Council (Development) 9 May 2016 Item 0.0 MINUTE OF LORD …€¦ · Council (Development) 9 May 2016 Item 0.0 - 1 - MINUTE OF LORD MAYOR ITEM NUMBER 0.0 . SUBJECT . Parramatta Local

Council (Development) 9 May 2016 Item 0.0

- 1 -

MINUTE OF LORD MAYOR ITEM NUMBER 0.0 SUBJECT K's for Kids - Children's Medical Research Institute REFERENCE F2015/02982 - D04189330 REPORT OF The Lord Mayor, Councillor Paul Garrard PURPOSE: The purpose of this Minute is to support the Children’s Medical Research Institute in their walk to beat childhood disease campaign called K’s for Kids on Sunday 11 September 2016. RECOMMENDATION: That Council purchase a Children’s Medical Research Institute Silver Sponsorship for $15,000 plus GST to support the K’s for Kids Walk. BACKGROUND

1. The Children’s Medical Research Institute (CMRI) was founded in 1958 by paediatrician Sir Lormier Dods and Dr John Fulton who believed that prevention is better than a cure and that research holds the key to prevention.

2. The CMRI does not receive guaranteed government funding and relies heavily on direct community support.

3. K’s for Kids is a walkathon that was developed and launched last year in Parramatta to raise money for the CMRI.

4. Due to its success last year, the event will now be launched concurrently in Canberra and the Central Coast also.

5. The opportunity to sponsor this event will help children’s medical research to take the lead in Australia and strengthen Council’s relationship with CMRI and the community.

6. Participants are able to take on the scenic 30km walk or run along the river through the spectacular gardens and trees of Parramatta Park, or just enjoy the 6km route.

7. In addition, there will be live entertainment on stage with a special performance from Adam Katz, (2014 X Factor Australia entrant), kids’ activities including, petting farm, jumping castles, face painting, balloon twisting and more.

8. Food and refreshments will be available throughout the day, which makes this a great event for the whole family.

9. CMRI have set a target to raise $100k from the Parramatta event in 2016 and are seeking support from Parramatta City Council to achieve this outcome.


- 2 -

10. Council will receive the following benefits from supporting this event:

- Council will be promoted through various social media outlets; - Council’s logo will be appear on posters and emails, volunteer t-shirts,

start and finish line; - Opportunity for staff to meet affected families and hear stories; - Opportunity for an information stall at the event; - Promotional items can be placed in goody bags; - Free team registration for five participants; and - Invitation to networking opportunities with other key CMRI stakeholders.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL The costs associated with funding for the Children’s Medical Research Institute – K’s for Kids Silver sponsorship for $15,000 plus GST will be met from funds within the Lord Mayor and Councillor Support Unit Budget for 2015-2016. ATTACHMENTS: There are no attachments for this report. REFERENCE MATERIAL

Councillor Paul Garrard LORD MAYOR


- 1 -

MINUTE OF LORD MAYOR ITEM NUMBER 0.0 SUBJECT Parramatta Local Business Awards 2016 REFERENCE F2015/02982 - D04189333 REPORT OF The Lord Mayor, Councillor Paul Garrard PURPOSE: The purpose of this Minute is to gain Council’s support to sponsor the 2016 Parramatta Local Business Awards in the amount of $5,500, as a major sponsor. RECOMMENDATION: That Council supports the 2016 Parramatta Local Business Awards, by being a major sponsor in the amount of $5,500. BACKGROUND

1. Council has been requested to give consideration to sponsoring the Parramatta Local Business Awards.

2. Nominations for the 2016 Parramatta program will open on Monday 16 May, with the presentation evening taking place on Wednesday 27 July at the Parramatta RSL.

3. The Local Business Awards acknowledge outstanding local businesses

and their people who go above and beyond - providing an exceptional customer service experience.

4. These awards present an opportunity for Council to build on existing and new relationships with business owners, their employees and customers in the community.

5. Council will receive the following benefits as a major sponsor in supporting this event:

a) Finalists and Winners Lists i) Access to Finalists and Winners Lists

b) Electronic Media

i) Sponsors highlighted on website ii) Hyperlink to sponsor’s landing page iii) One e-newsletter sponsor profile

c) Local Newspaper Coverage

i) Pre-program Teaser Ads – appears two weeks prior to launch ii) Logo in Launch advertisement iii) Logo in Winners Feature advertisement iv) Mentioned in editorials throughout 12 week program


- 2 -

d) Facebook Campaign

i) Sponsor logos on winners’ announcement page ii) Dedicated posts as provided by sponsor iii) Sponsor logos appear on nominations close graphic iv) Share any important posts on request

e) Sponsor Logo i) Newspaper coupon ii) Printed coupon pads distributed to businesses iii) Finalist Certificates iv) Finalist Information Sheets v) Invitations vi) Presentation Evening Program

f) Presentation Evening i) 30 second Audio Visual Commercial ii) Sponsor logo appearing on Large Screen iii) Speaking opportunities iv) Presentation of 3-6 categories v) Six Complimentary Tickets vi) Sponsor logo on Winners Posters vii) Promotional material at event viii)Signage in venue (provided by sponsor)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL The costs associated with funding the Parramatta Local Business Awards 2016 major sponsor package of $5,500 plus GST, will be met from funds within the Lord Mayor and Councillor Support Unit Budget for 2015-2016. ATTACHMENTS: REFERENCE MATERIAL



- 1 -

MINUTE OF LORD MAYOR ITEM NUMBER 0.0 SUBJECT Councillor Service Awards REFERENCE F2015/02982 - D04193840 REPORT OF The Lord Mayor, Councillor Paul Garrard PURPOSE: The purpose of this Minute is to record the presentation of Councillor Service Awards to Cr Esber, Cr Finn, and Cr Wilson. RECOMMENDATION:

(a) That the presentation of Councillor Service Awards to Cr Esber, Cr Finn, and Cr Wilson for 16 years’ service to the community be noted; and

(b) That a dinner be arranged to celebrate the receipt of the Councillor Service Awards by Cr Esber, Cr Finn, and Cr Wilson.

BACKGROUND

1. On 7 December 2015, Council resolved the following in relation to Councillor Service Awards:

a) That staff undertake the appropriate investigations with a view to ensuring that

any Councillor receives the appropriate certificate or award for length of service; b) That Council investigate whether the position of Emeritus Mayor applies to

Councillor Chedid; and c) Further, that Council undertake an appropriate ceremony if required to recognise

individual Councillors.

2. A Memorandum regarding the results of the investigation was forwarded to all Councillors on 2 March 2016 (Attachment A). This Memo highlighted that:

• Councillor Esber, having marked his 16th year as Councillor in September 2015,

is eligible for the Certificate of Service; • Councillor Finn, having marked her 16th year as Councillor in September 2015, is

eligible for the Certificate of Service; and • Councillor Wilson, having marked his 16th year as Councillor in September 2015,

is eligible for the Certificate of Service.

3. LGNSW has recommended that these particular Councillor Service Awards be presented at a Council Meeting, to ensure that the Awards are minuted and on the record.

4. Each named Councillor has contributed to serving the Parramatta LGA community in

different ways, namely:

(a) Councillor Finn

Cr Finn has represented the Arthur Phillip Ward since 1999, and served as Lord Mayor in 2004-2005 and as Deputy Lord Mayor from 2002-2004. She also served on the Parramatta Park Trust from 2000-2010.


- 2 -

Cr Finn was the second female Lord Mayor of Parramatta. She is a member of Council's Community Grants Assessment Committee, as she is determined to ensure our local community groups get their fair share. She is passionate about Parramatta's unique heritage and wants to see the City grow and develop in a way that celebrates and preserves its history. She has been a tireless advocate for our community and understands the need to invest in our future to ensure universal access to health, education and transport. Cr Finn is a long-time local resident, living in Rosehill and holds a Masters Degrees in Environmental Studies and International Development, as well as a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Government.

(b) Councillor Esber

Cr Esber is Parramatta born and educated, and was elected to Parramatta City Council in 1999 and was appointed Deputy Lord Mayor in 2001–2002. He currently represents the Lachlan Macquarie Ward. Cr Esber is a strong supporter of local small business, having run his own business in Parramatta for more than 25 years. He is passionate about the Parramatta Square urban renewal, which will further develop Parramatta into a leading Commercial Business District, and its flow on benefits for improved infrastructure and job creation in the area. In his role as Councillor he encourages corporate organisations to have a ‘kinder heart’ and assist in improving life for the disadvantaged in our community. His efforts were also recognised for a ‘water saving initiative’ which enabled ratepayers to purchase rainwater tanks through a Council loan repayment scheme. Cr Esber never underestimates the importance of family, and enjoys spending time with family and friends and watching the Parramatta Eels’ play.

(c) Councillor Wilson

Cr Wilson has lived in Parramatta since 1987 and has been a Councillor for Parramatta Council since 1999 and served as Deputy Lord Mayor in 2011-12. He currently represents the Arthur Phillip Ward. Cr Wilson has been a supporter of “Eat Street” in Church Street for over two decades and was also prominent in supporting the Pavement Access Management Plan which created kilometres of new footpaths. He has worked to gather support for the Westmead Alliance to improve infrastructure and services in the area. Cr Wilson is also active in the area of cost savings and the creation of efficiencies within Council, as evidenced by the review of Council’s depot operations and as a member of Parramatta Council’s Audit Committee. His interests extend to the arts, particularly in the success of Riverside Theatres, and he currently serves as an Advisory Board Member. He has been a strong advocate for preserving Parramatta’s heritage and history. Cr Wilson is also a member of Council’s Significant Property Projects and 100th Anniversary of World War 1 Committees.


- 3 -

5. I would like to congratulate all three Councillors on their contribution, and service to the

Parramatta LGA community. A dinner will be arranged to celebrate the receipt of the Councillor Service Awards by Cr Esber, Cr Finn, and Cr Wilson.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Memo - Councillor Service Awards 3 Pages REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 0.0 - Attachment 1 Memo - Councillor Service Awards

Attachment 1 Page 4

M E M O

Folder Number: F2005/02435

To Lord Mayor All Councillors

Date 2 March 2016

Copies CEO, Greg Dyer

From Margaret Grunsell Manager Lord Mayor and Councillor Support

Through

Subject

Councillor Long Service Awards

Background On 7 December 2015, Council resolved: Councillor Service Awards

a) That staff undertake the appropriate investigations with a view to ensuring that any Councillor receives the appropriate certificate or award for length of service;

b) That Council investigate whether the position of Emeritus Mayor applies to Councillor Chedid; and

c) Further, that Council undertake an appropriate ceremony if required to recognise individual Councillors

About Long Service Awards Local Government NSW (LGNSW) grants three awards for long serving elected members who meet the following eligibility criteria:

• Outstanding Service Award o Elected members that have completed a cumulative total of at least 20 years’ service to

Local Government in NSW • Certificate of Service – an acknowledgement of the work of retiring or long serving elected

members: o Retired elected members: completion of two terms (eight years); or o Currently serving elected members: completion of three terms (12 years)

• Emeritus Mayor Certificate – recipients must have served as Mayor for either: o A minimum of three one-year terms, or o One full term as a popularly elected Mayor

At the 2015 LGNSW Annual Conference, LGNSW President Keith Rhoades presented 25 service awards to NSW Councillors at the Conference gala dinner, in all three award categories. The vast majority of the recipients had served more than 20 years in local government. To apply for an award, Council must complete an order form and allow for a minimum four weeks for delivery.


Attachment 1 Page 5

Update on Council Resolution

a) That staff undertake the appropriate investigations with a view to ensuring that any Councillor receives the appropriate certificate or award for length of service.

Currently the following Councillors are eligible for recognition in accordance with eligibility criteria:

• Councillor Wearne, having marked her 20th year as Councillor in September 2015, is eligible for the Outstanding Service Award;

• Councillor Esber, having marked his 16th year as Councillor in September 2015, is eligible for the Certificate of Service;

• Councillor Finn, having marked her 16th year as Councillor in September 2015, is eligible for the Certificate of Service; and

• Councillor Wilson, having marked his 16th year as Councillor in September 2015, is eligible for the Certificate of Service.

The Outstanding Service Award was awarded to the Lord Mayor, Councillor Garrard, in 2006 and 2014 in recognition of his service to Parramatta City Council. This included a civic reception at Granville Town Hall, held on 18 September 2014, to mark the Lord Mayor’s 40 Years of Service.

b) That Council investigate whether the position of Emeritus Mayor applies to Councillor Chedid

Confirmation was received from LGNSW that the title of Emeritus Mayor applies to Councillor Chedid, in conjunction with the current Lord Mayor. LGNSW has advised that Councillor Chedid was issued an Emeritus Mayor certificate in 2014 and the current Lord Mayor was awarded Emeritus Mayor in 2004, in recognition of their service to Parramatta City Council. Although several attempts to present Cr Chedid with his Emeritus Mayor certificate were arranged by staff no formal presentation has taken place.

c) Further, that Council undertake an appropriate ceremony if required to recognise individual Councillors

Confirmation was sought from Karen Rolls, LGNSW Events Coordinator, to confirm whether LGNSW is hosting any upcoming events to honour Long Service Award recipients, or if the Gala Dinner during the LGNSW Annual Conference will include the presentation of service awards to NSW Councillors. The LGNSW Annual Conference for this year is scheduled to be held on 16 – 18 October 2016 at WIN Entertainment Centre, Corner Crown & Harbour Streets, Wollongong, and will include the presentation of service awards to NSW Councillors. Karen Rolls has confirmed that Emeritus Mayor and Outstanding Service Awards are presented at the LGNSW Annual Conference gala dinner if requested by the Council. Certificates of Service are not presented at the Conference. It is the understanding of LGNSW that other Councils present their Certificates of Service at Council meetings. This ensures that the event is minuted for future records. Next Steps


Attachment 1 Page 6

In consideration of the LGNSW response, the presentation of Cr Wearne’s Outstanding Service Award will take place at the 2016 LGNSW Annual Conference. Further to this, arrangements are also being made for Cr Chedid’s Emeritus Mayor Certificate and the Lord Mayor’s 40 years Outstanding Service Award to be presented at the Conference as well. Applications for the Certificates of Service Awards for Councillors Esber, Finn and Wilson have now been submitted with LGNSW, and upon receipt by Council of the Certificates, a presentation will be arranged for an upcoming Council meeting, in conjunction with a civic event. Margaret Grunsell Manager Lord Mayor and Councillor Support


- 1 -

MINUTE OF LORD MAYOR ITEM NUMBER 0.0 SUBJECT Fit for the Future Update REFERENCE F2015/03577 - D04194543 REPORT OF The Lord Mayor, Councillor Paul Garrard PURPOSE: The purpose of this Minute is to provide an update to Council on the preparation for potential merger proposals being announced by the NSW Government. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council receive and note the Lord Mayoral Minute. BACKGROUND

1. Parramatta City Council is still awaiting a formal announcement from the NSW Government regarding the outcome of the Fit for the Future merger proposals affecting Parramatta.

2. In the event an announcement that results in changes to the current Parramatta

City Council local government area is made, Council is committed to ensuring that all services to the community continue as normal. An internal staff working group has been established to carry out the extensive preparation work required for this potential transition.

3. Parramatta City Council staff are also working closely with surrounding

Councils that are impacted by the merger proposals. This includes the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would be ready for signature by the new councils in the event of a NSW Government proclamation. The MOU seeks to formalise the commitment from the new Councils to continue to work collaboratively to ensure ongoing service provision to areas that are transferring from one Council to another. The MOU foreshadows the need for a Transitional Services Agreement to also be entered into between the new Councils, to ensure ongoing delivery of services under commercial arrangements.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL HWL Ebsworth, a member of Council’s legal panel, has been engaged to assist in drafting the MOU. These costs will be funded from within existing 2015/2016 budgets.


- 2 -

ATTACHMENTS: There are no attachments for this report. REFERENCE MATERIAL


PUBLIC FORUM 1 SUBJECT Development Application - 2 Elonera Street, Rydalmere

REFERENCE DA/796/2015 FROM Pierre Saab

“

Good Evening Lord Mayor, Councillors and Council Staff; I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight on behalf of the applicant. We respond to council’s objections as follows: 1. SITE CONSOLIDATION: Council made it clear through a Pre lodgement meeting that lot amalgamation was preferred. The advice was taken and a joint venture was proposed with neighbour at 1 Burbang Cr. Rydalmere. An agreement between both parties was not reached. The owner of 1 Burbang Cr composed a signed statement stating clearly that he “does NOT wish to partake in a joint venture” and also states that “sale of his property to the applicant is NOT an option.” This evidence was submitted to council. Comments were left stating No 1 Burbang Cr will be left as an isolated site, if 2 Elonera St were to be developed; however this is not the case, as 1 Burbang is able to be developed on its own or can amalgamate with its adjoining site at 3 Burbang Cr. As an alternative, detailed submissions have been provided dealing with this “ site isolation” issue from Macquarie Lawyers. Concept drawings showing possible future development for these sites has also been submitted to council’s planning team. There is a case at 101 Alfred St. ROSEHILL comprising of 4 units. This site has a frontage of 20m and a lot size of 405m2 which do not meet minimum requirements. However it was recently approved as a single lot development. Our lot size is 670m2, with a frontage of 24m, meeting minimum requirements. 2. DESIGN QUALITY Council staff has commented on the aesthetics of the proposed design; however the design fits within the characteristics of the street and other approved applications in the area such as 18-20 Burbang Cr. and 37 Park Rd. RYDALMERE. 3. BUILDING ENVELOPE – SETBACKS With regards to the front setback, a significant portion complies being 5m. The rear setback complies varying from 5.3-5.6m. Current side setbacks are compliant following council’s DCP at 4.5m, with minimum

transition in non-habitable areas. There were comments left regarding the ADG building separation, which implements privacy controls. In our current design, all windows addressing the Eastern and Western boundaries have a sill height of 1800mm, this achieves the required visual and acoustic privacy, however if council are still not pleased, a condition of consent stating further amendments to the design of the windows can be placed, and can be implemented without any significant amendments to the design. There have been single lot cases where site setbacks have not met requirements, however still granted approval. They include 101 Alfred St ROSEHILL, 17 Lydbrook St WESTMEAD and 4 Bolton St GUILDFORD where side setbacks are only at 2.5m-3m, whereas we tend to set at 4.5m. 4. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE A comment from council’s pre DA meeting, where a rooftop communal space was proposed by us states: “There is the potential for substantial amenity impacts, both visual and acoustic, if a rooftop communal open space is provided. Considering that it may take 5-10 years for adjacent sites to develop, the notion of rooftop communal open space in a predominantly existing low density residential area may not be a suitable design outcome in the short term” Accordingly, any rooftop communal open space, was not pursued. Nevertheless, the private open space complies in area and is functional. Council is to note that the private open space is to the south by virtue of the north-south orientation of the site. 5. PARKING The parking rates used to calculate the parking requirement for the proposed development is based on the rates found in ARH SEPP 2009 and the deficiency of 1 parking space has been previously justified by APEX Engineers and complies with the requirements outlined in ARH SEPP 2009. There is no deficiency of 4 spaces as council staff suggests. Council would also now have had the benefit of legal advice which advises that SEPP ARH 2009 principles apply to the whole development therefore making our proposal compliant and not just to the units identified as Affordable Housing. Please refer to notes left in your memo tonight, as council’s team planning leader Wendy Wang would have confirmed and addressed this. Accordingly, the basis upon which the assessing officer has assessed parking as inadequate is flawed. The parking is compliant. With reference to 101 Alfred St. ROSEHILL, it was approved where 4 parking spots were allocated for 4 units. 17 Lydbrook St. WESTMEAD was approved where 9 car spots were allocated for 9 units (ARH). 37 Park Rd. RYDALMERE was approved for 5 car spots for 5 dwellings (ARH). My proposal is for 8 units and an allocation of 8 car spots has been provided, making it compliant. 6. DEEP SOIL ZONE AND LANDSCAPE

As our application is based under SEPP ARH 2009, therefore these controls should be implemented. Under the SEPP, minimum Deep Soil Zone of 15% and minimum 30% area for Landscape is required. Our design is comprised of 18% Deep Soil Zone and 30.3% Landscaped area, as shown on architectural drawings. Therefore compliant. The same legal premise as outlined in respect of parking also applies to this issue. 7. TREE PRESERVATION As part of the additional information submitted to council in February 2016, the report from Horticultural Management Services (dated 18 January 2016) clearly identified all neighbouring trees and outlining safe protection measures, during construction, without having to remove any neighbouring trees. Accordingly, this information has been submitted. 8. PUBLIC INTEREST It is to be noted that only ONE submission was received during the advertising period. Mr Lord Mayor and fellow Councillors, we seek your support in approving the application subject to conditions of consent addressing any possible privacy issues, if needed so. Thank you.”

Public Forum 2 2 SUBJECT Planning Proposal for land at 55 Aird Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE RZ/18/2015 FROM Aleksandar Jelicic

“Council Response

• The impact of the proposal on the development of the neighbouring sites to Church Street. • The ability of the development to satisfy

Apartment Design Guidelines with regards to setbacks/solar access. • Amentity of south facing apartments • Impact of the development on the street wall and potential bulk and scale. Modified Proposed Form Statewide met with Parramatta City Council's planning managers and architect on two occasions to discuss the design development process and planning proposal for this site. At the first meeting the impacts of the proposal on the development potential of the neighbouring sites to Church St was discussed. Subsequent to this meeting, an investigation was undertaken to determine the best possible urban design outcome for the subject site and the adjoining sites fronting Church St. A masterplan was developed for the area which investigated how the area would develop in a way which satisfied the DCP and ADG. This masterplan was presented to Parramatta's planning managers and architect at the second meeting. At this meeting council advised that they wanted the proposed building pulled back to the south in order to create a larger open space between the proposed buildings . As a result the proposed building was pulled back an additional 6m resulting in only one south facing unit. Council also expressed a desire to see breaks and gaps between the proposed building and future built form.

As a result of these meeting Statewide modified the preferred form to: • 38 storeys • 4 units per floor (previously 5 units) • FSR 15:1 • Increase setback to the south to satisfy ADG separation and create larger open space between buildings • Highly articulated street wall, with breaks and gaps between buildings to avoid a continuous street wall • Multiple slender towers rather than a large tower massing Council’s Recommendations The controls proposed by Council are a dramatic departure from those discussed with council in previous meetings. Council are proposing: • Maximum FSR 6:1 • Require 1:1 commercial floor space • Apply no height limit The consolidated site option proposed by Council as a means of achieving greater FSR is based on the following assumptions: • Likelihood of 7 sites amalgamating instead of sites developing independently • Large tower form is a better design outcome than multiple slender towers • Large blank wall to south facade in order to meet ADG separation with neighbouring buildings.”

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT55 AIRD STREET, PARRAMATTAFOR STATEWIDE PLANNINGMAY 2016

ORI

GIN

AL

PRO

POSE

D FO

RM

aleksandardesign group

55 AIRD STREETPARRAMATTA

ORIGINAL PROPOSED FORM

HEIGHT OF BUILDING

• 38 storeys/ 120m max

FSR

20:1

SETBACKS

Podium:

• Nil setbacks

Tower:

• 0m front setback

• 6m rear setback

FLOOR PLATE

• 5 UNITS/LEVEL (GFA 390sqm)

COUNCIL RESPONSE

• The impact of the proposal on the

development of the neighbouring sites to

Church Street.

• The ability of the development to satisfy

Apartment Design Guidelines with

regards to setbacks/solar access.

• Amentity of south facing apartments

• Impact of the development on the

street wall and potential bulk and scale.

CH

UR

CH

STR

EE

T

CAMPBELL STREET

AIRD STREET

FUTU

RE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T22

STO

REY

TO

WER

FUTU

RE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T8

STO

REY

PO

DIU

M

13.715

14.325

46

.965

46

.89

AIRD STREET

GROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 07

LEVEL 08

LEVEL 09

LEVEL 10

LEVEL 11

LEVEL 12

LEVEL 13

LEVEL 14

LEVEL 15

LEVEL 16

LEVEL 17

LEVEL 18

LEVEL 19

LEVEL 20

LEVEL 21

LEVEL 22

LEVEL 23

LEVEL 24

LEVEL 25

LEVEL 26

LEVEL 27

LEVEL 28

LEVEL 29

LEVEL 30

LEVEL 31

LEVEL 32

LEVEL 33

LEVEL 34

LEVEL 35

LEVEL 36

LEVEL 37

LEVEL 38

26m DCP PODIUM

120m MAX HEIGHT

36m LEP HEIGHT

WESTFIELD

PO

DIU

MA

BO

VE

GR

OU

ND

PA

RK

ING

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L TO

WE

R

6m S

ETB

AC

K

41m HORIZONTAL DIMENSION

3:1 VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL RATIO

AIRD ST

WESTFIELD

GROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 07

LEVEL 08

LEVEL 09

LEVEL 10

LEVEL 11

LEVEL 12

LEVEL 13

LEVEL 14

LEVEL 15

LEVEL 16

LEVEL 17

LEVEL 18

LEVEL 19

LEVEL 20

LEVEL 21

LEVEL 22

LEVEL 23

LEVEL 24

LEVEL 25

LEVEL 26

LEVEL 27

LEVEL 28

LEVEL 29

LEVEL 30

LEVEL 31

LEVEL 32

LEVEL 33

LEVEL 34

LEVEL 35

26m DCP PODIUM HEIGHT

120m MAX BUILD HEIGHT

36m LEP HEIGHT

LEVEL 36

LEVEL 37

LEVEL 38

PO

DIU

MA

BO

VE

GR

OU

ND

PA

RK

ING

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L TO

WE

R

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT30 STOREY

CHURCH ST

AIRD ST

14.3m HORIZONTAL DIMENSION8:1 VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL RATIO

SITE PLAN

AIRD ST ELEVATION

SECTION

TN

13.7

15

14.3

25

46.965

46.89

AIR

D

S

TRE

ET

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Statewide met with Parramatta City Council's

planning managers and architect on two

occasions to discuss the design development

process and planning proposal for this site.

At the first meeting the impacts of the proposal

on the development potential of the

neighbouring sites to Church St was discussed.

Subsequent to this meeting, an investigation

was undertaken to determine the best possible

urban design outcome for the subject site and

the adjoining sites fronting Church St. A

masterplan was developed for the area which

investigated how the area would develop in a

way which satisfied the DCP and ADG.

This masterplan was presented to Parramatta's

planning managers and architect at the

second meeting. At this meeting council

advised that they wanted the proposed

building pulled back to the south in order to

create a larger open space between the

proposed buildings . As a result the proposed

building was pulled back an additional 6m

resulting in only one south facing unit. Council

also expressed a desire to see breaks and gaps

between the proposed building and future built

form.

As a result of these meeting Statewide modified

the preferred form to:

• 38 storeys

• 4 units per floor (previously 5 units)

• FSR 15:1

• Increase setback to the south to satisfy ADG

separation and create larger open space

between buildings

• Highly articulated street wall, with breaks and

gaps between buildings to avoid a continuous

street wall

• Multiple slender towers rather than a large

tower massing

GROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 07

LEVEL 08

26m DCP PODIUM

36m LEP HEIGHT

LEVEL 09

LEVEL 10

LEVEL 11

LEVEL 12

LEVEL 13

LEVEL 14

LEVEL 15

LEVEL 16

LEVEL 17

LEVEL 18

LEVEL 19

LEVEL 20

LEVEL 21

LEVEL 22

LEVEL 23

LEVEL 24

LEVEL 25

LEVEL 26

LEVEL 27

LEVEL 28

LEVEL 29

LEVEL 30

LEVEL 31

LEVEL 32

LEVEL 33

LEVEL 34

LEVEL 35

LEVEL 36

LEVEL 37

WESTFIELD

PO

DIU

MA

BO

VE

GR

OU

ND

PA

RK

ING

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L TO

WE

R

12m

SE

TBA

CK


3.5:1 VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL RATIO

AIRD ST

MO

DIFI

ED P

ROPO

SED

FORM



CH

UR

CH

STR

EE

T

CAMPBELL STREET

AIRD STREET

SITE PLAN

AIRD ST ELEVATION

SECTION

MODIFIED PROPOSED FORM

WESTFIELD

GROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 07

LEVEL 08

LEVEL 09

LEVEL 10

LEVEL 11

LEVEL 12

LEVEL 13

LEVEL 14

LEVEL 15

LEVEL 16

LEVEL 17

LEVEL 18

LEVEL 19

LEVEL 20

LEVEL 21

LEVEL 22

LEVEL 23

LEVEL 24

LEVEL 25

LEVEL 26

LEVEL 27

LEVEL 28

LEVEL 29

LEVEL 30

LEVEL 31

LEVEL 32

LEVEL 33

LEVEL 34


36m LEP HEIGHT

LEVEL 35

LEVEL 36

LEVEL 37

PO

DIU

MA

BO

VE

GR

OU

ND

PA

RK

ING

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L TO

WE

R

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

CHURCH ST

AIRD ST

14.3m HORIZONTAL DIMENSION8.6:1 VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL RATIO

55 Aird Street

Amalgamated Site A

Amalgamated Site B

CHURCH STREET

AIRD STREET

TN

GROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 07

LEVEL 08

26m DCP PODIUM

36m LEP HEIGHT

LEVEL 09

LEVEL 10

LEVEL 11

LEVEL 12

LEVEL 13

LEVEL 14

LEVEL 15

LEVEL 16

LEVEL 17

LEVEL 18

LEVEL 19

LEVEL 20

LEVEL 21

LEVEL 22

LEVEL 23

LEVEL 24

LEVEL 25

LEVEL 26

LEVEL 27

LEVEL 28

LEVEL 29

LEVEL 30

LEVEL 31

LEVEL 32

LEVEL 33

LEVEL 34

LEVEL 35

LEVEL 36

LEVEL 37

WESTFIELD

PO

DIU

MA

BO

VE

GR

OU

ND

PA

RK

ING

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L TO

WE

R

12m

SE

TBA

CK


3.5:1 VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL RATIO

AIRD ST

MO

DIFI

ED P

ROPO

SED

FORM



CH

UR

CH

STR

EE

T

CAMPBELL STREET

AIRD STREET

SITE PLAN

AIRD ST ELEVATION

SECTION

The controls proposed by Council are a

dramatic departure from those discussed with

council in previous meetings.

Council are proposing:

• Maximum FSR 6:1

• Require 1:1 commercial floor space

• Apply no height limit

The consolidated site option proposed by

Council as a means of achieving greater FSR is

based on the following assumptions:

• Likelihood of 7 sites amalgamating instead of

sites developing independently

• Large tower form is a better design outcome

than multiple slender towers

• Large blank wall to south facade in order to

meet ADG separation with neighbouring

buildings

COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATIONS

WESTFIELD

GROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 07

LEVEL 08

LEVEL 09

LEVEL 10

LEVEL 11

LEVEL 12

LEVEL 13

LEVEL 14

LEVEL 15

LEVEL 16

LEVEL 17

LEVEL 18

LEVEL 19

LEVEL 20

LEVEL 21

LEVEL 22

LEVEL 23

LEVEL 24

LEVEL 25

LEVEL 26

LEVEL 27

LEVEL 28

LEVEL 29

LEVEL 30

LEVEL 31

LEVEL 32

LEVEL 33

LEVEL 34


36m LEP HEIGHT

LEVEL 35

LEVEL 36

LEVEL 37

PO

DIU

MA

BO

VE

GR

OU

ND

PA

RK

ING

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L TO

WE

R

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

CHURCH ST

AIRD ST

14.3m HORIZONTAL DIMENSION8.6:1 VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL RATIO

55 Aird Street

Amalgamated Site A

Amalgamated Site B

CHURCH STREET

AIRD STREET

TN

MASSING TO BE REMOVED

MASSING TO BE REMOVED

DISPROPORTIONATE SKYLINE PROFILE

Council's proposed consolidated site massing

Public forum 3 3 SUBJECT Resident Parking Permit and Parking Infringement

REFERENCE F2016/00103 FROM Ms Grace Vaughan

1 As tabled. “I have written and appealed to several sections of Council in relation to:(1) Revoking Penalty Infringement Notice (ALREADY PAID) (2) Support for Resident Parking Permit outlining current parking situation as a result of subdivision leaving my properties with no parking in CBD. Although have received unfavourable replies, I make further appeal to whole of Council. Indicating that due diligence was not given to my property for retention of proper parking facility (as recently bought and new resident) when Council approved DA/406/2014A application to developer for subdivision (of 3 - which includes my two properties, and turning the backyards of both as the third for development) and giving subsequent approval for development of Units to be built on the third portion of land. Because of this approval, (1) I am left with no Parking facility, and (2) incurred expense from Parking Infringement as a result. This situation will continue to accrue parking infringements if matter is left unresolved. As a rate payer of two properties, side by side (49-51 High St Parramatta), 63 years of age with problematic lower back issues history, I appeal to whole of Council as a last resort, for amicable resolution, otherwise, I will be left disadvantaged by continuous infringement penalty notices due to parking outside my residence which is a mixed zone with parking exclusions. This situation remain problematic as far as having to search for alternative all-day parking due to my working from home. Lastly, my question to Council, given the above clarification and explanation, on what grounds am I been denied resident parking permits when there is no equitable alternative left to me and my family members for parking. I appeal to Council to make an exception, in this instance, to be able to park in the CBD address given the disadvantages of recurring subsequent penalties and ageing problematic lower back condition. (Permission given to Council to acquire doctor's report/info of my medical condition - Dr Kumar, Majors Bay Medical Centre, ph:9736 3697) Thank you in anticipation for including my concerns at the next Council meeting.”

Response by Ms Sue Weatherley – Director Strategic Outcomes and Development:- “Council officers have investigated the circumstance with which the fine was issued. It appears that this was the first parking fine received by Mrs Vaughan. Council is on this occasion as with other first time offence and given all the circumstances involved in this situation able to offer a caution for this first offence and arrange with the SDRO, to organise a refund in full the amount of the fine. It is also noted that Mrs Vaughan makes mention of her lower back problems. As such I would recommend that Mrs Vaughan apply for a Mobility Parking Scheme exemption via the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS), which if approved would allow her to park in her street without any time restriction under the current 2 hour sign posted limit, this would however be subject to the acceptance and approval by the RMS. In relation to the establishment of a resident parking scheme in this area, providing permits to the residents would reduce the availability of on-street parking for clients of local businesses. This will become increasingly important as further development occurs in this area in the future. Future development is likely to be mainly high density residential. Furthermore, if permits were issued to residents, the number of permits issued would exceed the amount of on-street parking available. There are many benefits of living in the Parramatta CBD, such as proximity to employment, shopping, entertainment and public transport. However, these facilities rely on having on-street parking available to customers and clients.”

NOTE Councillor J P Abood left the meeting at 7.20pm during consideration of this matter.

1

M E M O

Folder Number: DA/796/2015

To Lord Mayor All Councillors

Date 4 May 2016

Copies Sue Weatherley – Director Strategic Outcome and Development

Through Mark Leotta - Manager Development Assessment and Traffic Services

From Wendy Wang -Team Leader Development Assessment

Subject 2 Elonera Street, Rydalmere NSW 2116 (Lot 1 in DP 219237) Demolition, tree removal, and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 8 units (2 of which have been nominated as affordable rental housing units) over a single level basement carpark for 8 vehicles. The building application is made pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 (ARH SEPP 2009).

Discussion This development application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal involves the construction of a residential flat building which seeks to rely on the provisions of ARH SEPP 2009. A detailed assessment of the proposed development was undertaken by Council’s Development Assessment Officer and subsequently recommended for refusal for reasons relating to site isolation, non-compliance with design quality principles under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65), parking provision, and relevant assessment criteria as prescribed by Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP) and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 (PDCP 2011). The application was to be reported and determined at the Council meeting on 11 April 2016. The applicant, in correspondence dated 6 April 2016, requested that the matter be deferred to the meeting of 9 May 2016. Consequently, Council at its meeting on 11 April 2016 resolved: - “That consideration of this matter be deferred to the Council Meeting to be held on 9 May 2016.” Significant to this application, Item No. 5 of the recommendation states: -

2

5. The proposed development does not achieve compliance with Clause 14 ‘Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent’ of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Control 3J ‘Bicycle and car parking’ of the NSW Apartment Design Guide as it is deficient four (4) car parking spaces which would result in an unacceptable decrease in the availability of on-street car parking in the vicinity of the site.

At the time of assessment, it was considered that that the parking standards outlined in the ARH SEPP 2009 relate to the affordable units only and that the standards in the ADG apply to the market units. On this basis, the applicant would be required to provide 12 parking spaces in total (2 and 10 allocated to the affordable and market units, respectively). The proposal included provision of only 8 parking spaces contained within the basement and represents a deficiency of 4 spaces. This issue formed reason to refuse the application. Council has since sought and obtained independent legal advice (dated 22 April 2016) confirming that where ARH SEPP 2009 is applicable to a development, Clause 14(2)(ii) relating to parking provision will apply to the development in its entirety. As the application proposes 1 x 1 bedroom unit (calculated at 0.5 spaces), 5 x 2 bedroom units (calculated at 5 spaces), and 2 x 3 bedroom units (calculated at 3 spaces). The total requirement for onsite parking provision is therefore 9 spaces (rounded up from 8.5 spaces). The current scheme therefore represents a shortfall of only 1 space in accordance with the applicable parking provision requirements as contained in ARH SEPP 2009 and no longer warrants refusal of the application based on parking grounds. Notwithstanding, there remains numerous non-compliances arising from specific design issues (as outlined in the Section 79C assessment report) inherent to the site which require a more holistic and strategic approach with a view to amalgamate with adjoining sites to achieve the best outcome as clearly outlined by applicable planning controls. The recommendation for refusal should be upheld based on the amended reasons as outlined below: - RECOMMENDATION (a) That Council as the consent authority refuse DA/796/2015 for demolition, tree

removal, excavation of single storey basement car park for 8 vehicles and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 8 units under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 at 2 Elonera Street, Rydalmere NSW for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development does not achieve compliance with sections 3.7.2

‘Site Consolidation and Development on Isolated Sites’ and 4.1.4 ‘East Rydalmere Precinct’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, Clause 16A ‘Character of Local Area’ of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, design quality principle No. 3 ‘Density’ outlined in Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design

3

Quality of Residential Apartment Developments and the R4 ‘high density residential’ zone objectives outlined in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the development fails to amalgamate land to achieve a regular shaped development site, results in isolation of adjoining sites, does not optimize the residential density of the area, contributes to inconsistency of development within the area and creates an undesirable precedent for future development.

2. The proposed development does not achieve compliance with design quality

principles No. 1 ‘Context & Neighborhood Character’ and No. 10’Aesthetics’ outlined in Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Clause 16A ‘Character of Local Area’ of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, and Section 3.2.2 ‘Building Facades and Articulation’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 particularly with respect to the front façade, which does not respond to the desirable elements of the areas existing character, and is not of a high quality of design.


principle No. 2 ‘Build Form and Scale’ outlined in Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Control 2F ‘Building Separation’ of the NSW Apartment Design Guide and Sections 3.1 ‘Preliminary Building Envelope’ and 3.3.3 ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 as it does not provide sufficient building separation and setbacks which would result in a building of unacceptable bulk and scale, negatively impact the streetscape, result in unacceptable overlooking of habitable windows and private open space on adjoining properties and create an undesirable precedent for future development.


principle No. 6 ‘Amenity’ outlined in Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Control 3D ‘Communal and public open space’ of the NSW Apartment Design Guide and Section 3.3.2 ‘Private and Communal Open Space’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 as the proposal does not provide acceptable outlook from habitable rooms and does not provide communal open space with sufficient solar access.

5. The proposed development does not achieve compliance with Clause 3.1

‘Preliminary Building Envelope’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 as it does not provide sufficient deep soil zones or landscaping which would result in unacceptable run off from the site to downstream properties, limit the capacity of the site to provide planting, reduce space between buildings, contributes to the heat island effect, and insufficient habitat for local fauna.

6. The proposed development does not achieve compliance with Clause 5.9

‘Preservation of trees or vegetation’ of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it does not demonstrate that the site works would adequately protect the trees on adjoining properties.

4

7. The proposal is not in the public interest. (b) Further, that the objectors are advised of Council’s decision.

Wendy Wang Team Leader - Development Assessment Development Assessment Services

1

Joy Bramham

From: Depei Jin <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, 8 May 2016 8:22 PMTo: [email protected]; Joy BramhamSubject: Public forum- 146 Kissing Point Road,NSW 2117

Dear Grant and Joy, Greetings from Rev.David King ( Rev.Depei Jin) I would like to speak to public forum tomorrow night. I would like to speak about DA/276/2015, 146 Kissing Point 'Road Dundas NSW 2117. This is on the agenda tomorrow night so it is urgent that I speak to Council. Thank you for your consideration. I would like to say the following: " Good evening Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor and Councillors. I would like to speak about the proposed development at 146 Kissing Point Rd, Dundas. I live next door. I have lived there for fourteen years. I have lived in Dundas for twenty years." I was Minister for the Carlingford Uniting Church fro six years. After that I served the Lord in Central Baptist Church for thirteen years. This year I commenced serving the Lord in Wesley Mission in Pitt St Sydney. I live with my wife and son in Dundas and I regularly have guests in my home. I am concerned about this development for the development for the following reasons: 1. My family and I are private people. This development will undermine our privacy. If we go out to our backyard people will be able to view us summing and other activities. 2. I am not against development of this property. However this development is too much. 3. Three units would be fine but five units is too much. 4. I would ask Council to consider my families interests above the developers. Thank you for hearing my concerns.“ Yours sincerely Rev David King (Rev.Depei Jin) (My mobile phone number is 0420-314088)

bramhamj

Documents

Council (Development) 9 May 2016 Item 0.0 MINUTE OF LORD …€¦ · Council (Development) 9 May 2016 Item 0.0 - 1 - MINUTE OF LORD MAYOR ITEM NUMBER 0.0 . SUBJECT . Parramatta Local