31May 2006

 

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 5 June 2006 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 Jim Aitken - 27 May 2006 to 20 June 2006 inclusive.

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 15 May 2006.

 

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

Disability Access Committee Meeting - 5 April 2006.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 22 May 2006.

 

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 5 June 2006

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 



MEETING CALENDAR

 

June 2006 - December 2006

 

 

TIME

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

 

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Meetings

7.00 pm

5

3

7

4ü

9

6

4

 

19*

17

21#+

18

25^

23

20 #

11

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00 pm

26

24

28

11@

16

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#  Meetings at which the Management Plan quarterly reviews are presented.

v Meeting at which the Draft Management Plan is adopted for exhibition

 

#+  General Manager’s presentation – half year and end of year review

*   Meeting at which the Management Plan for 2006/2007 is adopted

 

@  Strategic Program progress reports (only business)

ü  Meeting at which the 2005/2006 Annual Statements are presented

 

 

^   Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor (only business)

 

·         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 (Ordinary & Policy Review) 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 15 MAY 2006 AT 7:03PM

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, Lexie Cettolin, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Susan Page, Pat Sheehy AM, and Steve Simat.

 

APOLOGIES

796  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy that apologies be accepted from Councillors David Bradbury and Garry Rumble.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 1 May 2006

797  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Steve Simat that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 1 May 2006 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Ross Fowler declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 24 – Revitalisation of Dunheved Business Park, as he is the Auditor, Director or Accountant for many adjoining or affected property owners in the area, and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter.

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

798  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Steve Simat that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:05pm.

 

Mr Phil Carbins

Item 15   Proposed Revised Final Landform, Enviroguard Erskine Park Landfill at Lot 4, 5 (Parts 2 and 3) and 6 DP 1094504 Quarry Road, Erskine Park. Applicant: Enviroguard Pty Limited;  Owner: Enviroguard Pty Limited & CSR Limited                                                                                             Speaking FOR the Recommendation

Mr Carbins was speaking as a representative of the Owner and Applicant, Enviroguard Pty Ltd.

Mr Carbins provided a summary of the key points of the Development Application and the Environmental Impact Statement, which included:

·                                                        Final Profile

·                                                        Visual Impact

·                                                        Operational Timeframe

·                                                        Environmental Management

·                                                        Traffic Volumes

·                                                        Rehabilitation

·                                                        Post Closure Responsibility

RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Jim Aitken that an extension of time be granted, the time being 7:10pm.

Mr Carbins concluded by outlining the financial assurances against the site.

 

Mr Angelo De Angelis

Item 34   Variation of the restriction to use the land at to Lot 41 DP 270417 (No. 13) Portrush Crescent, Luddenham. Applicant: Residential Logistics Pty Limited;  Owner: Mr & Mrs De Angelis.                                                                                                                                                                              Speaking AGAINST the Recommendation

Mr De Angelis stated that he is speaking as the owner of the property.

Mr De Angelis started by expressing his appreciation that His Worship the Mayor, Councillor John Thain and Councillors Jim Aitken, Pat Sheehy and Greg Davies made a site inspection of the property to assist in the determination of this matter.

Mr De Angelis stated that the Twin Creeks developer has supported the point encroachment as only 5% of the dwelling will be located in front of the required setback, and that the encroachment is due to a recessed grass easement.

Mr De Angelis stated that even though all 12 development applications that have been submitted for the area have been compliant with the setbacks, this should not have an effect on his situation as his block is of an irregular shape compared to the others, being much wider than it is deep.

Mr De Angelis stated that he does not agree with Council’s assertion that the minor encroachment is not in the public interest.  He continued, stating that no objections were received during the notification periods and has the support of the developer of Twin Creeks.

In closing, Mr De Angelis requested that Council approve the minor encroachment as:

·              The Twin Creeks Developer has approved the 5% encroachment due to the shape of the Lot;

·              The DA was advertised and no public objections were received;

·              The request by Council to submit a variation to the Section 88B restriction has been complied with;

·              The adjoining properties  (Lot 46 and 40) have setbacks inconsistent with the aesthetics of the area;

·              And that Council is not taking each case on its merit and is clearly “planning by numbers”.

Mr De Angelis requested that Council approve the application based on merit.

Mr De Angelis concluded by once again thanking the Councillors for attending a site meeting at his property in an attempt to resolve the request for the variation.

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

799  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:18pm.

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of Local Traffic Committee 1 May 2006 

800  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting Held on 1 May 2006 be adopted.

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

1        Outcomes from the Local Government & Shires Association Tourism Conference held in Penrith 29-31 March 2006                                                                                 

801  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Outcomes from the Local Government & Shires Association Tourism Conference held in Penrith 29-31 March 2006 be received.

2.     Lesley Edwards, Operations Manager of Muru Mittigar Aboriginal Cultural Centre, be congratulated on winning the Rod Murdoch award for the best individual contribution to local tourism.

 

2        Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct - Expressions of Interest for Memorial Hall             

802  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct - Expressions of Interest for Memorial Hall be received

2.     Fee proposals be invited from

·    Tonkin Zulaikha Greer Architects

·    Suters Architects

·    Collard Architects

·    Caldis Cook Group

·    Integrated Design Associates

·    Baker Kavanagh Architects

·    Lahznimmo Architects

3.     A further report be submitted to Council on recommending a preferred architect/specialist.

 

4        City Centres' Vitality and Viability Review - Landcom Involvement        

803  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

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

2.     Landcom be thanked for their interest in working with Council to progress Council’s strategic directions for the City Centres.

3.     Council engage Landcom as its agent for the Riverlink project and endorse Council and Council officer participation with Landcom and Panthers in the structure planning process.

4.     Landcom’s involvement in the Penrith City Centre Commercial project is welcomed and subject to arrangements with the Department of Planning Regional City Taskforce.

5.     Landcom’s involvement in the St Marys Renewal project is welcomed and subject to discussions with the Department of Housing.

6.     Further reports be brought to Council on each of these projects.

 

3        Regional Infrastructure Levies                                                                   

804  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Steve Simat seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Regional Infrastructure Levies be received

2.     A further report be brought back to Council once the final details of the Government’s Infrastructure Levies are released.

 

The City as a Social Place

 

5        Assistance Towards Amateur Sportspersons and Representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture - Overseas and Interstate Travel                                                   

805  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That the information contained in the report on Assistance Towards Amateur Sportspersons and Representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture - Overseas and Interstate Travel be received.

 

6        Naming of a Park in Cambridge Park                                                         

806  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Naming of a Park in Cambridge Park be received

2.     Council approve the naming of the park “Cambridge Park Lions Club Reserve”.

 

7        Naming of Jim Anderson Room in Nth St Marys Neighbourhood Centre                    

807  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Naming of the Jim Anderson Room in North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre be received

2.     Council endorse the naming of the large meeting room in the North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre the “Jim Anderson Room”.

 

8        Successful Grant Applications under the Castlereagh Community Fund  

808  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That the information contained in the report on Successful Grant Applications under the Castlereagh Community Fund be received.

 

10      Development of Sporting fields at St Clair High School                            

809  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development of Sporting fields at St Clair High School be received

2.     Council contribute $33,000 into the project allocated from the Grant Funded Project’s Reserve.

 

11      PLANS for Pathways In Identified District Parks                                      

810  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on PLANS for Pathways In Identified District Parks be received

2.     Council endorse the following works to pathways in the City’s district parks:

2.1      South Creek Park, St Marys - replace the existing brick pavement from the Gross Pollutant Trap with a two and a half metre path adjacent to the car park, through to the Great Western Highway

2.2      Tench Reserve, Jamisontown - dedicated off road 2 metre cycle lane linkage from the M4 cycle way ramp along the eastern side of Tench Avenue together with a crossing to link up with the existing shared pathway just south of the property south of the Nepean Shores development (approximately 740m).

 

12      Margaret Farm                                                                                             

811  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Margaret Farm be received

2.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all necessary documentation.

 

13      Tamara Children's Centre Extensions - Update on Design and Costs      

812  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tamara Children's Centre Extensions - Update on Design and Costs be received

2.     That Option Two be advanced to tender stage and a further report be submitted to Council regarding project funding.

 

15      Proposed Revised Final Landform, Enviroguard Erskine Park Landfill at Lot 4, 5 (Parts 2 and 3) and 6 DP 1094504 Quarry Road, Erskine Park. Applicant: Enviroguard Pty Limited;  Owner: Enviroguard Pty Limited & CSR Limited                                                                                DA05/1740

813  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed Revised Final Landform, Enviroguard Erskine Park Landfill at Lot 4, 5 (Parts 2 and 3) and 6 DP 1094504 Quarry Road, Erskine Park be received

2.     The development application 05/1740 for the Proposed Revised Final Landform, Enviroguard Erskine Park Landfill at Lot 4, 5 (Parts 2 and 3) and 6 DP 1094504 Quarry Road, Erskine Park, be approved subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

2.1      A001 (with reference to the EIS and additional letters provided to the EPA.  See EPA GTA’s – “Administrative Conditions, Section 1 Information supplied to the EPA”), A005 (EPA & DNR), D001 (replace “erosion and sediment control plan” with “soil and water management plan”), D005, D06A (include EPA accredited auditor section), L007, L008

Special Conditions

2.2      The development shall comply with those conditions set down by the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Natural Resources

2.3      A Landscape Plan, drawn by an appropriately qualified person and strictly in accordance with Council’s Landscape Development Control Plan and the Biodiversity Restoration Plan For Erskine Park Release Area, prepared by Greening Australia, shall be submitted to Council for written approval of the Manager Development Assessment, within 12 months from the date of this consent

At the time of approval of the Landscape Plan, a monetary bond shall be lodged with Penrith City Council for an amount equivalent to the cost of implementing the approved Landscape Plan and maintenance for a period of 12 months after planting.

2.4      A copy of the Site Closure and Post Closure plans required by the EPA licence are to be submitted to Council within 12 months from the date of this consent. Copies of future revised and approved plans are to be provided to Penrith City Council

2.5      Those areas used, or previously used, for the storage of concrete and bitumen shall be remediated strictly in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

2.6      An amended Site Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Plan (the Plan) is to be submitted to Penrith City Council and prepared to Council’s satisfaction prior to the commencement of the development.  The Plan is to be consistent with the EPA/DEC approved Landfill Environmental Management Plan, is to address the environmental aspects of the development and is to include details on the environmental management practices and controls to be implemented on site. The Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person/s, in consultation with the relevant authorities and agencies (e.g. Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Natural Resources) and is to address but is not limited to the following:

·    Water quality

·    Wastewater management

·    Stormwater management and drainage

·    Noise control

·    Waste management including solid and liquid waste

·    Vehicle movements

·    Chemical storage, transport, spill contingency and response

·    Erosion and sediment control

·    Air quality including odour and dust control

·    Environmental monitoring

·    Site rehabilitation

All activities on the site are to be implemented and managed in accordance with the Plan. The Plan is to incorporate a review process that involves the consultation of Penrith City Council and other relevant authorities to ensure that it reflects current environmental best practice, standards and legislation. Penrith City Council must be satisfied with any changes prior to the amendment of the Plan. The Plan shall be submitted every 12 months.

2.7      An annual environmental performance report is to be prepared and a copy submitted to Penrith City Council for consideration at the end of June each year (the first report is due at the end of June 2007). The report shall address the environmental issues, implemented pollution control strategies and monitoring programmes as outlined in the Site Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Plan. The report is also to address compliance with the conditions of this consent

2.8      A copy of the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) and Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is to be provided to Council prior to the commencement of the development. The VMP and SWMP are to be implemented to the satisfaction of DNR and Council

2.9       A copy of the Landfill Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) approved by the Environment Protection Authority (part of the Department of Environment and Conservation) is to be provided to Council prior to the commencement of the development. Copies of future revised and approved LEMP’s are to be provided to Penrith City Council

2.10     All conditions of consent from DA 163/92 shall be complied with throughout the lifetime of the operations and until such time as a Statement of Completion is issued for the site by the Department of Environment and Conservation.

 

16      Variation to the restriction on the use of land at Lot 26 DP1051616 (No. 4) Cedar Court, Glenmore Park. Applicant: W Pankanin & R Pankanin;  Owner: W Pankanin & R Pankanin                                            DA06/0182

814  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Variation to the restriction on the use of land at Lot 26 DP1051616 (No. 4) Cedar Court, Glenmore Park be received

2.     The restriction on the use of the land at Lot 26 DP1051616 No. 4 Cedar Court, Glenmore Park be varied to allow construction of the retaining walls in the location shown on plans lodged with development application DA06/0182 and the Common Seal of Penrith City Council be affixed to all necessary documentation.

 

17      Variation to restriction on the use of land applying to Lot 2 DP 843354 (No. 33) Woodi Close, Glenmore Park                                              333785

815  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Variation to restriction on the use of land applying to Lot 2 DP 843354 (No. 33) Woodi Close, Glenmore Park be received

2.     The terms of restriction on the use of the land, secondly referred to in the Section 88B Instrument of the Conveyancing Act 1919, applying to each of the allotments with DP 843354, and in particular Lot 2 DP 843354 (No. 33) Woodi Close, Glenmore Park, be removed upon receipt of an application to extinguish the restriction

3.     The Common Seal of Penrith City Council be affixed to all necessary documentation to vary the covenant.

 

18      Music Scholarships                                                                                      

816  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Music Scholarships be received

2.     Council advise the Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy Australia Ltd that it is prepared to support two (2) annual Scholarships of $1,000 each to be awarded to students from the Penrith LGA attending the Golden Stave Music Therapy Centre at UWS following selection on the basis of financial grounds

3.     Council advise the Department of Housing that it supports a partnership with the Department to fund one (1) annual music scholarship (instrument or voice) at the Penrith Conservatorium of Music to the value of $1320, as outlined in the report.

4.     These Music Scholarships be funded from the surplus identified and be included in the Draft 2006/07 Management Plan and subsequent Plans on a recurrent basis.

 

9        Integration of the City's Principal Cultural Facilities                                 

817  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Steve Simat

That:

1.    The information in the report title Integration of the City’s Principal Cultural Facilities be received

 

2.    Council endorse the merging of the two Boards in accordance with this report

 

3.    Council approve of the Amendment to the Constitution of the Joan Sutherland        Performing Arts Centre Board (Penrith Bicentennial Performing Arts Centre        Limited) as attached to this report (subject to approval of the present Joan   Sutherland Board), and that there be four (4) Councillor Directors.

 

4.    Directors of the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre and the Penrith Regional        Gallery Boards be provided with a copy of this report and the decision of the        Council

 

5.   Process for the selection of the new Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Limited Board (the proposed new management structure) be commenced in accordance with this report and that the existing Board members be informed that they can apply for a position to the new Board

 

6.   Council nominate Councillors Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Pat Sheehy and Ross Fowler to assist the process of recommending to Council the appointment of Directors to the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Limited.

 

7.   That part of the Draft composition of the proposed company be changed to read “Ten (10) other appointed members, who shall not be Councillors of the Council, but one of which may be the Director General of the Ministry for the Arts, Sport and Recreation or nominee”.

 

 

14      Tender Process for the Proposed Glenmore Park Child & Family Precinct                  

818  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the information contained in the report on Tender Process for the Proposed Glenmore Park Child & Family Precinct not be received.

 

34      Variation of the restriction to use the land at Lot 41 DP 270417 (No. 13) Portrush Crescent, Luddenham. Applicant: Residential Logistics;  Owner: Mr & Mrs De Angelis                                                                DA05/1855

819  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Steve Simat

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Variation of the restriction to use the land at Lot 41 DP 270417 (No. 13) Portrush Crescent, Luddenham be received

2.     That the request to vary the front setback as required by the restriction on the use of land fourteenthly referred to in the Section 88B Instrument attended to Lot 41 DP 270417 (No. 13) Portrush Crescent, Luddenham not be supported as:

2.1       It would be likely to have a significant impact on the unique character of the estate

2.2       There is opportunity to propose a building design that satisfies these restrictions

2.3       To approve the request would create an unreasonable precedent likely to undermine the designed landscape and visual character of the estate

2.4       The development is inconsistent with Council’s Local Environmental Plan 201 Rural Land and the Luddenham Equestrian Estate Development Control Plan

2.5       The proposed variation is not in the public interest

 

3.     The restriction on the use of the land relating to the rear setback at Lot 41 DP 270417 (No. 13) Portrush Crescent, Luddenham be varied to allow construction of an inground swimming pool in the location shown on plans lodged with the request for variation and the Common Seal of Penrith City Council be affixed to all necessary documentation.

4.     That any future requests for a setback variation be given Council’s Common Seal under the following circumstances:

4.1       The site is not located on the residential/golf course interface

4.2       The proposed pool maintains a minimum setback of 5m from the rear boundary

4.3       The applicant can adequately demonstrate that the pool can be integrated into the landscaping in an acceptable manner

4.4       The application is notified to the adjoining property owners

5.     A meeting be convened between Council Officers and the Applicant to discuss a resolution to the request for variation.  

 

The City In Its Environment

 

19      Grant Received from Australian Government Community Water Grant towards the rehabilitation of Jamison Creek                                                                                    

820  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Grant Received from Australian Government Community Water Grant towards the rehabilitation of Jamison Creek be received.

2.      Council accept the Government Community Water Grant from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and from the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation

3.      Letters of appreciation be forwarded to the relevant Ministers.

 

20      Draft Plan of Management for Weir Reserve - Penrith                             

821  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Plan of Management for Weir Reserve - Penrith be received.

2.     The Draft Plan of Management of Weir Reserve be prepared and exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

3.     A final report be submitted to Council after the exhibition period seeking approval of the Plan of Management.

 

21      Completion of the Gipps Street Landfill Rehabilitation                             

822  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Steve Simat seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Completion of the Gipps Street Landfill Rehabilitation be received

2.     A budget, funded from the Waste Reserve, be established within the 06/07 Major Project Model in accordance with the levels suggested in this report for the ongoing maintenance of the site, the development of a master plan and completion of the final topsoil layer

3.     The budget for the current year be varied to account for the additional costs to finalise the current contract for the rehabilitation works.

 

22      Update of activities by the Western Sydney Alliance                                  

823  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Update of activities by the Western Sydney Alliance  be received

2.     Council continue its participation in the Western Sydney Alliance in 2006/2007

3.     A budget of $12,000 be provided for Council’s contribution to the Alliance in 2006/2007.

 

The City as an Economy

 

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 24, Councillor Ross Fowler left the meeting the time being 7:47pm.

 

24      Revitalisation of Dunheved Business Park                                                

824  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Steve Simat

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Revitalisation of Dunheved Business Park be received

2.     Council continue to work in partnership with the Dunheved Business Park Committee, Lend Lease and the RTA to explore the range of issues identified in the report.

3.     A letter of thanks be forwarded to David Trist for the work he has undertaken with this matter.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler returned to the meeting the time being 7:48pm.

 

25      Funding for developing a Business Plan for the City's business incubation program

825  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Funding for developing a Business Plan for the City's business incubation program be received

2.     Council approve $25,000 from matching grants reserve to fund the study.

 

23      Council bid to host the 2007 Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia [SEGRA] conference                                                                                                     

826  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council bid to host the 2007 Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia [SEGRA] conference be received

2.     Council authorise that a submission be made to host the 2007 SEGRA conference in Penrith on the proviso that Council may need to underwrite Conference costs to the value of $27,500 in the 2007-08 budget

3.     Council authorise that the 2007 Sir Ian Turbott lecture be built into the Conference and funding of $15,000 for the lecture form part of the sponsorship package

4.     Councillors John Thain, Karen McKeown, Susan Page, Jackie Greenow, Mark Davies, Lexie Cettolin and Jim Aitken to attend the 2006 Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia [SEGRA] Conference to be held in Launceston from 28-30 August 2006.

5.     Councillors John Thain, Karen McKeown, Susan Page, Jackie Greenow, Mark Davies, Lexie Cettolin and Jim Aitken be granted Leave of Absence for the period of the conference, being 28-30 August 2006.

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

26      Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 29 March 2006 to 25 April 2006.

827  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 29 March 2006 to 25 April 2006. be received

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summary of Investments and Performance for the period 29 March 2006 to 25 April 2006 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 25 April 2006 be noted.

 

27      City Operations Directorate Report to end April 2006                              

828  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That the information contained in the report on City Operations Directorate Report to end April 2006, be received.

 

29      Annual Insurance Renewals - Liability and Industrial Special Risk         

829  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Annual Insurance Renewals - Liability and Industrial Special Risk be received

2.     Council retain its $100,000 claims excess for Public Liability and agree to pay a contribution of $866,000 to Westpool for liability cover

3.     Council adopt a $20,000 claims excess for Industrial Special Risk and General Property cover and agree to pay a contribution of $295,000 to United Independent Pools.

 

30      2005-06 Borrowing Program                                                                        

830  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That the information contained in the report on 2005-06 Borrowing Program be received.

 

31      Review of American Express Cards as a payment method for Council Services       

831  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Review of American Express Cards as a payment method for Council Services. be received

2.     Council cease accepting American Express cards for payment of Council services from the 1 July 2006.

 

32      Strategic Alliances Conference                                                                   

832  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the information contained in the report on the Strategic Alliances Conference be received.

 

35      2006 GST Compliance Certificate                                                               

833  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2006 GST Compliance Certificate be received

2.     The Mayor, Deputy Mayor, General Manager and Chief Financial Officer be granted delegate authority to sign the 2006 GST Compliance Certificate pending the outcome of the PricewaterhouseCoopers review

3.     The finding of the PricewaterhouseCoopers review be reported to Council.

 

28      2006 Local Government Association Conference                                       

834  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2006 Local Government Association Conference be received

2.     Councillors Kaylene Allison, Susan Page, Karen McKeown, Kevin Crameri, Greg Davies, Jackie Greenow, and Mark Davies be Council’s delegates to the 2006 LGA Conference to be held in Leura from 29 October – 1 November 2006

3.     Councillors Ross Fowler, Lexie Cettolin, Jim Aitken, Steve Simat and Pat Sheehy be observers at the LGA Conference

4.     Council sponsor up to three (3) Aboriginal observers, nominated by the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, to attend the LGA Conference.

5.     Councillors Kaylene Allison, Susan Page, Karen McKeown, Kevin Crameri, Greg Davies, Jackie Greenow, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler, Lexie Cettolin, Jim Aitken, Steve Simat and Pat Sheehy be granted Leave of Absence for the period of the conference, being 29 October – 1 November 2006.

 

 

33      2005-2006 Management Plan  -  March Quarter Review                          

835  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the 2005-2006 Management Plan  -  March Quarter Review be received

2.     The 2005-2006 Management Plan Review as at 31 March 2006, including the revised estimates identified in the recommended budget, be adopted

3.     The proposed budget reallocations and amendments to tasks detailed in the report be adopted.

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QWN 1      Penrith Valley Attractions                                                                   

Councillor Greg Davies requested that the Life Education Centre at St Marys be added to any promotional materials produced by Council for Tourist Attractions in Penrith Valley as it has the largest known work of art by the late Pro Hart on permanent display.

 

QWN 2      Penrith RAMS AFL Club                                                                    

Councillor Pat Sheehy requested that $2000 from each Ward Voted Works (Total $6000) be provided to the Penrith RAMS AFL Club for the provisions of 3 dugout shelters at Greygums Oval.

836  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Lexie Cettolin that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor John Thain ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

837  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Lexie Cettolin that $2000 from each Ward Voted Works (Total $6000) be provided to the Penrith RAMS AFL Club for the provisions of 3 dugout shelters at Greygums Oval.

 

QWN 3      Park in Bedford Street and Walkers Cres, Emu Plains                     

Councillor Jim Aitken requested that $10000 from South Ward Voted Works  be allocated to provide play equipment in the park in Bedford Street and Walkers Crescent, Emu Plains.

838  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor John Thain ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

839 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that $10000 from South Ward Voted Works  be allocated to provide play equipment in the park in Bedford Street and Walkers Crescent, Emu Plains.

 

QWN 4      Footbridge - Schoolhouse Creek                                                         

Councillor Jim Aitken requested a report to Council on the replacement of the footbridge over School House Creek.  The report is to detail when and how the footbridge will be replaced.

 

QWN 5      Leave of Absence                                                                                

Councillor Jim Aitken requested leave of absence for the period 27 May 2006 to 20 June 2006 inclusive.

 

840  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor John Thain ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

841 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that leave of absence by granted to Councillor Jim Aitken for the period 27 May 2006 to 20 June 2006 inclusive.

 

QWN 6      Belar Place Carpark, St Marys                                                          

Councillor Steve Simat requested that increased patrols by the Rangers be carried out around Belar Place Carpark, St Marys as there has been a large amount of illegal dumping in the area.

 

QWN 7      Belar Carpark Street Lighting                                                            

Councillor Steve Simat requested a memo reply on the light pole located in Belar Place Carpark (opposite Merinda Street), St Marys.  The light pole has been non-operational for some time.  The memo is to outline when the light pole will be fixed.

 

QWN 8      Vietnam Veterans Women’s Support Group - CAP Grants              

Councillor Kevin Crameri requested a memo reply to all Councillors on whether funding is available to the Vietnam Veterans Women’s Support Group from the CAP Grants.

 

QWN 9      Sale of Snowy Hydro Scheme                                                              

Councillor Kevin Crameri requested an urgent report to Council on the Sale of the Snowy Hydro Scheme and if this matter should be presented as a motion to the LGA conference.

842  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Lexie Cettolin that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor John Thain ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

843 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri seconded Councillor Lexie Cettolin that an urgent report be presented to Council on the Sale of the Snowy Hydro Scheme and if this matter should be presented as a motion to the LGA conference.

 

QWN 10    Grass near and about Post Office Road and Castlereagh Primary School       

Councillor Lexie Cettolin requested that the grass on the roadsides near and about Post Office Road and Castlereagh Primary School be mowed as it is overgrown, and that this area be added to a regular mowing cycle as it is dangerous for traffic and pedestrians.

 

QWN 11    Footpath Forrester Road to South Creek                                           

Councillor Kevin Crameri requested a report to Council on the provision of a footpath from the St Marys Leagues Club on Forrester Road, St Marys to South Creek.  This area is the missing link in the footpath and is a danger to pedestrians and traffic, especially at night.

 

QWN 12    Western Sydney Academy of Sport                                                    

Councillor Pat Sheehy tabled a progress report from the Western Sydney Academy of Sport.

 

QWN 13    M4 fence near the Lake, Glenmore Park                                          

Councillor Jim Aitken requested that Council notify the RTA of a large hole in the chain link fence located on the M4 near the lake in Glenmore Park, and request that it be urgently repaired.  Pedestrians are using the hole in the fence to access or cross the M4, which is extremely dangerous for both pedestrians and traffic.

 

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting the time being 8:05pm, and did not return.

 

Committee of the Whole

 

RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that the meeting adjorn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:05pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

City Supported by Infrastructure

 

2        Unauthorised Landfill at Lots 32-40 Strathdon Road, Emu Heights                               

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

City as an Economy

 

3        Former Council Chambers Precinct - Belmore & Station Streets Penrith                      

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

The meeting resumed at 8:27pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:05pm on Monday 15 May 2006, the following being present

 

His Worship the Mayor Councillor John Thain, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Lexi Cettolin, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Susan Page, Pat Sheehy AM, and Steve Simat

 

and the Committee of the Whole excluded the press and public from the meeting for the reasons set out in CW1 and that the Committee of the Whole submitted the following recommendations to Council.

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Unauthorised Landfill at Lots 32-40 Strathdon Road, Emu Heights         

RECOMMENDATION

CW2 That the information contained in the report on Unauthorised Landfill at Lots 32-40 Strathdon Road, Emu Heights be received.

 

3        Former Council Chambers Precinct - Belmore & Station Streets Penrith                   

RECOMMENDATION

CW3 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Former Council Chambers Precinct - Belmore & Station Streets Penrith be received

2.     Council approve the sale of the site in accordance with the terms and conditions 1-13 as shown in italics as outlined within the report.

3.     Council to be informed as to the progress concerning the development of the site.

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

844  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Steve Simat that the recommendation contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1 to CW3 be adopted.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:29pm.

 


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

   


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Disability Access Committee held on 5 April 2006        1

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 22 May 2006          4

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

Leadership and Organisation

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Disability Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 5 April, 2006

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Jackie Greenow (Chair), Councillor Lexie Cettolin, David Currie, Jill Huber.

IN ATTENDANCE

Joe Ibbitson, Community Program Co-ordinator; Athena Kandris, Aged and Disability Services Officer; Hans Meijer, Asset Systems Manager; Grant Collins, Recreational and Cultural Facilities Planner; Graham Howe, Building Projects Co-ordinator; Ben Felten, Disability Access Officer; Vanessa Muscat, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor; Erich Weller, Community Development Manager.

 

APOLOGIES

DAC 1 RECOMMENDED that apologies be accepted from Councillor Thain, Maeve Dunnett, Allison Herbert, Steve Barratt, Tricia Hitchen.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Disability Access Committee Meeting - 1 February 2006

DAC 2 RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Disability Access Committee Meeting of 1 February 2006 be confirmed.

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City as a Social Place

 

1        PLANS for Universal Access to Parks and Open Space                                                  

RECOMMENDATION

DAC 3 That the information contained in the report on PLANS for Universal Access to Parks and Open Space be received.

 

2        Personal Care Co-ordination Working Group                                                                  

RECOMMENDATION

DAC 4 That the information contained in the report on the establishment of a Personal Care Co-ordination Working Group by the Penrith Community Care Forum be received.

 

3        Community Representation on the Disability Access Committee                                   

RECOMMENDATION

DAC 5 That the information contained in the report on Community Representation on the Disability Access Committee be received.

 

4        Penrith City Centre Access Map Launch                                                                         

RECOMMENDATION

DAC 6 That the information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Access Map Launch be received.

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

QWN 1      Kingswood Railway Station - Tactiles                                                                     

Councillor Cettolin informed the committee that there are no tactiles on Kingswood Station.

Ben Felten advised that the transport sector has undertaken an action plan and identified key stations.  The timeframe for small stations is down the track.  Ben said we could find out when State Rail is planning on upgrading Kingswood Station.

David Currie advised that people are having trouble where the bus comes in, as there are no tactiles there either.

 

QWN 2      Penrith and St Marys Railway Stations                                                                   

Ben Felten stated that Penrith and St Marys Railway Stations need looking at in respect to access.  On the railway station itself access is quite good but outside there are no accessible features.  At Penrith Station the road is the same colour as the pavement around it.  In Penrith it is quite good but no consistency.

 

QWN 3      Riley Street in front of HCF and Shops

Jill Huber informed the committee that the brickwork in front of HCF in Riley Street is very rough and lifting up.

 

Hans Meijer advised that this pathway would be repaired.

 

QWN 4      JAWS in the Library                                                                                                 

On the day of the Mobility Map launch Jill Huber went to the library to find that JAWS was not accessible.

Ben Felten advised that the library has a protection system for computer systems.  Colin Stevenson is getting a team together to tackle this problem.  Ben also said that the latest version of JAWS will go onto a memory stick and you can plug it in anywhere.

The progress on this matter will be reported to the next meeting of the committee.

 

QWN 5      Program for Installation of Tactile Ground Surface Indicators in St Marys and Penrith CBDs                  

Hans Meijer reported that the tactiles had been organised and work completed.  Tactiles have been installed at the following locations:

Penrith - High Street at Myer signals

Penrith - Henry Street at Myer loading dock

Penrith - Henry Street at tax office pedestrian crossing

Penrith - Gaymark Lane at Henry Street

Penrith - front and rear main entry to Community Connections building

Penrith - Lawson Street and Henry Street

 

St Marys - corner of Queen Street and Crana Street

St Marys - corner of Queen Street and Charles Hackett Drive

St Marys - corner of Queen Street and Belar Street

St Marys - corner of Queen Street and Chapel Street

St Marys - Station Street at Queen Street

St Marys - south west corner of Great Western Highway and Mamre Road

Hans advised that Pathfinder were used for installing the tactiles and they were very easy to work with, all the working being done at night time.

 

QWN 6      Hearing Loops                                                                                                           

Graham Howe reported that the hearing loop at Community Connections has been rectified.  The amplifier was missing – it was removable and no one could find where it was kept.  A new amplifier has been put up in the ceiling and is always on now.  The Property Development Department paid for this repair.

The hearing loop at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre (JSPAC) took a bit longer to repair.  Graham said he believed it was now rectified.  Allison Herbert had been testing it.  Joe Ibbitson to ring Allison to check if the hearing loop at JSPAC is now working.

The box office at the Q Theatre is also now wired for sound.

 

QWN 7      Lewers Gallery                                                                                            

Graham Howe reported that a meeting had been held at Lewers Gallery with the builder, access consultant and Council officers to go over access issues on site.  The site inspection was very successful as well as dealing with the heritage and artistic values that are important to the Gallery. The Board of Lewers is working towards the possibility of providing a sensory walk. 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 6.45pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Disability Access Committee Meeting Held on 5 April, 2006 be adopted.

 


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

Leadership and Organisation

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 22 May, 2006

 

 

Chairperson:

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor John Thain

Declarations of Interest:

Councillor Ross Fowler declared a pecuniary interest in Item 7, ADI Site - Draft Dunheved Precinct Plan & Draft Planning Agreement as he is auditor or accountant for a number of landowners, and a director of businesses, that are directly or indirectly affected by the proposals discussed in the report, and he took no part the debate or voting on that item.

Councillor Kevin Crameri declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 ADI Site - Draft Dunheved Precinct Plan & Draft Planning Agreement as he owns land in Llandilo in the vicinity of the area discussed in the report and he reserved his right to speak and vote on the item.

Present:

His Worship the Mayor Councillor John Thain, Councillors Kaylene Allison, David Bradbury, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Garry Rumble, Pat Sheehy AM, and Steve Simat.

Apologies:

Apologies were received and accepted from Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Lexie Cettolin and Susan Page.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Policy Review Committee met at 7.08PM and concluded at 9:33PM and made the following recommendations:

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City AS A SOCIAL PLACE

 

6        Rezoning Application to amend Employment Zone - Waterside Estate, corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook               4107/28

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Steve Simat seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Rezoning Application to amend Employment Zone - Waterside Estate, corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook be received.

2.     Council advise Stockland of the key issues identified in the report that need to be addressed in any rezoning application.

THE CITY AS AN ECONOMY

8        Six Monthly Performance Report from the Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the information contained in the report on the Six Monthly Performance Report from the Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation be received.

LEADERSHIP AND ORGANISATION

13      Workforce Planning and Workplace

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Workforce Planning and Workplace be received

2.     The information contained in the report on the Service Specifications Program be received

3.     The specification for Workforce Development be adopted.

The City IN ITS BROADER CONTEXT

 

1        Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct                                                      2981/13

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct be received.

 

2        City Centres' Vitality and Viability Review - Interim Precinct Guidelines

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

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

2.     The Interim Development Guidelines for the High Street West precinct and the former Council Chambers precinct be adopted, to be used in the assessment and control of new development within those precincts.

The City as a Social Place

4        Integration of the City's Principal Cultural Facilities                                

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the information contained in the report on Integration of the City's Principal Cultural Facilities be received

 

5        Castlereagh Cemetery and Crematorium Working Party               1008/2

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Castlereagh Cemetery and Crematorium Working Party be received

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

 

 

3        Aboriginal Protocol for Penrith City Council                            1105/12 Pt3

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.       The information contained in the report on the Aboriginal Protocol for Penrith City Council be received

2.       Council reconfirm its current Aboriginal Protocol for Civic Receptions, Citizenship ceremonies, NAIDOC Week civic occasions, and Ordinary Council meetings as outlined in this report

3.       Council formally adopt the Policy on the Statement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Recognition as shown in Attachment 2 to this report on Aboriginal Protocol for Penrith City Council

4.       The Ordinary Meeting remain standing while the Statement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Recognition is read

5.       A further report be brought to Council following consultation with members of the local indigenous community, outlining the options relating to the dual naming of various locations in the city.

Leadership and Organisation

10      Service Specification Program                                                             36/35

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Service Specification Program be received

2.     The specification for Financial Services be adopted.

 

11      Implementation of Best Practice OHS & Injury Management Systems                                                                                                         6011/101

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Implementation of Best Practice OHS & Injury Management Systems be received

2.   Council’s new OHSIM system be modified and improved over the next 18 months to the same extent as the systems implemented by self-insurers

3.   Council engage consultants to assist in bridging the gap between current OHSIM systems and the self insurance model

4.   A review be conducted in 18 months to compare the benefits gained from improved systems (measured through lower cost premiums) and the additional costs of converting to a full self-insurer

5.   Subject to the outcome of the cost benefit analysis, Council implement the claims systems as specified by Work Cover within 3 months following that analysis

6.   Council endorse the program to improve OHS and Injury management and allocate a provisional budget of $100,000 for external services from the insurance reserve as indicated in the report

7.   Council work with Westpool and its member Councils to develop a model for pooling of workers compensation amongst its members

8.   Council lobby the State Government to effect changes in legislation so as to enable licensing of joint workers compensation schemes such as Westpool, United Independent Pools and similar organisations.

 

 

12      Investment Policy                                                                                          

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Investment Policy be received

2.     Council adopt the proposed changes to the Investment Policy.

 

 

9        Mayoral Charity Ball                                                                                  

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Mayoral Charity Ball be received

2.     Council conduct a Mayoral Charity Ball on Friday 25 August 2006

3.     The name of the Ball be the ‘2006 Penrith Rotary Mayoral Charity Ball’

4.     Investigations into the establishment of a Penrith City Council Mayoral Charity Ball fund continue and if appropriate the fund be created

5.     The beneficiary charity for the proceeds of the mayoral ball be determined by the Mayor of the day.

FURTHER REPORT ON LEGAL ISSUES

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor David Bradbury seconded Councillor Steve Simat that a further report be provided to all Councillors regarding the legal issues discussed during the confidential session of the Policy Review Committee.

THE CITY AS A SOCIAL PLACE

FURTHER REPORT ON LEGAL ISSUES

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor David Bradbury seconded Councillor Steve Simat that a further report be provided to all Councillors regarding the legal issues discussed during the confidential session of the Policy Review Committee.

 

7        ADI Site - Draft Dunheved Precinct Plan & Draft Planning Agreement                                                                                                    4130/26 Pt 5

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor David Bradbury seconded Councillor Steve Simat

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on ADI Site - Draft Dunheved Precinct Plan & Draft Planning Agreement be received.

2.     The proposed works schedules included in the Attachments to this report be included in the draft Planning Agreement.

3.     Council publicly exhibit the draft Planning Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulations and authorise the Legal Officer and Environmental Planning Manager to finalise the content of the draft Planning Agreement prior to the formal public exhibition process.

4.     Further consideration of the draft Dunheved Precinct Plan be deferred until the further report requested in the confidential session of tonight’s Policy Review Committee is submitted

5.     Delfin Lend Lease be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 22 May, 2006 be adopted.

 

 

 


MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

The City as a Social Place

 

1        Senior's Week 2006                                                                                                             1

2        Children's Services Regulations                                                                                             4

3        Evaluation on the trial installation of a Community Sharps Disposal Bin in East Lane Car Park, St Marys                                                                                                                                              9

4        Tender Process for the Proposed Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct                        15

5        Waterside Estate, corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook - Request to Vary Works-in-Kind Procedures                                                                                                            22

6        Werrington Army Signals Land                                                                                           26

7        Development Application Proposed Multi Unit Housing at Lot 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood. Applicant: Amflo Pty Ltd;  Owner: Luvamo Pty Ltd DA05/1023          32

 

The City In Its Environment

 

8        Street Litterbin Waste Collection and Disposal Service Tender                                            53

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

9        Application for Funding to the NSW State Emergency Service                                            63

10      Various Tenders for the provision of Materials & Services                                                   65

11      Access across Schoolhouse Creek south of Mulgoa Road                                                   79

12      Supplementary AusLink Roads to Recovery Program                                                         81

13      2006/2007 Auslink National Black Spot Program                                                               83

14      Demolition of Public Toilets                                                                                                85

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

15      Mayors' Asia Pacific Environmental Conference 2006                                                         90

16      Australian Local Government Women's Association (NSW Branch) Conference                 94

17      2006 Remuneration Tribunal Determination                                                                         98

18      GST Compliance Review                                                                                                 101

 

 


The City as a Social Place

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Senior's Week 2006                                                                                                             1

 

2        Children's Services Regulations                                                                                             4

 

3        Evaluation on the trial installation of a Community Sharps Disposal Bin in East Lane Car Park, St Marys                                                                                                                                              9

 

4        Tender Process for the Proposed Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct                        15

 

5        Waterside Estate, corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook - Request to Vary Works-in-Kind Procedures                                                                                                            22

 

6        Werrington Army Signals Land                                                                                           26

 

7        Development Application Proposed Multi Unit Housing at Lot 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood. Applicant: Amflo Pty Ltd;  Owner: Luvamo Pty Ltd DA05/1023          32

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

1

Senior's Week 2006   

 

Compiled by:                Athena Kandris, Community Development Officer - Aged and Disability

Authorised by:             Erich Weller, Community Development Manager 

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Strategies are in place to respond to the social and health needs of the community.

Critical Action: Address the differing needs and preferences of the various age groups through Council’s policy responses, programs and advocacy.

     

Purpose:

To inform council about the 'Volunteer to Live Life'  2006 Seniors Week celebration and other activities held during Seniors Week. The report recommends that the information be received.

 

Background

Seniors Week is celebrated annually across New South Wales and Senior Week 2006 was held from 2  – 9 April.  Seniors Week celebrations encourage the involvement of older people in their community and support their continued participation in local activities.  This year’s theme was ‘Live Life’ with an emphasis on the contribution that seniors make to family, friends, workplaces and communities.

 

On Monday 3 April, Penrith Council held a special event ‘Volunteer to Live Life’ for our local senior residents.   Council received $1000.00 from Department of Ageing, Disability and Homecare (DADHC) to assist with the event.

Council Event:  ‘ Volunteer to live life’

A working group consisting of representatives from local senior groups including Penrith and St Mary’s Senior Citizen Centres assisted council staff in organising the event.

 

Council’s celebration was very successful with over two hundred and eighty people attending at the St Mary’s Senior Citizens and Community Centres. 

 

There was a diverse range of activities and performances aimed at celebrating the voluntary contribution older people make to communities.

 

A theatrical and concert performance by the ‘WWW Seniors Group’, which was formed specifically by local volunteers, was the highlight of the day and this was followed by a spectacular performance by the Glenmore Park High School Band.  ‘Jrisi’, a local belly dancer, contributed to the event by her colourful routine with the finale being a performance of magic tricks and acrobatics by Jerry Liu and Peter Wang.  Master of Ceremonies was Margaret Pope from the local Penrith Music and Comedy Company who also kept the audience amused by a number of sing-alongs.

 

Krispy Kreme donated morning tea for participants.

 

Council allocated the two Community Access buses to transport seniors to and from Penrith Senior Citizens Centre to St Mary’s Senior Citizens Centre.  Additionally the St Mary’s Band Club bus picked-up and returned the Glenmore Park High School students, teachers and their equipment. 

 

The Mayor, Councillor John Thain formally opened the event and officially launched Seniors Week 2006 in Penrith City.

 

An evaluation survey was conducted with the working group and identified that the event was a success and ran smoothly.  Some of the individual comments were:

 

·   A well-coordinated day

·   Planning went smoothly

·    Some great performers, especially the ‘WWW Seniors Group’ and the School Band

·   MC was great

·   Lots of food

·   Plenty of help at hand – volunteers and members

·   Traffic flow into the centre was 100% up on last year

·    Thank you to all the Council workers who were involved on the day and on the working party.

 

The survey was also valuable in gathering comments about ways in which the celebration can be improved for next year’s event. 

Seniors Week Grants

Council allocates funds each year through the Seniors Week Grant Program to assist community-based groups in organising activities during Seniors Week for older residents in the community.  At the Ordinary meeting on 7th February 2006, Council allocated $11,930 to 9 local community organisations to assist in the delivery of projects during Seniors Week

 

The range of events was diverse and creative in showcasing the skills of older people, their participation and their contribution to the community. The following activities and organisations indicate the range and diversity of activities in 2006:

 

·   Great Community Transport Inc – the launch of a new one-stop shop website to enable service users to make community transport bookings.  The launch was held at Penrith library and provided people an opportunity to have hands on experience in using the website.  The principal target groups are older people, older people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander older people and people with disabilities.

·   Nepean Food Services Inc – ‘Story telling workshop’ where participants were invited to share their story with a professional facilitator.

·   Braddock Public School – students, grandparents and older people from the local government area attended a formal assembly.  Students provided entertainment, followed by an exchange of classroom learning experience by everyone.  Morning tea was included.

·   South Penrith Youth & Neighbourhood Service Inc – entertainment and information for older residents, discussion of shared stories, which was developed into an artwork by a professional artist.  This will be a permanent reminder of how seniors live life.

·   Kingswood Park Community Centre – a workshop with Torres Strait Islander people incorporating participation in cultural dances and Indigenous art followed by traditional songs.

·   Werrington Community Project Inc – an expo which featured art & crafts done by over 55 year olds, including stalls, demonstrations, story telling & children activities.

·   Neighbourhood Development Team Erskine Park Inc. – an activity with the ‘Evergreens’ (aged group) and the ‘Pulse’ (youth group) to celebrate and better understand the process of ageing. The Pulse group prepared, cooked and served lunch to the Evergreens.  This was followed with carpet bowls, table tennis and exchange of life stories.

·   St Mary’s Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (CPSA) of NSW Inc. – Ecumenical Church Service with morning and afternoon tea. Light luncheon and a variety of activities and displays.

·   Werrington Elderly Care – the day consisted of games designed for both frail aged and visually impaired residents of the local government area.

 

Evaluation was sought from all groups who received grants to assist with planning for Seniors Week 2007. The feedback has been very positive. Events were well attended, often exceeding the expectations of organisers.  The events have been a great opportunity for seniors to participate in activities, interact with other groups and learn from each other.

Conclusion

Seniors Week offers organisations and individuals the opportunity to become involved in programs to celebrate the contribution seniors make to communities.  Council’s 2006 successful event ‘Volunteer to Live Life’ acknowledged and celebrated the voluntary contribution older people make to communities.  It was a day filled with fun, laughter, and celebration involving some local performers and the assistance of local volunteers.

 

Additionally the nine (9) community-based groups who organised activities during seniors week were creative in showcasing the skills of older people and their contribution to the communities.  The activities encouraged the involvement and participation of local school children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander older people, older people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and older people with disabilities.

 

As indicated earlier, all events were hugely successful and at times exceeding expectations.  Seniors Week 2006 has been a valuable opportunity for seniors to participate in activities with other groups.  

 

Certificates of Appreciation and letters will be forwarded to volunteers of Council’s event ‘Volunteer to Live Life’.  Letters of appreciation will also be forwarded to members of the 2006 Seniors Week working group.  Lastly letters of gratitude will be forwarded to local businesses which contributed to making the event a success.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Seniors Week 2006 be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

2

Children's Services Regulations   

 

Compiled by:                Denise Gibson, Children’s Services Manager; Janet Keegan, Children's Services Coordinator

Authorised by:             Denise Gibson, Children’s Services Manager 

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

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

     

Purpose:

To advise Council of the impact of changes to the new Children's Services Regulation 2004 for new child care facilities and proposed changes to existing services within the Penrith LGA.  The report also advises Council of implications of changes to the Regulations for the child care services Council sponsors.  A similar report has been presented to the Penrith City Children's Services Co-operative (PCCSC) which manages the majority of Council's centre-based children's services. The report recommends a number of strategies to ensure ongoing compliance.

 

Background

Services in NSW providing care for children aged 0-5 years must be licensed by the Department of Community Services (DoCS) and licensees need to ensure services comply with the Children’s Services Regulation under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.  The Regulation makes provision for the licensing and management of children’s services under the Act.  Once issued, a licence for a children’s service is valid for a period of three years.  Council is the Licensee for the children’s services it sponsors.  

 

The new Children’s Services Regulation 2004 has now come into effect.  The Regulation supports important changes to the way the Department of Community Services (DoCS) works with a changing children’s services sector.  These changes signal a move away from a prescriptive regulatory regime, where the responsibility for ensuring compliance rested with DoCS, to a system where service providers have to guarantee and take responsibility for service compliance.  Under the previous Regulations, just prior to the expiration of a licence (once every three years), DoCS would carry out a pre-arranged inspection of the service and provide the Licensee with details of areas of non-compliance (for example shade requirements), allowing a reasonable lead-in time for rectification.  Under the new legislation, centres will be required to self assess against the Regulations on a continuing basis.  DoCS representatives will undertake unannounced inspections of the service, following which the Licensee will be advised of any areas of non-compliance and will be provided within 28 days to comply or risk the revocation of the licence.  

 

This revised process increases the importance of managing risks in a pro-active manner to ensure ongoing compliance.  There will be an increased risk of a service’s Licence being revoked, and the service being rendered non-operational unless effective systems and funding mechanisms are in place.  Not only will this impact on current Licences, repeated breaches will impact on the ability to apply for additional Licences for an expansion of Council’s sponsorship of Children’s Services.  The impact on customers would be substantial and have negative impact on our reputation as the providers of quality services.  

 

In addition to the matter of re-licensing, other challenges under the new Regulations are in the areas of certification of plans and development applications, softfall testing, glass compliance, recruitment and training for children’s services staff and facilities provided. 

 

The relevance of the new Regulation to Council is twofold (a) to the process of development applications for new and existing child care centres throughout the LGA, and (b) to the children’s services sponsored by Council for which it is the Licensee.

1.       Certification of Plans and Building Checks

The new Regulation requires site and building plans for a children’s service to be drawn by a qualified person, for example an architect, architectural draftsman or architectural assistant.  Both this person and the licensee applicant are required to either state that the buildings comply with the Part 3 Facilities and Equipment requirements of the Regulation, or to specify how they do not comply.  The onus of ensuring plans and building are compliant with the 2004 Regulation is on the proposed licensee of the service.

 

In terms of the lodgement of Development Applications, the practice within Council has been to ensure that as part of this lodgement for a new children’s service, that the proposed applicant supplied a copy of approved plans stamped by DoCS for approval.  With the change in Regulations, this approval is no longer given by DoCS and DoCS therefore will no longer be in a position to provide Council with this form of notification that the plans meet requirements. 

 

Under the new Regulations, as part of the application for licence, the proposed licensee must provide a written statement from themselves and the architect that the service is in compliance with the Regulations, this statement could be sought by Council from the proposed licensee to replace the previously supplied stamped approved plans from DoCS.    

 

Whilst it is beneficial for proposed licensees to contact DoCS prior to lodgement of a DA for a child care service, there is no legislative requirement to do so.  

 

The changes within the Regulations also have an impact on existing services who are making structural changes to their premises and seeking an amendment to their DA approval.  Previous practice was for them to supply DoCS with amended plans which would again be assessed and approved and a copy of that approval forwarded to Council.  The requirements for these amended plans are the same as detailed for a new service and therefore Council will receive amended plans from the licensee which will not be stamped by DoCS as DoCS will be seeking a statement of compliance from the licensee and architect who drew the plans to state compliance with the Regulations.  

 

In addition to the above, both the applicant for a licence and the Authorised Supervisor of a service must certify that they will conduct such checks as necessary to ensure that the service complies with Parts 3, 6 and 7 of the Regulation which relate to Facilities and Equipment, Operational and Administrative Requirements.  

 

Implications for Council:

 

·   A proposed licensee for a children’s service must provide a written statement from themselves and the architect drawing up plans for new services, that the service is in compliance with the regulations. 

·   Existing children’s services making structural changes to their premises and seeking an amendment to their DA approval must comply as above.  

 

Comment from Development Assessment Manager

 

The amendments to the Children Services Regulations 2004 would result in the following aspects of current practice having to change.  Council would need to provide appropriate pre-lodgement advice to applicants about the Regulation changes in order for the proponent to be aware of their obligations.  Typically these types of applications would be subject to a formal pre-lodgement meeting.  Council would encourage proponents to contact DoCS prior to lodgement of any development application.  Council would need to ensure that through the course of the assessment process the applicant confirms that the proposal meets the requirements of the Regulations and a statement from a suitably qualified person (as described above) is provided that confirms that the design of the proposed development or alteration complies with the Regulations.

2.       Glass Compliance

Clause 46 of the Regulation states that the Licensee of a children’s service must ensure that any glazed area of the premises of a children’s service that is in a room or other place accessible to children and is 0.75 or less above the level of the floor, (a) is glazed with safety glass, if the Building Code of Australia requires the area to be glazed with safety glass, or (b) in any other case (i) is treated with a product that prevents glass from shattering if broken, or (ii) is guarded by barriers that prevent a child from striking or falling against the glass. 

 

To this end, an audit was undertaken (jointly funded through Risk Management and individual centre budgets) of all services sponsored by Council which revealed that 14 venues did not meet this requirement.      

 

Implications for Council:

 

·   Requirement to replace existing glass under 1 metre with safety glass.

·   Obtain glass certification.

 

These were essential works with a degree of urgency and the work was progressed so that all venues now meet this requirement at a cost of $23,029, funded from the Asset Renewal Programme ($7,029) and Council’s Insurance Reserve ($16,000).    Tamara Children’s Centre in Cranebrook will undergo a building upgrade in the near future and an exemption has been obtained for this facility pending this work.      

3.       Testing of Softfall

Clause 40 (7) states that the surfacing underneath or around play equipment must comply with Standard AS/NZS 4422.1966.  We are already complying with this standard and the children’s services compliance programme makes provision for softfall upgrades.  However, in addition, the new Regulations state that this surfacing must be tested at least every three years and a compliance certification issued.  The testing requirement applies to impact attenuating softfall surfaces, i.e. wetpour rubber, artificial grass and organic softfall. 

 

Implications for Council:

 

·   Cost estimates have been obtained for softfall testing - $450 for the first area of surfacing and $150 for each surface thereafter.  Approximate costs each three years for all services would be $11,700.     

·   Economies of scale could be achieved if the surface testing was completed globally every three years.   

 

For the services it manages, PCCSC will establish and maintain a softfall testing programme and softfall upgrades to meet the requirements of the Regulations.  To this end, for the budget development process 2006/07 provision has been made for softfall testing through the contribution by each service to a pooled fund and investigation of global testing every three years is being undertaken to achieve economies of scale.  Following the testing, certificates of compliance will also be obtained.  Children’s Services will ensure that compliance is sustained for services not managed by PCCSC.   

4.       Separate Craft Facilities

Clause 32 (1) of the new Regulation refers to the premises of a children’s service having separate facilities, including a sink, bench top and lockable cupboard, for use in craft activities.  An audit of services has revealed that all premises except one (St Marys Children’s Centre) have craft facilities that comply. 

 

Pre-Co-operative centre reserves have been utilised to fund this compliance matter at a cost of $1,669.99.      

5.       Recruitment and Training

Clause 15 (3) of the new Regulation refers to management and administration training that is required for Authorised Supervisors (AS) of a children’s service.  An Authorised Supervisor is a person nominated by the Licensee to have the overall supervision of the provision of a children’s service.  All AS need to provide evidence of approved administration and management training.  In addition, Under Clause 15 (2) of the new Regulation, Authorised Supervisors are required to have completed approved Child Protection training.  

 

Implications for Council: 

 

·   Recruitment processes will need to address these requirements.

·   Estimated cost of providing management and administration training for current relevant staff is $10,000 and could cost up to $8,000 annually.  

·   The child protection training has been offered to all current children’s services staff at a cost of $12,173.00 and could cost up to $8,000 annually.    

·   Staff have been released from the workplace to attend child protection training at an approximate cost of $18,000 for relief staff. 

Comment from Training and Development Co-ordinator

For the past two financial years an allocation of funds for child protection training has been made in the Corporate Training Budget.  In addition the Children’s Services Department is allocated  $17,000 each year in the Corporate Training Budget for the professional development of staff.  It is anticipated that an annual allocation of funds for child protection training from the Corporate Training Budget will continue.     

 

Children’s services will prioritise funds for management and administration training from its allocation of Corporate Training funds.     

Summary

Council and the Penrith City Children’s Services Co-operative (PCCSC) which manages the majority of Council’s centre based services, face a number of challenges with the introduction of the new Children’s Services Regulations.  In addition to the matters which have financial implications are the procedural changes and changes that signal a move to a system where service providers have to guarantee and take responsibility for service compliance.  Strategies are developed by children’s services to ensure that accountabilities are met and compliance sustained.

   

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Children's Services Regulations be received

2.     Proposed licensees and licensees seeking structural alterations to buildings be made aware of their obligations under the Regulations and comply

3.     Children’s Services establish and maintain a softfall testing programme and softfall upgrades to meet the requirements of the Regulations and that centre budgets reflect this

4.     Funds be set aside in relevant training budgets for child protection and management and administration training for relevant staff in Children’s Services

5.     Children’s Services develop a strategy to ensure accountabilities under the new Regulation are met and compliance sustained. 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

3

Evaluation on the trial installation of a Community Sharps Disposal Bin in East Lane Car Park, St Marys

 

Compiled by:                Yvonne Perkins, Community Safety Coordinator

Authorised by:             David Burns, Asset Manager 

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 results of the trial installation of a Community Sharps Disposal Bin in East Lane Car  Park, St Marys.  The report recommends that Council supports the permanent installation of the Community Sharps Disposal Bin at its current location in  East Lane Car Park, St Marys.

 

Background

At its meeting of 20 June 2005 Council received a report concerning a request from Sydney West Needle & Syringe Program for the installation of a Community Sharps Disposal Bin in the East Lane Car Park St Marys for a trial period of six months and resolved that:

 

1.  The information contained in the report on trial installation of a Community Sharps Disposal Bin in the East Lane Car Park, St Marys be received.

2.  Council approve the trial installation of a community sharps disposal bin in East Lane Car Park, St Marys, by the Sydney West Needle & Syringe Program for a period of six months.

3.  A further report to be submitted to Council on the completion of the trial installation period.

 

 

 

The six-month trial period is now completed and the following information includes an evaluation by the Sydney West Needle and Syringe Program on the usage of the trial bin, reports from Council staff on other syringe disposal bin usage in the St Marys CBD and the results of consultations undertaken on the completion of the trial.      

 

The bin was installed on a concrete pad offset at an appropriate distance from the toilet wall and surrounded by bollards to prevent vehicle impact (refer photo).

 

 

 

Information provided by Sydney West Needle & Syringe Program:

 

St Marys Community Sharps Disposal Bin

Six month evaluation report

March 2006 

 

Background

The St Marys community sharps disposal bin is part of an ongoing Statewide public health initiative to make sharps disposal safe and accessible to the community.  Over recent years there has been increasing recognition both within the health sector and within Local Government of the potential hazards posed by the increase in medically generated sharps both in health care facilities and the community. The New South Wales Department of Health has responded with a range of initiatives such as the funding and provision of community sharps disposal sites at all major health facilities in each Area Health Service (Circular No 2002/93) and the development of joint guidelines in the management of community sharps waste disposal in conjunction with the Local Government and Shires Association.

 

There are enormous numbers of sharps waste generated in the community setting in any given year. The National Diabetes Scheme for example, distributes approximately 18 million pen needles and syringes to clients for personal use each year (NSW Health, 2004).The need to dispose of this amount of waste effectively and efficiently has lead to a joint response from NSW Health and Local Government to address safe disposal of needles and syringes generated in the community setting. Community sharps disposal bins are a sensible strategy for minimising unsafe disposal of sharps waste and minimising the risk of needle stick injuries in the community.

 

Disposal

 

There are five community sharps disposal bins located at health facilities in the Penrith LGA. The St Marys community sharps disposal bin, the fifth facility, has been located in the East Lane Council Car Park since mid August 2005. The bin was placed on a six-month trial basis as a part of a joint Sydney West Area Health Service and Penrith Council initiative of Council’s Community Safety Committee. The siting of this bin was to replace the former disposal bin which was destroyed during a spate of vandalism in February 2004. The aim of resiting the bin in its current location was to provide better access to sharps disposal facilities for residents living in the St Marys area.

 

The NSW Needle and Syringe Program Data Dictionary (2004) was developed by NSW Health to inform all aspects of the Needle and Syringe Program reporting requirements. The dictionary also provides a formula to estimate the amounts of sharps being disposed of in a given quantity of waste. This formula has calculated that each kilogram of waste contains approximately 200 units of injecting equipment. As 38 kilograms of waste have been collected during the six -month trial period this would equal an estimated disposal rate of 7,600 needles.

 

Table 1: Return estimates for St Marys Community Sharps Bin

 

 

Month 2005

 

 

Kilogram of waste

 

 

Estimated # of needles

Sept

7.5

1,500

Oct

5

1,000

Nov

8

1,600

Dec

9

1,800

Jan

8.5

1,700

Total

38

7,600

 

It is clear from these figures that the bin has been well utilised by the community.

 

Needle Syringe Program

 

The Needle/Syringe Program staff monitored the St Marys bin twice weekly to assess any problems at the site. There were no incidents of inappropriate needle litter in the vicinity of the bin. The NSP staff continue to monitor the bin on a regular basis and the Program Manager receives reports on the amounts of equipment disposed of by Stericorp Pty Ltd, waste contractors through all disposal sites.

 

The NSP Staff were called to the site on three separate occasions to remove a blockage in the bin chute which had been caused by a sharps container becoming lodged in the neck of the bin. On occasion sharps containers get stuck in the chute and a staff member is required to remove the blockage. This happens infrequently and is not an issue of concern.

 

Recommendations

·    That the community sharps disposal partnership continues.

 

·    That the partnership develop a community sharps disposal brochure for residents of the Penrith / St Marys LGA. The brochure would provide locations of all bins and information on safe disposal of sharps.

 

Conclusion

The bin has been well utilised by the community. There have been no specific problems/issues raised with the NSP during the trial period and the NSP Staff have monitored the site and will continue to do so. Community sharps disposal bins are a sound public health initiative and a sensible strategy for minimising unsafe disposal of sharps waste, thereby minimising the risk of needle stick injuries in the workplace and the community.

 

References

Community Sharps Disposal by Public Hospitals and Authorise Outlets of the NSW Needle and Syringe Program- NSW Health Circular No: 2002/93

NSW Health, Needle & Syringe Program Data Dictionary 2.0, (2004).

The Community Sharps Management Guidelines For NSW Councils (2004) NSW Department of Health

---------

 

 

As seen from the above report the usage of this bin over the six-month trial period has been substantial (approximately 7600 needles).  A check has been made on the usage of the needle disposal bins within the adjacent East Lane toilet block and other St Marys CBD toilet locations. 

 

East Lane Car Park Toilet

 

The bins in this toilet block are emptied approximately every five weeks.  The number of needles collected over this five-week cycle are:

 

Mens

1 large bin             ¾ full           approximately  75 needles

1 medium bin      ¾ full          approximately 30 needles

 

Ladies

1 medium bin     ¾ full              approximately  30 needles

 

This averages out over the six-month period to be 675 needles.  It should be noted that the bins within the toilets are only accessible from sunrise to sunset.

 

Other Toilet Blocks

 

The collection of needles in other toilet blocks within the St Marys CBD and nearby vicinity over a similar period are:

 

West Lane Car Park

 

Mens

1 medium bin                  ½ full   (approx 20 needles)

 

Ladies

1 medium bin                  ½ full   (           20            )

 

Kokoda Park

 

Mens

1 medium bin                  ½ full  (approx 20 needles)

 

Ladies

1 medium bin                  ½ full  (            20            )

 

Victoria Park

 

Mens

1 medium bin                  ¼ full   (approx 10 needles)

 

Ladies

1 medium bin                  ¼ full    (            10          )

 

The approximate total for the above three toilet blocks every 5 weeks is 100 needles. 

 

This averages out over the six-month period to be 500 needles. Similar to the East Lane toilet block, these toilets are only accessible from sunrise to sunset.

 

Public Feedback during trial

 

During the trial period Council received only one phone call from an adjacent operator concerning the installation of the bin.  The enquiry acknowledged the need to minimise the public health risk of discarded needles and syringes, however did request that the location be inspected to have lighting in the location assessed.   The location has been listed for a lighting assessment. This operator was subsequently supplied with results of the trial as part of further consultation referred to below.

 

Consultation following the trial period

 

·    The Sydney West Needle & Syringe Program (NSP) advised in their report outlined above, that NSP staff advised that no specific problems or issues were raised with them during the trial period.

 

·    The St Marys Town Centre Manager was contacted on two occasions, seeking feedback on any comments that the St Marys Town Centre Management Inc. had received from business owners and operators within the Town Centre.  He advised that he had received no comments regarding the needle bin.

 

Prior to this report being prepared concerning the future of the bin at this site, adjoining business owners/operators and residents, within close proximity to the trial bin location were canvassed in the first week in May 2006 to provide any comments on the trial period.  Comments regarding the trial installation period of the community sharps disposal bin were requested to be forwarded in writing to Council by Wednesday 24 May 2006. 

 

As a result of this consultation only one response was received from the adjacent Community Health Centre Sector Manager whose only comments were that:

 

Elderly people enter our building wanting to deposit their syringes at the centre and are advised to use the disposal bin outside. They seem very reluctant to do so as they believe they are discriminated against and may be seen by the public as drug users putting their empty containers in the bin, when in fact they are depositing syringes which are for insulin as these people are diabetics. On 1 occasion there has been needles/syringes left near the centre.  I think lighting near the bin would be a good idea”.  

 

Conclusion

 

As previously advised to Council the installation of this seven day per week, 24 hour per day accessible needle bin supports a strategy within the Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan, Key Area 3, Fear of Crime to:

 

 “Develop and Promote programs and procedures that minimise risk in public space”. 

 

 An action that supports this is the development and implementation of programs that endeavour to increase safety in public spaces.

 

The provision of a readily accessible community sharps disposal bin was to provide better access to a sharps disposal facility in the St Marys area.  The quantity of needles collected during this trial period indicates that the bin has been accessible and well utilised by the public. There is no indication as to the origin of the needles disposed of in the bin, however given the high number of needles being disposed of, some assumptions can be made that a high proportion of the needles would be domestically generated medical waste, eg, diabetic use.  Discussions with Sydney West Needle & Syringe Program staff indicated that this proportion could be as high as 80%.

 

As a result of the usage rate of this sharps disposal facility, it is recommended that the Community Sharps Disposal Bin be a permanent installation at its current location in the East Lane Car Park, St Marys.  The bin would remain under the continued management of the Sydney West Needle and Syringe Program with an review of its usage provided to Council on an annual basis. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Evaluation on the trial installation of a Community Sharps Disposal Bin in East Lane Car Park, St Marys be received

2.     The Community Sharps Disposal Bin be a permanent installation at its current location in the East Lane Car Park under the continued management of the Sydney West Needle and Syringe Program with a review of its usage provided to Council on an annual basis.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

4

Tender Process for the Proposed Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct   

 

Compiled by:                Viggo Knackstredt, Architecture Supervisor

Authorised by:             Craig Ross, Design and Technical Advice Manager 

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

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

     

Purpose:

To provide broader information on the tenders received for Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct and seek Council's endorsement of the preferred tenderer Jackson Teece. A further report will be submitted to Council prior to tender for construction.

 

Background

Reports were presented to Council at its meetings of the May 1 and May 15, 2006 advising of the outcome of the tender process for Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct.  This report provides broader information on the tenders received and seeks Council’s endorsement of the preferred tenderer, Jackson Teece.

Current Situation

The selection process was based on an open tender, which closed on February 7, 2006. Council received 25 tenders and out of these 21 complied with the tender requirements.

 

A tender panel was established to assess the responses and a qualitative assessment was undertaken based on a points system.  The tenderers were ranked according to how well they scored in relation to the selection criteria.  The tender panel considered that those tenderers that scored 19 and above in the essential criteria should be capable of undertaking the project.  This assessment resulted in the following 8 firms being shortlisted:

 

·    Jackson Teece

·    Quinn O’Hanlon

·    Dillon & Savage

·    Nobis + Brennan

·    AJA

·    Suters Architects

·    Baker Kavanagh

·    LFA Pacific

 

An initial assessment was carried out of the 8 shortlisted firms’ proposals.  This assessment included a more detailed analysis of their proposals and a comparison of their fees.  The results of this assessment is summarised in more detail below.

Jackson Teece

Jackson Teece’s fees fell in the mid range between the highest fees and the lowest fees of the 8 short-listed firms.  This consultant has assembled a highly qualified and diverse team of experts, it has recognised the importance of the landscape, public domain and playground design outlined in the brief and has responded by including a playground design expert, Rick McConaghy on the team.

 

Rick McConaghy has considerable experience in playground designs and has successfully completed three playground designs for Penrith Council.  Likewise the landscape architect, Phillips Mahler is widely recognized, having won several awards for their work.  They are particularly recognised for their ecological sustainable landscapes and have also particular experience in integrating artworks by public artists into landscape projects for local governments.

 

Jackson Teece has a long history of delivering high quality work and value for money.  They have substantial experience in the design of Child Care Facilities, public and community type buildings and have also, along with the landscape architect mentioned above, substantial experience in integrating public art into the public domain.  Their designs adhere strongly to ESD principles and the company has won a number of awards for environmental design including the inaugural National Environment Award of the Royal institute of Architects and others.  The services of this consultant would be very beneficial to ensuring that the design of the adventure playground and the public domain meet Council’s objective for the precinct.  Jackson Teece was therefore nominated for further assessment.

Quinn O’Hanlon

Quinn O’Hanlon submitted the second lowest fee proposal of the short-listed firms.  However an examination of the their fee break down showed that only $7,000 was allocated for landscape/public domain and adventure playground design.  Compared with the other firms’ fee proposals, this fee is considered to be very low.

 

The landscape, public domain and playground including the adventure playground comprise approximately 25% of the overall project cost, which is in the order of $3.7m.  Given the scale of this part of the project and the emphasis that the brief places on the design and detailing, the tender panel considered that Quinn O’Hanlon had significantly underestimated the extent of services needed for this part of the project and therefore would not be able to deliver the appropriate services required by the brief.  Quin O’Hanlon was therefore not included in any further assessment.

Dillon & Savage

Dillon & Savage fees are relatively high compared with the other 8 short-listed firms’ fees.  This consultant has considerable experience in Child Care facility design and has also included a secondary playground expert, Margaret Cavanagh from the Playground Advisory Unit, Kidsafe New South Wales Inc. as part of the landscape design team.  The main landscape architect, Jane Irwin has broad experience in both planning and design of the public domain.

 

This consultant offered a unique approach to the design programme and stated that community consultation, whilst time-consuming, was, nevertheless, an essential part in ensuring that buildings function successfully.  However the consultant did not appear to have included the additional cost of community consultation in the tender.  This approach would therefore place additional demand on Council’s resources.  

 

In view of this and combined with the relative high fee, the panel did not consider that Dillon & Savage should be included in further assessments.

Nobis + Brennan

Nobis + Brennen’s fees were the second highest of the short-listed firms’ fees.  The primary consultant has limited experience in the design of Child Care facilities an included an interior design architect with specialist experience in this area and landscape/ play ground design experts, Margaret Cavanagh and Beverly Boland from the Playground Advisory Unit, Kidsafe New South Wales Inc.

 

While Nobis + Brennen is well qualified with specialist services provided by interior designer and landscape architects they were excluded from further assessment because of their relative high overall fee.

AJA

AJA submitted the highest fees of the short-listed firms.  The team has substantial experience in design of Child Care facilities and include a playground specialist and interior/ Child Care centre specialist and certifier.  Due to their high fees the panel did not consider AJA should be included in further assessments.

Suters Architects

Suters Architect submitted the lowest fees out of the short-listed firms.  An analysis of their fee breakdown showed that only a moderate fee of $15,500 was allocated for combined landscape/ public domain and adventure playground design. 

 

Suters Architects have good experience in all technical areas, particularly in the area of sustainable design.  Suters Architects are a well established firm with a long track record of excellence in design demonstrated in a range of awards won by the firm.  They have successfully completed the Joan Sutherland Performing Art Centre and have recently won the commission for the redesign of Judges Park Car parking Station.

 

Suters Architects has limited experience in integrating artworks by public artist into the design of projects.  Notwithstanding the moderate landscape fee component, the tender panel considered that Suters Architects should be considered for further assessment due to their overall low fees.

Baker Kavanagh

Baker Kavanagh’s fees fell in the lower range of the fees submitted by the short-listed firms.  Baker Kavanagh is a relatively young company, but in the 11 years it has practiced it has undertaken an impressive number of project, including Child Care centres, leisure precincts, libraries for local government as well as commercial projects in Australia and abroad.

 

Baker Kavanagh has demonstrated a good technical understanding of the brief and has associated itself with a multi-disciplinary firm, Habitation for this particular project.  Habitation is highly experienced in urban design, landscape design, and environmental analysis.  Amongst their projects are the Erskine Park Employment Centre Public Domain Plan and the McArthur Centre for Sustainable Living.

 

The consultant team has also considerable experience in integrating artworks by public artist into the design of projects.  The team is strongly focused on environmental design and choice of eco friendly materials and also demonstrates a good understanding Universal Design Principles focusing on accessible design.

 

While the consultant team has strong credentials in environmental and landscape design it did not demonstrate substantial experience with the design of playgrounds and in particular adventure playground design.  However the panel considered that Baker Kavanagh should be subject to further assessment due to their relative low fees.

LFA Pacific

LFA’s fees were relative high compared to the majority of the short-listed firms’ fees.  LFA has extensive experience in major planning, urban design, landscape and architectural project but has limited experience in the design of Child Care facilities.  Their experience with this type of project is limited to ACT, which the panel considered a possible deficiency due to different regulations between ACT and NSW.  Given this and considering the relative high fees LFA, was not included in further assessments.

 

Summary of Initial Assessment

The initial assessment resulted in three firms (Jackson Teece, Suters Architects and Baker Kavanagh) being subject to further consideration. 

 

Following interviews with these firms, the following assessments were made:

Jackson Teece

At the interview Jackson Teece demonstrated a superior understanding of the brief.  The architect recognised the importance and scale of the landscape, public domain and adventure playground elements and included a specialist playgrounds design expert on the team, which the panel considers to be highly important.  In addition Jackson Teece demonstrated a clear understanding of the new Child Care services regulations and the processes involved in the incorporation of public art into the project.  The panel found that Jackson Teece had assembled a well- rounded team with an appropriate level of expertise for each discipline.  The panel considered that this firm was capable of delivering the project to the required standards.

Suters Architects

Suters Architects did not demonstrate the same level of understanding of the brief as Jackson Teece.  During the interview it became evident that the architect had underestimated the extent of services needed for the landscape/ public domain and adventure playground design.

Suters had allocated only nominal resources for overall landscape design and did not include any specific resources for public domain/ adventure playground design, which is a substantial part of the overall project.

 

As a result, the panel did not consider that Suters would be able to deliver the appropriate services required by the brief.

Baker Kavanagh

Baker Kavanagh demonstrated a good technical understanding of the brief but while the consultant team has strong credentials in environmental and landscape design, it did not demonstrate substantial experience with the design of playgrounds and in particular adventure playgrounds, which the panel considered essential.

 

In addition, Baker Kavanagh highlighted the importance of community participation and public consultation as part of the design process, but confirmed in the interview that it did not allow for this in their fee submission.  This approach would place an unreasonable high demand on Council’s resources and the panel did not consider it possible for Council to facilitate the level of public participation that the consultant team thought necessary for the success of the project.  As a result the panel formed the view that Baker Kavanagh would not be able to deliver the necessary result without additional resources from Council.

 

Summary of Final Assessment

In the final assessment of the three firms (Jackson Teece, Suters Architects and Baker Kavanagh) the panel found that Jackson Teece had a clear understanding of the brief, which was not evident in the two other consultants’ presentations, albeit for different reasons.  This would appear to be reflected in the fee proposals put forward by the three firms.  Jackson Tees submitted the highest overall fee followed by Baker Kavanagh and Suters. 

 

In addition Jackson Teece demonstrated a clear understanding of the new Child Care services regulations, which have to be incorporated into the facility.  This was not so evident in Baker Kavanagh’s presentation.

 

Council has previously raised concerns regarding the difference in the primary consultant’s fees of Jackson Teece ($115,000) compared to Baker Kavanagh ($91,000) and Suters ($96,000).  Whilst Jackson Teece are higher in this comparison, they are lower when compared to other firms such as Quinn O’Hanlon ($120,100), who were only ruled out for their lower landscape/playground design fees. 

 

Baker Kavanagh emphasised the need for a high level of community participation, which was not covered in their primary consultant’s fees.  If this were to be included in their fee proposal, their primary consultant’s fees would have been higher (in the order of at least an additional $15,000). 

 

Whilst Suters appeared to offer a cost effective submission for the primary consultant, they were deficient in the landscape/playground component of the project.

 

A breakdown of the short-listed firms’ fees is tabled below together with a summary of the initial and final assessments.

 


 

Summary

Council received 25 tenders and out of these, 21 complied with the tender requirements.  The tenderer panel carried out a staged assessment based on qualitative and quantitative criteria resulting in a short-listing of three firms.

 

In the final assessment of the three short-listed firms, consideration was given to their response to the brief and their fee proposals.  Jackson Teece demonstrated a superior understanding of the brief by allocating appropriate resources to each part of the project, appropriately costed and uniquely recognising the significance of the landscape/ public domain and playground design by using specialist consultants.

 

Both Suters and Baker Kavanagh did not demonstrate the same understanding of the brief albeit for different reasons.  Suters did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the complexity of the landscape/ public domain and playground design and Baker Kavanagh based their submission on a high level of community participation, which was not covered in their submission and therefore would place additional demands on Council resources, which are not funded.  In addition Baker Kavanagh had not made provision for adequate resources for playground design.

 

In terms of fees, the short-listed firms varied between $189,300 and $462,000.  As shown in the above table, Jackson Teece’s fees fall in the mid range at $275,870.

 

Applying both qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria the tender panel consider that Jackson Teece is best suited for this project.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Process for the Proposed Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct be received

2.     Jackson Teece be appointed as the Architect to complete the masterplan, design and documentation in accordance with their tender submission for the proposed Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct project

3.     A further report be submitted for Council’s consideration when a more detailed design and project costing is prepared, prior to the tender for construction.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

5

Waterside Estate, corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook - Request to Vary Works-in-Kind Procedures   

 

Compiled by:                Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager 

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Timely delivery of services to new release areas is being secured.

Critical Action: Prepare and implement services and infrastructure delivery plans for each new release area that ensures that the early establishment of services and facilities match community needs.

     

Purpose:

To inform Council of a request by Stockland to vary Council's adopted Works-in-Kind procedures for the delivery of infrastructure in the Waterside Estate.  The report recommends that Council vary the Works-in-Kind procedures as requested.

 

Background

Waterside (Penrith Lakes Environs) is an urban release area 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 evolved in response to a range of on-site and surrounding physical characteristics, in particular flooding and industrial noise impacts.  These investigations culminated in the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) and the adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) on 13 March 1998.

 

The site comprises 2 development zones, namely the Residential (Waterways) 2(g) and the Residential (Services) 2(h) zones.  The Residential (Waterways) 2(g) comprises some 53.3ha of land and is currently being developed by Stockland for housing, ultimately delivering some 694 dwellings.  The Residential (Services) 2(h) zone is located along the Andrews Road frontage of the property and will provide employment opportunities within a quality built form that acts as an acoustic, physical and visual buffer between residential development on the site and industrial development to the south on the opposite side of Andrews Road.

 

Council, at its Planning and Works Committee Meeting on 8 November 1993 adopted procedures for accepting Works-in-Kind in lieu of a monetary contribution.  A copy of those procedures is attached to this report.  These procedures were developed with multiple ownership / developer circumstances in mind, eg, Glenmore Park Estate, and were aimed at ensuring a transparent approach to the delivery of community facilities and infrastructure where Section 94 contributions were being received from different development groups. 

 

Council at the Ordinary Meeting on 7 March 2005 adopted a Section 94 Development Contributions Plan to levy contributions for the provision of public amenities and services that are required to meet the needs of the incoming residents of the Waterside Estate.  That Plan sets down Council’s policy for raising, holding and expending Section 94 contributions within the Waterside Estate.  The Plan states that Council may accept the construction of amenities or services (Works-in-Kind) to offset the monetary contribution payable.

 

Stockland has considered the most appropriate way for delivering infrastructure to the Waterside Estate and has put forward a proposal for undertaking Works-In-Kind for a number of community facilities and infrastructure in lieu of direct payment of Section 94 contributions.  They advise that the proposed Works-in-Kind constitute a comparatively minor part of significantly larger construction works (including artificial lakes, internal roads, services infrastructure and landscaped open space) currently being undertaken on the site. They have indicated that integration of the Section 94 works with the construction of the broader infrastructure for the site is a more cost effective and efficient means of delivering the Estate. 

 

Stockland has reviewed Council’s adopted procedures for the delivery of Works-in-Kind and has expressed concern that they do not allow sufficient flexibility necessary in the engagement of contractors and the delivery of works for contemporary release areas.  As a result, they have sought approval for an alternative procedure to enable the coordinated, cost–effective and timely delivery of Section 94 infrastructure. 

 

Since the Section 94 Plan for the Estate was adopted, amendments have occurred to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which have introduced the concept of planning agreements which can provide for greater flexibility in terms of the delivery of new infrastructure and community facilities to urban developments.

Proposal

The S94 Development Contributions Plan for Waterside identifies specific Road, Traffic Management, Open Space and Community facilities required to meet the needs of the incoming residents.

 

Stockland proposes to meet their commitments under the S94 Plan through the payment of cash contributions and construction of Works-in-Kind.  In accordance with Council’s adopted procedures for Works-in-Kind, we have at Stockland’s request, identified those components of the Plan that are appropriate for delivery as Work-in-Kind. Those facilities comprise:

·   Extension of Laycock Street to Andrews Road;

·   Construction of the intersection of Laycock Street & Andrews Road;

·   Construction of pedestrian and cycle way facilities at intersections;

·   Rehabilitation of the Cumberland Plain Woodland area to be dedicated to Council as open space; and

·   Construction of Community Centre.

 

Council’s adopted procedures require approval to the engagement of a designer to design the work, approval of the design, the calling of tenders for construction of the work, the engagement of an independent quantity surveyor to assess the project cost and formal resolutions of Council accepting the project cost and delivery of the work.  These procedures are in place to ensure the efficient, timely and cost effective delivery of the works.

 

Stockland indicate that:

·   They are the sole developer of the estate;

·   The design and cost of the works undertaken for the S94 Plan remain valid and do not require amendment;

·   The Works-in-Kind will be delivered to the standard required as they have been (road, intersection, rehabilitation works) or will be (community centre) the subject of specific development approvals, and Council will be the certifying authority;

·   Bank guarantees will be provided with each respective development application for these works;

·   The works are part of a significantly larger infrastructure project (lakes, internal roads, bridges, drainage etc) currently in train, enabling the co-ordinated and cost effective delivery of infrastructure; and

·   They are prepared to enter into a Deed of Agreement whereby they will be responsible for the full construction of the nominated works, eliminating the responsibility for Council to undertake the works and providing further surety for the desired outcome.

 

In our view, the procedures put forward by Stockland provide for the efficient, timely and cost effective delivery of S94 Works-in-Kind whilst enabling integration of their delivery with other necessary development infrastructure.  In effect, these procedures provide a formal agreement between Stockland and Council for the delivery of the required infrastructure and community facilities which accords with the intent of the new legislation.  As such it is considered appropriate for Council to agree to the procedures outlined by Stockland for the delivery of Works-in-Kind on the Waterside Estate.

Conclusion

Council’s adopted procedures for Works-in-Kind were developed some time ago with specific applicability to the delivery of infrastructure in urban release areas under multiple ownership.  Waterside is owned and being delivered by a single developer, which greatly simplifies the coordination and delivery of infrastructure. 

 

The measures proposed by Stockland provide for the efficient, timely and cost effective delivery of Works-in-Kind and enable their integration with other infrastructure necessary for development of the site.

 

It is recommended that Council agree to the delivery of Works-in-Kind on the Waterside Estate in the manner outlined in this report.

 

This matter, however, highlights the need to review the current protocols for the delivery of Works-in-Kind to recognise the contemporary way that release areas are being managed and advanced and the recent amendments to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.  This will be the subject of a future report to Council when that review is completed. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Waterside Estate, corner of Cranebrook and Andrews Roads, Cranebrook - Request to Vary Works-in-Kind Procedures be received

2.     Stockland be advised that Council agrees to the delivery of Works-in-Kind in the manner outlined in this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Section 94 Works-in-Kind Procedures

1 Page

Appendix

 


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

Appendix 1 - Section 94 Works-in-Kind Procedures

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

6

Werrington Army Signals Land   

 

Compiled by:                Mark Broderick, Release Area Unit Coordinator

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager

Requested By:             Councillor David Bradbury

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 advise Council on a response received from the Commonwealth Government in regard to its decision to sell the Werrington Army Signals site.  The report recommends that the information be received and a further report be provided to Council following discussion with the Department of Planning and RailCorp concerning advancing the Local Environmental Plan for the land.

 

Background

The Commonwealth of Australia on 17 June 2004 registered a plan of subdivision direct with Land and Property Information NSW subdividing the 22 ha Werrington Signals site into 9 lots.  A copy of the plan of subdivision is attached. 

 

On 16 June 2005 Estate On Miller Pty Ltd purchased from the Commonwealth of Australia 7 of those lots, namely Lot 50 (8.099ha), Lot 51 (6265m2), Lot 54 (2689m2), Lot 55 (4.518ha), Lot 56 (2.467ha), Lot 57 (2.786 ha) and Lot 58 (2.75ha).  The Transfer indicates that the sale was in accordance with the Contract for Sale between the parties dated 23 May 2005.  Council does not possess a copy of the contract dated 23 May 2005.  However, the Notice of Sale information provided to Council from Land and Property Information NSW indicates a purchase price of $8.5 million for the above nominated lots.  The Legal Officer advises that in his view, the information contained on the Transfer is likely to be more accurate than the information in the Notice of Sale. 

 

On 28 October 2005 a number of the lots changed ownership:

·           Lot 57 was transferred to Werrington Estate Pty Ltd.  Lot 58 was transferred to French Street Estate Pty Ltd.  Council’s records do not indicate a purchase price for these transactions.  A preliminary search of company records seems, on the face of it, to indicate that these two companies are connected to the original purchase company, Estate On Miller Pty Ltd. 

·           Lots 50, 51 and 54 transferred to AIPT Management Pty Ltd.  The purchase price indicated on the transfer is $17 million.  A preliminary search of company records seems, on the face of it, to indicate that this company is a different company to the original purchase company.

 

Council’s records indicate Lots 52 and 53 remain in the ownership of the Department of Defence (DoD) and Defence Housing Authority, whilst Lots 55 and 56 remain in the ownership of Estate on Miller Pty Ltd.

 

Council at its meeting of 20 February 2006 resolved that ‘Council write to the Minister for Defence and Federal Member for Lindsay requesting an explanation of the status of the Werrington Signals site and expressing concern about: 

 

(a)   The Commonwealth decision to sell the site before a resolution to the outstanding planning issues; and

 

(b)   The lack of value the Commonwealth has realised in disposing of seven lots on this site.’

 

This report provides the response received from the Commonwealth Government in regard to the above request. 

 

Commonwealth Advice

 

Correspondence has been received from Senator the Hon Sandy MacDonald, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, in relation to Council’s request for further advice concerning the status of the Werrington Signals site and related decisions to sell the property. 

 

The advice, which is attached to this report, indicates that the Commonwealth Government put the property on the market after being unable to reach a resolution with RailCorp concerning the proposed railway station establishment and the resultant inability of the Department of Planning (DoP) to finalise the rezoning of the land.  Senator MacDonald confirms that the sale occurred through an open market tender process with the $8.5M tendered price being above the independent valuation received by the Department of Defence. 

 

Senator MacDonald also points out that the sale contract provided an opportunity for RailCorp to purchase 0.6 hectares of land (namely Lots 52 and 53) for the proposed railway station, which is intended to be utilised for a transport interchange and commuter carpark.  He noted that it is the Department of Defence’s intention to finalise this matter in this financial year. 

 

Conclusion

 

Council expressed its concern to DoD when we became aware of their proposal to sell the site and urged DoD not to dispose of the land and sought their commitment to continue in partnership to finalise planning for the site.  Despite the requests from Council, DoD for the reasons it has outlined, has moved forward with the sale of the Werrington Army Signals land, except at this stage for the two lots adjacent the rail line over which it is negotiating transfer to RailCorp. 

 

It is disappointing that DoD, who for a number of years worked collaboratively with Council in the planning for future development opportunities for the Werrington Army Signals site, took the view that it was not prepared to finalise those planning arrangements and decided to sell the land. 

 

Discussions with the new land owners indicate a willingness on their part to move forward in finalising the planning for the land to enable development opportunities to advance.  In order to facilitate this, we have made numerous representations to DoP with a view to resolving RailCorp’s current objection to the draft Local Environmental Plan so that it can proceed to gazettal.  DoP has recently advised of their preparedness to arrange a joint discussion with RailCorp and we will continue to pursue that opportunity.  The outcome from this meeting will be reported to Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

          1.      The information contained in the report on Werrington Army Signals Land be received.

          2.      A further report be provided to Council after the proposed meeting with the Department of Planning and RailCorp which focuses on advancing gazettal of the Local Environmental Plan for the Werrington Army Signals Land.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Werrington Army Signals Site

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Letter from Senator the Hon Sandy MacDonald

2 Pages

Appendix

 


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

Appendix 1 - Werrington Army Signals Site

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

Appendix 2 - Letter from Senator the Hon Sandy MacDonald

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

7

Development Application Proposed Multi Unit Housing at Lot 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood  Applicant:  Amflo Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Luvamo Pty Ltd   

DA05/1023

Compiled by:                Karen Kirk, Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Assessment Manager

Requested By:             Councillor Jackie Greenow

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 an application for multi unit housing at 76-78 Jones Street, Kingswood. The application is reported to Council on request and because of public interest. The report recommends that the application be approved.

 

Background

Council held a pre-lodgement meeting with the applicant in August 2004, where amongst other matters, the applicant was advised of the need to prepare a site masterplan in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan provisions, because the site at that time exceeded 3000m² in area.

 

The plans originally submitted to Council illustrated a site area of 3127m², and included road dedication works that once completed would reduce the site area to 2,990m². The applicant has since lodged a separate application for the subdivision and road dedication works, which was approved under delegated authority in December 2005.  As the site is now below 3000m² no masterplan for the site is required.

 

The proposed front setback was also discussed in some detail at pre-lodgement meetings. As the subject land was the last undeveloped property where a cul-de-sac head could be provided, it was agreed that if the applicant provided the land required for that purpose, some setback dispensation would be provided to buildings fronting the new property boundary.

The Site and Surrounds

The vacant site comprises two allotments totalling 2990m² in area, with a frontage of 32m and a length of 104.5m. The property is orientated in a west/east direction and slopes gently down towards the eastern boundary located at the rear of the site. Two mature eucalypt trees exist adjoining the southern boundary of site and are to be retained as part of the development proposal.

 

The surrounding residential locality to the north, east and west is currently undergoing a transition from low-density detached dwellings to medium density residential developments, consistent with the zone.

 

The southern boundary of the site is the interface between the Residential 2(d) (Medium Density) and Residential 2(b) (Low Density) zones. Six single dwellings, which front Calgaroo Crescent, adjoin the site’s southern boundary. The land to the north east of the site fronting the corner of Edward Street is currently vacant. A number of dual occupancy and multi unit housing developments have been approved in Jones Street over the past five years including a townhouse development opposite the site. Single detached dwellings front Edwards Street to the east of the site and properties to the north have frontages to both Jones Street and Edward Street or have been subdivided with separate lots fronting each street.

 

 The site is approximately 1km south of Kingswood shops and railway station, and 1km walking distance to the University of Western Sydney (refer to locality map appended).

Proposal

This application seeks approval for the erection of 15 two-storey townhouses with basement car parking. Each proposed townhouse is to consist of a ground floor kitchen and living area, with three bedrooms located on the first floor. Private courtyards are to be provided to each unit at ground level, with first floor balconies being located off Bedroom No.1 in each unit. The 15 townhouses would be constructed in four separate building blocks, each surrounded by areas of landscaped private and common open space. Proposed setbacks to side and rear boundaries are generous, with 9.5m provided to the southern boundary, 7.0m to the northern boundary and 6.0m to the rear boundary. The front setback ranges from 3.0m to 6.5m and will adjoin the newly created cul-de-sac head to Jones Street.

 

The construction materials to be used are rendered brick and face brick, colorbond sheet roofing, aluminium windows/doors and frosted glass balustrades. Boundary fencing is to consist of 1.8m high colorbond. The proposed basement car park is to provide 35 car park spaces, inclusive of five visitor car park spaces. Wheelchair stair lifts are proposed from the basement carpark to provide for accessibility to ground level. Vehicular access to the basement carpark is via a 6.0m wide two-way driveway that provides an intercom service at the entry / exit point. The site is to be drained to the rear, where the adjoining owners have consented to a proposed easement, to enable drainage to Edward Street to the east. On site detention of stormwater is required and is proposed via two detention tanks in central common courtyards.

 

The application was accompanied by the following supporting documentation:

·    Statement of Environmental Effects;

·    Architectural Plans;

·    Landscape Plans;

·    Drainage Plans;

·    NATHERS Energy Efficiency Certification;

·    Survey Plans.

 

Plans of the development and a locality plan are included as appendices to this report.

Planning Assessment

The application has been assessed against relevant heads of consideration pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act) and the following key issues have emerged:

 

1.       Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (SREP 20)

 

The provisions of SREP 20 apply to the property as it falls within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment. SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. The site is located within an established urban area and is not within a scenic corridor of the river. It is considered that the proposal would not compromise the water or scenic qualities of the river environment subject to appropriate conditions for stormwater and is therefore consistent with the strategies of SREP 20.

 

Penrith Local Environmental 1998 Urban Lands (LEP)

 

The land is zoned 2 (d) Residential (Medium Density) under the provisions of the LEP with the proposed development being permissible with Council consent. Clause 9 of the LEP states that Council must not grant consent to this development unless it is consistent with the aims of the plan and objectives of the zone. The relevant aims of the plan are:

 

“a)    Housing Need

i) to encourage and guide private sector development in order to satisfy a wide range of  recognised local demands for housing, and

ii) to satisfy city-wide housing needs by promoting housing choice within each neighbourhood through a variety of housing types, and

iii) to provide for visitor accommodation

 

b)      Density

          i) to enable the development of land for residential purposes, and

ii) to make a reasonable contribution to State Government objectives for urban consolidation with the metropolitan region, and

iii) to locate higher densities of development either in proximity to established networks of urban services, or in areas which may be serviced readily, particularly by public transport, shopping centres, educational facilities, community and childcare facilities, water, sewerage and drainage, and

iv) to determine residential densities that are compatible with the environmental character of established urban areas, and

          v) to ensure that future development reflects the desired character as well as achieving

strategic consolidation objectives

 

c)       Residential Character

i) to promote the community’s desired character by ensuring that future development in all residential localities reflects features or qualities of traditional detached houses that are surrounded by private gardens, and

          ii) to enhance the essential character and identity of established residential areas, and

iii) to protect items of environmental value, particularly mature vegetation and significant watercourses, significant buildings and gardens, or scenic landscape and views, and

iv) to encourage development that will ensure that a variety of housing forms address the street frontage and open spaces and that multiple dwellings within each site address each other, where possible

 

d)      Residential Amenity

          i) to promote development which safeguards the residential amenity of the area;

ii)  to provide for high levels of residential amenity, particularly acoustic and visual privacy, accessibility to services, climatic comfort of the indoor environment, and safety and security

iii) to ensure that development makes a reasonable contribution to provision of the  relevant community facilities.”

 

The objectives of the zone are;

 

“(i)     to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation value, and;

(ii)     to protect the character of traditional cottage development and streetscapes, and;

(iii)    to consolidate population and housing densities, and;

(iv)    to expand housing choices by allowing multi unit housing up to a two storey appearance, and;

(v)     to promote a variety of housing types or forms upon each site, and

(vi)    to allow a range of compatible non-residential uses.”

 

The consistency of the proposal with the plan and zone objectives are discussed later in this section of the report.

 

The following table summarises the proposals compliance with the relevant numerical standards of the LEP for Multi Unit Housing:

 

Criteria

LEP Requirement

The Proposal

Complies

Site Area

800m²

2990m²

Yes

Building Envelope

45º at 1.8m above boundary

All buildings are within the height plane.

Yes

External Wall Height

6.5m

External wall height ranges between 3.8-6.5m

Yes

Landscape Area

(min)

40%

53.3%

Yes

Rear Setback

(min)

6.0m

6.0m

Yes

Lot Width

(min)

18.0m

31.2m at front

29.0m at rear

Yes

Solar Access

3 hours direct sun to the windows of the living areas and neighbouring living areas.

Both the proposed living area and neighbouring living areas achieve in excess of 3 hours direct sun.

Yes

Clause 14 of the LEP

Clause 14 of LEP 1998 requires that Council must not consent to development unless it takes into consideration the following design principles;

 

“a)    reinforcement and protection of local topography and setting,

b)      reflection of the forms, features or qualities of traditional residential neighbourhoods across Penrith local government area,

c)       consistency or compatibility with the scale, design and amenity of neighbouring development,

d)      contribution to attractive streetscapes through the diversity of building forms and landscaped areas that can be seen from any public place nearby,

e)       provision for contemporary standards of amenity within each dwelling and associated private open space,

f)       preservation and enhancement of any significant vista that currently might be available from a nearby public place.”

 

Whilst the previous table demonstrates the proposal complies with the applicable development standards, consistency with the above-mentioned plan and zone objectives and design principles, warrants an analysis of the urban design merits of the proposal. State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development is not directly applicable to this proposal (being less than three-storeys), however it provides an established framework of design principles to assess the urban design merit of new proposals against. The relevant principles are discussed below for this purpose:

 

Context

The Jones Street locality consists of a mix of residential developments. The site is positioned in a setting that is within close proximity to shops, the Kingswood Railway Station and the University of Western Sydney. These locality attributes are advantageous when consolidating housing densities and expanding housing choice. This is already being experienced in the area as it undergoes change and redevelopment, indicative of the zoning provisions.

 

Scale

The proposed multi unit housing development is compatible with the predominant building footprints and envelopes of existing townhouse development in the immediate locality. The proposed two storey townhouses are consistent in height with existing townhouse developments within Jones Street. The bulk and scale of the development is controlled by the building form being separated into four ‘blocks’, divided by areas of both private and common courtyards which provide generous setbacks to side and rear boundaries. This achieves a built form well within the prescribed building envelope. 

 

Built form

Many different types of housing exist in Jones Street including single dwellings, dual occupancies and multi unit housing, however most have more traditional pitched roof form. For this reason, Council required amended plans during the assessment period that provided a more traditional form, reflective of older cottages in the area as encouraged by the LEP and DCP. This modification to the design incorporates this aspect of established residential character that is present within Jones Street and the locality. Whilst the proposed multi unit housing development is modern in design, it would integrate well with the traditional development forms that exist within the streetscape. The proposal’s inclusion of basement car parking allows further area within the site to be used for residential dwellings and landscaping purposes. The additional landscaping also enables good separation between neighbouring allotments where units are orientated towards side boundaries. Where units adjoin the street frontage their entries and ground floor living areas address the street.

 

Density

The 2(b) zoned properties adjoining on the southern boundary contain six, 14-16m wide, buildings on six separate allotments. Most separation distances between these adjoining detached dwellings are around 2m. Between 5-7m is proposed to separate the four building blocks forming this multi unit housing development, which provide good separation and enables a gap in the built form.  The type of development patterns for the subject land (building footprint) is considered to be compatible with the building character to the south.

 

The following table summarises the various types of multi unit housing the exists within Jones Street.

 

Site

Type of Development Approved

Site Area

Site Area per Dwelling

Building Footprint Area

Site Coverage

76-78 Jones Street (proposal)

15 x 2 Storey Townhouses

2990m²

199m²

1105m²

37%

71 Jones Street

5 x 2 Storey Townhouses

1357m²

 

271m²

508m²

37%

67 Jones Street

5 x 2 Storey Townhouses

1471m²

294m²

561m²

38%

59 Jones Street

5 x 2 Storey Townhouses

1361m²

272m²

432m²

32%

41 Jones Street

2 x Villas & 2 x 2 Storey Townhouses 

1348m²

337m²

471m²

35%

 

Note:   1.   Building footprint area includes ground floor built form and garages.

             2. An aerial photograph is attached in the appendices of this report that illustrates the density of              development within the Jones Street locality.

 

This table demonstrates that whilst the proposal achieves a higher site area/dwelling yield, its site coverage (building footprint/site area) is directly comparable to that of existing multi unit housing developments in Jones Street.

 

The proposed multi unit housing development is compliant with the numerical requirements of the LEP and objectives of the zone, which permit multi unit housing developments that are controlled by building envelope and minimum landscape requirements, not floor space ratios. The site coverage of the proposal is consistent with existing residential re-development within the immediate locality. The higher dwelling yield of this proposal is achieved by the inclusion of basement car parking, as ground floor area is not allocated to garages or driveways. This not only enables greater areas to be used for landscaping, but also alleviates amenity issues associated with driveway access, which might otherwise be along a side boundary.

2.       Relevant Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

Draft LEP 1998 Amendment 17 applies to the site with relevant amended provisions relating to plan objectives, servicing of the site and environmental performance. The proposal is well located for the provision of utility infrastructure and is subject to Sydney Water and Integral Energy requirements to meet the cost of ant upgrade of service provision required. An energy efficient design has been achieved through the orientation of buildings, living areas and provision of shading devices.  The proposal therefore complies with these relevant provisions as proposed to be amended under the Draft LEP.

3.       Development Control Plan and Considerations

Penrith Development Control Plan 2000 Residential Land –Volume 4 – Two-Storey Townhouse Development (DCP)

 

The table below summarises the requirements of the DCP.

 

Standard

DCP requirements

Proposed

Compliance

Front setback

To match existing adjoining developments or 5.5m minimum

Varies from 3.0m to 6.5m

Variation sought.

(see following discussion)

Landscaped Area

40% minimum of total area (1196m²)

53% (1595m²)

Yes

Building Envelope

2m side setback &

Roof to be < 25˚

External wall height between 3.8-6.5m

Yes

Solar planning

4 hours minimum

Yes

Yes

Building length

Maximum 20m in length

All four building forms measures less than 20m in length.

Yes

Common Open Space

Minimum 10% of landscaped area

(119m²)

189m² common open space area provided.

Yes

Private open space (p.o.s)

Minimum 25m², including one area measuring 5mx4m for outdoor dining

Each unit provides p.o.s in excess of 25m², and 11 units provide a 5mx4m area for outdoor dining.

Yes

Parking

 Requires 33  spaces

(30 + 3 visitor)

2 spaces/3 bed unit = 30

1 visitor space/ 5 units = 3

35 car park spaces proposed

(30 + 5 visitor)

Yes

Accessible & Adaptable Units

Dwellings must be capable of adaption

Units 1 & 3 can provide ground floor bedrooms and are accessible via the basement carpark by a stair lift.

Yes

(subject to Special Condition 2.2)

 

3.1     Front Setback

 

The DCP requires a minimum front setback of 5.5m or the average of adjoining properties, which ever is the greater. In this case, the adjoining property to the north (72 Jones Street) is setback 5.5m, and opposite the site (71 Jones Street) provides a front setback ranging between 5-6m. Adjoining properties to the south are orientated to Calgaroo Crescent and hence adjoin the site by a rear boundary with solid 1.8m high fences. Due to the site adjoining a number of rear boundaries on the southern elevation, an average front setback of adjoining properties cannot be determined, and therefore the front setback for 76-78 Jones Street as required by the DCP is 5.5m.

 

Council approved an area of land at the front of the site measuring 137m² to be dedicated for road works that will enable a cul-de-sac to be provided at the end of Jones Street. Land dedication reduces the land to be used as a front setback. The proposed front setback measures 6.5m when closest to the northern boundary and reduces to 3.0m when closest to the southern boundary where land has been dedicated to Council.

 

Variation to the front setback was considered during pre-lodgement meetings, and a concession offered due to the differing front setbacks that exist within the present streetscape and the cul-de-sac road dedication. The variation is unlikely to impact upon the character of the street as the proposed minimum setback would remain consistent with building lines to the north, and the other properties at the end of the cul-de-sac have their rear boundaries to Jones Street. The variation is considered to be worthy of support.

 

3.2     Urban Form and Building Design

 

The building design orientates dwellings at the street frontage towards the street, incorporating traditional-styled roof pitching and uses a mix of brick and rendering finishes. Whilst the incorporation of balconies provides interesting building design and provides additional shading this is outweighed by privacy concerns of adjoining residents and it is recommended as a condition of consent that these be deleted (see Special Condition 2.3). Matters concerning bulk, scale, density and design are addressed earlier under the discussion about “Clause 14 of the LEP”.

 

3.3     Privacy

 

Under the development proposal, dwellings at 5-11 Calgaroo Crescent would be separated from the proposed building form by distances ranging from 15-20m, including the back yards of those dwellings. The separation distance from the proposed building form to the southern boundary ranges from 9-10m and is well in excess of the 2.0m (minimum side setback requirement) outlined in the DCP.

 

3.4     Overshadowing

 

The application was accompanied by a shadow diagram, which indicates that there will be some overshadowing to areas of private open space of adjoining properties located on the southern boundary. Between the hours of 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice, adjoining properties along the southern boundary will receive 3hrs of sunlight to 40% of each area of private open space, as required by the DCP. For the majority of properties, five hours of sunlight to 60% of private open spaces is achieved, well in excess of the DCP requirement.

 

Proposed shadows from the multi unit housing development do not extend to any of the dwellings along this boundary and therefore solar access to living zones within existing dwellings are not affected. Solar access to the proposed living areas and private open spaces within the multi unit housing development comply with the requirements of LEP 1998 and the DCP, as does solar access to both the proposed living areas and private open spaces of adjoining allotments.

 

3.5     Common Open Space

 

The DCP requires a development that proposes over 10 units to provide a common open space (COS) area located centrally on the site. This development provides for 15 units and hence proposes 189m² of COS located between units 7 and 8.  The COS is accessible from all units via a pedestrian access path located adjoining the southern boundary.

 

Lighting in the COS area would be used when required by future residents, and its regulation would not differ from how existing residential lighting is utilised and policed. A standard condition is recommended to ensure that there are no unreasonable impacts from lighting of common areas or pathways in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard (Standard Condition A038).

 

3.6     Private Open Space

 

The DCP requires a minimum of 25m² for ground floor private open space that includes a 5m x 4m area suitable for outdoor dining which is provided for all units.

 

3.7     Safety and security

 

Security of the site is enhanced by an intercom at the entrance to the basement carpark and pedestrian access to the site via the pathway located closest to the southern boundary being restricted by an access gate. In addition, all fences are to be 1.8m in height and of colorbond finish. The orientation of dwellings at the street frontage provides for good passive surveillance of pedestrian and vehicular access points.

 

3.8     Waste Management

 

A waste and recycling bin storage area is proposed at the Jones Street frontage adjoining the northern boundary. It is of masonry construction with lightweight timber roofing and setback from the front boundary to provide for landscape screening. The storage area has been designed to complement the design of the dwellings.

4.       The Likely Impacts of the Development

The proposed multi unit housing development is unlikely to impact upon the existing amenity of surrounding properties in a negative manner due to the design of the development. Separating the built form into four different building blocks with generous side and rear boundary setbacks enables a significant area of the site to be reserved for deep soil planting (i.e. an area of 1117m², 37% of the site area). This provides for substantial landscape corridors along the eastern, western and southern boundaries which will retain privacy between properties.

 

The occupation of 15 additional dwellings on the site will result in an increase to the number of vehicles that currently use Jones Street. Satisfactory basement car parking has been proposed, however submissions have raised concern that the basement carparking will result in increased air pollution within the immediate area. A mechanical ventilation system has been proposed to ventilate the basement. Mechanical ventilation equipment, ducts, air conditioner services and the like are required to be contained within the building (see Standard Condition H029). This will need to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

It should be noted that the provision of a basement carpark allows a greater area of the site to be used for open landscaping purposes, garages and driveways at ground level often result in substantial hard surface areas covering the site and minimise the area available for landscaped separation between allotments and introduce vehicle movements adjoining the backyards of neighbouring properties.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and is satisfied with the number of vehicles expected to utilise the street and the site. Based on RTA guidelines the proposal could be expected to generate 10 peak hour vehicle movements, which equates to a vehicle movement every 6 minutes during the peak hour (generally 8-9am and 5-6pm). Jones Street has more than adequate capacity to accommodate the additional movements without a noticeable impact on the existing amenity of the area.

5.       The Suitability of the Site for the Development

The site is located within an established residential area, that is not bushfire prone land and flood affectations. The site is vacant and the applicant proposes to retain the two existing eucalypt trees that are on the site, therefore tree removal is not required for the development to proceed. The site is able to satisfactorily drain water through the installation of an onsite detention system and will not have a detrimental impact on overland flow paths. An agreement with the owner of 16 Edward Street is in place in relation to the provision of an easement at the rear of the site to provide for drainage which is required to be registered prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The site provides an accessible path of travel and is slightly affected by gradient, which in turn provides relief with varied building heights when viewed from surrounding properties.

 

The 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zoning of the site permits two storey townhouse developments with Council’s consent, and has done so since 1999. The zoning, size and characteristics of the consolidated site encourage multi unit housing development, which in this case provides interesting and varied built forms within the streetscape whilst being compatible with existing residential development and achieving urban consolidation objectives.

6.       Any Submissions made in relation to the Development

Referrals

 

No external agencies were required to be consulted. The application was referred to Council’s relevant officers and their comments have formed part of the assessment as follows:

 

Referral Body

Comments Received

Building Surveyor

No objection, subject to standard conditions

Development Engineer

No objection, subject to standard conditions

Community Consultation

In accordance with Council’s Notification and Advertising DCP the application was advertised and notified from 6 July 2005 to 20 July 2005. Council notified 61 residences in the immediate area and received 22 submissions in total, including one petition with 48 signatures in response raising the following issues:

 

·    Has the zoning changed to permit two storey townhouse developments?

·    Multi unit housing should consist of single storey dwellings;

·    The proposal is not in keeping with the area;

·    The proposal will result in increased traffic and noise in Jones Street;

·    Fumes from the basement car park will affect neighbouring properties;

·    Does the site have secure access?

·    Will new fencing be erected on the site?

·    Privacy and solar access concerns;

·    At what times common areas be lit?

·    Proposal will devalue adjoining properties

 

Matters raised in submissions are addressed in the assessment section of this report.

 

In response to the extent of original submissions and modifications subsequently required by Council the amended application was neighbour notified to residents a second time from 28/03/06 to 11/04/06. The plans notified to residents illustrated the amended roof form; displaying traditional-styled roof pitching. No submissions were received in response to the re-notification of the application.

7.       The Public Interest

The existing amenity of adjoining and nearby properties would be maintained by the proposed development as it represents a reasonable intensification of the site. It is in a locality that is capable of achieving urban consolidation objectives and is a suitable, consolidated site. In relation to the proposal devaluing existing properties within the locality, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that this is the case. Given the suitability of the site and the benefits of the proposal to the wider community in terms of providing a variety of housing types and forms, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions

The application attracts contributions for facilities and services in accordance with Section 94. of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as summarised by the following table:

 

CALCULATION

 

Proposal/ category eg, Multiunit

Multi Unit Housing

 

No. of units

x

Rate

-

Credit for existing dwelling / lots

Total

15

x

2.4

-

6 (2 x 3)

30

AMOUNT

 

S.94 Contribution Plan

Contribution Rate x Calculation rate

Total

Footpath

$67.00 x 30

$  2010.00

Open Space

$716.00 x 30

$21480.00

Cultural

$89.00 x 30

$  2670.00

Library facilities

$243.00 x 30

$  7290.00

Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre

$113.00 x 30

$   3390.00

 

NET TOTAL

$36840.00

Special Conditions

Matter requiring special condition

Condition

Deletion of first floor balconies on the southern elevation

Amended plans are to be received and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate that illustrate the deletion of the first floor balconies on the southern elevation.

Accessibility to adaptable dwellings

Units 1 & 3 are to be accessible via provision for an internal stair lift and/or an accessible path of travel from the common pedestrian path in accordance with AS1428. Details are to be provided for consideration and approval prior to the issue of Construction Certificate.

Conclusion

The proposal is permissible with Council’s consent, and complies with the relevant LEP and DCP requirements. It is consistent with the objectives of the zone particularly to consolidate population and housing densities, and to expand housing choices. The design has been amended to present a more traditional form compatible with the existing residential character of the area. It provides traditional orientation of street frontage dwellings towards the street with all building footprints and envelopes of a scale and configuration compatible with existing adjoining development. No unreasonable environmental impacts are envisaged subject to the recommended conditions of consent and the proposal is therefore in the public interest.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application Proposed Multi Unit Housing at Lot 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood be received.

2.     Development Application Proposed Multi Unit Housing at Lot 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

 

2.1  A001 – Approved Plans

       A011 – Engineering Works DCP

       A014 ­- Lot Consolidation (request prior to CC/registration prior to OC)

       A038 - Lighting of common areas

       D001 – Sediment & Erosion control Measures

       D002 – Spraygrass

       D009 – Covering of waste storage area

       D010 – Appropriate disposal of excavated waste

       E01A – BCA Compliance

       E006 – Accessibility

       E008 – Fire Safety List

       E009 – Annual Fire Safety

       G002 – Section 73

       G004 – Integral Energy

       H001 – Stamped Plans & Erection of Site Notice

       H002 – All forms of Construction

       H003 – Traffic Management

       H026 -  Insulation for Multi Unit Housing

       H028 -  Hot water system

       H029 -  Mechanical ventilation

       H041 – Hours of Work

       I003 – Roads Act Approval (1)

       I004 – Roads Act Approval (2)

       K001 – Engineering Works DCP

       K002 – WAE drawings and certificates

       K003 – Drainage Design

       K004 – Easement Creation

       K009 – On Site Detention

       K025 – Pavement Seal

       K027 – Carparking

       K036 – Maintenance Bond

       K037 – Performance Bond

       L001 – General Landscaping

       L002 – Landscape Construction

       L003 – Landscape Report

       L008 – Tree Preservation Order

       N001 – S.94 Footpath $2010.00

       N002 – S.94 Open Space $21480.00

       N003 – S.94 Cultural $2670.00

       N004 – S.94 Library facilities $7290.00

       N005 – S.94 Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre $3390.00

       P001 – Applicants Cost

       P002 – Councils Fees

       Q001 – Notice of Commencement

       Q006 – Occupation Certificate

 

Special Condition

 

2.2  Units 1 & 3 are to be accessible via provision for an internal stair lift and/or an accessible path of travel from the common pedestrian path in accordance with AS1428. Details are to be provided for consideration and approval prior to the issue of Construction Certificate

 

2.3  Amended plans are to be received and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate that illustrate the deletion of the first floor balconies on the southern elevation

 

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

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

DA05/1023 : 76-78 Jones Street, Kingswood

4 Pages

Appendix

 


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

Appendix 1 - DA05/1023 : 76-78 Jones Street, Kingswood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


The City In Its Environment

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

8        Street Litterbin Waste Collection and Disposal Service Tender                                            53

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

8

Street Litterbin Waste Collection and Disposal Service Tender   

 

Compiled by:                Geoff Brown, Waste Services Supervisor

Authorised by:             Barry Ryan, Waste and Community Protection Manager 

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Waste to landfill and indiscriminate dumping are significantly reduced and resource recovery is optimised.

Critical Action: Develop and implement service systems to complement waste reduction strategies and satisfy community needs.

  

Previous Items:            Waste Collection Contracts - Ordinary Meeting - 21 November 2005 

Current References:   Street Litterbin Tenderers Financial Report

Purpose:

To advise Council of the outcome of the tender process for the proposed Street Litterbin Waste Collection and Disposal Service Contract. The report recommends that Remondis be offered the contract to provide street litterbin waste collection services for a period of 15 months.

 

Background

The current Street Litterbin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract expires on 30 June 2006.  It was intended that this contract be extended to expire at the same time as the domestic waste and recycling service contracts (6 October 2007) in order to present the entire waste collection services for tender at the same time.  Our current contractor – Usshers agreed to a 15 month extension to allow the contract to expire on 6 October 2007, subject to a service price of $2.50 per bin per night.  This represented a 130% increase on their current service price and subsequently this increase could not be justified without calling for tenders.

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 21 November 2005, Council resolved that the Waste & Community Protection Manager be authorised to call tenders for the Street Litterbin Waste Collection and Disposal Service.

 

Current Situation

 

Tenders were advertised in March 2006 and closed on 18 April 2006.  A pre-tender briefing was held on 4 April 2006.  The purpose of the meeting was to brief prospective tenderers on important aspects of the tender, to clarify any aspects of the tender documentation and to respond to their queries.  


 

The tender provided for optional terms of 15 months and 11 years.  The shorter term would allow for an interim contractor to perform the service up until the expiry of our current domestic waste contracts.  The longer term allows for an expiry date to coincide with that of our domestic waste contracts, which will be advertised this year for contracts with a 10 year term.

 

The contract is a schedule of rates per service contract. 

 

The tender requires contractors to collect each of the 462 street litterbins that are located throughout the Penrith Local Government Area every night of the year.  The material collected is to be transported to a treatment or disposal facility at the cost of the contractor. Tenderers were permitted to lodge an alternative proposal provided they had firstly lodged a conforming tender.

 

In addition to service rates (price per bin per night), Tenderers were required to ensure that they addressed the following criteria, upon which their tenders were evaluated. 

 

·    Details of current and previous relevant experience

·    Referees responses (if called for)

·    Staff resources

·    Vehicles, plant and equipment

·    Occupational Health and Safety

·    Proposed methods of service delivery

·    Environmental management and performance proposals, including the diversion of waste from landfill through methods such as recycling, reuse and alternative waste treatment

·    Facilities

·    Sub-contractors (if any)

·    Management skills

·    Current and future workload

·    Coverage of tender requirements

·    Financial capacity

·    Community customer service experience and capacity

 

Tenderers were advised that Council endorsed the State Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2003 and would give preference to tenders where street litterbin waste is processed for recycling or reuse in lieu of landfilling.

 

In an effort to ensure that collection services are performed to a satisfactory level, the Street Litterbin Collection and Disposal Contract has been structured to provide for performance criteria and evaluation.  The performance criteria addresses issues such as the objectives of the contract, terms of the contract, the approved quality plan, occupational health and safety management system, quiet workplace strategy, customer complaints, and service performance. 

 

Council officers, as part of the monitoring program, will also be conducting audits of the street litterbins during the term of the contract.  These audits will be used in conjunction with the performance assessment.  An annual $10,000 performance incentive payment is provided should the contractor meet or exceed the necessary performance standards of the contract.

 

Tender Assessment

 

Seven tenders were received, all of which complied with the tender requirements.  These tenders were assessed against the criteria outlined above and their ability to perform the required services under this contract.

 

The tender evaluation panel comprised Barry Ryan - Waste & Community Protection Manager, Geoff Brown – Waste Services Co-ordinator and David Thorpe – Financial Accountant – Entities.  The tender process was overviewed by Stephen Britten, Council’s Legal Officer.

 

The following tender prices were received:

 

Contractor

15 Month Term Price Per Bin

11 Year Term Price Per Bin

Fretus Waste

$1.1188  (processing at UR-3R)

$1.2287  (UR-3R)

$0.899  (kerbside sort)

$1.009  (kerbside sort)

Remondis

$1.762  (processing at UR-3R)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for processing)

$1.762  (UR-3R)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for processing)

$1.759  (processing at Galloway MRF)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for processing)

$1.759  (Galloway MRF)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for processing)

$1.715  (landfill-Kemps Creek)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for disposal)

$1.715  (landfill-Kemps Creek)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for disposal)

$1.734  (landfill-Eastern Creek)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for disposal)

$1.734  (landfill-Eastern Creek)
$1.486  (alternate proposal –Council pays for disposal)

Watts Waste

$1.99  (processing at UR-3R)

$1.99  (processing at UR-3R)

Collex

$2.22  (processing at Woodlawn Bio-reactor)

$2.22  (processing at Woodlawn Bio-reactor)

WSN

$2.46  (processing at UR-3R)

No Tender

Sita

$3.37  (processing at UR-3R)

$3.37  (processing at UR-3R)

Grundys

$5.26  (processing at UR-3R)

$2.13  (processing at UR-3R)

 

Remondis provided both a conforming and an alternative proposal, as detailed above, allowing for Council to be responsible for all disposal costs.  This reduces the annual contract sum from between $38,616 to $46,541 depending on which of the four options is being considered.  Should Council agree to one of the alternative proposals, Council would be required to pay for processing/disposal costs.

 

The Galloway MRF tender option submitted by Remondis provides for a waste processing component of $45,867 per annum.  Should Council take responsibility for processing costs, it is anticipated that this may cost approximately $24,700 per annum (770kg of waste collected per night, as identified in the audit report attached to the tender documents), based on disposal at the Galloway MRF.  This is $21,167 less than Remondis’s proposed processing costs at this facility.

 

In their calculations for processing/disposal costs, Remondis included growth for CPI and the Environment Levy, averaged over an 11-year period. Thereby loading the processing/disposal cost in the shorter term. It is therefore attractive for Council to pay for processing costs in this situation (15 month contract).

 

In considering the tenders, the evaluation panel concluded that there was no significant advantage in accepting an 11-year term.  This report will recommend the preferred contractor be awarded a 15-month contract.  A further report would be submitted to Council in the near future, which will recommend that Council call tenders for this contract in conjunction with the domestic waste tenders for a 10 year term (from 7 October 2007 – 30 June 2017).

 

An examination of the tenders offered by the other companies indicated that there was no additional service advantage being offered to Council above the two lowest tenderers, being Fretus Waste and Remondis.

 

The following table provides the annual contract sum for both Fretus and Remondis and also includes a breakdown of Remondis’s alternate proposal.

 

Contractor

Annual Contract Sum
(15 Month Term Tender)

Including tipping costs

Annual Contract Sum (Excluding Tipping)
alternate proposal –collection only

Estimated annual Disposal cost

Note: Council pays actual disposal cost

Estimated total Cost

 

Fretus Waste Tender

$188,663 (Disposal at UR-3R)

N/A

N/A

$188,663

$151,598 (kerbside sort)

N/A

N/A

$151,598

Remondis Tender

$297,126 (Disposal at UR-3R)

 

 

$297,126

$296,620 (Disposal at Galloway MRF)

 

 

$296,620

$289,200 (Disposal at landfill-Kemps Creek)

 

 

$289,200

$292,404 (Disposal at landfill-Eastern Creek)

 

 

$292,404

Remondis Alternate proposal

N/A

$250,584

$30,350 (Disposal at UR-3R)

$280,934

Remondis Alternate proposal

N/A

$250,584

$24,700  (Disposal at Galloway MRF)

$274,700

Remondis Alternate proposal

N/A

$250,584

$18,268 (Disposal at landfill-Kemps Creek*)

$268,852

Remondis Alternate proposal

N/A

$250,584

$27,121 (Disposal at landfill-Eastern Creek)

$277,705

 

Tenderers were advised that Council endorsed the State Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2003 and would give preference to tenders where street litterbin waste is processed for recycling or reuse in lieu of landfilling.

 

The Kemps Creek landfills are non-putrescible tips and would not be suitable for the disposal of street litterbin waste.

 

 The landfilling options provided by Remondis are not seen as a viable alternative.

 

Fretus Waste

 

Fretus Waste submitted tenders for both the 15-month and 11 year terms. 

 

a.   Vehicles, Plant and Equipment

 

UR-3R proposal - offer to provide one new Isuzu 300-400 cab chassis with Garwood Bantam six cubic metre body and one second-hand vehicle (one as a spare) for the 11 year term;  and two second-hand vehicles (one as a spare) for the 15 month term. 

 

Kerbside sort – offer to provide one new Isuzu 300-400 cab chassis with Garwood Bantam six cubic metre body and one second-hand vehicle (one as a spare) for the 11 year term;  and two second-hand vehicles (one as a spare) for the 15 month term.  In addition, a specialised trailer will be provided for the purpose of collecting sorted street litterbin waste into different streams for further processing; i.e., organics waste, containers and cardboard and paper. The company does not have any existing vehicles.  All vehicles will need to be purchased.

 

Whilst the kerbside sort process may achieve higher waste recovery levels, concern is raised with respect to occupational health and safety, the potential noise problems caused by the kerbside sorting process, and the ability to perform the service, given the time restraints of the night-time operation requirement.  The kerbside sort process is not seen as a viable option.

 

b.   Depot

 

The tender identified that vehicles would be housed at 5 Hornsby Street, Hornsby.  No other information was provided in the tender with respect to housing and maintaining the vehicles. 

 

The tenderer was interviewed at Council with respect to the depot and wash down facilities.  Council officers were informed that Fretus Waste was considering other options for use as a depot and may look for a facility closer to the Penrith LGA.  Separate wash down facilities would need to be hired or purchased.

 

c.   Staff

 

The tender identified that two staff would perform the delivery of the service.  These staff would be one driver and one off-sider. 

 

The tenderer was interviewed at Council with respect to the number of staff to perform this service and were advised that one of the company directors would be the primary person who would perform the delivery of this service with the other director acting as relief.  No other staff were identified to relieve in respect of illness or leave of either person.

 

d.   Environmental Management

 

The tenderer has provided a basic policy on environmental management.  The tender in relation to waste avoidance and resource recovery has addressed two methods of service delivery in order to achieve outcomes expected by Council. These are to collect and deliver the waste from litterbins in a mixed form to the UR-3R facility at Eastern Creek for processing and treatment to recover recyclables and for the generation of energy from the organics and remaining waste. 

 

The other process is to provide a special trailer, which would be towed by the garbage truck where litterbin waste would be sorted into waste categories such as organics, recyclables and other waste.  The different streams of material would be delivered to facilities such as the Earthpower and Visy Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for further processing.

 

e.   Experience and Capacity to Perform the Service

 

Fretus Waste was incorporated in the last month.  At this point, they do not have any plant or equipment for the performance of this service and if successful with their tender would need to make substantial purchases for the necessary resources. The company is not currently conducting a waste collection operation. 

 

Fretus Waste has no current experience in the collection of waste from street litterbins and hold no other current contracts.  They have, however, had past experience in domestic waste collections for Ku-Ring-Gai Council. 

 

The depot is a considerable distance from the Penrith LGA and this could be of concern for service delivery should issues like missed services arise.  It would be necessary to return in daytime hours to perform missed services.

 

Remondis

 

a.   Vehicles, Plant and Equipment

 

Offer to provide two second-hand vehicles – Volvo and Isuzu (one as a spare) with 15 and 12 cubic metre bodies for the 15 month term.  Both these vehicles are currently available for service commencement.  For the 11 year term, offer to provide one new Isuzu with 13 cubic metre body and will source a second-hand compactor as a back up from their extensive commercial fleet.

 

The tenderer also included the provision of GPS, two-way radios and mobile phones for the purpose of occupational health and safety, and for identifying the truck route and collection points.

 

b.   Depot

 

The depot is located at 32 Christie Street, St Marys.  This is a major facility currently housing and servicing an extensive fleet of vehicles for commercial garbage operations, two domestic waste contracts, and a commercial and domestic liquid waste operation. The depot is provided with mechanical repair facilities, including mobile repair facilities, wash down and cleaning facilities and a customer service facility.

 

c.   Staff

 

Two staff would be utilised to perform this service on a rotating shift;  i.e., four and three day rotation.  Remondis also has access to an extensive number of permanent and back-up staff for support to this service.

 

Remondis’s depot is conveniently located in the Penrith LGA for the purpose of attending to missed services and other complaints, when required. Remondis has an existing customer service centre to deal with customer service issues, such as missed services, etc.

 

d.   Environmental Management

 

Remondis has advised it is committed to protect both the natural and human environment by developing effective solutions to environmental issues that may arise through its operations and business activities.  Remondis’s business management system encompasses three aspects, which include environmental management, quality assurance and occupational health and safety. 

 

Remondis identified in their tender four-service delivery options, which included two resource recovery proposals and two landfill proposals.  The resource recovery options were for the delivery of the litterbin waste to either the UR-3R facility at Eastern Creek or the Galloway MRF at Seven Hills.  UR-3R removes the recyclable content of the waste and the remaining waste is processed for energy recovery.  Galloway is a facility that separates organic waste from the recyclable component (paper and plastic) and delivers these components to other facilities for further processing.

 

e.   Experience and Capacity to Perform the Service

 

Remondis has no experience in the collection of waste from street litterbins.  They are, however, performing kerbside domestic waste collections for garbage and recycling for both Penrith and Liverpool City Councils.  They have performed the domestic waste service for Penrith since 1982.  They also have extensive commercial waste operations throughout Sydney, Newcastle and Melbourne. 

 

Remondis will utilise existing (spare capacity) vehicles to perform the service.  Further, Remondis also has the necessary support staff and vehicles to ensure service delivery is performed without interruption that may result from staff absence and vehicle breakdown.  Remondis has identified that they will purchase a new vehicle should the 11 year contract be awarded.

 

Remondis’s depot is located within the Penrith LGA and has sufficient resources to adequately address any issues in service delivery that may arise. 

 

Summary

 

Remondis, although not the lowest tenderer, is a major commercial operator in domestic and commercial waste, ideally located within the Penrith LGA, who has the capacity and performance record to be able to deliver the street litterbin waste collection and disposal service.  This report will recommend that Remondis be awarded a 15-month contract to provide street litterbin waste collection services.  The offer will be based on Remondis's alternate proposal where Council accepts processing costs for street litterbin waste delivered to the Galloway MRF at Seven Hills.  The tender price is $1.486 per street litterbin per night ($250,584 p.a.) for the 15 month tender with Councils estimated waste processing costs being $24,700 p.a.

 

Financial Assessments

 

Financial assessment reports were provided on both Fretus Waste Pty Ltd and Remondis Pty Ltd, details of which are included in a report to the Committee of the Whole.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Street Litterbin Waste Collection and Disposal Service Tender be received.

2.     The alternate proposal offered by Remondis to collect the street litter bins at $1.486 per street litterbin per night for a period of 15 months with Council accepting responsibility for disposal costs be accepted.

3.     The common seal of Council be affixed to necessary documentation.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

9        Application for Funding to the NSW State Emergency Service                                            63

 

10      Various Tenders for the provision of Materials & Services                                                   65

 

11      Access across Schoolhouse Creek south of Mulgoa Road                                                   79

 

12      Supplementary AusLink Roads to Recovery Program                                                         81

 

13      2006/2007 Auslink National Black Spot Program                                                               83

 

14      Demolition of Public Toilets                                                                                                85

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

9

Application for Funding to the NSW State Emergency Service   

 

Compiled by:                Barry Ryan, Waste and Community Protection Manager

Authorised by:             Barry Ryan, Waste and Community Protection Manager 

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Plans are developed and implemented in partnership with emergency service agencies to provide emergency services and facilities to the City.

Critical Action: Protocols for the City’s response to fire, flood and other emergency conditions are established in partnership with the relevant agencies.

  

Previous Items:            Application for Funding to the NSW State Emergency Service - Ordinary Meeting - 3 April 2006  

Purpose:

To provide Council with the result of negotiations with the NSW State Emergency Service to co-fund additions at the Penrith SES Headquarters at Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows.  The report recommends that Council accepts the offer of $50,000 from the NSW State Emergency Service to co-fund a new amenities building for the Penrith SES Volunteers.

 

Background

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 3 April 2006, Council authorised the Waste & Community Protection Manager to make application for $45,000 for funding to provide new additions for volunteer amenities at the Penrith SES Headquarters at Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows.  This funding would be used in conjunction with funding ($45,000) already obtained from the Attorney-General’s Department to provide improved volunteer amenities.

 

Current Situation

 

Discussions have been held with the NSW State Emergency Service in regard to co-funding new volunteer amenities buildings for the Penrith SES.

 

The NSW State Emergency Service has advised that they are prepared to provide $50,000 in funding for the abovementioned purpose; however, this funding will not be made available until the 2007-2008 financial year. 

 

To construct the new amenities building for Penrith SES volunteers would effectively mean demolishing the existing brick building and attached demountables and installing a new prefabricated building.  It is envisaged that the new building would be in a similar design to the new operational headquarters constructed two years ago.  The new building would therefore provide an improved visual appearance to the new Penrith SES Headquarters and maintain flexibility in long term accommodation for the SES.

 


 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

The funds from the Attorney General’s department are expected to be received by the end of the current financial year and works will then commence.  The balance of the works will be expended by the end of December 2006 to comply with the conditions of the grant.  No matching grants funds are required from Council however, the NSW SES grant is not expected to be available until the 2007-08 financial year so it is suggested that the $50,000 required to complete the project by December is advanced from internal reserves and then repaid upon receipt of the NSW SES grant funds. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Application for Funding to the NSW State Emergency Service be received.

2.     Council accepts the offer of $50,000 from the NSW State Emergency Service to co-fund a new amenities building for the Penrith SES Volunteers.

3.     Internal reserves provide the funding required in 2006-07, to be repaid when the grant is received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

10

Various Tenders for the provision of Materials & Services   

 

Compiled by:                Mal Ackerman, Supply Co-ordinator; Keith Fryer, Works Coordinator; Ian Pell, Works Coordinator

Authorised by:             Vicki O’Kelly, Financial Services Manager; David Burns, Asset Manager 

Strategic Program Term Achievement: An asset management strategy is in operation for civil infrastructure that optimises its use and maintains it to agreed standards fit for its contemporary purpose.

Critical Action: An Asset Management Strategy for Civil Assets is developed, maintained and implemented.

     

Purpose:

To seek endorsement to proceed with the implementation of various supply agreements for supply and delivery of the following services and materials on an as required basis for a period of 2 years with an option to extend the arrangements for a further 12-month period subject to satisfactory performance. The report recommends that the tenders submitted by those companies recommended in the appendix to this report be accepted.

 

Background

Tender ref

Description

12-05/06

Concrete Coring & Sawing

21-05/06

Concrete Pipes & Drainage pits

13-05/06

Readymix Concrete

20-05/06

Quarry Products, Top soil & turf

11-05/06

Traffic Control Services

14-05/06

Fence Supply & Installation

 

Existing Supply Agreements for the provision of the range of Materials & Services as noted above expired on 31 May 2006. All existing agreements have proven to be beneficial to Council providing a high level of service along with stable and competitive pricing arrangements.

 

New Tenders for the provision of various services and materials were issued on the basis of a 2-year agreement with an option to extend the arrangements for a further 12-month period with allowances for rise and fall provisions and closed on Tuesday, 21 March 2006

 

It was proposed in the Tender documents that Council may select one (1) or more suppliers for the products or services specified. Where more than one supplier is selected these would be ranked in order of preference based on price, suitability, availability and quality.

 

The delivery of products and services will be on an as required basis with no commitment to purchase any specific quantity over the period of the agreement.

Tenderers were required to submit their tender on a standard pro-forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria.

Tender Evaluation

The Tender Evaluation committee consisted of Mal Ackerman (Supply Coordinator)Keith Fryer, Ziggy Barglik, Ian Pell(AM Works Supervisors) with input provided by Works Supervisors/Engineers from Building Services and Parks & Gardens.

 

The result of the evaluation, including responses received and the final recommendation of the evaluation committee is included in the appendix to this report.

 

General comments

 

The selection criteria advertised and used in selecting the successful tenderers were price, quality, safety, environmental requirements, compliance with specified requirements and ability to deliver, experience of personnel and previous performance.

 

All tenders received were assessed against these criteria.

 

Where there are no concerns relating to past experience or references of the suppliers, the price along with compliance to specified requirements are the main factors used in the selection of the preferred tender(s).  In most cases the companies that have submitted tenders have either previously satisfactorily carried out work or supplied products for Council or is well known for the supply of products or services within their relevant industry.

 

For each item and sub-category the rates offered were tabulated and compared on the basis of price, quality, availability and the arrangements that will provide ‘best value for money’ for Council.

 

In the case where only one (1) offer was received the tendered prices were compared to existing rates to determine the economic viability of accepting the ‘sole offer’.

 

In the majority of cases, the lowest complying tender has been recommended for acceptance, however some recommendations have been made to accept tenders where it is in Council’s interest to have a larger range of materials of products to choose from.

 

The Local Government Act requires Councils to call tenders for the purchase of materials and services that exceed $150,000 per year from an individual supplier.  The list of items for which tenders were called reflects the products currently being used by Council on a regular basis rather than those where purchase value exceeds $150,000 annually.

 

Summary of tenders

 

For each product or service specified the unit rates from each of the tenderers were annualised based on the annual estimated requirements. Each of the tenderers were given a score based on the responses to the evaluation criteria, the total score achieved was then compared to the annualised cost to determine the  ‘best value for money’ offer. The tables included in the appendix to this report provide a summary of the each evaluation along with the preferred/recommended suppliers.

 

Late Tenders were received from the following companies.

 

Tender Reference

Description

Company

20-05/06

Quarry Products

Penrith Sand & Soil

20-05/06

Quarry Products

Hi Quality Group

 

Because the Quarry Products and bulk materials require a panel of suppliers, these tenders were still afforded some consideration and were included in the final evaluation but only for those products that were not offered by any of the other tenderers.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Various Tenders for the provision of Materials & Services be received.

2.   The following tenders, as detailed in the appended evaluation report, be accepted and agreements established with each of the recommended suppliers as noted for an initial period of 2 years with an option to extend the agreements for a further 12-month period subject to satisfactory performance:

Tender

Preferred Supplier

Secondary Supplier(s)

12-05/06

Concrete Coring & Sawing

Westcut Concrete Sawing Services

Chemcut

21-05/06

Concrete pipes & Drainage pits

Rocla

N/A

13-05/06

Readymix Concrete

Western Suburbs Concrete

PF Concrete and Hi-Tec Concrete

20-05/06

Quarry Products, Top soil & turf

(Panel of approved suppliers, based on appropriate quality, availability, suitability and price)

Concrete Recyclers, Benedict, Hanson Construction, Hy-Tec Ind, Readymix, West Syd Blowers, HI-Quality, Sth Penrith S&S, Camden Soil Mix, Knezevic, A& J Patten, Astec

 

11-05/06

Traffic Control Services

PCK Traffic

Orbital Traffic Management

14-05/06

Fence Supply & Installation

Metal Fencing Specialists

Olympic Fencing

     

3.   The Director of City Operations is authorised to seek supply from the next lowest tenderer should the nominated supplier not be able to supply the goods or services or not be able to supply within a suitable timeframe.

4.   In respect of bulk material/ quarry products the product most suitable in regard to quality, price and availability for the required work be obtained from the appropriate company included on the panel of approved suppliers.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Evaluation report and recommended suppliers

10 Pages

Appendix

 


Ordinary Meeting

5 June 2006

Appendix 1 - Evaluation report and recommended suppliers

 

 

 

 

 

 EVALUATION REPORT VARIOUS MATERIALS & SERVICES

Evaluation Comments

1.   Where annual estimated quantities have been defined the total annual cost has been calculated based on the unit prices submitted by each Tenderer; in each case the unit rates have been displayed in the tables below.

2.   Where only one offer was received the current unit rates paid under an existing agreement are shown for comparison purposes.

3.   Each supplier has been assessed against the tender evaluation criteria and given a rating out of 100 for the specified tender evaluation criteria. Price has been evaluated separately to determine the best ‘value for money’ outcome for Council.

 

Tender Reference 12-05/06 Concrete Sawing and Coring Services

 

Only 2 tenders were received from:

 

Chemcut Concrete Sawing Services

Westcut Concrete Sawing Services

Units rates for each category of work are shown below in Tables 1 & 2 below

 

Table 1 Unit Rates for Sawing


 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Table 2 Unit Rates for Coring

 


Table 3 Annualised cost based on estimated volume


 

 


Comments

Both companies met the critical requirements of the tender with Westcut rating slightly higher than Chemcut. The overall annualised cost for the tender submitted by Westcut is lower than the offer received from Chemcut. Chemcut did not submit unit prices for the full range of specified depths for Sawing services.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Westcut Concrete Sawing Services be accepted, as the preferred supplier for all of the specified services and Chemcut is included as the second ranked supplier.

 

 

 

Tender Reference 21-05/06 Concrete Pipes & Drainage Pits