15 December 2005

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 12 December 2005 at 7:00PM.

Attention is directed to the statement accompanying this notice of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting.

Yours Faithfully

 

 

Alan Travers

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           APOLOGIES

 

2.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Page - 30 November 2005 to 21 December 2005 inclusive.

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 5 December 2005.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Interest

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

8.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 5 December 2005.

 

9.           MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         URGENT REPORTS (to be dealt with in the master program to which the item relates)

 

11.         QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

12.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 12 December 2005

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

master program reports

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

“Sovereign God, tonight as we gather together as a Council we affirm that you are the giver and sustainer of life.  We come together as representatives of our community to make decisions that will benefit this city and the people within it. 

 

We come not in a spirit of competition, not as adversaries, but as colleagues.  Help us to treat each other with respect, with dignity, with interest and with honesty.  Help us not just to hear the words we say, but also to hear each others hearts.  We seek to be wise in all that we say and do.

 

As we meet, our concern is for this city.  Grant us wisdom, courage and strength.

 

Lord, help us.  We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.”

 

 

 

 

 


Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

Council values the unique status of Aboriginal people as the original owners and custodians of lands and waters, including the land and waters of Penrith City.

 

Council values the unique status of Torres Strait Islander people as the original owners and custodians of the Torres Strait Islands and surrounding waters.

 

We work together for a united Australia and City that respects this land of ours, that values the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage, and provides justice and equity for all.

 

 

 

 

 


Council Chambers Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                                       

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Text Box: Press

Managers                            Chief Financial

                 Officer
          
Barry Husking

 
   


 

MEETING CALENDAR

 

December 2005

 

 

TIME

DEC

Mon

Ordinary Meetings

7.00 pm

 

12

Policy Review Committee

7.00 pm

 

 

 

-                 Council has two Ordinary Meetings per month where practicable.

-                 Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-                 Policy Review Meetings are held monthly where practicable.

-                 Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council. Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Executive Officer, Glenn McCarthy on 47327649.

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 5 DECEMBER 2005 AT 7:05PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

The meeting opened with the National Anthem and Prayer read by Reverend Neil Checkley.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor John Thain read a statement of recognition of Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage.

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor John Thain, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, David Bradbury (arrived 7.13pm), Lexie Cettolin, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Garry Rumble, Pat Sheehy AM, and Steve Simat (arrived 7.07pm).

 

APOLOGIES

581  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that apologies be received from Councillor David Bradbury and Councillor Steve Simat.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Page for the period 30 November 2005 to 21 December 2005 inclusive.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 21 November 2005

582  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 21 November 2005 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Jim Aitken declared a pecuniary interest in Item 6 as he is the owner of the property and left the meeting during the discussion and voting on the item.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 1 as he is the Chairman of the organising committee for the 2005ICF Canoe Slalom World Championships and he reserved his right to speak and vote.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 17 as she is a Director of Penrith Regional Gallery and the Lewers Bequest and she reserved her right to speak and vote.

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 11 as he is a member of the Rural Fire Service and he reserved his right to speak and vote.

 

Councillor Greg Davies declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 12 as he is the patron of the Penrith VRA Rescue Squad and he reserved his right to speak and vote.

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Local Government Excellence in the Environment Awards 2004/2005 Energy and Water Green Globe Awards 2005

583  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the information contained in the Mayoral Minute on Local Government Excellence in the Environment Awards 2004/2005 & Energy and Water Green Globe Awards 2005 be received.

 

 

2        Release of the Governments Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney

584  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the information contained in the Mayoral Minute on Release of the Governments Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney be received.

 

 

  

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City as a Social Place

 

Councillor Jim Aitken left the meeting the time being 7.17pm.

 

6        Development Application 05/1320 proposal to use Shop No. 2 at Lot 16 DP 583184 (No. 91) Great Western Highway, Emu Plains. Applicant: Jim Aitken;  Owner: Jim Aitken DA05/1320

585  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Steve Simat that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application 05/1320 proposal to use Shop No. 2 at Lot 16 DP 583184 (No. 91) Great Western Highway, Emu Plains be received

2.     The Development Application 05/1320 proposal to use Shop No. 2 at Lot 16 DP 583184 (No. 91) Great Western Highway, Emu Plains be approved subject to the following conditions of consent:

2.1      A02f, A008 (first sentence only), A012, A021, A026 (application for adverting signs), A029 (Monday to Sunday 11am to 10 pm), A032, A039, D014, D031, E01a, E006, E008, E009, F002, H01f, H041, H006, H029, Q01F, Q006 (delete from in addition to)    

 

Special Conditions

2.2      The building shall not be occupied until all the conditions of consent DA04/0357 dated 6 September 2004 and all conditions of this consent are satisfied

2.3      Details of lights, alarms and cameras to enable clear and direct movement through the building and monitor unauthorised access to non-public spaces are required to be submitted prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

2.4      The applicant shall consult with Council to determine the type of lighting required to illuminate the public car parking area to the rear of the site.  All lighting shall be installed at the applicants cost prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Jim Aitken returned to the meeting the time being 7.18pm.

 

 

1        ICF Canoe Slalom World Championships 2005                                                    2071/10

586  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the information contained in the report on ICF Canoe Slalom World Championships 2005 be received.

 

2        Community Assistance Program - Planned Component 2005         6016/51

587  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Community Assistance Program - Planned Component 2005 be received

2.     Council endorse funding the recommended projects totalling $19,060 from the Planned Component of the Community Assistance Program

3.     That $60.00 be re-allocated from the Rolling Component of the Community Assistance Program to the Planned Component to cover the shortfall between the total value of recommended projects detailed in this report and the $19,000.00 currently allocated to the Planned Component.

 

3        Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association Conference 16-20 October 2005                                                                                     1004/24

588  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that the information contained in the report on Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association Conference 16-20 October 2005 be received.

 

 

5        Development Application 05/0229 proposal for a detached dual occupancy at Lot 268 DP 204977 (No. 51) Westbank Avenue, Emu Plains. Applicant: Mr S & Mrs K Harris;  Owner: Mr S & Mrs K Harris                 05/0229

589  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that:

1.  The information contained in the report on Development Application 05/0229 proposal for a detached dual occupancy at Lot 268 DP 204977 (No. 51) Westbank Avenue, Emu Plains be received

2.  The SEPP1 submission received by Council in relation to the rear setback         be      supported

3.  The Development Application 05/0229 for a detached dual occupancy at          Lot      268 DP 204977 (No. 51) Westbank Avenue, Emu Plains, be approved,      subject to the following conditions

Standard Conditions

3.1        A001, A008, A009, A010, A011, A039, A042, D001, D007, D009, D010, E001, E005, G003, G004, H014, H015, H016, H041, H022-slab level, H026, H033, H036, H037, H038, H039, I003, K001, K003, K025, L001, L008, P002, Q001, Q005, Q010

 

Special Conditions

3.2        Amended plans are to be submitted to and approved by Penrith Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate that illustrates the dormer window on the north-western elevation being replaced with a "vilux" window.

 

3.3        Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, an amended landscape plan is to be received and approved by Council that indicates the species type and maturity of replacement trees to be planted along the southwest boundary of the site to ensure privacy between adjoining dwellings, and the front setback to ensure that the site is sufficiently landscaped with suitable plantings.

 

3.4        All boundary fencing of the proposed dwelling shall be 1.8m high colourbond.

 

3.5        This condition is imposed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan(s) for Footpaths. Based on the current rates detailed in the accompanying schedule attached to this Notice, $198.00 is to be paid to Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for this development (the rates are subject to quarterly reviews). If not paid within the current quarterly period, this contribution will be reviewed at the time of payment in accordance with the adopted Section 94 plan. The projected rates of this contribution amount are listed in Council’s Fees and Charges Schedule

 

3.6        This condition is imposed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan(s) for Cultural Facilities. Based on the current rates detailed in the accompanying schedule attached to this Notice, $261.00 is to be paid to Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for this development (the rates are subject to quarterly reviews). If not paid within the current quarterly period, this contribution will be reviewed at the time of payment in accordance with the adopted Section 94 plan. The projected rates of this contribution amount are listed in Council’s Fees and Charges Schedule

 

3.7        This condition is imposed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan(s) for Open Space. Based on the current rates detailed in the accompanying schedule attached to this Notice, $2124.00 is to be paid to Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for this development (the rates are subject to quarterly reviews). If not paid within the current quarterly period, this contribution will be reviewed at the time of payment in accordance with the adopted Section 94 plan. The projected rates of this contribution amount are listed in Council’s Fees and Charges Schedule

 

3.8        This condition is imposed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan(s) for Library facilities. Based on the current rates detailed in the accompanying schedule attached to this Notice, $720.00 is to be paid to Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for this development (the rates are subject to quarterly reviews). If not paid within the current quarterly period, this contribution will be reviewed at the time of payment in accordance with the adopted Section 94 plan. The projected rates of this contribution amount are listed in Council’s Fees and Charges Schedule

 

3.9        All car parking and manoeuvring must be in accordance with AS 2890 and Council’s requirements. Full details must be submitted with the Construction Certificate. The double garage must be 5.8m minimum internal full details must be shown with the Construction Certificate drawings

 

4.           Those persons who made submissions be informed of Council’s decision.

 

 

4        Draft Open Space Action Plan and draft Open Space Section 94 Development Contributions Plan                                               1980/10PT8

590  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Open Space Action Plan and draft Open Space Section 94 Development Contributions Plan be received

2.     That Council endorse the public exhibition of the draft Open Space Section 94 Development Contributions Plan, accompanied by the draft Open Space Action Plan

3.     A further report be presented to Council following the exhibition of the draft Plan.

 

 

16      ADI Site, St Marys - Public Exhibition of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 - St Marys - Draft Amendment No. 1                            4130/2

591  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that:

1.     The information contained in the report on ADI Site, St Marys - Public Exhibition of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 - St Marys - Draft Amendment No. 1 be received

2.     Council formally requests from DoP an extension of time to enable a fuller consideration of the issues raised by the draft Plan and for a submission to be made in early February 2006 following consideration by Council

3.     The Mayor, through his Mayoral Column acknowledge the many people who worked very hard to preserve the 900 ha of regional park in the ADI site and that letters be sent to the Member for Lindsay, the Hon Jackie Kelly MP and Geoff Brown, ADI representative to thank them for their input.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken left the meeting the time being 7.48pm

 

Councillor Jim Aitken returned to the meeting the time being 7.50pm

 

17      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 Limited;  Owner: SITA Australia Pty Limited                                                                                          RZ04/0035

  A MOTION was MOVED Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies 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.     A further report be brought back to Council on the issues raised.

 

592 An AMENDMENT was moved by Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Greg Davies 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 be notified of Council’s decision

 

On being put the AMENDMENT was CARRIED and on being put to the meeting as the MOTION was also carried.

Councillor Kevin Crameri and Councillor Mark Davies requested that their names be recorded as having voted against the amendment.

 

 

The City In Its Environment

 

7        Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 2005 and Water Management Plan 2005                                                                                       7018/14 and 4109/36

593  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 2005 and Water Management Plan 2005 be received

2.     Council endorse the attached draft Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 2005

3.     Council endorse the attached draft Water Management Plan 2005

4.     Council endorse the Reduction Goals outlined in this report, being

a.   Stabilisation of per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, with a 25% reduction by 2015, based on 1995 levels

b.   To reduce Council’s corporate water consumption by 15% by 2011, based on 2001/2002 levels.

c.   To reduce Penrith’s residential water consumption by 20% per capita by 2011, based on 2001/2002 levels.

d.   To reduce Penrith’s non-residential water consumption by 15% per property by 2011, based on 2001/2002 levels.

e.   To implement actions to the value of 60 points from both the ICLEI Corporate and Community Water Quality action cards by 2011

 

8        Indian Myna Birds                                                                              7028/4

594  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Jim Aitken that:

1.      The information contained in the report on Indian Myna Birds be received.

2.      Council purchase three Myna Bird traps for a total of $1200 to be paid equally out of all three wards voted works.

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

9        David Road, Emu Plains                                                                      DA/19

595  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that:

1.     The information contained in the report on David Road, Emu Plains be received

2.     The section of David Road, shown on the attached plan, be legally closed

3.     The property owner of Lot 113 (64) be advised of Council’s resolution on the proposal to close this section of David Road

4.     A further report be submitted to Council on the future use of this section of David Road, if Council resolves to agree with the proposed closure.

 

11      Rural Fire Brigades Grant Funding                                                    1033/4

596  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Rural Fire Brigades Grant Funding be received

2.     Council agrees to auspice the Grant Funds identified in this report

3.     The Waste and Community Protection Manager be authorised to complete the Grant Agreements nominating Penrith Council as the administrator of the grant funds.

 

10      Road Infrastructure Priority List                 (9011/55;  MA/02 Pt7;  34/12)

597  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Greg Davies that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Road Infrastructure Priority List be received

2.     The road infrastructure prioritised list be forwarded to the Roads and Traffic Authority for their consideration

3.     The Minister for Roads, the Hon Joe Tripodi be requested to provide details of the State Government’s future road infrastructure strategy in line with the recent announcements in the Metro Strategy as they relate to Penrith.

 

12      Penrith VRA Rescue Squad                                                        1101/1 Pt 4

598  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken that:

1.            The information contained in the report on Penrith VRA Rescue Squad be received

2.            Council negotiate a short term loan of $20,000.00 to the Penrith VRA Rescue Squad.

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

13      City Operations Directorate Report to mid November 2005              153/2

599  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Jim Aitken that the information contained in the report on City Operations Directorate Report to mid November 2005 be received.

 

14      Liquor Licence                                                                                       20/14

600  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Jim Aitken that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Liquor Licence be received

2.     That the Council apply for a function licence in accordance with the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW).

 

15      Hydrotherapy Centre Operation                                                       2986/8

601  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that:

1.     The information contained in the report on Hydrotherapy Centre Operation be received

2.     A further report be brought back to a future Policy Review Committee Meeting

 

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

QWN 1      Councillor Request System                                                  200/10 Pt4                  

                  Councillor Garry Rumble requested a memo reply as to when the computer system for recording Councillor requested would be reintroduced.

 

QWN 2      Development Applications                                                    4115/2 Pt6                  

                  Councillor Garry Rumble requested a memo reply to all Councillors regarding his                   request of issuing a letter of acknowledgement to applicants lodging Development                   Applications to Council.  Councillor Rumble also enquired what is the current                   method of 1st advice or contact to DA applicants.

 

QWN 3      Security Camera at Kingswood Cemetery                        1005/1 Pt 3

                  Councillor Garry Rumble requested a memo reply to his enquiry regarding the                   function of the security camera at Kingswood Cemetery.

 

QWN 4      Council Policies on website                                                 16/107 Pt7

Councillor Garry Rumble requested that Councils website be updated to include guidelines for applicants in regards to bulk storage of rubber tyres, rainwater tanks and unauthorised developments.  Councillor Rumble requested that he receive a copy of the 3 policies mentioned.

 

QWN 5      Development Applications                                                    4115/2 Pt6                  

Councillor Garry Rumble requested that the dollar value of DA’s submitted to Council be included in the regular advice to Councillors.

 

QWN 6      Botanical Garden/Arboretum for Penrith                                 3000/3

Councillor Garry Rumble requested a report regarding the feasibility of a Botanical Garden/Arboretum for the City of Penrith.

 

QWN 7      River Road, Emu Plains                                                       R1/03 Pt4

Councillor Mark Davies requested a memo to all Councillors regarding vehicles parking on the footpath (nature strip) opposite 40 River Road, Emu Plains which is causing safety concerns.

 

QWN 8      Tree removal                                                                       MA/01 Pt3

Councillor Mark Davies requested that the tree removed from Maxwell St, South Penrith be replaced.

 

QWN 9      Treated pine railings                                                             FL/09 Pt2

Councillor Mark Davies requested a memo reply regarding the broken treated pine railings on Floribunda Ave, right hand side on entry to Glenmore Park.

 

QWN 10    Canberra St, Oxley Park                                                            CA/30

Councillor Steve Simat requested a memo reply regarding the state of Canberra St, Oxley Park.  Is there a resealing/sheeting plan for Canberra street esp. west of Sydney St.

 

QWN 11    Trail bikes                                                                            7025/5 Pt2

Councillor Ross Fowler requested a memo reply regarding the inappropriate use of trail bikes in the Cranebrook area.

 

QWN 12    Fencing at Darcy Smith Oval                                              3158/1 Pt2

Councillor Ross Fowler requested a report to Council regarding a proposal from the Nepean District Cricket Association for funding a fence at Darcy Smith Oval.

 

QWN 13    Sign maintenance                                                                 9012/1 Pt7

Councillor Ross Fowler requested a memo reply to his request regarding the ongoing maintenance of signs, especially in the Dunheved Circuit area and the St Marys Employment Area.  There is a risk problem in not having adequate signage especially for the emergency services.

 

QWN 14    Landscaping of Kingswood Park Community Centre              1375/1

Councillor Pat Sheehy requested that Council’s Landscape Architect liaise with the committee of the Kingswood Park Community Centre regarding proposed landscape improvements to the centre.

 

QWN 15    Penrith Medical Precinct                                                                     

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report on the Medical Precinct on Derby and Stafford Sts, Penrith.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9.06pm.

 

 

 

I certify that these 11 pages are the Confirmed Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Penrith City Council held on 5 December 2005.

 

 

                                       ____________________                ______________

                                       Chairperson                                     Date

 

 

 

 

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

Anyone can request permission to address a meeting, providing that the number of speakers is limited to three in support of any proposal and three against.

 

Any request about an issue or matter on the Agenda for the meeting can be lodged with the General Manager or Public Officer up until 12 noon on the day of the meeting.

 

Prior to the meeting the person who has requested permission to address the meeting will need to provide the Public Officer with a written statement of the points to be covered during the address in sufficient detail so as to inform the Councillors of the substance of the address and a written copy of any questions to be asked of the Council in order that responses to those questions can be provided in due course.

 

In addition, prior to addressing the meeting a person addressing Council or Committee will be informed that they do not enjoy any privilege and that permission to speak may be withdrawn should they make inappropriate comments.

 

It should be noted that speakers at meetings of the Council or Committee do not have absolute privilege (parliamentary privilege).  A speaker who makes any potentially offensive or defamatory remarks about any other person may render themselves open to legal action.

 

Prior to addressing the meeting the person will be required to sign the following statement:

 

“I (name) understand that the meeting I intend to address on (date) is a public meeting.  I also understand that should I say or present any material that is inappropriate, I may be subject to legal action.  I also acknowledge that I have been informed to obtain my own legal advice about the appropriateness of the material that I intend to present at the above mentioned meeting”.

 

Should a person fail to sign the above statement then permission to address either the Council or Committee will not be granted.

 

The Public Officer or Minute Clerk will speak to those people who have requested permission to address the meeting, prior to the meeting at 6.45pm.

 

It is up to the Council or Committee to decide if the request to address the meeting will be granted.

 

Where permission is to be granted the Council or Committee, at the appropriate time, will suspend only so much of the Standing Orders to allow the address to occur.

 

The Chairperson will then call the person up to the lectern or speaking area.

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

· Their name;

 

· Organisation or group they are representing (if applicable);

 

· Details of the issue to be addressed and the item number of the report in the       Business Paper;

 

· Whether they are opposing or supporting the issue or matter (if applicable)        and the action they would like the meeting to take;

 

·           The interest of the speaker (e.g. affected person, neighbour, applicant,           applicants spokesperson, interested citizen etc).

 

Each person then has five minutes to make their address.  Those addressing Council will be required to speak to the written statement they have submitted.  Permission to address Council is not to be taken as an opportunity to refute or otherwise the points made by previous speakers on the same issue. 

 

The Council or Committee can extend this time if they consider if appropriate, however, everyone needs to work on the basis that the address will be for five minutes only.

 

Councillors may have questions about the address so people are asked to remain at the lectern or in the speaking area until the Chairperson has thanked them.

 

When this occurs, they should then return to their seat.

 

 

Steve Hackett

Public Officer

02 4732 7637                                                                            August 2003

   


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendation of the Local Traffic Committee 5 December 2005 LTC           3

 

 



REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 5 December, 2005

 

 

PRESENT

David Burns – Asset Manager (Chairperson), Councillor McKeown – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Councillor Sheehy – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Sergeant Scott Smith – Penrith Police, Lyn Van Putten - Roads and Traffic Authority

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Councillor Rumble, Ron Watson – Westbus, Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer, Rosemarie Barretto – Senior Traffic Engineer, Stephen Barnes – Senior Traffic Engineer, Sharon Maddox – Road Safety Co-ordinator, Nasiha Kadavath – Trainee Engineer,

Noel Fuller – Co-ordinator, Ranger Services

 

APOLOGIES

LTC1   Deputy Mayor - Councillor Greenow, Councillor Cettolin, Tim Horan – Representative for the Member for Penrith

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 10 October 2005

LTC2   That the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 10 October 2005 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

 

ASSET MANAGER INTRODUCTIONS

 

The Asset Manager advised that Councillor McKeown has been appointed as the representative for the Member for Mulgoa on Council’s Local Traffic Committee.

 

The Asset Manager introduced Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer.

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

1        Local Traffic Committee - Meeting Dates for 2006                                          (31/5 Pt9)

LTC3  RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Local Traffic Committee - Meeting Dates for 2006 be received

2.     The above dates be confirmed for 2006.

 

 

 

2        Maxwell Street/Racecourse Road, South Penrith - Proposed Construction of Traffic Facility                                                                                                       (MA/01 Pt3  &  RA/06)

LTC4  RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Maxwell Street/Racecourse Road, South Penrith - Proposed Construction of Traffic Facility be received

2.     The design plan for provision of the concrete median and seagull islands with supplementary ‘Stop’ signs at the intersection of Maxwell Street and Racecourse Road, South Penrith be finalised (incorporating RTA comments and amendments) and endorsed for construction.

 

3        Lewis Road, Cambridge Park - Request for Parking Restrictions & Linemarking                                                                                      (LE/13)

LTC5  RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Lewis Road, Cambridge Park - Request for Parking Restrictions & Linemarking be received

2.     The matter be deferred pending the outcome of the Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) scheme for the precinct.

3.     The resident be advised.

 

4        Queen's Baton Relay - Wednesday, 25 January 2006        (9011/41  Pt 9)

LTC6  RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Queen's Baton Relay - Wednesday, 25 January 2006 be received.

 

5        Bringelly Road, Kingswood - Request for Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facility                                                (9011/36 Pt2 & BR/10 Pt4)

LTC7  RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bringelly Road, Kingswood - Request for Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facility be received

2.     A marked pedestrian crossing be provided in Bringelly Road near Kingswood High School to be located between the existing speed hump on the northern end of the school and the pedestrian gate

3.     Pedestrian access be restricted across the existing Watts Profile speed humps near the high school by providing fencing and any kerb ramp on one or both of these facilities to be removed for safety reasons, in accordance with the RTA Technical Direction TDT 2001/04.

 

 

6        York Road and Abel Street, Penrith - Proposed Construction of Traffic Facility                                                                         (YO/01 Pt4 & AB/01)

LTC8  RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on York Road and Abel Street, Penrith - Proposed Construction of Traffic Facility be received

2.     The design plan for provision of the concrete median and seagull islands with supplementary ‘Stop’ signs at the intersection of York Road and Abel Street, South Penrith be finalised (incorporating RTA comments and amendments) and endorsed for construction.

 

7        High Street, Penrith - Raised Thresholds                               (HI/05  Pt10)

LTC9  RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on High Street, Penrith - Raised Thresholds be received

2.     Both raised threshold devices in High Street, Penrith, between Station Street and Woodriff Street, continue to be monitored

3.     The Local Member for Penrith be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

8          GENERAL BUSINESS

GB 1          Park Avenue, Kingswod - Proposed Bus Zone (Raised Westbus)                   9011/9 Pt 19

Council has received a request from Westbus for consideration of a 16m long bus zone on the northern side of Park Avenue, immediately east of the intersection with Richmond Road, Kingswood.

 

Westbus has advised that the existing Route 785 service is one of the main pick up and drop off services for Kingswood Station.  There is an existing bus stop sign located on a pole near the intersection, however when bus drivers pull up at the sign the rear of the bus extends up to the corner and obscures sight distance for vehicles turning right from Park Avenue into Richmond Road.

 

Accordingly, it is requested that a 16m long bus zone be signposted, with the rear of the zone commencing approximately 10m from the Richmond Road intersection.  It is also recommended that to reinforce Australian Road Rule 170, 10m of full-time “No Stopping” be provided around the bend from Park Avenue into Richmond Road.

LTC10  RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.   A 16m long bus zone be created on the northern side of Park Avenue, east of Richmond Road, Kingswood

 

2.   10m of full-time “No Stopping” restrictions be provided on the north-eastern corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Richmond Road, Kingswood.

 

 

 

GB 2          Forrester Road, St Marys - Freight Handling Facility (Raised Council)          

                                                                                                         377657 Pt 6 & FO/05 Pt 4

FreightCorp have received approval from the Department of Planning & Department for Natural Resources for a freight handling facility off Christie Street, St Marys.  However, approval has also been granted for a temporary access off the western side of Forrester Road, diagonally opposite the Harris Street intersection.  One of the conditions of consent also required the applicant to submit detailed engineering drawings to the satisfaction of Council concerning the proposed intersection configuration.

 

A detailed engineering design has been prepared by Traffic Consultants, Sinclair Knight Merz, and an independent road safety audit on the proposal has been carried out by J Wyndham Prince.

 

The audit revealed that potential traffic safety issues could be improved if a “Give Way” sign and holding line was to be installed at the Harris Street intersection with Forrester Road, along with a short length of BB linemarking in Forrester Road, south of the driveway intersection, as indicated on the tabled plan with Drawing No. INO6079-001.

 

LTC11  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the proposed regulatory linemarking and signposting, as shown highlighted in yellow on the sketch Plan No. INO6059-001, be approved.

 

 

 

GB 3          Fatal Incident Response Strategy Team (FIRST) Report (Raised Penrith Police)                                                                                            9019/87

The Penrith Police representative tabled a report regarding the recent fatal accident at the following location:

 

·    Seventh Avenue/Terrybrook Road, Llandilo intersection – accident occurred on Tuesday, 25 October 2005.  The FIRST inspection was held on Friday, 4 November 2005.  The report outcome showed there were other contributory factors to the accident rather than the road condition or intersection configuration, ie, behavioural influences appeared to be the cause of the collision (failure to comply with road rules).

 

LTC12  RECOMMENDATION

 

That:

1.   Speed classification survey be carried out on Seventh Avenue on both approaches to Terrybrook Road, and on Terrybrook Road on both approaches to Seventh Avenue, 10m from the intersection and mid-block

 

2.   The existing “Stop” signs, advance warning “Stop” signs, and “Intersection Ahead” signs be replaced with larger Roads and Traffic Authority B Class size signs

 

3.   30m of BB linemarking be provided, along with RPMs, on all approaches to the intersection.

 

 

 

GB 4          Bel Air Road, Penrith - Speeding Vehicles (Raised Penrith Police)                   BE/01

The Penrith Police representative advised of a complaint from a resident regarding speeding motorists in Bel Air Road, Penrith.  Penrith Highway Patrol have assessed the location and identified that the gradient of Bel Air Road is considered unsuitable for speed enforcement arrangements for southbound traffic.  Northbound traffic was monitored on six occasions, resulting in one infringement notice and one defect notice being issued.

 

The Police representative recommended that some engineering solutions (provision of traffic calming devices) may improve safety at this location.

 

LTC13  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the matter be investigated and a report be submitted to the Committee following the investigation.

 

 

 

GB 5          Mamre Road, St Marys - Request for 40kph School Zone (Raised Penrith Police)                                                                                       MA/01 Pt7

The Penrith Police representative advised that each Highway Patrol unit has been assigned 4‑5 schools to regularly patrol to ascertain whether any problem exists within the school zones.  As a result, Our Lady of the Rosary Primary and Infants Schools in Mamre Road have requested the provision of a School Zone.

 

LTC14  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the RTA be requested to investigate provision of a 40kph School Zone in Mamre Road between Putland Street and Warwick Street, near the Our Lady of the Rosary Primary and Infants Schools.

 

 

 

GB 6          Ransley Street / Mulgoa Road, Penrith - Traffic Safety (Raised Penrith Police)                                                               RA/04 Pt2 & MU/01 Pt15

The Penrith Police representative advised that vehicles are turning right against the arrow at the Ransley Street/Mulgoa Road intersection.  Police have sent the information to the Roads and Traffic Authority and this item is submitted for the Committee’s information only.

 

LTC15  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee note the information.

 

 

 

GB 7          The Northern Road / Kingshill Road, Mulgoa - Linemarking (Raised Penrith Police)                                                TH/02 (STH) Pt6 & KI/02

The Penrith Police representative has received a complaint regarding traffic safety at the above intersection.  It was advised that since the recent upgrades on this road, numerous vehicle collisions and near misses have occurred, as evidenced from skid marks and vehicle debris at the intersection.  Police have sent the information to the RTA and this item is submitted for the Committee’s information only.

 

LTC16  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee note the information.

 

 

 

GB 8          Old Bathurst Road / Great Western Highway, Emu Plains - Traffic Congestion (Raised Penrith Police)                              OL03 Pt 5 & GR/31 Pt10

The Penrith Police representative has received a complaint regarding traffic congestion at the intersection of Old Bathurst Road and the Great Western Highway, Emu Plains.  Police have submitted a letter to the RTA for their investigation and any necessary action and intersection improvements.

 

LTC17  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee note the information.

 

 

 

GB 9          Jamison Road, South Penrith - Sight Distance Problem (Raised Councillor McKeown)                                                                             JA/06 Pt6

Councillor McKeown raised concerns about sight distance problems on the northern side of Jamison Road (near house number 103) on the approach to The Northern Road.  There is a doctor’s surgery with on-site parking at this location, however when the carpark full, the overflow vehicles are parked on the street.  Vehicles approaching on Jamison Road often have to brake hard to avoid a collision with the parked vehicles.

 

LTC18  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the matter be investigated.

 

 

 

GB 10        Riley Street (at Jane Street), Penrith - Pavement Directional Arrows (Raised Councillor McKeown)                                                  RI/06 Pt2

Councillor McKeown advised that some motorists are not complying with the pavement directional arrows marked on both exit ramps from the Plaza basement carparking areas.  Drivers have been observed turning left from the “Right Turn Only” exit ramp.

 

LTC19  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the operation of the new signalised intersection be monitored.

 

 

 

GB 11        Road 1, Erskine Park - Regulatory Signage and Linemarking (Raised Council)                                                                                   DA04/0639

Council’s Road Network Services Engineer tabled a plan for DA04/0639 for Road 1 off Lenore Lane, Erskine Park.  This road has been approved by Council and is nearing completion, and the Committee is requested to endorse the regulatory signage and linemarking for Road 1 as shown on the tabled Plan L03042.3-19.  The plan proposes BB centreline markings with a sheltered right-turn lane from Chainage 50 to Chainage 350 for vehicles to turn into the Lysaght and Bluescope Development sites.  It is also proposed to provide “No Parking” signs around the cul-de-sac head and “No Stopping” signs from Chainage 50 to Chainage 150 for the transition from the traffic signals at the intersection of Road 1 and Lenore Lane.  Raised reflective pavement markers are proposed in accordance with the Australian Standard and all linemarking is proposed to be thermoplastic reflective.  The plan was marked in red indicating signage and chevron markings by Council’s Senior Development Engineer, prior to presenting to the Committee.

 

LTC20  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee endorse the proposed signage and linemarking as shown on the tabled Plan L03042.3-19, with amendments marked in red, including removal from the plan of the sheltered right-turn lane and turning arrows for the Lysaght and Bluescope developments, and extending the chevron markings on the approach to the median island to a minimum distance of 30m, as proposed by the RTA representative.

 

 

 

 

 

GB 12        Child Restraint Checking Day (Raised Council)                   9019/88

Council’s Road Safety Co-ordinator advised that a Child Restraint Checking Day was held recently, with 15 vehicles and 18 seats being checked.  All necessary corrections were carried out by TJM Megastore.

 

LTC21  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee note the information.

 

 

 

GB 13        Penrith / St Marys Taxi Voucher Scheme - Launch on 1 December 2005 (Raised Council)                                                                                9019/89

Council’s Road Safety Co-ordinator advised that the Penrith/St Marys Taxi Voucher Scheme was launched on 1 December 2005.

 

The Scheme improves taxi services for patrons and safety for taxi drivers and passengers in the Penrith City area.  The vouchers do not have any monetary value but provide taxi drivers with a means to identify passengers.  The system has two main advantages, ie, passengers can be identified if an incident occurs, and taxi patronage to venues involved in the scheme will increase.

 

LTC22  RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee note the information.

 

 

 

 

                                                            Confirmed       

                                                                                                            Chairperson

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 11:15am.

 

 


MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

1        Commonwealth Games 2006 - Queens Baton Relay 1980/14                                               3

 

2        Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct 2981/13                                                                               3

 

3        City Centres' Vitality and Viability Review 4200/6                                                                 3

 

URGENT

 

19      Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 4100/23                                                                           3

 

The City as a Social Place

 

4        Penrith Swimming Centre Upgrade 2981/13                                                                         3

 

5        Development of a City Wide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy 1027/23                                      3

 

6        Draft Local Environmental Plan for Penrith Lakes Environs (Waterside), corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook 4107/28                                                                                 3

 

7        Development Application 03/3292 for a part six and part seven storey mixed retail, commercial and residential building over basement parking at Lot 1 DP 779550, Lot 2 DP 154388, Lot 1 DP 576961 and Lot B DP 152524 (No. 538 - 556) High Street, Penrith. Applicant: Cavassini Constructions Pty Ltd;  Owner: Cavassini Constructions Pty Ltd DA03/3292                                                            3

 

The City In Its Environment

 

URGENT

 

20      Application to rezone Lot 1 DP542395 and Lot 740 DP810111 Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham, to allow an Advanced Waste Treatment Facility in conjunction with the existing quarry and landfill operation. Applicant: Mullane Planning Consultants Pty Limited;  Owner: SITA Australia Pty Limited RZ04/0035                                                                                                                                            3

 

The City as an Economy

 

8        Interim Redevelopment of Visitor Information Centre 1000-84                                              3

 

9        Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia Conference                                          3

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

10      Local Government Road Safety Auditing/Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIP) Program - 2005/2006 (9019/14)                                                                                                          3

 

11      Provision of Motor Vehicles 38/138                                                                                     3

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

12      Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 26 October 2005 to 29 November 2005.  6031/4                                                                                                                                            3

 

13      Decision Making Arrangements During the Council Recess 21/5                                            3

 

14      Preparations for the 2006-2007 Management Plan 36/53                                                      3

 

15      Council Property - Electricity Easement for Padmount Substation on Open Space, Lot 10, D.P. 1432, John Street, St Marys 3149/1 Pt.2                                                                                        3

 

16      Outdoor Eating and Trading - Salvation Army Youthlink 476915 LE2                                   3

 

17      A.R. Bluett Memorial Award Submission 1128/1 Pt 3                                                           3

 

URGENT

 

18      Submission to the Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of Local Government.  3

 

 


The City in its Broader Context

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Commonwealth Games 2006 - Queens Baton Relay 1980/14                                               3

 

2        Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct 2981/13                                                                               3

 

3        City Centres' Vitality and Viability Review 4200/6                                                                 3

 

URGENT

 

19      Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 4100/23                                                                           3

 

 



 

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

1

Commonwealth Games 2006 - Queens Baton Relay     

1980/14

Compiled by:                Andrew Robinson - Recreation and Cultural Facilities Coordinator

Authorised by:             Gary Dean - Facilities Operations Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Penrith Lakes is developing and being used in a way that establishes it as a principal Sydney destination.

Critical Action: Participate in the planning process for Penrith Lakes and advocate its innovative development as a regional centre for enterprise, water based recreation, elite sports, entertainment and events.

        

Purpose:

To inform Council about the route through the Local Government Area for the Queens Baton Relay and Council's involvement in the event.  The report recommends that the information be received.

 

Background

On 25 January 2006, the Commonwealth Games Queen’s Baton Relay will commence the Australian leg of its global journey to Melbourne, from Penrith.

 

On 14 March 2005 the Baton set off from Buckingham Palace in the hands of Elle MacPherson and Cathy Freeman and has almost completed its epic journey of more than 180,000 kilometres, visiting all 71 nations of the Commonwealth – home to almost one third of the world’s population.

 

The Melbourne 2006 Queen’s Baton Relay is the world’s longest, most inclusive relay. No other Games relay has visited all member nations. Hundreds of welcome ceremonies and other community festivities have been held along the relay route, enabling many millions of people across the globe to join in the celebrations for the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games (M2006). The Baton will begin its journey in Australia at 7.44am from Sydney International Regatta Centre, Penrith.

 

The Route

 

Until this point official details of the route have been bound by a Deed of Confidentiality previously signed between Council and M2006, the event organisers.  During the period of ‘confidentiality’, Council Officers have worked in partnership with M2006, the police and the RTA to ensure that the chosen route through the Penrith LGA can be operationally managed and implemented.

 

The development of the route has been primarily the responsibility of M2006 and was recommended by that organisation as one which matches their Baton Relay criteria in relation to timings, logistical planning and the desire to ‘pass through’ as many local suburbs as possible thus ‘bringing the baton to the people’.  This has subsequently been refined and agreed by the key agencies with the finalised route encompassing:

 

·      Exit Regatta Centre via McCarthy’s Lane    (Cranebrook)

·      Cranebrook Road

·      Castlereagh Road

·      High Street                                                             (Penrith)

·      Henry Street

·      The Crescent

·      King Street

·      Copeland Street                                                      (Kingswood)

·      Victoria Street

·      Parkes Avenue                                                       (Werrington)

·      Werrington Avenue

·      The Kingsway

·      Charles Hackett Drive                                             (St Marys)

·      Queen Street

·      Phillip Street

·      Glossop Street

·      Brisbane Street                                                       (Oxley Park)

·      Melbourne Street

·      Durham Street

 

The baton will be carried by runners for most of the route and will also be ‘in convoy’ for part of the journey.  Once the Baton leaves the Penrith LGA it proceeds through Blacktown, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Hornsby and concludes Day 1 in Parramatta.

 

The Runners

 

Telstra Country Wide is the sponsor of the Queen’s Baton Community Runner Programme. Nomination forms for runners have been distributed by Telstra Country Wide outlets and via their website. Based on nominations received a selection process was undertaken and selected runners recommended to M2006.  Official invitations to be a runner were sent to those selected. An announcement of those runners who had accepted the invitation was made in the Civic Centre by Telstra Country Wide on 9 November 2005.  The runners for Penrith LGA will come from both the local area and other towns and cities, for example, Gosford.  Councillor Jackie Greenow has been selected as one of the community runners.

 

Council’s Role

 

i) Festivities

 

A local planning team led by the Facilities Operations Manager and including Council Officers, representatives of Penrith City Centre Association, St. Marys Town Centre Management, the local police, the venue managers of Sydney International Regatta Centre, and M2006 sponsors have met to discuss opportunities presented by the Queens Baton Relay.  

 

Given the timing and date of the Baton’s journey through the Penrith LGA and crowd estimates provided by M2006 the festivities will be developed in consideration of this and the resources available within each of the organisations. At present there are plans to host a function at Sydney International Regatta Centre, and an activity in Henry Street, Penrith as well as in Coachmans Park, St. Marys.

 

ii) Operational Support

 

Council Officers have worked closely with the local police to ensure that the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) ensures that there is minimal disruption to traffic movement across the LGA on 25 January 2006.  NSW Police have undertaken a risk management and are coordinating operations with the RTA and the local police.  The TMP was considered by the local Traffic Committee on 5 December 2005.

 

The Police have also undertaken a risk management plan for the event as well as a security assessment. This will be supplemented by risk management plans provided by each of the agencies organising the activities along the route.

 

iii)  Communications, Media and Marketing

 

Council’s Media Liaison Officer is currently preparing media releases for a post-Christmas campaign aimed at promoting both the route and the planned activities.

 

Council’s City Marketing Department has included editorial in the Council newsletter distributed to every household in December and, is also utilising its network to highlight this event.

 

Conclusion

 

The ‘eyes of the nation’ and possibly the world will be on Penrith as the baton is seen for the first time in Australia embarking on a 50 day tour of the Nation involving 3,500 relay runners. Plans are well advanced to ensure that those taking part in, and those watching the Relay, enjoy being part of a global event.

 

Council officers will continue to develop a programme of activities for the day of the event. Councillors will be advised of these details closer to the day. 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Commonwealth Games 2006 - Queens Baton Relay be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

2

Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct    

2981/13

Compiled by:                Gary Dean - Facilities Operations Manager

Authorised by:             Steve Hackett - Director City Services  

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct is completed and contributing to a vibrant urban village lifestyle in St Marys.

Critical Action: Complete the Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct at St Marys.

         

Purpose:

To advise Council of the outcomes of the Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct Steering Committee Meeting.  The report recommends that the information be received and Council endorse the agreed program of activities.

 

Introduction

The development of the Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct at St Marys is a major project and has an implementation program over an extended period. There have been two (2) comprehensive studies undertaken by specialists engaged by Council. In particular, the Woods Bagot report included a Precinct Masterplan which Council subsequently endorsed. That Masterplan has been adopted as a guide for Council’s implementation strategy.

 

Major Civil Infrastructure works were completed about 18 months ago as Stage 1 of the masterplan implementation.

 

Late last year the Steering Committee endorsed a scope of work for the next stage. That included closure of Mamre Road access, implementation of the building audit recommendations, prepare briefs/ design concepts for alterations / additions to the Memorial Hall and CWA, prepare brief for new childcare centre, consult with a range of identified community / cultural groups likely to relocate to the Precinct, develop the new Precinct Management Model, and identify opportunities for the sale of surplus land in the Precinct.

 

Budgets were developed for each of these actions.

 

An internal Council Officer Project Team was formed and actions allocated accordingly.

 

Steering Committee Meeting - 30 November 2005

 

The Steering Committee which comprises East Ward Councillors and relevant Council officers met on 30th November 2005 to review progress and consider a program of activities to advance the project.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow is the chairperson of this Committee.

 

Council officers informed the Committee that the project had not reached the stage anticipated by the Steering Committee when it last met. There had been slippage with several of the endorsed actions. What matters has been advanced were the subject of Committees report, and presentation by two (2) specialists engaged in Council.

 

The committee expressed disappointment and concern that not a lot of progress appeared to have been made with this major project.

 

The ‘PSB Design Group’ made a presentation on how the site could be enhanced from a landscape and urban design point of view. This includes the introduction of physical art forms throughout the Precinct and external treatment to the Memorial Hall and CWA building.  The presentation included a possible staging plan and indicative costs of the overall improvement works.

 

‘Collard Architects’ have prepared plans which show how best the Memorial Hall and CWA building can be modified and refurbished to provide for new spaces for use by a range of community / cultural groups. The plans indicate external embellishments to both buildings which would enhance their appearance.

 

The modifications propose, a reorientation of the ‘front doors’ of both buildings towards the internal car park. The Senior Citizens Centre / Community Centre and Arts Centre already have that orientation.

 

Whilst only at the conceptual stage, indicative costings have been prepared and were provided to the Committee.  

 

The Steering Committee discussed the design principles and a number of new initiatives being proposed by this most recent work by these specialists. The Committee felt that the new vehicular access being suggested off Mamre Road should not be supported and questioned the quantum of car parking being proposed.  It appeared on this initial examination to be insufficient to meet the likely demands of the potential precinct land uses. Notwithstanding these minor concerns, there are however some important elements that have emerged from these specialists that the Committee felt warranted further development.

 

Bringing the arts / cultural groups envisaged by Council, to the Precinct was one matter requiring some particular focus. In this regard, the Committee was advised that the consultants that Council has engaged to undertake the ‘accommodation needs’ in both the Penrith and St Marys Town Centre, have had their brief expanded to include the range of groups that presently exist across the city that have a potential future in this Precinct. That report is expected early in 2006.

 

In addition to this, Council officers will now investigate opportunities to increase usage of the existing spaces in the buildings by introducing new groups to the Precinct.

 

The Steering Committee noted the project timetable presented to the meeting – whilst appreciating that the various elements of the overall project will take time, the Council Officer Project Team were requested to review that timetable, with the objective of accelerating the Project.  Council officers suggested that some of the existing space (e.g. Senior Citizens and Community Hall) could be further utilised and that opportunity will be investigated.

 

The current 2005/06 budget has funding to implement some parts of the project presented to the Steering Committee.  The Financial Services Manager outlined funding options available for the project to be fully implemented. What needs to occur in the first instance is more definition and accuracy to the detail and costs of the various elements of the Project. The Committee requested that Council officers treat this with some urgency.

 

Agreed Actions From Meeting  

 

The committee endorsed the following activities program:

 

·      prepare the detailed documentation for the proposed alterations / additions / refurbishment to Memorial Hall and CWA Building

·      review consultant submission regarding accommodation needs of existing and potential arts / cultural groups

·      investigate opportunities to increase usage of existing spaces within the buildings by a range of arts / cultural groups

·      actively pursue acquisition of the non-council owned lands in the precinct

·      finalise conceptual plans and costings for the new child-care centre

·      prepare detailed precinct landscape plans and staging

·      develop an appropriate precinct management model - investigate opportunities for an interim committee

·      review project timeframe

·      make detailed assessment of the car parking needs for the Precinct, when fully developed

·      develop a Precinct Business Plan

 

Conclusion

 

The Council Officer Project Team will now address that activity program with a progress report being presented to the Steering Committee in March / April 2006.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct be received

2.     Council endorse the program of activities outlined in the report

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

3

City Centres' Vitality and Viability Review    

4200/6

Compiled by:                Mark Andrews, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Ruth Goldsmith, Local Planning Manager  

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Penrith City Centre provides a comprehensive range of economic and human and lifestyle services to Outer Western Sydney and Central Western New South Wales.

Critical Action: The City Centres Review strategies for the Penrith City Centre are developed, prioritised and being implemented.

        

Purpose:

To seek endorsement of the draft City Centre Strategies, including the Activity Precincts and Built Form, for public exhibition and stakeholder consultation.

 

Background

Over the past 18 months, Councillors have received a number of reports and briefings on the City Centres’ Review, focussing on elements including urban design and form, economic viability, accessibility, cultural planning, community consultation and visioning for each Centre.

 

The City Centres’ Review has also taken place within the context of the debate and development of the State Government’s new Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney.  That Strategy is to guide metropolitan growth and change over the next 25 years.

 

Over that time the Strategy anticipates that Sydney’s population will increase from 4.2 million to 5.3 million people.  The number of jobs is expected to increase from 2 million to 2.5 million, with 230,000 new jobs in Greater Western Sydney.  Demographic change will see a large increase in the number of dwellings from 1.6 million to 2.24 million, but a decline in the average size of households.  The Metropolitan Strategy focuses on providing jobs and dwellings in key centres and corridors within established areas, and identifies existing and planned new urban release areas, including the Northwest and Southwest Sectors.

 

Penrith has been nominated in consecutive Metropolitan Plans as a key Urban Centre.  It is now identified as one of three regional ‘River’ Cities, together with Parramatta and Liverpool.  The Metropolitan Strategy provides more detail and policy direction to the support these cities.  The Minister for Planning has also indicated that, over time, there will be a stronger level of State support for these cities, including the identification and provision of necessary infrastructure.

 

During the course of the City Centres’ Review process, the level of interest shown by the State Government has been similarly reflected by local interest and investment, with development activity and enquiries continuing.  Most of the proponents have been prepared to work with Council to ensure that the agreed Vision for each Centre, together with the emerging design principles, can be achieved.  In the Penrith City Centre, completed developments include a 3 storey commercial building at the corner of High St and Evan St ($3.6 million), the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre ($12.560 million), and the Penrith Plaza Extension ($68.437 million).

 

A mixed-use development at 282-284 High St (5 commercial units, 27 residential units) is currently under construction ($4 million).  Council has also approved a 4 storey commercial development at 84 Henry St ($3 million) and a 4 storey mixed-use development at 558-560 High St ($3.5 million).  There are development applications being assessed for a 6 storey mixed-use development at 538-556 High St, a bulky goods retail development at 39 Henry St, a carwash café at 35 Henry St, and a childcare centre at 65 Union Road.

 

In the St Marys Town Centre, the Station Plaza and Village Centre shopping centres have been refurbished.  Council has approved development for a mixed-use (retail and 14 residential units) at 54 King St ($1.5 million), 12 residential units at 216 Queen St ($1 million), 6 residential units at 19 Chapel St ($0.9 million), and a 2 storey commercial building at 225 Queen St ($4.17 million).  Council is also currently assessing key development applications 12 town houses and 6 apartments at 2 Gidley St ($2.2 million) and a new Police Station at 38 King St ($6.8 million).

 

Over the past six months, considerable staff time has also been directed to managing enquiries regarding future development of a number of major properties including the Panasonic site, the Bowling Alley site, and Council’s Former Chambers site in Penrith, and the Bowling Club site in St Marys.  This has ensured that the emerging City Centres’ strategic directions are informing future land development decisions, and contributing to the ongoing assessment processes for major applications within the Centres.

Context for the City’s Key Centres

Penrith

In 20 – 30 years’ time, Penrith will be a mature City, with significantly increased commercial development, a broad offering of retail activities, and facilities, services and infrastructure commensurate with its place as one of Metropolitan Sydney’s five leading cities.

 

To achieve economic viability, there will be a commercial / retail core in Penrith, with a number of commercial ‘towers’ that are designed sustainably, and that reflect and convey the quality and character of this place.  There will be active retail developments along street frontages, and wide pathways and boulevards for easy access around the Centre.

 

To enhance economic viability, and add vitality, there will be precincts identified for mixed uses, encouraging retail / commercial on the ground floor, and residential dwellings above.  These apartments will also be designed sustainably, with large sunlit outdoor living areas, and groups of dwellings facing community courtyard areas.  There will also be a cultural / community precinct developed around a central park, with commercial buildings providing access to a range of social and community programs, services and facilities.

 

The vision for Penrith is that the City Centre is a vibrant, forward-looking regional Centre that provides quality urban living within easy access to unique natural surrounds.  The key objectives for the Strategy include –

·      to create a civic, people-friendly centre that focuses on social connectiveness

·      to mature proudly as a regional city that offers a more relaxed pace than metropolitan Sydney

·      to maintain tangible links to the rural past and the unique natural and community assets

·      to offer contemporary products and services that are relevant to the people of Penrith

·      to cultivate local talent and provide local employment opportunities, and

·      to establish and foster leadership that serves the greater good of the City Centre and the region.

 

A key focus of the Metropolitan Strategy is the delivery of employment opportunities, particularly in the strategic centres including the regional cities.  The broader Penrith City Centre area[1] experienced significant growth in employment between 1991 and 2001, from 13,800 jobs to 20,500 jobs.   In 2001, about 12,200 of these jobs were held by Penrith LGA residents and 8,300 by non-residents. The Metropolitan Strategy targets 30,000 jobs for the broader Penrith City Centre by 2031.

 

The total commercial floorspace in the Penrith City Centre is around 100,000 sqm, with a current ratio of commercial to retail floorspace of approximately 2:3 (high for a regional centre).  The Penrith catchment is 300,000+ (comparable to Canberra), which warrants the establishment of regional offices (also warranted by the distance from the Sydney CBD).

 

The total retail floorspace, following the opening of the Plaza extension, is currently around 156,000 sqm.  Retail development is expected to expand commensurate with the population growth.  This future retail space should be located both within the Centre itself, and in existing and planned centres within the City’s established retail hierarchy.

 

The Centre’s capacity to provide living opportunities will be guided by the identification of the retail / commercial ‘core’, and defining the appropriate locations and built form for the Centre’s mixed-use areas.

St Marys

In 20 – 30 years’ time, St Marys will be a mature Town Centre with increased commercial development, and a range of retail activities, and facilities, services and infrastructure commensurate with its place as an active Town Centre in Metropolitan Sydney.

 

To achieve economic viability and vitality, there will be precincts identified for mixed uses, encouraging retail / commercial on the ground floor, and sustainably designed residential dwellings above.  It is essential that developments reflect and convey the quality and character of this place.  There will be active retail developments along street frontages, and wide pathways and boulevards for easy access around the Town Centre.  There will also be a cultural / community precinct developed around a central park, with commercial, social and community activities.

 

The vision for this Centre is that St Marys is the vibrant heart of the district, providing diverse experiences and services in a friendly atmosphere.  The objectives for the Strategy include –

·      to celebrate what is unique about St Marys

·      to maintain the friendly atmosphere of the Town Centre

·      to improve the retail shopping experience to meet the needs of the growing population

·      to connect the various activity centres

·      to link the town to existing suburbs and growth areas, and

·      to provide opportunities for living within the Town Centre.

 

St Marys is a District Centre, with 16,500 sqm of commercial floorspace and 45,000 sqm of retail floor space.  In addition to the Town Centre, the industrial area to the north of the railway line is a major source of jobs for the district and City at large.  St Marys experienced minimal job growth compared to Penrith between 1991 and 2001, from 3,935 jobs to 4,073 jobs.  About 60% of the jobs were held by Penrith LGA residents (similar to Penrith).

 

St Marys Town Centre can accommodate, in the future, growth in commercial, retail, entertainment and civic activities, as well as an increase in residential apartments and dwellings.  The key element is to ensure that all developments are of a quality that maintains or enhances the unique character of the City, and does not jeopardise St Marys’ future economic viability.

 

The Centre’s future strength lies in its uniqueness and character, and its capacity to provide a broad range of retail / commercial opportunities and services.  Its future retail / commercial position needs to be identified and supported by a Citywide hierarchy that clearly defines its district role, and clarifies the role of neighbouring local centres (including existing centres such as Mt Druitt, and those generated by the proposed urban development at ADI, and the WELL Precinct).

 

The Centre’s capacity to provide living opportunities will be guided by the agreed ‘activity precincts’, and defining the appropriate locations and built form for the Centre’s mixed-use areas.

The Land Use Framework – Penrith and St Marys

The attached draft planning Strategies for each Centre are supported by maps showing the proposed Activity Precincts and Built Form.  The purpose of the draft Strategies is to identify the key steps and actions that, if implemented, will achieve the long-term vision of sustainable and vital Centres.  The Strategies recommend directions regarding landuse, built form, urban design, the public domain, economic investment, and access and transport (including car parking).  These key steps are identified as –

·      Imagining the Future – in partnership with the community, identifying what the vision should be for the Penrith City Centre and the St Marys Town Centre

·      Building Community Support – working with the City’s communities to realise the visions

·      Achieving Ecologically Sustainable Centres – ensuring that all decisions regarding the future of Penrith City Centre / St Marys Town Centre are guided by the principles of ecological sustainability

·      Forging Strong Partnerships – recognising that the success of the Strategy is dependent on commitment and cooperation from both the private and public sectors

·      Creating Friendly and Attractive Places and Spaces – focussing on the fundamental importance of human scale, street activation, high quality public realm and pedestrian friendly environments

·      Creating Cultural/Entertainment Precincts – identifying a cultural / entertainment focus as part of each Centre’s vitalisation

·      Making Housing and Mixed Uses a Priority – ensuring a diversity of uses to generate activity and economic viability

·      Managing Parking and Improving Access – providing for improved public transport, cycling and pedestrian access to and within the Centres and managing car parking more efficiently and in a way that supports vibrant Centres

·      Fostering Economic Investment – creating Centres which are attractive for business and which generates new job opportunities for the people of Penrith City and its region

·      Achieving Quality Built Environments – promoting a high quality of development and ensuring a visually cohesive built form

·    Providing the Right Planning, Development and Implementation Frameworks - creating the right regulatory environment, and funding mechanisms, which facilitate development of the Centres.

 

Key City Parks have been identified for each Centre, together with avenues and pedestrian networks.  The principles underpinning the key land use ‘activities’ are –

·      Commercial / Retail – a ‘core’ area in the Penrith City Centre, which permits retail and commercial uses, including short-stay accommodation such as hotels and serviced apartments, but no residential development

·      Commercial / Retail / Residential – a mixed use area, which permits retail, commercial and residential uses

·      Community / Cultural – an area primarily for the accommodation of community and cultural services, facilities and activities (this may include ancillary retail activities such as cafes)

·      Enterprise – an area that encourages emerging businesses along main road corridors (drawn from the Metropolitan Strategy and Local Plan template)

·      Active Recreation And Leisure – areas with active recreation, leisure and cultural activities (which may be commercial uses)

·      Further investigation – areas that require further investigation given their proximity to major roads, the railway or gateway locations.

 

Draft planning controls have also been developed concurrently with the draft Strategies.  These are broad controls that can guide development and cover –

·      The public domain – active frontages, urban landscape, building facades, mid-block connections, awnings, crime prevention and community safety, pedestrian overpasses and underpasses, solar access to public open space, temporary use and appearance of vacant sites

·      Ecologically sustainable development – energy efficiency and conservation, water cycle management, waste management

·      Built Form – views, building depth, building height, floor to ceiling heights, roof design, articulation zone, mixed-use buildings

·      Access – pedestrian access and mobility, vehicular access and footpaths, building entry, car parking

·      Residential development – apartment mix, apartment layout, ground floor apartments, balcony design, storage, communal and private open space, landscape design, planting on structures, deep soil zones, fences and boundary walls

·      Residential amenity – visual privacy, noise reduction, daylight access.

The draft Strategies will need to be updated where necessary following the recent release of the Metropolitan Strategy.  Further work on the planning controls will need to take into account the State Government’s planning reforms and directives, including the requirements of the final Local Plan Template (which has now been deferred to early 2006).

The Department of Planning has contributed funding (under the Planning Reform Fund Program) towards the completion of the City Centres’ Strategies, and is kept informed of the policy directions and progress of the project.

Continuing Planning Analysis and Responses

The initial City Centres’ Review studies have been completed, consultations undertaken, visions developed, draft planning controls prepared, precinct planning advanced, and a 3D model constructed.  These studies, investigations and consultations underpin the development of the draft Penrith City Centre Strategy and the St Marys Town Centre Strategy.

 

Detailed policy responses including planning controls, access and transport plans, economic strategies, public domain, art and cultural programs, together with an agreed Funding and Implementation Strategy, will assist and guide delivery of the Strategies.

Peripheral Areas

There are key peripheral areas that still need to be considered in more detail, as they are important sites in themselves, and also in the context of guiding the future growth of the Centres.

 

For the Penrith City Centre, these areas include the Panasonic site, Penrith Stadium, the Showground, Panthers, the Carpenter site, the Nepean River, the North Penrith surplus Defence site, the Nepean Hospital, and residential areas adjacent to the City Centre.  All of these sites contribute to Penrith’s recognised role as a Regional City.

 

For the St Marys Town Centre, the key peripheral areas include the employment lands to the north of the Railway Station, ADI, South Creek, and the residential areas adjacent to the Town Centre.

Social Service and Community Organisation Accommodation Needs Study

Elton Consulting commenced the Social Service and Community Organisation Accommodation Needs Study in July 2005.  The Study will provide information to guide future land use and policy decisions to ensure that the Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre maintain a strong social and cultural service role over the next 10 – 20 years, including supporting the provision of social services and funding. 

 

Over 80 social service and community organisations, including government service agencies, have been contacted and baseline data surveys are underway.  Responses to date indicate that–

·      most of the organisations that are currently located in either the Penrith City Centre or St Marys Town Centre are regional, sub-regional or LGA wide services that need to be located in the Centres because of accessibility to public transport and therefore clients, as well as synergies with other services

·      organisations are fulfilling an important role in drawing people to the two Centres, contributing to vitality and viability, as well as employment

·      there is a shortage of affordable and accessible accommodation for community services in the two Centres, particularly at ground floor and well-located

·      the need for accessible and affordable meeting spaces is an issue for some services

·      many organisations are located in premises with insecure tenure, that are also inadequate for the effective delivery of their services, or lacking the capacity to expand to meet growing needs, however some organisations are settled and content in long term accommodation

·      in the Penrith City Centre, car parking is an issue for some services, particularly for staff or clients with a disability or who are frail.

 

The Study investigations are continuing, and will be reported to Council next year.

Access and Car Parking

The City Centres’ Review identified that appropriate responses for the future provision and management of car parking in the City’s Centres are needed, to improve the efficiency of the car parking system, encourage and develop public transport usage, and still meet the needs of shoppers, city workers and residents.  This would involve responses such as the identification of parking zones, revised parking provisions for different land use types, and limiting on-site parking requirements for commercial, retail and residential within the City’s Centres.

 

Principles for consideration in the development of car parking plans for each Centre include –

·      ensuring parking resources are effectively and efficiently allocated, including encouraging the construction of well designed parking structures

·      improving user awareness of parking locations

·      using on-street parking to support adjacent business and retail uses

·      investigating the provision of remote parking facilities, with shuttle connections to major transport interchanges

·      reducing off-street parking requirements in new developments to assist in the change in travel mode behaviour, and allowing contributions from developments towards public parking stations

·      over time, charging for parking to help bring about a change in travel mode behaviour, ensuring a turn over of spaces for business and retail customers and to fund safety and amenity programs in the City Centres

·      investigating future limitations on the use of free long stay parking (noting that reducing the supply, or increasing the cost, of long stay parking is not an effective option in travel demand management until there are viable alternative transport choices for commuters and City Centre employees)

·      configuring parking so that it does not dominate (surface carparks currently occupy large areas of the Centres)

·      examining opportunities for active frontages and roof spaces within decked parking structures, and

·      considering the need to protect adjoining neighbourhoods from potential ‘spillover’ impacts created by the introduction of time restrictions or resident parking schemes.

 

IRIS Research has conducted the Access and Car Parking Needs Survey, with fieldwork undertaken in late October and early November.  The survey was designed to build up a total picture of the dynamics of parking and transport in the two Centres on a typical day.  The three groups included

·      Non-employees who travel into the centre

·      Employees/commuters

·      Business owners and operators

 

Interviewers reported a generally welcoming attitude towards the research, and there was a general willingness to respond to the questionnaires.  The survey results will guide the detailed Centre Access Plans, the draft Car Parking Strategy and Car Parking Management Plan.  The detailed analysis will be reported to Council for consideration.

Next Steps

The next step in progressing and finalising the City Centres’ Review is to undertake consultations with stakeholders, including workshop participants, the City’s business communities, investment groups, community and cultural groups, workers, residents, and visitors to provide an opportunity for discussion and debate on the proposed Strategies.

 

The exhibited draft Strategies will be accompanied by the proposed Activity Precincts and Built Form (with supporting information from the NSW Government Architect’s Office) and other background documents such as the Cultural Development Analysis and the Sustainable Development Checklist.  These documents will also be available on ‘Our City Centres’ website.

 

The Strategies will be reviewed to reflect the information gained from the consultation forums, and then reported to Council for consideration and endorsement.  Council’s endorsement of the Strategies will enable the finalisation of new planning controls to guide future development in the Centres, and the development of a detailed Funding Strategy and Implementation Program.

Conclusion

Council, the City’s business communities, community and cultural groups, workers, residents and visitors all have a role in contributing to the outcomes of the City Centres’ Review, and in ensuring the long-term vitality and viability of the Centres.

 

The City’s Centres can accommodate, in the future, increases in commercial, retail, entertainment and civic activities, as well as growth in residential apartments and dwellings.  Delivering the Strategies for Penrith and St Marys will take many years, and it is important to recognise that decisions made now, and over the next 10 years, will be critical in achieving the vision for the Centres.

 

This requires commitment to delivering agreed public works and programs to encourage the Centre’s amenity and vitality, and also the strategic management of land use activities and sites that present key investment opportunities for the City.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on City Centres' Vitality and Viability Review be received.

2.     The draft Penrith City Centre Strategy and the draft St Marys Town Centre Strategy be exhibited for community and stakeholder comment.

3.     Landowners within the City Centres’ Review study area and the Centre Associations be invited to comment on the draft Strategies.

4.     A further report be presented to Council following the consultations.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

St Marys Town Centre draft Strategy

66 Pages

 Attachment

2.  

St Marys Town Centre draft Activity Precincts and Built Form maps

2 Pages

 Attachment

3.  

Penrith City Centre draft Strategy

67 Pages

 Attachment

4.  

Penrith City Centre draft Activity Precincts and Built Form map

2 Pages

 Attachment

   


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


The City as a Social Place

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Penrith Swimming Centre Upgrade 2981/13                                                                         3

 

5        Development of a City Wide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy 1027/23                                      3

 

6        Draft Local Environmental Plan for Penrith Lakes Environs (Waterside), corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook 4107/28                                                                                 3

 

7        Development Application 03/3292 for a part six and part seven storey mixed retail, commercial and residential building over basement parking at Lot 1 DP 779550, Lot 2 DP 154388, Lot 1 DP 576961 and Lot B DP 152524 (No. 538 - 556) High Street, Penrith. Applicant: Cavassini Constructions Pty Ltd;  Owner: Cavassini Constructions Pty Ltd DA03/3292                                                            3

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

4

Penrith Swimming Centre Upgrade    

2981/13

Compiled by:                Gary Dean - Facilities Operations Manager

Authorised by:             Steve Hackett - Director City Services  

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 the outcome of the Councillor Working Party Meeting.  The report recommends that the information be received and Council endorse the agreed program of activities.

 

Background

Council at it’s meeting on the 19 September 2005 agreed to the formation of a Councillor Working Party to progress the redevelopment of the Penrith Swimming Centre. Councillors McKeown, Page and Cettolin were nominated for that Working Party.  The terms of reference adopted by Council for that Working Party are:

 

“To develop and recommend to Council a strategy of redevelopment of the Penrith Swimming Centre and to oversee the implementation of that strategy.”

 

Working Party Meeting – 23 November 2005

 

Councillor McKeown was elected chairperson of the Working Party.

 

The Working Party considered the Terms of Reference adopted by Council, reflected it’s role, and endorsed it without change.

 

A condition audit has been undertaken by Council officers about 18 months ago which highlighted a number of areas where maintenance work was required.  Prior to proceeding with that work Council agreed to engage a specialist to undertake a comprehensive redevelopment feasibility study of the option of redevelopment, prior to expanding any maintenance funds.

 

‘Facility Design Group’ was subsequently engaged to undertake that feasibility report. This company developed three (3) options which were the subject of a presentation (and examination) at the Working Party meeting. The report to that meeting also included a fourth option which had been developed by Council officers.

 

The Company representative made a detailed presentation to the Working Party on each of the options.

He spoke on a range of initiatives that would be included in any redevelopment option, many of which his Company had experience with at other recently completed Centres.  An important element of each option was the ‘reuse’ of the existing 50m pool and the application of sustainability principles.

 

Understandably, the demographic profile and numbers of future clientele was crucial in the redesign process.

 

Where a new or redeveloped Penrith Swimming Centre should be located was addressed by the Working Party. The report to the meeting reminded the Committee that the present site is leased (significant time remaining) and also offered suggestions for possible alternative sites.

 

The Working Party confirmed the present Station Street site as a preference.

 

The Financial Services Manager provided the Working Party with a range of funding sources for any redevelopment option.

 

One source was possible loan funds, such loan being repaid from an increased revenue stream as a consequence of a greatly enhanced facility.

 

The draft Section 94 Open Space Development Contributions Plan adopted by Council on 5 December 2005 includes reference to the Swimming Centre Upgrade.

 

Proposed Action:

 

The Working Party agreed that the following actions would occur:

 

·      indicative costings for each option to be reviewed and contemporised to reflect current prices

·      identification of comparable Centres that could be included on an agenda for inspection by the Working Party

·      a Business Plan be prepared and further options for funding be investigated

·      examine opportunities for the inclusion of a range of sustainability initiatives in the redevelopment option

·      the redevelopment options must recognise the importance of the Station Street frontage and should address contemporary design principles

·      preparation of a demographic profile for future clientele

·      investigate opportunities to engage students from UWS and TAFE for a “naming competition”

 

Conclusion

 

Council officers will now move forward on these outcomes.  A further Working Party Meeting is planned for the end of February 2006.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Swimming Centre Upgrade be received

2.     Council endorse the program of activities outlined in the report

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

5

Development of a City Wide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy    

1027/23

Compiled by:                Yvonne Perkins - Community Safety Coordinator

Authorised by:             David Burns - Asset Manager

Requested By:             Councillor Jim Aitken

                                      Councillor Greg Davies 

Strategic Program Term Achievement: A community safety plan, building on a partnership with police, the community and other stakeholders is in place and supported by Council’s programs.

Critical Action: Maintain and implement a Community Safety Plan for the City with the aid of relevant stakeholders that responds to current prioritised issues.

Purpose:

To advise Council of the formation of the Graffiti Minimisation sub group of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership and progress to date on the development of the Citywide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy.

 

Background

 

Council has been addressing issues of concern relating to graffiti for a number of years.  A Graffiti Management Working Party was formed in mid 1998 to address the growing issues of graffiti within the Local Government Area.  

 

There were a number of meetings conducted with a range of stakeholders to develop strategies to address graffiti issues across the city.  The working party held its final meeting in May 2001.  The following ongoing actions developed by the working party have been maintained to date.

 

·      “Zero Tolerance” Policy for graffiti removal on Council buildings utilising the Graffiti Response Team established in 1999.

 

§ Removal of offensive and highly visible graffiti in Parks and Road areas.

 

§ Utilising the services of the Department of Juvenile Justice’s Community Service Orders Program to remove graffiti from fencing facing open space areas.

 

§ Continuance of pressure on government authorities to remove graffiti from their properties and equipment.

 

The working party concentrated predominately on graffiti on Council property and government authority infrastructure within the public domain.  The working party determined that Council would not remove graffiti from private property except for fences facing open space areas.

 

 A number of other graffiti removal initiatives have since been implemented, including:

 

Community Safety Graffiti Minimisation Initiatives

 

Graffiti was a major issue identified during the community consultations for the development of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan.  A strategy contained in Key Area 2 – Antisocial Behaviour is “Develop and implement programs that reduce levels of malicious damage and graffiti to property in the Penrith Local Government Area”.  It was identified that all forms of antisocial behaviour, including the prevalence of graffiti, have the ability to reduce the comfort of citizens from participating in day-to-day activities.

 

Participants in the consultations expressed that by improving the environment and targeting antisocial behaviour in Penrith, and reducing the actual number of antisocial incidents, community safety in Penrith would be noticeably improved.

 

Community Safety Graffiti Minimisation Initiatives developed and implemented to date include the following;

 

§ Development and Distribution of the “Graffiti Removal Information Package”

 

Developed in conjunction with Council’s Building Services Department, this package includes suggestions to aid residents in the rapid removal of graffiti on a variety of surfaces, eg, brick, colourbond etc.

 

The package was developed and introduced in 2002 and in mid 2004 it was determined that the package was due for a re-design.  To enhance the opportunity for graffiti minimisation and education, a redesign project was targeted at primary school children.  Local schools were invited to submit designs for a new folder with Leonay and Cambridge Park Primary school students supplying the winning designs.

 

§ Clean Up Day - St Marys CBD June 2003

 

Council officers and the St Marys Town Centre Management Inc. arranged a clean up day for businesses in the St Marys CBD on Sunday 22nd June 2002.

 

The clean up day involved both public and private property and resulted from the implementation of recommendations from the series of St Marys CBD Community Safety Audits.

 

The aim of the day was twofold.  It was an opportunity for local businesses to utilise large bins that were provided for the disposal of all non-contaminated rubbish.  Council also supported the event by providing the services of graffiti removal teams to remove graffiti from private and public property.  Other Council crews were involved with a major cleanup of the footpath areas in Queen Street.  

 

Community Safety Audit participants, other volunteers and local service groups also participated on the day.  They were involved in the removal of graffiti using graffiti wipes and litter collection similar to Clean Up Australia Day.

 

The St Marys CBD Clean Up Day was supported by the St Marys Town Centre Management Inc., who contributed 50% of the total costs of the clean up on behalf of property owners and business owners. 

 

Whilst this event provided a short-term benefit to the amenity of the St Marys CBD, without the support and commitment to a sustainable “management plan” by the stakeholders the results proved to be short lived.

 

Graffiti Removal – Government Authorities Infrastructure

 

A number of government authorities, both State and Federal, have networks of infrastructure within the Penrith LGA e.g. Integral Energy, Roads and Traffic Authority and Telstra.  Generally, the maintenance of these facilities is below standard, particularly in response to graffiti.

 

Numerous approaches have been made to government authorities for the removal of graffiti from their property with varying degrees of success.  This issue has been the subject of presentations to Local Members of Parliament, requesting them to lobby the respective Ministers to ensure a positive response from the authorities for the removal of graffiti.

 

The issue was also the subject of a successful motion at the recent LGSA Conference to address the maintenance of state government authority infrastructure across all councils.

 

The removal of graffiti from government authority infrastructure has been and will remain a major issue for Council until the authorities accept the importance of immediate removal of graffiti in maintaining the amenity of the Local Government Area.  Graffiti removal may not be high on the authority’s agenda, as it does not interfere with the operation of the equipment or system, but they need to accept their role and responsibility in maintaining the visual image of local communities.

 

Council’s zero tolerance on Council owned property has reduced the incidence of graffiti particularly within the public domain.  There has been little or no reduction on the incidence of graffiti on private property and government authority’s property.

 

Local Government Amendment (Graffiti Removal) Act 2001

 

To assist Local Government in the management of graffiti on private property the NSW State Government introduced the Local Government Amendment (Graffiti Removal) Act 2001. 

 

Some Councils have resolved to introduce graffiti policies that allows them to implement these new powers for graffiti removal from private property.

 

The amendment commenced on the 1st July 2001 and was introduced to facilitate possible agreements between Council and private landowners to allow the quick removal of graffiti from private property.

 

The relevant sections of the act are outlined below:

Sect. 67A Graffiti removal work—by agreement with owner or occupier

A council may, by agreement with the owner or occupier of any private land, carry out graffiti removal work on the land.

Sect. 67B Graffiti removal work—without agreement of owner or occupier

(1) A council may, without the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land, carry out graffiti removal work to property on that land if the graffiti concerned is visible from a public place.

(2) The graffiti removal work referred to in subsection (1) may only be carried out from a public place.

(3) The council concerned is to bear the cost of graffiti removal work referred to in subsection (1).

(4) If a council carries out graffiti removal work in accordance with this section, the council must, within a reasonable period, give the owner or occupier of the land concerned written notice that the work has occurred.

(5) A council must pay compensation for any damage caused by the council in carrying out graffiti removal work in accordance with this section.

Sect. 67C Register of graffiti removal work

(1) The council must keep a register of graffiti removal work carried out in accordance with section 67A or 67B.

(2) The register is to specify in respect of each incidence of graffiti removal work carried out:

(a) the owner or occupier of the premises on which the graffiti was situated, and

(b) the nature of the work carried out, and

(c) the actual cost, or an estimate of the cost at current market rates, of carrying out the work, and

(d) in the case of graffiti removal work carried out in accordance with section 67A—the actual amount charged by the council for carrying out the work.

To date Penrith City Council has not wholly adopted within its graffiti procedures the above amendment.  The only area where the amendment has been adopted has been the removal of graffiti from fences adjoining open space areas.

An email survey of all NSW Councils is currently being undertaken to determine the extent of the implementation of the amendment across NSW.

 

Current Situation

Penrith City Council is responsible for the management and maintenance of the public domain within the Local Government Area, except those areas that are owned and managed by State and Federal authorities and private property.  There exists a growing community perception that the amenity of the public domain is solely Council’s responsibility.  On the issue of graffiti management within the public domain, the community is increasingly articulating their demand that Council should take accountability for the management of graffiti removal on both Council owned property and non-Council owned property within and visible from the public domain.

 

Government authorities have graffiti management policies in place, however evidence in the public domain indicates that the implementation of these policies is not able to keep pace with the prevalence of graffiti that currently exists.

 

Some property owners and/or managers are taking a pro-active approach in the removal of graffiti from their properties, however the prevalence of graffiti on private property is increasing at a rate that is difficult to effectively manage.

 

Council is now seeking to facilitate the development of a citywide graffiti minimisation strategy that incorporates the actions of all stakeholders to improve the look of the city with a sustainable outcome.

 

Council’s strategic program 2005-2009 contains an issue concerning the “Look of the City”. Council’s longer-term goal is that the City of Penrith is recognised for its attractiveness and this will be achieved by:

 

·    Council’s planning policies, land use, regularly controls and asset management practices enhancing the visual amenity of the city.

 

·    Key agencies, institutions, landholders and the community being cooperatively engaged in enhancing the visible amenity of the city.

 

A task in the 2005-2006 Management Plan is to;

 

 “secure a commitment by key agencies and land holders to enhance the visual amenity of their assets or property visible from the public domain”.

 

To achieve the required Strategic Plan longer-term goal and the objectives of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan, a Graffiti Minimisation Sub Group of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership has been convened.

 

The purpose of the sub group is to bring partners together to assist in the development and implementation of a citywide graffiti minimisation strategy that reduces levels of graffiti (malicious damage) to property in the Penrith Local Government Area.  This property includes public, private and government owned infrastructure.

 

At the first meeting on 17th August, presentations were made by Council and Penrith & St Marys Police.   The presentations were based around a number of discussion points including;

 

·    the identification of graffiti hot spots across the city

·    the importance of reporting, identifying and recording tags

·    the high cost of glass etching to the business sector

·    the need for a city wide strategy through a coordinated approach for graffiti minimisation

·    the identification of graffiti under crime category; malicious damage

 

Strategies adopted by other Council’s were also discussed, eg, zero tolerance, rapid removal, the provision of legal walls, public art projects and rapid removal.

 

The following feedback was also provided by meeting participants for government authorities.

 

Integral Energy

 

The Integral Energy representative advised the meeting that they receive substantial graffiti hits on pillars and poles.  They do not patrol or inspect infrastructure for graffiti but respond to complaints or offensive graffiti that is reported.  The Integral Energy representative also advised that they have a financial arrangement with Parramatta City Council that allows the Council to manage graffiti on Integral assets and equipment.  Integral Energy pays a financial contribution to Parramatta City Council under this arrangement.   The meeting was also advised that Integral Energy would consider entering into a similar arrangement with Penrith Council.

 

Roads & Traffic Authority

 

The RTA representative advised the meeting that generally graffiti is removed from public view within 30 days (once reported), and offensive and highly visible graffiti is removed from public view within 48 hours.  Graffiti on RTA infrastructure that is not in the public view, eg, bridge piers is not generally removed. The RTA do not remove graffiti from signal boxes at this stage but they are currently looking into this for future maintenance requirements. The RTA is willing to be involved in a partnership to look at murals on signal boxes.

 

Both RailCorp and Telstra were invited to the sub groups meetings.  Neither organisation has attended to date, however Telstra have previously provided the following information concerning how it addresses graffiti on its property.

 

Telstra advised that there is no formal arrangement in place with its contractors for graffiti removal, however the appropriate response is generally based on the following:

 

-Where the tags are offensive in nature, they will be removed as soon as practically possible.

-Graffiti on highly visible/prominent sites is removed with minimum delay (assessed on a case by case basis).

-All other graffiti is only removed in the course of site improvement or normal maintenance works.

 

-The issue concerning the maintenance of RailCorp property has been and will continue to be the subject of representations to senior staff and the Minister for Transport.

 

Those present at the first meeting gave a commitment to continue with the process for the development and implementation of a citywide strategy.

 

The second meeting was held on the 14th September 2005, with attendance this time including Sydney Water representatives and the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce. The sub group commenced developed of the framework for the citywide graffiti minimisation strategy.

 

Framework for the Citywide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy

 

Council Officers led a discussion on the aims and objectives of the sub group and a draft statement was presented to the sub group. The statement is:

 

“The amenity of and the view from the public domain is enhanced through the minimisation of graffiti and the shared commitment by all stakeholders”.

 

All those in attendance agreed to this statement being adopted as the key aim of the Graffiti Minimisation Sub Group.

 

The sub group determined the framework of the strategy should be based around three main elements. They are:

 

Education

 

·        The need for the development of educational programs targeted at primary/early high school aged students. 

 

Prevention

 

This could be achieved though a variety of actions including CPTED treatments, eg, vegetation to screen and prevent access to large walls; controls at the point of sale of spray cans from self-service to “back of counter” locations; encourage reporting of graffiti - linked to the Report It –Don’t Ignore It initiative; workshops with members of the community, eg commercial, residential groups.

 

Graffiti Removal

 

The group determined that there are a number of options available for the removal of graffiti.  It was agreed by the sub group that prompt removal continues to be leading practice in the reduction of repeat graffiti hits.  This strategy needs to be maintained over the long term to achieve sustainable outcomes.  The citywide strategy will need to be mindful of this issue and provide awareness and support mechanisms that encourage continual prompt removal.

 

The Graffiti Minimisation Sub Group held its third meeting on 3rd November 2005. 

The sub group continued discussions on the options that need to be included in the Citywide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy.

 

The suggested options included:

 

·    Promotion of reporting of all graffiti.

-Supported by: Report It - Don’t Ignore It! This program was developed to encourage people who live or work in the Penrith area to report incidents of crime, in particular minor crime and antisocial behaviour that impacts on people’s quality of life.

-Other media and promotional activities by Police and/or Council/others.

 

·    Establishment of a citywide data base recording system for all graffiti on private and public property across the LGA.

Photographic records, database and mapping system to identify hot spots and profile of chronic taggers (this is further discussed in this report).

 

·    A dedicated graffiti reporting hot line – Council.

Dedicated/automated phone line to record graffiti reporting.

 

·    Include agreements with government authorities on management of graffiti removal or prevention on their property and equipment.

 

·    Support the Retail Traders Association Voluntary Industry Strategy on the sale of spray cans.

This can be achieved via support to the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce and the City Centre Associations.

 

·    Involve Property Managers/Real Estate Agents in the management of graffiti on leased and rented properties.

 

·    Education stream

Focusing on primary school aged children

Funding Grant- Web-based interactive educational game (further discussed in this report)

Education aimed at the general community

Report It –Don’t Ignore It

Graffiti Removal Information Package (add new information to pack, eg, CPTED treatments)

 

·    Council Development Control Plans, Policies, Development Application Conditions.

Incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principles in Council’s planning documents, eg. Council’s CPTED DCP and conditions of consent for new Industrial/Commercial developments.

 

·    Rapid Removal of graffiti from Council property

Continue to implement existing Council policy on the removal of graffiti.

 

·    Local Government Act - Legislative framework

Develop procedures that seek to benefit from the amendments to the Local Government Act that allows Councils to remove graffiti (visible and accessible from public space) from private property in partnership with others.

 

·    Graffiti Removal Volunteers

Develop an agreed program model that supports the involvement of volunteer community members/commercial/industrial groups and organisations in the removal of graffiti in specified locations.

 

The program model will include recruitment of volunteers, training, “adopt a site” framework, management and maintenance plans, promotion of outcomes, eg, local community ownership, citizenship, mentoring, etc.

 

·    Graffiti Free Areas

The development of model procedures (developed from trials) to allow  “Graffiti hot spots” sites to be designated as “graffiti free areas”.  

This would include a CPTED assessment of the selected locations, resulting in management and maintenance plans that are specific to the site to ensure sustainable graffiti removal practices and outcomes.

 

·    Government Programs

The inclusion of all available government run programs that exist from time to time that support other strategies within the citywide strategy.

Eg Juvenile Justice Community Service Order Scheme.

 

·    Inclusion of a Public Art Policy

This will be developed after the adoption of Council’s Cultural Planning Framework (currently being developed).

 

·        Research

Included in the strategy development will be a research of graffiti minimisation strategies developed and implemented by other local councils both local and interstate and a review of overseas practices.

 

After discussions, the sub group members determined that all of the above options should be included in the development of the Citywide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy.

 

The sub group then discussed the selection of trial areas for the development of a range of graffiti prevention and/or removal methods including ongoing site management by property owners, traders and managing agents (where applicable).  The trials will be conducted with these stakeholders, utilising appropriate partnership measures and procedures, developed in conjunction with the Graffiti Minimisation Sub Group. The trial areas selected were:

 

§ The factory units on Batt Street, backing onto the Maxwell Street Channel (near Mulgoa Road) at Jamisontown.

The Batt Street properties were selected due to the high prevalence and visibility of

            graffiti in that location. 

 

§ Victoria Street Shops at Werrington (Near Railway Station)

Victoria Street shops were selected to support the existing partnership that has been

   developed with the property owner during the Local Shopping Strip Improvement

   Program.  By including this location we can support and build on the efforts of this

   property owner who has repeatedly attempted to remove and manage graffiti hits.

 

§ Selected public space locations in Glenmore Park.

 Glenmore Park has been selected due to the high incidence of reports to both Penrith 

 City Council and St Marys Police.

 

Note: Since the third meeting a section of the St Marys CBD is to be included as a fourth trial area. 

 

Educational Strategy

 

The sub group was advised of an opportunity to assist in the development an Educational Strategy as a component of the overall Graffiti Minimisation Strategy.

 

The Federal Attorney General’s Department advised that applications for grant funding under its National Crime Prevention Program were open and applications could be submitted by Friday 18th November.

 

Due to the short turn around time to develop and submit an application, there was insufficient time to submit a report to Council on this grant application.

 

A project has been developed and a funding application has been submitted to the National Crime Prevention Program as follows:

 

Brief Project Description

 

An interactive web-based educational graffiti minimisation game, assisting children in developing a sense of what they want their neighbourhood to look like and what role they can play in Crime Prevention through the choices they make.  The game explores public space across Penrith, that’s familiar to individuals or classroom participants.

 

Proposed Project

 

The game will be accessed directly though the Penrith City Council’s home page by classroom groups, OOSH Services, Vacation Care Groups, Guides, Scouts, Youth Groups, individuals using home based PCs and other potential age appropriate groups and individuals.

 

The game allows children and young people, at a time when they are developmentally ready, to explore their local community in the context of perceptions of crime and safety and consider their own role in the local neighbourhood and the wider Penrith community.

 

The game will have a progressive feel to it, with pop up information messages and questions to provide the user with a sense of achievement of progressing through the game. Points will be allocated, creating community champions and the like, so that there is a sense of achieving a reward at the end of the game, eg, a certificate can be printed at the end of a successful completion of the game.

 

Research undertaken in the development stage of the project will ensure that it is age appropriate with concepts that are easily understood by children, addressing issues that are of interest to them. 

 

The program aims to build on the strengths of local communities by incorporating the game into the framework of the NSW Board of Studies syllabus for Human Society and its Environment K-6. Emphasis is placed on the importance of Information Technology that enables students to learn in new and diverse ways.

 

The interactive nature of the project will allow for an action research component by requesting children to identify areas in their neighbourhood that they consider “safe” and what they perceive as “unsafe”.  The games will then allow children (both individually and in classroom groups) to provide thoughts on what they can do to change these perceptions, again, individually or collectively. The information gathered during the action research aspects of the game will allow the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership to assess perceptions of young people across Penrith to allow further development of educational and/or partnership projects to address issues at a local level.

 

Graffiti Data Base 

 

  Council Officers are currently investigating a web based graffiti register program that has been designed specifically for Local Government.  The register can manage all graffiti related information from location of specific graffiti hits and tags to archiving of graffiti photos.  The types of information that can be stored include location; graffiti tag; costing; photographs and a reporting mechanism. 

 

The graffiti register will allow Council to retain a permanent record of graffiti throughout the LGA; enable the identification of hot spots; identify trends in specific areas; identify and track specific tags; maintain up to date data of quantity and costs of removal. 

 

The system uses hand held electronic recording devices where the data is collected once and is down loaded directly into the database.

 

Compliance Issues

 

The Environmental Health Manager advises that the control of graffiti on new commercial or industrial developments has been aided with the inclusion of the following standard condition on development consents for new developments of this type constructed from 1999.

 

The finishes of all structures and buildings are to be maintained at all times and any graffiti or vandalism immediately removed/repaired

 

Where this condition has been included on a consent, and circumstances exist whereby it has not been complied with, Council is able to pursue compliance through either the service of an Order 15 under Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or the issuing of an Penalty Infringement Notice for not complying with the conditions of consent ($600 penalty).  The terms of Order 15 can include any action necessary to require any person upon whom it is served to take action to comply with any development consent issued for the activity.  Non-compliance with the terms of the Order can result in legal action for a breach of the Act or the issuing of a Penalty Infringement Notice ($1500 penalty).

 

Development control staff regularly respond to complaints about graffiti on commercial and industrial buildings. However achieving ongoing compliance is resource intensive as the graffiti often quickly returns. The preferred approach is to audit all business in an area and achieve a coordinated response.

 

The Development Control Unit will undertake a land use audit in January 2006 of identified problem sites, including areas such as the Batt Street factory complexes.  This audit will build on and review the longer term outcomes of a previous audit in 2004.The audit will examine the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms available to Council and other alternate approaches.

 

Letters and notices have been sent to a number of property owners requesting or requiring the removal of graffiti in accordance with consent conditions or in cooperation of a broader clean-up in the area. No formal legal action has been taken to date against owners of properties affected by the consent condition relating to the removal of graffiti from commercial and industrial buildings. A cooperative approach has been used with the expectation of engendering a spirit of support from these business owners to achieve a better overall result. The earlier audit in the Batt Street area for example found that there were still a significant number of consents without conditions about graffiti removal. Many of the buildings were constructed prior to these conditions being applied.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Graffiti has been and continues to be prevalent across the City. The outcomes of the previous Graffiti Minimisation Working Group have substantially addressed graffiti on Council buildings and other infrastructure. However, increasing graffiti hits on council property is stretching the ability of existing resources to effectively remove the graffiti in an acceptable timeframe.

 

As stated earlier in the report there has been little or no reduction on the incidence of graffiti on private property or other government authority infrastructure either within or visible from public spaces. If anything, as evidenced by increasing reports and inspections, the incidence of graffiti in these areas is increasing.

 

The Graffiti Minimisation Sub Group of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership has been formed to bring together a range of partners/ stakeholders to assist in the development and implementation of a citywide graffiti minimisation strategy to reduce levels of graffiti across the City. The strategy will address graffiti on council property, private property and other government owned property.

 

The framework of the strategy, as agreed by the sub group, will be based around the three main elements of Education, Prevention and Removal.

 

Research has indicated that prompt removal continues to be leading practice in the eductional aspects of graffiti minimisation awareness and practices. Prompt removal, whether on public or private property, needs to be maintained over the long-term to achieve sustainable outcomes. The citywide graffiti minimisation strategy will need to address this long-term commitment and identify those resources and support mechanisms required to maintain prompt removal. The strategy will also need to identify who is best placed to manage graffiti, including removal, on private property visible from the public space. Some councils have implemented powers under the Local Government Amendment (Graffiti Removal) Act 2001 and remove graffiti from private and government authority property either at their own cost or within an agreement with private property owners and government authorities.

 

 Funding opportunities will need to be identified and investigated to provide the adequate level of resources for the ongoing management of graffiti across the City. One council in metropolitan Sydney has imposed a special rate on all properties to provide the resources required to manage graffiti and vandalism in its LGA.

 

The management and minimisation of graffiti across the City will require a long-term commitment to the development and implementation of a Graffiti Minimisation Strategy, including the development of long-term partnerships, to provide a sustainable reduction in graffiti on council property, and private and government authority property both within and visible from the public domain.

 

The Graffiti Minimisation Sub Group of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership will continue to develop a Citywide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy based on the three main elements of Education, Prevention and Removal as detailed in the report.

 

Progress on the development of the strategy will be reported through the Subgroup and Partnership Meetings and it is proposed that the Draft strategy will be presented to Council at either a Council Briefing Session or a Policy Review Meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on the Development of a City Wide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy be received.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

6

Draft Local Environmental Plan for Penrith Lakes Environs (Waterside), corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook    

4107/28

Compiled by:                Paul Battersby - Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote - Environmental Planning Manager  

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Cohesive communities are formed based on sustainable, safe and satisfying living and working environments.

Critical Action: Prepare and implement plans for each new release area that deliver quality, sustainable living and working environments.

        

Purpose:

To inform Council of Parliamentary Counsel's Opinion that the draft amendment of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) can be legally made and the results of an independent acoustic analysis of the impact of industrial noise on the residential amenity of the Waterside estate. The report recommends Council adopt the plan amendment and forward it to the Minister for gazettal.

 

Background

Penrith Lakes Environs (Waterside) is an urban release area located adjacent to the suburb of Cranebrook. The site is generally bounded by Andrews Road to the south, Cranebrook Road to the west, Nepean Street to the north and Laycock Street/Greygums Reserve to the east.

 

Planning for the estate was initially undertaken in the mid 1990’s and has evolved in response to on-site and surrounding physical characteristics, in particular, noise from surrounding industrial development to the south on the opposite side of Andrews Road. Initial planning investigations identified industrial noise as a constraint to residential development on the southern part of the site. These investigations culminated in the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) (LEP) and the adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) (DCP) on 13 March 1998.

 

The site contains 2 development zones, namely the Residential (Waterways) 2 (g) and the Residential (Services) 2(h) zones. The Residential (Services) 2(h) zone is located along the Andrews Road frontage of the property and enables development of the land for visitor accommodation and business service activities. The development within this zone provides an acoustic and visual buffer between existing industry south of Andrews Road and the proposed residential development. The Residential (Waterways) 2(g) zone is located behind the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone and extends to Nepean Street in the north.

 

Development Consents have issued to carry out the bulk earthworks, lakes construction and the provision of service infrastructure on the site. The bulk earthworks and lake construction are nearing completion and construction of the service infrastructure has commenced recently.

 

Acoustic studies were undertaken by the developer during the initial planning for the estate and scrutinised by local industries, operators and Council. Industry operators also conducted a noise modelling exercise to predict the noise environment on the site.  There was a significant disparity between the results of the studies.  Those studies identified the acoustic environment and recommended criteria to ensure industrial noise would not unreasonably impact on the residential amenity of the site. As a result of negotiations between the parties, a package of measures was agreed to by the stakeholders and incorporated in the LEP and DCP as follows:

 

·    Establishing the 2(h) Residential Services zone along the southern boundary of the site at the interface with adjoining industrial development. This zone permits visitor accommodation, business services and employment development uses compatible with a residential environment. Development within this zone is to be designed to provide an acoustic, physical and visual buffer between residential development on the site and industrial development on the southern side of Andrews Road;

 

·    Setting comprehensive noise criteria and noise monitoring procedures to establish the existing acoustic environment and identify the measures necessary to provide the required residential environment;

 

·    Requiring the buildings and barriers in the 2(h) Residential Services zone to be constructed prior to the development of residential buildings on land affected by noise levels that exceed those nominated in the LEP; and

 

·    Requiring the submission of acoustic reports and certificates of compliance with all applications for residential buildings. 

 

Stockland, the developer of the estate, has sought to amend the LEP and DCP/Masterplan for the Residential (Waterways) 2 (g) zone to facilitate an alternative strategy for the delivery of land and housing on the site that provides certainty of housing design and a quality urban outcome with the flexibility needed to meet market demands. The amendment enables housing to be delivered by way of traditional land subdivision, subdivision involving the sale of land upon which only pre-approved housing designs can be erected and completed house and land packages (integrated development).

 

Council resolved at the Policy & Review Committee Meeting of 23 February 2004 to prepare and publicly exhibit a draft amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) and Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) to facilitate Stockland’s strategy for the delivery of housing and land.

 

The draft amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) and Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) were prepared and publicly exhibited from 24 August to 24 September 2004. Submissions from industrial users to the south of the Waterside Estate support the acoustic measures nominated in the LEP & DCP, however, expressed concern as to:

 

·    The conflicting acoustic advice provided todate;

·    The location of the 40dBA outdoor industrial night time noise contour across the site; and

·    The appropriateness and ability of temporary noise barriers to satisfy the outdoor industrial noise criterion;

 

The submissions requested that Council undertake independent detailed noise monitoring to:

 

·    assess the impact of noise from industry to the south of the proposed development site on the future residential amenity across the site; and

·    to ensure that if residential development occurs on the site prior to the construction of the 2(h) Residential Services area that it complies with the acoustic provisions outlined in LEP and DCP.

 

Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 6 December 2004 considered a report on the results of the public exhibition of the draft planning instruments and resolved that:

 

1.   The information contained in the report on the public exhibition of the draft Local Environmental Plan and draft Development Control Plan for Penrith Lakes Environs be received

2.   The draft Local Environmental Plan and draft Development Control Plan for Penrith Lakes Environs incorporating the amendments outlined in this report included in attachments be adopted and the draft Local Environmental Plan be referred to Parliamentary Counsel for an Opinion as to whether the plan can be legally made

3.   Following the opinion from Parliamentary Counsel, a report be prepared for Council to endorse the draft Local Environmental Plan for forwarding to the Minster for gazettal

4.   Council adopt the ‘Waterside Green Design Guidelines’ subject to the amendments raised in this report

5.   All those who made submissions to the exhibition of the draft LEP be informed of Council’s decision

6.   Prior to endorsement of the draft Local Environmental Plan in Item 3 above, Council commission an independent acoustic consultant to prepare a report to verify the acoustic reports previously submitted.

Stockland has submitted Development Application 05/0390 to construct Stage 1A of the housing development. The proposal involves the creation of 36 residential lots and the erection of a dwelling on each of the lots. The development is being carried out as ‘integrated development’ and is permissible with Council’s consent under the existing provisions of the LEP. Determination of that application has been withheld pending the outcome of the independent acoustic analysis.

 

Stockland has sought ‘expressions of interest’ to develop the employment land along the Andrews Road frontage of the property. Those investigations have indicated that the range of uses currently permitted in that zone is too restrictive and is inhibiting development of the land. Stockland has initiated discussions with Council staff to amend the zone, with a view to increasing the range of permissible uses whilst maintaining the need for development to protect the acoustic environment of residential development on the site. We are currently awaiting a submission from Stockland and the matter will be reported to Council in the new year.

 

Current Situation

Independent Acoustic Analysis

 

Representatives from Stockland, Owens Illinois Asia Pacific (formerly ACI Packaging Pty Ltd) and Crane Enfield Metals Pty Ltd were invited to participate in a Project Control Group (PCG) to oversee the conduct of the independent acoustic analysis sought by Council. The PCG supervised the preparation of the brief, reviewed the tender submissions and selected Dick Benbow & Associates as the acoustic consultant to undertake the required analysis.

 

In summary the Brief required the independent acoustic consultant to:

 

1.   Determine the location and shape of the 40 dB(A) night time noise contour across the site;

2.   Determine the ability of temporary noise barriers to satisfy the 40dBA outdoor industrial night time noise criterion and recommend the location, height and acoustic design criteria of any temporary noise barrier required for Stage 1 of the housing development;

3.   Confirm the location and shape of the 50dBA outdoor industrial noise daytime contour across the site.

 

It was acknowledged by all parties that Waterside is a construction site and that the required acoustic analysis had to be conducted with minimal interruption to site activities. This combined with noise logger equipment failure, an 8-week shutdown of one of the four furnaces at Owens Illinois and the more recent adverse weather conditions (wind & rain) have delayed the study, which has only recently been completed.

 

The Penrith Lakes Environs Development Control Plan requires:

·        acoustic monitoring to be carried out over a minimum of 2 weeks which provides a minimum of 150 valid data samples;

·        a minimum of 4 on-site logger points; and

·        a minimum of 2 off-site logger points

 

The PCG confirmed the recommended noise logger locations and microphone height. Six (6) noise loggers were initially located on the northern portion of the site. 4 off-site noise loggers were located at 2 Echo Place, Penrith; 8 Graham Close, Cranebrook and at the boundaries of O-I and Crane Enfield Metals for control monitoring.

 

The northern most logger locations were found to be below the 40 dB(A) noise level and new locations were selected further south, with the agreement of the PCG,  to provide greater accuracy in identifying the location and shape of the 40 dB(A) noise contour.

 

Noise monitoring identified that the Owens Illinois (O-I) plant is the main source of industrial noise propagated across the Waterside site. Crane Enfield Metals activities provide a limited to negligible contribution to the noise levels.

 

Acoustic monitoring provided a total of 2158 valid data samples, with 6 of the 10 on-site loggers each achieving greater than 150 valid data samples. 3 of the 4 off-site noise loggers achieved greater than 150 valid data samples. The number of logger points and valid data samples exceeds the requirements of the DCP.

 

Dick Benbow & Associates have indicated they are confident that the data obtained is sufficient to determine the 40 dB(A) contour. However, to provide greater confidence in the outcomes of the physical monitoring they also carried out computer modelling of noise emissions from the O-I plant. That modelling was based on noise measurements at the plant and from their experience “strongly indicates that the 40 dB(A) contour line is accurate and is within the margin of variation that can occur from measurements and modelling methodology within the highest levels of accuracy possible”. The results have been used to determine the location of the 40 dB(A) contour which is indicated on the plan appended to this report.

 

It is noted that the 40 dB(A) contour protrudes into the site at its eastern (Stage 5) and western (Stage 1) extremities. The consultant notes that measured noise levels in these areas are 41.2 dB(A) and 41 dB(A) respectively and considers these exceedences not to be of concern. Previous acoustic studies had identified this prospect and given the sensitivities of industrial noise intrusion into residential areas, the DCP was amended to allow consideration of the provision of a temporary noise barrier to enable delivery of housing, for Stage 1 only, pending construction of buildings in the employment area fronting Andrews Road.

 

The consultant indicates that a 4m high noise barrier located along the southern edge of the western portion of Stage 1 would achieve the required 1dB(A) – 2dB(A) noise reduction. Similar height noise barriers have been erected around the perimeter of the site during the recent bulk earthworks activities.  The consultant indicates that these barriers could be relocated and utilised to protect the western section of Stage 1 as reuse of this material is a more sustainable approach.  However, it is considered that both sides of the barrier should be appropriately landscaped to enhance its aesthetic presentation.  This matter will be addressed in determination of the development application for Stage 1.  A plan of the 40 dB(A) contour line and a plan indicating it when the acoustic barrier is in place are appended to this report.

 

The consultant was also requested to confirm the location and shape of the 50dBA outdoor industrial noise daytime contour across the site. Dick Benbow & Associates have advised that collection of daytime noise data to confirm the location of the 50 dB(A) contour has not been possible due to the extensive construction activities being carried out on the site. The consultant has advised however that from the modelled noise results, the 50 dB(A) contour is well to the south of the residential area and intrudes only into the employment area along Andrews Road.

 

Draft Local Environmental Plan

 

The draft Local Environmental Plan was referred to the then Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources on 10 December 2004 for Parliamentary Counsel Opinion as to whether the plan could be legally made.

 

 ‘Integrated development’ is a development mechanism that involves approval of the dwellings at the subdivision stage. This mechanism ensures consideration and resolution of dwelling design issues during preparation of the subdivision layout and is particularly relevant in achieving satisfactory design outcomes for smaller lots.  

 

Council had proposed a change to the definition of ‘integrated development’ to include Stockland’s housing delivery strategy for lots greater than 300m2 but less than 450m2. That strategy enabled the purchaser to select the house to be erected on the lot from a set of pre-approved housing designs.

 

Parliamentary Counsel indicated a preference to retain the current definition of ‘integrated development’ and introduce a new Clause 21 in the LEP to address Stockland’s and Council’s planning intentions for the estate. This change is minor and does not alter the thrust of the draft LEP.

 

The Department has advised by letter dated 1 September 2005 that Parliamentary Counsel is of the opinion that the draft Plan could be legally made. A copy of the amended LEP is appended to this report.

Conclusion

A Project Control Group (PCG), comprising representatives from Council, the applicant and industry, was established to oversee the conduct of an independent acoustic analysis of the impact of industrial noise on residential development of the Waterside Estate. The PCG supervised preparation of the brief, reviewed the tender submissions, selected the acoustic consultant and overviewed the progress of the acoustic analysis.

 

The independent acoustic analysis has established the existing acoustic environment and identified that part of the site that can be developed for residential purposes prior to the erection of buildings in the employment area fronting Andrews Road. They have confirmed that a temporary noise barrier will provide the required residential amenity for that section of stage 1 of the development located south of the 40 dB(A) contour. The analysis reassures stakeholders that the provisions of the LEP and DCP will deliver the required residential acoustic environment without undue impact on the existing operations of adjoining industry. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to commence residential development of the site.

 

Determination of the Stage 1A residential development application has been withheld pending the outcome of the independent acoustic analysis of the site. Should Council support the findings of that analysis it is intended to process determination of the application under delegated authority as has been the practice in delivery of previous urban release areas such as Claremont Meadows and Glenmore Park.

 

Parliamentary Counsel has indicated that the draft amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) may be legally made.

 

It is recommended that the draft Plan, as amended by Parliamentary Counsel, be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for gazettal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Local Environmental Plan for Penrith Lakes Environs (Waterside), corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook be received.

2.     In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), Council submit the draft Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) - Amendment No. 1 to the Minister for gazettal, as amended by Parliamentary Counsel.

3.     All those who made submissions to the exhibition of the draft LEP be informed of Council’s decision

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

40dB(A) Contour

1 Page

 Appendix

2. View

40dB(A) Contour Barrier

1 Page

 Appendix

3. View

Lakes Environs dLEP

4 Pages

 Appendix

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

Appendix 1 - 40dB(A) Contour

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

Appendix 2 - 40dB(A) Contour Barrier

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

Appendix 3 - Lakes Environs dLEP

 

 

 





Ordinary Meeting

12 December 2005

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

7

Development Application 03/3292 for a part six and part seven storey mixed retail, commercial and residential building over basement parking at Lot 1 DP 779550, Lot 2 DP 154388, Lot 1 DP 576961 and Lot B DP 152524 (No. 538 - 556) High Street, Penrith  Applicant:  Cavassini Constructions Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Cavassini Constructions Pty Ltd     

DA03/3292

 

Compiled by:                Brad Roeleven - Contract Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm - Development Assessment Manager

Requested By:             Councillor Greg Davies 

 

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 development application for part six and part seven storey mixed use (commercial/retail/residential) building in the Penrith City Centre.  The report recommends that the application be refused.

 

Introduction

This report relates to a development application seeking consent for the erection of a mixed-use, multi-storey building in the Penrith City Centre.

 

The matter is relatively familiar to Council because, during the term of the application’s assessment, Council’s officers have provided a number of briefings for the Council.  The applicant has had many opportunities to brief the Council also.

 

The central issue throughout the entire course of this application has been the intensity and scale of the proposal, when measured and assessed against Council’s current planning controls.  The application relies, significant, upon a concession, which provides opportunity to seek approval for increased floor space (increased from 2.5 the site area to 4 x the site area).  The concession, however, is accompanied by criteria (height limits, building envelopes, shadowing), which must be satisfied.  The proposal does not satisfy these criteria.

 

Council’s officers have consistently advised the applicant, as we have others developing or proposing to develop in the CBD, that these criteria must be satisfied.  This advice commenced at the pre-lodgement phase and has continued throughout.

 

When this matter was last reported to Council the proposal involved an eight-storey development.  There have been a number of further meetings and an amended proposal has been submitted.  This latest proposal seeks to equally access the extra floor space concession.  There remain non-compliances with the criteria associated with this concession.

Actions since the last report to Council

A report recommending that this application be refused was considered by Council at its meeting on 4 April 2005. Council resolved, however, to defer the matter to enable further discussions with the applicant.

 

A meeting was held with the applicant on 19 May 2005, where Council’s officers confirmed the need for the development to accord with current planning controls.  However, there was no apparent commitment from the proponent to modify their proposal.

 

Consequently the meeting did not result in any clear outcome with regards to progressing this application.  Nevertheless, the applicant was invited to submit concept plans for a revised proposal, within 14 days from the meeting, for further consideration.  No response was received within that period.

 

In early June further discussions with the applicant and his planning consultant focused upon the need for this matter to be finalised. The option of withdrawing the application was restated by Council’s officers. The applicant instead indicated a preference for reconsidering their position, possibly with a view to preparing a master plan for the redevelopment of the site.

 

As no further progress was evident the matter was presented back to Council at it’s meeting on 4 July 2005 for determination. At that meeting Council did not adopt the recommendation that the application be refused, but instead resolved to defer the matter until the meeting of the 18 July 2005, to allow for a meeting with the applicant.   

 

That meeting was held on 13 July 2005 where the proponent submitted a set of revised plans, showing a 7-storey building. At the meeting the applicant indicated they would however investigate reducing the building down to a maximum of 6 storeys. 

 

On 22 July 2005 another meeting was held with the applicant and his consultant team, where plans for a 6-storey building were presented. This building comprised ground floor retail, 3 levels of commercial floor space and 2 levels of residential accommodation. The outcome of that meeting was that Council would investigate circumstances regarding the status of Council’s heritage study review as it relates to this site, while the proponent was asked to submit to Council a précis of how they intended to justify any departures from current planning controls associated with a 6-storey development.

 

Council then wrote to the applicant on 2 August 2005 advising that as no formal response had been received it was intended to report this application to the Council meeting of 5 September 2005.

On 24 August 2005 a further meeting was held with the applicant and the project architect. Plans for a 6-storey development were presented, however the proponent proceeded to outline the need/impacts of a 7-storey building. A lengthy discussion then followed regarding the applicable planning controls for the site. In summary, the outcome of this meeting was that:

·    Council reconfirmed that the relevant planning controls for this site were as per the current LEP and DCP

·    The proponent was requested to advise of their intentions regarding this application by 2 September 2005

·    The proponent was advised that a further report on this application would be deferred until the Council meeting on 19 September 2005

 

A report for the meeting of 19 September 2005 was prepared but was not included on the agenda for that meeting as the applicant lodged formal amended plans on 9 September 2005. An Urban Design Analysis report in support of the proposal, prepared by Civitas Partnership, was received on 15 September 2005.

 

This report provides an assessment of the amended proposal received on 9 September 2005.

The Site

The development site comprises Nos. 538 – 556 High Street Penrith, being Lot 1 DP 779550, Lot 2 DP 154388, Lot 1 DP 576961 and Lot B DP 152524.

 

This land is positioned on the southern side of High Street near the intersection with Riley Street. The development site is of rectangular shape with a frontage to High Street of 53.3m, a rear boundary of 50m to Union Lane and a depth of 61.1m, giving an area of 3161.4m2.

 

Each of the 4 allotments comprising the development site currently support modest commercial buildings set on the High Street boundary.  These buildings have a relatively small footprint, with the balance of these sites being vacant except for small outbuildings or garages located along Union Lane.  A locality plan is attached/appended.

The Proposal

This application seeks consent to demolish all structures, consolidate the four allotments, and construct a part 6 and part 7 storey mixed commercial/retail/residential building over basement parking. The development comprises the following:

 

Basements

 

4 levels of basement parking for 277 vehicles.

 

Ground floor 

 

1366m² of retail floor space, a pedestrian arcade linking High Street with Union Road, utility and amenity areas for retail tenants, pedestrian lobby areas for commercial and residential areas on upper floors, loading dock and access ramp to basement parking from Union Lane.

 

Level 1, 2 and 3

 

2400m2, 2735m² and 2620m²

 

Level 4, 5 and 6

 

16 residential units

1.       Statutory Assessment

1.1     Relevant planning instruments, Development Control Plans, Policies, zoning and permissibility

The site is zoned 3(A) General Business under Penrith City Centre LEP 1997. The proposal is permissible with consent pursuant to clause 9 of that Plan. Regulations, planning instruments, codes and polices relevant in the assessment of this application are:

 

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 11 – Traffic Generating Development

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

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

·    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 20Hawkesbury Nepean River

·    Penrith City Centre LEP 1997

·    Penrith Heritage LEP 1991

·    Penrith City Centre Development Control Plan

·    DCP for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

·    S94 Contributions Plan No1 – Penrith City Centre

·    City Centres Review

 

The proposed development’s compliance with the relevant provisions of the above is detailed in the following sections of this report.

1.2     Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Clause 50 of the Regulation provides that a development application for a residential flat development, lodged on or after 1 December 2003, must be accompanied by a design verification statement from a qualified designer that confirms that:

 

(a)        he or she designed, or directed the design, of the residential flat development, and

(b)        the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development are achieved for the residential flat development.

 

The application as lodged did not include a design verification statement.

 

However the application, as now being assessed is based upon the revised plans lodged on 9 September 2005. These amended plans were not prepared by the same architectural firm who prepared the original plans lodged with the application in December 2003.

 

Consequently, to satisfy clause 50 of the Regulation it is necessary for the applicant to provide either an:

 

·    amended design verification statement; or

·    a new design verification statement

Until this statement is received Council is not able to approve this Development Application.

As a related matter, Schedule 1, Part 2(5) of the Regulation specifies certain information that must accompany any Development Application to which State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development applies.

 

This application fails to satisfy this requirement of the Regulation as the following mandatory information has not been received:

 

·    Compliance with building heights, building height planes, setbacks and building envelope controls (if applicable) marked on plans, sections and elevations. In this regard the amended plans do not indicate the building envelope controls in the Penrith City Centre Floor Space Ratio Controls DCP

·    Drawings of the proposed landscape area, including species selected and materials to be used, presented in the context of the proposed building or buildings, and the surrounding development and its context

·    A sample board of the proposed materials and colours of the façade

1.3     State Environmental Planning Policy 11- Traffic Generating Development

The Roads and Traffic Authority’s Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee considered the original plans lodged with this application at their meeting on 4 February 2004. The Committee raised no objections in relation to traffic safety/traffic efficiency.

 

However, the Committee did provide the following comments regarding cumulative developments in the CBD:

 

It is assumed that the surrounding area will be developed in a similar way. If this is the case then the cumulative potential traffic impact should be assessed, and a Section 94 Contributions Plan should be adopted to ensure appropriate traffic/transport improvements are constructed to maintain traffic efficiency.

 

It is not simple to undertake this cumulative assessment without significant research to determine the likely extent of development.  The current review of the Penrith CBD will however, to a large extent, provide this guidance.  There will be a number of strategies and policies required to be developed in order to cater for the growth outcomes forecast by the review.  This review will take some time and, in the meanwhile, applications that are brought forward will need to be determined.  A later section of this report deals with the capacity for the CBD’s road network to cater for this development.

 

It was not considered necessary to refer the amended plans back to the RTA for comments, as traffic considerations are not fundamentally different as a consequence of the revised proposal.

1.4       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

 

This issue is not addressed in any of the documentation provided with the application. The applicant has not responded to Council’s request for information on this matter.

1.5       State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

This Policy aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development. It promotes sustainability, a better-built form (buildings, streetscapes and public domain), housing to match the community and improved amenity and safety for occupants.

 

To support these aims the SEPP introduces 10 design quality principles. These principles do not generate design solutions, but provide a guide to achieving good design and evaluating the merits of proposals. However the SEPP does call up the Residential Flat Design Code. This Code, prepared by Planing NSW, is a set of guidelines that provide benchmarks for better practice in the planning and design of residential flat buildings. The Code therefore provides details and guidance for applying the design quality principles in SEPP 65.

 

Council engaged Russell Olsson Urban Projects to undertake an assessment of the original plans lodged with this application against the provisions of this Plan. 

 

Russell Olsson has 20 years experience in urban design and architecture, in Australia and overseas.  Russell has worked in Sydney, Paris, Canberra and Adelaide on major urban design and architectural projects.  Russell is recognised for the design of urban housing.  He participated in the preparation of the NSW Premier’s Residential Flat Design Pattern Book and Better Urban Living, the NSW Government’s Residential Design Guidelines.  Russell is currently a member of two SEPP 65 Residential Design Review Panels, for the Inner West Councils and Parramatta Council.

 

In summary, Russell Olsson’s assessment identified that the original proposal failed to satisfy the following design principles:

 

·    Context

·    Scale

·    Built form

·    Density

·    Resource energy and water efficiency

·    Aesthetics

 

Russell Olsson Urban Projects also nominated various recommendations that, if implemented, would achieve outcomes consistent with these design principles in this Policy. The recommendations were to:

 

·    Reduce the street frontage height to 7.2m (2 storeys)

·    Reduce the height of the residential component from 5 storeys to 3 storeys, and the overall building height to 5 storeys

·    Relate the overall height of the development to the height of the existing office building opposite

·    Reduce the setback of the residential floors above the commercial on High Street from 4.5m to 3m

·    Increase the setback of the residential floors above the commercial level on Union Lane from 2m to a 7m minimum

·    Replace the curved wall arcade and concrete roofed under croft space of the existing proposal with a rectilinear 2-storey arcade approximately 6m wide along the eastern boundary on the axis of Riley Street

·    Maximum residential building depth to be 18m window to window

·    Reduce density to 4:1 maximum. All building envelope and environmental design recommendations must be addressed, which may mean that the 4:1 FSR may not be achieved

 

These issues were discussed with the applicant at a meeting in March 2004.  They responded with a written submission but otherwise did not modify the design of the proposal at that time. 

 

Ultimately however amended plans were received on 9 September 2005. An Urban Design Analysis, including a SEPP 65 report, prepared by Civitas Partnership accompanied this revised proposal. That report seeks to demonstrate fulfilment of the 10 design principles in the Policy by assessing the proposed development against the objectives and design controls contained within the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

The Civitas report is supportive of the revised proposal, indicating that all controls within the Residential Flat Design Code are satisfied.  The revised documentation is not accompanied by a Design Verification Statement as required by the Regulation.

 

It is noted that that the amended plans have not adopted the following recommendations from Council’s analysis of the proposal against SEPP 65.

 

·    Reduce the street frontage height to 7.2m (2 storeys)

·    Reduce the height of the residential component from 5 storeys to 3 storeys, and the overall building height to 5 storeys

·    Relate the overall height of the development to the height of the existing office building opposite

·    Although the density has been reduced to less than the maximum FSR of 4:1 maximum. The development does not satisfy all building envelope and environmental design controls. These matters are discussed elsewhere in this report

 

It is therefore concluded that this proposal does not satisfy the following design quality principles in SEPP 65:

 

·    Context

·    Scale

·    Built form

·    Aesthetics

1.6       Draft State Environmental Planning Policy 66 - Integration of Land Use and Transport

The Draft SEPP aims to reduce the need for travel and the amount of reliance on private transportation. This is encouraged by the appropriate location and mix of development, and through the application of a variety of land use and transport measures.  Examples to achieve this are encouraging trip generating developments in business centres, improving transport choice and reducing the dependence on private cars.

 

Clause 7(c) indicates that the Draft SEPP relates to offices and business parks having a gross floor space of more than 1000 m2, and therefore applies to the proposed development.

 

Although the Draft SEPP is yet to be gazetted, the principles of the policy have been considered in the assessment of the development application.  The proposal is located in the CBD, within 800m-1000m of the railway station, is serviced by local bus and taxi services and includes appropriate provision of parking.  As such, it is considered that the development is consistent with the principles of the Draft SEPP 66. 

1.7       Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River

SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context.

 

Of most relevance to this proposal is the requirement to assess the development in terms of the impact of the development on water quality. The application was not accompanied by drainage details, including details for the collection and disposal of stormwater during construction. The applicant has not responded to Council’s request for information on this matter.

 

It is reasonable to conclude that issues of water quality may be able to be resolved. However, the lack of information on this issue prevents a final conclusion on this matter being reached.

1.8       Penrith LEP 1997 – Penrith City Centre

Clause 2 – Aims and Objectives of the LEP

 

2 (1) The aims of this plan are:

 

(a)        to encourage the development of the Penrith City Centre as the principal retail, commercial, cultural and social centre in the local government area of Penrith with an environment which responds to the needs of those who will use it; and

 

(b)        to promote development which is consistent with the Council’s vision for the  City of Penrith contained in its strategic management plan, namely, one of a region having a harmony of urban and rural qualities with a strong commitment to environmental protection and enhancement.

 

2 (2) The objectives, policies and strategies of this plan are:

 

(a)        to provide a planning framework which allows development control plans to supplement the controls embodied in this plan;

 

2 (3) The Council must consider the aims and objectives of this plan in determining development applications.  This also includes objectives for each zone.

 

The objectives of the 3(a) Business General zone are:

 

(i)         to encourage the provision of a diverse range of uses reflecting the role of Penrith as an urban centre; and

(ii)        to encourage development which enhances the quality of the environment of the Penrith City Centre and the convenience of those who use it; and

(iii)       to foster consolidation of the retail, commercial and administrative functions of the Penrith City Centre; and

(iv)       to encourage community and recreation facilities for Penrith City’s residents and workers; and

(v)        to enhance the economic potential of the land within the zone; and

(vi)       to promote the improvement and expansion of pedestrian movement within the Penrith Centre

 

Compliance with relevant controls in the LEP are shown in the table below:

 

Control

Proposal

Compliance

Clause 2

Aims & objectives of LEP       

 

No (see comments below)

Clause 9

Zone objectives

 

 

No (see comments below)

Clause 20

No direct vehicular access to High Street between Station Street and Mulgoa Road.

 

All vehicular to and from this site are via Union Lane.

 

Yes

 

Clause 2 – Aims and objectives of the LEP

 

Clause 2 (2) (a) and 2 (3) provide recognition of the need for development applications to be consistent with the principles embodied in both the LEP and the supporting DCP.

 

As discussed later in the report, the current development application does not satisfy key aspects of the DCP, which seek to enhance the streetscape quality and protect adjacent lands from any adverse impacts. Which may result as a consequence of development.

 

The supporting DCPs are given increased relevance because of Clause 2 (2) (a) and as such must form a strong basis around which any development application is tested.

 

Clause 9 – Zone objectives

 

Clause 9(3) of the LEP notes that Council must not grant consent to a Development application if that development, in the opinion of Council, is contrary to the aims and objectives of the LEP, or any of the relevant zone objectives.

 

The LEP provides six objectives for development within the 3(a) zone. On the basis of the conclusions within this report, this application fails to meet the following objective:

(a)(ii)          To encourage development which enhances the quality of the environment of the Penrith City Centre and the convenience of those who use it.

The application is also considered to be contrary to clause 2(2)(a) as discussed above.

1.9       Heritage Local Environmental Plan 1991

Two of the buildings on the development site, (Nos. 536-538 High Street, and Nos. 56-558 High Street) are listed in Council’s 1987 Heritage Study. However neither building was subsequently included in the Heritage LEP.

 

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

 

Notwithstanding, the issue of the heritage significance of these two buildings is relevant in the consideration of this application, as discussed later in this report.

1.10     Development Control Plan – Floor Space Ratio Controls (Penrith City Centre)

Compliance with relevant controls in the DCP are shown in the table below:

 

Control

Proposal

Compliance

Clause 8.3 - Special Provisions

 

Land within the CBD with an FSR of 2.5:1 may, subject to satisfying certain design criteria in clause 8.3, have an FSR of 4:1

 

 

This proposal has an FSR of 3.8:1

 

 

Yes

Clause 8.3 design criteria

Site area must be greater than 1500m2

The site is 3168m2

Yes

The site must consist of one allotment

The 4 allotments will be consolidated into 1 allotment.

Yes

At least 25% of the floor space must be for residential use

Residential floor space is about 24.6% of gross floor area

No, but an insignificant variation

The residential component -must be above street level

The residential units occupy levels 4-6

Yes

Development above 2 storeys must comply with building envelopes to both High Street and Union Lane

The building is 7 storeys and does not fit wholly within the building envelope control applying to the High Street and Union Lane frontages of the site

No – see comments below.

 

Development on the southern side of High Street to have a maximum height of 18m

The building has a maximum height of about 22.5m

No – see comments below.

There is a 25% exceedance beyond the control.

Development not to be detrimental in terms of overshadowing on adjoining properties and streets between 10am and 2pm

The building overshadows land to the south of the site which is zoned 3(a) “General Business” and categorised “operational”.

No – see comments below.

The design and architecture to be sympathetic to the streetscape and character of the City Centre

Refer to SEPP 65 assessment

No

Vehicular access is denied to sites on High Street that have dual frontage to Union Lane or Allen Place.

All vehicular access onto the site is via Union Lane

Yes

 

The extra floor space is available “if, and only if”, the criteria are met.  Because the criteria has not been satisfied the permissible floor space is 2.5 times the site area – not 4 times.  The development exceeds that are by 4,178m2.

 

As noted in the table above, Clause 8.3 stipulates that development of land may achieve a floor space ratio greater than 2.5:1, and up to a maximum of 4:1, only if certain design criteria in the DCP are met. As demonstrated in the table above this proposal does not satisfy all of the design criteria necessary to take advantage of opportunities for additional floor space.

 

These instances of non-compliances are discussed below:

Building envelope

The DCP imposes a building envelope control applying at both the High Street and Union Lane boundary. Each matter is addressed below.

High Street

The envelope control is a 35o plane projected over the site from a point 8m above the street boundary. The non-compliance with the building envelope controls at this boundary is significant, with Levels 2-6 of the building extending outside the envelope by between 4m – 12.5m.

The applicant’s Urban Design Analysis report addresses this non-compliance with the following justifications:

·    The envelope control would result in a pyramid style building, which the Government Architect has identified as being unattractive

·    The proposal has a four storey street wall to High Street with the upper floors setback so that they are not visible by pedestrians in High Street. Consequently the building presents as a predominantly 4-storey building

·    In their consultation with the Government Architect the applicant was not advised that a four storey street wall with upper floors setback was not considered to be an issue in achieving appropriate development on this site

·    There is only minimal, if any, difference in the impacts on High Street and the amenity of the locality as a result of the additional storeys

·    The setbacks of the residential component of the building from High Street are appropriate

·    The proposed development will assist in creating an identity for the precinct in the establishment of a mixed-use precinct

 

The contentions in the applicant’s Urban Design Analysis are not supported for the following reasons:

 

·    A four-storey wall to High Street is not acceptable as the façade of existing development along of High Street is predominantly two storeys

·    The development does not need to breach the envelope control to the extent proposed in order to contribute to the creation of a mixed-use precinct

·    Stepping back the building at the 4th level limits the availability of views west along High Street to the Blue Mountains. This vista is a key visual element of High Street

·    The height of the building is not acceptable, as will be discussed elsewhere in this report

 

In conclusion, the proposal as described upon the amended plans significantly encroaches outside the building envelope control established by the Penrith City Centre DCP.

 

Union Lane 

 

The DCP applies the same envelope control to the Union Lane frontage of the site, that is, a 35o plane projected over the site from a point 8m above the rear boundary. The non-compliance with the building envelope controls at this boundary occurs at each of  Levels 2-5 of the building extending outside the envelope by between 1.5m – 4m.

 

The applicant’s Urban Design Analysis report addresses this non-compliance with the following justifications:

 

·    This control results in an unattractive “ziggurat” built form

·    The purpose of this control is to achieve solar access to Union Lane and the land to the south, which is achieved by the proposal

·     The setbacks and wall height are appropriate to the site and its surrounds

·    The non-compliance is minor and acceptable as it allows for further articulation to the development. Consequently the building will positively contribute to the identity of the development, and the Union Lane streetscape

 

The contentions in the applicant’s Urban Design Analysis are not supported for the following reasons:

 

·    The setbacks are not appropriate for the site and surrounds as the building is not able to fit within the nominated building envelope

·    While the objective of the envelope is to facilitate solar access to land to the south, it is also to ensure an appropriate built form that achieves a suitable interface, scale and amenity for future development on the adjacent car park site. This outcome would be achieved by complying with the envelope control

·    It is not accepted that the Union Lane elevation of the building can only be designed to achieve satisfactory articulation by breaching the envelope control

·    It is not accepted that a building is able to positively contribute to the Union Lane streetscape only by breaching the envelope control

·    The height of the building is not acceptable, as will be discussed elsewhere in this report

·    The wall height of this development at Union Lane is not appropriate.  Any building set on this frontage should be 2 commercial storeys high. This position is consistent with the current envelope control in the DCP

 

Accordingly this report does not support the non-compliance with the Union Lane building envelope control as proposed by this application.

Building height

Residential levels 5 and 6 extend above the 18m-height limit prescribed by the DCP. The tower to High Street breaches this limit by 35% (a maximum height of about 24.3m) while the tower to Union Lane breaches (22.2m). 

 

The applicant’s Urban Design Analysis report addresses this non-compliance with the following justifications:

 

·    The proposal, its location and relationship with surrounding buildings will contribute to the intended identity of Penrith

·    The design and articulation of the development will positively contribute to the establishment of a precinct committed to improv