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 20 AUGUST 2007 AT 7:34PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Pat Sheehy AM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, David Bradbury, Lexie Cettolin, Greg Davies (arrived 7:40pm), Mark Davies, Ross Fowler, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Garry Rumble, and John Thain.

APOLOGIES

PRC 71 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that apologies be received and accepted from Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Susan Page and Steve Simat.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 30 July 2007

PRC 72 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 30 July 2007 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

Leadership and Organisation

Councillor Greg Davies arrived, the time being 7:40pm.

1 2006-2007 Management Plan - June Quarter and End of Year Review

PRC 73 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2006-2007 Management Plan - June Quarter and End of Year Review be received

2. The 2006-2007 Management Plan Review as at 30 June 2007 be adopted

3. The voting of funds and estimates of income for 2006-2007 be amended to reflect the revised estimates, expenditures and revotes as detailed in the Management Plan Review

4. Council revote the works as detailed in the Recommended Revoted Works Lists for inclusion in the 2007-2008 Management Plan.

THE CITY AS AN ECONOMY

Councillor Lexie Cettolin left the meeting, the time being 8:15pm, and did not return.

3 City and Town Centre Associations - Business Plans and funding request for the 2007-08 financial year

PRC 74 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor David Bradbury seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1. The information contained in the report on City and Town Centre Associations - Business Plans and funding request for the 2007-08 financial year be received

2. That funding for the Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association in the amounts of $277,844 and $208,439 respectively be endorsed

3. An urgent report be presented to Council addressing the status of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) presence in Queen Street, St Marys. The report is to include options for accommodating the RTA in Queen Street and for Council to support the actions being taken by the traders.

4 Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation 2007-08 Business Plan

PRC 75 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation 2007-08 Business Plan be received.

2. Council endorse funding in the amount of $361,056 for the activities of the Corporation for the 2007-08 financial year to be paid in two equal six-monthly instalments.

The City as a Social Place

2 St Marys Release Area - Public Exhibition of draft Ropes Creek Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy

PRC 76 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1. The information contained in the report on St Marys Release Area - Public Exhibition of draft Ropes Creek Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy be received

2. Council advise Blacktown City Council that no objections are raised to the draft Ropes Creek Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy.

5 Rezoning Application - Penrith Homemaker Centre, Lot 10 DP 1046110 (Nos.13-23) Pattys Place Jamisontown. Applicant: Restifa and Partners. Owner: Pivpen Pty Ltd. RZ07/0001

PRC 77 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Rezoning Application - Penrith Homemaker Centre, Lot 10 DP 1046110 (Nos.13-23) Pattys Place Jamisontown. Applicant: Restifa and Partners. Owner: Pivpen Pty Ltd. be received

2. Pursuant to Section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation , the draft amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Industrial Land), as may be amended by Parliamentary Counsel, be forwarded to the Director –General of the Department of Planning, for the plan to be made.

Leadership and Organisation

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

PRC 78 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Draft 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.

7 ALGA Infrastructure Ideas Register

PRC 79 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Garry Rumble

That:

1. The information contained in the report on ALGA Infrastructure Ideas Register be received

2. The three examples highlighted in this report are posted to the ALGA Website in response to ALGA’s request

3. A copy of the schedule of outstanding infrastructure renewal included in the table in this report be forwarded to ALGA for its information and to Senator Kate Lundy in response to the Senator’s request.

8 Service Specification Program

PRC 80 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

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

2. The Service Specification for Corporate Governance be adopted

3. The Service Specification for Neighbourhood Renewal be adopted

4. The Service Specification for Project Management be adopted

5. The Service Specification for Catchment Management be adopted.

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

The meeting closed to consider Confidential Business, the time being 9:07pm.

1 Presence of the Public

PRC 81 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the press and public be excluded from the meeting to deal with the following matters:

Leadership and Organisation

2 Personnel Matter - Workforce Issue

This item has been referred to Confidential Business as the report refers to personnel matters concerning particular individuals and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

3 Personnel Matter - Workforce Issue

RESUMPTION OF BUSINESS IN OPEN COMMITTEE

The meeting moved out of confidential session at 9:23pm and the General Manager reported that after excluding the press and public from the meeting, the Policy Review Committee met in confidential session from 9:07pm to 9:23pm to consider personnel matters.

The General Manager reported that while in confidential session, the Committee resolved the confidential business as follows:

2 Personnel Matter - Workforce Issue

PRC 82 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Personnel Matter – Workforce Issue be received

2. The approach to providing for a future pay increase for 2007 be endorsed.

3 Personnel Matter - Workforce Issue

PRC 83 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Personnel Matter – Workforce Issue be received

2. The increase proposed in conjunction with a new Council Agreement be endorsed.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:24pm.

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Leadership and Organisation*

Leadership and Organisation

Alignment of the Organisation

Compiled by: Alan Stoneham, Director - City Strategy

Authorised by: Barry Husking, Acting 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: Implement a structured program of continuous improvement, based on identifying and adopting leading practice, across the organisation.

Purpose:

To provide an update on organisational alignment initiatives and to outline proposed Manager positions. The report recommends that the information be received and the initiatives be endorsed.

Background

Council has placed emphasis on adjusting the organisation’s structure and operation to keep it moving forward and is well placed to achieve Council’s program. Preparing the organisation for the future and particularly with regard to the readiness for generational change is a key focus in Council’s Strategic Plan. A report was provided to Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting on 30 July 2007 outlining a number of initiatives in response to the need for succession planning, advancing those objectives and presenting opportunities for staff to operate in a more strategic way bringing benefits to career development as well as to Council’s program.

Tonight’s report provides further information and proposed management arrangements in three key areas of the Organisation: Governance, Engineering, and Recreation.

Governance

The need to strengthen the governance function has been indicated to Council in previous organisational alignment reports. This function has been largely managed from the Legal Services department. The Legal Officer and Internal Auditor have been spending increasing amounts of time on general governance matters with limited direct support. Council has good governance controls but a strengthening of this area is called for by leading practice standards and the State Government. For example the Department of Local Government in the Promoting Better Practice Review has recognised Council’s sound approach to this but nevertheless asked Council to increase its emphasis in this area.

Council has adopted a Service Specification which documented the service that was being provided in the Governance area in the last year. Standards are rising and the Government is requiring Councils to have a large number of policies, more education and better management of complaints. There is also a focus on the requirements to maintain adequate prudential control over Council’s Controlled Entities and the need to be contemporary with business continuity plans.

Council has adopted a service specification for Corporate Governance which reflects the current arrangements and service levels. The proposals discussed in tonight’s report are presently being used to review that service specification and reflect a new service level. This will include support for the Conduct Committee as contemplated by the Department of Local Government and our increased accountability to ICAC, Ombudsman and the Department of Local Government and special projects on behalf of the General Manager. It is proposed to create the additional position of Senior Governance Officer to assist in the delivery of an increased service level.

The close working relationship with other departments should also be confirmed with the Executive Officer and with the Internal Auditor. The Executive Officer being the Public Officer also requires an alignment of this function. The Public Officer role can also be increasingly reinforced in the Organisation. Council can also focus more on customer needs and complaints through the Public Officer role.

The Executive Officer’s role and the Public Officer role also have close alignment with the Legal Services Department and is a Governance function. To strengthen the Governance role an alignment between this department also is important to coordinate the entire Governance function.

In the past few years the Internal Auditor has been diverted to other tasks to assist with ensuring that Council’s Governance standards are maintained and the audit program has been to some extent constrained. The establishment of a Senior Governance Officer will allow the internal audit function to continue in a less constrained manner.

The Internal Auditor reports directly to the General Manager in delivery of the audit programme including supporting the new Audit Committee. The staffing line reporting has been closely aligned to the Legal Services Department to ensure that there is adequate reporting and support for the function. It is proposed that this should be formalised. The internal auditor works closely with the Legal Services department in the delivery of the Governance role.

The diagram in the Appendix represents a proposed reformed Legal and Governance Department. The re-alignment proposes to increase the establishment by one position that being the Senior Governance Officer. Established workforce practices will be followed for the review of existing positions and the creation of the new position.

Engineering Resources

Council was previously advised that the condition of the organisation’s engineering skills base, structure and salaries has been undergoing review. Whilst the review acknowledged that there is a national shortage of Engineers, it concluded that there was a series of actions that could be taken to better place Council to attract and retain skilled and experienced engineering personnel.

The Market Forces Salary Review of engineering positions has been completed and a market forces component is to be applied. This will improve the competitiveness of these positions when compared to other similar organisations. The financial impact is discussed later in the report.

A key finding of the engineering review was that the current structures fragment the engineering skills base, in some cases, into small units. This narrows the range of professional experiences that the staff within these units are exposed to and provides less capacity to accommodate and quickly respond to vacancies when they arise.

The review identified two areas where the amalgamation of engineering resources would provide better outcomes through the creation of greater diversity and improved career paths. The two areas are the Development Engineering Services Unit and the Traffic and Road Safety Unit. The review proposed that the Development Engineering Services Unit and the Traffic and Road Safety Unit be transferred from the Environmental Planning Department and the Asset Management Department respectively to the Design and Technical Advice Department. Council subsequently endorsed these initiatives and changes to the staff establishment.

The new arrangements took effect from Monday 3 September 2007. All matters relating to local traffic/road safety and development engineering are the responsibility of the Design and Technical Advice Manager.

The previous Alignment report advised Council that the amalgamation of these engineering resources was intended to be accompanied with a trial of a division of the Design and Technical Advice department. A specialist project management group is intended to be established to provide more focus and expertise to the significant program of major projects confronting Council.

Recreation Facilities and Services

Previous reports discussed the re-alignment of the Facility Operations department functions following the retirement of the former Manager. To date, the following arrangements have been endorsed by Council:

· Events, celebrations and festivals being transferred to the Economic Development and City Marketing Department.

· Cemeteries and Neighbourhood Facilities accountabilities forming part of the new Public Domain Amenity and Safety Department within the City Operations Directorate.

· Cultural development and programs function being consolidated within the Community Development Department. In recognition of this important role, it is intended to rename the department as the Community and Cultural Development Department.

Responsibility for liaison with controlled entities is proposed to be allocated to the new Legal and Governance Department.

The remaining matter is the alignment of accountabilities for recreation facilities and services including donations, travel assistance and sponsorship. The proposed alignment of these functions is discussed below.

Council’s role in the City’s recreation and leisure opportunities encompasses different elements, including planning and advocacy, facilitation and implementation, and construction, management and maintenance. Until recently, responsibility for these different elements has been shared between the Local Planning, Environmental Planning, Environmental Health, Facilities Operations and Parks Construction and Maintenance departments.

The proposed new alignment rationalises these responsibilities, with planning and advocacy for new recreation and leisure facilities and services remaining with the Local Planning and Environmental Planning Managers, and the responsibility for facilitation, implementation, construction, management and maintenance of those facilities and services sitting with the proposed Recreation Manager. There is no change to the accountabilities and responsibilities of the Parks Construction and Maintenance Manager.

The proposed Recreation Manager would also play a key role in providing advice to the Planning Managers regarding the City’s recreation facilities, sportsgrounds and parks.

Recreation Department

It is proposed to form a Recreation Department within the City Operations Directorate as shown in the Appendix. The Recreation Manager’s position (created from the vacant Facility Operations Manager position) is proposed to be externally advertised and responsible for:

· Leisure Facilities Management

· Recreation Programs

· Facilitation & implementation of Recreation Facilities & Services

The Recreation Manager would be responsible for specific Term Achievements, Critical Actions and Services as follows:

· Term Achievement 9.1 - The City’s recreation and leisure facilities and services meet its needs and are optimally used

· Critical Action 9.1A Facilitate joint use of the City’s recreation and leisure facilities, including co-location of programs.

Relevant Service Objectives (as shown in the Service Profiles for Leisure Facilities Management and Recreation and Cultural Programs in Part B of the 2007-08 Management Plan):

- Ensure that the City’s recreation and leisure facilities are optimally used and meet the contemporary needs of Council and the Community

- Ensure that a comprehensive range of lifestyle facilities and services are available to Outer Western Sydney and Central Western NSW

- Ensure that leisure facilities are safe, suitable and presentable facilities at all times

- Manage and operate a public swimming pool facility and associated services at Penrith Swimming Centre in an efficient and effective manner

- Manage and operate an indoor sporting and leisure facility at St Clair Leisure Centre in an efficient and effective manner

- Manage and operate tennis court facilities in the Penrith Local Government Area in an efficient and effective manner and

- Support and contribute to Penrith as a centre of sporting, leisure (and cultural) excellence

A separate report to tonight’s meeting presents the existing Recreation and Cultural Programs Service which is within the accountability of the Facilities Operations Manager. As indicated in that report, the assignment and thorough review of the Service is required in response to recent organisational alignment initiatives and consequently a service adjustment will be brought back to Council for its consideration and decision.

The Recreation Manager would be assisted by the new position of Recreation Facilities Coordinator. This position equates to that of Recreation and Cultural Facilities Coordinator, which was established by Council some years ago, but in practice, has been directed to the growing events and festivals responsibilities of Council which are now consolidated in the Economic Development and City Marketing Department.

In addition the proposed Recreation Department structure would establish new permanent positions of Administration Supervisor, Pool Supervisor and Pool Attendant by consolidating temporary and casual staffing resources which have grown in recent years. This approach will provide more effective delivery of this service in keeping with Council’s workforce policies.

The cost of the 4 additional permanent positions would be offset by a consequent reduction in the cost of casual staffing and any salary savings arising from the position evaluation process.

Financial Services Manager Comment

These proposals involve a combination of upgraded positions, the creation of a number of new positions and a change in reporting alignments for others and the application of a market forces allowance to certain identified engineering positions. As a number of the new roles are still to be placed within the salary system it is not possible to assign a definitive dollar amount to the proposals. However it is anticipated that the additional costs for 2007-08 are estimated to be $120,000, made up as follows:

· Legal and Governance Department $30,000

· Market Forces Salary Review of Engineering positions $74,000

· Recreation Department $16,400.

As positions are sized the exact cost will be determined. The likely funding source for the balance of costs in the first year will be salary savings across the organisation. The final funding and full impact on the long-term financial model will be reported as part of the September Quarterly review process. At present the 2008-09 full-year impact is anticipated to be in the order of $250,000.

Workforce Development Manager Comment

The initiatives and actions needed to implement new structures have been discussed with the Joint Consultative Committee in accordance with established workforce practice. This has also involved staff consultation at the departmental level. Council’s workforce and recruitment policies and position evaluation processes will be applied in all cases. The proposed initiatives would result in an additional 5 positions on Council’s staff establishment in the current 2007-08 year.

Conclusion

The proposed realignment of governance and recreation functions strengthens service delivery and promotes best practice with a financial impact that can be managed within Council’s overall budgeting. The initiatives discussed in tonight’s report are a continuing response to Council’s intentions as an ‘employer of choice’, the need for succession planning and presenting opportunities for staff to operate in a more strategic way bringing benefits to career development as well as to Council’s program.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Alignment of the Organisation be received

2. The initiatives and changes to staff establishment as outlined in the report be endorsed.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Proposed Departments

2 Pages

Appendix

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Community Assistance Program

Compiled by: Joanne Tran, Community Development Officer - Generalist

Joe Ibbitson, Community Program Coordinator

Authorised by: Erich Weller, Community Development Manager

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

Critical Action: Support community organisations to address the differing needs and issues of the various age groups through Council's policy responses, program initiatives and advocacy.

Purpose:

To provide information to Council on the outcomes of a recent review of Council's Community Assistance Program.

The report recommends that the eligibility and assessment criteria be included in the advertising and documentation for the annual Community Assistance Program and the maximum individual grant be increased from $1,000 to $1,200. The report further recommends that delegated authority be granted to the General Manager to apply the eligibility and assessment criteria to individual Rolling Component requests without the requirement for a Council report on each application and that a six monthly report be provided to inform Council of the approved Rolling Component applications. Finally it is also recommended that Council adopt a formal policy on the Community Assistance Program for inclusion in the Council Policy Register.

Background

The Community Assistance Program (CAP) was established in 1997, following a review of the then Charitable Donations Programme. The review identified the need to bring a greater level of fairness and equity to the process of allocation of financial assistance to local community groups and organisations.

The CAP provides small grants of up to $1,000 to local community groups and organisations, for one-off projects, equipment purchases, or to undertake local events and other activities.

After ten years, it is now timely to review the operation of the CAP and consider changes to further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. The introduction of the Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) program during this period also provides the broad context for an evaluation of the CAP.

This small grants program is widely appreciated by Council’s community partners as it provides an opportunity for non-profit organisations and community groups to address local community social and related needs. From Council’s perspective, this program adds value to this important work as it encourages collaboration between community groups and organisations on joint projects, and encourages the matching of funds or significant in-kind support by applicant organisations. Most importantly, the benefits to local residents from CAP funded projects are consistently evident and reflected in individual CAP project evaluations.

Current Situation

Planned and Rolling Component

There are two main components of the Community Assistance Program. These consist of the Planned Component and the Rolling Component. The total annual CAP budget, up to and including the 2006/07 financial year has been $26,000, with $19,000 allocated to the Planned Component and $7,000 allocated to the Rolling Component. In 2007/08 the CAP budget has increased to $46,000.

The Planned Component of the program is undertaken once a year in September/October and is widely advertised and promoted. The Planned Component enables Council to assist local community organisations with funds for innovative programs and activities that are planned to be undertaken in the financial year. Recognising that not all needs for funding can be foreseen, the Rolling Component allows for one-off requests to be brought before Council at any time during the year. This provides a flexible supplement to the Planned Component of the program.

Examples of some projects that were funded in the 2006/07 CAP included:

· Establishing a Seniors Choir

· Youth involvement in the Werrington Community Festival

· “Imagine Me” Photography Workshop for young people

· Aboriginal Catholic Ministry’s Art Therapy to support counselling project

· Kingswood Park Community Information Day

· South Penrith Parents Information Session

· International Women’s Day (IWD) Wellbeing Project.

Community Assistance Program - Review

The review of the CAP Planned and Rolling Components was undertaken to ensure the continued efficiency of the program. The report considers three key aspects of the program:

· Eligibility and assessment criteria

· Budget and maximum grant amount

· Delegated authority to the General Manager for the Rolling Component.

In addition, it is proposed that Council adopt a formal CAP Policy.

Eligibility and Assessment Criteria

Currently, there are three eligibility criteria for applications under the Community Assistance Program. These broad criteria must be satisfied for the application to be accepted as eligible for potential funding through the CAP program. The eligibility criteria are:

· Community based non–profit organisations providing one off activities

· Direct benefit to, and participation by, Penrith City residents

· Project and project management in line with Council’s Access and Equity Policy.

Fundraising programs, or organisations whose main role it is to fundraise, are not eligible for CAP funding.

Council receives significantly more applications for the Planned Component than are able to be funded by the total amount of funds available. In 2006-07, a total of 57 applications were received, requesting a total of $58,818. Of these projects, 25 were recommended for either full funding or an adjusted amount.

For the purpose of short-listing and determining priorities for funding, Council considers the applications against the additional assessment criteria and recommendations to fund or not fund are made accordingly. These additional assessment criteria are:

· whether the applicant for community assistance already receives significant Government funding, and whether the CAP request is more properly seen as a core responsibility of that Government funded program;

· the size of the organisation or group, and its capacity to access alternative resources;

· the possibility of access to other sources of funding for the request;

· the willingness of the applicant to work collaboratively with residents and other community groups;

· the level of participation and direct benefit for residents of Penrith LGA;

· whether the proposal addresses the priority needs and issues of Penrith LGA residents, as identified through social planning processes;

· whether the proposal is realistic;

· the cost effectiveness of the proposal;

· the beneficiaries of the project, ensuring that funds are distributed to diverse groups right across Penrith LGA.

Although the assessment criteria are being used internally when assessing applications, they are currently not included in the information package and documentation sent out to interested applicants and organisations. It is proposed that, in order to enhance the transparency of the program to prospective applicants, the information about assessment criteria will be made available in the documentation and future advertising of the CAP.

CAP Budget and Maximum Limit

Since the introduction of the CAP in 1997, the total annual budget for the Planned and Rolling Components has remained constant at $26,000. During this time, there have been significant increases in project costs. Council’s 2007-08 Management Plan has incorporated an increase of $20,000 to the budget, thus $46,000 is now available through the program. This recent adjustment reflected the widely appreciated value of CAP to community based and non-profit organisations in meeting local community needs.

The maximum limit for the funding of individual projects under the CAP is currently $1,000. In order to keep pace with the rising costs of projects and activities, it is proposed that Council increases the maximum CAP limit to $1,200.

As a result of the total CAP budget increase, the allocation to the CAP Planned Component will increase to $39,000. The annual allocation to the Rolling Component will remain at $7,000. This distribution reflects the significantly greater number of applications received for the Planned Component compared to the Rolling Component.

Rolling Component - Delegated Authority

The CAP Rolling Component allows for one-off requests to be brought before Council at any time during the year. This provides a flexible supplement to the Planned Component of the program to meet local community needs as they arise.

The current process for approving individual Rolling Component requests involves making recommendations for funding through a Council report. In some instances, this process has delayed providing a prompt response to the organisation or group seeking funds for important community projects and activities.

In investigating options to deliver a more efficient Rolling Component, Council officers reviewed the Facilities Operations Department’s administration of the small grants program under Amateur Sportspersons and Representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture – Overseas and Interstate Travel. The process involves Council officers assessing individual grant requests according to the eligibility criteria. The requests that are eligible and approved are then reported to Council on a quarterly basis.

To achieve a more efficient and prompt processing of the CAP Rolling Component written requests, it is proposed that Council grant delegated authority to the General Manager to apply the eligibility and assessment criteria to individual Rolling Component requests. For practical purposes of managing the CAP Rolling Component, the General Manager will delegate this task to the Community Development Manager.

In consideration of the small number of projects that are able to be funded through the Rolling Component ($7,000), it is proposed that a report be provided on a six monthly basis to inform Council of the applications approved.

Executive Officer’s Comment

The delegation of authority to the General Manager to apply the eligibility and assessment criteria to individual CAP Rolling Component requests without the requirement for a Council report on each application is an appropriate means of streamlining the process of providing funding to community organisations that meet Council’s criteria. As indicated above, details of the funding provided for community projects under this part of the program would be the subject of regular reports to Council.

Community Assistance Program – 2007 Policy

Currently Council has an adopted resolution about the operation of the Community Assistance Program but does not have an adopted formal Council policy on the matter. The outcomes from the review and the proposed changes to the CAP have now been documented using the standard Council policy template. The Draft policy is attached to this report at Appendix 1. The policy includes:

· Program Components

· Eligibility and Assessment Criteria

· Approval of Applications

It is proposed that the Draft 2007 Community Assistance Program policy be adopted as a formal policy and included in the Council Policy Register.

Summary

A review of the Community Assistance Program was undertaken to ensure the continued efficiency and effectiveness of the program. The report considers three key aspects of the program:

· Eligibility and assessment criteria

· Budget and maximum grant amount

· Delegated authority to the General Manager for the Rolling Component.

There are three eligibility criteria for applications under the Community Assistance Program (Planned & Rolling Component). A series of additional assessment criteria are also used to prioritise applications and make recommendations for funding.

Currently, the assessment criteria are only being used internally when assessing applications, and the report now recommends that details of both the eligibility criteria and the assessment criteria be provided in the documentation and advertising about the annual Community Assistance Program (CAP).

The report identifies that the CAP total allocation of funds has remained constant since 1997 at $26,000. The 2007/08 Management Plan has increased the total allocation for the CAP Planned and Rolling Component by $20,000 to $46,000. The report also proposes that, given the rising costs associated with the development of projects and activities, the maximum limit available for individual projects be increased from $1,000 to $1,200.

To achieve a more efficient and prompt processing of the Rolling Component requests, it is proposed that Council give delegated authority to the General Manager to apply the eligibility and assessment criteria to individual Rolling Component requests. It is also proposed that a report be provided on a six monthly basis to inform Council of the Rolling Component applications approved.

The report proposes that the Draft 2007 Community Assistance Program policy be adopted and included in the Council Policy Register.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Community Assistance Program be received

2. The eligibility and assessment criteria are included in any advertising and documentation about the annual Community Assistance Program

3. Council approve an increase in the maximum individual Community Assistance Program grant from $1,000 to $1,200

4. Delegated authority is granted to the General Manager to apply the eligibility and assessment criteria to individual Rolling Component requests without the requirement for a Council report on each application

5. A six monthly report be provided to inform Council of the approved Rolling Component applications

6. The Draft 2007 Community Assistance Program policy be adopted and included in the Council Policy Register.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

2007 Community Assistance Program Policy

2 Pages

Appendix

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

North Penrith Urban Area

Compiled by: Tony Crichton, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager

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

Critical Action: Prepare and implement plans (based on Council's Sustainability Blueprint for new Release Areas) for each new release area that deliver quality, sustainable living and working environments..

Purpose:

To update Council on the current status of planning for the North Penrith Urban Area and the tender process initiated by the Department of Defence for the site. The report recommends that Council support the strategic objectives for the site determined in collaboration with the Department of Planning and seek from the Department of Defence agreement for those to form part of the site tender process. The report also recommends Council seek the opportunity to be consulted on future proposals and the site development criteria for the North Penrith Urban Area prior to a preferred tenderer being selected.

Background

The Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) for the North Penrith Urban Area came into effect on 15 December 2000. The LEP provides for a mixed land use approach, with a balance of employment uses, housing types and open space opportunities, which recognises the transit focus of the site and its strategic location adjacent the Penrith City Centre.

A detailed draft Masterplan for the site was subsequently prepared and was publicly exhibited between March and June 2002.

In June 2002, the Hon Fran Bailey MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, advised Council that the land uses identified within the exhibited Masterplan were acceptable to the Commonwealth Government.

The Hon Jackie Kelly, Member for Lindsay, however, raised concerns over the residential land use mix proposed in the exhibited Masterplan, and the Commonwealth Government subsequently advised, in November 2002, that it was deferring the sale of the property to allow further discussions on the composition of future land uses for the site.

In light of this advice, Council at its meeting of 16 December 2002, resolved to defer consideration of the Masterplan until the Commonwealth Government had resolved any outstanding issues pertaining to the site.

In May 2003, the Department of Defence commissioned Sphere Property Group, in conjunction with Cox Richardson Architects, to carry out an independent review of the North Penrith Urban Area Masterplan. The report was prepared in response to critical comment received by the Hon Jackie Kelly MP, that the exhibited Masterplan contained an excessive residential component at the expense of employment generating commercial/industrial areas.

The Consultant’s Review considered three different land use scenarios for the site, namely:

· The draft Masterplan, prepared by Architectus for the DoD. This plan is consistent with the adopted LEP and DCP and proposes a mixed land use approach across the site, providing a range of employment uses, residential with home business, and small scale retail/commercial opportunities within the village core to service the new community. The proposal is sensitive to heritage issues on the site, such as the curtilage and vistas to Thornton Hall and Combewood, and incorporation of the remnant speedway within the road network;

· The ICA Property proposal submitted by the Hon Jackie Kelly MP. This plan significantly increases the commercial/industrial component on the site. About ¼ of the site is proposed for residential, with ¾ being designated for future commercial/industrial;

· A “hybrid” scheme development by Sphere Cox. This proposal is the consultant’s preferred option, and involves the use of six (6) hectares of land on the south western area of the site for commercial/office development, yielding 148,000m² of office space. The remaining land uses proposed in this scheme are the same as the current Masterplan. It is argued this proposal would add some 3,700 office jobs and 4,261 jobs in total on the site. The plan is otherwise the same as the draft masterplan.

The Review submits that locating office and commercial uses on the North Penrith Urban Area (NPUA) is an opportunity to restructure the city centre, and suggests that incentives be given for higher density housing at the edges of the city centre. The Review does not address the potential impacts on the Penrith CBD of locating competing commercial/office development on the North Penrith Urban Area.

Sphere Cox did not support the concept of zoning the majority of the site for industrial/ commercial development, as suggested in the ICA Property alternative, principally because of a concern that the site may remain undeveloped for many years.

The Review recommends the ‘Hybrid’ scheme as the preferred land use option for the North Penrith Urban Area primarily as it provides increased employment opportunities in proximity to the railway station and Penrith CBD. The ‘Hybrid’ scheme retains the remaining land use arrangements proposed in the draft Masterplan.

Council, at its meeting of 3 November 2003, considered a report on the three different land use scenarios examined as part of the Sphere Cox Richardson Review. At this meeting, Council resolved that:

“1. The information contained in the report on the North Penrith Urban Area: Outcomes of the Masterplan review be received.

2. Council write to the Minister for Defence to seek the commitment that the site will not be disposed of prior to a consensus being reached as to the desired land use outcome.

3. Council write to the City Centre Associations, the Chamber of Commerce, the Museum of Fire and the commercial landowners of the CBD advising them of the hybrid proposal and the content of this report and seek their comments on the hybrid proposal.

4. A further report be presented to Council advising of the outcome of the consultation in recommendation 3 [above], the report also to include commentary on issues regarding traffic flow.”

Council wrote to the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, on a number of occasions, seeking advice on the Commonwealth’s position in relation to the future land use arrangements for the North Penrith Urban Area (NPUA) and in particular, clarifying whether the Government wished to pursue the exhibited Masterplan for the site. Council also expressed concern with respect to the potential impact on the economic viability of the Penrith Town Centre resulting from the ‘Hybrid’ scheme. Our letter sought that the Department not dispose of the site until consensus on the future use of the land was reached. We were advised that the Government was still determining the most appropriate way ahead for the disposal of the property, and that once an evaluation of the options for the site had been completed, it would instruct Defence to advise Council accordingly.

Council carried out an extensive consultation process with the business community on the draft Masterplan commissioned by the Department of Defence. Most of the submissions expressed concern in relation to the ‘Hybrid’ scheme. The submissions from Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Penrith City Centre Association rejected the ‘Hybrid’ scheme. Concern was expressed that the location of substantial commercial office space on the North Penrith site, as proposed under the ‘Hybrid’ scheme, would result in fragmentation of the Penrith City Centre, and adversely impact on the economic and social viability and vitality of the existing town centre. It was recognised that there is more than adequate capacity within the existing City to double the current commercial floorspace and accommodate demand for future office needs. Providing commercial office development opportunities on the North Penrith site would therefore likely prevent redevelopment of sites within the Penrith City Centre.

In its submission, the Penrith City Centre Association expressed the need for land use proposals on the North Penrith site to be considered in the context of the City-wide employment studies and strategies being actively pursued by Council. The submission sought Council’s commitment to the outcomes identified in the draft Masterplan and opposed any departures from this, such as the ‘Hybrid’ scheme, which it considered to be at odds with the whole planning direction of the Penrith City Centre.

A number of submissions also opposed the removal of the 600 space commuter carpark, as proposed under the ‘Hybrid’ scheme, which was seen as having significant benefits to the community and Penrith as a regional centre.

The likely impact of the ‘Hybrid’ scheme on the continued economic viability and vitality of the City Centre was of considerable concern to the business community represented in the submissions received. In our view, the ‘Hybrid’ scheme will compete directly with, and undermine the role of, the CBD, by relocating commercial jobs that would otherwise be destined to be located within the Penrith City Centre. The increase in traffic generated, and costs associated with road upgrades to accommodate this, are significant, and raise concern over the long-term implementation of the ‘Hybrid’ scheme.

Council, at its Ordinary meeting of 7 June 2004, resolved that:

“1. The information contained in the report on the North Penrith Urban Area be received

2. The Minister for Defence be advised that Council does not support the ‘Hybrid’ scheme outlined in the Sphere Cox Richardson report for the North Penrith Urban Area

3. Council continue to seek confirmation from the Minister for Defence that the Commonwealth Government not proceed to dispose of the site until such time as a consensus on the future land use arrangements has been reached

4. The Minister for Defence be requested to clarify the Commonwealth Government’s position on the current draft Masterplan for the site and urged to continue the partnership with Council and the community in finalising the strategies for the North Penrith Urban Area

5. Those persons who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.”

We subsequently wrote to the Minister in accordance with Council’s resolution. 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 , the Government advised that it would accordingly instruct DoD to advise Council of its position.

Council, in January 2005, received a letter from Senator the Hon 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 from the Minister dated 1 October 2004, which set out the Government’s position on the future sale of the North Penrith site including the requirement for 4,000 jobs to be created from any new development on the site.

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 Status of Planning Controls for NPUA

The planning controls currently applying to the site are Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Amendment No. 3) (gazetted 15/12/00) and Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 1999 (gazetted 15/12/00). Penrith draft LEP (Amendment No. 10) and Penrith draft DCP (Amendment No. 1) have also been publicly exhibited. A copy of the gazetted LEP 1998 map and the exhibited draft DCP Masterplan map are included in the appendix to this report. These planning instruments and plans have not been advanced in recent years, due to ongoing negotiations with the Commonwealth Department of Defence (DoD) over future uses of the site in the anticipated sale of the land.

Expression of Interest Process

The formal process for the sale of the North Penrith Army Land site commenced on 16 September 2006 and closed on 17 November 2006. This Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) process allowed a 2 month period for developers to lodge formal expressions of interest for the site. The DoD appointed Colliers International as the sales agent for the site and provided Council with a detailed Information Memorandum. The total land area made available for sale at this stage was 43.7 ha.

Following requests from potential developers of the land and their consultants, officers prepared a Position Paper on the NPUA, which provided an outline of site context, Council’s strategic objectives ,and key planning principles for the site, which was then made available for any interested parties. A copy of this paper is included in the appendix to this report.

In April 2007, the Department of Defence announced that the available site area for development on the North Penrith Army Land has been increased by 3.7 ha to 47.4 ha, by the addition of the existing Multi-User Depot (the ‘MUD’) which is now surplus to the requirements of the Department of Defence. A copy of the site plan showing the expanded site area is appended to this report. As a consequence of this decision, the DoD announced that it has commenced a new tender process for the site.

A second REOI process commenced on 10 April 2007 and closed on 23 May 2007. Colliers International advised that, apart from the increased area of the site, there have been no substantive changes to the offering. All parties however were required to obtain a revised Information Memorandum and to submit revised expressions of interest to the agents. This revised REOI process is the first part of a two-part process wherein short listed respondents will subsequently be invited to lodge a detailed tender to demonstrate their capability to achieve a development outcome satisfactory to DoD.

The next stage in this process is a Request for Tender (RFT) stage. This is expected to commence in November 2007 and will see the DoD short-list selected tenderers to provide a more detailed and costed development proposal for the site. Tenders are to be lodged in February 2008 and a final decision on the selected tenderer is not expected until April 2008.

Penrith City Centre Plan

In February 2006, Premier Iemma announced a plan to establish a network of six key regional cities to underpin the State’s Economic Growth to create more local jobs. The Regional Six Cities Plan proposes to create key regional centres in Penrith, Parramatta, Gosford and Liverpool in the Sydney Region and Wollongong and Newcastle in the Greater Metropolitan Region.

The Penrith City Centre Plan proposes to create 10,000 new jobs and accommodate 10,000 more people over a 25 year plan. This draft Penrith City Centre Plan incorporates 4 separate plans – a City Vision, a Local Environmental Plan, a Development Control Plan, and Civic Improvement Plan. The Plan nominates eight key Regional City Development Principles and the City Vision also nominates 15 key principles for the City.

The Penrith City Centre Plan addresses a number of key issues and principles including city vision, regional context, historic and demographic context, economic development, transport and infrastructure, city centre character, funding city improvements and future actions. In regard to city centre character, the Plan specifically mentions the North Penrith site and notes that the preferred direction from a Metropolitan Strategy perspective would be higher density development around the northern side of the railway line, focusing employment opportunities and educational uses that complement, but do not compete with, the City Centre.

The draft Plan nominates in “Future Action 12” to “ensure the North Penrith Urban Area develops consistent with the City Centre Vision”. The draft Plan states that “the site presents a long term opportunity to develop education, research and office based activities complimenting development envisaged for the existing commercial core”.

NPUA Strategic Objectives

Given the announcement in February 2006 of the Regional Six Cities Plan by Premier Iemma, there is now a need to revisit the strategic planning objectives for the North Penrith site. It has also been recognised that once a preferred tenderer is selected by DoD, in all likelihood a rezoning of the land would be requested. That would be a process either sought from Council or one which may alternatively see the proponent lodge a request for rezoning under the Part 3A Major Projects provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act direct with DoP for Ministerial approval.

Given these circumstances, it was concluded that it would be important for a series of Strategic Objectives to be jointly prepared by Council and DoP to address desirable land uses, spatial arrangements, pedestrian and road connections and sustainability issues which any future development of the North Penrith site should observe. The Strategic Objectives would be referred to DoD for their consideration and inclusion in the documentation relating to the sale process.

Over recent months, senior officers from Council and DoP have met to formulate an agreed set of strategic planning objectives for NPUA, given the planning context set by the Metropolitan Strategy as well as the draft Penrith City Centre Plan. A series of appropriate Strategic Objectives to guide development has been prepared and is outlined below. The three concept plans appended to the report outline the preferred land uses, spatial arrangements and connections.

1. Land Uses

·· Land uses should complement and not impact on the existing City Centre to the south of the railway line. Commercial office development is therefore not appropriate.

·· Develop a mixed-use response which provides for some employment generating activities, coupled with residential.

·· Employment activities should integrate both with the adjoining industrial land uses and also provide opportunity for other job intensive activities such as education, research and technology development. Home based business opportunities would exist in the residential component. The Department of Defence suggested 4000 jobs target is unlikely to be realised on the site and it is more appropriate to develop job opportunities within the City Centre where significant public and private sector investment has already been committed.

·· A small ‘main street’ based commercial area is appropriate to provide retail and professional services to the new community to emerge on the site.

·· Site planning should recognise the likely long-term delivery of suitable employment uses on the land. Interim uses which have a low capital development value could be considered.

·· A multi-deck commuter carparking with at least 600 spaces is to be developed in a linear, structure format and located adjacent to the railway line and station precinct.

·· A civic space and transport interchange supported by active uses should be located immediately adjacent to the railway station entry.

·· A range of open space opportunities, particularly recognising the heritage significance of the existing historic buildings, their curtilages and vistas, would exist for both passive and active recreation.

2. Spatial Arrangements

·· A ‘gridded’ road network and block pattern is preferred and would allow for a range of land uses to be accommodated, providing strong connections and pedestrian accessibility. This more regular block layout is also favoured for higher density residential development and would give the additional opportunity of better use of the ‘corners’ of the oval precinct.

·· 4-6 storey residential development should be located generally on the eastern half of the site. The residential development should taper down to a lower storey rise against the Lemongrove Conservation Area. There is opportunity for the occasional residential development up to 8 storeys in specific precincts closer to the railway station.

·· Employment uses should be located to the western side of the site, adjacent to the Museum of Fire and station precinct and along Coreen Avenue. The small commercial centre would adjoin the civic space at the station and the oval.

·· Or as an alternative a ‘green strip’ buffering the residential development along the Coreen Avenue frontage could be provided. Community titled management arrangements should be included to maintain the buffer.

·· The immediate curtilages of the historic Combewood and Thornton Hall buildings are to be conserved and established as public open space where feasible. Important vistas to and from these buildings and the historic oval are to be maintained.

· The integration of the adjoining industrial zonings over the longer term is desirable.

3. Connections

·· A road underpass under railway line should allow for vehicles as well as buses, pedestrians and cycles, connecting the site to the City Centre.

·· A more generous pedestrian overpass at the railway station should be explored to enhance connections between the site and the City Centre and to connect the multi-deck carpark with the railway concourse.

·· Direct access to Castlereagh Road remains desirable with urban design improvements to signal entry into the precinct.

·· Several entries off Coreen Avenue should be considered, including allowing for the proposed bus transit way opposite Coombes Drive which will link the St Marys Release and the railway station.

·· A low key vehicle access to the east to Lemongrove should still be considered.

·· The site’s significant heritage is to be promoted through a heritage interpretation strategy.

·· A hierarchy of public streets should be provided with generous curtilages to allow for pedestrian footpaths and planting shade trees.

4. Sustainability

·· The development of the site is to accord with the principles and objectives contained in Council’s ‘Sustainability Blueprint for Urban Release Areas’.

The Strategic Objectives do not provide a significantly different mix of land uses and disposition of those activities on the site than provided for in the current adopted planning arrangements. However, there is recognition that the housing density as originally proposed should be increased to take better opportunity of the adjacent rail station and City Centre location. This approach is also consistent with the planning arrangements developed for the City Centre Plan which provide for residential development opportunities of a commensurate scale away from the commercial core.

Endorsed Department of Planning Position on NPUA

The Department of Planning has recently written to DoD outlining its official position on planning and development of the NPUA. A copy of this letter is appended to this report.

The letter confirms that the Strategic Objectives should now be considered as the Department’s current position on the future of the site. The DoP recognises the need to carefully plan for the future use and the development of the site and sees it as an important opportunity to deliver jobs and housing to this Regional City. However, DoP has indicated that it is concerned that the Commonwealth’s 4,000 job target on the subject site may have impact on the economic viability and growth of the established Penrith City Centre. The letter further argues that future development of this site should complement and not impact on the Penrith City Centre south of the railway line.

Conclusion

DoD expects a potential tenderer to be able to demonstrate how it can achieve the required rezoning of the North Penrith site and their target of 4,000 jobs. It is unclear how this will be achieved, as Council and DoP do not support the proposition that these jobs should emerge from commercial office development due to its potential impact on the economic and social viability and vitality of the Penrith City Centre. A further complication is that as DoD does not intend to be involved in progressing the rezoning of the site, a potential tenderer will be required to negotiate with Council and DoP concerning any future rezoning contemplated for the site.

The State Government’s announcements in the Metropolitan Strategy for Penrith to grow as a Regional City and the strategic vision and principles emerging in the development of the Penrith City Centre Plan has resulted in the need for the preparation of a revised set of strategic planning objectives for the North Penrith site. It has been important for council to collaborate with the DoP in the development of suitable Strategic Objectives for the site, given the regional focus on Penrith and recognising the likelihood that the successful tenderer emerging from the DoD sale process would be seeking a rezoning of the land to support its future development.

The Strategic Objectives outlined in the report in our view, provides for an appropriate, implementable development format consistent with Metropolitan planning objectives and the directions which have emerged in the Penrith City Centre plans. DoP has now formally endorsed the Strategic Objectives to guide future development of the site and it is accordingly recommended that Council similarly support this approach.

We have recently, in concert with DoP, met with DoD to outline the emerging Strategic Objectives and to advise DoD of the concern held for continuing with the suggested 4,000 jobs target, particularly if that is to be satisfied by way of new commercial office buildings which would directly compete with the Penrith City Centre. It was also pointed out that the rezoning and development of the land could only be achieved with the collective support of Council and DoP.

DoD has, notwithstanding, reaffirmed that the 4,000 jobs requirement would remain a fundamental tender requirement given that it was current Government policy, however, remains flexible on how those jobs would emerge and in what industry sectors. Given that, we should continue to urge that negotiations be held with DoD, prior to the instigation of Stage 2 of the tender process and the selection of a preferred proponent, in order for Council to be able to further input to the selection criteria and future development directions for the site. It is also therefore recommended that Council write to DoD seeking that opportunity.

A further report will be brought to Council when the process has further advanced and there is a clearer position advised by DoD.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on North Penrith Urban Area be received

2. Council support the ‘Strategic Objectives’ jointly prepared with the Department of Planning, as Council’s revised set of strategic planning objectives for the North Penrith Urban Area and seek for those to form part of the Department of Defence’s sale documentation

3. Council write to the Department of Defence seeking the opportunity to be consulted on future proposals and the site development criteria for the North Penrith Urban Area prior to a preferred tenderer being selected.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Gazetted LEP 1998 Map	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Draft DCP Masterplan Map	1 Page	Appendix
3. View	Position Paper	2 Pages	Appendix
4. View	Concept Plans	3 Pages	Appendix
5. View	Expanded Site Plan	1 Page	Appendix
6.	DoP Letter to DoD	2 Pages	Appendix

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

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

Compiled by: Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Strategies are in place for new release areas to deliver jobs that match incoming workforce participant numbers.

Critical Action: Work in partnership with the development sector to formulate and implement tailored employment development for each new release area that are commensurate with the rate of housing development and monitor job delivery.

Purpose:

To inform Council of a request to amend the zoning provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) to broaden the employment opportunities along the Andrews Road frontage of the site. The report recommends that the application be publicly exhibited and any subsequent rezoning be progressed in conjunction with consideration of the 'Employment Chapter' of Stage 1 of the Local Plan.

Background

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

Planning for the estate was initially undertaken in the mid 1990’s, and evolved in response to a multitude of onsite and surrounding physical characteristics, in particular flooding and industrial noise impacts. These investigations culminated in the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) and the adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) on 13 March 1998.

The site comprises 2 development zones, namely the Residential (Waterways) 2(g) and the Residential (Services) 2(h) zones. A zoning map is appended to the report.

The Residential (Waterways) 2(g) comprises some 53.3ha of land and is currently being developed by Stockland for housing, ultimately delivering some 694 dwellings. The Residential (Services) 2(h) zone is located along the Andrews Road frontage of the property. A principal aim of the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone is to provide employment opportunities within a quality built form that acts as an acoustic, physical and visual buffer between residential development on the site and industrial development to the south on the opposite side of Andrews Road. The current Planning provisions enable development of the employment land for a range of uses considered to be compatible with residential development, including visitor accommodation, health care services, business service activities, recreation facilities, warehouse/distribution centres and high technology industries.

Development of the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone is required prior to the delivery of housing in Stages 5 to 9 of the Waterside residential estate - some 450 dwellings - a significant portion of which are multi-unit housing.

Stockland sought ‘expressions of interest’ from the market to develop the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone. That process has identified limited interest in developing the site for the current range of permissible uses, leading to the contention that development of the site would not be commercially viable under the current zoning.

Stockland argues that the range of uses permitted within the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone is limited and needs to be expanded to ensure the timely delivery of housing on the site and make Waterside a vibrant, socially and economically sustainable community.

Councillors will recall that Stockland presented a proposal for development of the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone at the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 22 May 2006. Stockland’s proposal involved:

· Rezoning 1.4ha of the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone on Cranebrook Road to Residential (Waterways) 2(g) to enable its development for housing; and

· Expanding the range of uses permissible within the Residential (Services) 2(h) zone to include Car Washes, Fast Food Take-Away Restaurants, Hotels, Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability, Light Industries, Motor Showrooms, Office Premises (max of 1,000m² of gross floor area across the entire site, excluding ancillary office space associated with other permissible uses), Service Stations, Shops, Warehousing with ancillary shop (max 100m² of gross floor area for shop).

Council considered the presentation and associated Environmental Planning Manager’s report, and resolved to advise Stockland that the principal issues arising from its proposal revolved around the appropriateness of the proposed employment opportunities, particularly the retail, office and residential components.

A key concern was, and remains, as to whether there is a demonstrable need for an additional neighbourhood shopping centre in the locality and if so, whether this land is the correct location in terms of meeting the requirements of the wider community.

Concern was also expressed at the concept of providing commercial offices which are not an ancillary component of industrial or warehouse activities on the site as it was considered likely to impact on the established business centre hierarchy in Penrith.

The proposal to establish a 100-bed residential aged care facility and a retirement village, comprising 120 villas, in such close proximity to industrial development and adjacent a significant road, raised considerable concern with respect to the impact of traffic and industrial noise on the amenity of the occupants and the subsequent impacts that may have on the future of nearby industrial development.

Stockland was advised of Council’s comments and requested to address those issues in its proposed rezoning application.

Proposal

Stockland has now submitted a formal rezoning application to:

· Zone 13.7ha of the 2(h) Residential (Services) land to Zone IN2 Light Industrial. The remainder of the 2(h) Residential (Services) land is to be retained under that zone and consideration requested for residential purposes as part of Stage 2 of the Local Plan;

· Introduce the following additional land uses to that currently permitted on the site– depots, educational facilities, food and drink premises, function centres, hotel accommodation, light industries, neighbourhood shops, office premises, serviced apartments, service stations, veterinary hospital and vehicle showroom. All these uses, with the exception of serviced apartments, registered clubs and office premises are proposed to be permissible in the new Local Plan within the IN2 Light Industrial zone across the City; and

· Nominate site specific Gross Floor Area (GFA) limits for office and retail activities, being:

- a maximum total office space GFA of 1,000m² across the whole of the site, with no more than 600m² in one location and no one unit greater than 100m²;

- a maximum total GFA for neighbourhood shops of 1,500m², with no single shop greater than 1,300m².

Stockland has submitted an indicative concept plan illustrating how the site could support the requested additional uses. The indicative concept plan is appended to this report.

The indicative concept plan indicates the site could be developed as 6 precincts. It should be noted that Stockland has decided not to proceed with the proposal to establish a 100-bed residential aged care facility and a retirement village comprising 120 villas on the site. However, a neighbourhood centre of a reduced scale and office uses remain components of the proposal. The proposed activities in each precinct are:

Precinct 1 A 3 storey 6,000m² ‘place of public worship’ with associated off-street parking facilities. The premises would comprise a foyer, auditoriums (500 & 1,200 seats), childrens’ ministry, meeting rooms, counselling facilities, teaching areas and administration offices.

An alternative option for this precinct comprises an 80 room motel, 4,000m² of light industrial units and 1000m² of warehouse space.

Stockland contend these uses provide a strong corner element to achieve a sense of address and gateway to the locality. These uses provide an opportunity for an iconic development on the corner of Andrews and Castlereagh Roads.

Precinct 2 41 light industrial strata units with associated office space and 400m² of unrelated office accommodation.

The development will offer space suitable for small to medium business. It is intended to provide an acoustic barrier along the northern edge of the Precinct to protect the acoustic amenity of residential development to the north.

Precinct 3 A neighbourhood centre comprising a 1,300m² supermarket, 200m² takeaway shop, 195m² restaurant/café, 200m² specialty shops, 260m² service station, 1,200m² gym, 500m² medical centre, 600m² office building and a 60 place child care centre.

It is intended that the neighbourhood shops will provide for the day-to-day convenience needs of the surrounding locality. The focus will be a gathering point for the Waterside community, connected to the cycle/pedestrian network throughout the estate.

Precinct 4 light industrial subdivision to create 32 lots varying between 1,300m² and 2,600m²

Precinct 5 1,000m² of light industrial space and a 200m² take away facility or car wash

Precinct 6 Subdivision to create 20 residential lots along the Castlereagh Road frontage. This residential use is indicative only and is not part of the current rezoning request.

Stockland indicates that the key benefits of the proposal are that it:

· Ensures the timely delivery of viable employment activities and residential development of the site;

· Provides for 600 -1100 on-site jobs and some 315 off-site jobs;

· Provides the necessary acoustic and visual buffer between industrial development on the southern side of Andrews Road and residential development on 5he northern part of the site;

· Provides uses compatible with industrial development on the southern side of Andrews Road;

· Provides a range of complementary uses to Waterside residential to encourage an integrated community with services, facilities and jobs within walking distance;

· Introduces small neighbourhood shops, restaurants and associated recreational and community facilities, which will contribute to residents’ sense of place and community engagement.

Assessment of the Proposal

1. Land Use Issues

As mentioned previously in this report, planning for the estate evolved in response to a number of onsite and surrounding physical characteristics, in particular flooding and industrial noise impacts. Delivery of employment opportunities is an underlying principle of Council’s vision for a sustainable City and the management of urban release areas. This position is enunciated in Council’s Management Plan and promoted through various mechanisms including Council’s Sustainability Blueprint for Urban Release Areas.

The principal objective of the 2(h) Residential (Services) zone is the provision of employment opportunities which compliment the structure of the City, are compatible with the flooding characteristics of the locale, and are provided within a quality built form that protects the aesthetic and acoustic environment of residential development in the adjoining 2(g) Residential (Waterways) zone.

The current LEP for the site, Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) permits motels, places of public worship, function centres, childcare centres, recreation facilities, medical centres, clubs, community facilities, educational establishments, utility undertakings, warehouse or distribution centre and restaurants within the 2(h) Residential (Services) zone. Stockland seeks to expand the range of permissible uses to include hotel accommodation, serviced apartments, food and drink premises, light industries, neighbourhood shops, depots, office premises, veterinary hospitals, service stations and vehicle showrooms on the site.

The principal of expanding the permissible uses in the zone is a reasonable one, particularly given that there needs to be an alignment under the DoP template between the proposed IN2 zone for Waterside and the IN2 zone used elsewhere in the City being introduced in the new Local Plan.

In the main, the additional uses are considered to be compatible with the site characteristics and location. They will also serve to add greater development opportunity in the interests of ensuring that the primary objectives for this zone, in particular to ensure buildings are established early in a form and scale which act as an acoustic buffer to the industrial area to the south of Andrews Road, are met. However, there are a number of uses which give rise to concern which are not recommended for inclusion in any rezoning of the land. These are outlined below:

A Serviced Apartment is defined as “a building or part of a building providing self-contained tourist and visitor accommodation that is regularly serviced or cleaned by the owner or manager of the building or part of the building or the owner’s or manager’s agents.”

Whilst having the potential to provide for visitor accommodation, the potential exists for serviced apartments to be utilised for longer occupancy periods than would normally be associated with hotels or motels. These activities are more appropriate for town centre and residential locations. Given the close proximity of industrial development which has the potential for noise emissions, the amenity of this locality is not suited to extended occupancy. As such they are not considered a suitable land use for the site.

Neighbourhood Shops are defined as “retail premises used for the purpose of selling foodstuffs, personal care products, and other small daily convenience goods for the day-to-day needs of people who live or work in the local area, and may include ancillary services such as a post office.

Stockland seek to establish a neighbourhood centre comprising a variety of compatible/ complimentary uses being, a 1,300m² supermarket, 200m² takeaway shop, 195m² restaurant/café, 200m² of specialty shops, 260m² service station, 1,200m² gym, 500m² medical centre, 600m² office building and a 60 place child care centre.

When planning for the new urban area at Waterside, Council undertook, in association with the then proponent, an analysis of the services and facilities required to meet the needs of the incoming population in the context of existing and planned facilities in the locality. In terms of retail facilities, that analysis indicated that the needs of the Waterside community would be met by the existing (Cranebrook Village Centre) and already planned for facilities in the locality (Penrith Lakes Town Centre). However, it was acknowledged that a general store located centrally within the estate would improve access to daily convenience needs. The subsequent planning instruments reflected this analysis, promoting a general store within the residential component of the estate. It was Stockland’s initiative to amend the Masterplan for the residential component of the estate and eliminate this facility.

Council has consistently maintained that any retail facilities provided on the Waterside estate should be limited to those required to meet the needs of the incoming population and located so as to facilitate convenient access by residents. The scale of those facilities has been the subject of extensive investigations by Stockland and Council.

Stockland engaged MapInfo Dimasi to assess the economic impact of the proposed retail facilities. The consultant concluded that the proposal “has limited implications in terms of impacts on competing centres, particularly in terms of the existing and future roles of these centres in the retail hierarchy. This is a reflection of the small size of the proposed centre at Stockland Waterside, and the much larger size of competing centres including Cranebrook Shopping Centre, which is proposed for expansion”.

Stockland contend that a neighbourhood centre of 1,500m² needs to be anchored by a major tenant, in this case a supermarket, of around 1,300m² or greater to be successful. They indicate small convenience centres, which compete against larger supermarket centres in the surrounding area, have limited potential for significant specialty shop floor space given the larger provisions in competing centres. Stockland suggest a long term viable option at the centre is for a larger size anchored tenant accounting for the majority of space and providing all the needs for consumers within one store rather than spread across a number of smaller specialty stores.

In discussions with Stockland over the suggestions for rezoning, Council staff have consistently maintained that any retail facilities provided on the Waterside estate should be limited to those required to meet the needs of the incoming Waterside population and located so as to facilitate convenient access by residents.

A neighbourhood shopping centre has never been part of the planning for the Waterside estate. This was confirmed in the recently endorsed draft Centres Hierarchy for the City where the Cranebrook shopping village located very close to the east of the Waterside estate and the proposed Penrith Lakes town centre were identified as the appropriate centres in this locality, both of which would serve the Waterside residents.

The Centres Hierarchy is important as it is fundamentally intended to provide guidance for Council when planning for business facilities across the City, particularly those which may emerge in relation to servicing growing or new communities. It also informs the coordinated delivery of centres and ensures optimum use of expensive infrastructure. The Centres Hierarchy also provides certainty for investors about the type and scale of economic activity envisaged in the City’s centres. Establishing and maintaining that hierarchy is important for ensuring ongoing and equitable community access to necessary services and the continued vitality and viability of each centre.

Given the conflicting views of Council staff and Stockland’s consultant on this matter, Stockland agreed to Council engaging Hirst Consulting to undertake an independent review of the issue.

The Hirst Consulting analysis stated that there was a distinct possibility that if the Waterside retail centre proceeds, the existing Cranebrook Village centre could be adversely affected. It was also identified to be likely to have implications for the timing and delivery of the proposed Penrith Lakes centre.

Hirst Consulting concluded only a small, local convenience retail centre of less than a few hundred square metres floor space in waterside appears unlikely to impact on the continuation of the Cranebrook Village Centre, and not place at risk the planned-for retail facilities in the Lakes area.

In light of the above, it is considered that the Stockland proposal for 1500m² of retail space is inappropriate. However it is acknowledged, as was proposed in the original planning for the estate, that a small scale neighbourhood shop (general store) of less than a few hundred square metres would improve access to daily convenience needs and not impact on the City’s centres hierarchy. A neighbourhood shop of that scale is considered to be a suitable use of the site and is a use consistent with the template provisions for an IN2 Light Industrial zone.

Office Premises are a ‘building or place used for the purpose of administrative, clerical, technical, professional or similar activities that do not include dealing with members of the public at the building or place on a direct and regular basis, except where such dealing is a minor activity (by appointment) that is ancillary to the main purpose for which the building or place is used.”

Stockland seek to provide up to 1,000m² of office accommodation on the site, with no more than 600m² in one location and no one unit greater than 100m². They contend that such uses will expand and support the employment offer on the site, in a built form consistent with Council’s intent to create a suitable visual and acoustic barrier.

Office premises would expand the employment offer on the site in a built form consistent with Council’s acoustic and urban design objectives for the site. However, office premises are not a use normally located in industrial zones and doing so would inevitably compete with established and proposed centres across the City. Competition of this nature would unnecessarily impact on the viability and vitality of those centres, which will and have significant investment in private and public infrastructure.

This position is supported by the State Government’s Metropolitan Strategy which seeks to concentrate retail and office activity in established centres, business development zones and enterprise corridors. As such, freestanding office premises are not considered a suitable land use for the site. Ancillary office premises established in association with another permissible use are however appropriate and remain an opportunity within the zoning.

2. Noise Attenuation

Noise from industrial development to the south of Andrews Road is a key physical constraint to residential development of the Waterside Estate. Development on the 2(h) Residential (Services) zone is intended to protect the amenity of residential development of the site.

A principal objective of the 2(h) Residential (Services) zone is:

(i) to provide an acoustic, physical and visual buffer between industrial and residential development; and

(ii) to require a built form which protects the amenity (particularly with respect to noise) of residential development on land within Zones Nos. 2(g) and 2(h)

The current LEP and DCP for the site contain specific provisions to address this issue and those provisions have been transferred to the draft Local Plan and draft DCP 2008.

Stockland propose a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of noise from traffic using adjoining roads and noise from industrial development to the south. Those measures involve an 8m high continuous noise barrier across the site comprised of buildings and noise walls.

The principal noise walls are to be located on pedestrian bridges over flow paths designed to convey flood water from the south through the site to the lakes system. A sound rated ‘curtain’ is proposed between the underside of the bridge over the main floodway and the water line.

The application is accompanied by an Acoustic report prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd. The consultant indicates that:

· 8m high buildings or barriers, even with small gaps between, will provide the necessary acoustic protection from industrial noise for residential development located immediately to the north on the site;

· Designing the Andrews Road buildings/barriers of sufficient height to control noise from industrial development to the south will also control the noise generated by traffic using Andrews Road; and

· Extension of the existing acoustic barriers along the new Castlereagh frontage of the site south to the proposed buildings on the corner of Andrews and Castlereagh Roads will protect residential development on the site from noise generated by traffic using Castlereagh Road;

The Stockland proposal has been discussed with representatives from Owens Illinois (formerly ACI Glass) and Crane Enfield. Owens Illinois engaged Benbow Environmental to review the Day Design Report. Benbow Environmental conclude:

· The assumptions made by Day Design for industrial noise predictions are not expected to hold with sufficient accuracy and are therefore cause for concern. The primary concern is that the assumed height of the noise sources is 6m. The actual height of the major noise sources at Owens Illinois can be as much as 40m (furnace stacks). Sources at such height might be able to “see over” the acoustic barriers, greatly reducing or even negating their effect;

· It is not clear whether Day Design have considered the effect of meteorological conditions on noise propagation. Noise levels typically increase by 5 to 10dB under adverse meteorological conditions and can impact on the effectiveness of acoustic barriers;

· Gaps between or below barriers are expected to limit the acoustic performance of the barrier.

There appears, as was the case with residential development of the site, to be differing technical ‘opinions’ as to the source and degree of acoustic impact from industrial development to the south. This matter was previously resolved through Council’s appointment of a mutually agreed independent acoustic consultant to conduct a review of industrial noise impacts. That review concentrated on identifying the extent of impact of industrial noise on residential development immediately to the north on the site. It concluded that buildings in Waterside Corporate were required to ‘buffer’ dwellings on the southern portion of the residential estate.

The principal acoustic issue associated with development of Waterside Corporate is ascertaining the building height required to ‘buffer’ residential development from industrial noise. The DCP for the site specifies building heights of between 8m and 12m, with any motel development on the corner of Andrews and Castlereagh Roads permitted to be up to 15m high.

The matter currently before Council is a request to expand the range of permissible land uses on the site. Regardless of the type of land use, all development of the site must satisfy the specific acoustic performance requirements of the LEP and DCP. The parties previously acknowledged those provisions to be appropriate. Stockland and Owens Illinois have agreed for their acoustic consultants to conduct a joint analysis of the acoustic environment and required built forms. Compliance will be achieved through an appropriate built form and scale, a matter of detail design best addressed at the development application stage.

3. Flooding

Flooding is also a key physical constraint to development of the site. An objective of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) is to limit the potential risk to life and property from flood events.

The current LEP and DCP contain specific provisions to address this issue and those provisions have been transferred to the draft Local Plan and draft DCP 2008.

The application is accompanied by a flooding report prepared by Patterson Britten, Consulting Engineers. The report concludes that the indicative concept plan will not adversely affect the flooding characteristics on or beyond the site.

The Design and Technical Advice Manager has advised that the proposed additional land uses can be accommodated on the site in suitably designed and located buildings. However, from a review of Stockland’s indicative concept plan, it is noted that development within Precinct 2 encroaches into Lateral 1, redirecting flood water through the vehicle driveway and parking facilities in that Precinct. The Lateral lake system was designed to convey flood waters and at the same time act as a water quality control mechanism. Redirecting flood waters away from the design flood conveyance mechanism into service areas is both inappropriate and ineffective.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in approving the bulk earthworks and lakes construction on the site, required the provision of a riparian corridor around the perimeter of the lake/lateral system. The riparian corridor has been established and is a ‘development free’ vegetated area. It appears that like the industrial buildings in Precinct 2, the parking area associated with the proposed neighbourhood facility in Precinct 3 encroaches into the approved riparian corridor. DNR have advised that they will not support a reduction in riparian area.

The Design and Technical Advice Manager has advised that a number of technical aspects of the Patterson Britten report need clarification. Issues such as:

· whether the building layout indicated in the concept plan is adversely affected by or compromises the future plans to raise Andrews Road, including effects on upstream properties;

· whether the flood modelling acknowledges the proposal to construct an 85m wide pedestrian bridge over Lake 1;

· clarification of the proposed works and their flooding impacts associated with the entry off Andrews Road and the adjacent parking area in Precinct 3;

· the impact of blockage of the proposed culvert under the entry off Andrews Road to Precinct 3 on the flood characteristics of the site and upstream properties

These issues require clarification and resolution in progressing development of the site. However, as mentioned above Council’s Design and Technical Advice Manager has indicated that the proposed additional land uses can be accommodated on the site in suitably designed and located buildings.

4. Employment Generation

Council’s Sustainability Blueprint for Urban Release Areas seeks, among other things, to ensure jobs are created (both on and off-site) that match the number of incoming resident workforce participants. It is relevant to note, however, that the planning for the Waterside estate preceded Council’s adoption of this employment policy. Nonetheless, it has been used as a broad guide to determine a desirable target for job creation as a result of the proposed development.

Stockland engaged Hill PDA Consulting to assess the employment requirements of the Waterside Estate and the job creation opportunities of the proposed uses of the site as evidenced by their indicative concept plan. Hill PDA assumed a workforce participation rate based on household type to estimate that 884 jobs will be required for the expected 2,150 residents of the estate. Based on their own research Hill PDA concluded that the concept plan will provide between 600 and 1,100 full time on-site jobs, depending on employment density.

Council engaged Julianne Christie, Council’s former Economic Development Specialist – New Release Areas, to review Hill PDA Consulting conclusions. She concluded, using Penrith specific industry density and multiplier data, that 1,130 jobs are required to meet the employment demands of the incoming residents and the indicative concept plan would deliver between 814 and 887 equivalent full time on and off-site jobs, depending on whether Precinct 1 was developed for a Church or a Motel and industrial units. This would leave a shortfall of between 243 and 316 jobs.

Given the Waterside Estate was planned in the mid 1990’s prior to the adoption of Council’s employment policy for new urban areas, there are no specific agreements or controls which would serve to deliver a jobs target for the site. Irrespective, Stockland has sought to introduce a number of uses in its rezoning request which would seek to enhance employment development opportunities for the site.

As mentioned above, whilst the proposed deletion of employment opportunities in favour of residential uses on the Castlereagh Road frontage of the site does not form part of the current rezoning request, the above analysis suggests that this residential component will reduce job creation opportunities and will need to be considered in that light in any future judgements Council is asked to make in relation to it.

5. Access

Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) prohibits direct vehicular access from the site to Castlereagh and Andrews Roads other than via defined entries to the estate. The ‘key design elements’ map in the DCP identifies 3 access points along the Andrews Road frontage of the site. One at the intersection with the proposed extension of Laycock Street at the eastern extremity of the site, with the remaining two site entries located equidistant along the Andrews Road frontage.

Stockland’s indicative concept plan proposes 5 entry points along the Andrews Road frontage of the site, one entry point to Castlereagh Road and 7 entry points to the perimeter road system within the residential estate.

The Design and Technical Advice Manager has advised that:

· Direct vehicular access should be denied to Castlereagh Road as is required by the current Waterside DCP. Direct vehicular access from the proposed church development in Precinct 1 to the adjoining residential area is not supported as the church traffic would have an adverse impact on the efficiency and safety of the adjoining residential street network;

· The two access points to Precincts 1 and 2 in Andrews Road should be consolidated to provide one traffic controlled entry point as a four-way intersection with Lambridge Place;

· Currently B-double vehicles access the Owens Illinois site. Concern is raised regarding the proximity of the Precinct 3 access to the ACI site entry. Furthermore, the proposed location for the Precinct 3 access may be affected by flooding. Considering the existing constraints, the two proposed accesses along Andrews Road for Precinct 3 and 4 should be consolidated into one traffic controlled entry located further east along Andrews Road; and

· A direct road link is proposed through Precinct 3 between Andrews Road and the internal residential road network. This link is not supported as it would promote through traffic in a location that would adversely affect road safety and the free flow of traffic.

The access arrangements for the site are appropriately addressed at the development application stage and more detailed site planning is undertaken.

City-wide Local Plan

The Local Plan is being prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning’s required standard LEP template. That template nominates specific land use zones. Perusal of the available employment zones reveals the IN2 Light Industrial zone to be the most appropriate zone to accommodate an acceptable rang of land uses for the Waterside site.

The objectives of the IN2 zone are:

· To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

· To encourage employment opportunities.

· To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

· To make land available for economic and employment generating development.

· To encourage employment generating development having regard to adjacent residential and other uses.

· To promote development which makes efficient use of industrial land.

· To permit development which serves the daily convenience needs of persons working within industrial areas.

Council’s Local Plan team advise that:

· Depots, Light industries, Neighbourhood shops and Warehouse or distribution centres have been mandated by the Department of Planning as permissible uses with Council’s consent in the IN2 Zone;

· It is intended to limit the scale of Neighbourhood shops in IN2 zones across the City to a maximum of 200m²;

· It is intended to prohibit Serviced apartments and Office premises in the IN2 zone as they are considered inappropriate uses for the reasons outlined in this report;

· It is intended to permit the remainder of the land uses proposed by Stockland for this site in IN2 zones across the City.

Given the significant advancement of Stage 1 of the Local Plan, it is considered appropriate to incorporate the existing Waterside plans, namely Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) and Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs) relating to the 2(h) Residential (Services) zone in Penrith Local Plan 2008 and Penrith Development Control Plan 2008.

Conclusion

The issue currently before Council is Stockland’s request to expand the range of permissible land uses on the employment lands in the Waterside Estate fronting Andrews Road, Cranebrook. This is a ‘generic consideration’ requiring assessment of the suitability or otherwise of the requested land uses in terms of the objectives of the zoning of the land.

The principal objectives of the 2(h) Residential (Services) zone are the provision of employment opportunities which compliment the structure of the City, compatibility with the flooding characteristics of the locale, and the provision of a quality built form that protects the aesthetic and acoustic environment of residential development in the adjoining 2(g) Residential (Waterways) zone.

With the exception of serviced apartments and office premises, the remaining uses proposed by Stockland for the zone are in our opinion considered appropriate for the site.

Neighbourhood shops are mandated as a permissible use within the IN2 zone. However, the independent review of the economic impact of Stockland’s proposal for a 1,500m² of retail space has concluded that retail facilities of that scale would adversely impact on the continuation of the Cranebrook Village Centre, and delay the planned-for retail facilities in the Penrith Lakes Scheme. It is acknowledged that a small scale neighbourhood shop (general store) of less than a few hundred square metres is appropriate and would improve access to daily convenience needs and not impact on the City’s centres hierarchy. This position is supported by the State Government’s Metropolitan Strategy which seeks to concentrate retail and office activity in established centres, business development zones and enterprise corridors. It seeks to allow retailing in industrial zones only where it is ancillary to industrial uses.

Council is currently in the process of preparing the first stage of the single, comprehensive LEP and DCP for the City. The first stage of these plans will cover the rural lands, industrial/ employment lands, St Marys Town Centre and heritage items. It is intended that the most expedient process is to progress the rezoning of Waterside Corporate via the Local Plan process. The Department of Planning has advised that the Local Plan process is their preferred mechanism for dealing with this matter.

Stockland’s request to expand the range of permissible uses on the site is supported by an indicative concept plan. That plan has raised a number of technical issues including flooding, access, and building height/noise attenuation that require resolution prior to Council endorsement of a concept plan or determination of specific development applications for the site. The applicant should be advised of the issues raised in this report and requested to address them in refining the concept plan for the site.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2. Council progress the expansion of permissible land uses in the employment zone of the Waterside Estate through Penrith Local Plan 2008 and Penrith Development Control Plan 2008, as outlined in the report

3. Council advise Stockland of the key issues identified in the report that need to be addressed in progressing the concept plan for the site and prior to lodging any development application.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Zoning Map	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Waterside Corporate indicative concept plan	1 Page	Appendix

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Leadership and Organisation*

Leadership and Organisation

Service Specification Program

Compiled by: Ken Lim, Organisational Development Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Ross Kingsley, Corporate Development Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Services and programs that Council provides are determined based on equity, customer requirements, community benefits and best value.

Critical Action: All services are provided to adopted service levels.

Purpose:

To provide Council with the draft Traffic and Parking Management (AM) and the draft Recreation and Cultural Programs Service (FOM) Specifications for consideration. The report recommends that these service specifications be adopted.

Background

Council established the Service Specification Program in 2002-03 in order to:

1. Comprehensively analyse and document all services and the present level of service provided (stage 1 of the Program)

2. Enable Council in a fully informed manner to review and where appropriate adjust service levels to better meet the needs of the community and align to Council’s strategy (stage 2).

Documentation of Council’s external and internal services began four years ago, with significant benefits to the efficient and effective management of the organisation. To date, 61 out of a total of 65 consolidated Service Specifications have been adopted by Council. Two more specifications are reported tonight for Council’s consideration with the remaining two specifications to be reported to Council in the near future in order to complete the stage 1 program.

Council has approved the inclusion of key information from the service specifications, including a profile and budget of each service, in its 2007-08 Management Plan.

A more comprehensive review of all service levels has now commenced, with the initial results being brought to Council in the context of the 2007-08 Management Plan and budget development. The service review process also identifies areas of service improvement which should be made within existing means and a range of such improvements has been included in the 2007-08 Management Plan, with further information to be added as it considered by Council.

Assessment of Draft Service Specifications

Prior to reporting to Council, all draft specifications undergo a rigorous process of validation and assessment, leading to approval by the Corporate Management Team. The aim is to ensure that each specification accurately communicates the existing levels of service and activities that the service provides, in terms of quantity, quality and cost to Council. Once adopted by Council, this specification will be used as the basis for testing service performance and for service review, including any changes to services levels, calls for additional resourcing, or for changes in priority setting within an existing service.

The two services to be considered tonight are presently undergoing review/realignment, as indicated below. The specifications, however, reflect the current service arrangements and levels, providing a baseline for any adjustments which may be made by Council.

The services to be considered tonight are:

Traffic and Parking Management (Asset Manager)

The Traffic and Parking Management Service is to be transferred from the former Asset Manager (AM) position to the Design and Technical Advice Manager (DTAM), as previously advised to Council through the General Manager’s report on Alignment of the Organisation in July. As further service adjustments are identified, including those that contribute to the management of traffic and parking, they will be reported back to Council for consideration as part of the Service Review process.

Recreation and Cultural Programs (Facilities Operations Manager)

As noted above, the Recreation and Cultural Programs Service Specification essentially establishes a baseline for current review and organisational realignment measures. A separate report to tonight’s meeting details the changes which have recently been approved by Council in this area and a further set of proposals for the Recreation function.

The ‘Events and Festivals’ component of this Service has already been transferred to the Marketing Service (EDCMM) and is therefore not included in the specification submitted tonight. This draft specification covers the existing management by Facilities Operations of the remaining elements: Community and Cultural Relationships, Sports Relationships, Facilities Development and Management and general administration of the Service.

Summary of Key Information

The two draft specifications submitted for Council’s consideration tonight are included in the attachments.

As previously agreed, it is intended to make the specifications for all services in Council’s 2007-08 Management Plan available for the public through Council’s website as linked documents. This approach is currently being developed.

To assist in Council’s consideration of the draft specifications submitted tonight, an executive summary of each draft specification is provided as part of this report.

The executive summaries contain the following :

1. Service Description

2. Links to the Strategic Program

3. Service Objectives

4. Scope of Work

5. Key Performance Indicators (where applicable)

6. Service Funding

7. Service Summary Chart

Executive Summary of the Traffic and Parking Management Service Specification
1. Service Description	The Traffic and Parking Management Service provides the planning and technical advice on traffic and parking management for Council maintained roadways (except road pavements on classified main roads), and carparks within the Penrith LGA.
2. Links to Strategic Program	*Issue*	*Term Achievement*	*Critical Action*
	Issue 25: Local Road Network	TA25.1 Road network capacity, safety and efficiency are improved and traffic congestion is reduced.	CA25.1A A program is being implemented to address deficiencies and areas of congestion in the Local road Network.
			CA25.1B Implement with other stakeholders the Penrith Valley Road Safety Strategy
		TA25.2 A parking management plan addressing the provision and utilisation of improved parking within the centres and other key locations is being implemented	CA25.2A Develop and implement the recommendations of a Parking Management Plan for the City Centres and other key locations.
		TA25.3 A plan is being implemented for bus shelters, cycleways and footpath networks having regard for the access, health and recreational needs of the community	CA25.3A Develop and implement footpath, cycleway and bus shelter programs, incorporating recommendations from the PLAN study and identify the recurrent maintenance costs and funding sources.
3. Service Objectives	· Monitor the traffic network within the Penrith LGA to improve efficiency of traffic flow and reduce severity and number of accidents, including identification of “Black Spots” · Secure maximum total available funding for the Traffic and Parking Management Service programs. · Ensure the parking management plans for the City Centres and other key locations being implemented, and are achieving the desired outcomes. · Assess, prioritise, develop and design Council’s Traffic and Parking Management Service programs, such as Road Safety, Footpath Construction, Traffic facility and Cycleways, in accordance with relevant legislation, authorities and Council policies.
4. Scope of Work	Traffic Advice and Investigations · 2,800 enquiries, 40 investigations, · 100 intersection surveys, 250 speed classifications · 3 Local area traffic studies, 130 DA’s assessed. Coordination of Traffic Projects and Maintenance · Approx 20 Major traffic and transport facility projects each year · 12 km of path paving and 7 new bus shelters constructed per annum · 180 minor projects per annum. Traffic Information Management and Administration · 100 Surveys administered per year · 4 RTA accident information updates per annum. Committee’s Meetings and Reports · Local Traffic Committee · Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee · WSROC Technical Sub Committee · Road Safety Steering Committee. Community Consultation · Advice to Public including 250 resident visits per annum. Road Safety Program · Approx 8 Programs per year · Approx 8 Road Safety funding submissions lodged per year · Approx 8 Workshops held per year · Usually 8 Evaluations per year. Traffic Funding Submissions · 2 Funding Submissions per year (Federal & State)
5. Key Performance Indicators	Key Performance Indicators		2003 Actual	2005 Actual	2007 Target
	% reduction in traffic accidents on local roads per annum		N/A	N/A	3%
	City-wide Customer Survey		2003 Actual	2005 Actual	2007 Actual
	% of community satisfied with the regulation of traffic flow From Citywide Customer Survey		70.1%	63.5%	66.9%
	% of community satisfied with provision of parking in shopping centres From Citywide Customer Survey		76.9%	74%	71.6%
	% of community satisfied with provision of commuter parking From Citywide Customer Survey		69.6%	66.5%	57.9%

6. Service Funding

The 2007-08 budget allocation for the Traffic and Parking Management Service is $429,975 (excluding stationery items) with an estimated income of $32,400, resulting in a net service cost of $397,575.

Service Components	2007-08 Allocation
Employee Costs	$355,175
Plant	$39,400
Projects	$35,400
Subtotal	$429,975
Grants (for projects)	($11,500)
Other Income (from workshops)	($20,900)
Net Service Cost	$397,575

7. Service Summary Chart

2.1 2.1

Executive Summary of the Recreation and Cultural Programs Service Specification
1. Service Description	The service provides management, development and support for a range of recreational and cultural programs. Key to this service is the development of relationships and liaison with community groups and organisations to facilitate and advise program development.
2. Links to the Strategic Program	*Issues*	*Term Achievements*	*Critical Actions*
	Issue 2 Penrith City Centre’s Metropolitan role	TA 2.1 – Penrith city centre provides a comprehensive range of economic, human and lifestyle services to Outer Western Sydney and the Central Western NSW	CA 2.1B – Centres of excellence of selected sporting, leisure and cultural areas are equipped and operating.
	Issue 3: St Marys' Regional Role	TA 3.2 - The Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct is completed and contributing to a vibrant urban village lifestyle in St Marys.	CA 3.2A - Complete the Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct at St Marys.
	Issue 3: St Marys' Regional Role		CA 3.2B - Develop programs relating to Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct which contribute to making St Marys a viable urban village.
	Issue 8 Cultural Development	TA 8.2 – The cultural assets of the City have been integrated to establish its reputation as a creative place.	CA 8.2B – Establish vibrant and viable cultural precincts elsewhere across the City.
	Issue 8 Cultural Development		CA 8.2C – Further integrate the City’s principal cultural facilities to maximise community benefit.
	Issue 9 Recreation and Leisure	TA 9.1- The City’s recreation and leisure facilities meet its needs and are optimally used.	CA 9.1A – Facilitate joint use of the City’s recreation and leisure facilities including co – location of programs
	Issue 9 Recreation and Leisure		CA 9.1B – Ensure the facilities and services reflect the City’s diverse current and future recreation and leisure needs.
	Issue 12 Magnetic Places	TA 12.2 – Local centres, community meeting places and prominent meeting places are increasingly valued and recognised by communities as a focus of their neighbourhoods or as a feature of the city.	CA 12.2A - Engage the City’s communities in identifying and creating community places that are valued and used..
	Issue 18: Built Environment	TA 18.1 - The City’s heritage is being protected and conserved.	CA 18.1 C - Evaluate heritage assets in Council’s care and develop and implement programs for their conservation and management.
3. Service Objectives	The service provider is to :- · support and contribute to Penrith as a centre of sporting, leisure and cultural excellence · contribute to establishing vibrant and viable cultural precincts across the City · further integrate the City’s principal cultural facilities to maximise community benefit by building and nurturing relationships with cultural and sporting organisations.
4. Scope of Work	Community and Cultural Relationships · Maintain and nurture relationships with over 60 community and cultural groups each year Sports Relationships · Maintain and nurture relationships with at least 10 sporting groups per year (eg NSW Rowing) · 2 funding submissions per annum taking about 2 weeks · 3 bids entered or lobbied per annum (3 weeks in duration for each) · Manage the maintenance of the Skate Park Facilities Development (Pre-Delivery) · 250 staff hours per annum for research, needs assessment, stakeholder consultations, development of consultant briefs, site selection, facilitate and monitor approved construction and reporting findings program to Council · Key Project – Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct Facilities Management (Post-Delivery) · 180 staff hours per annum to support management structures for Council owned recreation/cultural facilities (includes controlled entities) and to develop working partnerships with other in the management of non-Council owned facilities.

5. Service Funding

The annual budget for the Recreation and Cultural Programs service is $109,794 for 2007-2008. This amount includes all operating costs and does not include capital costs unless otherwise stated.

Cost Components	2007-2008 Allocation
Employee Costs	$46,695
Materials	$619
Operational Costs	$47,314
Projects (see breakdown of project costs below)	$62,480
Net Service Cost	$ 109,794

Project Costs	2007-2008 Allocation
Community Event Contributions	$10,000
Recreation & Culture Donations	$30,000
Artfiles	$7,000
Red Cross Calling Donation	$3,000
NSW All Schools Triathlon	$8,000
Mayoral Musical Scholarship	$4,480
Total ~ Project Funding	$ 62,480

Major Project - Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct

The major project for this service is the Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct which has not been included in the costs above. The 2007-2008 budget allocation for this major project is $2,392,000 and is funded through General Revenue and Section 94 Reserves.

This service is to be provided within this funding. No additional funds will be provided unless authorised by a resolution of Council.

Any amount unspent as at year ended 30 June 2008 will be returned to Council’s General Funds, except for any approved carry forwards (revotes) or grants with special conditions attached.

6. Service Summary Chart

RECOMMENDATIONS

That :

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

2. The service specification for the Traffic and Parking Management Service be adopted

3. The service specification for the Recreation and Cultural Programs Service be adopted.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Traffic & Parking Management Service Specification	30 Pages	Attachment
2.	Recreation & Cultural Programs Service Specification	19 Pages	Attachment

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Leadership and Organisation*

Leadership and Organisation

Penrith City Council Customer Survey 2007

Compiled by: Ken Lim, Organisational Development Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Ross Kingsley, Corporate Development Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Services and programs that Council provides are determined based on equity, customer requirements, community benefits and best value.

Critical Action: Deliver quality customer services, responsive to contemporary community expectations within available resources.

Presenters: Simon Pomfret - Executive Director, IRIS Research - Penrith City Council Customer Survey 2007

Purpose:

To present for Council's consideration the results of the third City-wide Customer Survey. Simon Pomfret, Executive Director of IRIS Research, will present the key survey findings. The report recommends that the information be received.

Due to the size of the full survey report, copies have been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

Background

Since 2003 Council’s Management Plan has consistently identified the need to “conduct and review systematic customer and analytical research into service needs and priorities through the customer research program”. One key response to this requirement has been the use of a biennial City-wide telephone survey of residents.

Council’s first telephone customer survey of 623 households in Penrith was conducted in April 2003 with the assistance of IRIS Research. The same methodology was applied in 2005 and 2007 to ensure that meaningful comparisons could be drawn across the period. In 2007 a total of 605 responses were received.

A sample target of adult respondents from a minimum of 600 households was chosen to provide accurate survey results that could be applied to the broader population. When analysing results for the entire sample, the maximum error rate will be about + or – 4.1% at the 95% confidence level. That is, we are confident that if the survey was repeated there are 95 chances in 100 that the new results would be within + or – 4.1% of the result achieved in this survey. This provides a sound statistical methodology.

The aim of the survey is to provide Council with an understanding of the perceptions and needs of the local community with respect to a broad range of services and facilities and in particular, provide the following :-

· Measurement of the importance of and satisfaction with external services and facilities provided by Council

· Measurement of perceived performance of Council staff

· Establishment of benchmark levels of satisfaction for Council services and facilities and customer service

· Identification of key drivers of resident satisfaction or dissatisfaction

· Information to help Council identify service use priorities for the community

· Comparison of Penrith City Council’s overall satisfaction ratings with other councils.

The 2003 and 2005 survey results are provided to the public on Council’s website.

A copy of the consultant’s full report for the 2007 survey has already been provided separately to Councillors. The consultant’s report is referred to at various points of the present report for a more detailed examination of findings.

Current Situation

Based upon the same objectives as the 2003 and 2005 surveys, IRIS Research conducted and completed the fieldwork for the 2007 survey in May. The 2007 survey featured three differences from the previous reports:

· provision of comparison scores for the 2005 and 2007 surveys

· identification of the key drivers of dissatisfaction for each service or facility

· an additional question relating to “maintenance of footpaths” bringing the total to 48 services and facilities surveyed.

Survey Methodology

A total of 605 completed telephone surveys were collected from a random sample of residents throughout the Penrith LGA. Strict sampling procedures ensured that characteristics of selected respondents mirrored the overall adult population with a representative distribution across age, gender, Ward and defined land areas (eg rural, new release and established urban areas). A statistically valid sample was specified for each Ward (minimum of 200 interviews per Ward).

The telephone survey covered 48 Council services and facility types to which respondents were asked to give both an importance and satisfaction rating (ie “Not Important”/“Very Dissatisfied” = 1 to “Very Important”/“Very Satisfied” = 5 or “Can’t Say” = Non Response). Results from these ratings form the basis of much of the analysis of the results.

The questionnaire used for the survey can be found on pages 115 to 119 of the full survey report.

The 48 services and facilities covered in the survey are ones directly provided to the public. However, it is most important to note that not all these services are exclusively provided by local government. As previously discussed with Council in terms of the previous surveys, respondents cannot be expected to distinguish in all cases the respective contributions of other levels of government.

This survey methodology targets residents’ perception of service provision and Council staff performance. Importantly, respondents are not limited to users of the particular services and facilities. Rather, this research tool provides a vehicle for residents (represented by an appropriate random sample) to express their views and priorities. User surveys of particular key services are an appropriate supplement to this broad City-wide survey.

The services and facilities included in the survey were:

§ Provision of Community Halls & Community Centres

§ Maintenance of Community Halls & Community Centres

§ Provision of Library Services

§ Provision of Parks & Playgrounds

§ Maintenance of Parks & Playgrounds

§ Provision of Sportsgrounds & Playing Fields

§ Maintenance of Sportsgrounds & Playing Fields

§ Maintenance of Public Swimming Pools

§ Maintenance of Facilities Around the River

§ Maintenance of Cemeteries

§ Domestic Animal Control

§ Council's Community Safety Programs

§ Graffiti Removal

§ Availability of Immunisation Clinics

§ Litter Control

§ Health & Hygiene of Local Restaurants & Takeaway

§ Parking Enforcement

§ Recycling Services

§ Street Cleaning

§ Kerbside Clean-Up Collection

§ Domestic Garbage Collection

§ Protection of the Natural Environment

§ Environmental Education

§ Clean Creeks & Waterways

§ Tree Preservation

§ Provision of Bus Shelters

§ Provision of Cycle Ways

§ Maintenance of Public Drains

§ Provision of Footpaths

§ Maintenance of Footpaths

§ Provision of Parking in Shopping Centres

§ Provision of Commuter Parking

§ Provision of Public Toilets

§ Maintenance of Public Toilets

§ Maintenance of Local Roads

§ Lighting of Public Places

§ Overall Appearance of the City

§ Regulation of Traffic Flow

§ Building & Development Application Assessment

§ Urban & Rural Planning

§ Protection of Heritage Sites

§ Provision of Tourist Information

§ Encouraging Local Industry & Jobs

§ Provision of Services & Facilities for Older People

§ Provision of Services & Facilities for Children

§ Provision of Services & Facilities for Youth

§ Information on Council Services & Activities

§ Consultation with the Community by Council

Survey Alignment to Council’s Services

The identification of 48 external services/facilities was derived from original discussions with IRIS research and have been maintained in order for comparisons to be made over the survey periods and with other councils. They do not correspond precisely to Council’s service profiles but can be easily linked. The relationship between the above list and Council’s 46 external services as detailed in the 2007-08 Management Plan is illustrated in Appendix A.

Summary of Key Results

The survey findings provide indicators of resident perceptions and satisfaction with Council’s current services and facilities and by comparing previous surveys results, Council’s performance since 2003.

The key results from the 2007 survey are summarised into 6 headings :-

1. Overall Council Performance

2. Staff Performance

3. Drivers of Satisfaction

4. Drivers of Dissatisfaction

5. Resident Prioritisation of Council Services and Facilities

6. Value for Money

Each following section of this report will briefly explain the results and provide a brief commentary as to implications for Council. Further discussion will be provided through tonight’s presentation.

1. Overall Council Performance

Respondents were asked, “how would you rate overall satisfaction with the performance of Penrith City Council?” The results in the table below are broken down by age, gender and location of respondent

Group		2007 Satisfaction Rating (% of Respondents)				Mean Scores (out of 5)
Group		No Response	Low (1-2)	Medium (3)	High (4-5)	2007	2005	2003
Overall		0.3%	6.8%	36.4%	56.5%	3.6	3.5	3.6
Age Group	18-24	0.0%	6.3%	38.1%	55.6%	3.6	3.7	3.6
	25-44	0.0%	10.0%	38.5%	51.5%	3.5	3.4	3.5
	45-65	0.5%	5.3%	37.2%	57.0%	3.6	3.5	3.5
	65+	1.3%	0.0%	25.3%	73.3%	4.0	3.8	4.1
Gender	Males	0.4%	6.4%	34.2%	59.0%	3.6	3.4	3.5
Gender	Females	0.3%	7.1%	38.1%	54.6%	3.6	3.6	3.6
Ward	North	0.4%	8.8%	35.2%	55.5%	3.5	3.4	3.6
	South	0.0%	6.2%	35.6%	58.2%	3.6	3.6	3.6
	East	0.5%	5.0%	38.3%	56.2%	3.6	3.5	3.6
Area Type	Rural	2.4%	14.3%	38.1%	45.2%	3.4	3.2	3.3
	Established	0.2%	6.1%	36.2%	57.4%	3.6	3.5	3.6
	New Release	0.0%	6.6%	36.3%	57.1%	3.6	3.7	3.6

Another way to illustrate these findings is to look at the results in terms of the percentage of residents who rated overall satisfaction with Council’s performance as “High” or “Medium”. The following table compares all three survey results.

Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance

(% of residents rating ‘medium’ to’ high’ satisfaction)

Performance Comparisons with Other Councils

Councils	Satisfaction Rating (% of Respondents)			Mean Score (out of 5)
Councils	Low (1-2)	Medium (3)	High (4-5)	Mean Score (out of 5)
Penrith (Survey 2007)	6.8%	36.4%	56.5%	3.6
Penrith (Survey 2005)	9.1%	37.3%	53.6%	3.5
Penrith (Survey 2003)	6.9%	36.1%	57.0%	3.6
Blue Mountains (Survey 2006)	17.3%	43.7%	38.9%	3.2
Blue Mountains (Survey 2004)	19.1%	44.4%	35.3%	3.1
NSW Councils – Overall *	14.7%	35.1%	50.2%	3.4
Metropolitan Councils *	15.0%	35.5%	49.5%	3.4
Regional Councils *	14.9%	33.0%	52.1%	3.4

[* = Ratings taken from the Independent Inquiry into Financial Sustainability of Local Government in New South Wales - Opinion Poll on Role of Local Government in New South Wales - Final Report 2005 as conducted by IRIS Research]

Commentary

Council continues to maintain an extremely high level of resident satisfaction, with mean scores increasing from 3.5 in 2005 to 3.6 in 2007. Another way to look at this is that in 93% of all residents in the Penrith LGA rated Council’s overall performance as “medium” or “high” versus only 7% of residents who rated it as “low”. As the table above shows Council satisfaction ratings have not only improved since 2005 but it has continued to outperform the average satisfaction scores for Metropolitan, Regional and NSW councils, as a whole.

The report concluded that in general, satisfaction with the Council overall increases with age and is lower in rural areas compared to established and new release areas. There were no other statistically significant differences based upon gender or Wards.

2. Staff Performance

Apart from an overall Council performance score, the survey sought to measure resident satisfaction with staff performance. A distinction was made between residents who had a recent interaction with Council staff (during the last 12 months) and those that had not. The results are summarised in the tables below :-

Overall Satisfaction with Council Staff ~ 2007 Survey

Resident Satisfaction with Council Staff ~ Performance Trends 2003-2007

Contact with Council Staff in the last 12 months ?	Resident Satisfaction Ratings Mean Scores (out of 5)
Contact with Council Staff in the last 12 months ?	2003	2005	2007
No contact in last 12 months	3.70	3.60	3.75
Contact in last 12 months	3.81	3.87	4.03

Commentary

The 2007 results show that residents are highly satisfied with the performance of Council staff and that perceptions are greatly increased (+20%) where contact with staff has been made. In terms of having contact with staff and rating staff performance as “high”, the 2007 result of 75% is the highest percentage score since City-wide surveying began in 2003. Another way of looking at this is that over the 3 surveys the highest mean score given by residents for staff performance occur this year with 4.03 (out of 5) compared to 3.87 in 2005 and 3.81 in 2003 respectively.

It is important to note that only 10% of residents who had contact with Council staff in 2007 rated staff performance as “low”. This is consistent with the results in 2003 and 2005.

Key Methods of Contact (Table 4.1.1. - page 45 of the Survey Report)

The 2007 survey results show that of the 283 people that had contact with Council staff, 46% made contact by telephone, 22% visited Council Offices, 14% spoke to staff at a local library and 5% had a home visit in some form.

Main Reasons for Contacting Council (Table 4.1.2 - page 46 of the Survey Report)

The main reasons for contact included information inquiries (23%), garbage collection service matters (14%), library enquiries/borrowing (14%), making a complaint (10%) or lodging a building application or related matter (9%).

3. Drivers of Satisfaction

In an attempt to explore key drivers of resident satisfaction respondents were given an ‘open ended’ question to provide reasons for their ratings. Of the 605 completed surveys the following results were gathered.

Of the 339 satisfied residents the following five most frequent reasons were given for scoring Council a 4 or 5 rating (out of 5) :

§ Doing a great job/efficient (100 responses)

§ No problems/just satisfied (57 responses)

§ Council provides good facilities & services (41 responses)

§ Council is making an effort

(24 responses)

§ The City environment looking good

(23 responses)

Commentary

Results indicate that for the majority of cases, residents do not have any problems with Council, that Council is provides good facilities & services, it is making an effort and in many cases, is doing a great job. Also that many residents value the quality services and good facilities that Council provides especially in regard to the look of the City environment.

4. Drivers of Dissatisfaction

A new component was added to the 2007 survey, in order to better understand key drivers of resident dissatisfaction where these were identified. Two techniques were employed in the survey design. The first approach identified dissatisfaction with Council’s performance as a whole. The second identified dissatisfaction at an individual service level. The latter was designed to provide service managers with more specific and useful information for further investigation and service improvement.

· Council Level

Only 42 respondents out of 605 (7%) indicated significant dissatisfaction with Council overall. Of the 42 dissatisfied residents the following 5 most frequent reasons were given for scoring Council a 1 or 2 rating (out of 5) :

§ Poor Council performance

(10 responses)

§ Provide more services/facilities to Community (5 responses)

§ Some suburbs better services than others

(3 responses)

§ Improve parks maintenance (3 responses)

§ Environmental issues (3 responses)

Commentary

Although relatively few dissatisfied responses were received, the survey results identified the main driver for this dissatisfaction was an overall perception of poor Council performance (a further explanation of this comment was generally not provided). Other reasons for dissatisfaction cited included a need to provide more services and facilities, a perceived inequity in service provision to different areas of the City, a need to improve parks maintenance and environmental issues.

Council has already recognised some of these issues in its current Strategic Program with responses including:

· a greater emphasis on equity of services to all areas (including the Established Areas Strategy)

· increased funding for parks maintenance following the development and adoption of the Parks Management Service Specification

· a stronger focus on sustainability and service delivery in the 2007-08 Management Plan

· Dissatisfaction with Individual Services

In addition to the survey question about dissatisfaction with Council overall, respondents were asked to briefly explain the reasons for their low rating of satisfaction (2 or less out of 5) with any particular service or facility type. Respondents were asked why they gave the rating that they did, in an open-ended question.

The results of this are recorded in the 135 page Addendum to the main survey report.

This addendum provide readers with:

· the survey questions asked for each service or facility (e.g. You said you were dissatisfied with the provision of community halls and centres. Why?)

· a summary table of grouped responses

· the verbatim responses provided by respondents.

This data has been provided to managers to assist in identifying the key drivers of customer dissatisfaction for particular services under their care, highlighting issues requiring further investigation or response.

5. Resident Prioritisation of Council Services and Facilities

Section 2 of the survey report presents the responses of residents who were asked to rate the importance of 48 key services and facilities provided by Council and then to rate their satisfaction with those same services and facilities.

· Importance Ratings

A summary of the Importance ratings (ranked highest to the lowest score) is provided in Table 2.1.8 of the report (page 23). The top 10 most important and the 10 least important services and facilities are provided in the tables below.

Top Ten Council Services/Facilities rated as Most Important (Mean scores out of 5)

2007 Ranking	Service/Facility	Mean Score (out of 5)		2005 Ranking
2007 Ranking	Service/Facility	2007	2005	2005 Ranking
1^st	Domestic Garbage Collection	4.78	4.79	1^st
2^nd	Maintenance of Local Roads	4.70	4.73	2^nd
3^rd	Health and Hygiene of Local Food Outlets	4.68	4.70	3^rd
4^th	Clean Creeks and Waterways	4.66	4.69	5^th
5^th	Encouraging Local Industry and Jobs	4.64	4.68	4^th
6^th	Recycling Services	4.60	4.67	6^th
7^th	Regulation of Traffic Flow	4.60	4.57	=8^th
8^th	Overall Appearance of the City	4.58	4.51	12^th
9^th	Litter Control	4.57	4.56	10^th
10^th	Protection of the Natural Environment	4.55	4.57	=8^th

Ten Council Services/Facilities rated as Least Important

2007 Ranking	Service/Facility	Mean Score *(out of 5)*		2005 Ranking
2007 Ranking	Service/Facility	2007	2005	2005 Ranking
39^th	Domestic Animal Control	4.09	4.21	32^nd
40^th	Maintenance of Public Swimming Pools	4.07	4.01	=39^th
41^st	Information on Council Services and Activities	4.05	3.99	40^th
42^nd	Provision of Community Halls and Centres	3.97	3.87	43^rd
43^rd	Maintenance of Community Halls and Centres	3.94	3.92	41^st
44^th	Provision of Bus Shelters	3.90	3.89	42^nd
45^th

# 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

POLICY NAME:	Community Assistance Program	Policy No:
Adopted by Council:		Minute No:
Review:	September 2009	File No:
Relevant Legislation: (if applicable)		Responsible Department: Community Development

	*Portfolio mix*	Direct	Managed Funds	CDOs
Institutions	Australian Cash & Fixed Interest	Max % with a single issuer	Max % of a single Managed Fund	Maximum % as a total of the portfolio
S & P Rated AA- (very strong capacity to pay) or better	100	25	25	15
S & P Rated A+ and A (strong capacity to pay)	100	20	20	15
LGFS (S&P Rated A long term, A-1 short term) LGFS Ethical Facility	20	20	20	N/A
Building Societies (holding S&P Investment grade rating as a minimum, refer item 10)	20	20	20	N/A

	*Portfolio mix*	Direct	Managed Funds	CDOs
Institutions	Australian Cash & Fixed Interest	Max % with a single issuer	Max % of a single Managed Fund	Maximum % as a total of the portfolio
S & P Rated AA- (very strong capacity to pay) or better	100	25	25	15*
S & P Rated A+ and A (strong capacity to pay)	100	20	20	15*
LGFS (S&P Rated A long term, A-1 short term) LGFS Ethical Facility	20	20	20	N/A
Building Societies (holding S&P Investment grade rating as a minimum, refer item 10)	20	20	20	N/A

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 1 - Proposed Departments*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 1 - 2007 Community Assistance Program Policy*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 1 - Gazetted LEP 1998 Map*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 2 - Draft DCP Masterplan Map*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 3 - Position Paper*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 4 - Concept Plans*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 5 - Expanded Site Plan*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 6 - DoP Letter to DoD*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 1 - Zoning Map*

*Policy Review Committee Meeting*	*10 September 2007*
*Appendix 2 - Waterside Corporate indicative concept plan*