Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 10 October 2005

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*The City in its Broader Context*

The City in its Broader Context

Preparation of a new integrated Local Plan for the City

4114/65

Compiled by: Allegra Zakis - Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Ruth Goldsmith - Local Planning Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The community and City organisations are informed on issues relevant to metropolitan growth and development that affect the City and the reasons for Council’s response to them.

Critical Action: Develop a City-wide Integrated Local Plan.

Purpose:

To update Council on the status of the State Government's planning reform process. The report recommends that Council endorse the preparation of the Citywide integrated Local Plan.

Background

In recent years the State Government has been gradually implementing reforms to the planning system, in recognition of the need to simplify both the process of making local environmental plans, and the application of those plans and other planning instruments to development.

Penrith City Council has also long recognised the need to review and update the many planning controls that apply across the City. The Residential Strategy and subsequent preparation of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land), and the five volumes of the Residential Development Control Plan were the first stage in that process. The adoption of the Rural Lands Strategy represented the next step, however the pace of the Government’s reforms has recently hindered the preparation of the corresponding Rural Lands Plan.

Release and implementation of the full package of planning reforms proposed by the State Government appears to be imminent, making it timely for Council to now proceed to formally prepare the integrated Local Plan for the City. This Plan will incorporate the Rural Lands Plan, which was initially to be prepared as a stand-alone plan to implement the Rural Lands Strategy.

The Planning Reforms

The State Government’s reform package is wide ranging, and covers most parts of the planning system in New South Wales. There are a number of key features of the reforms, which are outlined briefly below –

Part 3A Major Infrastructure and other projects

This is a new Part being inserted into the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act), which deals with major infrastructure, including state significant development and critical infrastructure projects. This Part removes the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under Part 5 of the Act for projects that have either been determined by the Minister to be ‘critical infrastructure’ or fit the criteria for ‘state significant development’. In this instance the Department will determine assessment criteria for the project, and assess whether the project should go ahead.

There are some provisions relating to public exhibition of the various assessment reports, however the Department determines the detail required. There does not appear to be a requirement that the Department consult with the relevant local council when preparing the assessment guidelines or assessing the project, although it would clearly demonstrate ‘best practice’ for consultations to occur.

Once an approval has been granted for a project under this Part, the majority of other approvals that would be required under other Acts (including the Heritage Act, the Rural Fires Act and various biodiversity conservation Acts) are no longer required. Projects can also be modified without further assessment, provided the modifications are consistent with the original approval. At this stage, no projects in Penrith have been identified as either ‘critical infrastructure’ or of ‘state significance’.

Schedule 2 Planning Instruments Amendments

This Section introduces three key amendments to the way in which planning instruments are prepared and applied to land across NSW. Firstly, it introduces the staged repeal program for LEPs, which requires that councils prepare a single Local Environmental Plan (LEP) in accordance with the standard template. Council is currently in the early stages of preparing a single integrated Local Plan for Penrith. More detail on this Plan is provided later in this report.

Secondly, it introduces a requirement that only one Development Control Plan (DCP) apply to any one block of land within the City. This will require a review of DCPs, which the Department is encouraging councils to undertake as they review their LEPs. The implications of this approach are discussed in more detail later in this report.

Thirdly, this Section introduces a new provision that applies a time limit to the assessment of DCPs submitted by a proponent or landowner. Council has a number of LEPs that currently require that a DCP or Masterplan be prepared prior to the submission of a development application. This provision is most relevant in these cases, as Council will now have a maximum of 60 days to assess submitted DCPs. If this time limit is exceeded, the applicant may lodge a development application, regardless of the provisions of the LEP.

In addition to the above, this Schedule also includes a provision that appears to make Tree Preservation Orders subject to appeal in the Land and Environment Court, as if they were a development consent or refusal. It also allows minor amendments to LEPs to correct obvious mistakes (typographical errors, numbering, cross referencing etc) without going through the full LEP process.

Schedule 3 Development Consent amendments

The key provision of this Section allows a proponent to submit a staged Development Application instead of a DCP, where an LEP requires that a DCP be prepared. A staged DA submitted under this Section must still include all the detail required of a DCP, but may also include additional detail on the first stage of proposed development, thus removing the need to separately seek development consent.

The Local Plan template

One of the key features of the planning reforms is the introduction of the standard template for Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), combined with the requirement that all councils must prepare a single LEP that conforms to the template.

A draft LEP template was released in the second half of 2004 and a more recent version, which incorporates comments made in response to the exhibition of the initial draft, has just been released. The second draft of the template is currently on public exhibition, with submissions due by 4 November 2005.

The Department of Planning has established a timeframe for all local councils to review their current planning instruments and prepare a single, integrated Plan for their local government area. Should a council not meet the timeframe, the amendments to the Act give the Minister the authority to repeal that council’s existing LEPs, and hand over preparation of its integrated Local Plan to the Department. Penrith City Council has been verbally advised that it is a ‘two year’ council (along with most other Western Sydney councils), with an identified completion date of December 2007. This date is currently dependent upon the Department finalising the template, which is anticipated by December 2005.

The integrated Local Plan must conform to the standard template. Now that the draft template has been released, Council has a clearer indication of its likely form and content. The template will include 25 standard zones, each with a list of permissible and prohibited uses. Councils can add to these lists, to make other uses either permissible or prohibited in that zone, but cannot remove uses from these lists. Permissible and prohibited uses are drawn from a list of approximately 250 definitions that must all be included in every Plan. Not every use defined in the Plan is included in the lists of permissible and prohibited uses for each zone, giving Council reasonable flexibility regarding which uses are allowed in specific areas across the City.

The draft template also contains approximately 50 provisions covering issues such as subdivision of land, bushfire control, flood-prone land, heritage, community use of schools and the like. Some of these provisions will have to be included in all LEPs, and others (for example, acid sulphate soils and coastal zones) will only have to be included if they are relevant to a particular local government area. There will not be any opportunity to vary the wording of those provisions which are included, though there will be opportunity to insert detail, for example lot sizes or floor space ratios. The Department has indicated that additional provisions may be added to the Plan, if a council can demonstrate that they are necessary.

The draft template will be assessed during the coming weeks and, if necessary, a submission forwarded to the Department. This assessment will include –

· reviewing the list of prohibited and permissible uses to determine if any additions should be made

· reviewing the optional provisions to determine which ones should be included

· determining if any additional provisions are required.

Preparation of the Penrith Local Plan

Council has been aware of the need to prepare a new, single, Citywide planning instrument for Penrith for some time, and work has already commenced on its preparation. A comprehensive and sequenced approach for the preparation of the Plan has been developed, and a software package installed which will enable electronic delivery of not just the Local Plan, but a comprehensive Development Control Plan as well.

The integrated Penrith Local Plan will implement all of the strategic planning which has been undertaken in the past 3 years, as well as that which is currently underway, or due to be commenced within the next 12 months. The completed work includes the adopted Rural Lands Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy, as well as the Heritage Study, the Employment Strategy, and the City Centres’ Vitality and Viability Review, which are currently underway. Additionally, the Residential Strategy Review and the Integrated Land Use and Transport Study will commence next year, and will be incorporated into a later stage of the Local Plan.

The task of preparing a new Local Environmental Plan for the whole LGA is complex and, given the magnitude of the task, Council has consistently endorsed an approach whereby the Plan is developed in stages. This will allow incorporation of Strategies as they are completed, and ensure that resources are directed most effectively.

The Department of Planning has recently agreed to this approach, provided that the initial stage sets the framework for the entire Plan, so that compliance with the template can be demonstrated. The preparation of Council’s integrated Local Plan will initially involve applying the standard zones across the parts of the City where there is an adopted Strategy, and the identification of relevant template provisions.

The Department has also indicated that it will support gazettal of the stages as they are completed within the agreed overall framework, so that the Plan will progressively cover the City (and repeal any existing planning instruments) over the two-year timeframe. Accordingly, based on the proposed schedule for progressing the relevant Strategies, it is expected that the preparation of the Penrith Local Plan will broadly follow the steps outlined below –

· prepare the framework of the Local Plan, including broad zones where possible, definitions and Citywide provisions

· develop detailed planning controls for the Rural areas

· develop detailed planning controls for Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre

· develop detailed planning controls for Employment precincts (including industrial land and neighbourhood commercial centres)

· develop detailed planning controls for Residential precincts.

These tasks do not have to be undertaken sequentially. Completion of the Penrith Local Plan within the two-year timeframe is dependent upon finalising the remaining Strategies (eg City Centres’ Review, Residential Strategy Review), and also depends on available staff resources. It may be necessary to allocate additional staff to complete the Local Plan within the Department’s timeframe, however there are also significant benefits in completing the Local Plan as soon as possible, including –

· rationalisation of the existing plethora of planning instruments

· the provision of a comprehensive and user-friendly planning document for the City

· the provision of clear guidance for developers and assessment staff.

Initially, Council needs to formally consult with relevant public authorities, including the Department of Planning, regarding the preparation of the Plan. Some of this consultation has already occurred for the Rural Lands Plan, and the information gained from this previous consultation can be incorporated into the draft Plan. Depending on the timeframe for the legislation and commencement of the standard template, it is anticipated that the first stage of the Penrith Local Plan may be ready for exhibition in the first half of next year.

In order to meet this timeframe, it is necessary for Council to formally resolve to prepare the new Local Environmental Plan for the City, as the statutory consultation phase cannot commence prior to a resolution to prepare the Plan, and must be completed before the Plan can be placed on public exhibition.

Development Control Plan Review

Another key feature of the reforms is that only one Development Control Plan (DCP) will be able to apply to any particular site. Currently, Council has over twenty DCPs covering a range of issues that apply across the City (eg heritage, waste management, contaminated land, erosion and sedimentation control, parking and subdivision). This means that any one lot may be subject to a number of DCPs that guide types of development on that site. Council also currently has around 85 adopted DCPs, which relate to specific sites or areas in the City. In most cases, the issue based DCPs also apply to these areas.

Under the planning reforms, all relevant DCP provisions for any individual lot or property will have to be included in one document. This gives Council a number of options, including Precinct DCPs, a Citywide DCP, or a combination of a Citywide DCP for the majority of the City, with site specific DCPs for key sites or areas. At this stage it is proposed to prepare a Citywide DCP, which will be generally structured as outlined below –

· Introduction

· Citywide provisions (eg heritage, flooding, biodiversity, contaminated land, urban design)

· Land use based controls (rural, industrial, commercial, residential, recreation, environmental protection, special uses)

· Site specific controls, including key development sites and release areas

· Schedules.

The State Government reforms do not indicate a timeframe for the review of DCPs, although the Department has indicated that it expects councils to review DCP provisions in conjunction with the preparation of the new Local Environmental Plan. For that reason, work on the comprehensive DCP has also commenced, with a review of all adopted and draft DCPs currently being undertaken.

Depending on resourcing, and the commencement of the template, it is intended to prepare and exhibit the new LEP and new DCP concurrently, enabling the community to gain a better understanding of the full suite of planning controls that will apply to their property. The draft DCP will therefore be prepared in stages, to correspond with the stages of the new Local Environmental Plan.

Accordingly, Council also needs to resolve to prepare a draft Development Control Plan concurrently with the preparation of the new Penrith Local Plan.

Conclusion

Council is committed to the preparation of a single, integrated Local Plan for the City. A number of relevant Strategies been completed, and more are currently underway, due for completion in the next 12 – 18 months. This provides a comprehensive strategic basis for the relevant sections of the Local Plan, which can be prepared and implemented in stages.

Now that the draft template has been released, we can progress the preparation of the Local Plan by commencing the statutory consultations. These will identify issues that government departments and relevant authorities indicate should be addressed in the Plan.

Review of the Development Control Plans that currently apply across the City, in conjunction with the preparation of the integrated Local Plan, will allow preparation of the complete suite of planning controls for each area. This provides a comprehensive review, together with implementation of all relevant Strategies, and will give the community greater certainty regarding the new planning controls that will apply in their areas.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Council resolve to prepare the integrated Penrith Local Plan and concurrent draft Development Control Plan, with a further report to be presented prior to public exhibition of the first stages of both Plans.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Preparation of a new integrated Local Plan for the City be received

2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulations 2000, Council prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan for the City of Penrith, consistent with the standard template for Local Environmental Plans being prepared by the State Government

3. A Local Environmental Study not be required in this case, as the Plan will be supported by relevant studies and strategies

4. A further report be presented to Council prior to the public exhibition of the draft Local Environmental Plan

5. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Regulations 2000, Council prepare a draft Development Control Plan for the City of Penrith

6. A further report be presented to Council prior to the public exhibition of the draft Development Control Plan.

ATTACHMENTS/ANNEXURES

There are no attachments for this report

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Formula One Superboat Event

3032/7

Compiled by: Andrew Robinson - Recreation and Cultural Facilities Coordinator

Authorised by: Gary Dean - Facilities Operations Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City’s recreation and leisure facilities and services meet its needs and are optimally used.

Critical Action: Ensure facilities and services reflect the City’s diverse current and future recreation and leisure needs.

Purpose:

To advise Council of a proposed Formula One Superboat Event on 26th and 27th November 2005 and a request from the promoters for Council's participation in that event. The report recommends that the information be received and that the organisers be advised of Council's level of assistance.

Background

The President of the Superboats Series has made a submission to Council regarding the event planned for the weekend of 26th and 27th November 2005. The submission invites Council to be part of the Formula One Superboat Series which are staged around the country. The support sought from Council is both financial and to assist with the infrastructure required for the staging of the event.

Today the Formula One Superboat Series is held over seven rounds on the Australian eastern seaboard and attracts crowds of over 20 000 at major CBD venues.

In more recent years the series has obtained strong support from local and national companies along with a growing support from local and state governments. Due to the larger audiences, the series is also a tourist attraction in areas where these events are being held.

In 2004 the series has held events at:

· Taree, Mid North Coast, New South Wales

· Toukley, Central Coast, New South Wales

· Hobart, Tasmania

· Penrith, New South Wales

· Gold Coast, Queensland

· Grafton, North Coast, New South Wales.

With the overwhelming growth in the last two years, the series is now looking to move the events closer to larger centres, to capitalise on the large audiences and commercial benefits, further enhancing the sports future growth. The series attracts competitors from across Australia and New Zealand. Over 50 competitors are expected to take part in each round, and the anticipated event participants, including drivers and crews will be in excess of 250. The event is planned to be televised and aired by Fox/Optus Sports and the SBS and NBN Networks. There are plans to extend the series with Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and New Zealand identified as potential venues in 2006. In 2007 the Australian F1 Superboat series Management is endeavouring to host a round of the World F1 Series. The venue of this is yet to be determined.

The 2005 Series calendar includes:

· Taree, Manning river, Mid North Coast, New South Wales

· Toukley, Central Coast, New South Wales

· Hobart, Derwent River, Tasmania

· Newcastle, Newcastle Harbour, New South Wales

· Grafton / Port Macquarie North Coast New South Wales

· Gold Coast, The Spit Marine Stadium Queensland

· Penrith, New South Wales.

Stages of this calendar have already been held with the 7^th and final stage proposed for Penrith. It is proposed that the event will be held on the Nepean River (between the M4 and Victoria Bridges) and utilise Tench Reserve and the Boat Ramp. A similar event was held last year and also in 2003 as part of the Penrith Valley Festival.

Event Impact

i) Environmental

The organisers have not specifically addressed this issue, other than to say, the same applies as with the previous events in 2003 and 2004. In this regard environmental issues (in particular noise) were managed to the satisfaction of the consent authority, Waterways NSW, and the Department of Environment and Conservation. Representation has previously been made to Council from some residents in River Road regarding the noise levels of the event – a report compiled by the Boating Service Officer of NSW at the conclusion of the 2003 event stated:

‘My concerns prior to the event included noise levels from the vessels and the PA systems, pollution, safety procedures and public perception. All of these issues were addressed prior to the weekend and assisted to ensure a smooth operation without incident. Noise levels remained below 89db.’

In 2005 practice and racing is scheduled between 11am – 5pm on Saturday and 9.30am - 4pm on Sunday. Should the necessary consents to host the event be granted by Waterways NSW, residents and local business likely to be impacted by the event will be provided with letters of notification about the races.

As in 2004, event organisers will be instructed that clearing riparian vegetation for the purpose of spectator viewing will not be permissible. Furthermore it will be a condition of hosting the event on the Nepean River that measures will need to be implemented to ensure the protection of existing riparian vegetation (i.e. access to riparian vegetation will need to be restricted). A further condition will be that any proposed helicopter landing area will need to be located a minimum of 40 metres from an environmentally sensitive area (i.e. the River). The event organisers satisfactorily complied with these conditions at last year’s event.

ii) Marketing

In accordance with the event profiling guidelines set up by Formula 1 Series Management, an extensive promotional programme is implemented leading up to each event which gives both the event and the venue significant profile.

The Promotion of the events is as follows:

· Print media

- Local Newspaper 4 X strip ads leading up to the event also including editorial, driver profiles etc.

- A2 display posters – publicly displayed throughout the region

- Event programme per event

- Pre and post race articles, national boating magazines

- Trailer Boat, Propeller Magazine, Afloat and Race Boat News

· TV Media

- 50 colour spots (TVC) on WIN leading up to the Sunday main race day programme

- NBN Free to view, 30 min stand alone programme of the round (post produced)

- SBS Speedweek Free to view integrated segment 30min (post produced)

- Fox Sports 2 Pay to view 60 min stand alone programme (post produced). Inside Speed Pay to view 30 min integrated programme (post produced).

- International coverage in 15 European Countries, also UK, USA, New Zealand, Asia and Middle East (Post produced programmes) Potential viewing audience of over 20,000,000 viewers.

· Radio Media

- 80 spots (commercials) leading up to the event the week prior

- Live cross promotions

- Driver live interviews and post recorded

· Web Site

- The official F1 Superboat Web site attracts over 250,000 hits on average per month covering each event including support classes and all information regarding the series and the events

· Site Promotions

- Media Launch before the event

- Shopping Centre display

- Displays at the event

iii) Tourism & Economic impact

The Formula 1 Series Event Organisers have indicated that it is expected that by hosting a stage in Penrith it will enhance destination promotion and increase tourist visits – identifying the region to an international, national and regional audience as a fun aquatic recreational area.

The organisers have estimated figures for the multiplier effect / economic ripple effect. For Penrith, based on previous event estimates, 10,000 spectators will be attracted to the event from Penrith Valley and surrounding regions – with research suggesting the average spend of spectators within the community being $50 mainly at various local businesses – therefore generating $ 500,000 within the local community.

Infrastructure and Services Required

The specific details of the financial support, infrastructure and services requested from Council are:-

i) Sponsorship

The promoters are seeking a financial contribution of $7,000, as well as ‘in-kind’ support from Council, which is seen as a major sponsor.

ii) Infrastructure

The promoters are seeking the following support from Council regarding infrastructure for the event.

- Pit area approximately 250mtr x 350mtrs with ramp facility, Temporary fenced to restrict public access. (Proposed site car park/ ramp area Tench Reserve)

- Use of electricity and water at proposed site

- Sufficient toilet facilities for spectators and teams

- Sufficient garbage facility for spectators

- Public advertising of event and ramp closure

- Security on Friday, Saturday 5.00pm- 7.30am securing pit area.

- Appropriate 30m x 30m area for Helicopter landing pad at site for TV production.
Temporary fencing will be required to restrict public access.

In return for the financial and in-kind support the promoters submit that Council would benefit by the inclusion of 60-90 second tourism/promotional material on television which has a national and international audience of over 15 million viewers.

Further benefits for Penrith City Council will include:-

§ Recognition from:

- TV programs as listed

- radio commercials

- newspaper advertising

- event program

- PA commentary

§ link and advertising on the official F1 web site

§ branded banners placed in prime location for TV at venue

§ appreciation gift

§ Invitations to the official F1 dinner function.

Exposure can also be achieved via an onboard camera in a Formula One Superboat, recognizing the Sponsor throughout all of the television programs.

This would be at an additional cost of $1,000.00 + GST.

The promoters are hoping to establish Penrith as a long-term venue for their National Series.

City Marketing Supervisor’s comment

The Formula One Superboat event has a great deal of potential as a City Marketing event, particularly if it can be transferred to Penrith Lakes in the near future. The business plan, which the organisers have submitted, shows that the event meets the criteria for city marketing event sponsorship. Discussions with the organisers indicate that sponsorship of $3,500 would be an acceptable contribution.

Parks, Construction and Maintenance Manager’s comment

The costs associated with the ‘in-kind’ infrastructure and services requirements will be approximately $3000 and this can be incorporated into existing work programmes. Advertising for the closure of the boat ramp must occur at least 4 weeks prior to the event. A sign will be erected at the boat ramp and this will be complimented by newspaper advertising and editorial provided by the event organisers. The event organisers have consulted the other regular user groups of the river and they have consented to accommodating the F1 Superboat races.

Conclusion

In 2003 and 2004 the Formula 1 Boats Series did provide excellent spectator appeal and entertainment. There was only minor concern raised by several nearby residents about the noise. Unfortunately there are no funds available from the Sponsorship Budget. Council may wish to consider an alternative funding source.

The ‘in-kind’ assistance will be provided where appropriate. The relevant Council officers will be meeting with the organisers to finalise the details of the assistance that will be provided.

The organisers have advised verbally that an application will be made to NSW Waterways for the event. Council officers will need to sight that approval (and the conditions) prior to the event.

The Nepean Belle will have its regular activities on the days of the event. Advice has been received from the operators of the Nepean Belle that they are coordinating their activities with the Formula One organisers.

Council officers have been provided with evidence of appropriate insurances from the event organisers. Therefore there is no objection raised to the conduct of this upcoming event.

The organisers have requested financial assistance in the amount of $7,000. An amount of $3,500 can be made available from the City Marketing budget. Unfortunately, there is no other specific budget from which to draw the balance of the total amount requested.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Formula One Superboat Event be received.

2. The Australian Formula One Superboat Series Inc be advised in the terms of this report.

ATTACHMENTS/ANNEXURES

There are no attachments for this report.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Section 96 Modification to Development Application 02/2426 for the construction of a mixed use building over basement car parking at Lot 29 and Lot 30 DP 976320 (No. 79 - 81) Union Road, Penrith Applicant: Sunlit International P/L; Owner: Sunlit International P/L

DA02/2426

Compiled by: Brad Roeleven - Contract Planner

Authorised by: Wayne Mitchell - Acting Building Approvals and Environmental Protection Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Redevelopment of existing areas contributes to safe, sustainable, affordable and satisfying living environments and cohesive communities.

Critical Action: Work in partnership with the local community to foster understanding of the reasons why established areas are redeveloping.

Purpose:

To enable Council to determine a request to modify a development consent (DA02/2426). The original application was reported to Council and, in accordance with Council's Policy, this application is also reported to Council for determination. The report recommends that the modifications be approved.

Background

Council granted approval on 7 July 2003 for the construction of a 5 storey building comprising 2 ground floor retail premises, 31 residential apartments and basement parking for 51 vehicles at 79 – 81 Union Road, Penrith.

An extension of time was granted 20 April 2005, to extend the original 2 year approval by a further 12 months.

The Site

The development site is located on the northern side of Union Road Penrith between Worth Street and John Tipping Grove.

Existing improvements comprise two modest single storey dwellings and various outbuildings presently occupied by a commercial printer and retail art suppliers.

The subject site is regular in shape with a frontage to Union Road of 30.9m, a rear boundary to Union Lane of 30.7m and side boundaries of about 53m, giving an area of 1619m2. Site grades are essentially level.

Car sales yards and associated storage areas occupy land to the north and west of this site. Land opposite to the south supports 2 and 3 storey residential buildings. To the east is a two storey commercial building.

A locality plan is in the annexure.

The Proposal

This application seeks approval for the following modifications to the design of the approved building:

· Reconfiguration of the basement level car parking areas. This involves increasing the side boundary setbacks of each level of parking, and increasing the size of the lower level of parking. This applicant advises that this change is necessary as geotechnical investigations have revealed constraints that limit the practical construction of the basement levels as currently approved. The changes now proposed to the basement levels do not reduce the number of car parking spaces being provided, nor do they result in the loss of deep soil landscape area around the site

· Minor modifications to part of the line of the external wall, in the eastern elevation, to correct anomalies with initial architectural drawings

· Various minor alterations to internal stairwells and service/ventilation shafts to achieve compliance with the Building Code of Australia

· Minor alterations to the access ramp at the Union Road elevation

· Revision of the garbage storage room, access from Union Lane, to enable changes to the basement car parking level below

Notification

Council’s Notification and Advertising DCP allows for discretion regarding public notification of an application to modify a consent. The DCP provides that notification is not necessary where the amendments would not prejudice:

· Any person notified of the original application

· Any person who made submission regarding the original application

· Any matter raised in submissions regarding the original application.

Two submissions were received during notification of the original Development Application. Those submission raised issues relating to:

· Access to parking during business hours

· Encroachment the building line to Union Road

· Parking restrictions in Union Lane

· Security fencing

· Impacts upon traffic management.

The modifications that are now the subject of this application do not relate to any of the matters raised in the two submissions received in respect of the original application.

Consequently no prejudice to any person has been identified. Accordingly notification of this application was not considered necessary.

Statutory Assessment

Relevant planning instruments, zoning and permissibility

The site is zoned partly 3(c) ‘Special Business’ and partly 5(b) ‘Local Road and Local Road Widening’ under Local Environmental Plan 1997 (Penrith City Centre). The permissibility of the proposal was established with original Development Application 02/2426.

Sections 96(2) and 96(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act prescribe the procedure for assessing an application to modify a Development Consent. Assessment against these provisions is shown below.

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

This section of this Act provides that Council may modify a development consent where:

(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan under section 72 that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

In response to the above it is noted that:

· The development as modified would be substantially the same as that which was approved

· There is no requirement to consult with any Minister, public authority or approval body

· Notification of this application is not required, as previously discussed

· No submissions need to be considered.

Accordingly the provisions in Section 96 of the Act are satisfied and Council can proceed to determine this application.

Section 96(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

Section 96(3) of this Act requires the relevant provisions of section 79C of the Act to be considered when assessing an application to modify a development consent.

The matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Act are addressed below:

79C(1)(a)(i) - The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

The following environmental planning instruments are:

· State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

· State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flats

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 20 - Hawkesbury Nepean River

· Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1997 - Penrith City Centre

· Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991- Environmental Heritage

The modifications proposed by this application would not result in any non-compliance with the provisions of these instruments.

79C(1)(a)(ii) - The provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

The following draft environmental planning instruments are relevant:

· Draft State Environmental Planing Policy 66 – Integration of Land Use and Transport

The modifications proposed by this application would not result in any non-compliance with the provisions of this instrument, particularly given the transitional and savings provisions included in this Draft Plan.

79C(1)(a)(iii) - The provisions of any development control plans

The following development control plans are relevant:

· DCP Floor Space Ratio Penrith City Centre

· Landscape DCP

· Development Control Plan for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

The modifications proposed by this application would not result in any non-compliance with the provisions of these Plans.

79C(1)(a)(iv) - Matters prescribed by the Regulations

There are no relevant matters prescribed by the Regulations applicable to this matter.

79C(1)(b) - Likely impacts of the development

No adverse impacts have been identified as a consequence of the proposed modifications.

79C(1)(c) - Suitability of the site for the development

The geotechnical constrains identified by proponent as the basis for having to amend the basement element of this building do not render this site as being unsuitable to support the building approved under Development Application 02/0426 for the following reasons:

· The geotechnical constraints can be addressed in a manner that does not result in any adverse impact to the natural environment

· The revised basement car park incorporates the required number of on site parking spaces determined by Council’s planning controls

· The layout and geometry of the revised basement satisfies relevant design standards for vehicle access and manoeuvring

Section 79C(1)(d) - Submissions

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(e) - Public interest

No circumstances have been identified to indicate that the proposed modifications would not be in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions Plans

The modifications proposed by this application have no consequences in relation to the Section 94 contributions required to be paid under DA02/2426.

Other Assessment Issues

Construction

The size of this development, the location of the site, and the likely duration of construction are such that the successful management of the construction process is essential to safeguard the environment and amenity of the locality, ensure public safety and minimise impacts upon traffic movements.

To address this concern it is necessary for the applicant to provide a Construction Management Plan which would make arrangements for:

a) Demolition

b) Excavation

c) Construction

d) Employee parking

e) Plant/equipment delivery and storage

f) Materials delivery and storage

g) Traffic and pedestrian management.

This matter has been discussed with the applicant who has agreed to the inclusion of an additional condition requiring the preparation of such a Plan.

Conclusion

This application seeks approval to modify the approved architectural plans in relation to the configuration of the basement level parking, pedestrian access thought the building, the garbage storage room and part of the setback of the eastern elevation.

The modifications nominated under this application improve the design and function of the approved building, without substantially altering its form, location or presentation.

These modifications satisfy the provision in Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and would not result in any non-compliance with relevant planning instruments, codes or policies. Accordingly this report recommends that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Section 96 Modification to Development Application 02/2426 for the construction of a mixed use building over basement car parking at Lot 29 and Lot 30 DP 976320 (No. 79 - 81) Union Road, Penrith be received

2. The modification request be approved by way of Condition 1 being amended to read:

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 002-B2; Issue B; 002-Issue B; 003- Issue B; 004-Issue A; 005-Issue A; 006-Issue B; 007- Issue A; 008-Issue A; 009-Issue A; 010-Issue A; 011- Issue A; 012-Issue B drawn by Adriaan Winton Architects, lodged with Council on 20/6/03, and stamped approved by Council, the application form and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions:

These plans are amended by those changes shown clouded on the following plans prepared by Zhinar Architects received by Council on 4 May 2005:

Drawing Number	Title	Issue	Date
3508 DA:01	Basement Parking L1	D	8 July 2005
3508 DA:02	Basement Parking L2	C	October 2004
3508 DA:03	Ground Floor	D	8 July 2005
3508 DA 04	Level 1	C	October 2004
3508 DA:05	Level 2	C	October 2004
3508 DA:06	Level 3	C	October 2004
3508 DA:07	Level 4	C	October 2004
3508 DA:08	Roof Plan	C	October 2004
3508 DA:09	South elevation	C	October 2004
3508 DA:10	North elevation	C	October 2004
3508 DA:11	Section	C	October 2004

{Prescribed conditions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 as amended will apply to a building and subdivision work commencing/approved on 1 July 2003.}

2.2. That the following additional condition be imposed:

The preparation and approval by Council prior to issue Construction Certificate, a Construction Management Plan detailing arrangements for:

a) Demolition

b) Excavation and site works

c) Construction

d) Employee parking

e) Plant/equipment delivery and storage

f) Materials delivery and storage

g) Traffic and pedestrian management.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Annexure DA022425 - Union Road

4 Pages

Appendix

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Development Application 04/2745 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of Seniors Living Development at Lot 5111 and Lot 5112 DP 1057000 (No. 6) Lofty Place, Cranebrook Applicant: Pretech Pty Ltd; Owner: P & S Lilley

DA04/2745

Compiled by: Brad Roeleven - Contract Planner

Authorised by: Wayne Mitchell - Acting Building Approvals and Environmental Protection Manager

Requested By: Councillor Lexie Cettolin

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Redevelopment of existing areas contributes to safe, sustainable, affordable and satisfying living environments and cohesive communities.

Critical Action: Work in partnership with the local community to foster understanding of the reasons why established areas are redeveloping.

Purpose:

To provide Council with an assessment of this application for a Seniors Living development which has generated significant public interest. The report recommends that the development be granted a 'deferred commencement' approval.

Introduction

Development Application 04/2745 proposes to demolish an existing dwelling house and associated ancillary structures and construct a Seniors Living development comprising 11 x 2 bedroom and 1x 3 bedroom infill self-care dwellings.

This report provides details of the proposal, an assessment of the key issues and recommends a ‘deferred commencement’ approval of the development subject to conditions.

The Site

The site is No’s 6 and 6A Lofty Place Cranebrook, which comprises Lots 5111 and 5112, DP 1057000. It is positioned on the northern side of Lofty Place, at the head of a cul-de-sac, as described on the locality plan in the annexure.

The development site has a street frontage of about 11m, which opens up into a broad irregular shaped allotment with an area of 3378m2. The western (side) boundary extends for 92.79m, the northern (rear) boundary is 51.4m and the eastern/south eastern (side) boundary, including that section which returns back to Lofty Place is 86.6m.

Despite its size, topography is consistently level across the site with only minor changes in grade (less than 1m) between all boundaries. Significant vegetation comprises a stand of trees towards the front of the site, generally parallel with the southeastern site boundary, and several other plantings along the eastern and northern boundaries.

A large reserve adjoins the rear and side (eastern/southeastern) boundaries of the site. The locality is otherwise characterised by single and two storey dwellings consistent with the zoning pattern established under LEP 1998.

The Proposal

This application seeks consent to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a Seniors Living development.

Originally this proposal sought approval for 13x2 bedroom units (8x2 storey and 5x1 storey units). During the course of assessment this application was revised, by plans received on 1 July 2005, and now proposes 12 units (8x2 storey and 4x1 storey units).

In addition to reducing the number of units, the revised plans include the following changes:

· Units 1 and 2 are now of a 2 storey design (previously they were single storey)

· Units 1-5, previously contained within a single building mass, are now separated into 2 elements

· The unit in the north east corner is now single storey (previously 2x2 storey units were located in this corner of thee site)

· Increased boundary setbacks are provided at the northeast corner of the allotment

· The location of visitor parking has been altered allowing for increased landscaping around a significant tree adjacent to the proposed driveway.

Notification

The original application was notified between 11 January 2005 and 25 January 2005. This process attracted 18 submissions from 7 objectors. Representations were received from The Honourable Jackie Kelly, Federal Member for Lindsay and Allan Shearan MP, State Member for Londonderry.

The revised plans were exhibited from 11 July 2005 until 25 July 2005. A total of 5 submissions, objecting to the proposal were received. The issues raised in these submissions are identified and addressed later in this report.

Public consultation for this application also included a site meeting on 15 August 2005, requested by Councillor Cettolin. In attendance were Allan Shearan MP, the Mayor Councillor Greenow, Councillors Sheehy, Cettolin, Thain, McKeon and Crameri, interested members of the public and senior staff from Council’s Building Approvals and Environment Protection Department.

Referrals

The following referrals were undertaken:

· Health and Building Surveyor

· Development Services Engineer

· Traffic Engineer

· Social Planner.

Generally no objections were raised, subject to recommended conditions. Where appropriate, comments received from these referrals are included within this report.

Statutory Assessment

Relevant planning instruments, zoning and permissibility

The site is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Land. (LEP 1998). Although LEP 1998 does not permit multi unit housing in the 2(b) zone, this proposal is permissible by virtue of clause 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 (SEPP) which prevails over the local controls.

Planning instruments, codes and polices relevant in the assessment of this application are:

· State Environmental Planning Policy 1

· Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Development Standards)

· State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River

· Penrith Heritage Local Environmental Plan 1991

· Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Land

· Development Control Plan 2000 – Controls for the Management and Minimisation of Waste

· Development Control Plan for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

· Landscape Development Control Plan.

State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

The purpose of this Policy is to allow flexibility in the application of development standards. It enables Council to vary a development standard where strict compliance with the control can be shown to be either unreasonable or unnecessary, or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in 5(a)(i) or (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

This Policy is relevant as the proposal relies upon SEPP 1 to allow the development to depart from:

· The rear boundary setback control in clause 12(4)(a) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998

· The height control in clause 38(4)(c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.

These matters are addressed below.

Clause 12(4)(a) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998

This clause requires that Units 7 and 8 of the development achieve a 6m setback from the rear boundary of the site and that Unit 6 has a 4m setback. Instead Units 7 and 8 have setbacks of between 2.3 – 2.9m from the rear boundary while Unit 6 is setback 3m.

The applicant contends that strict compliance with the LEP setback is, in this instance, unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

· The design is site responsive because it maintains a single storey appearance to the adjacent site along the western boundary, thereby minimising visual impacts and providing appropriate form and scale in the rear corner of the site

· The design provides sufficient space for on-site landscaping

· The rear of the site directly adjoins a Council reserve, and provides an appropriate landscape corridor and built form to that area

· The setback and boundary fence allows for casual surveillance of the reserve

· The shape of the allotment is irregular, with no clear traditional rear boundary displayed. Being bounded by a public reserve on three sides the development can achieve the objectives in relation to the rear boundary setback control.

In considering these contentions, and assessing the proposal against the objectives underlying the rear setback control, it is noted:

· No adverse visual impacts would result from a reduced setback noting that sufficient space is available for landscaping around these units. Units 7 and 8 would also provide an acceptable design presentation when viewed from the adjacent reserve

· The reduced setback of these units would not result in any loss of privacy, views or solar access to any other nearby residential property

· An appropriate separation is achieved with other buildings on the subject site. The adjacent reserve provides adequate separation from other nearby residential sites

· The need to maintain a private open space corridor along this part of the site for the purposes of residential amenity is less essential as the rear boundary of this site is not common with any other residential property

· The environmental features of the site are preserved because significant trees will be retained. The reduced setback for these units does not prevent the development from including effective landscaping and stormwater controls measures.

It is concluded that this proposal is able to achieve the objectives underlying the rear setback control and this report therefore recommends that Council support the SEPP 1 objection in respect of clause 12(4)(a) of LEP 1998 as it relates to Units 6, 7 and 8.

Clause 38(4)(c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.

This clause requires that any building in the rear 25% of a site must not exceed 1 storey in height. Units 6, 7, 8 and 9 extend into the rear 25 % of the subject site, however only Unit 6 is of a single storey design.

The applicant contends that strict compliance with the 1 storey height limit for Units 7, 8 and 9 is, in this instance, unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

· The objective of this control is to maintain privacy to adjoining neighbours. Such a control is effective on a regular shaped allotment in a traditional subdivision pattern. However, this site is not typical because it is irregular in shape, and bounded on three sides by a public reserve

The development has been designed with single storey dwellings along the western boundary to achieve the objective of privacy.

It is agreed that the objective behind clause 38(4)(c) is to preserve privacy to adjacent sites. Given that Units 7, 8 and 9 are separated by a minimum of 20m from the boundary with the only adjacent residential allotment it is evident that these units would not compromise the privacy of that adjacent site.

However, it is also considered that the objective underlying the single storey height limit in clause 38(4)(c) is to preserve the amenity of adjacent sites by:

· Maintaining solar access to those neighbouring properties

· Preventing the built form of any seniors living development from visually dominating the outlook and aspect available from any private open space at the rear of any adjacent allotment.

It is concluded that this proposal is also able to achieve these objectives.

This report therefore recommends that Council support the SEPP 1 objection in respect of clause 38(4)(c) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 as it relates to Units 7, 8 and 9 of the proposal.

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Development Standards)

This Draft Plan was exhibited from 10 May 2004 until 18 June 2004 and consequently must be considered by Council having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

It is intended that this Draft Policy will replace the current SEPP 1. The intent of this new Policy is to maintain flexibility in the application of development standards. However, this Draft Policy shifts the onus onto the applicant to show:

(a) How their proposal will result in a better environmental planning outcome than would otherwise have been achieved had the development strictly satisfied the standard, and,

(b) That the development is in the public interest by being consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone that applies to the site.

In summary the applicant contends that the departures from State Environmental Planing Policy (Seniors Living) and Local Environmental Plan 1998, as identified above, satisfy the intent of this Draft Policy for the following reasons:

· A better environmental planning outcome is achieved as the layout enables buildings with a greater bulk and scale to be located away from neighbouring allotments, thereby maintaining amenity to those allotments

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives of relevant planning instruments in terms of achieving acceptable amenity outcomes.

These contentions are generally supported. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the savings and transitional provisions of this Policy are such that it is not applicable in the assessment of this application.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

Clause 7 of this Plan provides that Council must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

From a review of Council’s records it is apparent that the site has not supported any land use of a type likely to have resulted in the contamination of the subject land. Accordingly, it is concluded that the land is suitable for the activities proposed under this application.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

The aim of this Policy is to increase the supply and diversity of housing specifically to meet the needs of seniors and people with a disability, to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and to ensure that such development is of good design.

This Policy applies to all land zoned primarily for urban purposes where residential housing, of any density, is permitted. The provisions of the Policy prevail to the extent of any inconsistency between it and any other environmental planning instrument.

In addition to enabling such development, the Policy also provides prescriptive and performance criteria for a range of considerations which, broadly, address:

· Site related requirements, including access to facilities, services and utilities

· Design requirements

· Design principles, including neighbourhood amenity, amenity for adjacent sites, crime solar access, stormwater, crime prevention, accessibility and waste management

· Development standards, including requirements for minimum lot size and width

· Design criteria for self contained dwellings, including requirements for the design of living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms, parking and the like

· Development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse an application.

A detailed assessment against the numerous provisions within this Policy reveals that this proposal is, on balance, satisfactory. Set out below is a commentary on how this proposal addresses the provisions of this Policy that are particularly relevant to this application:

Clause 20 – Restriction on occupation of housing

This clause requires that any consent granted for seniors living development must include a condition to ensure that occupation of the dwellings is limited only to those people identified under the Policy as being entitled to live in this form of housing.

Clause 25 – Location and access to facilities

This clause requires that residents of seniors living development have access to retail, commercial, community, recreation and medical (general practice) facilities.

To satisfy this requirement the development site must be either:

· Within 400m of such facilities, and with pedestrian access not exceeding certain gradients; or

· Within 400m of public transport which connects to a place which has those facilities. The public transport service must be available during the day and evening, on each weekday.

The subject application complies with this requirement as it is within 400m of a bus stop, which is located on Andromeda Drive near the intersection with Barrett Place. Westbus provide frequent connections to the Penrith CBD and Mt Pleasant shops, such that the requirements of this clause are satisfied.

Access from the site to this bus stop is via a sealed concrete pathway through the adjacent reserve, which connects to Hindmarsh Street. A concrete footpath along Hindmarsh Street extends to the intersection with Andromeda Drive/ Barrett Place.

The gradients of this pathway are gentle providing suitable access. It is acknowledged that to reach the bus stop is necessary for pedestrian to cross Hindmarsh Street, Andromeda Drive and Barrett Place. However, site distances at all of these locations are satisfactory.

There is no concrete pathway/pram ramps at the Andromeda Drive or Barrett Place crossing, nor is there any bench at the bus stop.

This report recommends, by way of condition, that these facilities be provided prior to occupation of the development.

Clause 29 - Design of infill self-care housing

This clause requires Council to consider the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development, which is published by DIPNR. These Guidelines were prepared to assist in determining whether a proposal responds the setting and context of a development site. To this end the Guidelines provide objectives and design principles for matters relating to:

· Site context

· Site planning and design

· Impacts on streetscape

· Impacts on neighbours

· Internal site amenity.

This proposal has been assessed against these Guidelines and, on balance, is considered satisfactory.

Clause 38 – Minimum sizes and building height

This clause requires that seniors living development be located on sites with a minimum area of 1000m2 and a frontage 20m wide, measured at the building line.

This site complies, as it has an area of 3378m2 and is 28m wide at the building line.

Clause 81(b) - Density

This clause limits maximum floor space ratio to 0.5:1. This proposal complies, being 0.36:1.

Clause 81(c) - Landscaped area

This clause requires that 30% of the site be set aside for landscaping. This proposal complies, providing 36% landscaped area.

Clause 81(g) and (h) - Parking

The standards in this clause require this development to provide:

· 3 visitor parking spaces

· 12.5 resident spaces.

This proposal complies, providing 4 visitor spaces and 13 resident spaces.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River (SREP 20)

SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the requirement to assess the development in terms of the impact of the development on water quality.

Subject appropriate controls for stormwater control during and after construction this proposal is not expected to have an adverse cumulative impact on the Hawkesbury Nepean River system.

Heritage Local Environmental Plan 1991

The site is not heritage listed under this Plan, nor is the site in the vicinity of a heritage item.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Land (LEP)

Compliance with the relevant provisions of this LEP is shown in the table below:

Cl.	Required	Proposed	Complies
7	Aims and objectives of LEP	Consistent with relevant objectives	Yes
9	Permissibility and zone objectives	Multi unit housing prohibited, but proposal is permissible under SEPP (Seniors Living), which prevails over the LEP.	N/A
10	Subdivision	No subdivision proposed.	N/A
11(3)	Minimum lot size	The LEP does not prescribe minimum lot size requirements.	N/A
12(3)	Building envelope 1.8m and 45o	Dwellings fit within envelope.	Yes
12(3)	Max. external wall height 6.5m	Maximum wall height is 5.5m.	Yes
12(3)	Minimum landscaped area 50%	Landscape area is 36.2%, which does not comply the LEP. However SEPP (Seniors Living) requires 30% landscape area. The SEPP prevails over the LEP.	N/A
12(4)	Minimum rear setback § 4m for single storey § 6m for two storey	No – refer SEPP 1 No – refer SEPP 1	No Refer to SEPP1
14	Design Principles § Reinforce and protect local topography § Reinforce and protect streetscape and character § Compatible with scale and design of neighbouring development § Contribute to attractive streetscapes through building form and landscaping § Provide contemporary standards of amenity within each dwelling and areas of open space. § Preserve and enhance significant vistas enjoyed from any public place.	The application on balance meets these design principles.	Yes

Waste Planning Development Control Plan (2004)

A Waste Management Plan addressing disposal of materials associated with the demolition of the existing building, and construction of the new complex, accompanies the application. The information provided is satisfactory.

Arrangements for the storage and collection of waste, once the development is occupied, are also satisfactory.

Development Control Plan for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

This Plan seeks to provide a safe and secure development with adequate lighting, passive surveillance and visual access.

This proposal is generally consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP, noting in particular that the proposal affords good passive surveillance within the site at the street frontage, and over the adjacent reserve.

Section 94 Contributions Plans

Section 94 Contributions Plans relevant to this proposal, and the required contributions, are shown below:

· Cultural Facilities $ 1032

· North Cranebrook Release Area $ 71, 354.

Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to this report.

Other Assessment Issues

Access traffic and transport

Provided below are comments received from Councils Traffic Engineer regarding the issues of traffic generation and vehicle access onto the site:

Traffic Generation

Using the RTA Guidelines a small 2 bedroom apartment will generate approx 0.5-0.65 vehicle trips in the peak hour and 5-6.5 trips per day. Accordingly a 13 unit complex will generate approx 65 – 85 vehicle trips per day and between 6.5-8.5 trips in the peak hours. As the development is proposed over two separate allotments which would, under normal circumstances, account for 18 vehicle trips (2x9 trips/day) the net increase in traffic using Lofty Place will be in the order of 47 – 67 daily vehicle trips.

The potential impact this additional traffic will have on Lofty Place and the intersection with Marrett Way can be estimated when taking into account the total traffic generation for the street as a whole. Under normal circumstances Lofty Place services 12 residential allotments for a total traffic generation of 108 daily vehicle trips (12x9 trips/day). With the proposed Seniors Living apartments this total traffic generation would increase to a total of between 155 to 175 daily vehicle trips.

According to the Australian Model Code for Residential Development (AMCORD) guidelines an access street with a 5.5m wide carriageway can sustain a two-way daily traffic flow of between 300-1000 vehicles. It is evident that assuming a worse case scenario of 175 daily vehicle trips that Lofty Place can adequately cater for the expected increase in daily traffic from the proposed development. Similarly the intersection of Lofty Place and Marrett Way is located in a position that offers good sight distance for entering /exiting vehicles.

Access

Access is proposed via a single 7.6m wide driveway with a 600mm wide median within the property separating the entry/egress lanes. The proposed driveway exceeds the minimum dimensional requirements depicted under AS 2890.1.2004 for a Class 1 parking facility accessing a local street.

Similarly the existing cul-de-sac with a radius of 8m provides sufficient turning radius to enable a service vehicle such as a garbage truck to adequately service the proposed development.

Comment

Since these comments were provided the development has been amended by the deletion of 1 unit. Accordingly, the situation regarding traffic generation would be less than was originally anticipated and consequently must also be satisfactory in terms of the capacity of Lofty Place.

Water

Council’s Development Services Engineer advises that arrangements for the collection and disposal of stormwater are generally satisfactory, however:

· The hydraulic plans will need to be amended to be consistent with the amended architectural plans

· A number of minor changes are required to the design details.

A deferred commencement condition is included in the recommendation to resolve this matter.

Flora and Fauna

The subject site supports 16 trees of varying species, height and condition. Accompanying this application is a Tree Report from a consultant arborist, which has assessed the condition of each of these trees and has provided recommendations regarding tree retention or removal.

In summary this report concludes:

· Tree 15 (on rear boundary at northwest corner) is a mature indigenous tree that should be retained. Fencing in proximity to this tree should be configured to minimise impacts upon the drip line

· Tree 1 (on western boundary adjacent unit 1) and trees 2-7 (located across the site, generally parallel with southern site boundary and extending between units 1 and 12) appear retainable in the short term, however these species are not entirely suitable given site conditions. Impacts to their health and stability will be minimised if the recommended Tree Protection Zones are provided, in conjunction with Tree Management Plan. It is unlikely, however, that they will be successfully retained within the proposed development

· Tree 14 (rear boundary adjacent unit 7) is in an advanced stage of decline and is unsuitable for retention

· Trees 8-11, 12, 13 and 16 are less than 5 metres tall and have limited value such that they could be removed or replaced.

Council’s Tree Management Officer reviewed the Tree Report and provided the following comments:

· The retention of Tree 15 could present on going maintenance problems for residents of Unit 6.

· The tree protection zones are compromised by the extent of driveway paving.

· Trees 2,3 and 4 are worthy of retention as long as the largest possible protection zone is provided.

· Trees 5, 6 and 7 should be retained if possible.

· The recommendations in relation to the construction of fencing near Tree 15 are supported.

Opportunities to modify the development in response to these recommendations of the Tree Management Officer were subsequently pursued with applicant. A revised site plan was received 27 September 2005, incorporating the following alterations to the proposal:

· Units 11 and 12 are relocated about 1.5m towards the eastern site boundary. This increases the extent of landscaped area by 1.5m to the northern and western side of Tree 4.

· A section of the entry driveway, and the adjacent visitor parking spaces, are to be constructed using a method that will not require any excavation into current site levels. This hardstand area is also to be constructed from permeable paving. These changes will limit the extent of compaction of soils over the root systems of Trees 2-4, and allow for penetration of water and oxygen.

· Paving to the eastern side of the verandah of Unit 1 is deleted, further reducing paving over the roots of Trees 2 and 3.

· Units 1 and 2 relocated about 2m to the north. This change increases the extent of landscaping to the north of Trees 2 and 3 by 2m, significantly reducing the extent of paving over the root systems of these trees.

To accommodate this change, it is also necessary to relocate Units 3-5 a further 2m north of their current position. These associated modifications have no negative impacts for on-site parking or vehicle manoeuvring areas, and do not result in any loss of landscaped open space. These changes also allow for the setback to Lofty Place, and the minimum side boundary setback of Unit 1 to be increased by 2m and 400mm respectively.

Council’s Tree Management Officer has since confirmed that these design modifications achieve a satisfactory protection zone to Trees 2,3 and 4, and that no objections are raised to the removal of Trees 5-7.

The Tree Management Officer requires that any consent notice include conditions addressing:

· Minor pruning of Tree 15

· Construction of fencing around Tree 15

· Full details for the construction of the driveway and visitor parking areas in the vicinity of Trees 2, 3 and 4

· Certification of the adequacy of Tree Protection Measures during the course of construction

· Compliance with Tree Management Plan provided with Tree Report to ensure the protection of relevant trees during the construction process.

A further consequence of the revised site plan is the need for the architectural plans to be updated. This matter is addressed by a deferred commencement condition.

Site design and internal design

The siting of the buildings across the site, and the design the individual units is satisfactory as the proposal responds to the constraints and attributes of the allotment, noting broadly that:

· The proposal complies with maximum floor space ratio and minimum landscape requirements in State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

· The built form of the dwellings is suitable for the locality

· The positioning of the units across the site preserves amenity to adjacent residential premises

· The development addresses the adjacent reserve, incorporating an acceptable presentation to that public space and also allowing for passive casual surveillance of that area.

Notwithstanding, several issues require more specific comment, as set out below:

Location of two storey built form – streetscape and amenity issues

Consistent with established urban design principles, State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 encourages two storey built elements to be located towards the street frontage. This practice aims to ensure that the amenity and outlook of adjacent sites is preserved by avoiding larger built elements being located within the ‘traditional’ backyard open space areas.

In terms of streetscape and visual impact considerations ii is acceptable for Units 1 and 2 to be of two storeys given:

· Two storey built dwellings are a typical element of the streetscape of Lofty Place and the wider locality

· Unit 1 is setback 12m from the boundary with Lofty Place

· Significant trees towards the front of the site are being retained. These trees soften and scale the presentation of Units 1 and 2

· The design of Units 1 and 2 is satisfactory, with the inclusion of various design elements to provide visual interest and ensure the bulk and scale of this built form is minimized. The nominated external materials of construction further enhance the presentation of these units.

In terms of likely impacts upon the residential amenity of adjacent sites it is also acceptable for Units 1 and 2 to be of two storeys given:

· Shadow diagrams accompanying the application indicate that midwinter shadows will fall mostly within the development site. The exception is at 9am, when shadows do extend onto the adjacent property at 4 Lofty Place

The extent of overshadowing is acceptable noting that no shade is cast onto the dwelling or any north facing windows, and the duration of overshadowing of awning and adjoining private open space area is limited

· Privacy to adjacent No. 4 Lofty Place would not be compromised. The ground floors of units 1and 2 are essentially at current ground levels and present no opportunities for overlooking

The first floors to these units are setback between 2.5m-7m from the common boundary to No. 4 Lofty Place. Each unit has only 1 first floor bathroom window facing No. 4 Lofty Place. It is arguable that a bathroom window would not affect the privacy of that adjacent site. Nevertheless it is possible for both of these windows to be relocated such that there would be no windows facing No 4 Lofty Place. This report therefore recommends that these windows be relocated

· Unit 1 also incudes a first floor balcony, 4m wide x 1.4m deep, in its southern (street) elevation. The balcony serves a first floor bedroom. Included in the design of Unit 1 is fixed screen to prevent overlooking of adjacent No. 4 Lofty Place. The size and location of this balcony, in conjunction with fixed screen, is sufficient to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on the privacy to adjacent No 4 Lofty Place.

Units 7- 12 are also of two-storey design. The location of these units, removed from the street frontage and having no boundary common with another residential property, are such that no adverse streetscape or amenity issues arise.

External finishes

Concern was expressed at the site meeting on 15 August 2005 that inappropriate external finishes might be used, particularly that the first floor would be constructed from villaboard or other similar lightweight materials.

The architectural plans indicate that the exterior of the dwellings will comprise face brickwork, with selected areas being bagged and painted to provide contrast and visual interest. This is confirmed by the schedule of external materials of construction received with the application.

Construction

To address this concern it is necessary for the applicant to provide a Construction Management Plan which would make arrangements for:

a) Demolition

b) Excavation

c) Construction

d) Measures for noise control

e) Employee parking

f) Plant/equipment delivery and storage

g) Materials delivery and storage

h) Traffic and pedestrian management.

The matter is resolved by way of a deferred commencement condition. (See Condition 2.3).

Community concerns

Issues raised in submissions received following public notification of this proposal and at the site meeting are identified and addressed below:

· Lofty Place is not able to cope with additional traffic

Comment

Council’s Traffic Engineer advises that Lofty Place can adequately cater for the expected increase in daily traffic. See comments above under ‘Access, traffic and transport’.

· No opportunity for on street parking

Comment

It is agreed that the cul-des-sac at the head of Lofty Place prevents opportunities for street parking, however, this proposal provides the required number of off street parking spaces.

· How will the site be serviced for garbage collection

Comment

A garbage storage area is positioned towards the front of the site, adjacent to the entry

driveway. Council’s Waste Services Manager advises that the size and location of the garbage storage area is satisfactory.

Council’s Traffic Engineer advises that arrangements for service vehicle access is adequate.

· Design of units along western boundary – the roof is ‘factory like’ in appearance

Comment

This concern was valid in terms of the design for Units 1-5 as shown on the original plans. However, this matter was resolved by amended plans, which have separated units 1-5 into two elements.

· Loss of privacy and amenity

Comment

The development will not unduly compromise privacy and amenity to adjacent or surrounding allotments. Refer to comments under ‘Site design and internal design’ above.

· Non-compliance with under State Environmental Planning Policy – Seniors Living

Comment

The proposal fails to strictly comply with part of the height provisions of this Policy. Refer to comments under ‘State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards’ above.

· Non-compliance with rear setback Local Environmental Plan 1998

Comment

The proposal fails to strictly comply with the rear setback provisions of this Plan. Refer to comments under ‘State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards’ above

· Loss of personal and pedestrian safety

Comment

No grounds identified to support this concern in relation to existing residents. Conditions are recommended to ensure an appropriate level of pedestrian facilities including a refuge and ramp crossings to improve pedestrian access and safety for proposed residents, as required, which will also benefit existing residents.

· Impacts during construction

Comment

It is agreed that this development could impact upon the amenity of the locality during construction period. This issue is reasonably addressed by way of a condition of consent requiring a Construction Management Plan.

· Distance of site from shops/facilities

Comment

The site is within 400m of a bus stop on Andromeda Drive, near the intersection with Hindmarsh Street. This bus stop has regular daily services to Cranebrook shops and Penrith CBD. This satisfies the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy – (Seniors Living) 2004.

· Poor water pressure

Comment

The applicant would be required to obtain a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney Water regarding the provision of water supply.

· Out of character with existing development

Comment

It is agreed that the prevailing built form in the locality is of detached housing. However, multi unit housing is permissible by virtue of State Environmental Planning Policy – (Seniors Living) 2004, and consequently Council must consider this proposal. The development does not exceed an FSR of 0.5:1 and therefore density cannot be used as a ground for refusal per clause 81 of that Policy.

· Proposal is an over-development of the site.

Comment

The revised plans have deleted 1 unit from the original design. The amended plans satisfy all standards in clause 81 of State Environmental Planning Policy – (Seniors Living) 2004, being standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

· Noise pollution if each unit has an air conditioner

Comment

Any consent would include a standard condition requiring consent for any air conditioning unit within 3m of the boundary.

· Overshadowing from two storey units would be unacceptable

Comment

This issue is addressed under ‘Site design and internal design’ above.

· The size of the building spoils the aesthetics of the area.

Comment

It is acknowledged that the visual presentation of the site would alter if the existing dwelling were replaced with 12 units. The form, scale and presentation of the units are, however, acceptable. Subject to appropriate finishes and landscaping, the development will ‘fit’ the context of the locality.

· Two storey dwellings are unsuitable for disabled or elderly people

Comment

All dwellings satisfy State Environmental Planning Policy – (Seniors Living) 2004, in terms of providing required ground floor facilities in the two storey units.

It is to be noted that the Policy allows for this housing to be used to accommodate a range of people, including seniors/disabled persons, and people who live in the same household as a senior/disabled persons.

Any consent would include a condition limiting occupancy of these units in accordance with the Policy.

· Does Cranebrook need this type of development

Comment

This is not a matter for considerations as the proposal is permissible by virtue of State Environmental Planning Policy – (Seniors Living) 2004.

· Not advised of possibility Seniors Living Development prior to purchasing land

Comment

This concern relates to the neighbour being unaware that Seniors Living is permissible in a 2(b) zone. This information is readily available via a Section 149 certificate, or through an enquiry to Council.

· What community benefits arise from this development

Comment

The application would increase alternative housing choice within Cranebrook.

Conclusion

This application seeks consent to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a Seniors Living development.

Originally this proposal sought approval for 13x2 bedroom units, however during the course of assessment the proposal was revised, with the effect that 1 unit was deleted from the proposal.

Assessment reveals that this proposal satisfies relevant planning controls, by responding to both constraints and opportunities presented by the site.

Consequently the application is supported, however, this report recommends that a ‘deferred commencement’ consent be granted to allow for revised hydraulic and landscaping details to be submitted prior to the consent becoming operational.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. That information contained in the report on Development Application 04/2745 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of Seniors Living Development at Lot 5111 and Lot 5112 DP 1057000 (No. 6) Lofty Place, Cranebrook be received

2. That Council support the objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy 1 in respect of Clause 12(4)(a) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Clause 38(4)(c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

3. That Development Application 04/2745 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of Seniors Living Development at Lot 5111 and Lot 5112 DP 1057000 (No. 6) Lofty Place, Cranebrook be approved by granting a Deferred Commencement consent, subject to the conditions in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 below:

Schedule 1

The consent shall not operate until Council is satisfied with the following additional information, which shall be submitted within 3 months of the date of the determination of this consent:

3.1 The submission of revised hydraulic plans, which are consistent with the architectural plans approved with this application, and which also address the following matters:

a) The 375 outlet pipe through the reserve is excessive with the provision of OSD and should be reduced in size

b) The extension of Council’s pipe system in Indy Crescent is not required and the proposed drainage shall be reconfigured with connection to the kerb

c) Additional surface gratings shall be provided to the tank along with step irons at entry point

d) Details of when the high level overflow of the tank operates is to be provided

e) The sump is to be removed from control pit

f) Courtyard levels require adjustment to be compliant with the BCA in terms of providing adequate drainage clearance to proposed floor levels.

3.2 The submission of a revised landscape plan prepared by a consultant listed in Council’s approved Landscape Consultants Register. This plan shall consistent with the architectural plans approved with this application, and which otherwise satisfies the requirements in Council’s Landscape Development Control Plan.

The landscape plan shall also identify:

a) The design, materials and colour of all boundary fencing

b) The materials and colour finishes of the internal driveway.

3.3 The submission of a Construction Management Plan detailing arrangements for:

a) Demolition

b) Excavation and site works

c) Construction

d) Employee parking

e) Plant/equipment delivery and storage

f) Materials delivery and storage

g) Traffic and pedestrian management.

Schedule 2 Conditions

Special conditions

3.4 The development shall be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A01 – A10, issue D, dated 28/6/05, prepared by Pretech Pty Ltd the application form and any supporting information received with the application except as maybe amended in red on the attached plans, or by the conditions in this Notice.

In this regard the plans shall be amended as follows:

a) The first floor bathroom windows in the western elevation of Units 1 and 2 shall be deleted. Any window serving these bathrooms shall instead be located within the northern elevation of those units

b) None of the ground floor bedrooms in any unit shall have walls comprising a ‘concertina’ type construction

c) Fencing in proximity to Tree # 15 shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendation in Section 6 of the Tree Report prepared by About Trees

d) The site plan and relevant architectural plans shall be modified to be consistent with the revised site plan, being Drawing No. A02, Issue E, dated 26/9/05, drawn by Pretech Pty Ltd

e) The mistletoe in Tree 15 shall be removed, and minor pruning undertaken under the direction of a qualified arborist, to limit the amount of debris that will fall onto Unit 6. Units 1, 6 and 12 shall be provided with ‘gutter guard’ to limit the degree of ongoing maintenance to these units

These details shall be included in any plans approved with a Construction Certificate.

3.5 The development shall be completed in accordance with the schedule of finishes received from Pretech Pty Ltd, Drawing No. A16, Issue A dated 16 December 2004, and details for fencing and driveway treatments as shown on the landscape plan approved to satisfy Schedule 1 of the consent

3.6 Compliance with Construction Management Plan approved to satisfy Schedule 1 of the consent

3.7 Drainage shall be completed generally in accordance with the plans approved to satisfy Schedule 1 of the consent

3.8 Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate a restriction under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act shall be registered against each unit to satisfy clause 20 (1) and (2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

3.9 Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate the Principal Certifying Authority shall be provided with a Compliance Certificate confirming that all units within the development satisfy the requirements of clauses 51- 72 of State Environmental Planing Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

3.10 Tree numbers 2,3,4, 12,13,15 and 16, as identified in the report prepared by About Trees, shall be retained and incorporated into the development

3.11 Prior to the release of any Occupation Certificate the Principal Certifying Authority shall be provided with a Compliance Certificate confirming that a Restriction under the Conveyancing Act has been registered preventing the media and / or study rooms in unit 1 and 7 – 12 being converted for use as bedrooms

3.12 Submission of plans to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, showing full design details for the method of construction, and materials, for that section of the driveway and visitor parking spaces in proximity to Trees 2,3 and 4, shown shaded on Drawing No A02, issue E prepared by Pretech Pty Ltd. These plans shall be accompanied by certification from a suitably qualified arborist confirming the suitability of these works relative to the root zones of Trees 2, 3 and 4

3.13 A suitably qualified arborist shall provide the following certification to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) during the construction of the development:

a) Confirmation that all measures outlined in the Tree Protection Plan (Section 9 of the Tree Report prepared by About Trees) are installed on site prior to any works commencing. In this regard it is noted that Trees Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are to be retained and protected

b) Upon completion of the ground floor of all units, provide confirmation that the measures outlined in the Tree Protection Plan remain in place, and are satisfactory

c) Prior to excavation for services and drainage, confirm that all relevant contractors were advised of the requirements of the Tree Management Plan.

d) Prior to construction of the driveway confirm that all relevant contractors were advised of the requirements of the Tree Management Plan

e) Upon completion of the driveway and visitor spaces in proximity of Trees 2, 3 and 4, provide confirmation that construction was completed in accordance with conditions elsewhere in this Notice

f) Provide certification that the measures outlined in the Tree Protection Plan were satisfactory at the time landscaping of the site was completed.

Standard conditions

4. A008, A009, A011, A014, A019F, A038, A039, A043, B001, B002, B003, B004, B005, B006, B007, D001, D009, D010, E001, E005, E006, G002, G004, H01F, H003, H041, H002, H013 (c, e, f, g, h, i = building specifications) H015, H022, H024, H026, H028, H030, I003 (Lofty Place – b, e, g, h), I004 (f – the provision of concrete footpaths and associated works to provide a pedestrian access to the nominated bus stop. A bench seat shall also be provided at the bus stop.), K001 (delete ‘roads and’) K002, K007, K009, K016, K019, K025, K027, K036, K037, L001 (landscape plan approved to satisfy Schedule 1), L002, L003, L007, L008, L010 (prepared by About Trees [Tree numbers 2,3,4, 12,13,15 and 16] ) N001 (North Cranebrook Release Area - $71,354), N001 (Cultural Facilities - $1032), P002, Q001, Q005, Q006 (dot points 1,7,8,9,12)

5. Persons who made submissions in respect to the proposed development to be advised of Council’s decision in writing.

ATTACHMENTS/ANNEXURES

1. View

6 Lofty Place, Cranebrook

6 Pages

Appendix

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Grant Applications under the Castlereagh Community Fund

Compiled by: Raphael Collins - Parks Construction and Maintenance Manager, Margaret Streater - Neighbourhood Facilities Officer

Authorised by: Craig Butler - Director City Planning

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City’s recreation and leisure facilities and services meet its needs and are optimally used.

Critical Action: Facilitate joint use of the City’s recreation and leisure facilities, including co-location of programs.

Purpose:

To advise Council of the current situation in relation ot applications for funding from the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) under the Castlereagh Community Fund Program. The report recommends that the projects selected for stage two of the assessment process be approved.

Background

Council at its meeting of the 2 May, considered a report concerning the Castlereagh Community Fund. The fund was established by the NSW Government to deliver projects that benefit the community or environment in the vicinity of the Castlereagh Waste Management Centre in Londonderry.

The Castlereagh Community Fund has approximately $1.1million that was raised by means of special levy on waste disposed of at the site in 1997 when its official closure as a depot was delayed.

As defined in the earlier report, the guiding principles for the Castlereagh Community Fund include:

· It is to be applied to projects, which yield benefit to neighbours in the immediate vicinity of the site;

· The community is to benefit from the expenditure, and / or;

· There is to be an environmental benefit;

· Preference is for a project with long-term benefits.

The Londonderry Soccer Club also submitted an application for grant funding to reconstruct their existing amenity building. The estimate for this new building was $617,000.

Any recipient of support from the fund is required to commit, in writing, to the maintenance of any project created by or materials provided from the allocation of the fund.

Applications for the first round of the grant assessment closed on the 13^th of May. Council submitted the following projects for consideration:

·    Londonderry Park Upgrade including:
- Playground refurbishment
- Fencing of the oval
- Irrigation system
- Amenities Building improvements
- Lighting to Tennis Courts.

· Wilson Park Improvements
- Upgrade basketball facility and landscaping

· Berkshire Park Reserve Improvements

- Synthetic cricket pitch, park furniture and landscaping

· Alterations and additions to Londonderry Neighbourhood Centre

· Rural Community Development Project

- employment of Community Development Officer for northern rural areas of the Penrith LGA

· The total of all Council nominated projects was $1,152,000.

Current Situation

Notification has been received from the DEC advising that a total of 66 applications for grants totalling $7.6million were received by the closing date, competing for the $1million in available funding. Correspondence received from the Assessment Committee invites that Council to co-ordinate and submit a second round application as a “Grounds Project” jointly with both the Londonderry Primary School and the Londonderry Soccer Club, due to the similar nature of proposed projects in adjacent areas.

Similar advice has been received that Council co-ordinate and submit a second round Application as a “Building Project” jointly with Londonderry Soccer Club.

Council’s internal working group responsible for the preparation of the submission believed that stage two applications should focus on the Londonderry precinct. The Londonderry precinct has extensive use and is the hub of the Londonderry community. Works within the precinct will have a greater impact over many more residents.

The projects at Wilson Park and Berkshire Park do not appear to be favoured by the Assessment Committee as second round applications have not been requested for these projects. Both of these projects are included in the Draft Open Space Action Plan.

Application for the second round are due on the 22^nd of October and it is expected the successful projects will be announced in March 2006.

Proposed Grounds Projects

Following consultation with stakeholders including the soccer club representatives it has been determined that the “Grounds Project” include the following:

· Perimeter Fencing

It is proposed that a perimeter fence be installed around the soccer fields and netball courts in Londonderry Park. Security style fence (1.8m high) will be erected along the Carrington Road boundary primarily as a safety measure to prevent young children running onto Carrington Rd to retrieve soccer balls as the existing fence has little effect in this regard. Fencing along the southern and eastern boundaries are in a poor state of repair and it is proposed that they be replaced with 1.2m high metal post and rail fences to match that currently in place along the western alignment. This will greatly improve the appearance of the park, help in deterring unauthorised entry onto the playing fields by vehicles and provide convenience for players and spectators.

· Construction of a multi-purpose Court at the Londonderry Public School

A multi purpose games court within the Londonderry Public School has been included in the submission. These courts will be accessible to the public outside school hours. The principal of the Public School has been consulted and is supportive of the courts as it will benefit the students and the general community. Even though the Courts are on the school grounds it was decided they should be included with the Council’s submission in ‘grounds project’ because of their potential value to the Londonderry Community. The multi purpose courts will comprise of a three-quarter size basketball court and a half size netball court.

· Shade Structure for Netball

The third element of the application is funding for a shade structure in association with the netball courts. The structure proposed will be of similar design to an existing shade structure adjacent to the soccer fields.

Building Projects

The “Building Project” comprises alterations and additions to two buildings within the Londonderry Park which is the focal point of this small and geographically isolated community. It is aimed at improving the sporting, social, educational and recreational opportunities for the community, fostering a sense of pride in all age groups and catering to all interests.

Neighbourhood Centre Improvements – (Facilities Operations Manager’s comment)

The existing Neighbourhood Centre has provision for only limited activities within the precinct. There is no access for the elderly, disabled or prams limiting the scope of community engagement.

Kindergarten Union Children’s services operate two days per week and require additional shade to meet Department of Community Services licensing requirements. Currently storage is only available through use of a shipping container in the centre’s grounds while their “office” is a small converted storage cupboard.

The centre at present, limits the opportunities for older people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds to be accommodated. Other opportunities the centres enhancements will afford are TAFE Outreach services which will allow residents who find it difficult to enter education or training programs because of barriers such as location, physical disability, age, English as a second language etc to obtain skills otherwise not readily available. The proposed meeting room can be utilised as a child minding facility for those residents with family commitments.

The upgraded facilities would also encourage more community groups to use the hall; in particular a potential seniors group has been raised with Council staff as a need in the area.

The proposal will provide an immediate and long-term practical solution to the needs of the community by diversifying the activities and educational benefits available across all age groups.

The Soccer Club are seeking access to space that could be utilized for club specific purposes. The working group is confident that the needs of the soccer club and the wider community can be met by the multi-purpose functions of a redesigned Neighbourhood Centre.

After considering all of the above needs and opportunities, it is proposed that the Neighbourhood Centre improvements include:

· Male, female and accessible toilets;

· Meeting room;

· Office space;

· Access ramp for the disabled;

· Storage rooms to replace existing shipping containers;

· Entrance foyer;

· Parenting room;

· An external paved and covered shade area;

· Security railing.

Changes will also be made to the building to provide a children’s toilet, installation of bi-fold doors adjacent to the stage, provision of a new roof and changes to the windows to improve light and ventilation and to give the building a better visual balance. The existing canteen building attached to the eastern sidewall is also to be demolished.

It is also proposed that a new wastewater treatment system be installed with effluent to be re-used for landscaping irrigation purposes.

Soccer Club Amenities Building

The Londonderry Soccer Club initially submitted an application for a new amenity building. The new building would essentially replace the existing building and the estimated cost was $617,000.

Building Services Department officers and Council’s Architect have inspected this building and believe the structure is sound and does not need to be demolished. Consequently, a new design was prepared that incorporates the existing building structure to provide;

· Male and female accessible toilets;

· Change rooms;

· Canteen;

· Storage; and new verandah.

The Soccer Club originally wanted a meeting room but the rooms in the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre could be utilised by the Club.

The proposed improvements to the building are consistent with elements provided at other soccer venues in the city and have been endorsed by Nepean Soccer Officials. It should be emphasised that Londonderry Soccer Club only has 9 teams therefore, the new design is in proportion to the existing and future needs of the Club.

Also proposed is the collection of roof water to be used to flush toilets. This component of the project was nominated for consideration under the Water Grant Program. The diversion of effluent from the amenities building over to a centralised holding tank at the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre for irrigation is also part of the building project.

Estimated costs for each proposal are as follows:

·    Grounds Projects
- fencing to soccer fields and
   netball courts                             $30,000
- multi purpose court at
   Primary School                                        $20,000
- Shade Structure                                       $15,000
                                                      Total                                        $65,000

·    Building Project
- Neighbourhood Centre                 $728,000
- Amenities Building                                    $300,000
                                                                                                      $1,028,000

                                                      Total                                        $1,093,000

Council may wish to consider ‘value adding’ to the Castlereagh Community Fund by forward funding some proposed works that have been listed in the Draft Open Space Action Plan. Council’s application may have a better chance of succeeding if there is a commitment to fund additional works in the precinct. The Open Space Action Plan nominated the following projects for Londonderry Park:

· Upgrade field surface;

· Perimeter fencing;

· Lights for tennis courts;

· Upgrade netball posts;

· Provide slab for rebound wall.

Total amount allocated to Londonderry Park was $80,000. The highest priority project on the list is a new perimeter fence and this is listed in Council’s submission under ‘Grounds Projects’.

The remaining projects, especially the upgrade of the field surface, could be considered for priority funding from the Open Space Action Plan, when adopted by Council. The earliest that the field surface upgrade could happen would be in the 2006/07 budget.

Ongoing Maintenance

The Building Services Manager advises that, if the building projects are successful, additional building maintenance resources will be required for the increased building area, higher maintenance standard and increased use. The earliest that this will be required will be in the 2006/07 budget and additional maintenance funding will be applied for in accordance with established procedure.

Conclusion

The projects selected for second round of the Castlereagh Community Fund have been discussed with the various stakeholders. There is no doubt the proposed improvements to the buildings will benefit the respective user groups and will enhance the appearance of the precinct.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Grant Applications under the Castlereagh Community Fund be received.

2. Subject to the adoption of the Open Space Action Plan, the upgrade of the field surface at Londonderry Park be included in the 2006/07 Management Plan.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Grant Applications under the Castlereagh Community Fund

5 Pages

Appendix

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Application to rezone Lot 1 DP 542395 and Lot 740 DP 810111 Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham to allow an Advanced Waste Treatment Facility in conjunction with the existing quarry and landfill operation Applicant: Mullane Planning Consultants Pty Ltd; Owner: SITA Australia Pty Ltd

RZ04/0035

Compiled by: Allegra Zakis - Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Wayne Mitchell - Acting Building Approvals and Environmental Protection Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Redevelopment of existing areas contributes to safe, sustainable, affordable and satisfying living environments and cohesive communities.

Critical Action: Work in partnership with the local community to foster understanding of the reasons why established areas are redeveloping.

Purpose:

To inform Council of the results of the public exhibition of a draft Local Environmental Plan to allow an Advanced Waste Treatment Facility on the subject site. The report recommends that the plan be forwarded to the Minister for gazettal, pending an opinion from Parliamentary Counsel.

Background

In June 2004, Council received a rezoning application to allow an Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) Facility on a site at Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham. The AWT is to operate on the same site as an existing Class 2 landfill, which is not licensed to accept putrescible waste. The AWT is proposed to operate by processing municipal waste to separate recyclable material, organic material and inorganic material. Recyclable material will be transported to the appropriate recycling depot. Inorganic material will be disposed of in the existing landfill. Organic material will be composted to produce a compost which complies with relevant Australian Standard. The process provides an alternative to landfilling of municipal waste.

Council last considered this matter at its Ordinary meeting of 16 May 2005. At this meeting, Council resolved to publicly exhibit a draft Local Environmental Plan for the site, which would make an Advanced Waste Treatment Facility permissible with consent. A copy of the reports of 16 May 2005 and 7 March 2005 are attached. These reports provide more detail of the history of the site and planning assessment of the proposal.

Current Situation

The draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) was publicly exhibited from Tuesday, 14 June 2005 to Friday, 15 July 2005. Public authorities initially consulted regarding the preparation of the plan were advised in writing of the exhibition and provided with a copy of the draft LEP and the Executive Summary of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the applicant to support the rezoning application. These agencies were also offered a full copy of the draft EIS. Waste Services NSW (WSN) was the only authority to request a copy of the draft EIS. WSN did not make a submission to the exhibition.

Seven submissions (all from agencies) were received in response to the exhibition, none of which raised any objection to the proposed rezoning. A number of submissions did, however, raise issues to be considered either as amendments to the draft LEP or at Development Application stage. Comments relating to the draft LEP are outlined below.

The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) noted that odour modelling will be required at Development Application stage. Additional comments on the issue of odour appear later in this report. The DPI also suggested that the draft LEP incorporate a provision that prevents any form of development, except weed management and rehabilitation of native vegetation, within 50m of Badgerys Creek. This is a buffer zone to protect riparian vegetation and is consistent with both best practice and commentary from the Department of Environment and Conservation in relation to the Rural Lands LEP. The draft LEP has been appropriately modified, with the insertion of an objective relating to the protection of riparian vegetation and a clause preventing inappropriate development within 50m of Badgerys Creek.

The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) was the only other authority to provide specific comment on the draft LEP. The issues raised in this submission were related to water quality, biodiversity and Aboriginal heritage. With regard to water quality, the DEC noted that Badgerys Creek drains to South Creek, which is now considered one of the most ‘stressed’ waterways in NSW. Work undertaken by the DEC has indicated that new land uses in the South Creek catchment need to make a positive impact on water quality, rather than achieving only a neutral impact. Accordingly, the DEC has suggested that an additional clause be added which states that Council must not grant consent to the carrying out of development unless it is satisfied that the quality and quantity of stormwater discharged from the site will assist in improving aquatic ecosystem health.

Council has a long-standing policy that new development must not result in a detrimental impact on water quality. This more stringent provision has been developed with the (then) Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) primarily in relation to proposed development in both the north west and south west growth sectors. This development does not fall within either of these sectors, and there is some concern that, given the nature of the development already approved on the site, it could prove economically unfeasible to improve water quality. Accordingly, a clause relating to water quality has been added to the draft LEP, which requires that Council not consent to development of an Advanced Waste Treatment Facility unless it is satisfied that either the quality and quantity of stormwater discharged will assist in improving ecosystem health, or that it is economically unviable for this to be achieved.

The National Parks branch of the DEC also raised the issue of bushland identified as ‘core’ and ‘support for core’ along the Badgerys Creek boundary of the property, and the possibility of Aboriginal archaeological heritage within this area. An inspection of the proposed AWT site showed that the proposed development is well clear of Badgerys Creek and the associated riparian corridor. Additionally, the draft LEP has been modified to require a 50m buffer zone along Badgerys Creek, as discussed above. The draft EIS submitted with the Development Application will need to include an assessment of any vegetation to be removed as part of the development. Together, it is considered these provisions provide adequate protection for riparian vegetation and any potential Aboriginal archaeological heritage.

The Environmental Protection branch of the DEC, which would be responsible for licensing and monitoring of the environmental impacts of this proposal, have indicated they do not wish to comment on the draft plan, but will undertake detailed assessment of the proposal at Development Application stage.

In addition to the above, Integral Energy requested that they be consulted regarding electricity supply to the site prior to any Development Approval. The Roads and Traffic Authority also requested that a traffic assessment be conducted as part of the development assessment process. A draft traffic report is included in the draft EIS, this will be finalised prior to submission of a Development Application and will be forwarded to the RTA as part of the assessment process. The other three submissions, from Blue Mountains City Council, Hawkesbury City Council and the NSW Rural Fire Service, did not make any comment with regard to the proposal.

Odour Potential

The potential for the emission of offensive odour from this site as the result of the Advanced Waste Treatment Facility has been of ongoing concern to Council during this assessment process. As part of the initial statutory consultation phase Council approached the Western Australian Water Authority to determine if there had been odour problems with the operation of a similar AWT near Perth. They responded that there had been no complaints regarding odour, however, the materials processed at the Perth facility are slightly different to those proposed to be processed for this site.

Another source of concern regarding odour is the currently operating AWT at Eastern Creek, run by Waste Services NSW (WSN). This complex, including the AWT, has been the subject of a number of odour complaints since it commenced operation. WSN were contacted with regard to both the odour issues at Eastern Creek and the proposed odour management regime for the Elizabeth Drive site. In summary, WSN believe that the odour treatment at Eastern Creek will be sufficient when the plant is properly operational and the initial teething problems have been resolved. It should also be noted that a standard putrescible waste landfill operates at the Eastern Creek site, as well as an open composting process, and it is not possible to determine whether the odours are coming from the landfill, the composting or the AWT. The information from WSN indicates that the odour measures proposed for the SITA AWT at Elizabeth Drive should be sufficient to control odour. WSN were not, however, prepared to comment formally on this matter.

To further analyse the potential issues with the proposed odour management techniques for Elizabeth Drive, Council referred the odour management report submitted as part of the draft EIS to an independent odour consultant (in August 2005). The odour consultant raised a number of concerns, the most significant of which was the assumptions made in the report about the effectiveness of the biofilters in reducing odour from the composting cells. The report indicates that these filters will reduce odours by over 90%, however the independent consultant indicated that an odour reduction figure of 70% to 80% would be more reasonable. Additional concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of the information in the report and its compliance with relevant Department of Environment and Conservation Guidelines.

In September 2005, a copy of the independent report was subsequently provided to the applicant and a request made for a response to the concerns raised. In reply, the odour consultant for the applicant has made the following points:

· The modelling conducted for the odour controls measures was based on the results of testing of similar systems, at both the Biowise facility in Perth and other SITA run operations. These provide a more accurate indication how the biofilters will work in the context of the AWT, rather than a general assumption as to generic performance

· It is reasonable to use the figures gained from specific testing of the operation of the biofilters in situations which replicate those proposed for the AWT facility at Elizabeth Drive

· A lower figure of efficiency than that indicated by the testing was also modelled, and the odour impacts remained acceptable

· All information required by the DEC was included in the report (references to specific sections of the report were provided).

The information provided by the applicant in relation to odour and the effectiveness of the biofilters accords with informal advice provided by Waste Services NSW. The Biowise facility in Perth operates in exactly the same manner as that proposed in Elizabeth Drive, though the inputs (primarily biodsolids) are different. The manager of this facility and Perth Water (who operate the facility in conjunction with SITA) have both been contacted and have indicated that there are no significant odour complaints relating to this facility. The operation, odour management techniques and range of facilities proposed to operate at Elizabeth Drive are substantially different to those currently operating at Eastern Creek, not least because there is no putrescible landfill or open composting proposed on this site.

Odour management would be further assessed, specifically by the DEC, at the Development Application stage. Should the DEC (who have declined to comment to date) raise significant issues at DA stage, which could not be addressed, Council would be under no obligation to grant consent. It is thus reasonable to allow the draft LEP to proceed to gazettal, and allow the next stage of assessment of this proposal to commence.

Next steps

The next stage of this process is to obtain an Opinion from Parliamentary Counsel as to whether the plan can be legally made. This Opinion is based on legal drafting principles, and does not change the intent of the plan. Once this Opinion has been received Council can forward the draft plan to the Minster, via the Department, for gazettal.

Conclusion

The proposal presents a sustainable alternative to land filling of putrescible waste and has not attracted objections from either the general community or public authorities. The applicant has adequately addressed the issue of odour potential at this stage and additional assessment would naturally occur as part of the assessment of the Development Application. Monitoring stations for dust and water quality are already in place as part of the existing landfill on site, and can also be further assessed as part of the Development Application. It is therefore recommended that the draft plan be first submitted to Parliamentary Counsel for an Opinion as to whether it can be legally made, then, once that is received, forwarded to the Minister for gazettal.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Application to rezone Lot 1 DP 542395 and Lot 740 DP 810111 Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham to allow an Advanced Waste Treatment Facility in conjunction with the existing quarry and landfill operation be received

2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Regulations 2000, Council use its Section 69 delegations to submit the draft Local Environmental Plan to the Minster for gazettal, subject to any changes required by Parliamentary Counsel

3. The applicant and owner and those other parties who made submissions in response to the Plan’s exhibition be notified of Council’s decision.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	SITA - Rezoning	3 Pages	Appendix
2.	070305 - Report to council	17 Pages	Attachment
3.	160505 - Report to council	8 Pages	Attachment

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Proposed Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct

1344/1,4122/51 Pt2

Compiled by: Judy Cobb - Social Planner, Winifred Sadlier - Acting Children's Services Manager

Authorised by: Erich Weller - Acting Community Development Manager, Winifred Sadlier - Acting Children's Services Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Services are provided to meet the diverse needs of families and to support the development of children.

Critical Action: Deliver Council's Children's Services to meet the current and emerging needs of families and children.

Purpose:

To provide detailed information on the project planning process and identified model for development of the Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct. This report recommends that Council adopt, in principle, the proposed model for the Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct. The report also recommends that tender processes for architectural services, including project plan design options, design development and documentation are commenced.

Background

Council adopted the Glenmore Park Eastern Hamlets Development Control Plan in 1993. This statutory planning instrument sets out the principles for development of the Eastern Hamlets area of Glenmore Park.

The Development Control Plan (DCP) identifies land in the Blue Hills area for future neighbourhood business and community facilities uses. The DCP also identifies a range of potential uses for the site including a neighbourhood centre, a multi-purpose children’s centre and small retail outlet. A site map is shown in Appendix 1. This area (previously referred to as the Eastern Hamlets Community Facilities Site) is now referred to as the Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct.

Some key principles outlined in the Eastern Hamlets DCP includes:

· Neighbourhood facilities that act as a focus for the community

· Grouping of buildings and spaces on the site that result in an integrated urban form

· A site that optimises accessibility and community interaction

· A coordinated approach to the parking and servicing requirements of the neighbourhood business and community facilities.

An integrated approach to facility provision and service delivery is proposed for the Child and Family Precinct. This new approach will take advantage of the unique opportunity to focus on creating a ‘magnetic place’ rather than just on the built environment. The rationale for the model is drawn from national and international research.

Rather than segregating the functions of the various community facilities identified in the DCP it is proposed to design and establish a ‘community hub’ where all of the facilities and elements will have an interdependent relationship with each other. An example includes the integration of the children’s centre and neighbourhood facilities under the same roof. This new approach will generate efficiencies and economies of scale that would otherwise not be available to Council. In adopting this new model it is expected that the outcomes for the local community will be substantially better than those achieved by more traditional models of facility provision and service delivery.

Numerous studies and investigations have been undertaken as part of the planning process for the Child and Family Precinct. These include:

· Glenmore Park Community Plan (August 1993)

· Glenmore Park Eastern Hamlets Development Control Plan (September 1995)

· Eastern Hamlets Community Facilities Needs Study (October 2002)

· Glenmore Park Release Area Section 94 Development Contribution Plan (Revised March 2004)

· Assessing the need for Out of School Hours Service (OOSH)(March 2004)

· Investigation of other Local Government Initiatives (April 2004)

· Economic Viability Study of Eastern Hamlets Site (September 2004)

· The Expression of Interest Process for Community and Commercial Partners (October 2004)

· Glenmore Park Southern Expansion Area Local Environmental Study (October 2004)

· Environmentally Sustainable Design – design criteria (March 2005)

· The role of Public Art – consultant’s brief (March 2005)

· Monitoring of Government Funding Directions (ongoing)

The current Glenmore Park S94 Plan (adopted 1/3/04) identifies funding to purchase the Child and Family Precinct, to construct a children’s centre, a neighbourhood centre, and an adventure playground, and to establish the infrastructure and landscaping associated with the community facilities. The Plan also identifies funding for a Public Art Project.

Planning for the Child and Family Precinct has considered existing children’s services and community facilities provision in the area. The facilities to be provided on the site will cater for the needs of the residents of the existing Glenmore Park estate as well as the Glenmore Park Southern Expansion Release Area.

The Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct Model

This model is based on a holistic approach to meeting the needs of the community and includes the following elements:

A Community Hub

An objective in establishing Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct is to create a community ‘hub’ where people would feel welcome to visit, relax and stay to develop relationships. The ‘hub’ will consist of six inter-related functional areas:

· an adventure playground

· an outdoor community meeting area with seating/pubic domain

· a child and family centre

· a small corner store/coffee shop (with an outdoor dining area)

· car parking facilities

· an open space area.

The emphasis will be on ‘place making’ rather than ‘facility provision’ and based on the premise that an ‘active site is an attractive site’. A key element of this model is an integrated planning approach, which addresses the whole site. Both the adventure playground and the corner store/coffee shop are important elements that will contribute to the creation of neighbourhood identity and place making, encourage community interaction and assist in meeting the requirements of the DCP.

A Child and Family Centre

The proposed Child and Family Centre will provide space not only for a multi-purpose children’s centre, including long day care and occasional care but also have the capacity to accommodate other potential projects, services and activities for families and the community. Space will also be provided for one or two other community related service providers who offer a service that complements the child and family focus of the centre (e.g. speech pathologist, health club). These rooms will be leased under a tenancy arrangement.

It is envisioned that these various functions will radiate out from a central administration area. Opportunities will exist for the Children’s Service to provide administrative support for the community meeting rooms (e.g. bookings) as well as for the other community related service providers. Opportunities will also exist for the role of the Children’s Service to be extended to establish community networks and programmes that will enhance the service’s ability to provide for the child within the family.

A model is proposed where a Manager could be employed to manage the day-to-day operation of the Centre. This could include the management of the children’s service as well as the community centre component of the facility. The establishment of this position is seen as important to the sustainability of the Centre and its capacity to attract more users and respond effectively to community need with this model. A manager would be multi-skilled in early childhood development and education, working with families at a community level, and business/facility management.

The centre will have the capacity to accommodate an extended range of services to families in line with new government directions. This model acknowledges the importance of working with a child within their family within their community.

Previous Models of Facility Provision and Service Delivery

Previous models of community centres provision has focused on the provision of a building where a range of groups could meet for a common purpose (e.g. playgroup). Emphasis is placed on the internal design of the building and on the needs of future user groups (e.g. space requirements). Though many community centres are often co-located with other facilities (e.g. children’s centres, playing fields) they usually have no functional relationship to each other. Community centres are often not staffed and therefore locked when not hired to a local group.

In the past Children’s Centre programmes have been child focused rather than family focused. Children’s centres are not usually designed to allow for space to facilitate grant funded projects that need to accommodate extra workers, such as that obtained under the Federal Government’s Building Stronger Communities at Kindana Children’s Centre. Space for provision of activities under the same roof that have the ability to build community capacity is not traditionally provided in a children’s centre.

It is anticipated that the integrated model of facility provision and service delivery proposed for the Child and Family Centre will address the above issues.

The proposed Child and Family Centre will allow for early childhood programmes that plan for the child to have positive community experiences and encourage families to develop parenting skills and to make supportive links in their communities. The model also allows for the Children’s Service staff to have greater networking opportunities with other child and family services in the community who will use the facility and to improve capacity building.

As well as having the capacity to better meet the needs of the community the new model also offers a number of economic benefits.

One of the key differences between the traditional provision of children’s centres and community facilities and the new model is that the new model has the ability to make savings through increased income from rent and from room hire fees and economies of scale. Also, a well-designed children’s centre that caters for 50 children opposed to the majority of 40 place centres managed by the Co-operative is more economical to run; for example: a breakeven budget for a 50 place children’s centre is achievable without the DoCS operational funding provided to existing Children’s Centres.

Economic Benefits of the Precinct Model

Co-locating a range of facilities and services on the Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct will have a number of economic benefits. Some examples of these benefits include:

· An attractive, inviting community ‘hub’ that will increase patronage to all services and facilities located on the precinct. This will assist in maintaining high utilisation of the children’s service and community meeting rooms and a high demand for the leased rooms located within the Child and Family Centre.

· Rent from the rooms leased under a tenancy agreement will contribute to the operating costs of the facility e.g. security, cleaning and maintenance. With the more traditional model of community facility provision the income from user group hire fees often do not cover these costs without support from Council.

· Increased patronage to the precinct through the provision of an active and inviting community ‘hub’ will potentially reduce vandalism through increased passive surveillance

· There is an opportunity for the children’s service to provide administrative service (for a fee) to the tenants of the leased rooms.

· There will be opportunities for economies of scale in the sharing of premises by several user groups e.g. shared office space, staff facilities, administration area etc.

There will also be a number of social benefits associated with the new model such as improved access to local services, opportunities for new partnerships, and innovative approaches to service delivery.

Estimated Costs of Establishing the Precinct Model

An Estimate of Cost for the development of the Child and Family Precinct cannot be established until the design for all of the facilities and infrastructure has been progressed and costed by an independent Quantity Surveyor. A preliminary opinion of anticipated cost is currently $3.9 m.

The capital cost of establishing the precinct will be funded through Section 94 contributions from the Glenmore Park S94 Plan ($2.82 million) and through a portion of the S94 contributions from the Glenmore Park Southern Expansion Release Area. The funds to build the corner store/coffee shop will come from Council’s Property Development Reserve, which is an estimated cost of $430,000. Property Development Reserve will also make a contribution to carpark facilities and landscaping design. Income from the corner store/coffee shop will go into Council’s Property Development Reserve.

Legal advice has been sought regarding use of Section 94 funding for the provision of rooms that can be leased to community related service providers within the community facility and for the purchase of land for the corner store/coffee shop of up to (max) 200m2. This advice has been positive and supports the use of Section 94 funds for these purposes.

Estimated Ongoing Cost of the Precinct Model

Estimated Maintenance Cost of the Community Hub

The following table outlines the estimated cost of maintaining the facilities and infrastructure to be provided on the Child and Family Precinct. These facilities include the adventure playground, outdoor community meeting area, the Child and Family Centre, the open space area, and the car parking area. The table also includes an estimated cost of operating the lighting to be provided on the site. The estimated day-to-day operating cost for the Child and Family Centre is detailed in the next section of this report.

	Year One	Year Two	Year Three	Year Four	Year Five

	TIME	DEC
		Mon
Ordinary Meetings	7.00 pm
		12
Policy Review Committee	7.00 pm

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

PRESENT

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1.	City Marketing Event Sponsorship Policy	3 Pages	Attachment
2.	Business Plan from Richmond Race Club	6 Pages	Attachment

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*Appendix 1 - Annexure DA022425 - Union Road*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*Appendix 1 - 6 Lofty Place, Cranebrook*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*Appendix 1 - Grant Applications under the Castlereagh Community Fund*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*10 October 2005*
*Appendix 1 - SITA - Rezoning*