Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 4 February 2008

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 17 DECEMBER 2007 AT 7:07PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Susan Page for the period 5 November 2007 to 17 December 2007 inclusive.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 3 December 2007

490 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 3 December 2007 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

491 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:11 pm.

Mr Alan Devine

Item 1 - Development Application 07/1281 Concept Plan for a "Seniors' Living" Retirement Village, Lot 1721, DP 864087 (which is subject to a 1 into 2 lot subdivision) (No 56) Second Avenue, Kingswood. Applicant: Anglican Retirement Villages; Owner: University of Western Sydney

Speaking AGAINST the Recommendation

Mr Devine, an affected neighbour, spoke in opposition to the development, citing disadvantages such as loss of open space to the university and neighbours, the proximity of potentially noisy student hostels to the proposed development, and an increased traffic hazard, particularly in relation to pedestrians and the absence of footpaths on Manning Street.

Mr Tim Vollmer

Item 1 – Development Application 07/1281 Concept Plan for a "Seniors' Living" Retirement Village, Lot 1721, DP 864087 (which is subject to a 1 into 2 lot subdivision) (No 56) Second Avenue, Kingswood. Applicant: Anglican Retirement Villages; Owner: University of Western Sydney

Speaking AGAINST the Recommendation

Mr Vollmer, an affected neighbour, spoke against the development. Mr Vollmer’s issues of concern were the long term negative impacts on traffic and amenity to the residential neighbourhood in the locality, caused by the density of the development and the traffic emanating from the development via residents, visitors and staff, in particular to Manning Street.

Mr Vollmer stated his concerns regarding traffic on Manning Street and the likely danger to school children in this area if there is an increased volume in traffic and detailed some alternative traffic solutions for this area.

Ms Meg Levy

Speaking FOR the Recommendation

Ms Levy, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the development, noting that at this stage the plans for the development were at concept stage only and that a detailed development application was yet to be submitted. Ms Levy stated that the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to work with Council in an effort to ensure the development will make a positive contribution to the local community. Ms Levy suggested that many jobs would be generated by the development, and that it would increase ongoing work opportunities for a range of local practitioners, as well as providing an injection of more income to local shopping areas. Ms Levy concluded by stating that the development would be a relatively low impact urban development and would result in the establishment of a much needed community asset.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

492 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:39 pm.

Mayoral Minutes

1 Recognition for Werrington Creek restoration

493 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the Mayoral Minute on Recognition for Werrington Creek restoration be received.

Reports of Committees

1 Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2007

494 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 3 December, 2007 be adopted.

2 Report and Recommendations of the Disability Access Committee Meeting held on 5 December 2007

495 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Steve Simat that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Disability Access Committee meeting held on 5 December, 2007 be adopted.

3 Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 5 December 2007

496 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Ross Fowler that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 5 December, 2007 be adopted.

4 Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 10 December 2007

497 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 10 December, 2007 be adopted.

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

The City as a Social Place

1 Development Application 07/1281 Concept Plan for a "Seniors' Living" Retirement Village, Lot 1721, DP 864087 (which is subject to a 1 into 2 lot subdivision) (No 56) Second Avenue, Kingswood . Applicant: Anglican Retirement Villages; Owner: University of Western Sydney DA07/1281

498 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application 07/1281 Concept Plan for a "Seniors' Living" Retirement Village, Lot 1721, DP 864087 (which is subject to a 1 into 2 lot subdivision) (No 56) Second Avenue, Kingswood be received

2. DA07/1281 for a concept plan for a retirement village on Lot 1721 DP 864087 (No 56) Second Avenue Kingswood be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

2.1 A001 (Approved Plans)

2.2 A006 (Concept Plan only – development subject to future development applications)

2.3 K008 (ROW from O’Connell Street)

Special Conditions

2.4 All access roads, parking and manoeuvring areas are to comply with AS2890.1 and Council’s relevant Engineering Standards. Access roads, parking and manoeuvring areas for emergency vehicles, service vehicles and heavy vehicles are to comply with AS2890.2 and Council’s relevant Engineering Standards. Full details shall be provided for any future development applications for the site

2.5 Penrith City Council is the Roads Authority under the Roads Act 1993 and is responsible for approving connection to public roads or any works on or over a road reserve. In this regard, all works are to be designed and constructed in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Part 2.3 Engineering Works and the Guidelines for Engineering Works for Subdivision and Developments Part 1 – Design and Part 2 – Construction. Full details shall be provided for any future development applications for the site

2.6 Each development application is to satisfy the assumptions made in the Traffic Report and the addendum to the Traffic Report, prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates. Based on the traffic reports, 65 of the Independent Living Units shall obtain vehicular access from the south

2.7 Each development application is to strictly comply with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

2.8 On site stormwater detention (OSD) and water quality controls will be required for the development. Engineering details of the OSD and water quality systems shall be provided for any future development applications for the site

2.9 The site is affected by local overland flows from the adjoining property. An overland flow food study, which addresses all storm events and up to and including the 1 in 100 year storm event for the local catchment, shall be provided for any future development applications for the site

2.10 The intersection of the ARV access road and the University internal road shall have controlled access by way of an electronic sliding gate or the like. This access is to be restricted to service and emergency vehicles only, with residential or University traffic being denied. Details of the control access shall be submitted to Council for approval through future development applications for the site

2.11 Through access between Manning Street and the University shall be restricted to pedestrians and cyclists only. Staff car parking to the RACF is to be accessed via the internal UWS road. Only visitor car parking may be accessed via Manning Street.

2.12 All staff of the Residential Aged Care Facility shall access the site via the University access road.

2.13 To enable staff of the Residential Aged Care Facility to access the site, the necessary legal arrangements are to be put in place in favour of the Anglican Retirement Village over the University land.

3. Persons who have made submissions be notified of Council’s decision.

4. Council note Mr Michael McHugh’s undertaking, given to the meeting on behalf of applicant, that there will be no attempt to open up unfettered access between Manning Street and the University internal road without first seeking Council approval.

2 Subdivision Application 07/0121 at University of Western Sydney Lot 1721 DP 864087 (No. 56) Second Avenue, Kingswood. Applicant: Whelans Planning; Owner: University of Western Sydney DA07/0121

499 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Subdivision Application 07/0121 at University of Western Sydney Lot 1721 DP 864087 (No. 56) Second Avenue, Kingswood be received

2. DA07/0121 for Torrens title Subdivision x 2 Lots, Lot 1721 DP864087 (No. 56) Second Avenue Kingswood be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

2.1 A001 Approved Plans (Add: The right of carriageway shall be deleted and the 20 metre wide strip shall only be for Right of Footway and easement of services.)

2.2 G001 Services

2.3 M008 Linen Plan

2.4 To enable staff of the Residential Aged Care Facility, emergency services and service vehicles to access to the site, the necessary legal arrangements are to be put in place in favour of the Anglican Retirement Village over the University land. This can be in the form of either a Right of Way or a licence between the Anglican Retirement Village and the University. Details shall be provided to Council prior to the Subdivision Certificate.

2.5 Q008 Subdivision Certificate

Special Conditions

2.6 The Right of Carriageway between Manning Street and the University, marked (A) on the plan of subdivision is not approved and shall be limited to a right of footway

3. Persons who have made submissions be notified of Council’s decision.

The City as an Economy

3 Council Property - 225-227 Queen Street, St Marys - NSW Department of Community Services

500 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Steve Simat seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the information contained in the report on Council Property - 225-227 Queen Street, St Marys - NSW Department of Community Services be received.

Leadership and Organisation

4 2007 National General Assembly of Local Government

501 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the information contained in the report on 2007 National General Assembly of Local Government be received.

6 Decision Making Arrangements During the Council Recess

502 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the information contained in the report on Decision Making Arrangements During the Council Recess be received.

7 Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 November to 30 November 2007

503 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 November to 30 November 2007 be received.

2. The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 November 2007 to 30 November 2007 be noted and accepted.

3. The graphical investment analysis as at 30 November 2007 be noted.

5 Urban Development Institute of Australia National Congress 2008

504 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Urban Development Institute of Australia National Congress 2008 be received.

2. Councillors Greg Davies, Steve Simat, Jim Aitken OAM and Ross Fowler attend the National Congress of the Urban Development Institute of Australia in Melbourne, from 3-6 March 2008, as Council’s delegates and that they be granted leave of absence as appropriate.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QWN 1 Jamison Park Netball Complex

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested a report to Council concerning the possibility of providing funding for essential works to be carried out to the Jamison Park Netball Complex.

QWN 2 Panthers on the Prowl

Councillor Jackie Greenow congratulated Panthers on their Panthers on the Prowl schools program and noted its success in local schools.

QWN 3 Footpath Construction in Jeanette Street, Regentville

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested that an amount of $14,400 from South Ward voted works be allocated to the construction of a footpath on the north side of Jeanette Street, Regentville, between Mulgoa Road and Schoolhouse Road.

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

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

506 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that an amount of $14,400 from South Ward voted works be allocated to the construction of a footpath on the north side of Jeanette Street, Regentville, between Mulgoa Road and Schoolhouse Road.

QWN 4 Footpath Construction in Spencer Street, Regentville

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested that an amount of $13,700 from South Ward voted works be allocated to the construction of a footpath on the north side of Spencer Street, Regentville, between Mulgoa Road and Loftus Street.

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

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

508 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that an amount of $13,700 from South Ward voted works be allocated to the construction of a footpath on the north side of Spencer Street, Regentville, between Mulgoa Road and Loftus Street.

QWN 5 Upgrade of Electricity in Tench Reserve

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memo reply to all Councillors regarding the provision of funding for the upgrading of electricity in Tench Reserve for public use.

QWN 6 Intersection of St Thomas and Mulgoa Roads, Mulgoa

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested that the matter of the dangerous intersection at St Thomas Road and Mulgoa Road, Mulgoa be referred to the Local Traffic Committee to consider ways of rectifying the situation.

Committee of the Whole

509 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillors Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy AM that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:08 pm.

1 Presence of the Public

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

Leadership and Organisation

2 Commercial Matter - Lease of Former Part of Castlereagh Road, Penrith to National Foods Limited

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

Leadership and Organisation

3 Legal Matter - Committee of the Whole Procedures

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

4 Senior Staff Matter

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole 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.

The meeting resumed at 8:13 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:08 pm on 17 December 2007, the following being present

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

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

2 Commercial Matter - Lease of Former Part of Castlereagh Road, Penrith to National Foods Limited

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Mark Davies

CW2 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Lease of Former Part of Castlereagh Road, Penrith to National Foods Limited be received.

2. Council grant a new 5 year Licence Agreement to National Foods Limited in accordance with the terms and conditions as outlined in the report.

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

3 Legal Matter - Committee of the Whole Procedures

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison

CW3 That the information contained in the report on Legal Matter - Committee of the Whole Procedures be received.

4 Senior Staff Matter

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Lexie Cettolin

CW4 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Senior Staff Matter be received.

2. The recommendations of the Senior Staff Recruitment / Review Committee be endorsed.

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

510 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 be adopted.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:14 pm.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*The City in its Broader Context*

The City in its Broader Context

Submission to the Department of Planning on the Planning Reforms Discussion Paper

Compiled by: Allegra Zakis, Local Plan Team Leader

Liza Cordoba, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Ruth Goldsmith, Local Planning Manager

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Council’s preferred positions and priorities relevant to Western Sydney growth and development are considered by governments, regional forums and regional organisations in their own policy development.

Critical Action: Engage with Local State Members, Ministers, government agencies, Councils of the region, WSROC and other regional associations concerning the supply of infrastructure and services, employment and sustainable housing delivery to the region.

Purpose:

To advise Council of the key issues arising from the Department of Planning's discussion paper on planning reforms, particularly their potential impact on Penrith. The report recommends that the submission be endorsed and forwarded to the Department of Planning.

Summary

In November 2007, the State Government released a discussion paper entitled “Improving the Planning System in NSW” which outlines the latest reforms in an ongoing reform agenda. It is intended that the measures outlined in the paper will complement previous reforms and will lead to significantly reduced processing times for Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and Development Applications (DAs), particularly small scale applications. The Government has stated that it intends to finalise the reforms early this year, and enact the legislation to implement them by mid 2008.

The discussion paper outlines a number of key changes. These include the introduction of an up front assessment process for LEPs that would see the Department of Planning and other relevant state agencies assess a rezoning proposal prior to a decision being taken to prepare a plan. It also proposes different assessment and consultation processes for LEPs, based on the scale and complexity of the plan, and standard compliance criteria developed by state agencies to reduce the need for referrals. The legal drafting of plans is to be done by Parliamentary Counsel, in accordance with a ‘statement of intent’ developed by Council. State planning instruments are to be rationalised to reduce their number, and mandatory timeframes set for some parts of the process.

The reforms around development assessment propose to introduce a multi layered system of assessment, whereby major applications are determined by the State Government, and regional applications by a Joint Regional Planning Panel or the Planning Assessment Commission. Local development will be generally assessed by Council, but the State Government will have the authority to direct that particular applications will be assessed by an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel. Minor development (under $1m) will continue to be assessed by Council. Another large part of the reforms is to increase the number of applications being assessed as complying development, with proposals for State-wide complying development criteria and changes to the certification process to facilitate this. These proposals include the certification of Council officers by the Building Professionals Board in the same manner as private certifiers.

The paper also makes recommendations relating to increasing the use of ePlanning for lodging and tracking applications; proposes some amendments to the strata management system, primarily to reduce the influence of developers in the early stages of strata occupation; and a number of other miscellaneous changes.

Overall, the general intent of improving the planning system is supported. There are, however, concerns about the wide ranging nature of the proposed reforms, which have the potential to see a decrease in the role of all local councils in both plan making and development assessment. By applying standardised reforms across the state, even well performing councils will be subject to a reduction in planning powers, and therefore the community’s involvement in planning and development matters in their area.

A key issue of concern is the determination of regionally significant applications by planning panels, where the majority of members are appointed by the state government, and the potential for the reforms to remove all planning decisions from Council for developments over $1million. This is a very low threshold, which could see Council unable to determine applications for some large, single dwellings.

The paper also does not reference a role for local government in the initial determination of whether a rezoning proposal should go ahead, creating a situation where the State Government determines all rezoning applications, and directs Council to manage the preparation and consultation process. Mandatory certification of all Council officers under the Building Professionals Board is also a concern, as it does not recognise the circumstances within which Council officers work, and has the potential to further exacerbate the current difficulties with attracting and retaining qualified staff.

A submission to the Department of Planning on the discussion paper is being prepared, and must be submitted by Friday, 8 February 2008. It is recommended that the submission, prepared along the lines of the issues raised in this report, be endorsed.

Background

The State Government has been pursuing a planning reform agenda for a number of years, addressing individual key areas of concern and introducing amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act) and related legislation. The reform process has been far reaching, and has had a number of implications for the way local government operates.

In August 2005, Part 3A was added to the Act, which dealt with the procedures for assessing and determining applications which have been designated as state significant. These reforms introduced a new assessment regime which is overseen by the Department and determined by the Minister, thus moving the consideration of major developments away from Local Government.

On 12 October 2007, the Premier also announced a comprehensive overhaul to the way that contributions from development in NSW are administered for State and local infrastructure. The intent of the changes was to reduce development costs and thereby increase housing affordability. These changes significantly reduce the range of services for which councils can levy, including district facilities, open space, libraries and community facilities. A further report will be presented to Council as information emerges on the new legislation, and the impacts are assessed.

The impetus for the current reform relates to the length of time taken to:

1. determine development applications, particularly minor proposals of a residential nature typically submitted by ‘mom and dad’ applicants; and

2. to prepare Local Environmental Plans.

A number of other, more minor issues have also been included in this round of reforms.

Consultation process

The discussion paper was released in November 2007, and comments must be submitted to the Department by Friday, 8 February 2008. The release of the discussion paper was preceded by the ‘New Ideas for Planning’ Forum in August 2007, which was attended by relevant stakeholders, including local government and the development industry. This forum provided a limited opportunity to discuss key issues of concern with the Department. A reference group was established to assist in the preparation of the discussion paper and included local government representation.

Once the discussion paper was released, a working group was formed comprising Council officers with expertise and experience in each of these areas. The key issues arising from that group’s analysis of the paper are outlined in this report. The submission has been somewhat hampered by the timing of the release of the discussion paper over Christmas / New Year, but will be prepared on the basis of the information in this report.

Key Issues

The discussion paper is divided into an introduction and nine chapters, which cover the overall need for reform and the key reform areas of plan making (LEPs); development assessment; exempt and complying development; ePlanning initiatives; building and subdivision certification; strata management; paper subdivisions and other miscellaneous amendments.

Each chapter follows a similar format, outlining the current situation and the need for reform, examining relevant key issues, including ePlanning and community involvement and proposing options aimed at addressing the main areas of concern. Where relevant, case studies or additional detail on aspects of the proposed reform are also included. Each chapter concludes with a series of recommendations which summarise the proposed reform initiatives. Comments on each chapter, including the recommendations, are presented below.

Overall need for reform

The discussion paper indicates a need to reduce processing times for minor Development Applications (DAs) and a need for quicker release of residential land to improve housing affordability as the key drivers for reform. Both of these aims are laudable, provided they do not come at the cost of balanced assessment and local democracy. The majority of DAs received relate to residential development, with many applicants being property owners as opposed to major developers. These applications are probably the most significant way in which the planning system directly serves the local community, and it is important that they are handled efficiently and equitably.

The discussion paper draws on a number of regular reports into the performance of local government to justify the need for planning reform. Average DA processing times, number of DAs assessed, number of complying development certificates issued, and time taken to prepare and gazette Local Environmental Plans are all quoted as areas in which some councils are not performing well. The figures quoted, however, are often extreme examples, and there is no discussion of councils at the other end of the spectrum. For example, 12 councils across NSW are quoted as taking an average of over 100 days to assess DAs with a value of less than $100,000. This represents less than 10% of all the councils across NSW. No figures are given for the top performing 10% of councils.

Penrith City Council, however, is performing well. In 2006/07, over 98% of applications were determined under delegation (2,061 of a total of 2,103 applications). 87% of those applications determined were DAs, totalling 1,913 (excluding applications for review under Section 82A). The remaining 13% of applications determined were Complying Development Certificates (148 of 148 applications).

Council’s net mean determination time for DAs, for the 2006/07 period, was 42 days.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the percentage of applications for Complying Development Certificates (CDCs) can be increased, the discussion paper incorrectly attributes the low uptake of CDCs state-wide to councils’ reluctance to use them. This is certainly not the case in Penrith where experience suggests that applicants are reluctant to lodge an application for a Complying Development Certificate. This may be due to the extent of self assessment required or preferring the certainty of a development application and Council-issued development consent.

A number of other issues are not recognised in the discussion paper. These include the option to prepare a new Act, rather than making further revisions to the current EPA Act. The need to prepare a new Act (rather than continually amend the 1979 Act) has been raised both in professional planning forums and in the media. The current Act is almost 20 years old and has been subject to numerous amendments in an attempt to reflect changes in planning issues as well as to implement the State Government’s reform agenda. Although preparation of a new Act would be a much larger task than amending the current one, it should be discussed as an option.

It is difficult to deny that the planning system can be overly complex, and that these complexities can result in delays in processing development applications and in preparing Local Environmental Plans. The discussion paper does not, however, present a balanced view, and does not recognise that other factors also play a role in delaying applications and LEPs. In recent months the Department has been instrumental in delaying the processing of draft LEPs. For example, draft Penrith LEP 2008 (the Local Plan) was forwarded to the Department in October 2007, with a request that the section 65 certificate be issued to allow exhibition of the plan. This certificate has not yet been issued, almost 4 months later.

The principles upon which reform would be based – responsible resource management, community involvement and shared decision making – are supported. It is not considered, however, that the paper makes a compelling argument for the broad nature of the reforms proposed. By applying the reforms across the state, instead of just those areas demonstrating difficulties, even well performing councils will be subject to a substantial reduction in planning powers, removing the community’s ability to have a say in the detail of development occurring in their area.

Plan making

The reforms around plan making are focussed on reducing the timeframe for the Local Environmental Plan process, from the initial resolution to prepare the plan until it is gazetted. The State Government sees the delays in this process arising primarily from inappropriate initial submissions and a lack of clear direction on what the plan is to achieve when the resolution is first made to prepare it. There is also the view that all plans should not have to go through the same process, and that simple plans (minor spot rezonings, minor changes to the land use table, reclassifications etc) should be able to go through a simpler and faster process than major citywide LEPs, release area plans or major spot rezonings.

It is acknowledged that a plan making system tailored to the scale and complexity of the specific land use changes will assist in the timely delivery of local environmental plans. However, a review focused solely on procedural improvements, without consideration of planning outcomes, may not deliver the sustainable and equitable planning system sought by this reform agenda. There are opportunities in this reform process to also focus on achieving quality outcomes.

Plan Gateways

The paper proposes the introduction of gateway screening for all LEPs, involving the early assessment of the broad suitability of a proposed ‘plan change’ against a set of consistently applied criteria. Different criteria would be set for different types of LEP (LEP ‘streaming’) with proposals which are not consistent with adopted strategic plans undergoing a more detailed scrutiny. Criteria are to include issues such as environmental constraints, infrastructure availability, public benefit, investment certainty / financial viability and consistency with strategic objectives. A justification report would be required for each proposal, to address the criteria and outline the proposed level of community consultation.

The justification report would be considered by the Department and the Minister, who would then make a decision as to whether the proposal should proceed and an LEP be drafted. The timeframe outlined in the discussion paper for this assessment process is 3 – 4 months. It is noted that the Minister will rely on advice from several sources, including the LEP Review Panel and the CEO’s Land Supply Group in making gateway decisions.

Having the initial assessment and consideration occur before the plan making process has officially started should be reflected in an overall reduction in the time required to undertake the formal process. The gateway system would also provide State Government commitment at the outset of the process, particularly where government agencies are consulted prior to a ‘gateway’ decision. Knowing that a proposal has progressed past the gateway stage will provide additional certainty which should assist in financial commitment.

It is critical, however, that the gateway is not used as a mechanism to bypass local government in the LEP process. All relevant stakeholders, including local government, need to be consulted in the preparation of the gateway guidelines/criteria, development of the streaming pathways and determination of the type and level of community consultation. The guidelines should require proponents to submit their proposals to the relevant local authority prior to, or at least at the same time as, the Department of Planning. It is also critical that the Minister be guided by the opinion of the relevant local authority when making the gateway decision.

Plan Streaming

A key component of the gateway process is the associated streaming of LEPs. This relates to placing LEPs into different streams based on their complexity. It is aimed at enabling the level of assessment, processing and consultation to reflect the type, sensitivity and complexity of the proposal. Generally, this concept is supported, as it will operate in a similar way to the different levels of assessment for development applications. Of particular interest is the proposal that minor LEPs be made by Council without the need for sign-off by the Minister, provided they are consistent with the ‘gateway’ proposal. This has the potential to significantly speed up the process for minor LEPs.

Although the concept is supported, the discussion paper does not provide any detail on how the streaming pathways are to be developed. It is vital that all relevant stakeholders, including Local Government and Government Agencies, are consulted. If the pathways and criteria are to be state wide, there may also be a need for some flexibility in the application of the pathways to cater for local circumstances.

The plan making process should retain community consultation as a fundamental and inalienable part of the system and the level of consultation should reflect the type and complexity of an LEP. As the discussion paper makes no recommendations with respect to this issue, the submission to the Department will request that, when the streaming criteria for different types of LEP are developed, the appropriate level of community consultation also be considered and addressed. There should, however, be no restriction on exceeding the set minimums, to cater for circumstances where an LEP may be technically minor, but the subject of significant community interest.

Agency referrals

Consultation with government agencies can be a time consuming part of the LEP process, particularly with more complex or larger proposals, or proposals which require the acquisition of land. Use of the gateway system will facilitate early identification of agency issues and enable them to determine whether they support or object to the proposal at the beginning of the process. It will also enable applicants to determine if there are any key issues which need to be addressed, allowing this information to be prepared, submitted and assessed prior to a decision being made on whether the draft plan should proceed.

Referral procedures during the LEP process should reflect this early work, with no need for further specific referral if the proposal has passed the gateway stage and complies with published agency requirements.

Timeframes

The discussion paper proposes mandating timeframes for various steps in the plan-making process. Mandating timeframes focuses attention, hence effort, on delivering the plan rather than resolving issues and delivering the outcomes desired by the process. It is not clear exactly what penalty would be imposed if timeframes are not met, however it is stated that plans where there is an unresolved issue or that are not meeting timeframes will be referred to an independent body for finalisation. Although the opportunity to refer unresolved objections or issues to an independent body may assist in finalising LEPs in a timely manner, this referral should not be compulsory simply because arbitrary timeframes have not been met.

Efficiency and related improvements in timeframes are best achieved through simplifying and streamlining the plan-making process. The proposed gateway system, streaming of LEPs, codifying agency requirements, delegations to councils to make ‘minor’ LEPs and the opportunity (or requirement) to refer unresolved agency and/or community objections to a Planning Assessment Commission will enhance the efficiency of the plan-making process. Such measures streamline the process without impacting on the quality of the outcome. Mandatory timeframes should not be imposed.

The discussion paper also proposed an amendment to the Act which would enable the Minister for Planning to prepare, make and amend LEPs where there are issues of State or regional significance. The EP&A Act provides the legislative basis for the NSW planning system and has ‘shared decision making’ between State and Local Government as a fundamental principle. The Act establishes a 3 tiered plan-making system whereby State issues are addressed through SEPPs, regional issues through REPs and local issues through LEPs. The Act requires LEPs to be consistent with SEPPs and REPs and the more recently prepared metropolitan and regional strategies. Provisions within LEPs which are not consistent with state or regional plans are automatically overridden. The current legislative regime underpins the collaborative decision making principles of the planning system. Amending the Act to enable the Minister to make or amend LEPs, as well, is unnecessary.

Accountability in Plan-Making

The current LEP process is sequential, encouraging an iterative approach to the resolution of issues raised in processing the plan. This can be time consuming and the Department is seeking to separate policy formulation from plan drafting and enable issues to be dealt with concurrently. Councils would develop and exhibit the policy context of a plan via a ‘statement of intent’, resolve issues arising from consultation, then submit the proposal to the Department for drafting of the legal document (the LEP). The Department proposes a ‘one stop shop’ to work with stakeholders and co-ordinate the resolution of issues arising from drafting the legal plan, and to ensure that the legal document accurately reflects the statement of intent.

Overall, this proposal is supported. The legal text of LEPs can be difficult for the community to understand, and manipulating the legal language to draft an LEP can be difficult. In many cases, councils exhibit a ‘plain English version’ or other form of explanatory document anyway, which performs the same function as a statement of intent by providing the community with a more easily understood description of what the draft LEP will achieve. In addition, checking of a council’s legal drafting of an LEP by Parliamentary Counsel is one of the most consistent sources of delays in plan making. Recognising the actual text of a plan as the legal means of implementing policy will be a step forward in making the plan making process both more efficient and more transparent.

Rationalising SEPPs and REPs

State Environmental Planning Policies and Regional Environmental Plans are the tools the State Government has used to address matters of state and regional significance. The preparation of regional and subregional strategies under the Metropolitan Strategy should provide some meaningful regional planning. These strategies are proposed to be implemented by SEPPs and, where appropriate, through LEPs. For example, Sydney REP 25 (Orchard Hills) and Sydney REP 13 (Mulgoa Valley) will both be incorporated into Stage 1 of Penrith’s new Local Plan.

The discussion paper raises the option of removing REPs from the planning system, and dealing with regional issues through state and local plans. This initiative is supported, as it will remove a largely superfluous layer from the planning system. The paper also discusses a 50% reduction in the overall number of SEPPs. Again, the idea of reducing the number of SEPPs is supported, however the proportion of the reduction should be based on sound planning grounds, including the assessment of the function of each SEPP, rather than an arbitrary figure.

Content of DCPs

The discussion paper proposes the preparation of guidelines for different levels LEPs and DCPs to identify appropriate content and timeframes for these plans. Although the time taken to prepare DCPs is not raised as an issue of concern elsewhere in the document, the concern with the content of DCPs echoes the concern expressed in relation to LEPs that all local plans and policies should be consistent with state plans and policies.

The issue regarding the introduction of timeframes for the preparation of LEPs is discussed above. These arguments are equally valid with respect to DCPs. DCPs provide greater detail about local planning controls. The proposal to dictate the content of DCPs is contrary to the collaborative decision making principles underpinning the planning system. DCPs must be able to accurately reflect local issues and include local content which cannot, under the standard template, be included in the principle LEP. As with an LEP, any provision within a DCP which is contradictory to a state policy is already automatically invalid. Further amendment to the Act to regulate content is unnecessary.

It is, however, considered useful to standardise the structure of DCPs to assist the community’s understanding of the document. In preparing draft DCP 2008, Council has already discussed the option assisting in the development of a standard format with individual Department officers.

Performance Criteria

The paper expresses an aim of reducing the time taken to prepare LEPs by 50%. Improving the efficiency of the plan making process ensures the economic use of resources and time and as such should be the driving reason for reform. However, measuring the performance of the plan-making system solely on the basis of time taken to prepare the plan, without consideration of planning outcomes, will not deliver the sustainable and equitable planning system sought by this reform agenda. Poor instruments which do not provide a clear, comprehensive outline for development, but which are prepared 50% faster, will not represent an improvement in the plan making process. This concern is accentuated by the lack of empirical evidence to substantiate that the measures proposed in this review can reduce LEP processing times by 50%. There are a number of issues delaying plan making which are not addressed by the options discussed in this paper, and as such it does not represent a comprehensive evaluation of the efficiency of the plan making system.

It is recognised, however, that having a set, measurable goal can be useful in a reform process. It may be appropriate to set a quantitative goal once all councils have had the opportunity to prepare principle LEPs in accordance with the standard template. Attempting to set a goal before these template based principle plans are in place will be meaningless, as the unprecedented level of work being generated for both local government and the Department, particularly the regional teams and Legal Branch, will almost guarantee failure. In the meantime, the Department should undertake a comparison with previous average processing times to measure the success of their previous and current reform agenda.

Development Assessment

The discussion paper identifies “delays in development assessment” as a key area for reform. Related to this are the issues of inconsistency across the state, the complexity of the system, inefficient use of planning resources and a focus on the process, rather than the outcome.

Although it is agreed that all these issues need to be addressed to improve the operation of the planning system, the discussion paper does not recognise that a number of the complexities and inconsistencies arise from legislative changes and State Planning Policies introduced over the last decade including integrated development approvals, Part 3A – Major Projects, and new State Environmental Planning Policies for residential flat buildings, seniors living, BASIX, exempt and complying development, and more recently for places of public entertainment. These changes have established a complex statutory framework which demands a high level of procedural administration, documentation, technical resourcing and determination of application type. This has the effect of drawing resources away from outcome focused assessment, and fragments decision making.

The overall principles of sustainability, transparency, accountability, efficiency, simplicity, objectivity, consistency and equity which the reforms aim to achieve are supported. A planning system which achieves all of these things will work well for both the community and government. Whilst some of the recommendations proposed in the paper would enhance these principles, others may well exacerbate existing problems by adding additional administrative layers.

Determination and review of applications

The discussion paper proposes a five tier process for determination and review of development applications, based on the complexity and value of the development. The first tier, to remain primarily unchanged, relates to state significant development or any development currently subject to Part 3A of the EPA Act. These would remain within the control of the Minister for Planning. The second tier relates to regionally significant projects, which includes applications by state agencies exceeding $5 million, and other projects exceeding $50 million (eg most retail and commercial developments in the Penrith and St Marys Centres). It is proposed that these be determined by a Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP), if this can be resourced by the local council, or the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC). The JRPP would comprise 3 State appointees and 2 council appointees. A PAC would consist of up to 8 members, all appointed by the State Government.

The third tier is local development, which is proposed to be determined by councils and / or an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP). Local applications are anything that is not classified as state or regionally significant development, minor development or complying development. The state may direct councils to appoint an IHAP to deal with certain development, including proposals which involve a major variation of existing LEP controls. Minor development (excluding complying development) is classified as development with a value of less than $1 million, and is to be assessed and determined by councils as the fourth tier, and complying development is the fifth tier. It is proposed that all reviews of decisions relating to minor development be referred to a planning arbitrator appointed by council from a register approved by either the PAC or the State Government.

These proposals significantly reduce the role of Local Government as a decision making body. Under these reforms, Council is only responsible for the assessment of development with a value of less than $1m, a large proportion of which will fall within the complying development provisions. Council currently has a number of applications for single dwellings in rural areas which are valued at over $1million which, under the proposed changes, would have to be referred to an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel. Larger development (over $50 million), including shopping centres, industrial complexes and development by State agencies exceeding $5m will be determined by either a Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) or the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC). Council has no voice on the PAC, and will have only two appointees of the 5 members of a JRPP. If the categories of State significant development are expanded the role of the PAC would correspondingly increase.

For all development proposals over $50 million, and potentially some below that amount, State Government appointed / approved boards will replace the decision making roles of democratically elected local representatives, and Council staff. Although it is expected that Council staff will continue to write assessment reports for the consideration of the JRPP, the decision itself will be made by the Panel, rather than by elected councillors. While councils will still develop policies, there is a clear need for a powerful local voice in the implementation of these policies through the assessment process, as it is the local councillors and staff who have the best knowledge of local issues and the best understanding of the expectations of residents who are most affected by the impact of such decisions.

There is also concern that the proposed hierarchy of decision making would lead to much more complex administrative and enforcement roles, as well as confusion within the community as to who is making decisions about development. This may in fact result in additional delays in determining development proposals. As demonstrated by our statistical data, the current decision making processes are not an impediment to efficiency in Penrith City.

Development assessment process

The areas targeted by the discussion paper in the assessment process are DA requirements, integrated development and concurrences, development consents and modifications and fees. Inadequate supporting information is a major source of delays in the development assessment process. The paper advocates tailoring information requirements to suit the type of development in order to reduce the number of applications received where additional information is required. The paper offers either the option of Council preparing simple guidelines for applicants outlining the minimum requirement for plans, report and studies to reflect the type of development under assessment, or that these requirements be standardised across the state. It also recommends that ePlanning be used as a tool to speed up lodgement and minimise the number of incomplete applications lodged, and expanding the time to refuse an inadequate application from 7 to 14 days.

This proposal has significant potential to improve assessment times through improving the quality of applications and giving Council more time to reject inadequate proposals. Consistency across the State would be a good thing in this instance. Council is already developing a set of consistent submission requirements for different development types as a part of drafting Penrith DCP 2008. The use of ePlanning in this area is also supported, though more detailed comments on the implications of ePlanning are provided later in this report.

Council’s pre-DA Advisory Panel provides another opportunity for reducing assessment times, and has been very effective. It will be suggested that this approach could be required more broadly across the state.

The discussion paper proposes to look at reducing referrals to government agencies in favour of clearer guidelines and the potential accreditation of Council assessment processes. This means that in cases where a proposal complies with set guidelines from government agencies (such as the RTA, RFS, DECC etc.) a formal referral as part of the assessment process will not be required. This also has the potential to significantly reduce processing times, as in many cases the responses received in response to referrals simply reflects known best practice, which has already been considered in either the preparation of the application, the Council assessment or both.

The paper proposes that a series of state wide standard conditions be developed, to cover the areas of approved plans and contributions, requirements prior to issue of a construction certificate, requirements prior to works, requirements during works; requirements prior to occupation / subdivision certificate and operational requirements. This again could have significant benefits across the state, provided there is still the flexibility for councils to develop specialised conditions to deal with local circumstances or features of individual development proposals.

The paper also looks at modifications to development consents under section 96. Modifications can have a significant impact on assessment processes, as they too require resources to assess and determine. Limiting the overall number of modifications that can be made to a consent is one option, while providing councils greater flexibility to issue modified consents to correct errors in the original consent is another. Generally these proposals are supported, though they should be implemented in conjunction with greater flexibility to include detail in the construction certificate application.

Deemed refusals are another issue looked at by the paper, as an area that could be modified to better reflect the different types and scales of application. The recommendations outline a series of ‘deemed to comply’ periods, after which time consent is assumed to have been granted (rather than refusal, as is currently the case). These time periods are:-

- Ten days for complying development

- Twenty days for DAs not requiring exhibition

- Forty days for small scale development

- Sixty days for medium scale development

- Ninety days for development equivalent to designated development

The extension of the 40 day time limit for more significant development is welcomed, however the number of categories outlined seems excessive and there is no provision for extension of these timeframes where proposals include significant non compliance with adopted plans and policies. Council currently addresses this situation by aiming to have a percentage of determinations made within a set time period. This provides greater flexibility than setting a single figure for all applications.

The final area discussed by the paper is fees. It is recognised that DA fees sometimes do not reflect the overall cost of the service provided to assess them. It is proposed to make changes to enable councils to match fees to service for both DAs and section 96 modification. This would include being able to charge additional fees if proposals are changed substantially during assessment, and extend the ability to charge for operational and compliance matters.

These proposals are supported. Councils fund the development of policy, and providing applicants comply with these policies costs and delays are minimised. Allowing full fee recovery for Development Applications will enable councils to vary charges where there is non compliance and additional assessment is needed. The shortage of qualified planning professionals in local government has been well documented in recent years and experienced first hand by Penrith City Council. There must be a nexus between fee-structure (regulated by the State) and resourcing to address customer expectations.

Exempt and Complying development

Exempt and complying development aims to enable small scale, minor or routine development proposals to occur either without consent (exempt development) or with only a limited assessment (complying development) to ensure they comply with set standards. Applicants with complying developments can choose to have their proposal assessed either by council or by a private certifier. The paper states that councils’ reluctance to use exempt and complying development provisions is significantly increasing the number of DAs requiring assessment across the state, and it therefore sets a target of 40% to 50% of all proposals to be dealt with as complying development. The paper does not recognise that the initial choice regarding use of exempt and complying development provisions rests with the applicant. Experience in Penrith City would suggest that applicants are reluctant to lodge a complying application. This may be due to the weight of self assessment required or preferring the certainty of a development application and a Council-issued development consent.

There are currently 115 different sets of complying development standards across the state. The discussion paper outlines the preparation of a mandatory default code, which would provide state wide standards for a range of development including housing, residential alterations, industrial development within industrial estates, and fit outs and small scale modifications for commercial and retail development. The code is proposed to be developed in a manner that would provide flexibility to cater for different development circumstances (infill, new release, coastal, rural etc) and different land characteristics (slope, lot sizes etc.).

The proposal to provide greater uniformity of requirements for exempt and complying development is supported. There is some concern that state wide mandatory guidelines may be either too general to be of any benefit or too restrictive in accommodating local concerns, however the paper does provide the option for Council to develop their own codes, which must be generally consistent with the state code but which can include additional standards to respond to local development issues.

Council developed codes would have to be accredited by the State Government and would have to be consistent with a predetermined template. There would be no option to exclude categories of complying development outlined in the template, though there would be the opportunity to include additional categories. This again causes some level of concern, as there may be categories of complying development which may be appropriate in some areas but not in others. This could require the exercise of discretion normally outside the responsibility of private certifiers. The timeframe proposed for this initiative is also of significant concern – the paper recommends that the mandatory default code to be applicable to all councils across the state by July of this year.

An alternative is to develop regional guidelines that will provide some level of consistency across a region but also have the flexibility to respond to local issues. Councils could develop regional controls through their respective Regional Organisation of Councils (ROCs). This would ensure that the developed standards are relevant for the physical characteristics of particular areas (eg coastal, rural, mixed uses area etc) and also provide some opportunity to reflect the standards for development expected by the community. The opportunity to develop some local standards would need to be retained.

The discussion paper also recognises the inflexibility of the complying development system, which currently means that even the smallest non compliance with the standards result in the refusal of a complying development application and a requirement for a DA. The paper proposes that the legislation be modified to allow conditions to be attached to complying development certificate to either comply with the standard, if the variation is not justified, or agree to the variation if it is considered to be justified. In the latter case, the certificate would be referred to Council to confirm that the variation was minor and justifiable, giving Council seven days to assess the proposal and either agree with the private certifier’s approach or call the application in for further assessment.

This system would, however, generate a significant demand on Council resources. Although the paper allows for Council to recover a fee for applications referred, this fee is unlikely to cover the cost of having staff on “stand by” to assess and determine non-compliance within 7 days. Further, the administrative arrangements are likely to lead to additional red tape with resultant delays or significant issues not being adequately assessed. Conditions of approval should only be used to clarify uncertainty, and not to make a non-complying proposal compliant.

A preferable system would be to require that development involving variations can be assessed only by Council certifiers, but specify that the supporting information submitted with the application address only that area in which the proposal is non compliant. This system would be far simpler, and clearly identifies respective responsibilities. The suggested timeframe for minor DAs which do not require exhibition is 20 days, while the timeframe suggested for complying development is 10 days. When the requirement for a 7 day referral for non compliance is added to the 10 day complying development processing time, the difference is only 3 days. Given that in many cases the non compliance could be assessed at the same time as the remainder of the development, requiring that all the assessment be done by Council would actually result in a quicker processing time.

The paper recognises that one of the key issues with complying development is concern within the community that, once complying development standards are adopted, dwellings could be erected without any mandatory consultation with neighbouring land owners. The paper proposes that a non-mandatory consultation could be encouraged, or that a mandatory requirement for a ‘courtesy notice’ outlining the development proposed could be introduced. The courtesy notice would have to clearly state that if a development complies with the standards, it would receive automatic approval. The paper also suggests that a summary of exempt and complying development could be attached to 149 certificates, to provide purchasers with information as to what is permissible in their area either without consent or as complying development.

Although more information may address community concerns with complying development and increase its use, the proposal to summarise all exempt and complying development provisions for attachment to a section 149 certificate has the potential to be a significant task. Schedules 2 and 3 of draft Penrith LEP 2008 are 29 and 15 pages long respectively. This would undoubtedly increase as the State Government pushes for more types of development to be included and, as the current rules for drafting LEPs does not allow these schedules to reference other documents, including DCPs, all relevant standards must be replicated in the schedules. It may not be possible to summarise these standards to the point where they are both short enough to be able to be attached to every section 149 certificate, but include enough detail to be meaningful.

ePlanning

ePlanning refers to the use of computers, particularly the internet, to lodge and track development applications, check statistics relating to development in an area and research relevant rules and regulations. ePlanning is a tool that can be used to substantially improve access to information both within council and between Council and the community.

There is a need for individual councils to develop systems that cater for the scale of local demand. These systems, however, can be a customised version of an overall approach, and there is a significant advantage for users if councils use a consistent ePlanning approach, rather than each individual Council having its own system. The State Government’s proposed reforms for ePlanning now appear to impose the full cost of developing and implementing ePlanning systems on local government by using a decentralised approach. An earlier proposal saw the Department of Planning being responsible for a State-wide system to support local councils. Abandoning a state funded approach is explained in the discussion paper by stating that “… the State-wide portal is expensive and takes many years to develop.”

The decentralised model proposed by the reforms is also expensive, particularly as costs would be duplicated for each council. A complete planning system (DA tracking, assessment and LEP tracking) involves multiple modules. Each module must be individually purchased and maintained, with up front costs per module of $40,000 to $60,000, and similar per annum costs for each module for maintenance. As well as the ePlanning software costs, establishing online systems is time consuming and diverts resources away from other areas. There are hidden costs of business process review, project management and staff training costs. Individual council operations will also need to adjust to doing business in a more public arena. A conservative cost estimate is outlined below:

Sample Item	Quantity	Estimated Cost
Purchase Modules (2008)	$60,000 x 3	$180,000
Maintenance (2008-2011)	$60,000 x 3	$180,000
Staff Costs x 5 (2008 – 2011)	$60,000 x 5	$300,000
Cost to one Council	TOTAL	$660,000

In addition to directly related software and staff costs, there are also more general software costs that relate to handling electronic data and ensuring that staff can make best use of the ePlanning systems. Specific software is required to view CAD files for DAs, make onscreen measurements and “stamp” and annotate plans. Additional hardware is also required, such as larger screens to view plans and faster PCs to process data and higher resolution maps. These will add to the above estimate of ePlanning costs.

Given the magnitude of the task, and the cost to local government as a whole (the costs discussed above will be replicated for every council across the state) the current decentralised option is a false economy, and directs the costs of a State Government required reform to local councils. There are a number of options to make the implementation of ePlanning more efficient and affordable, including:-

1. The State Government provide funding to encourage development of a co-ordinated approach across regions (eg all WSROC councils to be online by 2009). These programs could then deliver flow-on benefits to smaller and regional councils (and ROCs) that don’t have the resources individually.

2. State Government and Local Government (with their substantial combined purchasing power) work together to negotiate flexible contracts for software and hardware supply. A discounted rate or agreed price schedule should be provided for taking up the offer within a specified time.

The one major disadvantage to ePlanning is that it only makes information more accessible to those that have computer access, and who are also comfortable with the language. Council will still need to provide targeted consultation opportunities, particularly to those that cannot access information on line, or are from non-English speaking backgrounds.

It also needs to be recognised that ePlanning systems operate within the context of broader council functions. Areas such as finance, mapping, property, legal, risk management, records and governance will also be impacted by the introduction of ePlanning. Councils will need to address issues such as the security of electronic signatures, online payments, IT architecture and corporate approaches to data integration.

There is no doubt that there will be advantages when ePlanning systems are up and running and many routine enquiries can be handled on line. Whilst these advantages will flow to both Council staff and the community, the benefits will not be apparent until the ePlanning systems are built, tested, and settled in This will realistically take several years, during which time the stress of building and learning new systems at the same time as managing existing workloads and maintaining a level of service to the community, needs to be recognised.

Building and subdivision certification

As discussed above, a key part of the planning reforms proposed is an increase in the type and number of applications that can be handled as exempt or complying development. Exempt development does not require any form of assessment or certification. Complying development requires the issue of a complying development certificate by either Council or a private certifier.

If there is to be a significant increase in the amount of development certified as complying (the target over 4 years is up to 50% of all applications being complying development) there must be confidence in the systems under which that certification takes place. Currently, approximately 30% of complying development certificates are issued by private certifiers, with the remainder issued by councils. The discussion paper indicates not only that the number of complying development certificates should increase, but also the proportion issued by private certifiers, to free up Council resources. The reforms therefore also need to address the currently expressed concerns with the private certifier system, to encourage more people to choose private certifiers. Key issues of concern include the perceived conflict of interest arising from close relationships between certifiers and developers; management of the accreditation process; and the enforcement issues which arise when assessment or inspections are not done correctly.

Conflict of interest

Concerns have arisen that the volume of work processed by private certifiers for particular developers has resulted in the certifier effectively operating as an employee of the developer. Questions then arise over the willingness of that certifier to make an independent assessment of proposals from that developer. In response, the paper proposes that a limit be placed on the overall number of certificates for minor development that can be issued by any one certifier to any one developer in a calendar year. For certification of construction certificates for larger developments, it is proposed that the Building Professionals Board (BPB) be able to allocate a certifier, with the developer having the right to reject the first two nominations.

Reforms to limit close relationships between developers and certifiers will go some way to combating perceived conflicts of interest. It is suggested, however, that for major developments the BPB should nominate three certifiers to the landowner, who must select one. This removes the developer from the formal process and provides a further level of separation.

Accreditation process

At present, private certifiers must be accredited by the Building Professionals Board (BPB), and their level of accreditation reflects experience and qualifications. Ongoing accreditation is dependent on the individual undertaking continual professional development and holding the relevant insurance cover. Councils and Council employees do not currently need to be certified, and there is no option for private corporations to be certified, only individuals.

Additionally, technical experts and building designers do not need to be accredited. This can result in a situation where an accredited certifier is relying on advice from a non-accredited person to determine whether or not critical building elements (eg fire safety systems) have been properly installed. This situation is not acceptable, and reforms aimed at increasing accountability for the crucial role of designers and technical experts are supported.

The paper presents a number of options for reform. Potentially the most controversial is the proposal to require corporate accreditation of councils, and individual accreditation of Council officers. This has been proposed as a way of ensuring that all certifiers, regardless of their employer, have the same standard of qualification and experience; however it does not recognise that certifiers working for a Council are operating under a totally different and more regimented system than those in private practice.

Councils have a hierarchy and a system of delegations that matches the skills and knowledge of staff to the importance and input of decisions. There is automatic supervision of junior staff by those with more experience. Councils are also accountable to ICAC, the Ombudsmen and the community for the proper discharge of their responsibilities. This is a system of controls that has, in past experience, generally been effective.

Council certifiers are solely responsible for undertaking enforcement action in relation to projects certified by Council or private certifiers. This enforcement role will automatically expose Council certifiers to more complaints to the BPB. It is not reasonable to implement a system that is likely to increase the exposure of Council officers to complaints that arise from dissatisfied developers or residents due solely to a proper discharge of their duties. The cost to Council of defending such complaints is also unable to be recovered. Additionally, councils cannot refuse to accept an appointment as a certifier, resulting in Council being responsible for a higher proportion of difficult, complex and problematic development. Such developments have a far greater potential for complaints to the BPB.

The paper recommends that Council staff would be granted automatic certification to A3 level, which would permit issue of certificates for Class 1 and Class 10 buildings only (primarily dwellings and carports). Staff wishing to obtain a higher level of certification would need to undergo the same process as private certifiers.

There is no compelling case for accreditation of individual Council certifiers. The proposal appears to be the result of claims of inequality between the requirements that apply to Council and private certifiers. As Council staff and private certifiers operate under different conditions it is reasonable to apply different requirements. In addition to the enforcement issues raised above, Councils are also seen as the major training ground for young building professionals who later move into the private sector. Local Government is shouldering the bulk of the training obligations of the certification industry. Councils are also struggling to recruit and retain professional staff. This problem will be exacerbated if the obligations and responsibilities that are associated with being an accredited certifier are transferred personally to Council officers.

A preferred approach is to accredit Councils and stipulate the competencies that must be attained and maintained by their staff. The continued accreditation of the Council would be based on the Council employing staff who meet the required competencies. The Council would also be responsible for ensuring that the complaints about the performance of their staff are appropriately investigated and suitable action taken.

If Council staff are to be accredited, the majority should be accredited at the A2 level rather than the proposed A3 level, subject to the support of their Council. The current proposal of accrediting at A3 level will limit the supply of suitable Council certifiers, will increase the costs to applicants, and restrict Council’s ability to resource certification functions given that Councils are unable to refuse such work (for example, Council being asked to act as a replacement principal certifying authority).

In addition, the proposed accreditation process for Council officers does not address the subdivision certificate process or construction certificates for subdivision works. It is unclear if this is an omission, or the intent of the reforms is to prevent Councils issuing construction certificates for subdivision works or other engineering works.

Implementation of the reforms as outlined in the paper is likely to result in many unexpected and undesirable consequences. There is an urgent need for further consultation and consideration as the reforms may well result in a wide range impediments to the delivery of efficient and effective building certification service. If the reforms are to proceed as indicated then, as a minimum, some basic deemed accreditation should be granted for subdivision works and certification in line with the proposal for building works. There should also be a reasonable timeframe for the implementation of this aspect of the reforms to allow Council officers to gain the appropriate levels of accreditation.

Enforcement

The discussion paper makes it very clear that the State Government believes councils should be the sole enforcement authority for issues arising from both poor performance of certifiers and non compliance with conditions of consent. This means that Council will continue to be responsible for the problems caused by the certification system, with certifiers themselves not required to shoulder any responsibility for poor performance. The paper states that any concern about making Council the sole enforcement authority will be off set by providing more powers and additional fees / fines to make the process cost neutral.

Penrith Council takes an active role in enforcing development consent conditions regardless of the certifier. There are however, problems with the current system for which councils should not be accountable. Where private certifiers are appointed as the principal certifying authority (PCA), Council not only is not adequately recompensed if they are required to undertake enforcement action, but is often unaware of problems until it is too late to gather evidence that can be used in court proceedings.

A preferred system would stipulate that Council takes any necessary enforcement action where it is appointed as the PCA and that private certifiers report non compliance with the development consent to the BPB. The Board would be better informed about the activities of the certifiers it accredits, and could undertake any necessary enforcement action using the evidence gathered by the private certifier. This reduces the likelihood of councils being criticised for reporting ‘competitors’ to the BPB, and encourages private certifiers to be more vigilant and take greater ownership of development consent conditions. Councils and accredited certifiers should have the power to issue ‘stop work’ and ‘cease occupation’ orders for non compliant buildings or developments.

It is suggested in the discussion paper that builders and developers who comply with conditions would be unfairly treated by a levy system. An effective enforcement system that identifies and imposes appropriate penalties on repeat offenders, and improves confidence and trust in the development industry, delivers benefits to all parties. Levy systems have operated successfully for a number of years for builders insurance and plan making. This is a similar proposal that provides a vast improvement over the current arrangements.

It is unlikely that the cost of enforcement activities will be recovered by fines or court imposed cost orders. This requires further examination and development of a better approach to cost recovery.

The discussion paper does not clarify who is responsible for enforcement of development conditions when the consent is issued by the PAC or JRPP. This should not be a role that Council is forced to undertake.

Another related issue is the practice of using building certificates as retrospective approvals for unauthorised building works. An increase in fees is proposed to combat this. The proposed increase in fees should provide full cost recovery. Penrith Council has adopted, as part of its Management Plan, a fee for the provision of professional services. It is recommended that all councils be encouraged to adopt similar fees and that these be used to determine new fees for building certificate applications for unauthorised work.

Certification of subdivisions

The discussion paper also covers private certification of subdivisions. Generally, the need for reform in this area is questioned, as the issue of a subdivision certificate is usually completed in a matter of a few weeks, sometimes less for simple applications. This usually occurs at the end of a lengthy rezoning, DA assessment and construction process that potentially can last several years. A few additional weeks at this stage is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall timeframe for land release.

The certification process for Torrens title lots is critical, particularly when the subdivision delivers infrastructure which will become Council’s responsibility such as roads, drainage, parks and landscaping and other infrastructure. In release area subdivisions this infrastructure can be worth millions of dollars. The subdivision certificate process can also involve the opening and closing of public roads under the Roads Act, the creation of easements that benefit Council and the creation of restrictions as to user and positive covenants under section 88B and 88E of the Conveyancing Act that can only be varied by Council.

The bulk of the work in the subdivision certificate process involves the final inspection of the works, review of Works as Executed plans and assessment and refund of bonds, review of the draft Deposited Plan and review of section 88B and 88E instruments. There appears to be little to gain from involving private certifiers in this process as the majority of work must be done in conjunction with Council. The discussion paper presents a recommendation which would enable a developer to select a private certifier from a list identified by Council. Although this appears to be a reasonable approach, it may leave Council open to accusations of favouritism or restriction of trade. The method of this procedure would need to be carefully documented in the Act and/or Regulations to ensure an appropriate process is in place.

In addition, the issue of subdivision certificates by private certifiers should be restricted to circumstances where:

- No more than three lots are involved

- All lots are greater than the minimum area specified in the relevant planning instrument

- There are no works on existing public infrastructure involved

- No new public infrastructure is to be constructed

- No easements, restrictions as to user, positive covenants etc involving the Council or Council assets are involved.

Penrith City Council currently includes strata subdivision as complying development. However, it is not commonly used by developers, which is partly due to the relatively efficient service provided by Council in processing these types of applications.

Miscellaneous amendments

The discussion paper talks about a number of other miscellaneous amendments intended to improve the certification system. Generally these are supported. In particular, the review of occupation certificates is welcomed, as a number of issues have arisen with occupation certificates for some classes of buildings. Additionally, the proposal to enable conditions to be imposed on a construction certificates is strongly supported. The current system is cumbersome, complex and does not provide any significant benefit to developers or the community.

Strata management

The chapter on reform of strata management focuses on issues relating to the ongoing involvement of developers in strata schemes, even when the majority of units have been sold to private owners. There is concern that developers are using ongoing involvement to improperly restrict owner’s rights, and that owners are in some cases ill-informed of their rights and obligations.

The issues of concern over strata management do not relate to areas which are normally part of Council’s operations. As a general principle, introducing measures that will facilitate redevelopment of strata sites is supported. Similarly, preventing developers from allocating community areas to individuals is also supported, though with the understanding that if the owners’ corporations have the right to determine the usage of common areas, that usage must still be consistent with the approved plans and conditions of consent. Other recommendations relate to disputes between residents and developers, and have little relevance to Council.

Paper subdivisions

Paper subdivisions refer to subdivisions which exist on paper only – the lots each have separate title but have never been supplied with the required infrastructure to enable them to be developed. In some cases the subdivisions were designed with no reference to topography, or other environmental constraints, and the lots will never be able to be developed. In other cases there are no significant environmental constraints, but fragmented ownership has been a major prohibiting factor in funding the required infrastructure.

The issue of paper subdivisions is not a significant one for Penrith City at present. Existing paper subdivision areas in the City are managed through zoning provisions, such as Mt Pleasant (east of Soling Crescent at Cranebrook) which is zoned open space and environmental protection, and Sovereign Town in Mulgoa Valley.

The discussion paper proposes that the State Government intervene to facilitate paper subdivisions where there are no significant environmental constraints, but fragmented land ownership has prevented redevelopment. Intervention schemes would only be introduced where at least 60% of landowners owning at least 60% of the affected land agree. Whilst there are no objections to the approach in general, any proposals in the City would have to be considered on their individual merits.

Miscellaneous amendments

The reforms are also proposed to cover a number of issues that do not neatly fall within any of the broader areas already discussed. Those most relevant to Penrith are outlined below:

Lapsing of development consents

Currently a development consent lapses after 5 years unless work has commenced. The courts have, however, held that ‘commencement’ may include such minor works as placing survey pegs in the ground. It is proposed to modify the legislation to clarify ‘commencement’ and ensure that it is a reasonably significant part of the development. This proposal is supported.

Standard Instrument

The discussion paper proposes an amendment to section 65(1A) of the EPA Act to enable exhibition of plans that are substantially in accordance with the standard instrument. This will provide greater flexibility in preparing and exhibiting plans, and is supported.

The paper also proposes a provision be added to the Act to remove the requirement for re-exhibition of a plan, if the amendments proposed after exhibition are only necessary to bring the plan into compliance with the standard instrument. At present, if an LEP is likely to be significantly different as a result of changes following exhibition, councils are required to readvertise. This provision creates some conflict, in that changes to the template may well constitute substantial changes that would normally have to be exhibited, but as it will be compulsory for councils to adopt them, the process of exhibiting to gain community input on the proposals is redundant. It may be appropriate, if this proposal is introduced, for Council to coordinate an information process to advise the community of the changes, without inviting comment. Alternatively, a provision should be introduced requiring major changes to the Standard Template to be exhibited by the Department of Planning prior to adoption.

Exhibition of planning agreements

The paper proposes to clarify the circumstances under which planning agreements must be re-exhibited. Generally this is supported, provided the amendments do not fetter Council’s discretion to re-exhibit if it feels it is necessary.

Land and Environment Court

Two amendments are proposed to the operation of the Land and Environment Court. The first will require compulsory mediation of all but the most complex cases. Currently this is encouraged, but not compulsory. It is intended that this change will assist in reducing the number of cases and number of issues presented before the Court.

The second relates to the modification of applications once the appeal process has started. Currently applicants have significant freedom to modify applications, resulting in a situation where the final application determined by the Court can be substantially different to the original and, had the final application been presented to the Council in the first place, it may well have been approved. Two options are discussed, either to limit the extent to which an application can be modified, or to allow the court to assess the new proposal, but only after a refusal of the original proposal has been formally recorded and costs awarded. In both cases the modified application would require reconsideration and re-exhibition.

Requirements for compulsory mediation in the Land and Environment Court are supported. Greater restrictions on the modification of applications once the appeal process has started are also supported.

Statement of Environmental Effects

A recent decision of the Court has found that a Development Application can still be valid even if no Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) has been submitted. It is proposed to amend the legislation to address this, and ensure that an SEE must be submitted with every DA.

Although it is critical that some level of assessment be submitted with a DA., the requirement for a Statement of Environmental Effects should follow the principles of the other reforms, and be tailored to the complexity of the application. For example, in the case of an ‘almost complying’ application, where the proposal would be complying development but for minor inconsistencies, the SEE should only address the inconsistencies. It is also critical that for more significant applications, the SEE be prepared by a qualified, certified professional. In some cases there are inaccuracies in the information submitted to support a DA, and there is no indication of the qualifications of the person writing the statement. A requirement that the statement be prepared by a certified, qualified and identified person, would help encourage those preparing the statements to take responsibility for the information contained within them.

Trial operating periods

It is proposed to modify the Act to enable a condition to apply to a consent that requires a trial operation period for a development, before final consent is granted. This is intended to allow councils to assess the impact of a proposal once it is operating, in situations where that impact is impossible to tell prior to operation (such as with licensed premises) or to check that the operating procedures proposed will in fact mitigate impacts (such as with industrial premises). Generally, this idea is supported, however the legislation should specify the maximum duration of a trial period, and whether or not consecutive trial periods can be required.

Planning panels

Currently the Minister can appoint a planning panel to make or amend LEPs, or if a Council has unsatisfactory performance in all of the areas listed under section 118(9) of the EPA Act. It is proposed to extend the power of these panels to be able to make DCPs and contributions plans as well, and to allow their appointment if a Council has unsatisfactory performance in only some of the areas listed under section 118(9).

Extension of the powers of the Minister, directly or indirectly, is a major focus of these reforms. Enabling Minister-appointed planning panels to prepare DCPs and contributions plans will extend these powers further into local policy making. The paper does not provide any significant detail on the circumstances under which these powers will be used. Similarly, regarding panels appointed to deal with matters under section 118(9), the paper does not specify whether a panel appointed due to poor performance in some areas will only have the authority to deal with those areas, or whether they will have full authority. It seems unreasonable to appoint a panel in response to a particular problem which then has the authority to deal with other areas, which were being adequately handled by the Council. The current focus of these proposals is not supported.

Urban renewal schemes

It is proposed to allow compulsory acquisition of land in circumstances where land is necessary for urban renewal schemes that have been adopted by the Council and endorsed by the State Government, and where all other mechanisms to acquire that land have failed. It is also proposed to allow easements to be granted by the Court.

These amendments appear reasonable, as they will prevent situations where urban renewal schemes are halted due to one owner’s inability to come to terms with the relevant acquiring agency.

Modifications to part 3A

It is proposed to amend part 3A of the Act to allow tailoring of the assessment of major projects depending on their nature and scale. It is also proposed to allow the Minister to delegate all of his functions under part 3A except project applications and concept plan approvals.

Part 3A came into force in August 2005 and has already been amended on a number of occasions. Objections are not raised to the proposed delegation of some of the Minister’s functions, and tailoring major project assessment is also considered reasonable, does demonstrate the consequences of hastily prepared legislation. If it is proposed to reduce the required assessment for more minor projects under part 3A, the Department should give some thought to whether or not these projects should remain within part 3A at all, or be removed from the operation of this part all together.

Section 96

It is proposed to modify the Act to allow time periods in deferred commencement consents to be modified under section 96, and to allow applicants to request a review of a determination in relation to a section 96 application. These are both reasonable proposals, and are supported.

Timetable and program for reform

The State Government is planning on moving quickly through the reform program. The Discussion Paper was released for comment in November 2007, with comments due on 8 February 2008. It is proposed to prepare an exposure Bill in early 2008, with the final legislation being enacted by mid 2008.

Although the Discussion Paper is formally out for comment, the timetable proposed must bring into question the sincerity of the consultation process, as it does not provide much opportunity for comments received to be incorporated into the draft legislation. Accordingly, Council’s submission is being prepared with the suggested changes clearly outlined, to make it as simple as possible to incorporate them into the legislation. Additionally, those areas which are lacking in detail or which require further consideration are to be highlighted, and it is to be recommended that they be removed from this reform process and reconsidered at a later date.

Despite this, it must be recognised that there is a significant likelihood that the reforms will proceed generally as outlined in the discussion paper, with little or no amendment. This could have significant impact on the way in which Council operates, and the influence Council can have over development in the City of Penrith. Council staff will be seeking every opportunity to provide the Department with suggestions on improving the proposed reforms, particularly where standardised approaches will adversely affect councils that are delivering good processes and good outcomes.

Conclusion

The principles behind the reforms outlined in the Department’s discussion paper are generally supported. There can be no doubt that a simpler planning system, with the flexibility to reflect the complexity of the proposal, will provide a better service to the community and represent a much more efficient use of increasingly scare planning resources. Development approvals and assessments are a key feature of the planning system, and the area most likely to impact on the community. An efficient rezoning process can facilitate development of all types, and may go some way to increasing housing affordability.

The scope of the reforms, however, are far reaching and have the potential to significantly impact on each Council’s involvement in planning for its area. Key concerns include the multitude of layers for development assessment, the potential for local government to lose its input as to whether a rezoning application should proceed, and the requirement for individual Council officers to be certified by the Building Professionals Board. In a number of areas the imposition of the reforms on all councils, instead of just those experiencing difficulties in the timely processing of applications or draft LEPs, cannot be justified.

There is also significant doubt that the reforms proposed will, in fact, streamline the system. In some cases the reforms appear to add levels of complexity, and in many cases they increase the level of State Government involvement in local issues. Given the difficulties the State Government is having with resourcing its current planning obligations, it seems unlikely that increasing its role will reduce delays within the system.

Constant, numerous amendments to the Act must be questioned, and the Government is encouraged to consider if the development of a new Act for the future, in collaboration with Local Government and the development industry, would deliver an integrated and improved system and good quality outcomes.

Council has until Friday, 8 February 2008 to lodge a submission with the Department of Planning outlining its response to the discussion paper. This submission is being prepared, and will highlight the issues outlined in this report and present options to address the key issues of concern. A copy of the submission will be forwarded to all Councillors once it is complete.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Submission to the Department of Planning on the Planning Reforms Discussion Paper be received.

2. Council endorse the presentation of a submission to the Department of Planning, based on the matters outlined in this report, in response to its Planning Reforms Discussion Paper.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Youth Week 2008

Compiled by: Tracy Leahy, Community Program Coordinator

Authorised by: Erich Weller, Community and Cultural 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 inform Council of the proposed funding allocation for the 2008 Youth Week program. The report recommends that the information be received and the proposed program of activities and allocation of $5,000 funding be approved.

Background

Youth Week is to be celebrated nationally from Saturday 5 to Sunday 13 April 2008. The theme for Youth Week this year is “Shout. Share. Live. Unite.” and the aim is to provide young people with an opportunity to express their views and act on issues that impact on their lives. Youth Week is an opportunity to celebrate young people in our community, and to highlight their participation and achievements.

This year, Council received $2,500 (excluding GST) from the Department of Community Services, Communities Division. As a requirement of receiving these funds, Council matches the amount on a dollar for dollar basis. The total budget for 2008 Youth Week activities is $5,000.

Youth Week Grants Program

Council allocates funds each year, through the Youth Week Grants Program, to community-based groups (including youth and community groups, churches, social/interest groups, training and employment agencies) to assist with organising activities, events and programs in conjunction with young people across the LGA.

The Youth Week aims will be achieved through young people’s active involvement in activities which:

· Raise issues, ideas and concerns of young people;

· Develop strategies to address the issues important to young people;

· Increase the community’s awareness of young people and the issues which are important to them;

· Promote young people’s contribution to the community;

· Demonstrate the involvement of young people in the planning of activities;

· Demonstrate access to activities from a broad range of young people.

For Youth Week 2008, organisations are required to demonstrate what strategies they will employ to address any transport issues, and how the proposed activity will be advertised and promoted to a diverse range of young people including young people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, non-English speaking backgrounds and young people with disabilities. Organisations are also asked to demonstrate how young people will be involved in planning and implementing the activities.

Organisations have again been asked this year to be aware of the Penrith Youth Services Code of Practice. Local youth services and Penrith City Council developed the Code in 2002 and it outlines best practice for organisations that work with young people.

The opportunity to apply for Youth Week funds in 2008 was widely advertised, including through Penrith Youth Interagency, the Mayoral column, Council’s website and through extensive email networks.

Funding Applications for 2008

This year, a number of services have combined to hold a city centre event with a focus on youth health. There are also a broad range of planned local events and activities.

Seven applications have been received totalling $7,281.30. As there is only $5,000 available Council officers have contacted all the applicants to discuss the availability of funds and the viability of their proposed projects. All the applicants have agreed to a reduced amount of funding and are confident they can still proceed with their project.

Applications Recommended for Funding

1. Project name to be decided by the young people involved – Skate event

This event has been organised by Menace Enterprise & Blue Mountains Skate Club. This is a Skate Club that also has members in Penrith.

The event will consist of skate coaching clinics with an accredited coach. There will be a group of 10 young people per day over 3 days. The Clinic will consist of a 1.5 hour lesson with a sausage sizzle. The event will develop skateboarding safety skills leading up to a competition to showcase the participant’s new talent.

The skate competition, with events for 12-24 year olds, will be run by the young people, with the help of coaches, and they will decide on the categories and details of the competition.

The coaching will be held on 8, 9 and 10 April between approximately 4pm and 5.30pm. The competition will be held all day on Saturday 12 April. The activity will be held at the newly developed Glenmore Park Skate Park. If this is not completed, then the venue will be the Jamison Skate Park.

Funding amount requested - $1,150

Proposed funding allocation - $600 excluding GST

2. Come and Join Our Circus- Pulse Youth Group - auspiced by Neighbourhood Development Team Erskine Park Inc

The proposed event is a celebration of youth from all backgrounds. To highlight this, the Pulse Youth Group have developed a concept event filled with the colour and adventure of a carnival/circus to promote the “Shout. Share. Live. Unite.” theme.

Shout: out loud

Share: the skills of the circus

Live: and enjoy the excitement of the circus

Unite: each and every one of us

It is proposed that, in the weeks leading up to the Youth Week event, Pulse members will invite the young people to come along to the Centre to learn and share entertaining fun circus skills. These skills will be performed at the Youth Week event with the idea of encouraging a broad youth participation and interaction at the event with something for everyone to try.

The proposed activity will be held on Friday 11 April at Erskine Park Community Centre, from 6pm-10pm.

Funding amount requested - $990

Proposed funding allocation - $650 excluding GST

3. Blogfest 2008, South Creek Mobile Youth Service, auspiced by North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre Inc

The proposed event will involve young people setting up a studio with the service owned video recorder. The young people will take turns to voice their opinions on their local community, their school and what they value. They can speak freely or answer questions set out by other young people. The video blogs (minimum 20) will then be edited by young people and put on DVDs. They will be put on a ‘you tube’ webpage devoted to the blogs, and put in a format so they can be kept on mobile phones. Some of the DVDs will be sent to local leaders so they can hear what young people have to say about their community and what they value.

The proposed activity will be held on Tuesday 8 April from 2pm at North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre.

Funding amount requested - $199

Proposed funding allocation - $199 excluding GST

4. Development of a Website for African Young people, auspiced by TEYAD Incorporated (Twich East Youth Association for Development)

The proposed activity will develop a website for African young people. This will provide accessible information regarding education, employment, areas of interest, how to participate in community life and community events. There will also be a discussion board for young people to contribute their ideas, share information and make connections. Young people will be involved in designing the website with TAFE students. They will also be involved in promoting and launching the website.

The proposed activity launch will be held on Sunday 6 April at Nepean Migrant Access in

St Marys Community Centre.

Funding amount requested - $800

Proposed funding allocation - $550

5. Community soccer competition and exhibition match, auspiced by Marist Youth Care Inc

The proposed activity is a soccer competition with young people living in Out of Home Care. Marist Youth Care will form a young persons’ soccer team which will play on a regular basis to encourage active participation and physical activity. Coaching will be provided by St Marys Band Club Rangers Football Club and will culminate in an exhibition match during Youth Week.

The exhibition match is planned for Tuesday 8 April from 2.30pm at Roper Road, Colyton (St Marys Band Club Rangers Soccer Club home ground).

Funding amount requested - $1,026.30

Proposed funding allocation - $550

6. Uniting the “Riff”, auspiced by The Warehouse Youth Health Centre

The proposed activity initially involves the design of a tattoo promoting good health, designed by young people across the Penrith LGA. This tattoo will then be distributed at an interactive health focused activity to be held at a Panthers Football Club home game. There will be a stall to raise awareness of health issues concerning young people and promote local facilities. Young people will be able to talk to local youth workers to ask questions and raise issues of concerns. The event will consist of fun activities including rides. Young people will co-facilitate the health stall activities.

The event is supported by “Now What” Young Dads Program, The Junction Youth Medical Service, Panthers Football Club, Mission Australia and Sydney West Area Health Service.

The proposed activity will take place on Saturday 12 April from 7pm at Penrith Panthers Stadium.

Funding amount requested - $2,500

Proposed funding allocation - $2,101 excluding GST

7. Launch of Penrith Filipino Youth Action Group, auspiced by the Philippine Language and Cultural Association of Australia Inc ( PLCAA)

The proposed event involves holding a youth forum. This youth forum will cover various areas of interest including the role of the youth in community services and the preservation of Filipino culture and tradition. The forum will also discuss cultural influences on health and social issues, for example safe partying, and fellowship and entertainment.

There will also be a launch of the Penrith Filipino Youth Action Group.

The proposed activity will be held on Saturday 12 April, 3pm-11pm. Venue to be arranged.

Funding amount requested - $600

Proposed funding allocation - $350

Summary

Youth Week is a national event that provides opportunities for young people to get involved in activities and events in their local communities. Youth Week is also an opportunity to celebrate young people in our community and to highlight their participation and achievements.

Council has matched funding received from the Department of Community Services of $2,500, for a total of $5,000 for Youth Week activities in the Penrith LGA.

Council has received applications to hold 7 events in the LGA. The proposed activities will provide opportunities for young people from across the LGA to get involved in Youth Week. A Youth Week 2008 program will be developed and distributed to young people and services across the LGA to promote the activities.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Youth Week 2008 be received.

2. Council approve the proposed funding allocations for providing Youth Week activities to those organisations as outlined in this report.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*The City as a Social Place*

The City as a Social Place

Seniors Week 2008

Compiled by: Joe Ibbitson, Community Program Coordinator

Authorised by: Erich Weller, Community and Cultural 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 about Council's Seniors Week 2008 function and make recommendations on funding for Seniors Week grants. The report recommends that Council approve Seniors Week grants to ten (10) local community organisations for activities to celebrate Seniors Week 2008.

Background

Seniors Week in 2008 is one month later than in previous years and will be celebrated from Sunday 6 April up to and including Sunday 13 April. Seniors Week celebrations encourage the involvement of older people in community life and support their continued participation in local activities. The theme for 2008 is ‘Live Life’, with an emphasis on thanking seniors and acknowledging their valuable contribution to their local community. Seniors Week is also a great opportunity for all generations to join and celebrate with older people.

Council allocates funds each year, through the Seniors Week Grants Program, to community-based groups to assist with organising activities for older residents across the LGA. The budget for Seniors Week 2008 allocations to community organisations is $6,500.

Council also received $1,000 from the Department of Ageing Disability and Home Care for the major Council event. This event is detailed below.

Council Event – ‘Laugh at the Lighter Side of Life’

Council’s event to celebrate Seniors Week 2008 – ‘Laugh at the Lighter Side of Life’ – will be a showcase of musical and dance activities with a 1920’s theme. The celebration will extend across generations and cultures, highlighting the contribution that involvement in music and dance activities can make to the well-being of older people. The performers will be local residents or groups, who will either play a musical instrument, sing in a group or participate in a musical or dance group. The performers will be from diverse cultural backgrounds and ages, including school groups, the well aged and some frail older people. The event will be held on Thursday 10 April 2008 at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre. Planned performances for the day include:

· Penrith Seniors Choir

· Penrith Seniors Dance Group

· Indigenous performance group

· Silent Movie accompanied by local pianist

· Silverfox Barbershop Quartet

· Cranebrook High School

· Sing-a-Long

Morning tea will be served on arrival, followed by the performance between 11.00am and 1.00pm. The celebration will conclude with a light lunch.

There will be musical interludes during morning tea and lunch.

This is a partnership event and planning commenced mid-way through 2007, with a leading role taken by a number of local community organisations. Representatives on the Working Group are from:

· Penrith Older Women’s Network

· Nepean HACC Access Project – Tri Community Exchange

· Nepean Migrant Access

· Lemongrove Governor Phillip Campus Day Centre

· Penrith Senior Citizens

· Penrith Seniors and Pensioners Club

· Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

· Penrith Police Community Safety

· Combined Pensioners Superannuants – St Mary’s branch

· St Marys Historical Society

· Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy Australia

Council has been successful in obtaining a $1,000 grant from the NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care towards the cost of the event.

Seniors Week Grants – Applications from Community Organisations

The availability of Council funds to assist non-profit groups in the provision of Seniors Week activities in 2008 was advertised in the local media and extensively through community networks and on Council’s website. Grant applications were to consider the aims of Seniors Week 2008:

· Promote, amongst people of all ages, a more positive understanding of ageing;

· Enhance recognition of the contributions of older people to the broader community;

· Provide information and activities that will assist older people to continue to lead independent lives.

The following table (Table 1) identifies that Council received applications from community groups and organisations for eleven (11) separate activities totalling $7,220.

Table 1: Seniors Week Grant Applications 2008

No	Organisation	Proposed Activity	Estimated Attendance	Requested Amount
1	Werrington Elderly Care	Live Life Today Indoor games, gentle exercises, lunch and entertainment for the elderly and disabled	65	$350
2	St Mary’s Branch CPSA	Ecumenical Church Service An Ecumenical church service followed by an afternoon tea	50	$400
3	SPYNS Inc (organised and promoted by 7 community organisations in Penrith LGA)	Celebrating 50 Years 1950’s celebration with dress and music and a ‘name that tune’ segment. Refreshments and Entertainment from local schools.	180	$750
4	Enosis Greek Senior’s Group and Greek Orthodox Parish of ‘St Demetrius’ Church Seniors Group	The Greek Community Seniors Week Celebration Celebration with food and entertainment from local community for elderly Greek residents with a disability. Guest speakers on gardening and water conservation from UWS and speaker from SWAHS on Falls Prevention for older persons and the role of the Aged Care Assessment Team.	80	$950
5	St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team	Celebrating what’s good about getting older Launch of booklet (produced in consultation with community members).	55	$340
6	National Seniors Day Branch Association Penrith/Nepean	Coach trip to Picton Cottage with morning tea and lunch	40	$650
7	North St Mary’s Neighbourhood Centre Inc	A Laugh with Lunch Luncheon for 40 seniors in North St Marys, Oxley Park and Colyton. Focus on seniors’ achievements and sharing life experiences. Students from Dunheved High will provide assistance and entertainment. Local volunteers assist on the day.	40	$880
8	St Marys Branch CPSA and Nepean Migrant Access	Live Life in Harmony Demonstration of tai chi and heart moves to seniors from non-English speaking and English speaking backgrounds to promote healthy and active lifestyles. Morning tea and entertainment.	325	$900
9	Catholic Parish of the Holy Spirit St Clair, Emmaus Village and Mamre Homestead	Tour of Mamre Homestead, morning tea, lunch and entertainment – a celebration of recognition of contributions made by older people	60	$1,000
10	Braddock Public School	Grandparents Day Assembly with grandparents/carers and students. Gifts will be presented to grandparents. A display of current work and activities followed by morning tea.	150	$500
11	Werrington Community Project Inc	Seniors’ Arts and Crafts Expo 2008 Annual event featuring art and craft exhibitions, craft stalls and other activities for seniors over 55 yrs old. Expo runs over 2 days.	350	$500
		TOTAL		$7,220

The amount of funds available for Seniors Week 2008 grants is $6,500.

The 2008 Seniors Week guidelines identify that to be eligible for funding, project activities must be held in the Penrith Local Government Area. An application (Project No 6) has been received from the National Seniors Day Branch Association Penrith/Nepean which involves a coach trip to Picton Cottage with morning tea and lunch included. It is proposed that this project not be supported through the 2008 Seniors Week grants program as the activity is being held outside the Penrith Local Government Area.

Project Assessment

Project selection criteria identified in the 2008 Seniors Week grant guidelines includes the following:

· Involve the wider community or have the potential to reach the wider community;

· Promotes positive images of being older;

· Are innovative and creative;

· Encourages active participation of older people;

· Showcase the skills of older people and their continuing contribution to the general community.

Council officers have discussed activities and project budgets with the applicants and sponsors of the remaining ten (10) projects. Some opportunities to reduce the amount of funds required have been identified either through additional donations, additional use of applicant organisational resources, charging of a nominal fee or through alterations to the scope of the proposed activities.

Table 2 identifies revised funding budgets for two projects which have been able to reduce the amount of funds required without disadvantage to the groups or members.

Table 2: Revised Project Budgets

Organisation

Proposed Activity

Original Amount Requested

Revised Amount Requested

Enosis Greek Senior’s Group and Greek Orthodox Paris of ‘St Demetrius’ Church Seniors Group

The Greek Community Seniors Week Celebration

$950

$800

Catholic Parish of the Holy Spirit St Clair, Emmaus Village and Mamre Homestead

Tour of Mamre Homestead

$1000

$800

With the revised budgets identified in Table 2, and the proposal not to support the National Seniors Day Branch Association Penrith/Nepean application (Project 6), the recommended allocation is $6,220. The remaining funds ($280) will be used to assist in the promotion and advertising of the 2008 Seniors Week activities.

The projects recommended for funding and the proposed allocations are as follows:

Table 3: Seniors Week Grants 2008 – Recommended Projects and Allocations

No	Organisation	Proposed Activity	Requested Amount
1	Werrington Elderly Care	Live Life Today	$350
2	St Mary’s Branch CPSA	Ecumenical Church Service	$400
3	SPYNS Inc (organised and promoted by 7 community organisations in Penrith LGA)	Celebrating 50 Years	$750
4	Enosis Greek Senior’s Group and Greek Orthodox Paris of ‘St Demetrius’ Church Seniors Group	The Greek Community Seniors Week Celebration	$800
5	St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team	Celebrating what’s good about getting older	$340
6	North St Mary’s Neighbourhood Centre Inc	A Laugh with Lunch	$880
7	St Marys Branch CPSA and Nepean Migrant Access	Live Life in Harmony	$900
8	Catholic Parish of the Holy Spirit St Clair, Emmaus Village and Mamre Homestead	Tour of Mamre Homestead	$800
9	Braddock Public School	Grandparents Day	$500
10	Werrington Community Project Inc	Seniors’ Arts and Crafts Expo 2008	$500
		TOTAL	$6,220

Summary

Council has received a grant of $1,000 from the NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, to assist with organising a local community event, ‘Laugh at the Lighter Side of Life’, to celebrate Seniors Week 2008. This event will be held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre on Thursday 10 April 2008.

The amount available for the Seniors Week 2008 Grants Program is $6,500. Community organisations have applied for contributions totalling $7,220 to assist in the delivery of eleven (11) projects for Seniors Week 2008.

It is proposed that the application, ‘Coach Trip to Picton Cottage’ from the National Seniors Day Branch Association Penrith/Nepean, not be supported as the activity is to be held outside the Penrith LGA.

It is recommended that Council provide grants to the value of $6,220 to fund ten (10) local community organisations for the activities detailed in Table 3 in this report to celebrate Seniors Week 2008. This includes reduced amounts for two projects as detailed in the report. The balance of the budget ($280) will be used to assist in the promotion of the 2008 Seniors Week activities.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Seniors Week 2008 be received.

2. Council provide Seniors Week grants to the value of $6,220 to ten local community organisations to celebrate Seniors Week 2008, as outlined in the report.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Leadership and Organisation*

Leadership and Organisation

Local Government Sessions, United Nations Climate Change Conference, Bali, Indonesia, 2007

Compiled by: Louise Petchell, Sustainability Unit Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Ross Kingsley, Corporate Development Manager

Requested By: Councillor Karen McKeown

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The principles of sustainability are central to Council's decision-making systems and processes and its operations

Critical Action: Implement a program to mainstream sustainability within the organisation consistent with the recommendations of the Sustainable Penrith Action Plan and leading practice.

Purpose:

To provide information regarding Council's attendance at the Local Government Climate Change Sessions, which were held as parallel events to the United Nations Climate Change (UNFCC) Conference in December 2007. The report recommends that the information be received and that the 'World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement' launched at the conference be considered by Council's Climate Change Working Party.

Background

The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2007 was held in Bali from 3 to 14 December. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability organised, in cooperation with local government and United Nations partners, a two day ‘Local Government Climate Sessions’ as a parallel event to the UNFCC Conference.

ICLEI invited representation of its member councils at this prestigious event from 10-11 December 2007.

ICLEI is an international association of local governments, as well as national and regional local government organisations, that have made a commitment to sustainable development. ICLEI works with these organisations through international performance-based campaigns and programs.

Penrith City Council first joined ICLEI in February 2000, and since this time has actively participated in a number of programs to target greenhouse gas and water management for both Council’s own operations and the wider community. These programs have included the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program, CCP Plus and the Water Campaign.

Council was represented by its Sustainability Champion, Councillor Karen McKeown and Sustainability Unit Coordinator, Louise Petchell, at the Climate Change Sessions and side events associated with the UNFCC Conference. Over 200 representatives of local governments and their associations from 40 countries around the world were part of this special local government delegation. It is notable that Council was one of five Australian and New Zealand local governments to take part.

Framework Convention on Climate Change

The international political response to climate change began with the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. The UNFCCC sets out a framework for action, aimed at stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system. Controlled gases include methane, nitrous oxide and, in particular, carbon dioxide. The UNFCCC came into force on 21 March 1994 and now has 192 parties.

Australia has ratified the Convention, and is bound to comply with its obligations, having signed the instrument of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on 3 December 2007, Prime Minister Rudd’s first official act of the new Australian Government.

Australia has committed to meeting its Kyoto Protocol target, and has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050.

Australia will now participate in the negotiations working towards a post-2012 agreement which is equitable and effective.

Local Government Climate Sessions

Local Government representatives from around the world showed a strong presence at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia. Apart from exchanging experiences and knowledge on tackling climate change during the Local Government Climate Sessions that took place as a parallel event to the United Nations Climate Change Conference, Local Government leaders demonstrated their active role in the international efforts to tackle climate change during various events during the Conference.

The Local Government Climate Sessions were held under the patronage of Mr Rachmat Witoelar, Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia, President of the Conference of the Parties (COP).

The purpose of this gathering was to form a visible Local Government delegation, and to share with the international community how local governments are contributing to global efforts which address climate change, and that they are willing to contribute to the debate on a post-Kyoto global climate regime.

Around 250 representatives of local governments and their associations from 40 countries attended the event. This made the Local Government group the second largest delegation at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2007.

The sessions were held under the auspices of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, in cooperation with the Secretariat of the UNFCCC. It was convened by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability in cooperation with, and with support from, partner organisations.

Overview of the Climate Change Sessions

The ICLEI Climate Change Sessions provided a strong local government setting for the Conference of the Parties, as well as providing insights into the work of cities on climate change.

The issues of Mitigation, Adaptation, Clean Development Mechanism, Local Renewables,

Climate Risk for Cities, EcoMobility and many other topics were discussed and debated.

The ICLEI Oceania, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) and Indonesian Cities Program attracted attention with Minister Peter Garrett’s, together with the Indonesian Deputy Minister for Environment’s attendance. Minister Garrett’s address provided an auspicious opening to the sessions on Day Two, and contained sentiments of strong support for CCP Australia and to re-establish CCP Indonesia.

The UNFCC Conference and Local Government Climate Change Sessions reflected the importance placed on the role of cities in responding to climate change, reinforcing that local action can make a difference, although much more is needed than is currently being done, and the value of partnerships in making things happen.

International Partnership Opportunities

Local Action in Indonesia

The 'Local Climate Action in Indonesia' session organised by ICLEI Oceania, featured Minister Peter Garrett, Australian Minister for the Environment, and Deputy Minister Masnellyarti Hillman, Indonesia State Ministry for Environment, along with representatives from a number of Indonesian cities. The report back on the work of ICLEI Oceania and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), will assist in the re-establishment of the CCP Indonesia Program this year.

Steve Gawler, CEO of Frankston City Council (Victoria), representatives of Denpasar and Bogor, Mike Allen of REEEP and Stephen Kenihan of ICLEI Oceania reported on the Australia – Indonesia Sustainable Cities Program from an Australian Local Government perspective, to develop capacity within Indonesian cities to reduce the impacts of climate change through increased investment in greenhouse gas abatement, whilst improving social and economic conditions.

Ten cities were involved in the Australia – Indonesia Sustainable Cities Program, and it was felt they could easily pick up their inventories again, albeit with some technical and other assistance. The focus in Indonesia has been on deforestation, and this is critical, as we all know. But Indonesia is a country of great potential, the largest Muslim country, and one that is highly vulnerable to climate change.

A workshop in Bogor preceding the session in Bali, and the earlier work in Indonesia, identified the need to build the capacity of cities to reduce the impacts of climate change, whilst mobilising capital and political support. This will be achieved through effective partnerships combining ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection Program (to enable links with Australian city participants) and REEEP’s innovative finance models.

The next steps involve:

· Planning and working closely with a select group of Indonesian cities to identify the key actions that could be supported by this program;

· Develop a MOU with the Ministry of Environment and ICLEI as requested by Deputy Minister Masnellyarti Hilman;

· Further consult Indonesian NGOs and local government organisations;

· Confirm the details of the COP 13 event following the decision of the Indonesian Ministry;

· Confirm the interest and commitment of Australian cities in this program.

Penrith City Council’s possible involvement in this program will be explored once further information has been received from ICLEI. A further report will be provided on this matter.

World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement

The “World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement” (WMLGCPA) was launched, through which mayors and local governments worldwide can accept the responsibility to lead and take action to combat the dangerous effects of climate change and to prevent further warming of the planet. The agreement was launched by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, the World Mayors Council on Climate Change (WMCCC), United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) and the C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group. It was presented to the high-level plenary of the COP by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Mayor Bärbel Dieckmann of Bonn, Germany.

A copy of the proposed Agreement is provided as an Appendix to this report. It is anticipated that hundreds of cities and local governments world-wide will sign the Agreement over the course of the next two years. The commitments called for are as follows:

1. REDUCE greenhouse gas emissions immediately and significantly. Measure and report on annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and constantly work to increase reductions such that by 2050 greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced worldwide by 60% from 1990 levels and by 80% from 1990 levels in industrialised countries.

2. IMPLEMENT sub-national, national and international frameworks that are complementary and enable local governments by providing resources, authority and sufficient mandate to carry forward these roles and responsibilities.

3. BUILD a sustainable energy economy through energy savings and the application of new and existing renewable and high efficiency technologies, to reduce dependence on fossil and nuclear fuels and aim for lowest-carbon options.

4. EXECUTE climate change adaptation and preparedness measures through local government planning, development and operational mechanisms, prioritising the most vulnerable cities.

5. ADVOCATE that every national delegation participating in the UNFCCC negotiations include local government designated representation to ensure that local climate priorities and actions are included in future negotiations.

6. PERSISTENTLY CALL for national governments to join the international community in undertaking binding carbon limits to rapidly and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short-term and by at least 60% worldwide below 1990 levels by 2050.

It is appropriate that Council carefully consider its response to, and possible adoption of, the Agreement in the context of its existing commitments to greenhouse strategy and its strategic direction of sustainability leadership. It is intended that this matter be referred to the Climate Change Working Party for detailed examination and recommendation, as discussed below.

Proposed Climate Change Leadership Working Party

In response to the major report on the carbon neutral status of Council, which was presented to Council’s Policy Review Committee in 2007, it was resolved that:

· Council continue to advance and accelerate where practicable the implementation of its adopted plans to reduce energy use and greenhouse emissions, according to the priority directions discussed in the report

· A Working Party comprising Councillors Karen McKeown, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler and all interested and available Councillors be established to address the further development of Council’s Sustainability strategies including Carbon Neutral and its leadership role

It is intended to arrange an initial meeting of the Working Party at an early date. Part of the business of that meeting will be to confirm its Terms of Reference. It is suggested that focussing the Working Party’s role on Council’s response to Climate Change (including the Carbon Neutral Plan and greenhouse strategy as well as broader factors affecting the City) would best enable it to play an effective leadership role, both in the present Strategic Program and particularly in the development of this critical area of the next Strategic Plan.

Consideration of major new climate change initiatives and potential commitments in NSW, nationally and internationally, would be part of this role, including assessment and recommendation to Council on the WMLGCPA, as noted above.

Conclusion

The Conference provided a unique opportunity for Council to access and be represented at the local government focussed sessions of the world’s foremost conference on climate change, now recognised as the most critical issue of the age.

The United Nations Conference, with its numerous side events, exhibits and parallel events, provided opportunities to observe statements of national representatives and the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

The ICLEI Local Government parallel sessions covered a range of aspects of the work of cities on climate change across the ICLEI regions around the world.

There are many important directions and programs associated with the Conference that can be drawn upon and reflected in Council’s approach to addressing climate change. Many of these will build on the strategic directions in Council’s Sustainable Penrith program and provide a platform for Council, with advice from the Climate Change Working Party, to take effective action.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on the Local Government Sessions, United Nations Climate Change Conference, Bali, Indonesia, 2007 be received.

2. Consideration of the World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement be referred to the Climate Change Leadership Working Party.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

The World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement

1 Page

Appendix

# 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 2007/2008 Annual Statements are presented
* Meeting at which the Management Plan for 2008/2009 is adopted

Name	Position	Due Date	Date Lodged
Ashlee Cutter	Trainee Environmental Planner	1 February 2008	19 November 2007

1. View	Locality Plan	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Site Plan	1 Page	Appendix
3. View	Elevations	1 Page	Appendix

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Appendix 1 - Locality Plan*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Appendix 2 - Site Plan*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Appendix 3 - Elevations*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*The City in its Environment*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*The City Supported by Infrastructure*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Appendix 1 - Letter of Thanks from Mayor of Baulkham Hills Shire Council*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Appendix 1 - The World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Appendix 1 - Property Matter - Electricity Easement for Padmount Substation on Open Space, Lot 10 DP 832179, The Glenmore Parkway, Glenmore Park*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*4 February 2008*
*Appendix 1 - Property Matter - Proposed Road Closing - Part Mamre Road, Erskine Park*