper.

 

NOTE: the Discussion Paper refers to planning proposals as “rezoning applications”, therefore this proposed new term is used throughout the submission and Appendix A.

 

2.   Introduction / Background

 

In December 2021, the NSW Government released a Discussion Paper titled ‘A new approach to rezonings in NSW’. The Discussion Paper provides options for potential changes to how rezoning applications are assessed and determined. It is noted that the Discussion Paper focuses solely on the rezoning processes that happen using rezoning applications to make or amend LEPs or SEPPs and does not include state-led rezonings.

 

The Discussion Paper was an initiative of the former Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes, as part of the Planning Reform Action Plan to build a faster, simpler planning system to support jobs, homes and public spaces. The Planning Reform Action Plan outlines long-term structural reform of the NSW planning system to help unlock NSW’s productivity and leave a legacy of great places for the community.

 

In addition to process, a change to planning proposal terminology is also proposed. The change is intended to reflect the roles of the parties more clearly and avoid confusion and duplication of titles. It is sought to replace the term ‘planning proposal’ with ‘rezoning application’ and remove the term ‘Gateway’ noting the Gateway stage is proposed to be removed. Council does not object to these proposed changes as set out in the table below.

 

Current roles

Proposed roles

Description of proposed roles

Planning Proposal

Rezoning application

An application to make or amend an LEP

Private applicant (not recognised)

Public authority applicant (not recognised)

Planning Proposal Authority (PPA) - usually council, responsible for planning proposal

Rezoning authority

Means a rezoning application lodged by any of the below:

Private individual or corporation

Public authority, including state-owned corporations

Council for changes to their LEP

Local Plan Making Authority (LPMA). Makes or amends the LEP

Rezoning authority

Responsible for assessing and determining the rezoning application. Can be a council or the minister

Gateway

N/A – Gateway stage to be removed

Included in the function of the rezoning authority

Table 1 – Current and proposed terminology

3.   Objections & Comments

3.1       Changes to the roles of local and state government, state agencies and private applicants

 

The new approach seeks to change the roles of applicants, councils and the DPE in the assessment and determination of rezoning applications.

 

·    Applicants: proponents will be acknowledged as applicants, giving applicants the right to meet with the rezoning authority to discuss a potential request, submit a rezoning application and have it assessed and determined after exhibition, and appeal a decision because of a delay or dissatisfaction with a decision. Applicants will be responsible for meeting information requirements, consulting with state agencies and responding to submissions. They will require owner’s consent to lodge a rezoning application.

 

·    Councils: will have full control of privately initiated rezoning applications, including giving permission to exhibit (currently given by gateway determination), reviewing any changes made after exhibition, and making a final decision. However it is noted that an appeal process is proposed that would present the opportunity for Council’s decision to be over-ridden. The DPE will be available to assist Council where needed. If a council is the proponent of a rezoning application, they would continue to be appointed as the rezoning authority after scoping and once the Department has given permission to exhibit. The type of council proponent rezoning applications that a council can determine will also be streamlined to include all category 1 and 2 applications (unless there is a conflict of interest).

 

Discussion Paper Questions:

 

What do you think? What do you think about giving councils greater autonomy over rezoning decisions? What additional support could we give councils to enable high-quality and efficient rezoning decisions? What changes can be made to the department’s role and processes to improve the assessment and determination of council-led rezonings?

 

Council response: Given there is no gateway process identified, Council will have an increased role in finalising rezoning applications. This is supported, as Council represents the community and has a fundamental understanding of the applicable strategies and policies that govern quality planning outcomes for the community.

 

There is no requirement for reporting up to Council or the Local Planning Panel pre-exhibition. It is Council’s preference to make this a legislated requirement to ensure quality planning outcomes are achieved. 

 

Although Council will assess proponent led planning proposals with less input from the DPE than is currently the case, this is not anticipated to provide Council with additional control on the final determination, noting proponents will be allowed to appeal Council decisions under the new approach.

 

·    DPE: resources will be refocused to state-led, strategic and collaborative planning. The Minister will still assess and determine a reduced scope of rezoning applications.

 

Discussion Paper Questions:

 

What do you think? Is there enough supervision of the rezoning process? What else could we do to minimise the risk of corruption and encourage good decision-making? Do you think the new approach and the department’s proposed new role strikes the right balance between what councils should determine and what the department should determine?

 

Council response: The DPE involvement at the scoping phase will be key to ensuring accountability on behalf of the applicant to provide quality rezoning applications for lodgement.

 

The new recommended process that sees all rezonings by government agencies dealt with by the DPE reduces the amount of say that communities have when government land is sold or rezoned; the issue of sale of Government owned land can be controversial. There would also be a financial imperative for the government to allow densities on land being sold for redevelopment at densities or for uses that do not align with the local community. Government rezoning applications should not be assessed by the DPE as conflicts of interest will arise.

 

A case study is the land in Epping acquired for the Metro to Rouse Hill, which was then rezoned for high density residential. When Council argued the land should be used for commercial purposes, the agencies did not want to respond to this community need because it would decrease the value of the property when they sold it. The good of the community was not necessarily the key issue that was driving decision making in this case in the opinion of Council. These sorts of Government rezoning applications should stay with Council, or Council should have an appeal right if it considered the zoning or other controls are not appropriate.

 

What do you think? Should councils be able to approve inconsistencies with certain s. 9.1 directions? If so, in what circumstances would this be appropriate?

 

Council response: Yes, this would be appropriate in all circumstances to ensure that Council is not taken out of the decision-making process.

 

The Discussion Paper does not set out where and when decisions are made on who makes a plan where there is a Section 9.1 Direction. It implies that this would be identified as part of the scoping phase, in which case it is assumed the DPE shall also attend all scoping meetings that may involve a Section 9.1 Direction variation who will then advise whether it is significant enough to warrant the DPE dealing with the rezoning application post exhibition. Should this occur, it is unclear whether the rezoning application will be reported to Council and then forwarded to the DPE for finalisation.

 

It is also unclear what occurs should a rezoning application be amended by the applicant in their response to exhibition issues. If the application is transferred to the DPE post exhibition, then there is the potential for the applicant to seek a Section 9.1 Direction variation simply in order to have the matter taken out of the Council decision-making process.

 

·    State agencies: will outline requirements at the pre-lodgement / scoping phase and strict timeframes for agency responses will be provided.

 

It is unclear how the relevant state agencies will be decided upon for consultation. It is assumed the DPE will issue the applicant a list of requirements. This will need to be explained and Council should be involved with these discussions to ensure transparency.

 

·    Public authority proponents: Rezoning applications lodged by public authority proponents that are holders of infrastructure / other assets will be determined by the DPE.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? Is it enough to have agencies involved in scoping and to give them the opportunity to make a submission during exhibition? Do you think it would be beneficial to have a central body that co-ordinates agency involvement? If a state agency has not responded in the required timeframe, are there any practical difficulties in continuing to assess and determine a rezoning application?

 

Council response: Agencies should form part of the scoping phase, to put forward their comments / requirements for the rezoning application. It would be insufficient for agencies to review the application and the information submitted in response to their requirements solely as part of the exhibition process.

 

It would be of benefit to have a central body to co-ordinate agency involvement, particularly for complex applications whereby multiple agencies are involved. This will also ensure agencies are accountable and provide responses in a timely manner. Should agencies not respond within a certain timeframe, this may have major consequences for delaying the determination process.

 

3.2       Introduction of new planning proposal ‘categories’ and corresponding timeframes for completion

 

The Discussion Paper suggests categorising rezoning applications based on complexity, which will in turn inform timeframes for their completion, public exhibition requirements and fees charged. Four categories are proposed with corresponding timeframes: Category 1 (Basic), Category 2 (Standard), Category 3 (Complex), Category 4 (Principal LEP led by Council).

 

With regards to Council’s comments on fees, refer to section 3.4. With regards to Council’s comments on exhibition, refer to section 3.3.

 

Category 3 will cover a wide range of applications, including site-specific and larger precinct-sized rezoning applications. This category requires more detail, for example it does not include a rezoning application that requires a VPA, DCP amendment or generation of a site specific DCP, which is common for complex applications.

 

Category 4, where it involves an entire LGA, should not be limited to 6 weeks exhibition. To ensure all stakeholders are properly consulted when doing a comprehensive LEP, the period must be able to be extended up to 12 weeks depending on the complexity of the proposal.

 

Discussion Paper Questions:

 

What do you think? Do you think benchmark timeframes create greater efficiency and will lead to time savings?

 

Council response: Benchmark timeframes are not useful as these cannot apply linearly across all rezoning applications noting some are innately complex involving DCPs and VPAs. They also have the potential to result in rushed assessments and therefore poorer quality planning outcomes by setting unrealistic expectations.

 

3.3       Changes to the steps involved in the processing of a rezoning application

 

Scoping phase

 

The Discussion Paper recommends a mandatory scoping / pre-lodgement phase to enable early feedback on a rezoning application and to clarify information requirements for lodgement. The applicant must prepare a scoping report for review by the consent authority.

 

The new mandatory requirement is supported by Council, with the emphasis on resolving issues prior to lodgement likely to reduce formal processing times. However, Council raises several concerns with this process.

 

Council should be granted the opportunity to refuse the issuing of scoping requirements at the scoping phase if a rezoning application is clearly inconsistent with Council’s strategic policy framework. This will prevent speculative applications from being lodged and save time and resources required to process them. Additionally, such applications would be prevented from proceeding to exhibition, thereby avoiding the risk of unnecessarily generating community anxiety and concern about proposals that lack strategic merit.

 

It should be a legislated requirement for all scoping phase applications to be reported to Council. This will ensure the elected officials are able to comment early in the process, and their concerns considered / addressed before a rezoning application is lodged. It is also recommended newly lodged rezoning applications are reported to Council so that any issue Councillors want addressed as part of the scoping phase can be reviewed before the council determines the application at the end of the process.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? Should a council or the department be able to refuse to issue study requirements at the scoping stage if a rezoning application is clearly inconsistent with strategic plans? Or should all applicants have the opportunity to submit a fully formed proposal for exhibition and assessment?

 

Council response: Yes - if a prospective application is grossly inconsistent with strategic plans, then it cannot be supported and therefore study requirements should be refused. The correct mechanism would be for the applicant to seek an amendment to the strategic plan rather than significantly varying it.

 

Lodgement

 

The Discussion Paper notes that future rezoning applications will be lodged via the NSW Planning Portal. Upon lodgement, Council will be granted 7 days to review the adequacy of lodgement material, including studies. If adequate, this will trigger exhibition of the proposal. If inadequate, a consent authority can reject the lodgement (within 7 days).

 

The proposed 7 days to review an application is too short to determine whether the quality is sufficient for public exhibition. This is particularly true of complex rezoning applications. It is appreciated that this new process is similar to a DA process, however, it is important to note that DAs must conform (within reason) to the applicable controls and therefore are unlikely to be grossly inconsistent with the strategic framework.

 

Based on research carried out by DPE and outlined in the Discussion Paper, it’s been identified that councils want greater empowerment to reject rezoning applications in early stages of the process before doing a full assessment, and they seek a greater decision-making role. Should it be decided that applications cannot be rejected at the scoping phase, and applicants are afforded the opportunity to lodge a rezoning application despite its inconsistency with the strategic framework, then more time should be granted for councils to reject the rezoning application before it is put out on exhibition. Additional review time could be based upon the four proposed categories.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? What sort of material could we supply to assure community members that exhibition does not mean the rezoning authority supports the application and may still reject it? What do you think of removing the opportunity for a merit assessment before exhibition? Will it save time or money to move all assessment to the end of the process? Should the public have the opportunity to comment on a rezoning application before it is assessed?

 

Council response: Standardised wording for notification letters could be utilised for all councils to assure the community that exhibition does not mean the application is supported, including details provided by the DPE on their website, and on the Planning Portal.

 

 

Removing the opportunity for a merit assessment is not supported, as the technical issues should firstly be resolved before the community is consulted to ensure that the information is accurate and in accordance with the strategic planning framework. In this regard, the proposed 7-day review period is too short to allow for a merit assessment to be carried out prior to exhibition occurring.

 

The Discussion Paper proposes applicants provide a short, plain English summary of their rezoning application, its intent and justification and how it aligns with strategic plans to accompany the exhibition material. It should be a mandatory requirement for Council to prepare an initial response to the applicant’s summary, outlining Council’s preliminary view on the rezoning application for inclusion in the exhibition material. This will provide clarity for all stakeholders on the initial views of Council on the application.  

 

 


 

Exhibition

 

The Discussion Paper identifies exhibition periods based on the rezoning application category with the exhibition processes automated through the NSW Planning Portal. Applicants must provide a summary of the proposal, its intent and justification and how it aligns with strategic plans. It is proposed to attach these to the notification letters. Applicants are also required to respond to any submissions received once the exhibition period has concluded.

 

As noted above, it should be a mandatory requirement for Council to prepare an initial response to the applicant’s summary, outlining Council’s preliminary view on the rezoning application, to be included as part of the exhibition material.

 

Clarity is required around how lodgement and exhibition will work when a DCP or a VPA is required, as this did not form part of the Discussion Paper.

 

Providing only 7 days for Council to review a rezoning application will mean Council will not have sufficient time to consider the quality of submitted material, nor the ability to organise briefing sessions with elected officials. This limits Council’s discretion on how the application is advertised and consulted on in the name of speeding up the process, potentially reducing the effectiveness of consultation. Should an application go out on exhibition after 7 days, it will need to be made explicit in the exhibition material that Council has not considered the quality of the rezoning application and has no position on whether to support / not support it.

 

Should it be decided that Council cannot reject at the scoping phase and then have only 7 days to review and reject upon lodgement, the risk for Council and the community is such that a rezoning application that is inconsistent with the strategic planning framework would then afford the applicant appeal rights, the determination then being taken away from the Council. There is also a risk of Council and the community wasting time and resources in considering exhibition material and making submissions on rezoning applications that are inconsistent with Council policy / plans; this will lead to unnecessary community concern.

 

Council objects to the idea of applicants attaching a summary of strategic justification to notification letters unaccompanied by a response from Council outlining Council’s preliminary review of the application. Without the latter, this may cause the community to presume Council is in support of the rezoning application when it has not been formally considered, hence Council’s proposal that it be mandatory that a statement of Council’s initial consideration of the application be included in the exhibition material. Due to the limited time proposed for Council to consider the application before exhibition commences, this statement would need to include an acknowledgement of the need for a full assessment of the application material to be subsequently carried out, with the statement being likely to draw substantially on issues identified during pre-lodgement.

 

There are no identified triggers for re-exhibition, nor what re-exhibition means for set timeframes and appeal rights. It is assumed Council will have the authority to require re-exhibition based on the applicant’s amended material submitted in response to concerns (like a DA process). The document does acknowledge there may be cases where re-exhibition is necessary but does not give any clarity on what this means for appeal rights and other timeframe related issues such as fees.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? What other opportunities are there to engage the community in strategic planning in a meaningful and accessible way? Do you have any suggestions on how we could streamline or automate the exhibition process further?

 

Council response: The intention to streamline the process by initiating exhibition early is appreciated, however it is important to differentiate a DA assessment from that of a rezoning application. This would likely reduce efficiency given that following initial exhibition, the detailed assessment will likely necessitate changes following which it would require re-exhibition to afford the community the right to understand how their concerns might have been addressed. This would take additional time and resources as part of the re-exhibition process.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? Do you think the assessment clock should start sooner than final submission for assessment, or is the proposed approach streamlined enough to manage potential delays that may happen earlier?

 

Council response: No - the assessment clock should not start until all revised information is submitted. Further, the assessment clock should not start until after a 1-week grace period following receipt of additional information in order for Council to be assured the information is appropriate / has addressed the concerns. If it has not, then the clock should not start until this is resolved.

 

Assessment and finalisation

 

The Discussion Paper outlines when a rezoning application is supported, the consent authority will engage with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the instrument and mapping can then be prepared. The consent authority will be able to vary or defer any aspect of the amended LEP.

 

The Discussion Paper does not set out the role of the Local Planning Panel as part of the assessment and finalisation process. It is recommended that this is a statutory requirement to report to the Local Planning Panel following exhibition.

 

The role of the Local Planning Panel when Council identifies a conflict of interest if a VPA is involved also needs exploring. The Discussion Paper states a conflict of interest may arise from certain VPAs, or if Council land is included, and in these instances the Local Planning Panel or Regional Panel would make the determination. This is of concern as a Local Planning Panel instead of the Council would be responsible for considering the complexities of a VPA offer, i.e. considering financial assets / infrastructure and maintenance obligations Council would be taking on.

 

When a VPA and a DCP are required, the following concerns are raised:

 

·    Qualifying criteria and timeframes.

·    Conflict of interest involving a VPA.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? Are there any other changes that we could make to streamline the assessment and finalisation process more? What roadblocks do you currently face at this stage of the process? Do you think the public interest is a necessary consideration, or is it covered by the other proposed considerations? Are there any additional matters that are relevant to determining whether a plan should be made?

 

Council response: The public interest is best served by putting a rezoning application out on exhibition after the detailed assessment is carried out to ensure it is supportable from a technical basis. This would also possibly require a review of, and an amendment to, the processes that apply to the preparation / amendment of a DCP and the process for progressing Planning Agreements.

 

Current processes that require Council reporting pre and post exhibition of both DCPs and VPAs will make some of the timeframes unachievable for some rezoning applications unless there is an attempt at changing processes to ensure some integration. There may be a need to create a new category of application where a DCP or VPA is required that factors in the DCP/ Planning agreement processes into the rezoning process and timelines.

 

What do you think? Do you think a body other than the council (such as a panel) should determine rezoning applications where there is a VPA? Where a council has a conflict of interest, should a rezoning application be determined by the local planning panel (as proposed), or should the department take full responsibility for the assessment and determination of the rezoning application?

 

Council response: No – a VPA often makes provision for critical infrastructure, which is necessary to support a local community. It is an important part of the assessment. In this case, where the infrastructure provided under the VPA will ultimately be transferred to Council, it is essential that it meets Council standards and is properly integrated with existing infrastructure. This can only occur if Council is involved in the VPA negotiation.

 

The decision to allow a rezoning that increases the density of development involves a policy decision that considers the impact of the proposed development, and critical to that is the provision of supporting infrastructure. It is not possible to separate rezoning application assessment and infrastructure issues, and so Planning Proposals involving Planning Agreements should remain with Council so it can properly assess all the issues in an integrated approach. Separating the decision making on planning controls with decision on the infrastructure in a planning agreement will lead to poor planning outcomes.

 

If when the state Government determines a Council has a conflict of interest that warrants the application being considered by another body, then Council should be afforded appeal rights should they disagree with the planning changes proposed.

 

What do you think? Is there enough supervision of the rezoning process? What else could we do to minimise the risk of corruption and encourage good decision-making? Do you think the new approach and the department’s proposed new role strikes the right balance between what councils should determine and what the department should determine?

 

Council response: The DPE involvement at the scoping phase will be key to ensuring accountability on behalf of the applicant to provide quality rezoning applications for lodgement. Criteria are required as to what constitutes a conflict of interest, otherwise the applicant will potentially manipulate the system to circumnavigate Council’s decision making.

 

What do you think? Do you think requests for more information should be allowed?

 

Council response: Yes - rezoning applications are complex and often further information is required following detailed assessment. This should also ‘stop the clock’ in terms of appeal rights.

 

With regards to mandating that Council can only make one request for information post exhibition, this is not a reasonable approach and will result in poorer quality assessment. There should be a process of review whereby if Council is asking for unnecessary information, then the DPE can take over the application, or the independent arbitrator can refund fees. However, there will be many circumstances where it is reasonable and in the public interest to require further additional information to produce the best possible assessment because information provided in Council’s first request raises questions that need to be addressed to ensure the best possible recommendation / decision is made. Council supports a new process that avoids unnecessary delays, but not a process that puts at risk the quality of the decision being made.

 

3.4       New fee structure

 

The Discussion Paper identifies three options for how fees could be calculated for rezoning applications:

 

Option 1: Fixed assessment fees

Option 2: Variable assessment fees

Option 3: Fixed and variable assessment fees

 

Council favours full cost recovery regardless of the option (pre-lodgement costs should also be fully recoverable). Council objects to the idea of mandatory refunds. Only a partial refund should be offered if a rezoning application is withdrawn, based upon the resources expended.

 

With regards to setting fees, Council nominates a variable full cost recovery model as its preference rather than the other two models proposed in the Discussion Paper. A standardised fee would not take into consideration costs that Council expends, for example an internal urban design assessment that other councils do not do because the projects are not as complex. There is a concern that if fixed costs are based on the average of costs of different councils, a lower fee not relative to Parramatta will be obtained. Council should have full cost recovery and the discretion to set fees. Notwithstanding, should fee options be introduced councils should be afforded the choice of fixed, variable, or fixed and variable fee options to tailor fee requirements to the type of rezoning application.

 

The Discussion Paper also suggests introducing planning guarantees that provide a fee refund if councils take too long to assess/determine a rezoning application. It is understood that even where a fee refund is given, assessment and determination of a rezoning application must continue. This will translate to an incentive for applicants to recover costs rather than allowing councils the time needed to properly assess an application.

 

Councils should be able to ask for the information they reasonably require to make an informed decision, even if a timeframe is put at risk without the community bearing a financial cost for good decision making. There is also a possibility of Council assessment officers rushing referrals and detailed assessments due to this pressure, resulting in poor planning outcomes. Further, there is lack of clarity as to when a fee is refunded, e.g., does re-exhibition (a common requirement for complex proposals) automatically trigger a refund?

 

Should a planning guarantee be introduced, an independent body should be established to determine the refund amount with each party putting forward their case before the amount is decided. If an independent arbiter finds Council was causing unreasonable delay, they should order a refund, but this process should not be automatic as it may be exploited.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? Do we need a consistent structure for rezoning authority fees for rezoning applications? What cost components need to be incorporated into a fee structure to ensure councils can employ the right staff and apply the right systems to efficiently assess and determine applications? Should the fee structure be limited to identifying for what, how and when rezoning authorities can charge fees, or should it extend to establishing a fee schedule? What is your feedback about the 3 options presented above? Should fee refunds be available if an applicant decides not to progress a rezoning application? If so, what refund terms should apply? What should not be refunded?

 

Council response: A fixed fee structure should not be set. Council should have full cost recovery and the discretion to set fees. If a rezoning application is withdrawn, Council should have the discretion to offer a partial refund of fees based on resource expenditure. An example of what should not be refunded are costs associated with public exhibition.

 

What do you think? Do we need a framework that enables applicants to request a fee refund if a rezoning authority takes too long to assess a rezoning application? If so, what mitigation measures (for example, stop-the-clock provisions, or refusing applications to avoid giving fee refunds) would be necessary to prevent a rezoning authority from having to pay refunds for delays it can’t control? If not, what other measures could encourage authorities to process rezoning applications promptly?

 

Council response: Applicants should not be able to request a fee refund based on length of time taken to assess a rezoning application. If, however this is implemented, an independent body should be established to determine the refund amount with each party putting forward their case before the amount is decided.

 

If additional information is requested, this should ‘stop the clock’ until the additional information is submitted, with a minimum 1-week grace period to allow Council time to properly review the information to ensure it is sufficient before the clock starts back up. Should the additional information not be sufficient, the clock should remain stopped and a further request for information submitted to the applicant within the 1-week grace period.

 

 

3.5       New appeal pathways

 

The Discussion Paper proposes a review/appeal right for private applicants at the end of the rezoning application process if progress of the application has been delayed, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with the Council decision. Set timeframes with a ‘deemed refusal’ period are proposed (similar to a Development Application), which would begin once an application is lodged.

 

The deemed refusal period would be based on the category of rezoning application. The exhibition discusses two possible appeal pathways either appeals to the Land and Environment Court or to the Independent Planning Commission. It is Council’s view that appeals via either of these pathways would require a new process given the difference between DAs and rezoning application process.

 

The Discussion Paper identifies that councils’ are concerned that any proposed appeals pathway would add extra pressure and time. Councils feel the increase in costs, time and speculation would undermine strategic planning. City of Parramatta Council concurs with this view, not only because of costs, but the undermining of strategic planning and policy with any appeal process taking critical policy decisions away from the role of government - elected officials. In this regard, Council does not have a preference as to whether appeals are to the Court or IPC, but rather strongly objects to this suggestion outright. If such a system is introduced it is important that cost recovery provisions for councils are included.

 

With regards to an appeals process, this will result in resourcing and cost implications for Council, which will need to engage experts and invest considerable time to prepare expert reports and evidence for appeals that proceed to hearing should conciliation not be successful. Presently, should a planning proposal (rezoning application) not be supportable, it is reported as such to Council who decide whether to progress the application. If it is not progressed to Gateway, no more resources are expended (unless the applicant is successful with a Gateway Review application). Given the proposed introduction of statutory timeframes for when an appeal can be filed as a ‘deemed refusal’, there are likely to be many appeals, particularly if the applicant proposes a highly ambitious proposal they know will not gain Council support.

 

When Local Planning Panels were introduced and DA determinations were removed from councils; the justification was that councils would set the policy and determinations would therefore be assessed independently against the policy. The proposed rezoning process takes this a step further whereby unelected officials will determine the policy through an appeal. Therefore, there could be outcomes whereby the policy and the DA are entirely determined by unelected officials (government). This is strongly objected to given the Court will be granted power to override the statutory policy decision making of Council. Under this scheme, the purpose of elected officials, that is, being representatives of the community, will be diluted and their decision-making power undermined. This could result in strategic planning decisions that affect how a community live, work and interact with their localised environments not being fully considered.

 

Policy is determined by government - whether it be local, state or federal government. Policy is not determined through the legal system (courts) or non-elected panels such as the Independent Planning Commission. Rezoning applications should be determined by Government - councils or the State Government, and any appeal on a Council decision should be considered by the Minister (an elected community representative) and not an unelected official(s) who is not accountable to the community for their policy decisions. If an appeals system is to be introduced clear criteria should be set that identify grounds on which decisions that vary from the Council determination can be justified. It is expected that these would require demonstration of why a variation to existing strategic planning controls is to be permitted, as the most appropriate approach would normally be to seek a review the relevant policy.

 

In addition to removing policy-making decisions from councils (elected officials), an appeals process would potentially add significant delay to the assessment / determination of a rezoning application. As with DAs, should conciliation not be reached (common for complex matters), court dates are often set for hearing some 12 months ahead. Lengthy joint expert reports are required, with evidence provided from a multitude of experts. Such a hearing for a rezoning application would be even more extensive and the joint reporting phase exhaustive. It would also be likely that court hearings would stretch across several days, thus likely resulting in hearing dates being set greater than 12 months ahead. 

 

Should an appeals mechanism be put in place, third party appeal rights for stakeholders and for Council would need to be clarified and appeal rights should be provided for councils.

 

Discussion Paper questions:

 

What do you think? Do you think public authorities (including councils) should have access to an appeal? Which of these options – the Land and Environment Court or the Independent Planning Commission (or other non-judicial body) – do you believe would be most appropriate?

 

Council response: In the first instance, such an appeal process should not be implemented for reasons given above. Should an appeal process be implemented, appeal rights should be afforded to public authorities and to Council should a rezoning application be approved and not align with Council’s strategic vision. Should an appeals process be introduced, Council’s preference would be for the IPC to oversee this process to minimise timeframes and costs.

 

4.   CONCLUSION

 

This submission identifies Council’s support for the process to be more efficient and transparent however it raises objections and some concerns with elements of the proposed new approach. In addition there are other issues, questions and recommendations about the process that Council has raised that are set out in Appendix A – Detailed Assessment Issues.

 

The overarching concern in this submission is the undermining of strategic planning with any appeal process taking critical policy decisions away from elected representatives, effectively giving the Court power to override the statutory policy decision making of Council.

 

The intention of the Planning Reform Action Plan is to build a faster, simpler planning system to support jobs, homes and public spaces. Although the Discussion Paper outlines a strong desire to align with the Planning Reform Action Plan, there are concerns that the oversimplification of the rezoning application process will result in a less efficient planning system and potentially create greater uncertainty for the community and applicants.

 

Whist some comparisons might be drawn between the proposed rezoning application process and that of a DA or SSDA assessment process, the latter are innately different to rezoning applications by virtue of the set parameters they must abide by. Rezoning applications are complex, and this must be better understood and considered before such radical changes are implemented. In this regard, Council welcomes the opportunity to provide clarification and further comment on the contents of this submission, and to be involved in ongoing discussions with the Department of Planning and Environment.

 


Appendix A - Detailed assessment issues

 

Reforms to the NSW Planning Process: “aim for a ‘plan-led’ system - an approach that ensures strategic planning is the foundation for all decisions about potential land-use changes”

 

The City of Parramatta Council supports the move by the NSW Government towards a “plan-led” approach to the planning process in lieu of ad hoc rezoning applications being lodged and assessed, often in isolation.

 

Any proposal to improve efficiencies in the planning system whereby requiring a rezoning application to be consistent with wider strategic planning documents is supported, conditional on the rezoning authority being able to refuse upfront such applications where they deviate significantly from the strategic planning framework. In the event a rezoning application seeks to deviate from the strategic framework, the strategy should be reviewed in the first instance to ensure the rigour of a ‘plan-led’ basis to support (or refute as the case may be) the rezoning application.

 

The Discussion Paper suggests that the first (and only) chance to reject a rezoning application for the lack of strategic merit is after public exhibition during the final assessment phase. This is considered very inefficient as it commits the rezoning authority and the community to consider and respond to applications that should not have been supported to begin with because of their lack of strategic merit and/or inconsistency with strategic frameworks. It also raises the expectation to some private applicants that a rezoning authority must receive, exhibit and consider their application – even if it does not necessarily have strategic merit at the outset. This could lead to an increase in rezoning applications submitted on speculative propositions with the perverse result of significant council and agency resources being committed to reviewing and then rejecting rezoning applications.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    A rezoning authority can refuse to issue study requirements or submission requirements at the scoping stage where an application is clearly inconsistent with the strategic planning framework and/or lacks strategic merit at the outset. This should prevent speculative applications being lodged, and consequently committing Council and agency resources to review or progress such applications. It could also ensure that the strategy or plan is reviewed in the first instance before an inconsistent rezoning application is entertained – thereby reinforcing the primacy of a ‘plan-led’ system.

·    There needs to be a formalised structure in place given this new phase will have resource implications for councils, especially as applicants will be keen to obtain early officer support before formal lodgement.

·    Timeframes and expectations will need to be set for the scoping phase. For example, is it proposed to be a forum whereby Council identifies key issues, or is it intended for these key issues to be resolved before lodgement (i.e. allowing applicants to respond to key issues as part of this phase)?

·    Council must have discretion to list requirements for assessment, which varies based on the local planning context. Council does not want to be in a position where it requires a particular study, but the applicant refuses because it is not on the state mandated list. The assessment of rezoning applications depends on the local and planning context and therefore, Council must have the ability to ask for information relevant to its context. This context varies across the state so the list must not be too prescriptive. In this regard, Council objects to any state government mandated list of rezoning application requirements.

Process Issue: Council role for assessment of rezoning applications.

 

The role of councils to have almost full carriage as a rezoning authority of private applicant rezoning applications is supported in principle. It is recognised that efficiencies can be gained by delegating the authority to councils to fully manage the rezoning application process for private applicant-initiated requests provided the relevant council is suitably resourced to handle the entire process, which may require some reworking of internal business processes and allocation of staff. Councils have significant knowledge of their local area and communities; and the strategies developed for their area. This knowledge is particularly relevant where changes to local policy and planning controls will be sought through the rezoning application process.

 

There is a concern, however, at councils’ role where a public authority applicant is seeking to amend local planning controls. The intentions of the public authority applicant may be significantly inconsistent with the established local planning framework (e.g. Council’s LSPS, LHS, etc.). A public authority applicant seeking to amend local planning controls through a rezoning application should not be allowed to be in a position that disregards the local planning framework; as to do so diminishes the value of a ‘plan-led’ system. The Department, as the rezoning authority, must work in partnership (not just consultation) with the council to ensure that interests of the local community are fairly represented in a situation where the applicant for a rezoning application is a public authority.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    Council’s role as the rezoning authority and carriage of the entire process for private applicant-initiated rezoning applications is supported, in principle.

·    The role of councils in considering public authority applicant applications needs to be undertaken in partnership with the Department as the rezoning authority to ensure local and community interests are upheld in the consideration of such applications and the integrity of local strategic planning frameworks (e.g. LSPS, LHS, etc) are maintained in a ‘plan-led’ system.

Process Issue: Involving Councillors in the endorsement or establishment of submission requirements for a rezoning application as part of the scoping process.

 

The role of Councillors is to make decisions on matters of policy affecting the council area and is an important one to ensure the interests of the community are duly represented. A rezoning application, ostensibly, makes changes to policy within the council area by amending the Local Environmental Plan. The removal of Councillors from the rezoning application process until the final assessment stage may cause delays to the process if a particular issue (or issues) is requested to be addressed by the rezoning authority that has not previously been considered.

 

Additionally, if the issue or issues substantially change the rezoning application from that previously submitted, exhibited, and assessed, the process would effectively have to start again with a revised rezoning application, exhibition and assessment along with the commensurate increases in processing time and resource commitment.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    The rezoning process considers the need to involve Councillors in their role as policy decision makers at the Scoping stage – for example endorsement of the Submission Requirements before issuing them to the applicant. This may have implications for the scoping timeframes to take account of reporting.

Process Issue: Consideration of submissions by an applicant after exhibition.

 

The revised process suggests the applicant (rather than the rezoning authority) is responsible for assessing and responding to submissions. Procedurally, this is a concern as any applicant would have a vested interest to ensure their rezoning application is successful. Consequently, the perception that the community’s issues are being independently and neutrally considered by the rezoning authority are potentially removed by this process. If the applicant is to be responsible for the assessment and response to submissions; that summary response document should be subject to a peer review by an independent party (e.g. the rezoning authority) to ensure the applicant has adequately and fairly addressed the matters raised by submitters.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    The rezoning process considers the need to have the summary of submissions and response to submissions document independently reviewed by the rezoning authority or a third party to the applicant to ensure that matters raised in submissions are adequately and fairly addressed by the applicant in any response to those matters raised.

Process Issue: Category 3 – Complex Rezoning applications, VPAs and DCPs

 

The Discussion Paper recognises rezoning applications that may require accompanying additional infrastructure investment (e.g. requiring a contributions plan) as complex. The Discussion Paper is, however, silent on any rezoning applications that may require amendments to a Development Control Plan (DCP) or the creation of new controls for a precinct in the DCP. Ideally, a site-specific DCP accompanying a rezoning application should be exhibited concurrently. The proposed timeframe for a 7-day suitability assessment of a rezoning application before it is exhibited does not consider any need to provide for an accompanying DCP amendment and the requisite statutory process it has to follow before it can be considered and exhibited.

 

It is unreasonable to assume that a draft DCP or contributions plan or VPA is prepared as part of the scoping process if the principal planning controls in the rezoning application are still being finalised. Certainty and consistency must be afforded to the rezoning authority and the community during exhibition where a rezoning application involves, where relevant, additional changes to DCPs, planning agreements, and contributions plans.

 

In the case of VPA offers for physical works, internal consultation with relevant council staff (such as asset owners and managers) must occur up front to ensure the suitability of the works meets requisite specifications and council/community needs. There is a risk where a VPA offer places a council in a conflict of interest position that the council can be sidelined in the rezoning process, for example if the Department becomes the rezoning authority, assesses and determines the rezoning application, and then amends Council’s LEP.

 

In a situation involving VPAs, the negotiation of the VPA could be undertaken by council staff separate to (and apart from) those assessing the rezoning application. This would reduce some of the perceived interaction between an applicant and the rezoning authority on a VPA matter - i.e. the negotiations are conducted “at arm’s length” to the assessment of the rezoning application. The Department could maintain an independent oversight role in the event of a conflict of interest between a council as the party involved in VPA negotiations and a private applicant to case manage the conflict of interest issues.

 

When there is a VPA, the matter should remain with Council but there should be some oversight by the Department before the matter is finalised to manage the conflict of interest issue raised.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    The rezoning process needs to reconsider the provision of benchmark timeframes, particularly where they involve accompanying changes to a DCP, contributions plan, or consideration of a VPA offer which, ideally, should accompany the exhibition of a rezoning application to enable a comprehensive and complete presentation of the rezoning to the community and agencies.

·    The rezoning process needs to consider complications to the process and timeframes that may eventuate if, for example, a VPA offer places council in a conflict of interest position that needs to be resolved by a third party.

·    There needs to be qualifying criteria to identify conflicts of interest.

Process Issue: Category 4 – Comprehensive Rezoning Applications

 

The Discussion Paper suggests that a comprehensive rezoning application affecting an entire LGA could have a 6-week exhibition period. The City of Parramatta considers this length of time may be insufficient, especially if the changes are significant and of strategic importance to the community within the LGA.

 

As examples, Council’s CBD Rezoning application and Harmonisation Rezoning application were publicly exhibited in statutory terms for six weeks. However, both of these included significant non-statutory public consultation and public access to draft controls before being placed on statutory exhibition. Iterations of draft planning controls for the CBD Rezoning application had been in the public arena since its initial endorsement in April 2016 with formal statutory exhibition in September 2020. The Harmonisation rezoning application had a separate Discussion Paper, which was separately exhibited for a further 6 weeks in 2019, to canvas community opinions on matters that informed the draft rezoning application which was also exhibited in 2020. Additional comments in the section pertaining to exhibition and effective community engagement are also relevant for this matter.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    The rezoning process needs to reconsider whether 6 weeks is suitable for a public exhibition of a complex and/or comprehensive rezoning application. Flexibility should be considered for further prolongation of the exhibition period – for example up to 12 weeks (3 months) – to enable sufficient consideration of a comprehensive change by the broad set of stakeholders and public agencies.

Process Issue: Iterative or amended rezoning applications

 

The Discussion Paper does not clearly articulate the potential for rezoning applications to be modified mid-stream in the process. The timeframes proposed may be optimistic (best case) scenarios where all matters are comparatively simple to consider and resolve.

 

Experience with complex rezonings in the City of Parramatta LGA often involves a process of multiple iterations of a rezoning application – such as revised concept designs or requests for changes to controls – as the proposal progresses. These may either be at the request of the applicant, at the council’s request, at the request of other state agencies, or to address conditions in the Gateway Determination. In most cases these iterative changes occur before commencing public exhibition. Consequently, the version released for public consideration has often been refined from the proposal originally submitted.

 

If this iterative process is to occur as part of the scoping process, the proposed timeframe of 12 weeks is extremely optimistic and, in many cases, cannot reasonably be achieved. The iterative process is often very fluid and relies on back-and-forth discussions between the applicant, relevant agencies, and the rezoning authority. There is a risk an applicant may delay responding to matters raised by the rezoning authority and agencies, or stubbornly not addressing the matters raised, but then expecting the rezoning application to be accepted and exhibited.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    The scoping process is not subject to a fixed time limit, or the proposed benchmark time frame is a minimum to allow for iterative work on a concept design that informs the relevant planning controls.

 

The proposed process would allow only one further opportunity for the rezoning authority to request additional information after the exhibition of the rezoning application. This is unreasonable and could result in poorer quality assessment. A rezoning application can involve potentially a significant policy change to planning controls within a council area. The Parramatta CBD Rezoning application, for example, has had multiple requests by the Department for additional information at various stages throughout the process – both before and after exhibition. This may seem frustrating and appear to slow the process down. However, Council’s preparedness to respond in a timely manner to these requests is considered crucial to the success and enable the best possible assessment of the proposal by the Department in the interests of the community.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    Limiting to a single request for further information post-exhibition is insufficient. A rezoning authority should have the capability to request information as many times as deemed necessary and reasonable to ensure the best possible assessment of a rezoning application.

·    A process to review a claim of a vexatious use of this process – e.g. the applicant claims the rezoning authority is asking for unnecessary information or to deliberately delay the process – could be considered. If proven by an independent review, the rezoning authority could be penalised by having to refund a portion of the assessment fees; or the Department may choose to call-in the rezoning application and continue the assessment.

Process Issue: Exhibition shortly after lodgement and effective community engagement

 

The proposed process includes a public exhibition of the rezoning application shortly after lodgement. This is of concern as it raises the expectation to the community that the rezoning application has been subject to some degree of assessment by the rezoning authority and has been, at least, tacitly endorsed by the rezoning authority for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

Any early public exhibition needs to clearly indicate that the rezoning application, as lodged, has not been endorsed nor has it been assessed by the rezoning authority. Early public scrutiny can be useful to gauge initial public opinion; however if this scrutiny results in significant changes to the rezoning application from the submissions received, the application will have to be amended and then re-exhibited. This may create confusion with stakeholders being subject to multiple exhibitions of the application; and disenfranchisement if the matters raised by the community to the first exhibition are not comprehensively discussed and responded to in a subsequent iteration of the rezoning application.

 

Additionally, the more complex rezoning applications (Category 3 and 4) often require a longer lead time for logistics to support more comprehensive exhibitions – including, for example, drop-in sessions, public meetings or briefings, etc. A 7-day timeframe from lodgement to commencement of exhibition effectively precludes the capability to provide this level of engagement with the community who may have an interest in the application and may also be significantly impacted by the application.

 

Reliance on the Planning Portal as the primary source of engagement for rezoning applications will also be insufficient, particularly for persons and communities of disadvantage who may not have reliable computer and internet access – such as those in areas where reliable internet access has been compromised by natural disasters or extreme weather events.

 

A letter to affected owners accompanied by a “Plain English” summary of the rezoning proposal prepared by the applicant is insufficient engagement, particularly in diverse communities where English may not be the primary language. Allowances may also be necessary for translation into dominant community languages to facilitate effective engagement. Furthermore, the “Plain English” document will also need to be reviewed by the rezoning authority to ensure accuracy and fair and reasonable portrayal of the proposal. Any applicant, again, has a vested interest to ensure the success of their rezoning application so communication with the community needs to be unbiased and not overtly depict the proposal in a favourable position.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    The 7-day timeframe from lodgement to commencing exhibition may be insufficient, especially for larger or more complex rezoning applications that would warrant a greater level of community engagement in addition to the Planning Portal – such as public meetings, drop-in sessions, etc.

·    Any early public exhibition must clearly indicate that the contents on exhibition have not been assessed by the rezoning authority, nor does the rezoning authority endorse or support the contents. The rezoning application will then be subject to detailed assessment post-exhibition. Council should be required to provide a preliminary response to the applicant’s summary as part of the exhibition material.

·    The Planning Portal must be able to handle multiple languages and, more importantly, accurate translation where required of a “Plain English” summary into local community languages to ensure full and comprehensive engagement with the community where English may not be a primary language.

·    The rezoning application process should allow a feedback loop to enable additional exhibition/s where a rezoning application is significantly changed post-exhibition and as part of any assessment by the rezoning authority where required.

Process Issue: Application Requirements and Studies

 

The proposed process suggests adopting “standardised” information requirements for particular categories of rezoning applications. This position is not supported as each rezoning application is unique – either in the requested changes to the planning controls or the circumstances applying to the site/s subject to the rezoning application. Council / state agencies should have the ability to list specific requirements.

 

Should standardised information requirements be applied, rather than providing a conclusive list, a minimum benchmark could apply for the studies to be undertaken to be consistent across most rezoning applications, such as:

 

·    an urban design study if the proposal changes controls like height or FSR,

·    heritage study if the property is a heritage item or in a conservation area,

·    flood study if the property is within a flood prone area,

·    transport study if the proposal is likely to generate additional traffic by a change of use, intensification of use, or is likely to have impacts on a classified road, etc.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    Any standardisation of information requirements should not be introduced.

·    The rezoning authority must be able to require the additional information / studies as deemed necessary for a full and proper assessment of the rezoning application relevant to the local context and conditions.

Process Issue: Fees and Refunds

 

Establishing standardised fees across the State is not supported. As outlined previously, each rezoning application is unique. While there may be some consistency in basic process terms, the time taken to process the rezoning application will inevitably vary between applications. Experience with rezoning applications for the City of Parramatta have often had more complex applications received – varying from a site-specific change seeking significant uplift (i.e. St John’s Cathedral or 2 O’Connell St in Parramatta CBD) to a large master planned precinct (i.e. Melrose Park or 14-16 Hill Road). The commitment of resources and time to process these larger applications in terms of internal referrals to other Council business units (e.g. urban design, traffic, assets, open space, etc.) may not necessarily be recognised with standardised fees.

 

Council seeks the capability to fully recover the costs associated with private applicant-initiated rezoning applications as they inevitably result in a benefit to the applicant rather than the council or community per se. Council could establish baseline fees for respective stages/complexity of the rezoning application process. This may be determined on an averaged number of hours allocated to the application based on its complexity. Any additional commitment of resources above the baseline will then be recoverable from the applicant at the end of the stage in the rezoning process. Payment of those additional fees will be a prerequisite to the rezoning application moving to the next stage. If the applicant does not pay the fees in a timely manner, the rezoning application process will conclude at that stage. In the event the work commitment is less than the benchmark, the difference may either be refunded to the applicant or credited towards fees for a subsequent stage in the rezoning process.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    Rezoning authorities should be able to establish fees based on a full cost recovery model for private applicant-initiated rezoning applications. This ensures the costs of processing these applications are not subsidised by ratepayers or the community as the benefits derived from the rezoning application are often limited to the applicant.

 

Council does not support a mechanism to require refunds under the terms of a proposed “planning guarantee”. Any requirement for refunds to be paid to an applicant for not meeting timeframes is onerous and, effectively, is a stick to the rezoning authority to process applications with the risk of not ensuring a full and the best possible assessment of a rezoning application. As identified previously, rezoning applications will change local council policies through amendment to planning controls. A rezoning application is not a DA which applies the local planning controls to a particular development. Any timeframes should be seen as a benchmark in ideal conditions for assessment of a rezoning application.

 

If planning guarantees are to be established, like any contractual arrangement between parties, there needs to be a process for independent mediation or arbitration of a dispute between the parties. If timeframes are not met, for example, then either party may seek an independent review to establish whether the breach may have been the deliberate fault of the rezoning authority, or a situation where the applicant caused delay in a request for information, or other no-fault situation that contributed to the timeframe not being met. The proposed process is unclear about what could establish grounds for a dispute on timeframes (e.g. re-exhibition due to substantial changes of the rezoning application; or reasonable requests for additional information by the rezoning authority to ensure full and best possible assessment of the application). The independent review would then determine the sanction to be applied – such as a proportional refund of fees, or the rezoning application is terminated.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    Rezoning authorities and applicants have a process to enable resolution of disputes between the parties in the event of a timeframe breach. Automatic assumption that the rezoning authority is at fault for not meeting timeframes, and a resulting refund on fees, is an unreasonable proposition that will risk a poor planning outcome for the community in favour of meeting a nominal processing timeframe.

·    Should a planning guarantee occur, an independent body should be established to determine the refund amount with each party putting forward their case before the amount is decided. If an independent arbiter finds Council was causing unreasonable delay, they should order a refund, but this process should not be automatic as it may be exploited.

·    A potential option for fee payment could be asking for a bond upon lodgement of the rezoning application. Staff could then log hours worked to deduct it from the bond. Any remaining funds would then be returned to the applicant. Should the 3 options be introduced, Council should be given the ability to adopt its preferred option.

Appeals

 

Council strongly objects to proposals that enable appeals to the strategic merit or outcome of a rezoning application where policy decisions are further removed from elected representatives of the local community and become the responsibility of unelected officials. Local Environmental Plans, and any changes thereto, constitute local development policy within a statutory framework.

 

Councils are elected to establish policy direction for the local area as representatives of the local community. An applicant appealing a policy outcome for their rezoning application simply because they are dissatisfied with the decision (i.e. they don’t get their desired result) diminishes the importance of clear policy direction in the interests of the local community. The risk of speculative or vexatious appeals in the early stages of this process would result in delays to the rezoning process as council and agency resources end up committed to responding to appeals by dissatisfied applicants and undermine the role and function of councils to establish policy. Related to this is the need for cost recovery provisions for councils to be included in any appeals process.

 

Any decision-making of the council in respect of rezoning applications is already visible to the community through council reports and business papers being publicly accessible; and the councillors themselves are held accountable to the community by way of their election. In the event of a council-initiated proposal where the Department is the rezoning authority, the Minister as an elected official is ultimately accountable to the community for their decision-making.

 

The current framework where an appeal can be lodged to the Land and Environment Court on a procedural failure in the rezoning process may still be reasonable.

 

The City of Parramatta Recommends:

·    Any appeals mechanism for a rezoning application on the basis of a final decision by the rezoning authority is not supported. The risk of speculative or vexatious appeals because an applicant does not get their desired outcome would undermine the policy framework and commit significant council and agency resources to respond to such claims.

·    Rezoning applications should be determined by councils or the Minister, and any appeal on a Council decision should be considered by the Minister (an elected community representative) and not an unelected official who is not accountable to the community for their policy decisions.

·    Should an appeals mechanism be put in place, cost recovery provisions for councils, third party appeal rights for stakeholders and for Council would need to be clarified and appeal rights for councils should be provided.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

 

 


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 13.5

FOR COUNCIL DECISION

ITEM NUMBER         13.5

SUBJECT                  Naming Proposal for Unnamed Epping Pedestrian Way (Deferred Item)

REFERENCE            F2022/00105 - D08386015

REPORT OF              Senior Project Officer Place Services       

 

csp theme:             THRIvING

 

This matter was deferred from the Council Meeting of 8 November 2021 due to the new term of Council commencing in 2022.

 

 

workshop/briefing date: A Councillor Briefing Note was circulated to Councillors on 20 August 2021 via the Councillor Portal and the Councillor Weekly Newsletter.

 

PURPOSE:

 

To endorse the preferred name for an unnamed pedestrian thoroughfare that connects Forest Grove to Essex Street, Epping NSW 2121.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council endorse the preferred name, Fruit Tree Way for an unnamed pedestrian thoroughfare that connects Forest Grove to Essex Street, Epping NSW 2121. The name and location for the unnamed laneway are illustrated in 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.      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.

 

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

 

4.      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.

 

5.      Council’s Cultural, Heritage & Tourism (CHT) team researched the history and identity of the area and proposed several names for consideration. These names were then submitted to the GNB for ‘pre-approval’ to check the eligibility of the proposed names. This evaluation ensured 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.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

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

 

Proposed Name

Context

Abel Way

In acknowledgement of builder David Abel (d. 8 November 1941) who lived on Essex Street, Epping and was an Epping Forest Park Trustee. He owned and subdivided his property which is in the subject area.

Fruit Tree Way

Based on the Hammond Estate subdivision whereby ‘fruit trees’ is written across the lots to be sold. This is also a reference to the neighbouring nurseries in the area in particular a reference to Epping’s first nursery established by M.F. Vollmer and later business partner C. E. Vessey’s nursery before they moved to Eastwood to establish Mount Tomah.

 

7.      The 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 (15 business days) from Wednesday 1 September to Wednesday 22 September 2021. A letter was sent via Australia Post to 414 impacted residents and targeted social media was also utilised to alert residents and nearby businesses of the opportunity to provide feedback.

 

8.      Overall, the opportunity to provide feedback for this project was presented to an estimated 14,111 persons culminating in 41 formal contributions. Of those that made formal contributions, the community sentiment was positive, with ‘Fruit Tree Way’ the preferred of the two exhibited names with 64% of survey respondents expressing support for this name. 56% of all community submissions expressed support for the use of Fruit Tree Way as the name for the unnamed pedestrian way.

 

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

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

Stakeholder Consultation

 

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

 

Date

Stakeholder

Stakeholder Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

01.09.21 – 22.09.21

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 663 unique visitors and 800 views. This resulted in a conversion of 33 completed surveys. Responses received from the community were reviewed against the Geographical Names Board of NSW ‘NSW Address Policy and User Manual’ (May 2021) guidelines for naming roads. No feedback identified the proposed names to be offensive, racist, derogatory or demeaning.

Senior Project Officer, Place Services

 

Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement

30.08.21

414 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

01.09.21 – 22.09.21

The community, via 4 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 67 scans.

Senior Project Officer, Place Services

 

01.09.21 – 22.09.21

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 3584 resulting in 166 clicks to the project page.

Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement

02.09.21

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 (10,313 subscribers), seeing a 32% open rate.

Community Engagement Officer, Research & Engagement

 

Councillor Consultation

 

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

 

Date

Councillor

Councillor Comment

Council Officer Response

Responsibility

20.08.21

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

 

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

 

13.    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 $48.92 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.

 

14.    The financial impacts to the budget, as set out in this section, will be included in the next Quarterly Budget Review for endorsement by Council.

 

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

 

 

FY 21/22

FY 22/23

FY 23/24

FY 24/25

Revenue

 

 

 

 

Internal Revenue

 

 

 

 

External Revenue

 

 

 

 

Total Revenue

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funding Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Result

 

 

 

 

External Costs

 

 

 

 

Internal Costs

 

 

 

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

Total Operating Result

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funding Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPEX

 

 

 

 

CAPEX

 

 

 

 

External

 

 

 

 

Internal

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

Total CAPEX

Nil

 

 

 

 

Michael Northey

Place Manager

 

Bruce Mills

Group Manager Place Services

 

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

Attachment 1 - Site Plan

1 Page

 

2

Attachment 2 - List and description of Proposed Names

5 Pages

 

3

Attachment 3 - Unnamed Pedestrian Way Epping Engagement Evaluation Report

19 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 13.5 - Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Site Plan

 

PDF Creator


Item 13.5 - Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - List and description of Proposed Names

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Item 13.5 - Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Unnamed Pedestrian Way Epping Engagement Evaluation Report

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

Notices of Motion

 

21 February 2022

 

14.1           Workforce Diversity....................................................................................... 510


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 14.1

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         14.1

SUBJECT                  Workforce Diversity

REFERENCE            F2022/00105 - D08411342

FROM                          Deputy Lord Mayor        

 

MOTION

(a)     That Council note:

i)          The diversity within the City of Parramatta and opportunities for employment.

ii)         The growth and development opportunities in the LGA.

 

(b)     Further, that Council report on:

i)       Current known workforce diversity profile of Council workforce against current diversity profile within the LGA.

ii)      Current Traineeship and Apprenticeship programs and potential future strategies within City of Parramatta.

iii)     Current internship participation and potential opportunities for expansion.

iv)     Opportunities for Traineeship and pathways for employment for people from Indigenous background as well as people with disability.

v)      Options for Local employment targets.

vi)     Options for embedding diversity targets in contracts that council issues.

vii)    Industry benchmark for Local Government areas in diversity profile of staff.

viii)   Employment assistance/opportunities for veterans.

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      No background information has been provided.

 

Cr Sameer Pandey

 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES RESPONSE

 

2.      A written staff response will be provided to Councillors in a supplementary agenda prior to the Council Meeting.

 

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

3.      A written staff response will be provided to Councillors in a supplementary agenda prior to the Council Meeting.

 

Sameer Pandey

Deputy Lord Mayor

 

Fariha Chowdhury

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Jillian Khoo

Executive Director Corporate Services

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

 


 

Questions with Notice

 

21 February 2022

 

15.1           Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 7 February 2022.. 514


Council 21 February 2022                                                                                                 Item 15.1

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

ITEM NUMBER         15.1

SUBJECT                  Questions Taken on Notice from Council Meeting - 7 February 2022

REFERENCE            F2022/00105 - D08408534

FROM                          Governance Manager       

 

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 7 FEBRUARY 2022

Item

Subject

Councillor

Question

12.4

Variations to Standards under Clause 4.6 of Parramatta LEP 2011, Auburn LEP 2010, Holroyd LEP 2013, The Hills LEP 2012, Hornsby LEP 2013

Prociv

DA/42/2021 – 55-57 Thomas Street, Parramatta:

Does this mean that they don’t have to provide open space on the ground if they provide it on the roof?

13.1

Chief Executive Officer Delegations

Darley

How many tenders under $500k were finalised in the years 2020 and 2021?

13.5

Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land

Garrard

1.   That development was finished quite a period of time ago. I know residents have actually moved in because they’ve reached out and contacted me. When was that?

2.   What is the road for? What is the purpose of it?

3.   For what? [does there have to be a condition for an access road to dedicate it back to Council]

 

 

Wearne

1.   Where is the road going to and why?

2.   Why was it perceived to be acceptable as part of a VPA as open space, if in fact there is going to be a road to [God knows] where and how big through the middle of it?

14.1

CBD Lighting Project

Garrard

1.   What is the CBD Revitalisation Program?

2.   If $300k is being dedicated, if it’s granted to the CBD lighting project, where is the other $700k going?

 

 

Wearne

1.   Where have the funds gone from the Winterlight event?

2.   Where have the funds gone from the other events?

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Paragraph 9.23 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states:

 

“Where a councillor or council employee to whom a question is put is unable to respond to the question at the meeting at which it is put, they may take it on notice and report the response to the next meeting of the Council.”

 

STAFF RESPONSE

 

Item 12.4 – Variations to Standards under Clause 4.6 of Parramatta LEP 2011, Auburn LEP 2010, Holroyd LEP 2013, The Hills LEP 2012, Hornsby LEP 2013

 

During discussion on the motion moved by Councillor Esber, Councillor Prociv asked a question in relation to 55-57 Thomas Street, Parramatta:

 

Does this mean that they don’t have to provide open space on the ground if they provide it on the roof?

 

Executive Director City Planning & Design Response

 

A written staff response will be provided to Councillors in a supplementary agenda prior to the Council Meeting.

 

Item 13.1 – Chief Executive Officer Delegations

 

Question from Councillor Darley

 

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

 

How many tenders under $500k were finalised in the years 2020 and 2021?

 

Executive Director Corporate Services Response

 

A written staff response will be provided to Councillors in a supplementary agenda prior to the Council Meeting.

 

Item 13.5 – Classification of Lot 5 DP 1238944 as Operational Land

 

Questions from Councillor Garrard

 

During discussion on the motion by Councillor Prociv, Councillor Garrard asked the following questions:

 

That development was finished quite a period of time ago. I know residents have actually moved in because they’ve reached out and contacted me. When was that?

 

What is the road for? What is the purpose of it?

 

For what? [does there have to be a condition for an access road to dedicate it back to Council]

 

During discussion on the Amendment by Councillor Garrard, Councillor Wearne asked the following questions:

 

Where is the road going to and why?

 

Why was it perceived to be acceptable as part of a VPA as open space, if in fact there is going to be a road to [God knows] where and how big through the middle of it?

 

Executive Director Property & Place Response

 

A written staff response will be provided to Councillors in a supplementary agenda prior to the Council Meeting.


 

 

Item 14.1 – CBD Lighting Project

 

Questions from Councillor Garrard and Wearne

 

During discussion on the motion by Councillor Garrard, Councillor Garrard asked the following questions:

 

What is the CBD Revitalisation Program?

 

If $300k is being dedicated, if it’s granted to the CBD lighting project, where is the other $700k going?

 

Councillor Wearne asked the following questions:

 

Where have the funds gone from the Winterlight event?

 

Where have the funds gone from the other events?

 

Executive Director City Engagement & Experience Response

 

Patricia Krzeminski

Governance Manager

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

 

Jillian Khoo

Executive Director Corporate Services

 

Bryan Hynes

Executive Director Property & Place

 

Carly Rogowski

Executive Director, City Engagement & Experience

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments: