Agenda of Policy Review Committee Meeting

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE PASSADENA ROOM, PENRITH

ON MONDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2006 AT 7:05PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Pat Sheehy AM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, David Bradbury (arrived 7:32pm), Lexie Cettolin, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Susan Page, Garry Rumble, John Thain, and Steve Simat (arrived 7:32pm).

APOLOGIES

PRC 88 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Susan Page that apologies be received and accepted from Councillors David Bradbury and Steve Simat.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Ross Fowler for the period 10 November 2006 to 17 November 2006 inclusive.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 16 October 2006

PRC 89 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 16 October 2006 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

The City as a Social Place

1 Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors

PRC 90 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2. Councillor Ross Fowler and Rebecca Wright be appointed to fill vacancies that occurred at the Eighth Annual General Meeting of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd.

3. Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd Annual Report for 2006/07.

4. Council congratulate the Board of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd on their success and achievements over the 12 months to the end of June 2006.

5. Council provide a letter of appreciation and recognition to Conrad Ozog for his contribution to the Board.

6. Council write to congratulate Jack Hodge on his appointment to the position of Stadium Manager – Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd.

Councillors David Bradbury and Steve Simat arrived, the time being 7:32pm.

2 City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors

PRC 91 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1. The information contained in the report on City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2. Councillor Ross Fowler and Mr Alan Brown be appointed to fill the vacancy that occurred at the Twelfth Annual General Meeting of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd.

3. Council agree to underwrite the operations of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd for 12 months to the end of June 2007.

4. Council congratulate the Board of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre on their success and achievements over the 12 months to end of June 2006.

5. Further discussions be held with interested Councillors to replace Councillor Steve Simat on the Board.

6. Council write to congratulate and thank Councillor Ross Fowler for his 10 years service as Chairman of the Board of City of Penrith Regional Aquatic and Recreation Centre (Ripples).

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 7:37pm.

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 7:39pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken left the meeting, the time being 7:54pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken returned to the meeting, the time being 8:01pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken left the meeting, the time being 8:02pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken returned to the meeting, the time being 8:06pm.

3 Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors

PRC 92 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Susan Page

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2. Councillor Pat Sheehy, Councillor Ross Fowler, Gillian Appleton, John Mullane and Cathryn Jarman be appointed to fill vacancies that occurred at the first Annual General Meeting of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd.

3. Council agree to underwrite the operation of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd Annual Report for 2006/07.

4. Council congratulate the Board of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd on the success and achievements over the twelve months to the end of June 2006 at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre and Penrith Regional Gallery and Lewers Bequest.

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:16pm.

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:17pm.

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:30pm.

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:33pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri left the meeting, the time being 8:41pm.

5 Glenmore Park Stage 2 Release Area Status - Owners: Stockland, Mulpha Norwest, Holicombe, Vienello, Mint Holdings

PRC 93 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1. The information outlined in the report on Glenmore Park Stage 2 Release Area Status be received

2. Pursuant to S.54 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, and Regulation, Council prepare and exhibit a draft Local Environmental Plan for the lands identified at Appendix 4 to this report for the purposes of adding a biodiversity corridor to the eastern extent of the release area.

3. A Local Environmental Study is not required to be prepared for the draft Local Environmental Plan referred to in recommendation 2 above.

4. A further report be provided to Council in early 2007 seeking endorsement to the exhibition of a draft LEP, DCP, S94 Plan and Planning Agreement.

5. A memo be provided to all Councillors outlining the total area per person, or per household, of open recreation in this release area. The memo is to compare this to Glenmore Park Stage 1 release area and the proposed development on the ADI site.

4 Castlereagh Cemetery and Crematoria Working Party meeting - 16 October 2006

PRC 94 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Garry Rumble

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Castlereagh Cemetery and Crematoria Working Party meeting - 16 October 2006 be received.

2. The Minister’s approval be sought to extend the purpose of the Cemetery Reserve from “cemetery” to “cemetery and crematoria”.

3. A detailed Flora and Fauna assessment be undertaken (comparable to the “7-part test” required to accompany any Development Application), and the outcomes of that study be reported to the Working Party.

4. An Internal Loan be sought for $20,000 being the estimated cost for the Flora and Fauna assessment.

6 Establish a Policy for the use of Telecommunications Access Fees

PRC 95 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kaylene Allison seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Establish a Policy for the use of Telecommunications Access Fees be received

2. The Telecommunications Access Fee be utilised on the projects identified in the program listed for each sporting venue

3. The Mark Leece field renovations and security fencing at Ridge Park be carried out.

The City In Its Environment

10 Penrith Overland Flow Flood "Overview" Study

PRC 96 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Penrith Overland Flow Flood "Overview" Study be received.

2. The “Penrith Overland Flow Flood ‘Overview Study’ prepared by Cardno Lawson Treloar Consultants be accepted.

3. A further report be submitted to Council on the prioritised sub-catchments for detailed flood studies.

4. A community consultation program be developed, initially for the rural areas, and for the urban areas as further studies are carried out.

5. Council proceed towards formulation of Floodplain Risk Management Committee in line with the NSW Floodplain Development Manual.

6. A further report be submitted to Council regarding a review of Council’s flood policy.

7. S149(5) notations be applied to affected properties as outlined in this report.

The City as an Economy

7 Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation- request for additional funding for the 2006-07 financial year

PRC 97 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Garry Rumble

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation- request for additional funding for the 2006-07 financial year be received.

2. The second funding instalment to the Corporation for $130,311 be endorsed

3. Additional funding up to a value of $22,500 be listed for consideration as part of the September 06 financial review to be submitted to the Ordinary Council meeting of 20 November 2006

4. The Corporation be requested to provide a detailed submission supporting additional recurrent funding to be considered as part of Council’s 2007-08 budget process and that the submission include plans for generating external sources of income. This submission is to be presented to Council prior to the end of 2006.

Councillor Kevin Crameri returned to the meeting, the time being 8:47pm.

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:48pm, and did not return.

Leadership and Organisation

8 Service Specification Program

PRC 98 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Steve Simat seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

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

2. the specification for the Parks Construction Service be adopted.

9 Establishment of an Audit Committee

PRC 99 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Establishment of an Audit Committee be received.

2. Council establish an Audit Committee.

3. The draft Charter for the Audit Committee as attached to this Report be adopted.

4. A letter be forwarded to the UWS and CPA Australia seeking a representative to sit on the Council’s Audit Committee.

5. A further report be presented to the Council once the response from UWS and CPA Australia are received.

11 Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors

PRC 100 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors be received

2. The draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors be placed on public exhibition for 28 days as required by Section 253 of the Local Government Act 1993.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:50pm.

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Leadership and Organisation*

Leadership and Organisation

2006-2007 Management Plan - December Quarter Review

Compiled by: Mark Andrews, Strategic & Management Planning Coordinator

Vicki O’Kelly, Financial Services Manager

Authorised by: Barry Husking, Chief Financial Officer

Alan Travers, General Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Council's operating culture is flexible, efficient, integrated and aligned to Council's strategic objectives and program delivery.

Critical Action: Prepare, implement and review Management Plans and processes aligned to and consistent with Council’s Strategic Plan and Program.

Presenters: General Manager and Chief Financial Officer - 2006-2007 Management Plan December Quarterly Review

Purpose:

To present the December Quarter progress report on Council's 2006-2007 Management Plan. The report recommends that the Review be adopted, including revised estimates and expenditures as detailed in the report.

Background

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the 2006-2007 Management Plan Progress Report for the period ending 31 December 2006 is presented tonight for Council’s consideration. A copy of the progress review documents is provided under separate cover.

This is the second quarterly review of Council’s 2006-2007 Management Plan, which is the second year of Council’s Strategic Plan for the City of Penrith 2005-2009, Penrith City: the Competitive Edge.

Managers have provided details of progress in accordance with their identified responsibilities. This includes progress towards the attainment of critical actions, performance against budget and identified performance indicators for each Master Program. Commentary has also been provided on achievements for the year to date, as well as issues arising that have impacted on the delivery of the annual program.

The General Manager’s report in the document includes comments on key results and issues arising over the first half of the year, as well as indicating the focus of organisational efforts for the remainder of 2006-2007.

Financial Position

The proposed year to date budget position is a surplus of $1,076,500 made up as follows:

December Review $413,100

2nd Quarter adjustments previously adopted by Council $(45,600)

September Review $473,500

1st Quarter adjustments previously adopted by Council $202,000

Original budget surplus $ 33,500

The review recommends a number of both positive and negative adjustments to the adopted budget. Further confirmation of estimates in the budget has been received and these together with adjustments to income projections have led to a number of additional variations to the original budget.

Last quarter it was recommended that the surplus remain unallocated until the applicability of the recent Australian Fair Pay Commission decision to local government can be fully assessed. It has now been ascertained that the decision will have a minimal impact on the budget for this year.

As there have been no urgent items unable to be funded at this stage of the financial year, it is recommended that the year to date surplus allocation be considered in conjunction with the formulation of the 2007-08 Management Plan and recommendations be made in the March review of the current Management Plan. Potential areas that were discussed in the September review were an allowance for Ripples debts to Council and an additional allocation for capital works in the Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct.

The more significant variations for the quarter include:

Rates Growth $200,000 F*

Insurance premiums $128,000 F

Interest on Investments $100,000 F

Bank Charges $62,500 F

Valuation fees $25,600 F

Corporate Planning Officer (existing position proposed general revenue funding) ($40,000) U

Rural Fire Service allocation ($21,900) U

Bus Shelters ($25,000) U

Budget adjustments $(16,100) U

(*F - favourable, U – unfavourable)

These, together with minor variations and reallocations, are discussed in detail in the Financial Services Manager’s report, in the summary review document.

There are a number of proposed returns to reserve funds which will require a revote of the project to 2007-08, more details of these are provided below.

Erskine Pk Road Culverts – Design & construction ($260,000) s94 funded

§ Construction of the planned Erskine Park/Mamre Road intersection culverts has been placed on hold pending the review of the S.94 plan and this is dependent on the biodiversity review being signed off by the Minister for Planning. It is proposed to return the majority of the allocated funds ($260,000) to the S94 reserve, until the amended plan is approved, apart from the balance of the $57,600 required to complete design work.

Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct (PVCP) ($1,000,000) loan and s94 funded

The PVCP is a Major Project to be implemented over a number of years. This project is funded from a mixture of s94 contributions and loan funds in advance of contributions that are being repaid from the s94 plan. Unexpended loan funds are currently invested at rates greater than the borrowing rate. In the current year there are several concurrent elements:

o The DA for the refurbishment of the Memorial Hall and the new precinct car park was lodged in December 2006 and a determination is expected March 2007. The preparation of the Construction Certificate and tender documents are underway. The tender selection process will commence in June 2007, and construction is estimated to occur in September 2007. An allowance was made in the current budget for the carparking, landscaping and lighting components and this is not required in the current year. A funding solution for the balance of the precinct works, in particular the Memorial Hall refurbishment, is underway.

o Negotiations continue for the acquisition of an adjacent property. It is likely that this will be resolved in the 2007 / 2008 year.

Meanwhile work is continuing and a preferred builder was selected by Council in December 2006 for the CWA building refurbishment. Council authorised a modification to the scope of work. Construction will now commence shortly. The scope of work for the refurbishment of the former St Marys Council building has been identified by the specialist engaged by Council. Detailed documentation including costings is underway to enable work to commence immediately thereafter (estimated to be April 2007) and is expected to be completed by July 2007.

A meeting of Council’s PVCP working party will be arranged for the near future to review the progress of the overall project.

Glenmore Parkway Lighting ($37,000) s94 funded

§ Integral Energy are currently obtaining quotations from third parties for under-boring for street lights in Glenmore parkway. Integral Energy have advised that designs will be completed in 2006-07 but completion of works may not occur until 2007-08.

Community Safety Compact ($25,000) grant funded

§ There was delay in engaging the Cranebrook youth street work project officers. The project commenced in November 2006 and the Attorney General has approved an extension of the grant funded program to September 2007.

Lambridge Estate Roadworks – S94 (saving of $250,000) loan and s94 funded

§ Savings have been identified on the Lambridge Estate Roadworks Project as a reasonable contingency was allowed for unknown factors when costing the large water quality cleaning devices and these came in under the original estimate. In addition, the use of good quality recycled materials and minimal wet weather impact allowed the project to proceed as programmed and below the expected cost.

With these adjustments, the annual capital works program is expected to be completed by the end of the financial year. There are no projects where the recorded spending is materially higher than the officially adopted budget of the project.

S94 Parks Improvements Program

Projects from the Draft S94 Open Space Action Plan not already commenced have been deferred to 2007-08. These have been replaced with projects from the current S94 Existing Residential Areas- Open Space. A separate report on this matter was considered at the Ordinary Meeting 12 February 2007.

Special Initiatives

The new 10-year special initiative, Asset Renewal and Established Areas Strategy (AREAS), commenced on 1 July 2006. The AREAS funding from additional rate revenue approved by the Minister for Local Government, is for additional infrastructure renewal and public domain maintenance (which includes roads, buildings, graffiti removal and cleaning) as well as greater attention to the needs of our older neighbourhoods.

Council also continues to advance three 10-year special initiatives which commenced in 2002-2003, for which additional rate revenue was also approved by the Minister. These are:

§ Enhanced Environmental Program (EEP)

§ Community Safety and Neighbourhood Renewal Program

§ Economic Development and Tourism - support for Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation (PVEDC)

As previously agreed by Council, specific reporting on the progress of each of these initiatives is presented to Council, the community and the Department of Local Government at six-monthly intervals, through the half-year and end-of-year Management Plan reviews and the Annual Report. In addition, more detailed reports on key aspects of the programs are provided to Council by the relevant Managers at appropriate intervals during each year.

The progress of these programs is reported within Part A Executive Summary of the December Quarterly Review documents. Recommended adjustments to the EEP program within the present year are also detailed in the Financial Services Manager’s report.

Management Plan Performance

The review documents incorporate detailed reporting on the annual progress of each of the six Master Programs from several principal aspects. They are presented in two volumes:

§ ‘Part A’ ~ Summary of key information

This includes: the General Manager’s report, the Financial Services Manager’s report, a summary of each Master Program at the Issue level (with brief comments by exception where the program has not proceeded as planned) and Key Results/highlights of the quarter.

§ ‘Part B’ ~ Performance and Financial detail

(i) Managers report performance within the Master Programs against:

(a) Critical Actions - made up of a suite of Tasks and Projects adopted by Council for this particular year;

(b) ongoing Services with adopted Key Performance Indicators (KPIs);

(ii) Additional performance and financial detail is provided on Capital and Operating Projects which have budgets allocated by Council;

(iii) A Budget progress statement in normal accounting format is provided for each Issue in the Master Programs;

(iv) Detailed information is provided in the financial statements of budget status and variations which are proposed to Council’s adopted program.

All reporting is Year to Date. Where actions have a life of more than one year, the report is on the progress within 2006-07 against the annual requirements of the item. The scheduling of the annual program (including some seasonal ongoing Services) is, of course, not necessarily even throughout the year. This is factored into the Managers’ activity plans and appropriately reflected in the performance ratings.

The report indicates that, from the statements provided by the responsible Managers:

§ 158 (95%) of the Critical Actions were ‘On Target’ for completion of the planned annual program as at 31 December 2006 and 8 (5%) were marginal, needing extra attention (all items not on target have been reviewed with the General Manager and relevant Directors - commentary is provided in Part A of the review document)

§ 27 Services with Management Plan KPIs were reported as being overall ‘On Target’ and 1 as marginal, needing extra attention.

§ 61 Capital and Operating Projects (16%) were completed in the first quarter; of the remainder, 301 projects (79%) were ‘On Target’, 7 (2%) were marginal and 11 (3%) would not be delivered (these are included in the proposed revoted works noted above).

Those Critical Actions which were scheduled in Council’s Strategic Program to commence after 2006-2007 are identified in the report in Part B. These are not included in the performance ratings.

Assessment of the progress of Council’s program is assisted by the provision of percentage and ‘traffic light’ indicators in reports. These are based on the responsible Manager’s statement of the progress of the annual requirements for that Management Plan assignment.

Guidelines for ‘Traffic Light’ Status Indicators:

[Green]	Progress is on target for annual requirements/completion of the relevant action. Normally indicates completion of 90%+ of the scheduled requirements Year To Date.
[Amber]	Progress is marginal and extra attention is needed. Normally indicates completion of 75%-89% of the scheduled requirements Year To Date.
[Red]	Progress is not on target and requirement may not be delivered. This should be addressed by the Manager’s commentary. Performance is normally rated as less than 75% of the scheduled requirements Year To Date.
	Completed (usually applies to Capital & Operating Projects with defined target dates).

Conclusion

The Review indicates substantial progress to meeting Council’s challenging annual program. In keeping with Council’s established practice the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer will make a presentation at this time on the performance of the Management Plan and key matters for the attention of Council. The opportunity is available for Council tonight to seek clarification or elaboration on particular matters in any section of the Progress Report.

The review documents will be placed, in full, on Council’s website, as well as being made available to the public in hard copy and CD versions on request, and through the Civic Centre, Queen St Centre and all libraries.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2006-2007 Management Plan - December Quarter Review be received

2. The 2006-2007 Management Plan Review as at 31 December 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.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Urban Release Areas - Status Report

Compiled by: Mark Broderick, Release Area Unit Coordinator

Authorised by: Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager

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

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

Purpose:

To provide an update report on the planning processes and delivery timetable for new residential release areas in Penrith. The report also outlines a new National Growth Area Initiative, in which Council has been invited to participate. The report recommends Council agree to participate in the National Growth Area Alliance.

Background

Council’s Strategic Plan 2005-2009 outlines an approach to new urban areas in Penrith that seeks to form cohesive communities based on sustainable, safe and satisfying living and working environments. A key focus area of Council’s Management Plan for 2006 – 2007 is building sustainable communities, by:

· Preparing and implementing plans for each new release area that deliver quality, sustainable living and working environments;

· Formulating and implementing social and cultural strategies for new release areas that support cohesive communities;

· Working in partnership with the development sector to formulate and implement tailored employment strategies that are commensurate with the rate of housing development in new release areas;

· Preparing and implementing plans for each new release area, in collaboration with the development sector and key Government agencies, that provide a wide diversity and mix of housing types that meet current and emerging community needs; and

· Preparing and implementing services and infrastructure delivery plans for each new release area that ensures that the early establishment of services and facilities match community needs.

There are nine new urban release areas, an education precinct and an employment precinct in the Penrith LGA, for which planning processes are advancing concurrently:

1. Werrington Enterprise Living and Learning (WELL) Precinct

2. Werrington Mixed Use Area (within WELL Precinct)

3. Claremont Meadows Stage 2 (within WELL Precinct)

4. Caddens Release Area (within WELL Precinct)

5. South Werrington Urban Village (within WELL Precinct)

6. Penrith Lakes

7. Waterside (Lakes Environs)

8. Glenmore Park Stage 2

9. St Marys Release Area (former ADI site)

10. North Penrith Urban Area

11. Erskine Park Employment Area

These release areas are planned to deliver over 13,000 new dwellings over the next 15 years and will play a significant role in providing housing and employment lands across Penrith. A map of the new urban areas in Penrith is appended to this report.

As previously reported to Council, a number of Release Areas for which plans have been prepared (for example, North Penrith Army Land and Werrington Mixed Use Area) are likely to move to a second plan preparation cycle, due to various landowners’ decisions, and may extend the planning engagement required. While the majority of the release areas are expected to shift into implementation mode in the next 2-5 years, Waterside (Lakes Environs) and Claremont Meadows Stage 2 are currently delivering housing.

The management of new urban areas to physical completion represents a major urban growth management task for Council in the next 10-15 years. The annual rate of delivery of dwellings, however is ultimately steered by market forces and the current flattening of the Sydney housing market inevitably influences the decisions of major housing companies to moderate their housing production accordingly.

Planning for New Sustainable Communities

Fostering sustainable communities has continually underpinned Council’s planning for new urban areas. The provision of quality recreational, educational, health and community facilities and services, that are accessible, is essential to creating a quality place for a new community to live, play and work in. In creating communities, it is also imperative that a base-line of services and facilities is in place.

The establishment of these base-line requirements has been achieved through the Penrith Sustainability Blueprint for Urban Release Areas which was developed and adopted in 2005, and is providing guidance for developers currently active in Penrith’s new urban areas. The Penrith Sustainability Blueprint has also recently been ‘Commended for Excellence in Planning’ by the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) and has been awarded for ‘Excellence in Sustainability within Local Government’ by Government Managers Australia (LGMA).

Clearly, the effective roll-out of new release areas is contingent on the efficient delivery of required infrastructure, both at the local and regional level. Extensive negotiations are required with developer groups to establish agreement on the delivery of facilities and services necessary to support new urban community formation.

The funding for the delivery of regional infrastructure elements is now required to be brokered with State Government to ensure an alignment with the Government’s requirements for regional infrastructure levies and the related delivery of facilities and services for which government agencies hold responsibility, eg, arterial roads, public transport, schools, etc.

This process continues to be a challenge for Council, particularly in ensuring that regional infrastructure requirements within the City are understood and accepted by both developer groups and government agencies and clear agreements reached for their delivery during the development process.

National Growth Area Alliance

Council has been recently approached by Whittlesea Council in Victoria who have led the formation of a Growth Area Alliance, which is a new national collective of some 20 rapidly growing local government areas located in the outer growth regions of each State / Territory capital city. Growth Area Alliance members face a common challenge of providing community infrastructure in ‘greenfield’ areas which are experiencing rapid growth, or expect to be in the near future.

The principal role of the Growth Area Alliance is to highlight the pressing needs of growth areas and to advocate increased Federal and State Government interest and resources to these areas.

The approach advocated is to undertake national research to prepare a cornerstone advocacy document for the Alliance to take to Government. A Growth Area Alliance task group, comprising personnel from Whittlesea Council and other Alliance members will direct and oversee the project. A brief was prepared for this research and recently awarded to a consortium of SGS Economic and Planning Consultants and Australian Social and Recreation Research Pty Ltd.

The principal focus of the research program is to identify current and projected growth rates of the Alliance member Council areas, to identify points of differentiation and other interest/ lobby groups, quantify the significant contribution Alliance Councils make to economic growth, nation building and social and environmental well-being, and identify current and emerging infrastructure and servicing issues and appropriate best practice models from around Australian and overseas.

The second phase of the project will involve the development of a strategy for advocating to both State and Federal Government targeted policies aimed at increasing resource commitment from Government to growth area infrastructure delivery. The process and strategy for engagement with Government is yet to be determined, and we will bring back a further report to Council in the near future on this aspect of the project when the results of the research program are known.

The Alliance members have acknowledged that there is a need for the provision of initial funding to enable the conduct of the research program and strategy development. A $10,000 contribution from each Council has been identified as being reasonable.

It is understood there are 5 Councils in Western Sydney who have agreed to participate in the Alliance including Blacktown, Baulkham Hills, Liverpool, Campbelltown and Camden.

This initiative is a significant one in that it is the first time an alliance of growth area Councils from around Australia has come together in the interests of expressing a united voice to Government on the critical need for increased recognition of infrastructure delivery to support new urban communities.

The approach outlined by the Alliance closely aligns with Penrith Council’s current view of raising awareness of the importance of effective Government support for urban growth and related infrastructure delivery and is closely aligned with the initiatives both Penrith and other major growth Councils in Western Sydney have been recently pursuing. For these reasons, it is recommended that Council participate in the Growth Area Alliance. The requested funding is available and can be provided from the existing 2006/07 budget allocation for externally commissioned planning studies.

Status of New Urban Release Areas

Set out below is a summary of the current status of each of the new urban release areas in Penrith. Detailed updates on each project are also separately reported to Council when critical phases of planning delivery are reached.

1. Werrington Enterprise, Living and Learning (WELL) Precinct

Site description	The WELL Precinct is generally bounded by the Railway line to the north, Caddens Road to the south, Gipps Street to the east and the South Kingswood residential area to the west. The WELL Precinct includes Caddens Release Area, South Werrington Urban Village, Claremont Meadows Stage 2 and Werrington Mixed Use Area, for which separate status updates are set out later in this report.
Site area	670 ha
Statutory position	Penrith Urban Lands LEP 1998 – Part Residential 2(b),Part 2(d), Part Special Uses 5(a), Part Open Space 6(a) Draft Amendment No.13 – Werrington Mixed Use Area – Part Mixed Use 10(a) – Residential, Part Mixed Use 10(b) - Employment Penrith LEP 201 – Rural Lands – Part Rural 1(a), Part Corridors 5(d) Penrith LEP 96 – Part Residential 2(d)Part Business 3(c), Part Special Uses 5(a), Part Reservation 9(a) Penrith Planning Scheme – Zone No. 1 – Non Urban Interim Development Order No. 93 - Rural 1(d) (Future Urban)
Forecast dwellings	Up to 3,000 dwellings (including 100 dwellings for student accommodation).
Estimated population	Around 8,400 people.
Estimated number of jobs	The range of land uses identified for the WELL Precinct has the potential to generate up to around 7,800 jobs, including up to 6,000 jobs in the WELL Technology Park (currently the UWS land north of Great Western Highway) and around 350 jobs in the Precinct Centre.
Development status	WELL Precinct wide studies finalised and Concept Plan adopted by Council in October 2006. Refer also to separate status reports for Caddens Release Area, South Werrington Urban Village, Claremont Meadows Stage 2 and Werrington Mixed Use Area.

Background

In November 2004, Council adopted the principles of the Werrington Enterprise Living and Learning (WELL) Precinct Strategy, and endorsed it as the policy basis for advancing the planning and landuse decision making for the Precinct, including the sub-precincts. Council also resolved to prepare and exhibit draft Local Environmental Plans for the Caddens Release Area and the South Werrington sub-precinct.

The Department of Planning (DoP) advised Council that it supports the WELL Precinct Strategy principles as the basis for land use decision making in the WELL Precinct. Letters advising of Council’s decision for the WELL Precinct were also sent out to adjoining and nearby residents, as well as landowners within the WELL Precinct and other stakeholders.

Following Council’s decision, a Heads of Agreement (HOA) was negotiated between Council, Landcom and UWS and was signed by Council in June 2005. The HOA establishes a partnership to oversee the implementation of the Precinct Strategy, and facilitates the co-ordination of the planning investigations for the WELL Precinct, Caddens Release Area and South Werrington Urban Village (SWUV). The HOA provided for UWS and Landcom to fund four Precinct-wide studies (Transport and Management Accessibility Plan or TMAP, Hydrology and Catchment Management Study, Greenways Network and Viewscapes, and Precinct Centre, which included the Employment Analysis Report), as well as the preparation of a WELL Precinct Communications Strategy, and the engagement of a Planner/Urban Designer to refine the adopted WELL Precinct Concept Plan.

The Precinct-wide Studies have been coordinated through a series of Development Coordination Group (WELL DCG) meetings which are conducted on a regular basis. The purpose of the WELL DCG is to monitor the preparation of the Precinct-wide Studies in a timely manner, and in accordance with the relevant study briefs, the sub-precinct planning investigations, provide comment, be a consultation group for Council in its statutory role and to the other parties as landowners. Council has chaired the WDCG and has acted as “Project Manager” for the Precinct-wide Studies. Representatives for UWS, Landcom and landowners have actively participated in these meetings.

A Caddens Planning Coordination Group (Caddens PCG) has also been established and comprises Council, UWS, Landcom, representatives of private landowners and other stakeholders as agreed. The Caddens PCG monitors the preparation of the Caddens Road Release Area studies in accordance with the relevant study briefs, provides regular comments to the WDCG, and assists in ensuring that the studies are completed to a standard which permits Council to meet its statutory plan-making obligations. Council also chairs the Caddens PCG, while Landcom, who is a major landowner within this sub-precinct, acts as “Project Manager” for individual studies.

The WELL Precinct Strategy also identified the South Werrington Urban Precinct as an area for further investigation for urban and employment development. A South Werrington Urban Village Planning Coordination Group (SWUV PCG) was also established, and comprises Council, UWS, Landcom, representatives of private landowners and other stakeholders as agreed. As a major landowner within this precinct, UWS is currently undertaking studies with consultants, as required, to advance the planning for this sub-precinct.

Current Position

The Precinct-wide studies are now complete. A report on the outcomes of the Precinct-wide studies, including the refinement of the adopted Concept Plan for the WELL Precinct, was reported to Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting of 16 October 2006. At that meeting, Council resolved to adopt the refined Concept Plan for the WELL Precinct which delineates the land use activities within, and connectivity across, the Precinct. The refined Concept Plan is consistent with the identification of the major land use precincts in the adopted WELL Strategy and their general spatial distribution in the Precinct.

The refined WELL Concept Plan informs appropriate land use directions and provides the basis for the preparation of draft LEPs and DCPs for the sub-precincts which are now well underway for the South Werrington and Caddens Release areas. Implicit in the advancement of the LEPs and DCPs is that they conform with the principles of the adopted WELL Precinct Strategy and the refined WELL Concept Plan.

The identification of infrastructure requirements to underpin the development of the WELL Precinct is advancing, and will inform the preparation of developer contributions plans at both the local and regional level to ensure appropriate facility and service delivery. That assessment will be presented for Council’s consideration with the first draft sub-precinct plans in the near future.

Local residents and other interested parties have been updated on the outcomes of the planning investigations for the WELL Precinct by a Newsletter and by invitation to a Community Information Day which was held at Kingswood TAFE on Saturday, 25 November 2006. Information was displayed which comprised the following detailed set of panels:

· Site detail and context

· Concept Plan

· Precinct Centre

· Transport

· Natural Features and Open Space

· Employment

· New Urban Areas (Caddens Release/Precinct Centre and South Werrington Urban Village)

The Community Information Day was well attended, with nearly 100 local people visiting the display throughout the day. Feedback from the community included issues relating to infrastructure delivery, public transport, roads and traffic, land uses, residential housing design, the precinct centre, open space and the environment, the planning process and timing, and the consultation process.

The feedback received from the community will be used to inform the detailed planning for the WELL sub precincts being Caddens Release Area and Precinct Centre and the South Werrington Urban Village.

2. Werrington Mixed Use Area

Site description	The site is generally bounded by the Western Railway Line to the north, Great Western Highway to the south, University of Western Sydney land to the east and French Street to the west.
Site area	22 hectares total
Statutory position	The current zoning of the site is Zone No. 5(a) Special Uses (Army) under the Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land). Draft LEP adopted and awaiting gazettal by the Minister. The draft LEP proposes a 10(a) Mixed Use Residential zone, 10(b) Mixed Use Employment zone and 5(a) Defence zone under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land).
Proposed development	1 hectare transport interchange; 8 hectares of mixed use employment (technology focus); 7 hectares of mixed use residential (medium and high density housing); multi user army depot; and drainage, conservation and passive open space
Forecast dwellings	190
Estimated population	520
Estimated number of jobs	300 (including off-site jobs)
Approximate area of employment zoned land	8 hectares
Development status	Awaiting gazettal of adopted LEP by State Government.

Background

Council adopted an LEP and DCP for Werrington Mixed Use Area in December 2002 (Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) (Draft Amendment No 13) – Werrington Mixed-Use Area and the Werrington Mixed-Use Area Development Control Plan). The Draft LEP was subsequently formally forwarded to the DoP in 2003. The DCP comes into effect upon gazettal of the LEP by the State Government.

The gazettal of the LEP by the State Government has been delayed as a result of an objection raised by Railcorp who were seeking contributions from the development of the site towards the establishment of the proposed railway station. It is understood this objection has been recently removed following negotiations between Railcorp and the current owners concerning the transfer of part of the site adjacent the railway line for proposed commuter carparking and access to facilitate the establishment of the railway station. Despite this, and Council’s continued representations, the State Government has not reaffirmed its commitment to the delivery of the railway station.

Work on a Masterplan and a Section 94 Contributions Plan was also commenced, and consultants engaged by the Department of Defence worked collaboratively with Council in the development and finalisation of the planning for the site. However, this work stalled due to the sale of the site by the Federal Government in 2005.

In 2004, the Commonwealth registered a plan subdividing the 22 hectare site into 9 lots. The subdivision plan also shows an easement for access as an extension of the existing George Street. The Department of Defence constructed a detention basin for a then proposed Multi-User Army Depot, as well as a sealed road with associated services (which is an extension of George Street) to serve the proposed Depot.

The Department of Defence confirmed in early 2005 its decision to sell the total site, including the land designated for the proposed multi-user depot, with a current Special Uses 5(a) (Army) zoning.

In June 2005, Estate On Miller Pty Ltd purchased 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). In October 2005, various lots were on-sold, including the land proposed to be zoned for residential purposes.

Current Position

We have held discussions with Estate On Miller to resolve major issues - gazettal of the draft LEP, amendment of the adopted DCP to include Master Plans for the residential land and employment land, a Section 94 Developer Contributions Plan, status of the proposed new Railway Station, and other site development issues.

Given the important role this site has in the wider WELL Precinct, particularly its contribution to establish landmark employment, the new owners were urged that resolution with State Government of establishment of the UWS Railway Station be the initial focus. It is understood that the landowners have made separate representations to both DoP and RailCorp to progress the planning arrangements for the site.

We have, during the WELL Precinct planning process, continued to pursue Government about the provision of the new Railway Station, including discussions with DoP, Ministry of Transport and Railcorp. A detailed report on the railway station issue was presented to Council’s meeting of 12 February 2007 and further submissions to Government are now being made.

3. Claremont Meadows Stage 2

Site description	The site is generally bounded by Caddens Road and the former Gipps Street landfill site; the M4 Motorway; the South Creek corridor; and the Orchard Hills to the north, south, east and west respectively
Site area	63 hectares
Statutory position	Currently zoned for residential purposes in LEP 96 (1984). Draft LEP proposes zones 2(b) Residential (Low Density), 2(d) Residential (Medium Density), 7(a) Flora and Fauna Conservation, 7(b) Proposed Flora and Fauna Conservation, 6(b) Proposed Public Recreation/ Community Uses and 5(c) Special Uses (State Road & State Road Widening) under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). Draft LEP adopted and awaiting gazettal. A DCP for Stage 2 was adopted by Council and came into effect in 2004. Amendment to the DCP adopted by Council 20 November 2006.
Forecast dwellings	500
Estimated population	1,500
Development status	Development applications have been approved for subdivision for approximately 170 lots.

Background

The land was zoned for residential purposes in 1984, and comprises multiple land ownerships. The existing Claremont Meadows estate (Stage 1) was subsequently developed by Landcom.

Initial servicing constraints relating to the Stage 2 expansion have more recently been overcome, which has made key infrastructure available to support new development. Emerging environmental considerations in the locality have required that development of Stage 2 would require a revised planning approach.

In 2003, Council adopted Key Principles for the development of the Stage 2 land, following negotiations and consultations with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Landcom and DoP. The Key Principles diagram identifies the conservation open space areas north and south of Caddens Road in the Eastern Precinct, and south of Caddens Road in the South Western Precinct; an open space/drainage area in the South Western Precinct; multi-unit housing north of Caddens Road and east of Gipps Street; larger residential allotments north of the M4 Motorway; key pedestrian/cycle links along Caddens Road; and noise attenuation measures and visual screening on the northern side of the M4 Motorway and sections of Gipps Street (the realignment of the Werrington Arterial).

In June 2004, Council adopted a draft LEP for the Stage 2 area and submitted the Plan to DoP for adoption and gazettal. The draft Plan contemporised the approach to the residential zonings including identifying suitable multi-unit housing sites, and incorporated the newly identified biodiversity conservation areas and drainage / open space lands required for acquisition.

In January 2005, we received advice from DoP on certain matters which needed resolving, prior to gazettal of the LEP. These matters were attended to and a further submission made to DoP. An objection lodged by the RTA to the draft LEP, concerning responsibility for acquisition of land reserved for the widening of Gipps Street for the Werrington Arterial Road has been withdrawn and DoP has recently advised that the draft LEP can now move forward for gazettal.

The Claremont Meadows Development Control Plan (DCP) and Section 94 Contributions Plan Draft Amendment No 1 were adopted by Council and came into effect in 2004.

In June 2006, a masterplan to guide the further residential development of the South Western Precinct was submitted to Council of Claremont Meadows Stage 2 for its consideration and public exhibition. This resulted in an amendment to the DCP to introduce development controls to guide development in the south western precinct. Council resolved to exhibit the amended DCP in October 2006.

Current Position

The existing residential zone has enabled consideration and approval of a number of subdivisions, enabling around 80 dwellings ahead of the gazettal of the new draft LEP for Stage 2. These subdivisions have been generally in accordance with the new draft LEP and the adopted DCP for Stage 2.

The South West Precinct proposes around 380 dwellings and it is anticipated that development applications will be lodged shortly, in line with the adoption of the DCP amendment.

Council has still not received a clear commitment to the programming and delivery of the proposed Werrington Arterial, which is a fundamental transport infrastructure element to service not only this estate, but the development opportunities identified in the wider WELL Precinct and the urban areas to the north of the railway line. We continue to lobby Government on this matter.

4. Caddens Release Area

Site description	The site is generally bounded by UWS to the north, Caddens Road to the south, Claremont Meadows Estate to the east and the South Kingswood residential area to the west.
Site area	103 hectares
Statutory position	Currently zoned Rural 1(d) “Future Urban” under IDO 93.
Forecast dwellings	1,300 – to be revised following completion of studies
Estimated population	3,900 – to be revised following completion of studies
Development status	Draft LEP, DCP and Contributions Plan to be prepared following completion of planning studies and expected to be reported to Council for public exhibition early in 2007.

Background

Since the Caddens Release Area was initially listed on the Metropolitan Development Program (MDP) for urban investigation, there has been considerable interest in ensuring that the area develops in a manner that is sympathetic with the wider precinct interests, including UWS. Planning has consequently been undertaken in the context of the WELL Precinct Strategy, to ensure that options for developing the release area are fully explored, to achieve optimal integration with the Precinct Strategy, particularly the education lands to the north of the Caddens Release Area occupied by UWS and TAFE.

In 2004, Council decided to prepare a draft LEP that would cover the Caddens Release Area and the WELL Precinct Centre. The formulation and adoption of the WELL Precinct Strategy, and attendant precinct-wide studies, have underpinned the planning for this urban development opportunity.

Current Position

Sub-precinct studies are currently being undertaken by Landcom on behalf of the landowners in the Caddens Release Area. Those studies will inform the preparation of an LEP, DCP Contributions Plans and Planning Agreements which are expected will be prepared and reported for Council’s consideration mid 2007.

5. South Werrington Urban Village

Site description	The site is generally bounded to the north by the Western railway line and existing Werrington residential area; to the east by the Werrington Road (Arterial Road alignment), to the south by the Great Western Highway and the west by the Cobham Juvenile Justice Facility
Site area	48 hectares
Statutory position	Currently zoned part Zone No. 1(d) under IDO 93 and part Zone No. 5(a) (Tertiary Education) under LEP 1998 (Urban Land)
Forecast dwellings	380 dwellings - to be revised following completion of studies
Estimated population	1,000 - to be revised following completion of studies
Estimated number of jobs	To be determined as part of planning investigations currently underway
Approximate area of employment zoned land	19.4 hectares
Development status	Draft LEP, DCP and Contributions Plan to be prepared following completion of planning studies and expected to be reported to Council for public exhibition early in 2007.

Background

The adopted WELL Precinct Strategy identified this area as suitable for the development of a business, employment and residential environment, which demonstrates a high quality ‘landmark’ and ‘gateway’ presence to the WELL Precinct, and which ensures the efficient utilisation of existing and proposed adjacent transport infrastructure.

In 2004, Council decided to prepare a draft LEP for this release area. The formulation and adoption of the WELL Precinct Strategy, and attendant precinct-wide studies, have underpinned the planning for this urban development opportunity.

Current Position

Sub-precinct studies are currently being finalised by UWS on behalf of the landowners in the South Werrington Urban Village area. A draft LEP and DCP have been prepared and are currently being reviewed. We would expect these matters to be resolved in the next two months to enable the matter to be reported to Council for consideration of the plans moving to the public exhibition phase.

6. Penrith Lakes

Site description	Land generally bounded by the Nepean River on the south and west, Smith Road to the north and Cranebrook Road, Church Lane and West Wilchard Road to the east.
Site area	1,940 hectares
Statutory position	Currently zoned Rural ‘A2’ under IDO 93 as amended by SREP 11 to allow the extraction of sand and gravel. The draft amendment to the REP proposes a mix of Regional Open Space, Residential Mixed Uses, Rural Conservation and Employment zones.
Proposed development	804 hectares parkland and 702 hectares of lakes; 325 hectares of mixed use/residential; 25 hectares of rural/residential; 24 hectares for the relocation of Castlereagh Road; 60 hectares for employment uses
Forecast dwellings	Up to 4,900
Estimated population	Up to 14,000
Estimated number of jobs	Up to 5,260 (including off-site jobs)
Approximate area of employment zoned land	60 hectares
Development status	Minister for Planning has advised that the Penrith Lakes Scheme will be considered a State Significant Site and the planning for the site dealt with as a Major Project under Part 3A of the EP&A Act.

Background

Sydney REP No 11 – Penrith Lakes Scheme was made by the Minister for Planning in 1996, to implement the extraction of raw material and identify the creation of lakes, urban and parkland areas as the preferred means of rehabilitating the site. In 2000, Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) requested the Minister to initiate the rezoning of the site to facilitate the delivery of the original proposed urban development area. In late 2000, the Minister determined this would be facilitated by the preparation of a new REP and a series of planning and environmental studies was subsequently undertaken by DoP to provide a framework for the Plan’s formulation.

Council participated in a number of working groups formed to advance the studies which included funding and management, community and urban, recreation, transport, infrastructure, economic and employment, heritage, flora and fauna, water cycle, physical constraints. We also provided commentary to DoP in relation to its preparation of the draft REP amendment. The key issues that Council identified as requiring resolution included:

· Planning for the Parklands and early establishment of the Parkland Management Authority, including Government commitment to a sustainable funding strategy;

· Planning structure and approvals processes proving a meaningful role for Council;

· Importance of ensuring appropriate water quality controls/standards, determination of appropriate flood modelling, development of an appropriate flood evacuation strategy and substantiation of the increased urban land take;

· Job creation;

· Diversity in housing product including ‘up market’ housing;

· Transport infrastructure improvements; and

· Social facility delivery including optimising recreation/leisure opportunities.

The original Water Plan for the Scheme provided for primary contact water quality in the lakes. The recent review of the Water Plan has revealed that there is a low level of confidence in the delivery of primary contact water quality in Main Lakes ‘A’ and ‘B’, due particularly to the potential for blue-green algal blooms. The review has recommended that primary contact water quality be provided in the Regatta and Warm-up Lakes, with secondary water quality in Main Lakes ‘A’ and ‘B’. A stand-alone swimming pool facility, similar to Brisbane’s Southbank facility, was recommended in Main Lake ‘A’, plus a cordoned-off swimming area within the Regatta/Warm-up lake. Council’s comments on the review have been referred to DoP for their consideration.

PLDC has over some time been negotiating with State Government a Planning Agreement which would see necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development of the site. Council has, however, not been a party to these discussions which it is also understood have considered required amendments to the original Deed of Agreement entered into between PLDC and the State Government.

We understand the draft Planning Agreement will provide for regional transport infrastructure, public transport, flood evacuation, education facilities and provision of affordable housing.

DoP has engaged a consultant to prepare a Development Control Plan for the Parklands which was intended to develop a vision for the Parklands and identify recreation opportunities, activity precincts and commercial opportunities. Council was invited to participate in that process. A presentation of the initial outcomes of that exercise was provided to Councillors at a Workshop on 8 November 2006. The issues of concern identified by Council were subsequently advised to DoP.

Current Position

Council was recently advised by PLDC that it had a number of concerns with the adequacy and the appropriateness of the draft REP and also with the lack of integration between planning for the parkland and urban areas. In December 2006, PLDC made application to the Minister for Planning to have the Penrith Lakes Scheme declared a State significant site, and the planning for the site dealt with as a Major Project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The DoP held a Planning Focus Meeting on 30 January 2007 seeking Council’s and relevant public authorities’ key issues and assessment requirements to be addressed in the preparation of the Concept Plan for the site.

This process is an alternative mechanism to that of a Regional Environmental Plan. Council received a briefing on the alternative process sought by PLDC at its Workshop on 5 February 2007.

The Minister announced on the 12 February 2007 that the Penrith Lakes Scheme will be considered as a State Significant Site and that the planning process will involve the preparation of a Concept Plan for the whole site, inclusive of the Urban and Parkland areas.

The Part 3A process is similar to that of an REP, in that the Minister remains the principal decision maker, it involves stakeholder input from Council & affected public authorities, and consultation with the broader community through a statutory public exhibition process. The Minister at a recent meeting with the Mayor and senior staff advised that he would:

· Establish a Working group, comprising representatives of the DoP and other key agencies, PLDC and Council, to overview the planning process;

· Retain Council’s normal role for the preparation and approval of Development Control Plans and S94 Developer Contributions Plans and the consent role for Development Applications; and

· Establish a reasonable timeframe for the conduct of the planning process and development assessment.

PLDC has also invited Council to participate in the planning review process by way of:

· Regular meetings of a Special Project Group comprised of senior executives of Council and PLDC to discuss and provide common direction of key issues; and

· Attendance of Council’s technical staff at specific working sessions to assist development of the proposed Concept Plan.

These undertakings by the Minister and PLDC satisfactorily address our previous concerns with the Part 3A process, in particular maintaining Council’s role as a decision maker in the planning for the site. The Minister’s assurances allow Council to focus on achieving the desired outcomes of the Scheme.

In the development of any new Concept Plan for the site, outcomes of particular interest are:

· Demonstration of the public benefit of moving beyond the ‘base case’ of 230ha to the proposed 410ha of urban land;

· Funding and delivery of necessary regional and local infrastructure;

· Resolution of flood evacuation measures from the site, and the outcome of flood modelling which will determine an accurate flood level for the site; and

· Early establishment of a management structure and sustainable funding mechanism for the Parklands

Mining, landform shaping and landscape rehabilitation continue on the site, with full completion of these activities expected to take between 5 and 10 years depending on the extraction rate. The first stage of the relocation of Castlereagh Road, from the northern extremity of the site around the western side of Cranebrook Village, to join the existing Cranebrook Road just south of the Village in proximity to Nepean Street has been completed and opened to traffic. The remainder of the relocated Castlereagh Road is expected to be opened in May 2007.

It is important for Council to participate in the consultative groups initiated by the Minister and PLDC. Further reports will be brought back to Council as this process advances.

7. Waterside (Lakes Environs)

Site description	Land generally bounded by Nepean Street to the north, Andrews Road to the south, Cranebrook Road to the west and Laycock Street and Greygums Oval to the east.
Site area	71 hectares
Statutory position	Penrith LEP 1998 (Lakes Environs) gazetted 13 March 1998 – Part 2(g) Residential (Waterways)/Part 2(h) Residential (Services)/Part 5(c) State Road & State Road Widening/Part 7(w) Environment Protection (Wetlands).
Proposed development	694 hectares residential dwellings (in detached, multi-unit and apartment forms), a range of employment generating uses including 300-bed motel and a conference centre. Nepean Street is to be closed and Laycock Street extended to Andrews Road.
Forecast dwellings	694
Estimated population	2,150
Estimated number of jobs	to be determined.
Approximate area of employment zoned land	17 hectares
Development status	Development consents granted for bulk earthworks associated with the lakes construction and rehabilitation of wetlands, major residential infrastructure and the first stage of housing development for 36 dwellings.

Background

Planning for the estate was initially undertaken in the mid 1990s, culminating in the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) (LEP), and the adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) (DCP) on 13 March 1998.

Stockland purchased the site in late 2003, and requested amendments to the adopted LEP and DCP, to facilitate a refined Master Plan for the residential component of the site. The refined Master Plan included adjustments in road layout, shape of the lakes, housing type and the location of community facilities.

In December 2004, Council adopted the draft amendments to the LEP and the DCP to facilitate Stockland’s refined Master Plan. The LEP provided for an alternative housing delivery strategy to provide a more flexible means of addressing contemporary housing market demands. At that meeting, Council resolved to defer the referral of the LEP to DoP, pending the engagement of an independent acoustic consultant to review the noise studies submitted by both Stockland and the adjoining landowners who had raised concerns over the identification of noise affected areas of the site. The noise review has been undertaken, and has identified that part of the site that could be developed for residential purposes, prior to the erection of buildings in the employment area fronting Andrews Road.

The Section 94 Contributions Plan for the site was adopted by Council in 2005.

Current Position

In December 2005, Council endorsed the outcomes of the independent acoustic study, and resolved to forward the draft LEP to the Minister for gazettal. The LEP was gazetted in May 2006.

The approved bulk earthworks, involving creation of the lakes and construction of the residential lands, is principally completed, with minor works to continue to facilitate each stage of the estate.

Development approval has issued, and work has commenced to construct the residential infrastructure (roads & services) for the estate. It is intended to roll out the infrastructure to coincide with the staged release of housing in the estate.

Development and construction approvals for new dwellings have issued for the display village and Stages 1A & 1B of housing development on the site, and construction has commenced. The main entry and noise attenuation measures along Cranebrook Road have been constructed.

Stockland has sought ‘expressions of interest’ to develop the 2(h) (Residential Services) land (employment) along the Andrews Road frontage of the property. Stockland has contended that the range of uses currently permitted in that zone is too restrictive and is inhibiting development of the land. Stockland approached Council to discuss a zone amendment that would increase the range of permissible uses, whilst maintaining the need for development to protect the acoustic environment of residential development on the site. A formal application to amend the zone has not to date been received.

8. Glenmore Park Stage 2

Site description	The site is generally bounded by Mulgoa Nature Reserve and the existing Glenmore Park residential area; rural lands; The Northern Road; and Mulgoa Tip and rural lands to the north, south, east and west respectively.
Site area	168 hectares, excluding the Cumberland Precinct (land designated by the Australian Heritage Commission on the Register of the National Estate as forming part of the Mulgoa Natural Area).
Statutory position	Currently zoned Rural 1(a) under Penrith LEP No. 201 (Rural Lands)
Proposed development	Mixed density residential, rural residential, roads, community and sporting facilities, employment, open space and conservation land.
Forecast dwellings	around 1,750 – subject to final studies
Estimated population	around 4,700 – subject to final studies
Estimated number of jobs required	Not yet determined – subject to final studies.
Development status	Draft LEP, DCP and Contributions Plan to be prepared following completion of planning studies and expected to be reported to Council for public exhibition early in 2007.

Background

In May 2001, Lensworth Glenmore Park Ltd, sought Council’s agreement to initiate urban planning investigations for the Bradley St quarry area, which is located south east of the existing Glenmore Park estate. Subsequently, in January 2002, Council held a Strategic Vision Workshop drawing together landowners, key stakeholders, government agencies, as well as Council representatives. The purpose of the workshop was to develop principal strategic outcomes in which urban development could embrace the area.

In May 2002, Council appointed consultants to prepare a Local Environmental Study (LES) and make a submission to the State Government, seeking inclusion of the site on the Metropolitan Development Program (MDP). The site was subsequently listed in the MDP in July 2003.

On 8December 2003, Council received a report relating to the findings of LES prepared for Glenmore Park Stage 2. At the time, Council endorsed the recommendations and principles of the LES as the basis for advancing further planning for the area, including a draft LEP, DCP and Section 94 Plan. Council also resolved at that meeting that further investigation be undertaken to address the jobs deficit identified in the LES.

Since that time, Council officers have been working with representatives of the Land Owners Group (LOG) to advance the development of those plans. The LOG has also changed in that period and is now comprised of the following:

· Stockland

· Mulpha Norwest

· Holicombe

· Vianello

· Mint Holdings

Current Position

Resolving the range of issues arising from the planning for Glenmore Park Stage 2 has been a complex process, however the project is now at a point where significant resolution of most key matters has now been achieved. This plan is now expected to deliver approximately 1,750 dwellings and a population of approximately 4,700.

A progress report on Glenmore Park Stage 2 was reported separately to Council on 13 November 2006. The specific key matters reported were:

· Regional Infrastructure Levy

· Cumberland Precinct

· riparian corridor

· rural precinct

· transport and access management

· active open space

· retail centre

· communities

· urban form

· housing density

· employment.

Extensive discussions have been held with the Landowners’ group and their consultant team, over the past 18 months, to facilitate suitable outcomes from the investigations identified above. Whilst there has been substantial completion of most of the identified strategies, a number of key aspects remain to be resolved. Notwithstanding, we have continued with the preparation of the draft LEP instrument and the DCP. Assuming agreement is reached with the Landowner Group on these matters, a report will be presented to Council in late March 2007.

9. St Marys Release Area (formerly ADI site)

Site description	The site is generally bounded by Ninth Avenue/Palmyra Avenue to the north, the urban areas of Cambridge Gardens, Werrington Downs, Werrington County, and St Marys to the south, Forrester Road/Palmyra Avenue to the east, and The Northern Road to the west.
Site area	1,545 hectares
Statutory position	SREP 30 which provides for a range of urban uses, including residential and commercial uses, employment uses, regional park and regional open space.
Proposed development	Western Precinct (232 hectares comprising Urban and Employment Zoned Lands), Central Precinct (133 hectares comprising Urban Zoned Lands) and South Dunheved Precinct (12 hectares comprising Employment Zoned Lands)
Forecast dwellings (Penrith component)	3,068 (Penrith)
Estimated population	7,830 (Penrith)
Estimated number of jobs	3,460 (Penrith)
Approximate area of employment zoned land	43 hectares in Penrith LGA across the 3 Precincts
Development status	Development application submission contingent on Council endorsement of the first development area in Penrith, being the Dunheved Employment Precinct.

Background

Strategic planning investigations for the ADI site began in April 1991, when the State Government’s Urban Development Committee endorsed the inclusion of the site in the UDP category “Areas under Investigation.” The ADI site was listed on the Urban Development Program in 1993.

A draft Regional Environmental Study (RES) was exhibited in October 1995, and endorsed as complete by the Director General of DUAP in May 1996. An ADI Site Advisory Committee (Section 22 Committee) was established in October 1996, and the Section 22 Committee Report completed in August 1997. The ADI site has been the subject of extensive strategic planning and environmental investigations. Further environmental work is of course being carried out each time a draft Precinct Plan and supporting documentation is prepared.

The State Government publicly exhibited a draft Regional Environmental Plan (REP) for the ADI site, from December 1999 until March 2000, and Council submitted an extensive submission on the draft REP and Environmental Planning Strategy in March 2000. Council also made a submission on the draft Development Agreement in October 2000. Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP 30) was gazetted in January 2001, and the St Marys Development Agreement was executed in December 2002.

Council has participated in a number of committees convened by DoP relating to transport, macrofauna, employment and human services issues. The major focus of these committees is to develop appropriate precinct and management plans, strategies and innovative ways of delivering infrastructure.

The St Marys Macrofauna Management Plan was endorsed by the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), formerly the National Parks and Wildlife Service, in early 2004. This is a plan for the management of kangaroos the former ADI site.

Advisory Committees were established to advise the National Parks & Wildlife Service (now part of DEC) and DoP on the preparation of a Plan of Management for the Regional Park and Regional Open Space areas within the site. A Plan of Management for the Regional Open Space lands, within the St Marys Release Area and the Ropes Creek and South Creek corridors, has been finalised and endorsed by the Director General of the DoP.

Currently, a fauna study is being carried out by DEC as an essential prerequisite to the finalisation of a draft Plan of Management for the Regional Park. It is expected that the draft Plan of Management will be publicly exhibited later this year. A Master Plan will also be prepared for the Regional Park and placed on public exhibition. This will occur subsequent to the Plan of Management process.

A Human Services Infrastructure Co-ordination Group has been set up by DoP to oversee the provision of human services for zoned urban land on the site. The Co-ordination Group has made recommendations about the scope and location of facilities, services and open space to be provided for the development. The major outcome to date is the decision to deliver, via a public-private partnership, a public primary school in the Eastern Precinct (Blacktown Council) by January 2008.

A Traffic Modelling Study to address the regional road network, and the transport implications of the reduced development extent for the ADI site (and other release areas), has been completed and endorsed by DoP. This study addresses the arterial roads network, and is being used by the RTA in the preparation of Development Agreements for the St Marys Release Area. This study has determined the required arterial road network improvements generated by that development.

A revised Transport Management Study for the St Marys Release Area, now incorporating the reduced development outcome from 2001, has been prepared by consultants SKM for Delfin Lend Lease. In December 2005, Council officers attended a Transport Committee meeting to consider the recommendations of that report. Additional work and investigations are now being carried out in response to feedback made by members of that Committee.

An Employment Development Strategy has been prepared for the joint Venture Partners and submitted as part of the Eastern Precinct Plan to Blacktown City Council (BCC). The Strategy has a required employment target of 5300 jobs across the whole site (both LGAs), and predicts the creation of approximately 6,700 jobs by the year 2020. In April 2005, Delfin Lend Lease opened an interim Skilling and Employment Centre in St Marys, which is focussing on addressing the current skills shortages in the construction trades and the retail sector. Delfin Lend Lease is seeking to provide a link between potential employees and employers, by working with service (job) providers who will run the centre. This site is an interim location and a permanent Centre is to be located in the Eastern Village Centre in 2007.

A development agreement exists between the Commonwealth and State Governments and Delfin Lend Lease (DLL), where the Minister acknowledges the need to progressively provide facilities and services to support additional population on the site. This Agreement provides for 3 primary schools, additional community health centres, transport and road provision (including bus priority works, main road intersection works, bus overpass and cycleways), regional and local open space and regional park.

The Minister for Western Sydney (then Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) declared the release of the Eastern Precinct in Blacktown LGA, and also the North and South Dunheved Precincts, in June 2003. The Draft Precinct Plan for the Eastern Precinct, which was submitted by DLL to BCC in early August 2003, was publicly exhibited in August/September 2003. We assessed the Precinct Plan and submitted a report to Council at its meeting of 15 September 2003. BCC, at its Development Committee meeting on 28 January 2004, and its Ordinary Meeting on 4 February 2004, adopted the Eastern Precinct Plan with certain amendments, as agreed to by the proponent, DLL. Development is now underway.

On 11 April 2006 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 30 – St Marys (Amendment No 1) was gazetted. This amendment formalised the creation of an expanded, zoned Regional Park with an area of 900 ha.

On 29 September 2006 the Minister for Planning wrote to Council advising that he had declared the remaining Central, Western and Ropes Creek Precincts to be release areas in accordance with the provisions of SREP 30.

The Minister for Planning acknowledged issues raised in the consultation process by Councils and the State Government agencies. The Declaration is conditional upon particular matters being addressed to his satisfaction prior to specific stages in the planning process. This information was previously conveyed to Councillors by memorandum.

The draft Dunheved Precinct Plan was prepared as a single precinct plan to cover the lands in both Penrith and Blacktown Councils. The draft Dunheved Precinct Plan was submitted to Council in late April 2005. The draft Plan was publicly exhibited by Penrith Council in September and October 2005. A parallel public exhibition was held by Blacktown Council. Council considered a report regarding the Dunheved South Precinct Plan at its Policy Review Committee Meeting on 22 May 2006. A decision on adoption of the Plan was deferred, pending resolution of contamination issues associated with the land. Council however resolved to publicly exhibit the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement.

Current Position

Council at its 11 December 2006 Ordinary Meeting resolved to adopt the Dunheved Precinct Plan and to endorse the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, including the proposed works schedules. The Dunheved Precinct Plan came into force on 19 December 2006 when it was advertised in local newspapers. Delfin Lend Lease has also jointly executed the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement with Council and submitted a Bank Guarantee as required.

In December 2006, DoP reconvened the St Marys Release Area Transport Management Strategy Committee. The role of the Committee is to review the schedule of works and cost apportionment for the road and transport infrastructure for the site. Attendees included representatives from Delfin Lend Lease, RTA, Ministry of Transport, DoP, Penrith City Council and Blacktown City Council. The meeting noted that there were some differences between the RTA and Delfin Lend Lease on the costings of some of the roadworks. Further meetings will be held to resolve these differences. Council representatives will attend these meetings.

Subdivision works have commenced in the suburb now known as “Ropes Crossing,” which is located in the Blacktown Local Government Area. Delfin Lend Lease has held pre-DA lodgement meetings with Penrith and Blacktown Councils to discuss the key issues for future Development Applications in the North and South Dunheved Precincts. The proposed developments will include the filling of land, the construction of roads and stormwater infrastructure, subdivision and riparian corridor rehabilitation.

It is anticipated that DAs for the Dunheved Precinct will be lodged in March/April 2007 and, subject to approval, subdivision works may commence later this year.

10. North Penrith Urban Area

Site description	The site is generally bounded by Coreen Avenue to the north, the Main Western Railway Line to the south, Castlereagh Road to the west, and Lemongrove residential area to the east.
Site area	50 hectares
Statutory position	The site is zoned under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) – Amendment No. 3 which was gazetted on 15 December, 2000. Zones include Part 2(a) Residential (Urban Landscape Protection); Part 2(d) Residential (Medium Density); Part 2(e) Residential (Medium-High Density); Part 3(f) Mixed Uses; Part 5(a) Special Uses (Commuter Car Park & Civic Square) and Part 6(b) Proposed Public Recreation & Community Uses. Part of the site is also zoned 4(a) General Industry under Penrith LEP 1996 (Industrial Land).
Proposed zoning	The current mixed land use zoning of the site is still proposed, subject to minor amendments proposed under Penrith LEP 1998 (Amendment No. 10). This proposes to rezone ‘deferred’ land in the north-eastern corner of the site for open space and housing, relocate the commuter car park, and refine the zoned boundary edges within the site resulting from preparation of the Master Plan.
Proposed development	9.5 ha employment precinct; 1.5 ha urban village precinct; 29 ha residential home-business precinct; 10 ha of open space/community facilities
Forecast dwellings	850
Estimated population	2,000
Estimated number of jobs	around 950 (onsite)
Approximate area of employment zoned land	9.5 hectares
Development status	Land has been zoned for the planned development outcome. Federal Government currently seeking expressions of interest for sale of land.

Background

The Department of Defence advised Council that it intended to dispose of the North Penrith army land in 1990. Planning investigations into a range of housing, transport and employment issues were undertaken in 1993, after Council agreed to consider a rezoning application for the land. In 1995, the study area was expanded to include land bounded generally by the railway to the south, the Lemongrove residential area to the east, Coreen Avenue to the north, and Castlereagh Road to the west. The project became known as the North Penrith Urban Investigation Area, at this time.

Workshops and community consultations were held in 1996, and Council resolved to prepare a draft LEP and DCP for the site, based on transit-oriented principles. In April 1998, a Structure Plan, comprising open space/community precinct, employment precinct, residential / home business precinct and urban village precinct, was adopted by Council.

Council first exhibited a draft LEP and DCP for the site in June/July 1999 and, following a Community Forum, adopted an LEP and DCP for the site in October 1999. The LEP and DCP for the site came into effect in December 2000. The LEP provides for a mixed land use approach, with a balance of employment uses and housing types, and recognises the transit focus and its strategic location to the Penrith City Centre. A Draft Master Plan was exhibited in 2002. The Master Plan sets out the services and facilities which include a transitway link from the bus interchange and ADI; a 600-space commuter car park; road upgrading; small scale retail development in the village centre; open space/parks, regional cycleway/pedestrian network; restoration of Thornton Hall, interpretation of other significant heritage items and identified archaeological site; and stormwater detention systems.

In 2003, the Department of Defence (DoD) commissioned an independent consultant review of the North Penrith development proposal and Master Plan. The Review recommended a ‘Hybrid’ scheme as the preferred land use option for the site. The proposal involved the use of 6 hectares of land on the south western area of the site for commercial/office development, yielding approximately 148,000m2 of office space. The remaining land uses proposed in the scheme would be the same as the current Master Plan, with the exception that the proposed 600-space commuter car park would be deleted.

Council consulted with the Penrith business community and City Centre landowners on the proposal for commercial office space on the North Penrith site. Those who made a submission to Council, including the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Penrith City Centre Association, expressed considerable concern about the likely impact of the ‘Hybrid’ scheme on the continued economic viability and vitality of the existing Penrith CBD. Council shared these concerns, particularly given that there is extensive capacity within the Penrith CBD, including sites within easy walking distance of Penrith Railway Station, to accommodate demand for future office space. This has also been confirmed in recent employment studies undertaken by consultants on behalf of Council.

In June 2004, Council wrote to the Hon Senator Robert Hill MP, Minister for Defence, advising that Council did not consider the ‘Hybrid’ scheme to be an appropriate outcome for the North Penrith site. Council sought confirmation from the Commonwealth Government that it would not dispose of the site until such time as a consensus on the future land use arrangements for the site had been reached. Council also sought clarification as to the Commonwealth Government’s position with respect to the draft Master Plan, and urged the Government to continue its partnership with Council in finalising strategies for the site.

The Hon Teresa Gambaro MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, responded by letter in August 2004, advising that the Government was still determining the most appropriate way forward with the disposal of the North Penrith property and would take Council’s concerns into consideration. Upon a decision being made on the options for the site, the Government advised that it would accordingly instruct DoD to advise Council of its position.

In January 2005, Council received a letter from the Hon Senator Robert Hill MP, advising that the Government made an election policy commitment to sell surplus Defence land at North Penrith on the open market as part of a structured sale, developed to attract industry and commercial development in the area and to maximise job opportunities. The letter attached a media release, dated 1 October 2004, which sets out the Government’s position on the future sale of the North Penrith site.

We responded to the Minister’s letter, expressing concern in what appeared to be the imminent sale of this important site, without any commitment from the Commonwealth Government on the future composition of land uses, and have sought further clarification as to the sale process and the Government’s position on the current land uses planned for the site. The Government was again urged to not place the land on the open market until the uncertainty about the future land use composition for the site was resolved.

In March 2005, we provided a briefing to the Local Member for Lindsay, the Hon Jackie Kelly MP, and Mr David French, Director of DoD Property Disposals Unit, on Council’s strategic growth management, economic development program and the City Centre’s review, which all provide an important context for decisions about the future of the North Penrith site. We also provided an outline of Council’s appreciation of some of the initial directions being pursued by the State Government in its Metropolitan Strategy planning as it may relate to Penrith.

The briefing was informative in learning more about the Department of Defence’s disposal process, which they indicated would continue, despite Council’s requests for the DoD to not sell the land until there was an agreed future land use arrangement established. It was also indicated that the sale process would contain reference to the elements raised in the Minister for Defence’s October media release, and that the successful purchaser would be required to advance a scheme which would deliver those employment and infrastructure elements.

In June 2005, Council wrote to the Director of the Property Disposals Unit of DoD, seeking their advice on the status of the sale process and how the issues raised at the March briefing might be integrated into their approach for the disposal of the site.

DoD advised Council, in August 2005, that it was developing the detailed structured sale process, with the objective of going to the market in late 2005.

Current Position

DoD has developed a 2 stage sale process comprising of a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) followed by a Request for Detailed Proposals (RFP).

DoD commenced the REOI Process on 16 September 2006, submissions closed on 17 November 2006. The process required interested parties to pay a $100 documentation fee and sign a confidentiality agreement to obtain all available documentation. DoD waived these requirements after representation by Council.

A shortlist of proponents will be selected from the REOI process to prepare detailed proposals for development of the site.

It is understood the Commonwealth is seeking to enter into an agreement with the successful proponent that will:

· Allow for and require the proponent to obtain necessary planning controls and approvals for and deliver a development concept that the Commonwealth assesses would be likely to create approximately 4000 job opportunities;

· Put in place appropriate staging and security arrangements; and

· Enable compliance with heritage obligations;

· Provide a high degree of confidence that the proponent has the financial substance, demonstrated capability and track record to realise the redevelopment proposal; and

· Achieve value for money.

The Department of Defence has indicated that the next round of the sale process will commence after March 2007. We are endeavouring to meet with the Department of Planning (DoP) and the DoD to explore their views on how we may develop future planning options for the site.

11. Erskine Park Employment Area

Site description	The site is generally bounded by St Clair/Erskine Park residential areas to the north, the Sydney Water supply pipeline to the south, Ropes Creek to the east and Mamre Road to the west.
Site area	510 hectares
Statutory position	Penrith LEP 1994: Erskine Park Employment Area – Part 4(e) employment/Part 4(e1) employment (restricted)/Part 5(c) special uses ‘C’ (State Roads & State Road Widening)/Part 1(f) floodway.
Estimated number of jobs	up to 6,000
Approximate developable area of employment zoned land	276 hectares
Development status	Development applications approved – A total of 29 DAs have been approved including 8 subdivisions, 4 bulk earthworks, 1 electricity substation, 3 roads, 13 industrial buildings including 2 State Significant developments.

Background

After an extensive period of consultation with the local Erskine Park and St Clair residential communities in the early 1990’s, a number of key principles and objectives for development of EPEA were developed, which have been incorporated into the LEP and DCP for EPEA. These related to a prohibition of offensive and hazardous industries, which were considered to be likely to generate undesirable environmental impacts such as air, noise and water pollution. The LEP sought to preserve the residential amenity of adjoining residential communities, and to minimise the environmental impact of development on those communities. The LEP also provided a buffer for residents between the industrial properties and the residential area. Provisions, including those relating to building height, minimum lot sizes, landscaped setback and environmental controls, were incorporated into the DCP.

The LEP was gazetted in 1994, and Council adopted the DCP and Section 94 Contributions Plan in December 2002.

Construction of the lead-in water and sewer mains to EPEA was completed in December 2003, and we were advised in writing by Sydney Water, in April 2004, that all of EPEA, including the eastern half, could now be serviced with water and sewer. This was made possible by Council’s decision to provide up-front funding to the value of $960,000, which will be returned to Council via Sydney water DSP charges to developers, as they develop the estate.

In mid 2003 landowners from EPEA, requested Council’s support in developing a revised Biodiversity Strategy for EPEA. The landowners sought an alternative biodiversity corridor which would allow a more practical and viable developable area. Council supported the revision on the proviso that a genuine balance between development and conservation was pursued and presented to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) for a sign-off. It was intended this would deliver the dual outcomes of environmental protection and employment generation.

Council staff has met with the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (formerly National Parks and Wildlife Service) and the Erskine Park Landowners Group, to devise and negotiate an agreed Biodiversity Strategy for the estate. A draft revised Biodiversity Strategy was presented to DEC in March 2005. The DEC has since endorsed the fundamental principles underpinning it.

Since this time, considerable work has been done by the landowners in preparing a revised biodiversity map, financial proposals, planting and restoration proposals and various agreements.

The fundamental underlying principle for the Biodiversity Strategy was to provide a biodiversity corridor system linking remnant native vegetation across the Orchard Hills Defence site, the riparian biodiversity system within South Creek, the remnant native vegetation in EPEA and the Ropes Creek riparian biodiversity system.

Agreement has now been reached between the Erskine Park Land Owners Group (EPLOG) and DoP to finalise a Biodiversity Conservation Management Plan for the Erskine Park biodiversity conservation area. The Management Plan establishes the basis for the biodiversity corridor, requirements for its ongoing conservation, care and control. The DoP has agreed to accept dedication of the industrial zoned land in EPEA which makes up the biodiversity corridor. The EPLOG has also agreed to pay DoP sufficient funds for the management in-perpetuity of the biodiversity conservation lands in EPEA.

An Agreement, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been prepared which identifies all of the parties involved, the necessary lands which form the proposed biodiversity corridor and confirms the requirement for land transfers to DoP. The MOU identifies the Minister for Planning (his agents or contractors) as being responsible for establishing and maintaining the biodiversity within the corridor. These costs will be paid out of funds specifically created for the biodiversity corridor establishment and ongoing maintenance with the required contributions being paid by the EPLOG. No funding is required by Council for the maintenance and management of the land.

It is anticipated that the MOU and voluntary Planning Agreements will be signed soon, thereby implementing the Biodiversity Management Plan. This will allow a revised Erskine Park Employment Area Development Control Plan and Section 94 Plan to be prepared and reported for Council’s endorsement for public exhibition.

An EPEA Infrastructure Project Control Group, which consists of Council staff, EPEA landowners and servicing agencies, was established last year to facilitate a process for the provision of infrastructure to the estate, including the upgrade of Lenore Drive and the provision of water, sewer and power. Lenore Drive was completed in late 2006.

Planning of the site has also made provision for an arterial link through the estate, linking this estate to the SEPP No. 59 lands and to the M7. Council considers that this link will enhance both estates, and enable both effective and efficient public transport services to be provided, to reduce the dependency by the employees in the area on motor vehicles. A Route Alignment Study, to determine a preferred route alignment and notional costings for the road, has been completed by Council and presented to the DoP and RTA. Council, in conjunction with the EPEA landowners group, also prepared a Position Paper to the former Minister for Planning, outlining the case for the link road and the benefits for the estate.

The Metro Strategy released by the State Government in December 2005 specifically nominated the then named EPEA-M7 Link Road as a major piece of infrastructure to be provided by landowner contributions, and also indicated a route consistent with that proposed by Council.

The Minister for Planning formally declared on 9 June 2006 the Erskine Park Link Road Network as a Major Project to which Part 3 A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act would apply.

In response to this announcement, Council officers have met with DoP to seek the finalisation of the route of the Link Road as a priority, and for that process not to be delayed by the longer term planning process to be carried out for the newly identified Western Sydney Employment Hub (WSEH).

Current Position

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 4 December 2006 resolved to endorse the principle of an EPEA Biodiversity Corridor System as a centrepiece of a regional biodiversity corridor. Council also resolved to endorse the Memorandum of Understanding relating to the Biodiversity Conservation proposal for EPEA. It is expected that the Biodiversity Management Plan will be signed off by DoP shortly.

On 15 January 2007 the Mayor, along with senior Council staff met with the Minister for Planning and senior management from Blacktown, Fairfield and Holroyd Councils to receive a briefing from the Minister in relation to the advancement of planning for the WSEH. The Minister advised that land north of the pipeline (within EPEA) would be developed prior to land south of the pipeline and State Environmental Planning Policy No 59 – Central Western Sydney Economic & Employment Area (SEPP 59) would be replaced with a new draft SEPP under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. This draft SEPP would cover the area of the existing WSEH. A Working Group comprising members from all four Councils, Department of Planning and State Government agencies would be established to coordinate the planning process.

The RTA has been engaged as the proponent for the arterial road network required to service the WSEH. This includes the link road proposed by Council to connect Lenore Drive with Old Wallgrove Road and the M7. This proposal will be advanced as an amendment ot the Government’s Major Projects SEPP. It is anticipated that a Concept Plan for the road network will be publicly exhibited for 30 days within the next few months. It is understood the exhibition will include details of a full WSEH arterial road network and an implementation strategy. Details of the Concept Plan and exhibition will be reported to Council when they become available.

These planning processes will allow a revised EPEA Development Control Plan and Section 94 Plan to be prepared and reported for Council’s endorsement for public exhibition.

Extensive development has already occurred within EPEA and this is expected to accelerate after decisions are taken by Government in relation to the final route alignment, timing and funding arrangements for the EPEA-M7 Link Road.

Conclusion

Penrith continues to accommodate metropolitan growth, as it has for over thirty years. Importantly, the new urban release areas will be providing accommodation for Penrith’s own growing community. Managing the extent of that growth, and arresting its impact on the natural environment and existing communities, is a strategic priority for Council.

We are continuing to plan for sustainable new urban communities through the strategic and statutory planning processes, to ensure the delivery of quality outcomes, and that appropriate infrastructure is provided to these release areas as they unfold.

External factors can influence the timeframes and delivery of some of our new urban release areas. Many of these involve decision making by others, particularly by State Government and its agencies and, in the case of the Defence sites, the Commonwealth Government. This raises difficult challenges, particularly in relation to negotiating suitable outcomes which match Council’s strategic objectives and ensuring the effective delivery of required infrastructure to support new urban developments.

We continue to press State agencies for resolution of outstanding matters to enable us to move the planning processes forward for all sites.

Further reports will be submitted to Council to provide updates on these release areas and precincts, when milestones are reached in the planning processes.

RECOMMENDATION

That

1. The information contained in the report on Urban Release Areas - Status Report be received.

2. Council agree to participate in the National Growth Area Alliance and that a contribution of $10,000 be made available from existing allocated funds for the project.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

New Urban Areas in Penrith

1 Page

Appendix

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*The City in its Environment*

The City in its Environment

Creation of an Urban Design Review Panel

Compiled by: Ruth Byrnes, Senior Environmental Planner

Shari Hussein, Development Enquiry Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Council’s planning policies, land use, regulatory controls and asset management practices enhance the visual amenity of the City.

Critical Action: Develop and implement compliance and regulatory programs to protect the visual amenity of the City.

Purpose:

To allow consideration of the options available for the creation of an Urban Design Review Panel. The report recommends that a Panel be created to consider major developments of a residential, commercial and industrial character and not be limited to that permitted by the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

Introduction

The 2006-2007 Management Plan at Issue 19.1A1, requires the Development Services Manager to:

“Provide mechanisms (including establishing an Urban Design Review Panel) to ensure that new developments enhance the visual amenity of the City.”

This report looks at the various options available to Council in gaining independent design advice via the creation of an Urban Design Review Panel.

Current Situation

Council’s Architect currently provides design comment on major developments and SEPP65 matters. This advice is provided at no charge to the applicant. On those occasions when Council’s Architect is unavailable the work has been outsourced to architectural firms.

Options

A number of options are discussed below about how design advice could be provided through the development assessment process.

Option A - Design Review Panel formed in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Development (SEPP 65)

For some time now, the Department of Planning has encouraged the formation of Design Review Panels, particularly in relation to development of residential flat buildings in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Development (SEPP 65). SEPP 65 aims to improve the design quality of residential flat buildings of three storeys or more and containing four or more dwellings. This is the only form of development considered by such a panel. A SEPP 65 Panel may operate for a single local government area, or may operate for a group of Councils within practical distances and/or similar development characteristics.

Currently, Design Review Panels are operating at the following locations:

· Southern Sydney (Hurstville, Kogarah, Rockdale Councils)

· Central Coast (Gosford, Wyong Councils)

· Randwick, Waverly Councils

· Hastings (Port Macquarie Council)

· Newcastle Council

There are Councils who are operating design panels outside the scope of SEPP 65, such as:

· Sutherland

· Bankstown

· Liverpool

· Parramatta

SEPP 65 aims to improve design quality of residential flat buildings of three or more storeys, and containing four or more self contained dwellings. It also applies to substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of an existing residential flat building and the conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building. In a mixed use building, SEPP 65 applies only to that residential portion that can be defined as “residential flat building”.

There are specific procedures for SEPP 65 Design Review Panels. Members must be qualified and have expertise in architecture, urban design, environmental planning or landscape architecture, and are appointed for 3 years.

The SEPP 65 Panel thoroughly examines proposals for residential flat buildings, including visiting the site and examining how the proposed development fits into the local area. Drawings, models and samples of materials and colours are assessed to ensure the final result will be both attractive and comfortable for residents.

The SEPP 65 Panel gives specific independent design advice to Council and applicants, prior to and after the lodgement of a development application or modification application.

Council officers are be required to co-ordinate the briefings, site visits, agenda and reports of the SEPP 65 Panel. The Panel needs to be monitored to ensure it is providing a public benefit from improved design of residential flat developments.

Advice from the SEPP 65 Panel must be obtained prior to determining a development application for a residential flat building. However, SEPP 65 provides that if the design review panel does not provide its advice within 31 days after the request is made, the application may be determined without considering such advice. The 31 day period does not alter the period within which a development application is required to be determined.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (SEPP 65) Regulation 2002 allows Council to charge a fee not exceeding $600 (plus $60 GST) in respect of residential flat development that is referred to a design review panel under SEPP 65. This refers to either a development application, a modification to a development application or State significant development. This fee must be refunded if the development is not referred to a Design Review Panel.

Option B - Urban Design Review Panel formed to consider all Major Development

Quality design is not limited to residential flat buildings. A Design Panel that also provided advice about other forms of major development, such as commercial, mixed use and industrial purposes would capture a much greater cross-section of key developments. This would also reflect the diversity of development and design issues currently handled by professional teams formed to manage new release development.

An Urban Design Review Panel could be formed to consider all major development in the Penrith local government area. It would preferably consist of one architect, one urban designer and one landscaped architect, all suitably qualified. These Panel members could be appointed by Council, rather than the Minister for Planning under a SEPP 65 Panel.

In a similar fashion to the operations of a SEPP 65 Panel, the members of Council’s Urban Design Review Panel would examine proposals for major development, including visiting the site, consider relevant materials provided for the proposal and provide independent design advice to Council applicants, prior to and after the lodgement of a development or modification application. Council officers would co-ordinate the briefings, site visits, agenda and reports of the Panel. This Panel would be monitored to ensure effective outcomes.

The following development types would be presented to the Panel for consideration:

· Residential flat buildings, 3 storeys or more (SEPP 65 developments)

· Mixed use buildings comprising commercial and/or retail, and more than four residential units (SEPP 65 developments)

· Large scale industrial complexes, such as those in Erskine Park Employment Area

· New commercial buildings in Penrith and St Marys CBDs

· New commercial buildings of 2 storeys or more in other areas

· Large scale development or re-development of heritage items and/or in a heritage conservation area and/or in the vicinity of heritage item

· Townhouses or villas of ten units or more

· Other large scale developments such as hospitals; schools, shopping centres, and large development of gateway sites

Developments that are subject to the provisions of Draft Local Environmental Plan – Penrith City Centre, where an architectural design competition is required, would not be considered by the Panel. Major development in the City Centre subject to these provisions must demonstrate design excellence and this is determined through the competition and concurrence is given by the Director General.

The provisions set out in SEPP 65 with regard to the time frames for the provision of advice to Council (being 31 days) would be adopted for the purposes of Council’s Urban Design Review Panel. There is evidence to show that currently, often many months are needed to resolve design issues for major development, so there should be efficiencies gained when the panel process is implemented.

Option C – Architectural Advisory Service

A third alternative which is used by a few Councils is to establish an Architectural Advisory Service. This would entail engaging the services of an individual qualified architect or an urban designer to comment on major development proposals of residential, commercial and industrial character.

Council currently operates a similar service for development of properties with heritage significance and/or developments within the vicinity of properties with heritage significance. Council’s Heritage Advisor is engaged to meet on a fortnightly basis and there is no charge to the applicant.

An Architectural Advisory Service with one consultant architect/urban designer involved, may be a cheaper option for the customer, however, may not provide the extent of expertise and benefits of a group decision that is required for the ongoing, high quality development of Penrith. There is also the independence created by a panel rather than an individual Council appointed consultant’s approach.

Preferred Option

Option B – The creation of an Urban Design Review Panel that includes SEPP 65 development

A Panel that considers SEPP 65 developments, along with other major commercial, retail and industrial developments is the preferred Option. It is more advantageous to Council, and the development industry, to invest the time and resources needed into as many major development types as possible.

Cost of Providing Urban Design Review Service

Based on current estimates there would be a need for one panel meeting per month. Each panel meeting could cater for a maximum of 5 items per day (5 hours @ 1 item each hour). The estimated cost of providing the service is approximately $3000 per day for 3 x non-council professionals plus the cost of council officer resources and incidentals (eg. travel costs, document review time).

The 2007-2008 fees payable by applicants on attendance of a Panel meeting would be:

a) $660 for residential flat buildings as defined in SEPP 65; and

b) $880 for large scale commercial, subdivision, mixed use, industrial or development of gateway sites

Where there are less than five items presented to the Panel per meeting, (and this is likely given the time involved with site visits, discussions and meeting the applicant) then the cost would have to be subsidised by Council, as is the case at Gosford Council to approximately 50/50. Parramatta Council has a high number of major developments considered by its Panel, and is able to charge considerably more for each meeting, resulting in a monetary balance at the end of the financial year with no expense to Council.

It is expected though, that improvement in assessment times and issue identification will provide cost benefits to Council at the back end of the process.

Operational Procedures

It is expected that the Panel will consider major proposals both prior to a development application being lodged, and again during the development assessment process.

Draft flow charts of the procedures for both pre-DA lodgement and post-DA lodgement are attached for information. It appears that the administration of Panels at other Councils, whether SEPP 65 or other panel, are generally similar in their operations.

Council’s existing internal Pre-lodgement Panel considers concept proposals prior to lodging development applications, for developments of a scale from dual occupancies and larger. All potential development issues are discussed, (including engineering, building, landscaping) for the applicant to consider in further design development. With the inception of the Urban Design Review Panel, the existing Pre-lodgement Panel will recommend to an applicant that a proposal will need to be reviewed by the Urban Design Review Panel

The requirements of applicants and associated fees will be included as an information sheet for prospective applicants, available at Council’s Customer Service Section.

After a booking for a Panel meeting is arranged, the details of the proposal, such as a brief written description, architectural plans, compliance checklist, will be forwarded to the Panel members to be received at least seven days prior to the meeting. The Panel meetings will initially operate fortnightly at Council’s offices, depending on the number of applications to assess.

In addition to Panel members, the meetings will be attended by Council’s Unit Co-ordinator, administrative staff.

The role of the Panel is to consider architectural, urban design and landscape merits of the proposal. Matters such as compliance with the Building Code of Australia or hydraulic requirements are highlighted at the existing Pre-lodgement Panel, at which the applicant should have already attended. These items are also highlighted in the development application assessment process. However, it is acknowledged that the Urban Design Review Panel members should be aware of these issues to ensure the desired urban design outcome can correspond.

Attendance at a Panel meeting is not a statutory requirement of an applicant, however, it will be strongly encouraged in order that the design integrity and quality of development application submissions are improved. The expert advice of the Panel should be highly regarded and once a consensus on a design matter is resolved, then those matters are no longer at issue.

To maintain the independence of the Panel, Council’s Architect and Landscape Co-ordinator will not be Panel members. However, where an applicant does not attend a meeting, Council’s Architect and Landscape Co-ordinator will be available for providing comments on a development application, as is currently the case with major developments.

Where a dispute arises, either between Panel members, or with the applicant, the Chairperson will be responsible in resolving the issue. The Chairperson will be a rotating position held by a Panel member, to maintain independence from Council and its staff. A procedure used by other Councils.

The Panel will prepare an independent report into its findings which will be signed off by the Chairperson.

A rating system will be introduced which scores the proposal A-D or similar, such that

A = recommend support for the design, no amendments

B = minor amendments, proceed to DA determination

C = major amendments, return to Panel, reduced fee available

D = recommend refusal of design

Due to the high level of experience of the Panel members, and the independence of the final decision, other Councils have found that the recommendations of the Panel are generally endorsed, and accepted by applicants. The Panel will not have delegated authority to determine an application.

The finer details of the operation of the Panel, such as number of consultants, staff involved, tenure of consultants, are yet to be determined. These items may alter again once the operation of the Panel has been assessed and monitored.

It is expected that the Panel will assist in providing ongoing benefits to the Penrith City local government area, with regards to improved quality of a large range of development application submissions, and improved built environment, aesthetically and functionally, particularly as Penrith City moves to its regional city status.

Appointment of Panel Members

The next stage of the project is to contact potential architectural companies and seek their interest in being involved in such a Panel. If sufficient interest from companies on the list of consultants is provided, a tender process will not be required and appointment of consultants could occur in March 2007, with the Panel operational by July 2007. If a tender is required, the timeframe could be extended by two to three months.

Review of Panel Operation

As this is a new procedure, it is proposed to review the operations of the Panel after six months and again at 12 months to make changes or adjustments as required. Information will be provided in the quarterly report about the Department’s activities.

Conclusion

The establishment of an Urban Design Review Panel to provide pre-lodgement and assessment advice to Council on all types of major development is considered necessary, particularly as Council moves to its Regional City status. There is a strong level of community expectation that new development for a Regional City is of high quality, both in architectural appearance, and functionality.

Although SEPP 65 provides for the format and operations of a Design Review Panel considering strictly residential development, there is scope to consider formulation of a similar Panel which considers a broader range of development categories.

This report suggests that Council receive a report recommending that an Urban Design Review Panel be created (including for SEPP 65 development).

Significantly, the Panel only provides advice to the applicant and comments on the design merits of particular development proposal once they reach Development Application stage. It does not determine the application – a power that remains with Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Creation of an Urban Design Review Panel be received

2. That the project proceeds to engaging consultants for membership on an Urban Design Review Panel.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Draft Pre-lodgement Process	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Draft Post-lodgement Process	1 Page	Appendix

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Leadership and Organisation*

Leadership and Organisation

Local Government Directions Papers

Compiled by: Mark Andrews, Strategic & Management Planning Coordinator

Authorised by: Ross Kingsley, Corporate Development Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: A commonly shared long-term vision for the City underpins strategic collaboration and community engagement.

Critical Action: Prepare, implement and review Strategic Plans and processes.

Purpose:

To provide an overview of the two Local Government Directions Papers recently issued by the Minister for Local Government and outline a suggested response. The report recommends that a submission be made to the Department of Local Government in the terms outlined in the report.

Background

As foreshadowed by the Minister for Local Government in his speech at the October 2006 Local Government Association Conference, the Department of Local Government (DLG) in November 2006 released for public comment:

§ A New Direction for Local Government Position Paper. The paper sets out a context for ongoing reform by the local government sector. It sets out a direction of connectedness and innovation and invites comments on specific proposals to further advance this direction.

§ Planning a Sustainable Future, an options paper on integrated planning and reporting for NSW local councils. The paper proposes a more strategic direction for councils through the preparation of ‘community strategic plans’ and delivery programs (this model is very much in keeping with this Council’s well-established approach to strategic management).

Councillors were informed of the release of the discussion papers by memo in November. The two papers are included in the Attachments to tonight’s business paper. The closing date for submissions on both papers is 9 March 2007.

As part of the consultation process on these papers, the DLG is conducting a series of workshops across the State. Council was represented at the first of these by the Mayor and officers. At the invitation of the DLG, the Community Development Manager made a presentation outlining how the Local Government Act’s social planning requirements are integrated into Penrith Council’s strategic and management planning.

A third key discussion paper, on asset management, is to be released shortly. Proposals are expected to be based on a recently agreed national framework. In NSW, an Infrastructure Task Force including representation from DLG, the Local Government and Shires Associations and Local Government Managers Association has been advancing this work.

Response to the Direction Papers

The general direction of the proposed reforms in both papers are worthy of support as they would assist, across a range of areas, in bringing other councils up to a level of practice similar to that of this Council. It is welcome that the Minister and senior officers of the Department have emphasised that a strong and sustainable local government system is indispensable to achieving the goal of sustainable communities.

The major point of criticism of the two papers must be that they do not sufficiently address the central concerns over the long term financial sustainability of NSW local government, as clearly documented in the Allan Report in 2006 and other studies. The proposals raised do not constitute a far-reaching reform of the sector which would underpin the future of local government. For example, the present rate pegging system is essentially assumed, without examination as an area of possible reform.

It is also notable that the papers and the proposals which are made do not at this stage clearly integrate with the State Plan, released in the same period.

A suggested response to each paper is outlined below. Subject to Council’s consideration of this matter, it is intended that a detailed submission be prepared by the relevant officers in the terms discussed.

Paper 1: A New Direction for Local Government

This paper briefly outlines a context for a ‘new direction’ to be set for 21^st century local government in NSW. This is largely in keeping with matters raised by the Minister in addresses to the industry. The scope of the paper is more limited than major reports on the sector produced previously in NSW and other States. As it states, “These proposals are not intended to be all encompassing but rather a means for the sector to debate how best it can ensure NSW councils continue to meet the changing needs of their communities”.

The paper canvasses a range of issues in relation to seven key elements:

· Good Governance

· Representative Democracy and Community Support

· Sound Policy

· Sufficient Resources

· Meaningful Planning

· Connectedness

· Strong Leadership

Comments on specific proposals in the paper follow below.

Element 1 Good Governance

· Proposal 1.1: Peer Review of Councils.

A review of Penrith City Council under the DLG’s Promoting Better Practice (PBP) program was conducted in June 2006. Council has responded to the draft report and awaits the final review report. The paper’s proposal for Peer Review (which identifies inadequate resourcing for the PBP program) is of concern, in terms of both its practicality and likely resourcing implication for councils, particularly major councils such as Penrith.

Sufficient resourcing for any appropriate review arrangements should be provided by the State Government, for example through a restructure of the NSW Audit Office to enable it to undertake Better Practice Reviews of councils similar to the role played by the UK Audit Commission.

· Proposal 1.2 Strategic planning assistance for councils

This proposal is supported in principle. However, no details are provided.

· Proposal 1.3 Red tape review

This proposal is supported. The concept could be implemented through the Better Regulation Office proposed in Priority P3: Cutting Red Tape of the State Plan.

· Proposal 1.4 Classification of roles.

While this proposal is supported, it has been demonstrated by councils including Penrith City that a strong commitment to strategic management will establish and support clear roles and responsibilities of Councillors, Mayors and General Managers.

Element 2 Representative Democracy and community Support

· Proposal 2.1: Develop principles for determining local representation

Supported, subject to the commitment given that this not be a prescriptive formula. Local communities should determine their appropriate representation.

This and the following proposal raise the question of adequate Councillor remuneration, which is not addressed.

· Proposal 2.2: Develop a kit to promote ‘candidacy’ in local government

Supported, however this should be stated in terms of a broader range of measures to increase community awareness of the role of local government and specifically local government elections.

· Proposal 2.3: Promote flexible meeting times

Supported. Council is presently implementing a revised pattern of meetings and meeting times to better meet community and councillor needs.

· Proposal 2.4: Guidelines on community consultation and involvement

Supported. Council, like many others, has an ongoing commitment to improving community consultation and engagement and has recently adopted its own Community Participation Manual.An indication should be given of State commitment to supporting this key requirement with a range of resourced measures, not merely guidelines. This relates also to the community consultation proposals in the paper Planning a Sustainable Future.

· Proposal 2.5: Workforce planning assistance

Supported. Council is currently developing a contemporary workforce strategy. State support for such a strategic approach, rather than regulation, would be welcomed.

Element 3. Sound Policy

· Proposal 3.1: Develop a policy directory

Supported. The proposal should be extended to a ‘whole of government’ approach. Councils are subject to advice and direction from many agencies, which is typically not well coordinated or integrated. Reform in this area would be of significant value.

Element 4. Sufficient Resources

· Proposal 4.1: Asset management plans

As noted above, a detailed paper on this key area of reform is expected shortly and will be further discussed with Council. Council has over recent years developed robust asset management systems and renewal strategies are in place for major City assets..

· Proposal 4.2: Efficiency statement

Supported provided the system of measurement is consistent across all Councils and supported by consistent State mechanisms.

Element 5. Meaningful Planning

· Proposal 5.1: Integrated planning and reporting

This is stated more definitely as a proposal to introduce, as a new legislated system, the strategic management model outlined as “Option 3”in the the Planning a Sustainable Future paper. Comments on that paper are provided below, however no objection to these concepts would be raised by Council, as the model is closely aligned with Council’s own approach.

Element 6. Connectedness

· Proposal 6.1: Benchmarks

Supported. There is a long-overdue need for the State to provide and support a more appropriate range of standard indicators. This should include resourcing of appropriate State-wide research and data, as well as assistance for mandatory additional local research. Council would be concerned to ensure that this exercise is consistent with its future approach to sustainability as well as service delivery reporting (which wil be further discussed with Council shortly).

· Proposal 6.2: Regional/Cluster indicators

Supported in principle, subject to careful consideration of the detail proposed. Council presently participates in a number of important business ‘clusters’, including Westpool, Hawkesbury River County Council, the RID Squad and WSROC arrangements.

· Proposal 6.3: General manager contracts to enable working with neighbouring councils

Further consideration is required.

· Proposal 6.4: Resource sharing guidelines

Supported and consistent with the proposals above.

· Proposal 6.5: Regional context for Special Variation applications to exceed the rate cap

This assumes the present rate pegging system, as noted above. The requirement to demonstrate efficiencies (including resource sharing) is essentially already part of the Special Variation guidelines. The introduction of regional applications as an option is supported. This is consistent with the Regional City role.

Element 7. Strong Leadership

· Proposal 7.1: Accreditation for councillor learning and development

Council has a strong and well-established councillor development program but would recognise the need for more support to be given to this in the industry.

Other comments

As noted above, a range of key recommendations to strengthen local government particularly in regard to financial sustainability were made in the Allan Inquiry report in 2006. These are being pursued by an LGSA Taskforce.

Such central concerns to the future of the industry and a broader range of options need to be more directly considered as part of the context for the Minister’s reform agenda.

Paper 2: Planning a Sustainable Future

The paper centres on intended reforms to the management planning requirements established by the Local Government Act in 1993 and a range of statutory reporting covered by that Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (including management plan performance, the Annual Report and reporting on the mandatory Social Plan and State of the Environment). The paper is based on the premise that one necessary element of reform in NSW local government is to mandate (in some form) a more strategic management approach to planning and reporting.

As a recognised industry leader in this area, Council broadly accepts and welcomes the directions indicated, which would lead to a model very much in keeping with its own well-tested strategic planning approach. The paper, however, identifies a range of constraints which currently affect the industry such that many NSW councils do not have effective strategic plans or long term program or resource plans.

The paper and other comments by DLG indicate that reform in this area will not proceed without wide industry support. The paper therefore outlines three options:

· Option 1 - Maintain the status quo (pages 7-8)

This is stated as the Department’s position if the industry does not support reform. The status quo includes a range of poorly-integrated requirements (3-year minimum Management Plan, 4-year State of the Environment report, 5-year Social Plan).

· Option 2 - Add to the existing framework (pages 8-9)

The proposed addition is a mandated Strategic Plan ‘tacked on’ to the present statutory requirements. This is generally viewed as of limited utility as it lacks the essential component of an implementation program (such as Council’s 4-year Strategic Program) and would not streamline other current requirements.

· Option 3 - Reshape the framework (pages 9-19)

As stated in the New Directions Paper, this is the proposed new model. If accepted by the industry, it is intended to be embodied in draft legislation by the end of 2007 and phased in (according to the varying capability of councils) over three years.

The model contains the following key elements:

1. 10 year (minimum) Community Strategic Plan + financial strategy
~ requiring key sustainability principles as a foundation
(adopted with community support, reviewed by each new Council)

2. 4 year Delivery Program + detailed budget program
(adopted by a Council for its term)

3. Annual Operational Plan + authorised budget

This framework is very much in keeping with the leading practice model established by Penrith City Council. It is also the option that best dovetails with other ‘new directions’ and the NSW State Plan. Indications at this time are that the industry accepts that this likely outcome.

The intended implementation timeframe (if it is met) would in the case of Penrith City see the new Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program required to be ‘submitted for review’ by September 2009. This is already accommodated by the intended timeframe for Council’s next Strategic Plan and Program and longer term budgeting measures already well in train.

Particular measures within the proposed framework regarding community consultation and the role and responsibilities of councillors and officers will need to be tested in detail, but are broadly supported in intent.

Integrated Reporting:

A key aspect of the proposals is the integration of a range of present statutory reporting requirements under the ‘umbrella’ of a more effective outcome (rather than compliance) focussed Annual Report. While detail is lacking, the concepts here are strongly supported as the integrated reporting principles are very much in keeping with Council’s intended directions of outcome-based performance and sustainability reporting.

Weaknesses of the model:

Areas of concern in the proposal expressed as ‘Option 3’, which should be noted in a submission by Council include:

· The absence of resourcing commitments from the State or indication of greater financial certainty for local government in return for its stronger strategic management.

· Lack of any indication of how the Local Plan/LEP requirements would be integrated with the model. Little input from the Department of Planning is evident.

· The suggested Peer Review mechanism raises similar concerns to those noted under the New Directions paper, above, as to practicality and resourcing.

There is also a general lack of detail on many aspects of the model, which are still to be developed by the Department. It is understood that should the DLG determine from consultations that there is adequate support for the proposals to proceed, several months of detailed work will be required before legislation could be framed.

Conclusion

The New Direction for Local Government paper (refer to page 26 “Where To From Here”) does not indicate a specific action plan from this point in terms of legislative or regulatory reform.

The Planning a Sustainable Future paper indicates an unwillingness to proceed with proposed reforms on planning and reporting without industry support. That position was reiterated by DLG at the consultative workshop attended by Council. However, Proposal 5.1 in the New Directions paper makes it clear that this is the intended approach. Widespread acceptance by councils that the Option 3 model will proceed is evident. It may therefore be assumed that DLG will seek advance this agenda, subject Government priorities.

Despite the limitations indicated, the Directions Papers are essentially welcome indicators of a number of worthwhile reforms which Council has to a large extent already undertaken or flagged as required. It would be appropriate for Council to provide a supportive response to these papers in the terms outlined in the discussion above. As it has done, Council will also continue to engage directly and actively with review and reform processes for local government.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Local Government Directions Papers be received

2. A submission be made on these papers in the terms discussed in the report.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	A New Direction for Local Government	28 Pages	Attachment
2.	Planning a Sustainable Future	25 Pages	Attachment

# Meetings at which the Management Plan ¼ly reviews are presented.	^ Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor [only business]
#+ General Manager’s presentation – half year and end of year review	@ Strategic Program progress reports [only business]
v Meeting at which the Draft Management Plan is adopted for exhibition	ü Meeting at which the 2006/2007 Annual Statements are presented
* Meeting at which the Management Plan for 2007/2008 is adopted

1. View	Executive Summary of Planning Places Service	3 Pages	Appendix
2. View	Executive Summary Release Area Planning Service	3 Pages	Appendix
3. View	Executive Summary Planning Policy Service	3 Pages	Appendix
4. View	Executive Summary Metropolitan and Regional Planning and Advocacy Service	3 Pages	Appendix

Summary of the Planning Places Service Specification
1. Service Description	The Planning Places Service establishes a Citywide policy framework, based on analysis of the principles of sustainability, community needs, community values and the characteristics of the City. The Planning Places Service is delivered through agreed strategies and actions, and the implementation of land use based planning controls for urban, rural, City centres and employment areas.
	Issues	Term Achievements		Critical Actions
2. Link to Strategic Program	Issue 4: Regional Growth	TA 4.5 Council’s agreed strategies, where they relate to planning provisions, are implemented through the new Citywide Penrith Local Plan and Penrith Development Control Plan.		CA 4.5A Develop the Citywide Penrith Local Plan and Development Control Plan within the State Government’s mandatory two-year timeframe.
	Issue 14: Managing Redevelopment	TA 14.1 Council’s planning approach to the provision of housing across the City addresses the supply, choice, affordability, economic, social diversity and workplace location needs of the community.		CA 14.1A Review the effectiveness of Councils Residential Strategy, ensuring that it addresses the current and emerging, supply, choice, affordability, and social and economic diversity needs of the City’s communities
		TA 14.2 Redevelopment of existing areas contributes to safe, sustainable, affordable and satisfying living environments and cohesive communities		CA 14.2A Work in partnership with the local community to foster understanding of the reasons why established areas are redeveloping
		TA 14.3 New housing in established areas is coordinated by comprehensive neighbourhood plans developed in partnership with the local community and development industry		CA 14.3A Develop neighbourhood plans in partnership with the local community and other stakeholders to coordinate redevelopment of established areas
	Issue 6: Sustainable rural lands	TA 6.1 Council’s adopted strategy is being implemented as the basis for future rural land use decisions.		CA 6.1A Implement the rural lands strategy through the new local plan and an agreed program of actions.
	Issue 6: Sustainable rural lands	TA 6.2 The City’s rural lands are valued by the City’s communities for the natural and landscape values they contribute to the City’s character.		CA 6.2A Encourage appreciation by the community of the natural, landscape and lifestyle values of the City’s rural lands
	Issue 2: Penrith City Centre’s Metropolitan Role	TA 2.1 Penrith City Centre provides a comprehensive range of economic and human and lifestyle services to Outer Western Sydney and Central Western New South Wales.		CA 2.1C The City Centres Review strategies for the Penrith City Centre are developed, prioritised and being implemented.
	Issue 3: St Marys’ Regional Role	TA 3.3 St Marys offers a range of district level retail and service businesses to its surrounding localities.		CA 3.3B The City Centres Review strategies for the St Marys Town Centre are developed, prioritised and being implemented.
	Issue 20: Access To Quality Employment Opportunities	TA 20.1 Sufficient constraint-free serviced employment lands are available to meet the City’s business development and investment needs.		CA 20 .1A Develop and implement a program to secure employment lands consistent with the recommendations of the Employment Lands Strategy.
3. Service Objectives	Develop plans for the delivery of Council’s relevant strategic directions that :- o Address the supply, choice, affordability, economic and social diversity of housing and living environments within the City o Manage and promote the natural and landscape values of rural lands as they contribute to the City’s character o Support the Penrith and St Marys Commercial Business Centres in the provision of a comprehensive range of economic, human and lifestyle services to Outer Western Sydney and Central Western New South Wales o Manage and promote growth, sustainability and the value of urban and rural lands through the development of strategies and agreed actions. Deliver plans for Council’s relevant strategic directions through:- o Formulating relevant strategies, action plans and associated funding plans such as S94 plans. o Formulating local environment plans, development control plans and other policies. o Reviewing current policies and relevant strategies by measuring their effectiveness through feedback and monitoring.
4. Scope of Work	Urban Planning 1 Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and 1 Development Control Plan (DCP) every 2 years. eg: Urban lands LEP/DCP Rural Planning 1 major project with a lifecycle of 2 years. eg: Rural lands LEP/DCP City Centres and Employment Planning 2 major projects with a lifecycle of 3 years. eg: City Centres Strategies. Employment Planning strategy. 2 scoping projects per annum. eg: Social Accommodation Needs study. IRIS Parking survey.
5. Key Performance Indicator (KPI’s)	Key Performance Indicator		2003 Actual		2005 Actual		2006-2007 Target
5. Key Performance Indicator (KPI’s)	% of Residents Satisfied with Urban and rural planning (with medium to high rating in Citywide survey)		70.4%			69.8%		70%

Service Costs	2005-2006 Actual		2006-2007 Budget
Urban Planning	$ 291,590		$ 435,319
Rural Planning	$ 69,381		$ 30,727
City Centres and Employment Planning	$ 307,939		$ 184,111
Net Service cost		$ 668,910		$ 650,157

Summary of the Release Area Planning Service Specification
1. Service Description		The Release Area Planning Service is delivering through agreed strategies and actions and the implementation of planning controls for new urban release areas. The Release Area Planning Service establishes a Citywide policy framework, based on the principles of sustainability, community needs, job creation, community values and the unique characteristics of the City.
2. Link to Strategic Program	Issues			Term Achievements	Critical Actions
	Issue 1 ~ Penrith Valley’s Recognition		TA 1.2 ~ Penrith Lakes is developing and being used in a way that establishes it as a principle Sydney destination.		CA 1.2A ~ Participate in the planning process for Penrith Lakes and advocate its innovative development as a regional centre for enterprise, water based recreation, elite sports, entertainment and events.
	Issue 15 ~ New Release Areas		TA 15.1 ~ Cohesive communities are formed based on sustainable, safe and satisfying living and working environments.		CA 15.1A ~ Prepare and implement plans for each new release area that deliver quality, sustainable living and working environments.
			TA 15.2 ~ Strategies are in place for new release areas to deliver jobs that match incoming workforce participant numbers.		CA 15.2A ~ Work in partnership with the development sector to formulate and implement tailored employment strategies that are commensurate with the rate of housing development in new release areas.
			TA 15.3 ~ New release areas provide for a diversity of housing opportunities, including affordable housing, consistent with emerging community needs and which facilitates the development of diverse neighbourhoods.		CA 15.3A ~ Prepare and implement plans for each new release area in collaboration with the development sector and key Government agencies that provide as wide diversity and mix of housing types that meet current and emerging community needs.
			TA 15.4 ~ Timely delivery of services to new release areas is being secured.		CA 15.4A ~ 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.
3. Service Objectives	Develop plans for the delivery of Council’s relevant strategic directions that :- Provide new release areas that are sustainable, safe, with satisfying living and working environments, establishing diverse neighbourhoods consistent with community needs. Recognise Penrith Valley by establishing Penrith Lakes as a principle Sydney destination. Deliver plans for Council’s relevant strategic directions through:- Delivering the framework for land use and environmental management policy for sustainable new urban release areas by carrying out planning studies and developing strategies for the City of Penrith in accordance with Council’s Strategic and Management Plans and other directives from Council and Government agencies. Implementing identified strategic outcomes through the formulation of local environmental plans, development control plans and other policies. Reviewing current policies by measuring their effectiveness in response to feedback and monitoring.
4. Scope of Work	The service delivers:- 1 Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and 1 Development Control Plan (DCP) yearly, 3 draft LEPs being prepared this year and pursuing the gazettal of 2 others with the Dept of Planning. 1 major project with a lifecycle of 2 years 3 major projects with a lifecycle of 3 years 9 planning studies per annum 3 Section 94 Plans prepared per annum. The service covers: · Nine new urban release areas, an education precinct and an employment precinct in the Penrith LGA, for which planning processes are advancing concurrently. o Werrington Enterprise Living and Learning (WELL) Precinct o Werrington Mixed Use Area (within WELL Precinct) o Claremont Meadows Stage 2 (within WELL Precinct) o Caddens Release Area (within WELL Precinct) o South Werrington Urban Village (within WELL Precinct) o Penrith Lakes o Waterside (Lakes Environs) o Glenmore Park Stage 2 o St Marys Release Area (former ADI site) o North Penrith Urban Area o Erskine Park Employment Area · These release areas are planned to deliver over 13,500 new dwellings over the next 15 years and will play a significant role in providing housing and employment lands across Penrith. .
5. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)	Key Performance Indicators					2006-2007 Target
	% response to community issues arising from public exhibitions within 10 working days					100%
	% response to project and general enquiries on the same day					80%
	% response to project and general enquiries within 2 working days					100%
	% response to internal DA Referrals within 14 working days					80%
	% response to internal DA Referrals within 28 working days					100%

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Appendix 1 - New Urban Areas in Penrith*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Appendix 1 - Draft Pre-lodgement Process*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Appendix 2 - Draft Post-lodgement Process*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Appendix 1 - Executive Summary of Planning Places Service*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Appendix 2 - Executive Summary Release Area Planning Service*

Service	2005-2006 Actuals	2006-2007 Budget
Employee Costs	$ 895,458*	$ 1,153,201 *
Material Costs	$ 10,925	$ 11,566
Vehicle Costs and Building Rental	$ 92,226	$ 113,550
Developer Funded projects (includes Consultancies) **	$ 483,310	$ 131,377
Service Cost	$ 1,481,919	$ 1,409,694
Less : Other Funding
Enhanced Environmental Program	$ 326,915	$ 431,967
Developer Contributions	$ 483,310	$ 131,377
Net Service Cost	$ 671,694	$ 846,350

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*19 February 2007*
*Appendix 3 - Executive Summary Planning Policy Service*

Summary of the Planning Policy Service Specification
1. Service Description			The Planning Policy Service establishes a Citywide policy framework, based on analysis of the principles of sustainability, community needs, community values and characteristics of the City. The Planning Policy Service is delivering through agreed strategies and actions, and the implementation of planning controls for recreation, biodiversity and heritage programs.
2. Link to Strategic Program		Issues		Term Achievements			Critical Actions
		Issue 9: Recreation and Leisure		TA 9.1 The City’s recreation and leisure facilities and services meet its needs and are optimally used.			CA 9.1B Ensure facilities and services reflect the City’s diverse current and future recreation and leisure needs.
		Issue 16: Natural Catchment Assets		TA 16.1 The City’s biological diversity is being protected and conserved through the implementation of a biodiversity conservation and bushland management strategy.			CA 16.1A Undertake biodiversity conservation and protection and pursue the effective management of natural areas.
							CA 16.1B Integrate biodiversity conservation and natural resource management.
							CA16.1C Improve our knowledge and engage the City’s communities in biodiversity conservation and protection.
		Issue 18: Built Environment		TA 18.1 The City’s heritage is being protected and conserved.			CA18.1A Undertake heritage protection and conservation and pursue the effective management of the City’s cultural heritage.
		Issue 18: Built Environment					CA 18.1B Improve our knowledge and engage the City’s communities in heritage conservation and protection.
3. Service Objectives		· Develop plans for the delivery of Council’s relevant strategic directions that :- Ensure Council’s recreation and leisure facilities meet the needs of the City and are optimally used. Protect the City’s biological diversity through agreed biodiversity conservation and bushland management strategies. Ensure the City’s heritage is protected and conserved through strategies and agreed actions. · Deliver plans for Council’s relevant strategic directions through :- Formulating strategies, action plans and associated funding plans such as S94 plans. Formulating local environmental plans, development control plans and other policies. Delivering Council’s planning controls for the City’s recreational, biodiversity and heritage needs. Reviewing current policies and strategies by measuring their effectiveness through feedback and monitoring.
4. Scope of Work		Recreation 1 Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and 1 Development Control Plan (DCP) every 2 years. eg: Open Space Action plan and S94 plan Biodiversity 1 major project with a lifecycle of 2 years eg: Biodiversity Strategy Heritage 2 major projects with a lifecycle of 3 years. eg Heritage Study. 2 scoping projects per annum. eg: The former Council Chambers site.
	Key Performance Indicator				2003 Actual			2005 Actual		2006-2007 Target
5. Key Performance Indicator		% of Residents Satisfied with the protection of heritage sites (with medium to high rating in Citywide survey)				81.9%			83.9%		84%

Service	2005-2006 Actual	2006 – 2007 Budget
Recreational Planning	$ 24,950	$29,346
Biodiversity Planning	$ 55,043	$72,951
Heritage Planning	$ 141,315	$92,951
Net Service Cost	$ 221,308	$ 195,248

Summary of The Metropolitan and Regional Planning and Advocacy Service
1. Service Description		The Metropolitan and Regional Planning and Advocacy Service advocates and promotes Council’s preferred positions and priorities relevant to Western Sydney’s growth and development on issues that affect Penrith Local Government Area (LGA) at sub-regional and metropolitan levels. It does this by facilitating group dialogue (through forums and meetings) on regional issues, developing group responses to identified regional growth needs and providing input to the planning processes of governments, regional forums and organisations in their policy development. In addition it establishes and maintains agreements with State Government agencies to provide services and facilities to the City consistent with its growth requirements.
	Issue			Term Achievement		Critical Action
2. Link to Strategic Program	Issue 4 ~ Regional Growth		TA 4.1 ~ The community and City organisations are informed on issues relevant to metropolitan growth and development that affect the City and the reasons for Council’s response to them.		CA 4.1A ~ Conduct structured discussions including community forums and provide information to the City organisations and the community on issues relating to metropolitan growth and development that affect the City.
			TA 4.2 ~ Joint responses and initiatives are regularly developed with neighbouring Councils and regional organisations around metropolitan and regional issues.		CA 4.2A ~ Establish a program of regular meetings with neighbouring Councils, in particular Blacktown City Council, to identify and develop approaches to contemporary regional issues, including infrastructure and service provision, employment creation and housing development.
					CA 4.2B ~ Participate with WSROC and other regional groups on regional issues of importance to the City.
			TA 4.3 ~ Agreement has been reached with State Government agencies to provide mutually agreed services and facilities to the City consistent with its growing requirements.		CA 4.3A ~ Determine and prioritise the services and facilities needed to allow the City to perform its metropolitan and regional roles.
					CA 4.3B ~ Enlist the support of the Local State Members in approaching relevant Ministers to establish an agreement in principle on the delivery of critical services and facilities to support the City’s growth.
			TA 4.4 ~ Council’s preferred positions and priorities relevant to Western Sydney growth and development are considered by governments, regional forums and regional organisations in their own policy development.		CA 4.4A ~ Develop a structured dialogue with Local State Members, Ministers, government agencies, Councils of the region, WSROC and other regional associations concerning the supply of infrastructure and services, employment and sustainable housing delivery to the region.
					CA 4.4B ~ Establish an annual forum of peak regional organisations, government agencies and the development industry to review and develop responses to issues relevant to the City's growth.
3. Service Objectives	Plan for the delivery of Council’s relevant Strategic directions that:- · Identify metropolitan growth and development issues that will have an impact on Penrith. · Identify and advocate issues of importance to the City that can be advanced in collaboration with WSROC and other regional organisations. · Develop regional initiatives which deliver opportunities and advantages for the City. · Contribute to and participate in the State Government’s implementation and review of its Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney and Liaise with the Department of Planning on the key elements relevant to the City and particularly the North West Sub region. · Provide information to the community and the City’s organisations on issues relevant to Metropolitan growth and development that affect the City. Deliver plans for Council’s relevant strategic directions through:- · Formulating relevant strategies, action plans and associated funding plans. · Formulating local environmental plans, development control plans and other policies. · Reviewing current policies by measuring their effectiveness in response to feedback and monitoring.
4. Scope of Work	The service delivers:- · Reviews of Metropolitan and Regional policies as they emerge, · Informs Council on the relevance of emerging State and regional policies to the City, · Participates with Government in the development of strategies and policies (for example the Metro Strategy for Sydney), · Conducts discussions with the City’s communities and organisations on the relevant issues, · Prepares joint responses and develop initiatives, and where relevant with adjoining Councils and Regional organisations, · Pursues State government agencies for the provision of agreed services and facilities to the City, · Advocates Council’s position and priorities relevant to growth in Penrith and Western Sydney to Government (Federal and State) and its agencies, and to regional forums, organisations and the development industry.

Service	2006 – 2007 Budget
Employee costs	$ 100,575
Material	$ 2949
Plant costs	$ 16,892
Net Cost of the Metropolitan and Regional Planning and Advocacy Service	$ 120,416