18 April 2008

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 21 April 2008 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours Faithfully

 

Alan Travers

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           APOLOGIES

 

2.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM - 7 April 2008 to 21 April 2008 inclusive.

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 7 April 2008.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Non-Pecuniary Interest

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

Federal Cabinet makes history in Penrith.

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

8.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 April 2008.

 

9.           MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

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

 

11.         QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

12.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 21 April 2008

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

master program reports

 


Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


Council Chambers Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Text Box: Press

Managers                          

 
   


 

MEETING CALENDAR

February 2008 - December 2008

 

 

TIME

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Ordinary Meetings

7.30 pm

4

10

7

5v

2

14

4

1ü

13^

10

1

25

13 (extra-ordinary)

21

 

23*

 

 

22

20

 

15

Policy Review Committee

7.30 pm

18#+

3

28

19#

16

7

18#+

15@

 

17#

8

 

31@

 

 

 

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

#   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

 

 

1                    Council’s Ordinary Meetings are held on a three-week cycle where practicable.

2                    Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

3                    Policy Review Meetings are held on a three-week cycle where practicable.

4                    Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee).  All meetings start at 7:30pm.

5                    Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Public Officer, Glenn McCarthy on 47327649


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 7 APRIL 2008 AT 7:40PM

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 Kaylene Allison, David Bradbury, Lexie Cettolin, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Susan Page, Garry Rumble, Pat Sheehy AM, Steve Simat and John Thain.

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

A request for leave of absence was received from Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 7 April 2008 to 21 April 2008 inclusive.

 

84  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that leave of absence be granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 7 April 2008 to 21 April 2008 inclusive.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 10 March 2008

85  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 10 March 2008 be confirmed.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Extraordinary Council Meeting - 13 March 2008

86  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting of 13 March 2008 be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Cr Karen McKeown Elected as ALGWA Secretary                                                        

87  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the Mayoral Minute on Cr Karen McKeown Elected as ALGWA Secretary  be received.

 

2        Announcement of the Winner of the Name the Water Dragon Competition                  

88  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the Mayoral Minute on Announcement of the Winner of the Name the Water Dragon Competition  be received.

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 31 March 2008 

89  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 31 March, 2008 be adopted.

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

1        2009 Ulysses Motor Cycle Club Annual General Meeting                                             

90  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Susan Page

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2009 Ulysses Motor Cycle Club Annual General Meeting be received.

2.     Council approve the attendance of the Mayor at the Ulysses AGM in Townsville 30 May to 1 June 2008 to promote the 2009 event in Penrith Valley.

3.     On adoption of the 2008-9 budget, a payment of $35,000 from funds allocated to supporting events be made to the organisers of the Ulysses 2009 AGM, be approved. 

4.     A risk management plan be prepared to address any inclement weather issues that may affect the holding of this event.

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

2        Southern Sudanese Settlement in the Penrith LGA                                                         

91  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That

1.     The information contained in the report on Southern Sudanese Settlement in the Penrith LGA be received.

2.     The report be made available in all Council Libraries.

3.     The report be made available to schools where Southern Sudanese children attend and that a copy of the report be provided to all organisations included in the Refugee Coalition.

 

3        Community and Cultural Development Department - Projects and Key Achievements - 1 July to 30 December 2007                                                                                                                   

92  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the information contained in the report on Community and Cultural Development Department - Projects and Key Achievements - 1 July to 30 December 2007 be received.

 

4        Establishment of the Penrith Community Filipino School                                                 

93  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Establishment of the Penrith Community Filipino School be received.

2.     The amount of $1,766, funded equally from North, South and East Ward voted works be allocated to the establishment of the Penrith Community Filipino School for a twelve month period.

 

5        The Healthy Penrith Program                                                                                            

94  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Garry Rumble seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the information contained in the report on The Healthy Penrith Program be received.

 

6        Status of Victoria Park Landscaping                                                                                 

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

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Status of Victoria Park Landscaping be received.

 

2.   The Masterplan approved by Council in 2004 be implemented utilising funds identified in the Section 94 Local Open Space Developer Contributions Plan and that the remaining work be nominated for consideration through subsequent Project Evaluation processes.

3.   A further urgent report be presented to Council on the Schedule of Works and the timeframe for this, as well as providing information on any renovations for the memorial bandstand or rotunda that may have been planned.

 

7        Erskine Business Park (Section 94) Development Contributions Plan                           

96  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Erskine Business Park (Section 94) Development Contributions Plan be received.

2.     Council adopt the Erskine Business Park Development Contributions Plan 2008 as attached to this report.

3.     Those persons who made submissions on the draft Plan be advised of Council’s decision.

 

8        The Australian Chapter of the Alliance for Healthy Cities - National Forum and Meeting 7 - 9 May 2008                                                                                                                                             

97  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Lexie Cettolin

That:

 1.    The information contained in the report on The Australian Chapter of the Alliance for Healthy Cities - National Forum and Meeting 7 - 9 May 2008 be received.

2.     Councillor Garry Rumble, along with any other interested Councillors, be given the opportunity to attend the National Forum and Meeting of the Australian Chapter of the Alliance for Healthy Cities, to be held on 7-9 May 2008.

 

 

The City In Its Environment

 

9        Tender 10-07/08 Ropes & South Creek Rehabilitation Works                                       

98  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender 10-07/08 Ropes & South Creek Rehabilitation Works be received.

2.     A Contract be awarded to Greening Australia NSW for Ropes & South Creek Rehabilitation works, incorporating community education and awareness, as detailed in the report.

3.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to all relevant documentation, if required.

 

The City as an Economy

 

10      Young Achievement Australia Business Skills Program                                                  

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

That:

 1.    The information contained in the report on Young Achievement Australia Business Skills Program be received.

2.     A further urgent report be presented to Council addressing matters raised by Councillor Pat Sheehy AM, including further information on independent evaluation of the program.

 

11      CLAIR Forum 2008                                                                                                            

100  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor David Bradbury

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on CLAIR Forum 2008 be received.

2.     Councillor Jackie Greenow represent Council at the 2008 CLAIR Forum to be held on Friday 11 April 2008 in Rotorua, New Zealand.

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

12      Best Practice Grants Management Conference                                                               

101  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Best Practice Grants Management Conference be received.

2.     Acknowledgement and congratulations be extended to Ray Richardson on his election, in November 2007, as Chair of the NSW Grants Network.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13      Personnel Matter                                                                                               909/91 Pt9

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

That:

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

 2.    Council congratulate the Director – City Strategy on his appointment to the position of General Manager, to become effective on 2 July 2008.

 

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

QWN 1      Food Safety Program - Inspection Fees                                                                   

Councillor Susan Page requested a memo reply detailing the breakdown of the administration cost component which appears on the inspection fee invoices for the Food Safety Program.

 

QWN 2      Hire of Harold Corr Hall by Nepalese Community of Western Sydney                

Councillor Pat Sheehy AM requested that the amount of $400, for the hire of the Harold Corr Hall by the Nepalese Community of Western Sydney, for its annual event on 12 April 2008, be funded equally from North, South and East Ward voted works.

 

103  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Garry Rumble 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.

 

104  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Garry Rumble that the amount of $400, for the hire of the Harold Corr Hall by the Nepalese Community of Western Sydney, for its annual event on 12 April 2008, be funded equally from North, South and East Ward voted works.

 

QWN 3      Werrington Creek                                                                                                     

Councillor Pat Sheehy AM requested that an amount of $14,650 from North Ward voted works be allocated to providing a link from the new bridge and pathway to Victoria Street and the old path that runs along the creek to Burton Street, in the Werrington Creek area.

 

105  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM 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.

 


 

106  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that an amount of $14,650 from North Ward voted works be allocated to providing a link from the new bridge and pathway to Victoria Street and the old path that runs along the creek to Burton Street, in the Werrington Creek area.

 

QWN 4      Availability of HSC Texts at Penrith City Library                                                  

Councillor David Bradbury requested a report to Council regarding the establishment of a closed reserve section of the Library for HSC texts.

 

QWN 5      Car Park behind St Marys Hotel, Queen Street, St Marys                                   

Councillor David Bradbury requested a memo reply outlining the status of the car park behind the St Marys Hotel in Queen Street, St Marys.

 

QWN 6      Property Maintenance - Werrington County Children's Centre                            

Councillor David Bradbury requested a memo reply in response to a resident’s concerns regarding community safety in the vicinity of the Werrington County Children’s Centre, in particular broken glass which has been scattered around the ramp and steps to the Centre.

 

QWN 7      Arms of Australia Inn                                                                                               

Councillor David Bradbury requested a report to Council on the future of the Arms of Australia Inn, the report to advise Councillors of any proposals brought forward by the Nepean District Historical Society.

 

QWN 8      Access Issues - Jamison Park Netball Courts                                                        

Councillor David Bradbury requested a memo reply concerning safety issues raised by a resident with regard to access to Jamison Park Netball Courts. 

 

QWN 9      Cobbity Avenue, Werrington Downs                                                                       

Councillor David Bradbury requested a memo reply regarding issues raised by a resident of Cobbity Avenue, Werrington Downs, concerning rubbish and long grass at No. 15 Cobbity Avenue, and also concerning overgrown trees and holes in the road in Cobbity Avenue.

 

QWN 10    Playing Fields at Brookfield Avenue, Cambridge Gardens                                    

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council on the feasibility of the playing fields located on Brookfield Avenue, Cambridge Gardens being reserved for use by the local Henry Lawson / Cambridge Park Junior Rugby League Football Club and also by the Henry Lawson Cricket Club and the Henry Lawson Football (Soccer) Club, noting that the Rugby League Club intends to apply for a Capital Grant to develop the area.

 

 

 

 

QWN 11    Castlereagh Area - Maintenance of Road Verges                                                 

Councillor John Thain requested a memo reply addressing the slashing of grass verges in the Castlereagh area, as the grass is now too long to walk through, necessitating pedestrians using the road. 

 

QWN 12    Victoria Bridge - Nepean River                                                                               

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council on options for celebrating the 150 year anniversary of the spanning of the Nepean River with the Victoria Bridge, possibly by way of a festival.

 

QWN 13    Play Equipment - Lincoln Drive, Cambridge Park                                                  

Councillor John Thain requested an urgent memo reply seeking advice as to when the play equipment at the park in Lincoln Drive, Cambridge Park will be upgraded.

 

QWN 14    Penrith Station Bus Interchange                                                                              

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the problem of insufficient layover areas for buses at the Penrith Station interchange.

 

QWN 15    Local History Matter                                                                                                

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that local historical information received by him from Mr John Byrnes be forwarded to Council’s Information Librarian for further reference and enquiry of issues raised.

 

QWN 16    Victoria Bridge - Safety Issues                                                                                

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested a memo reply concerning safety issues relating to Victoria Bridge, in particular the narrowness of the roadway and footpath.

 

QWN 17    Telstra Service Pit - Derby Street, Penrith                                                             

Councillor Garry Rumble requested a memo reply concerning the need for urgent repair to a collapsed Telstra service pit on the footpath outside 187 Derby Street, Penrith. 

 

QWN 18    Tourism Conference - Lismore 2008                                                                       

Councillor Garry Rumble requested a report to Council by the officer that attended the Tourism Conference held in Lismore this year, outlining the outcomes of Council’s involvement in this function.

 

QWN 19    Castlereagh Public School Centenary                                                                      

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that an amount of $400 from North Ward voted works be allocated to the cost of hall hire for  the Castlereagh Public School Centenary celebrations.

 


 

107  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy AM 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.

 

108  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy AM that an amount of $400 from North Ward voted works be allocated to the cost of hall hire for the Castlereagh Public School Centenary celebrations.

 

QWN 20    Section 94 Contributions                                                                                           

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report to the next Council meeting providing details of the Section 94 contributions for parks, and addressing the notification of costs to applicants.

 

QWN 21    'Sailability' Activities at Penrith Lakes                                                                   

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested a memo reply detailing the cost of providing a four-man boat to be used for the Sailability program, and also the feasibility and cost of providing a concrete ramp/path to the water from the boat shed.

 

QWN 22    Carsons Lane - Construction Zone                                                                          

Councillor Greg Davies requested an urgent report to the next Council meeting concerning the Carsons Lane (DoCs) construction zone and access to the car park.

 

 

Councillor Steve Simat left the meeting at 8:54 pm and did not return.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

109  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Susan Page that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:55 pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre            

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lease of Shop 7, Fast Food Takeaway at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre                                                                                                                 

 

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

 

The meeting resumed at 9:02 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:55 pm on 7 April 2008, the following being present

 

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

 

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 - Council Property - Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre            

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison

CW2 That:

1.         The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Council Property - Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre be received.

2.         Council call Expressions of Interest (EOI) for the redevelopment of Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre with a view to its sale.

3.         The EOI documentation incorporate economic, social, planning and environmental objectives for the Centre and the surrounding precinct, bounded by Borrowdale Way, Laycock and Hosking Streets.

4.         Consultants be engaged to assist with development of EOI documentation, the redevelopment and sale process, consultation with relevant stakeholders, assessment of potential developers and feasibility analysis of the offers received.

5.         Council’s intentions in regard to the redevelopment and potential sale of the Centre be made known to the Centre’s tenants, the Cranebrook Neighbourhood Advisory Board, owners and occupants of other land in the precinct and other relevant stakeholders.

6.         Council’s Community Participation Policy be used to guide consultation with the local community.

 

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lease of Shop 7, Fast Food Takeaway at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre                                                                                                                 

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Susan Page

          CW3 That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lease of Shop 7, Fast Food Takeaway at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre be received.

2.      Council grant Ivupheng & Ly Chrun an initial rent reduction as outlined in the report.

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

110  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy AM seconded Councillor Lexie Cettolin that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2 and CW3 be adopted.

 

 

Sir Ian Turbott Honorary Citizen Reception

 

111  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Pat Sheehy AM that letters of congratulations from the Mayor be forwarded to all staff involved in the organisation of the Sir Ian Turbott Honorary Citizen Reception held on Saturday night, 5 April 2008.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:09 pm.

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Public Officer or Minute Clerk will speak to those people who have requested permission to address the meeting, prior to the meeting at 7.15pm.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                       

   


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Federal Cabinet makes history in Penrith

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

Leadership and Organisation

 

Mayoral Minute

Federal Cabinet makes history in Penrith

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

         

 

It was an extremely proud moment when on behalf of our 180,000 residents I welcomed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Penrith on Tuesday. Not only was the national media spotlight on our City, but history was made when for the first time Federal Cabinet was held outside a Federal Government building, in these Council Chambers.

 

The opportunity for 500 western Sydney locals to then see and hear the Prime Minister and Ministers at Jamison High School was significant and demonstrates that Penrith is well and truly on the national agenda. This builds upon our regional and state importance, evidenced by the State Government holding two State Cabinet meetings at Penrith in recent years, 2005 and 2006.

 

Penrith was selected for its important regional role as heart of the Greater Western Sydney region which has a $71 billion economy, a quarter of the Gross Regional Product of NSW.

 

The event is only the third ‘Community Cabinet’ since the Rudd government was sworn in earlier this year and the first to be held in NSW and it was pleasing to be in the school auditorium and observe how the City presented itself to Cabinet.

 

I had the opportunity to speak with the Prime Minister on a number of topics important to our City and also present him with two copies of The History of Penrith for the Parliamentary Library. Following on from the PM’s recent visit to Beijing, I was also able to discuss our Council’s own partnership in Beijing, our Mutual Co-operation Agreement with the financial capital, Xicheng and the upcoming 10th anniversary of this agreement.

 

Two major policy announcements were also made on the day; Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, announced funding to purchase a new aquatic weed harvester for the Hawkesbury Nepean River; and the PM and Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen announced a National Fuelwatch scheme.

 

I was able to express to the Prime Minister our Council’s enthusiasm at working closely with the Federal Government and the resulting opportunities and benefits this will bring for our community. A pack containing important information on Penrith, together with the identified Penrith ‘issues’ papers were distributed to the Prime Minister and Ministers.

 

 

 

 

 

Greg Davies

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

 

1.   The Mayoral Minute on Federal Cabinet makes history in Penrith be received.

 

2.   Council thank the Prime Minister and Cabinet for choosing Penrith as the venue for the first Community Cabinet meeting in New South Wales and the Civic Centre as the venue for the first Cabinet meeting held outside of a Federal Government building.

 

3.   Council thank the local member, David Bradbury, for his assistance with both the Community Cabinet and Cabinet meetings being held in Penrith.

 

4.   Council thank Jamison High School and singer Nicholas Gentile for contributing to the success of the Community Cabinet meeting.

 

 

  


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 April 2008

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 7 April, 2008

 

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton - Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Councillor McKeown – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Councillor Sheehy – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Sergeant Natasha Crawford – Penrith Police, Constable Chris Jayne – Penrith Police, James Suprain – Roads and Traffic Authority, David Lance - Roads and Traffic Authority.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Sharon Maddox – Road Safety Co-ordinator, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Michael Pruss – Westbus, Noel Fuller – Co-ordinator, Ranger Services.

 

APOLOGIES

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greenow, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys/Regentville Police.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 3 March 2008

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 3 March 2008 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

1        Stafford Street & Somerset Street, Kingswood - Sight Distance Problems                    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Stafford Street & Somerset Street, Kingswood - Sight Distance Problems be received.

2.     Affected residents at numbers 50, 52 and 43 Stafford Street be consulted in relation to the loss of on-street parking, with any major objections reported back to the Local Traffic Committee.

3.     Subject to no major objections being received, the existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the northern and southern sides of Stafford Street, west of Somerset Street, be extended an additional 30m west of their present locations.

4.     Subject to no major objections being received, the ‘Give Way’ signs and associated linemarking on Somerset Street, at the intersection with Stafford Street, be changed to ‘Stop’ signs, with associated linemarking.

5.     The intersection of Stafford Street and Somerset Street, Kingswood be prioritised to determine suitability for the next State and Federal Government Black Spot funding submissions in the later part of this year.

6.     Council request Penrith Police to carry out speeding enforcement in Stafford Street, Kingswood

7.     The resident be advised.

 

 

2        St Andrews Drive, Glenmore Park - Request for Relocation of 'Kiss & Ride' Zone     

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on St Andrews Drive, Glenmore Park - Request for Relocation of 'Kiss & Ride' Zone be received.

2.     The current configuration of bus and ‘Kiss & Ride’ zones remain in place.

3.     The resident be advised.

4.     The Principal of Surveyors Creek Public School be advised.

 

 

3        William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park - Request to Extend 'No Stopping' Zone           

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park - Request to Extend 'No Stopping' Zone be received.

2.     The affected resident at 49 William Howell Drive be consulted in relation to the loss of on-street parking, with any major objections reported back to the Local Traffic Committee.

3.     Subject  to no major objections being received, ‘No Stopping 8.00am-9.30am & 2.30pm-4.00pm School Days’ signage be installed on the western side of William Howell Drive, immediately north of the existing ‘No Stopping’ zone for a distance of approximately 30m and extending 10m west in Marcus Clarke Crescent (south).

4.     The resident be advised.

5.     The Principal of Bethany Catholic Primary School be advised and requested to inform parents/carers of the changes in signage through the school newsletter.

 

 

4        William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park - Request to Change Existing Parking Restrictions   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park - Request to Change Existing Parking Restrictions be received.

2.     The 20m of ‘5-Minute Parking 8.00am-9.00am & 2.00pm-3.00pm School Days’ be converted to ‘No Parking 8.00am-9.00am & 2.00pm-3.00pm School Days’ on a three-month trial basis.

3.     Council’s Traffic & Road Safety Section be given authority to remove the signage at any time within the trial period should it be considered to be having an adverse effect on safety or traffic flow.

4.     The length of ‘5-Minute Parking 8.00am-9.00am & 2.00pm-3.00pm School Days’ zones at the eastern end of Morrison Street be converted to unrestricted parking.

5.     A further report be presented to the Local Traffic Committee meeting to advise of results of the trial ‘Kiss & Ride’ zone.

6.     The school be provided with educational material regarding the operation of ‘Kiss & Ride’ zones.

7.     The Principal of Bethany Catholic Primary School, Glenmore Park Resident Action Group and Council’s Coordinator, Ranger Services be advised.

 

 

5        Rance Road, Werrington - Request for Provision of Traffic Calming Device                

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Rance Road, Werrington - Request for Provision of Traffic Calming Device be received.

2.     The double barrier linemarking on Rance Road be extended for approximately 35m west into Railway Street, with a break to be provided in the linemarking to allow vehicles to turn into Railway Street.

3.     Give Way’ signage and 30m of double barrier linemarking be installed on the eastern end of Railway Street at the intersection of Rance Road.

4.     A further speed classification to be carried out three months after the installation of the signage and linemarking, and any significant increase in the 85th percentile speed to be reported back to the Local Traffic Committee.

5.     The resident be advised.

 

 

6        Greygums Road & Andrews Road, Cranebrook - Proposed Provision of Intersection Control                                                                                                                                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Greygums Road & Andrews Road, Cranebrook - Proposed Provision of Intersection Control be received.

2.     The intersection of Andrews Road and Greygums Road, Cranebrook be prioritised to determine suitability for the next State and Federal Government Black Spot funding submissions in the later part of this year.

3.     Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM be advised.

 

 

7        The Northern Road & Star Court, Cambridge Gardens - Proposed Provision of Intersection Control                                                                                                                                

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on The Northern Road & Star Court, Cambridge Gardens - Proposed Provision of Intersection Control be received

2.     The intersection of The Northern Road and Star Court, Cambridge Gardens be prioritised to determine suitability for the next State and Federal Government Black Spot funding submissions in the later part of this year.

3.     The RTA be requested to upgrade this intersection from its funds should the Black Spot funding submission be proven unsuccessful, or the treatment be costed above the $750,000 limit of this program.

4.     Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM be advised.

 

 

8        Gidley Street, St Marys - Proposed Installation of 'No Stopping' Restrictions             

Prior to the meeting, representations were received from the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greenow, requesting that the Local Traffic Committee consider how many cars would be displaced and that consideration be given to provision of a marked parking scheme.  The Committee considered that only two vehicles would be displaced by this proposal, which would be of minimum impact, and that a marked parking scheme is not warranted as generally parked vehicles are not obstructing driveways or parking illegally.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Gidley Street, St Marys - Proposed Installation of 'No Stopping' Restrictions be received.

2.     Full-time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be provided 4m west and 8m east of the Mission Australia Family Day Care Centre driveway and full-time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be provided around both corners of the Gidley Street and King Street intersection, 10m from the nearest point of an intersecting road at the intersection.

3.     Councillor Mark Davies, Mission Australia St Marys/Penrith Family Day Care and the resident at 39 King Street, St Marys be advised.

 

 

9        Cox Avenue, Kingswood - Sight Distance Problems From Driveway                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Cox Avenue, Kingswood - Sight Distance Problems From Driveway be received.

2.     ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be provided along the frontage of 48 Cox Avenue, Kingswood, starting adjacent the eastern boundary to 3.0m west of the western boundary.

3.     The resident be advised accordingly.

 

 

10      Greygums Road, Cranebrook - Provision of Traffic Calming Devices                           

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Greygums Road, Cranebrook - Provision of Traffic Calming Devices be received.

2.     The design plan for a slow point on Greygums Road, Cranebrook, including associated signage and linemarking, be finalised and endorsed for construction.

 

 

11      Maxwell Street & Birmingham Road, South Penrith - Proposed Construction of Roundabout                                                                                                                                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Maxwell Street & Birmingham Road, South Penrith - Proposed Construction of Roundabout be received.

2.     The concept design plan for a roundabout and associated refuge island at the corner of Maxwell Street and Birmingham Road, South Penrith be approved in principle with the final design brought back to the Local Traffic Committee for formal approval.

3.     The applicant be requested to investigate provision of a gap in the median island on the western side of the roundabout in Maxwell Street.

4.     The applicant be requested to investigate provision of pedestrian fencing east of the roundabout adjacent to the splitter island in Maxwell Street, both sides, for a distance of approximately 10m.

5.     The applicant be requested to liaise with Westbus and Council to determine an appropriate location for the bus shelter.

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

 

GB 1          Penrith Railway Station Interchange – Request for Provision of Additional Bus Layover Areas  (Raised Councillor McKeown)                                                                                        

Councillor McKeown raised a request, on behalf of a resident, for the provision of additional bus layover areas at the Penrith Railway Station interchange to enable bus drivers to park during meal breaks or long turn-around periods.

RECOMMENDED

That the matter be referred to the Ministry of Transport for investigation.

 

 

GB 2          Beacroft Place, Cranebrook – Request for Additional Vehicle Access  (Raised Penrith Police)      

The Penrith Police representative raised concerns about the safety of emergency service personnel when trying to exit Beacroft Place, Cranebrook after attending an incident in this street.  Sergeant Crawford advised that the only point of exit from Beacroft Place for emergency service vehicles is to conduct a turn, which does not allow for a quick exit when necessary to chase offenders, etc.  The Police asked whether it would be possible to open up another access point onto McHenry Road.

RECOMMENDED

That Council investigate the matter and liaise with Penrith Police.

 

GB 3          Forrester Road, St Marys – Request for Provision of Parking Restrictions  (Raised Westbus)

The Westbus representative advised that the bus shelter in Forrester Road, St Marys, on the north side of the St Marys Railway Station is being used every ½ hour.  He advised that Westbus has had reports of bus drivers experiencing difficulty completing turning movements due to vehicles being parked in the turnaround area.

RECOMMENDED

That the matter be investigated.

 

GB 4          Peppertree Drive, Erskine Park – Signage near James Erskine Public School  (Raised Council)   

Council’s Road Safety Co-ordinator advised that Council has received a complaint regarding confusion over signage located in the vicinity of James Erskine Public School on Peppertree Drive, Erskine Park.  A site inspection showed numerous issues with missing and incorrect signage.

 

RECOMMENDED

    That:

1.   The ‘No Stopping’ sign located on the southern side of Peppertree Drive, 7m south of the eastern crossing, be relocated a further 20m east of its present location to the eastern side of the driveway of the Neighbourhood Centre.

2.   ‘No Stopping’ signs be installed 5m either side of the school driveway on Peppertree Drive, Erskine Park.

3.   The ‘No Stopping 8.00am-9.30am & 2.00pm-3.30pm School Days’ signage on the east and west corners of Capella Street and Peppertree Drive, and Phoenix Crescent (east) and Peppertree Drive be changed to ‘No Stopping’ to comply with the Australian Road Rules.

4.   Additional bidirectional ‘No Stopping’ signage be installed on the corner of Phoenix Crescent (east) and Peppertree Drive to connect with the existing ‘No Stopping’ signage associated with the western crossing.

5.   The affected residents be advised.

 

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 10.25am.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 April, 2008 be adopted.

 

 

  



 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

1        Status on the Planning Reforms and the Release of the Exposure Draft Bills

 

The City as a Social Place

 

2        Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool 

 

3        Assistance Towards Amateur Sportspersons and Representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture - Overseas and Interstate Travel including results gained by recipients

 

4        Western Sydney Employment Hub - Public Exhibition of draft SEPP (Western Sydney Employment Hub) 2008 and draft Erskine Park Link Road Network Plan

 

5        Variation to 88B Instrument for Lot 804 DP 1068323 (No. 16 - 21) Belleview Avenue, Mt Vernon. Applicant: Renata Bacic;  Owner: Renata Bacic DA07/1288

 

6        Section 94 Contributions for Dual Occupancies

 

7        Development Application DA07/0742 for the use of an existing school hall as a Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Corpus Christi Parish;  Owner: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church DA07/0742

  

The City as an Economy

 

8        Young Achievement Australia Business Skills Program

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

9        Tender 16-07/08 Relocation of Water Mains at Caddens Road, Claremont Meadows

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

10      Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

11      Update on Local Government Elections - 13 September 2008

 

12      Amendments to the 2008 Meeting Calendar

 

13      Council Property - Leasing of parts of "Community" land under Council's Plan of Management to Scouts Australia over three Open Space parcels of land

 

14      Memorandum of Understanding between Blue Mountains City Council and Penrith City Council

 

15      City Operations Directorate Report to end of March 2008

 

16      Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 March to 31 March 2008 and an  Agency Collection Method 

 

 


The City in its Broader Context

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Status on the Planning Reforms and the Release of the Exposure Draft Bills

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

1

Status on the Planning Reforms and the Release of the Exposure Draft Bills   

 

Compiled by:                Liza Cordoba, Senior Environmental Planner

Steve Barratt, Building Regulatory Coordinator

Authorised by:             Ruth Goldsmith, Local Planning Manager

Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Roger Nethercote, Environmental 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 on the recently released Exposure Draft Bills amending the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and Building Professionals Act, and the implications likely to arise from the proposed legislative changes.  The report also incorporates Councillor Page's request for a report on the outcomes of the Leader's Forum, held on 30 January 2008, in relation to the planning reforms.  The report recommends that the concerns raised in this report be incorporated in a submission to the Minister for Planning to the Exposure Draft Bills.

 

Background

In November 2007, the NSW State Government released a discussion paper, titled ‘Improving the Planning System in NSW’, which outlines the latest reforms in an ongoing reform agenda.  The measures outlined in the discussion paper are intended to complement previous reforms and lead to significantly reduced processing times for Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and Development Applications (DAs), particularly small scale applications.

 

Also in November 2007, the Department of Planning issued a planning circular which foreshadowed a series of changes to the way in which development contributions would be levied, including Section 94 charges.  A number of these gave rise to concerns about Councils’ ability to continue to levy for district based or city-wide recreation and community facilities, the potential capping of contributions which can be charged and the potential requirement to pass Section 94 levies collected to the State Government.

 

The Government stated that it intends to finalise the reforms early this year, and enact the legislation to implement them by mid-2008.

 

On 30 January 2008, a Leader’s Forum was conducted by the Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA) regarding the planning reforms.  This was attended by the Mayor, Councillor Page, the General Manager, the Director ~ City Strategy and Director ~ City Planning.  At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

“1.    That the meeting supports the actions of the Presidents and Executives of the Local Government and Shires Associations in mounting a campaign on the NSW Government’s proposed planning changes, including both the issue of section 94 developer contributions and the recommendations in the Government’s discussion paper, and preparing an alternative reform package as a basis for discussion with the Government, councils, stakeholders and the community.

 

  2.     The meeting calls on all NSW councils to refuse to cooperate with the NSW Government if requested to transfer section 94 funds held in trust by councils, to the Government.

 

  3.     The meeting supports in principle the proposal that the Associations seek contributions from member councils towards the costs of engaging high level lobbying and media representation to formulate and assist with the implementation of a continuing public campaign.”

 

A report commenting on the implications of the proposed reforms, as outlined in the discussion paper, was reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 4 February 2008.  That report formed the basis of Council’s submission to the Department of Planning on the Discussion Paper.  The consultation to the discussion paper closed on 8 February 2008.

 

The LGSA’s media campaign to the planning reforms, particularly Section 94 contributions, included ‘Local Government’s open letter to the Premier’ and various articles in metropolitan and regional newspapers.

 

On 18 March 2008, the Department released the ‘Independent Report on Submissions from the Public Exhibition of the Discussion Paper’.  This report summarised the issues raised, and did not provide any comments or recommendations responding to the issues raised.

 

On 3 April 2008, the Department released the Planning Reforms Draft Exposure Bills for comment.  These Bills refer to the draft Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 and draft Building Professionals Amendment Bill 2008, and outlines wide-ranging changes to the State’s planning system including:

·        Streamlining the plan-making process

·        Creating an independent assessment regime for large projects

·        Improved rights in the review of development proposals

·        Tougher rules and penalties for accredited certifiers, and

·        A more accountable developer contribution system.

 

A submission to the Department of Planning on the Draft Exposure Bills is being prepared, and must be submitted by Thursday, 24 April 2008.

 

On 11 April 2008, the LGSA launched the ‘Keep it Local’ campaign, in opposition to some of the State Government’s proposed planning changes, and expanding on work already done by the Associations, in response to a resolution of councils at the Leaders Forum on 30 January 2008.  The ‘Keep it Local’ campaign is aimed towards residents to ensure that local communities are aware of how the changes will impact on them, with the aim of convincing the State Government to amend the draft legislation.

 

The media release and accompanying brochure from the LGSA is attached to this report.

Planning Reforms Draft Exposure Bills

The Draft Exposure Bills primarily refer to proposed changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act), Heritage Act and the Building Professionals Act.  These provisions make reference to likely changes in the relevant Regulations, however these are not incorporated in the current round of Bills.

 

From our reading of the Draft Exposure Bills, a number of the issues raised in Council’s submission to the discussion paper do not appear to have been resolved in the proposed legislative changes.  These include:

·        Drafting and introducing a new Act that encapsulates recent changes in planning practice and current issues in planning which were unknown when the original planning legislation was first drafted (including climate change; sustainability ~ economic, social and environmental; and environmental protection).

·        Reforms are focussed on process improvements rather than the quality of the outcome.  Process should not be the only performance monitor for local government.

·        Development of a planning performance rating scheme for local government which is allied to a sliding scale of reforms instead of introducing a ‘one-size fits all approach’, that is those councils which are underperforming could be subject to the imposition of particular reforms targeted at addressing the problem.

·        Retaining the consultation process for all aspects of the plan-making process including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), with the level of consultation reflecting the type and complexity of the draft LEP or SEPP.

 

The draft Bills additionally do not provide all the detail as the proposed provisions imply future changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation or the introduction of new State Environmental Planning Policies, Department Circulars or Practice Notes which have not yet been published.

 

The main elements of the reforms and our assessment of the key issues are outlined in the following sections of the report.

 

1.    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 draft Bill proposes replacement of all provisions currently applying to LEPs.

 

Council’s submission raised concern that the review focused solely on procedural improvements, without considering whether these will deliver a sustainable and equitable planning system, and quality planning outcomes.  The draft Bill does not address this concern, and continues to focus on process changes.

 

The requirement for Councils to submit to the Department of Planning a justification report, explaining why a proposed instrument (known as the ‘planning proposal’) is needed, is not a new approach.  The details required in the justification report, however, are now significantly more onerous, including requirements for –

·        A statement of the objectives or intended outcomes of the proposed instrument,

·        An explanation of the provisions to be included in the proposed instrument,

·        A justification for those objectives, outcomes and provisions and the process for their implementation,

·        The maps to be adopted by the proposed instrument (copy and list of maps), and the details of the community consultation.

 

The justification report represents a significant amount of work, as it is essentially the preparation of a full draft LEP, plus an explanation of why it is necessary and the impact it will have.  This work will need to be carried out prior to formal consultation with any government authority, or approval from the Department to prepare the plan.

 

Streamlining the plan making process and the new determination role of the Minister will also change the way councils consult with their local communities, the relevant State/ Commonwealth authorities and agencies, service authorities and other interested parties.  For example, under Section 62 of the EP&A Act, other authorities/agencies were previously consulted as the studies that would inform the preparation of the plan were commenced.  The draft Bill will now require consultation with relevant authorities/agencies to occur concurrently with the community, but only after the Minister has –

1.  Reviewed the planning proposal, and

2.  Determined the level of consultation to be undertaken.

 

There are no timeframes specified for consultation, however the consultation period is likely to be set as the minimum period.  Nonetheless, given that the plan-making process is likely to have targeted timeframes for completion (being gazettal of the LEP), it may be difficult to undertake a more comprehensive consultation let alone having an extended consultation period.  The Bill includes a number of statements about when a particular part of the process is deemed to be completed, and indicates strongly that timeframes will be set for completion of the various stages.

 

Community consultation is a fundamental and inalienable part of the system, which is particularly so in the plan making process as it introduces policy directions that will guide development and enhance economic growth.  There is still uncertainty about the actual nature and extent of the proposed consultation process, and this will be reinforced by the expectations of our communities to be consulted.  Further discussions regarding the proposed process will be needed with the Department.

 

The draft Local Environmental Plan (being the legal instrument) will not necessarily be publicly exhibited nor will it be drafted by council officers, but is now proposed to be drafted by the Department, after consultations has been completed.  In some cases, only a summary of the proposed provisions is required to be exhibited, potentially limiting the community’s understanding of the detail of the proposal.

 

The Bill has increased the Minister’s role in the plan making process, particularly in ensuring that rezoning proposals are completed through to gazettal of the draft LEP.  Council cannot, after consultation, call a halt to the process or resolve not to proceed with the draft LEP without referring the matter to the Minister for his determination.  Additionally, if the Minister considers there is a delay in the plan making process (or for any other reason the Minister feels appropriate), he may refer the planning proposal to a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) or a Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for review and / or completion.  This approach will further diminish Council’s control over the LEP making process, as Council cannot decide to stop an LEP process, and now the proposed focus is on advancing the process, rather than pursuing quality outcomes which may require further discussions and negotiations with affected parties.

 

A new provision has been introduced to ensure that, if it is found that procedural errors have occurred during the plan making process, the LEP is not invalidated once it is made.  This provision is a ‘catch-all’, however this approach seems to anticipate that there will be issues relating to the ‘due diligence’ of the plan making process.

 

Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) and State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

Under the Draft Bill, current Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) will become ‘deemed environmental planning instruments’.  Matters of a regional issue may be incorporated in new State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPPs) or in the case of existing REPs, provisions will need to be incorporated into Council’s comprehensive LEP.  Current REPs, such as Sydney REP 13 (Mulgoa Valley) will be incorporated in Stage 1 of Penrith’s new Local Plan.  Sydney REP 20 (Hawkesbury-Nepean River) currently applies to a number of councils including Penrith.  Given the timing of when the Bill comes into effect, discussions will need to occur with the Department about the incorporation of REP 20 provisions into each council’s comprehensive LEP, particularly in Stage 2 of Penrith Local Plan.

 

SEPPs will continue to exist as the environmental planning instruments that are prepared by the Department of Planning.  However, there is still no statutory obligation to consult prior to the making of a SEPP.  This approach continues the existing multiple layers of plans.  SEPPs should be also included in each Council’s Citywide LEP.

 

Summary of key concerns –

·        The revised LEP plan making provisions are focused on making the process faster, but do not commit to, or ensure the delivery of, quality planning outcomes

·        The revised LEP plan making provisions do not detail the requirements for community consultation processes, however with the current focus on advancing the process quickly, there are concerns that there may be restrictive timeframes imposed on community consultations, rather than a minimum period.

·        The justification report represents a significant amount of work ‘up-front’ for councils, prior to approval from the Department to prepare the draft plan

·        The LEP will be referred to an independent body if the Minister decides there have been delays in the process (or for other reasons)

·        The Department’s ability to continue to make SEPPs, without consultation, reinforces the existing multiple layers of plans that were intended to be streamlined through these planning reforms.

 

 

2.    Development Assessment

A key area of the current reforms is responding to the perceived ‘delays in development assessment’.

 

Determination and review of applications

A significant change in the DA assessment and determination process is the expansion of the current two-tier consent authority (the Minister for Part 3A applications and Council for all other developments, excluding the Land and Environment Court in regard to appeals) to a five tier process based on the complexity and value of the development:

1.    Part 3A Applications to remain with the Minister or delegated to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC).

2.    Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPP) may be established by councils as a consent authority, however there are no details on the type of developments that will be determined by the JRPP.  If established, the JRPP may, at the Minister’s request, advise the Minister on planning or development matters relevant/applicable to that region. 

Although councils have the option to establish a JRPP or not, the Minister may also confer the functions of a JRPP on a council in a similar way to a planning administrator or planning assessment panel, as has occurred in Ku-ring-gai and Burwood Councils.

The membership of a JRPP will be 3 appropriately qualified persons appointed by the Minister, and 2 members nominated by council.  The chairperson of the JRPP is appointed by the Minister.

3.    Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) may be established by councils where an aspect of a DA or a planning matter is assessed by the IHAP.  The main differences with the establishment and operation of IHAP as proposed relates to the role of:

·         The Director-General in approving members that may sit in IHAPs (rather than council inviting experts to sit in IHAPs, (as is presently occurring in Sutherland, Canterbury and Liverpool); and

·         The Minister in approving the functions and arrangements being made for the operation of an IHAP by council.

4.    Planning arbitrators will, where a request has been made by an applicant, be responsible for reviewing determinations made by a council with respect to certain classes of development identified in the EP&A Regulation:

·         Planning arbitrator matters will be limited to minor development, for example, certain classes of residential development under $1 million.

·         A right to a review will be available either where a council has not determined the development application or section 96 application within the specified time (deemed refusals) or where the application has been refused or conditions have been imposed on the consent.

·         An applicant may also request a review by a planning arbitrator in respect of a development application that has not been considered because further information is required or it does not comply with the principal Act or principal Regulation

·         An appeal under section 97 of the EP&A Act may not be commenced by an applicant with respect to a planning arbitrator matter unless a review has first been undertaken by a planning arbitrator, unless the council agrees to the proponent appealing to the Court or where the planning arbitrator does not deal with the matter within the prescribed time.

·         A decision of a planning arbitrator will be taken to be a decision of the consent authority

5.    Complying development, being minor development that may be certified by accredited private certifiers or Council.

 

The additional tiers proposed in the DA process and increased role of the Minister does not simplify the DA process.  With the exception of Part 3A proposals, introducing additional consent authorities for various types of developments to be determined adds more confusion and complexity to an already complicated planning system.

 

The additional tiers as outlined above will significantly diminish the decision making role of local government.  Other than complying development, the other tiers require additional administrative functions by local government to assist the function and operation of these tiers.  The Bill does not provide a cost-recovery mechanism for local government to recoup the cost in undertaking the administrative functions, however there is a requirement for councils to pay for the remuneration, costs and expenses associated with a PAC, JRPP, IHAP and Planning Arbitrators, out of Council’s consolidated fund (that is, Council’s general fund).  Concern is raised to the monetary impost on local government in addition to council’s staffing to administer these tiers, particularly as council’s involvement in determining such proposals has been significantly reduced.

 

Obligation of Councils in relation to PAC, JRPP, IHAP & Planning Arbitrators

The Bill is introducing penalties on council officers, including the General Managers of councils, who obstruct the PAC, JRPP, IHAP or a Planning Arbitrator.  Clearly, this approach and the proposed provisions generate significant concerns, and Council should specifically review these proposed provisions when more detail is known.

 

Increase in Time Periods and Removal of ‘Stop the Clock’ provisions

The Bill (or notes to the Bill) proposes increasing time periods applying to the DA process, being:

·         Rejecting DAs is increased from 7 days to 14 days;

·         Determining DAs where it does not require referral or concurrence to another state authority / agency is increased from 40 days to 50 days;

·         Integrated DAs or DAs requiring concurrence is increased from 60 days to 90 days.

 

It is worth noting that the time periods still relate to calendar days (not working days).  Additionally, the notes accompanying the Exposure Draft Bills indicate an intention to remove the ‘stop the clock’ provisions.  The proposed changes will require improvements to Council’s DA procedures, particularly the pre-DA lodgement advice, acceptance and registration of DAs.

 

Additional Review Provisions

For development which is not a planning arbitrator matter and for which the council is the consent authority, an applicant may either request a review of the Council’s determination by the applicable JRPP, or appeal to the Court under section 97.  For development where the JRPP is the consent authority, an applicant may request a review by the PAC or appeal to the Court.

 

A right to a review will be available to an applicant in relation to the following types of determinations:

·         a determination of a development application (including deemed refusals);

·         a determination of an application to modify consent (including deemed refusals);

·         a determination that the consent authority (or other nominated person) is not satisfied as to a matter specified in a condition of consent, or a matter the subject of a deferred commencement condition.

 

A decision of the applicable review body will be taken to be a decision of the consent authority.  There is no right of review where the consent authority is the PAC.

 

Objector reviews

The proposed changes make provision for a right of review to be available to objectors in respect of classes of development specified in the principal Regulation.

 

An objector who is dissatisfied with a determination of a council to grant consent to a development application may request the applicable JRPP to review the determination.  An objector who is dissatisfied with a determination of a JRPP to grant consent to a development application may request the PAC to review the determination.

 

Summary of key concerns –

·        The proposed reforms add further complication to the existing development assessment process.

·        The reforms result in a dilution of Council’s autonomy in the development assessment process.

·        There is insufficient supporting documentation which outlines the operational procedures by which these reforms will be implemented.  As such, it is difficult to fully understand the implications these reforms are likely to introduce.

·        There will be added administrative costs in implementing these reforms.

·        The reforms do not seem to place enough responsibility on the development industry to submit quality applications which are compliant with Council requirements.  The reforms instead focus on the way in which Council manage the assessment process and introduce a number of decision making steps which are likely to increase the time taken to determine applications.

·        It is arguable whether the quantum of development applications refer to various panels or planning arbitrators will be manageable and result in a more efficient planning process.

·        The reforms appear to be process driven more so than outcome responsive.  The reforms focus on decision making more so than the quality of decisions being made.

·        The reforms do not recognise those Council’s that are considered best practice in the various elements of the development assessment process.  They seem to unfairly impact Council’s that are performing well in the development assessment area because of criticisms levelled at non performing councils.

 

 

3.    Building Certification services offered by Councils

A key change proposed to the Building Professionals Act that directly affects councils’ building certification service is for council certifiers to be accredited.  There are, however, no details on what classes of buildings councils will be able to certify under this change.  Concern is again raised to the limitations that may be placed on councils.  For instance, the Discussion Paper recommended that councils only be granted automatic certification to Class 1 and 10 buildings, primarily dwelling houses and carports.

 

Despite the lack of critical details relating to the accreditation of Council certifiers, there is no doubt that the proposal will increase the administrative processing of Councils, thus creating an indirect financial impact.  For example, the explanatory note released with the proposed changes to the Building Professionals Act foreshadows an amendment to the regulation.  This amendment makes it an offence for a Council certifier to issue more than 50% of the total number of certificates issued by that person in any year for the same owner, builder and developer.  This means that Council will need to track all certificates issued by their accredited building surveyor’s or engineers to ensure compliance with this requirement.

 

Council certifiers will also be subject to additional responsibilities and accountabilities.  For example, a proposed amendment to the Building Professionals Regulation will enable the Building Professionals Board to issue a penalty infringement notice on accredited certifiers employed by Council.  It is suggested that the maximum penalty for an individual will be $1,500.

 

The additional responsibilities and accountabilities are likely to lead to increased service delivery costs for certification services.  The increase in accountability and responsibilities are likely to place pressure on staff retention and general job satisfaction.

 

Council may need to engage contractors to service the certification responsibility as it does not have an opportunity to refuse to undertake this role.  The cost of this option is likely to be far greater and involve significant increases in administrative arrangements and exposure to risk.

 

Withdrawal from this role will also reduce Council’s involvement in the approval process.  Past experience has demonstrated that involvement in this aspect of the development process is expected by the local community and provides valuable feedback regarding the activities of private certifiers in the local area.

 

A likely consequence of the proposed changes is that the labour and skills shortage for experienced building surveyors and engineers will further increase the escalating difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff.

 

Council will continue to pursue discussions with the Department of Planning, and the Building Professionals Board, to ensure that the proposed accreditation scheme will stipulate the competencies that must be attained and maintained by council staff.  The current practice is for the Building Professionals Board to undertake investigations into the performance of private certifiers, and similarly Council will be responsible for ensuring that complaints about the performance of council employees are appropriately investigated and suitable action taken.

 

Summary of key concerns –

·        The impacts of additional costs in providing the building certification service resulting from Council staff having to obtain accreditation

·        The additional administrative responsibilities resulting from these changes are unlikely to deliver any significant benefits

·        The additional responsibilities placed upon Council Officer’s undertaking certification work for Council which are likely to lead to increased service costs and reduce our ability to maintain adequate resources.

·        The alternative to use contractors to provide this service is likely to increase costs and expose Council to a greater level of risk

 

 

4.    Exempt and Complying Development Code

There is no proposed change to how exempt and complying development will be applied, nor has it deleted the option currently available for proponents to continue to choose to lodge a Development Application with Council or an application for a Complying Development Certificate (CDC).  It must be reiterated that any improvements to complying development should remove the choice that is presently available.

 

The Bill does propose the ability for a CDC to be issued regardless that the proposal may not comply with the criteria, but only where the variation:

1.     is considered to be of a minor nature;

2.     is not likely to cause any substantial net adverse impact on owners of adjoining or adjacent land or the land on which the development is carried out; and

3.     has been agreed to by the council (to which council needs to assess the non-compliance within a timeframe, otherwise it is taken as agreed to).

 

Where variations are proposed with a CDC, the application will be required to be referred to Council for assessment of the non-compliances within a set timeframe.  That timeframe has not been specified in the Bill, however the Discussion Paper had stated a 7 day turnaround period.  Adjoining land owners will not be notified of a CDC application which proposes a variation.  As such it is envisaged that the number of complaints Council will receive in relation to this type of development is likely to increase.  The assessment of these non compliances and the increase in compliance work will impose an additional demand upon Council’s resources.

 

Compensation for some of the resourcing required for the increase compliance role of Council is addressed in the draft proposal; however, these proposals are short on detail.  At this stage it is not clear that the compensation will be adequate, and our capacity to absorb increased workload in the approval system is extremely limited.

 

The Department has established a Complying Development Expert Panel to develop a state-wide code for exempt and complying development.  The criteria will apply to the whole state rather than regional guidelines as had been proposed in Council’s submission.  Council’s Director ~ City Planning has been invited to be a member, and we have been providing commentary to the development of the criteria.

 

From our understanding, the state-wide code is being introduced (as a SEPP) in stages as it relates to types of development.  The state-wide code will be the minimum and councils may, if they choose, develop a code that will require accreditation by the State Government so long as the categories of complying development are identical to, or an expansion of, the state-wide code.  Whilst this approach is generally supported, it is incumbent on the Department of Planning to ensure that there is broader community understanding of the implications of complying development before it is more widely introduced.

 

At the Planning Institute of Australia National Congress on 14 April 2008, the Minister for Planning announced that it was his intention to have the draft Code available for exhibition in May this year.  We will bring forward a further report to Council at that time, following our assessment of its detail.

 

Summary of key concerns –

·        Less complicated applications are still likely to be lodged as local developments applications and are therefore subject to a complex assessment system rather than the more efficient system for complying developments

·        Concerns are raised with the expansion of the criteria for complying development which will result in a reduction in community consultation

·        The Department should ensure that there is broader community understanding of the implications of complying development before it is more widely introduced

·        The increase in discretionary decisions by private certifiers is not warranted on the basis past performances, and also past community concerns.  If this approach is to be pursued, it is critical that private certifiers are held more accountable for their decisions

·        The unfunded compliance role of Council is likely to increase

·        The criteria for exempt and complying development applies to the whole of the state rather than regionally.  This approach will not address significant regional issues.

 

 

5.    Amendments Relating to Development Contributions

New categories of contributions

Under the Draft Bill, it is proposed that divisions 6 and 6A of Part A of the EP&A Act will be deleted and replaced with a new Part.  Divisions 6 and 6A deal with development contributions, including local infrastructure contributions, special infrastructure contributions, planning agreements and affordable housing contributions.  Under the new part there would be:

·        ‘Community infrastructure contributions’ (which would be akin to current local infrastructure contributions able to be imposed by a council)

·        ‘Direct contributions’ (similar to Section 94 contributions for which a nexus is required)

·        ‘Indirect contributions’ (similar to Section 94A contributions where no nexus is required and contributions are based on a flat-rate levy)

·        ‘State Infrastructure contributions’ (which would be similar to special infrastructure contributions, apply in State contribution areas and be imposed by the Minister).

 

The draft Bill provides that a Council cannot require a community infrastructure contribution unless it is of a kind allowed by and determined in accordance with a contributions plan approved by the Council.  This is similar to current arrangements.  However, the proposal provides that a council’s contributions plan cannot allow the council to require a community infrastructure contribution unless the community infrastructure is ‘key community infrastructure’ or ‘additional community infrastructure’.  It is proposed that ‘key community infrastructure’ would be for:

·        Local roads

·        Local bus infrastructure

·        Local parks

·        Local sporting, recreational, cultural, civic and social services facilities

·        Drainage and stormwater management works

·        Land for any community infrastructure, except land for riparian corridors

·        District infrastructure related to the first 4 items above, but only if there is a direct connection with the development to which the contribution relates.

 

These items appear reasonable and are, in effect, akin to those elements we would consider in current S.94 plans.  The main element missing from the list is biodiversity conservation management which should, given its significance in ensuring environmental sustainability, be an element for which contributions can be sought.

 

Additional community infrastructure is effectively something other than those items listed above, and will require Ministerial approval before Council could impose a condition requiring contributions.  The Minister will need to consider whether the public infrastructure can be delivered in a reasonable time, affordability of the proposed development, whether a reasonable apportionment has been struck and whether the cost estimate is reasonable.

 

Making Contributions Plans

The council would still primarily make contributions plans.  It is proposed that the Minister may direct a Council in relation to:

·        The community infrastructure for which a contribution may or may not be imposed

·        How the contribution is calculated or determined or the maximum amount of such contribution

·        What may or may not be accepted as a material public benefit in lieu of a contribution

·        The type or area of development in respect of which a community infrastructure contribution may or may not be imposed

·        The time within which community infrastructure contributions are to be applied

·        The use of community infrastructure contributions for purposes other than those for which they are paid

·        The preparation of joint contributions plans by two or more councils.

 

The draft legislation also proposes that the Minister may direct the Council to provide the Minister with a draft of a contributions plan for review before the plan is approved by a council.  The council must not then approve the plan until the Minister has notified the council that his review is complete.  The Minister may approve, amend or repeal a contributions plan on behalf of the council or may direct the council to do so in the manner specified in the direction.

 

Whilst the ability for the Minister to direct a council to approve, amend or repeal a plan currently exists, the above list of more specific issues pertaining to a contributions plan are proposed and now provide for a more sweeping list of potential interventions by the Minister.  It is not clear in the documentation under what circumstances the Minister would use these new powers which, if utilised, would seek to remove council’s autonomy in the setting of local infrastructure contribution requirements.

 

District Facilities

The reference in the draft legislation to ‘sporting, recreational, cultural, civic and social services’ is more broad than was suggested in the DoP’s November 2007 Circular, and appears to contemplate an opportunity for contributions to continue to be sought for district or city-wide based facilities.  It will be recalled that this aspect was in some doubt, with the previous DoP suggestion that Councils could no longer levy for city-wide based recreational and cultural facilities.  However, given that the main Regulations have not been released, further details on how the concept of a ‘direct connection’ would be dealt with is not available and some caution should be exercised in this aspect until the process is fully outlined.  Our submission should seek clarification of this issue, particularly requesting that the new approach should not be more onerous in terms of our ability to seek city-wide contributions for significant infrastructure.

 

Payment of levies to the government

The DoP circular expressed the possibility of S.94 levies being forwarded to the government to hold in reserve on behalf of Councils for later expenditure.  This issue raised significant concern to Councils.

 

It is proposed that a government Community Infrastructure Trust Fund be established for community infrastructure contributions to be paid which are received from the Growth Centres.  This does not appear to apply to any other area.

 

The draft legislation also introduces a State Infrastructure Fund, into which payments are to be principally made from any State infrastructure contribution received.  It is understood these would relate to the delivery of regional infrastructure items currently managed by government agencies.

 

At this point, there does not appear to be any requirement for community infrastructure contributions ie, local contributions imposed by council, being required to be passed to the government.

 

Timeframes for existing S.94 plans

It is proposed that contributions plan currently in force will remain in force until 30 June 2009, when they will be repealed, unless:

1.    A contributions plan provides for development contributions only in the respect of ‘key community infrastructure’, in which case that plan will not be repealed until 30 June 2015; or

2.    A contributions plan is declared by the Minister to be a ‘preserved contributions plan’, in which case that plan will not be repealed until 30 June 2015.

 

The Minister may designate an existing contributions plan as a preserved contributions plan if the Minister is satisfied that the plan provides for a community infrastructure contribution that is the subject of a contract with a council for its construction, the subject of a loan or other debt, the subject of a commitment for its construction in the 2007/08 financial year for which land acquisition has been commenced.

 

There does not appear to be a time limit set for new plans which would be made under the new requirements.

 

The ‘sunset’ requirements on plans is of some concern, particularly given that many of our new urban release areas for which Section 94 strategies have been developed could take longer than the 8 years prescribed.  A number of our city-wide district facility plans have longer timeframes than those outlined eg the Local Open Space and District Open Space Facilities Plans adopted last year have a 15 year timeframe, given their basis in Council’s longer term growth strategies, and recognition that the scale of expected development will vary greatly as will the rate of contributions.

 

It is not clear what opportunities there are for renewing a plan after the due time has elapsed and the plan is repealed.  It would seem however that administratively, far more time and effort will be required to write a new plan and for that plan to go through the formal process of exhibition and adoption, assuming this option remains available.  Council’s submission should highlight these concerns and seek amendments to these provisions which allow existing plans currently in operation to remain in force until their stated expiry date.

 

Affordable Housing

The draft legislation outlines procedures for seeking contributions towards affordable housing.  These fundamentally require a state environmental planning policy to identify, in the first instance, that there is a need for affordable housing within an area.  A council may require a contribution for affordable housing within such a designated area if it is satisfied the proposed development will reduce the availability of affordable housing, or the proposed development will create a need for affordable housing.

 

These provisions are substantially the same as those existing in the current legislation.

 

Planning Agreements

The draft legislation sets out who can enter into a voluntary planning agreement (VPA), namely one or more planning authorities and the ‘developer’.  A developer is held to be a person who has sought a change to a LEP or proposes to make a development application.  A VPA entered into by a council can only apply to ‘key community infrastructure’ (see above list) or ‘additional community infrastructure’ that has been approved by the Minister.

 

It is proposed the regulations may limit the kinds of infrastructure that may be the subject of an approval or direction of the Minister for ‘additional community infrastructure’.  A council would be required to submit a business plan and an independent assessment of that plan in support of an application to the Minister for consideration of additional community infrastructure that might be sought in a planning agreement.

 

These procedures provide restrictions over the extent of matters that can now be considered in a VPA, which are not currently applied.  These would operate to limit council’s ability to be able to enter into a VPA with a developer to those matters listed above that are prescribed to be ‘key community infrastructure’.  In terms of the infrastructure elements which Council has successfully negotiated with developers in new urban release areas, it is noted this list specifically excludes land for riparian corridors.  Biodiversity conservation initiatives, affordable housing contributions and employment development contributions would also be excluded.  As a result, all of these items under the new legislation would be required to have special Ministerial approval for them to be incorporated in a VPA as ‘additional community infrastructure’.

 

Under these arrangements, there is no guarantee that these important contributions which are fundamental requirements under Council’s Sustainability Blueprint for Urban Release Areas would be approved by the Minister.

 

It is of considerable concern that Council will no longer have the ability to negotiate these outcomes with developers, irrespective of whether a developer willingly agrees to provide that infrastructure, without having to make a special application to the Minister.

 

In our view, the notion of a voluntary planning agreement means that a council should be able to negotiate any reasonable requirement with a developer.  This is particularly relevant when considering the whole opportunity for VPAs to be negotiated was to embrace those matters which would not ordinarily be able to be accommodated under the current Section 94 legislation in a development contributions plan.

 

Summary of key concerns –

·        Whilst most of the items listed as ‘key community infrastructure’ aligns with our current S.94 local infrastructure, it is of concern that land for riparian corridors and biodiversity conservation management initiatives, are excluded

·        The Minister has direct control over the specific matters that may be included in a contributions plan or voluntary planning agreement

·        ‘Sunset’ provisions have been introduced, which would see existing plans repealed in June 2009 or in June 2015 for a plan that provides for contributions only in respect of ‘key community infrastructure’.  These are of concern, particularly for those plans for places such as release areas, where much longer timeframes are required for the delivery of infrastructure and facilities.

·        Council’s ability to negotiate additional contributions in a voluntary planning agreement is being severely restricted, and will require special approval from the Minister.  This cannot be guaranteed.

 

 

Timetable and program for reform

Comments on the Draft Exposure Bills need to be submitted by 24 April 2008.  Our comments to the draft state-wide exempt and complying code are being relayed to the Department’s Panel via Council’s Director ~ City Planning.

 

The Department has advised that the Minister intends to introduce the legislation into Parliament for debate in May 2008.  It is likely that the legislation will come into effect shortly thereafter, as originally expressed in the Discussion Paper.

 

We will continue to monitor the progress of the planning reforms, including the state-wide exempt and complying code and any other new draft SEPPs.  Once the full implications of the planning reforms are best understood, it is envisaged that a report will be made to Council on the implications, and a report to Council’s Development Regulation Working Party responding to the planning changes by way of modifications to our development assessment procedures and approach.

Conclusion

There can be no doubt that a simpler planning system will provide a better service to the community, and allows for a more efficient use of scarce planning resources.  The general intent of improving the planning system is therefore 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.  The reforms will increase the level of State Government involvement in local planning, and it is anticipated that there will be further limitations imposed on Council’s ability and stewardship role in developing the policy directions and shaping of its area.

 

Whilst a number of the reforms being introduced could assist in providing more expedient outcomes, the rapidity in which the draft legislation has been introduced and the relatively short timeframe in which to consider it (only 21 days) gives rise to concern over the broader implications the legislation might have on Council’s development processes and infrastructure levy mechanisms.

 

It has been difficult to quantify, in such a limited timeframe, whether the proposed changes will result in significant improvements to the planning system, or development proposals being processed efficiently.  Importantly, it is not clear whether the proposed changes will deliver a more qualitative development outcome.  It is also arguable that the reforms may in fact add to the complexity of an already complicated planning system.  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.

 

A thrust of the draft legislation is that councils may become more of a compliance authority, rather than a determining authority.  This gives rise to concern over Council’s traditional autonomy to approve local development and to retain responsibility for decisions on behalf of the local community.

 

It would appear that the Government has moved away from a number of the foreshadowed infrastructure contribution changes which were identified in the November 2007 DoP circular.  However, there are concerns relating to several new elements in the legislation.

 

As yet, much of the detail which has not been included in the Draft Exposure Bills will be introduced in amendments to the Regulation and other policies which traditionally are not exhibited before the legislation comes into effect.  Council should therefore exercise caution in terms of its support for elements of the legislation, given that the detailed requirements concerning its operation are not yet available for review.

 

There is a growing consensus that the planning system in New South Wales needs a major overhaul, rather than the current ‘piecemeal’ amendment process.  The Government should be encouraged to consider if the development of a new Planning Act for the future, in collaboration with Local Government and the development industry, would be a more sensible option to deliver an integrated and improved system and good quality outcomes.

 

In our view, a more collaborative and legitimate role for Local Government in reviewing the effectiveness of the planning reforms, rather than reactionary responses, should be put in place.  Central to that should be the establishment of a more inclusive forum, where Local Government views can be aired on a regular basis with State Government and its agencies.  It is considered that this approach would deliver a more robust and balanced outcome, where Local Government better appreciates the State Government’s objectives, and can work with the State Government to ensure that there is a shared commitment to achieving good local planning outcomes and maintaining local identity.

 

It is recommended that Council make a submission to the Department of Planning, based on the issues raised in this report.  The submission will include suggestions for improving the proposed legislative provisions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Status on the Planning Reforms and the Release of the Exposure Draft Bills be received.

2.     Council endorse a submission to the Department of Planning, based on the matters outlined in this report, in response to the Planning Reforms Exposure Draft Bills.

3.     The implications of the planning reform legislation, when it is introduced, be reported to Council’s Development Regulation Working Party and Council.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

LGSA Campaign Media Release

6 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

Appendix 1 - LGSA Campaign Media Release

 

 

 






  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


The City as a Social Place

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

2        Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool 

 

3        Assistance Towards Amateur Sportspersons and Representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture - Overseas and Interstate Travel including results gained by recipients

 

4        Western Sydney Employment Hub - Public Exhibition of draft SEPP (Western Sydney Employment Hub) 2008 and draft Erskine Park Link Road Network Plan

 

5        Variation to 88B Instrument for Lot 804 DP 1068323 (No. 16 - 21) Belleview Avenue, Mt Vernon. Applicant: Renata Bacic;  Owner: Renata Bacic DA07/1288

 

6        Section 94 Contributions for Dual Occupancies

 

7        Development Application DA07/0742 for the use of an existing school hall as a Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Corpus Christi Parish;  Owner: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church DA07/0742

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

2

Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool    

 

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 Council with an update on the Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool and to seek approval for the closure of the project.  The report recommends that Council approve the dissolution of the Section 377 Committee of the Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool and any remaining equipment be donated to Glenmore Park community groups. The report further recommends that the remaining funds of $1,000 in the Glenmore Park Equipment Pool account be returned to the Glenmore Park S94 reserve.

 

Background

The Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool was established to provide an important community service, by making a range of equipment and resources available for use by local community groups.

 

In 2000, Council officers recommended the establishment of the Equipment Pool to avoid a duplication of resources and equipment across organisations operating within the Glenmore Park area. At the Ordinary Meeting of 7 February 2000, Council resolved to contribute $16,000 towards the establishment of the Equipment Pool.  Funding for the Equipment Pool was made available through the Glenmore Park Community Initiatives Grants Scheme (CIGS), an item in the Schedule of Works of successive Section 94 Contributions Plans for Glenmore Park since 1993.

 

The Glenmore Park Equipment Pool was officially launched by the then Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow, in June 2002.

 

Section 377 Management Committee

The Glenmore Park Equipment Pool was established as a Section 377 Management Committee of Council in mid 2002 and the administration of the project was undertaken by an Equipment Pool Coordinator. The Coordinator role has been primarily undertaken by community development workers from the Glenmore Park Community Development Project with the support of a Council officer. The Coordinator is responsible for taking bookings, the receipt of payments and the storage and oversight of the equipment. The last Annual General Meeting of the Equipment Pool Section 377 Committee was held in August 2005.

 

A review of the Equipment Pool was undertaken by the Community and Cultural Development Department in the second half of 2007.

 

More recently, the Glenmore Park Community Development Project resolved to no longer be the auspice for the community development project grant funds from the NSW Department of Community Services. In early 2008, the auspice of this grant was transferred to SPYNS, the South Penrith Youth and Neighbourhood Services.

 

The Glenmore Park Equipment Pool

Over the past couple of years, the hiring and use of the equipment has decreased as the condition of the equipment has declined.  In addition some of the local community groups sought grant funds to purchase their own equipment and resources. The records show that the last recorded payment for the hire of items in the equipment pool was made in April 2006.

 

Officers from Council’s Financial Services have reviewed the Glenmore Park Equipment Pool accounts and records. The bank account has been closed and the balance of the remaining funds of $1,000 has been deposited in a Penrith City Council general account. 

 

During 2007, the equipment pool was moved from the Surveyor’s Creek Community Centre to the Floribunda Community Centre and a follow-up audit was undertaken in August. The audit identified that some of the equipment was either no longer available or wear and tear had resulted in the equipment being unusable.

 

A further inventory of the assets and goods at the Floribunda Centre was undertaken with the assistance of a representative from the Department of Community Services in October 2007. This was carried out to establish ownership of the assets of the Glenmore Park Community Development Project and assist with the change of auspice of the DOCS funded project to SPYNS.  This inventory confirmed that many items in the equipment pool were either missing or not in adequate condition to be available for hire. Further attempts to locate some items have been made through contact with previous staff of the Glenmore Park project.

 

Following the asset inventory, Council officers wrote to the office bearers of the Equipment Pool in late 2007 to indicate Council’s concerns and to propose the dissolution of the project. At that time Council asked for comments or feedback in relation to the proposal and indicated that if there were no responses to the letter the proposal to disband the Equipment Pool and the Section 377 Committee would proceed to a formal recommendation to Council.

 

Summary

The Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool has been underutilised for some time and the pool of equipment has deteriorated significantly. The equipment pool has been managed by a S377 Committee of Council and co-ordinated by staff from the Glenmore Park Community Development Project.

 

Following an audit and asset inventory of the equipment Council officers wrote to the office bearers of the Section 377 committee in late 2007 with a proposal to dissolve the Committee and asking for any comments or feedback. Council has not received any subsequent response and it is recommended that Council proceed with the proposal to dissolve the Section 377 Committee, discontinue the equipment pool and donate any remaining equipment to local community groups in Glenmore Park. It is also proposed that the balance of funds in the bank account of $1,000 be returned to the Glenmore Park S94 reserve.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool be received.

2.     The Section 377 Committee for the Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool project be dissolved and the project be discontinued.

3.     Any remaining equipment in the Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool be donated to local community groups in Glenmore Park.

4.     The balance of remaining funds of $1,000 in the account of the Glenmore Park Community Equipment Pool be returned to the Glenmore Park S94 reserve.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

3

Assistance Towards Amateur Sportspersons and Representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture - Overseas and Interstate Travel including results gained by recipients   

 

Compiled by:                Diana Tuckwell, Recreation Manager's Secretary

Authorised by:             Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City’s recreation and leisure facilities and services meet its needs and are optimally used.

Critical Action: Ensure facilities and services reflect the City's diverse current and future recreation and leisure needs.

      

Purpose:

To inform Council of donations made to amateur sportspersons and/or representatives in the fields of art, music, culture for overseas and interstate travel for the January-March 2008 quarter.  In addition, this report includes results gained by recipients of travel assistance.  The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

 

Background

Council has a policy of providing assistance to amateur sportspersons and representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture for the purpose of encouraging participation in international or interstate events by residents or by members of clubs based in the City of Penrith or students of schools and educational establishments within the Penrith City area and who are representing the country of Australia or the state of New South Wales.  Those requests Council has received and processed in accordance with the Policy for the period 1 January-31 March 2008 are listed below. 

 

OVERSEAS DESTINATIONS ($200 NZ or $300 overseas)

 

1.

a donation of $600.00 was made to Little Athletics NSW with a request that $200.00 each be passed on to Bryony Beasley, Delyse McCaffery and Justin Maloney from St Clair to help defray their travelling expenses when they competed in the Trans Tasman Athletics Challenge held in Auckland, New Zealand during January 2008.

2.

a donation of $300.00 was made to Softball Australia with a request that it be passed on to Steven Albee of Werrington County to help defray his travelling expenses when he competes in the International Softball Federation Junior Mens World Championships to be held in Whitehorse, Canada during June 2008.

3.

a donation of $300.00 was made to NSW Department of Education & Training with a request that it be passed on to David Catterall of Richmond (student at St Pauls Grammar School, Cranebrook) to help defray his travelling expenses when he performs with the Department of Education Beijing 2008 Olympic Orchestra at Olympic Events and Venues in Beijing, China during August 2008.

 

 

INTERSTATE DESTINATIONS ($100 QLD, VIC -  $150 SA, TAS - $200 WA, NT)

 

4.

a donation of $300.00 was made to Softball NSW with a request that $150.00 each be passed on to Kimberley Wright of St Clair and April Clune of North St Marys to help defray their travelling expenses when they competed in the Australian National Softball Championships held in Hobart, Tasmania during January 2008.

5.

a donation of $1600.00 was made to Dragon Boats NSW with a request that $200.00 each be passed on to Fiona Gray of Erskine Park; Rhonda Hughes of Penrith; Pauline & Gil Swadling of Emu Plains; Rachel Mosen of St Clair; Linda Bowman of Springwood; Heather Lovi of Richmond and Julie Willis of Yellow Rock (all members of Pendragon Panthers Dragon Boat Club based in Penrith) to help defray their travelling expenses when they compete in the Australian National Dragon Boat Championships being held in Perth, Western Australia during April 2008.

 

Highlights of Results/Outcomes Achieved by Recipients

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 23 July 2007 it was requested that details of results/outcomes gained by recipients of this travel assistance be reported.  The following information has been provided by the recipient:

 

 

Bryony Beasley, Delyse McCaffery and Justin Maloney of St Clair - Trans Tasman Athletics Challenge Auckland, New Zealand, January 2008

Bryony U/11 girls placed 15th in 400m, 13th in 1500m, 20th in shot put and 3rd in U/11 girls 4 x 400m relay; Delyse U/12 girls placed 15th in 400m, 11th in 800m and 16th in shot-put; Justin U/12 boys placed 8th in 100m final, 16th in 200m, 4th in discus, 2nd in shot put and 1st in U/12 mixed field relay.

 

 

Kimberley Wright of St Clair and April Clune of North St Marys – 2008 Australian Softball Championships , Tasmania, January 2008.

The NSW U/19 Women’s Softball Team won the Grand Final against Western Australia and were awarded 1st Place.

 

 

The following results have been provided by recipients of this travel assistance who previously participated in an event:

 

 

Hayden Farrell of St Clair – International Baseball World Series Tournament, Japan, July-August 2007.

Under 16’s Boys competed against Tachikawa Fighters and SBC.

“One of the local parents (whose children played in Brisbane for a few years recently) praised our team on how close they made the game against SBC.  He said that they were one of the top teams in the area out of about 200 teams. However, once again errors at the end of the game stopped us from winning.  We held them to a two-all draw and were beaten in a play-off Japanese-style with loaded bases and none out”.

 

 

Joanne Cooper of South Penrith - 2007 National Indoor Netball Tour, Melbourne, October 2007

NSW team were not placed at the competition.

 

 

Jessica Burton of South Penrith - 2007 World Artistic Rollerskating Championships, Queensland, November 2007

“I would like to thank Penrith City Council for contributing to my daughter, Jessica Burton's, trip to the World RollerSkating Championships. It was a fantastic experience where she meet skaters from all over the world. She saw how they trained and competed. Jessica placed 10th in the World at the competition and is very proud of her achievement.”

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

4

Western Sydney Employment Hub - Public Exhibition of draft SEPP (Western Sydney Employment Hub) 2008 and draft Erskine Park Link Road Network Plan   

 

Compiled by:                Tony Crichton, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager   

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

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

     

Purpose:

To inform Council that the Department of Planning (DOP) has placed on public exhibition the draft State Environmental Planning Policy for the Western Sydney Employment Hub (WSEH) and the RTA's Concept Plan for the Erskine Park Link Road Network. The report outlines the key elements of the draft SEPP and draft Concept Plan and addresses the key issues and implications arising out of these plans.  The report recommends that a submission to DOP addressing these issues be made.

 

Background

On 19 May 2004, Premier Carr announced the State Government’s intention to investigate the potential for additional employment lands in the vicinity of Ropes Creek and to facilitate a link road between Erskine Business Park (EBP) and the Westlink M7.  A primary purpose of the proposed amendment to SEPP 59 was to facilitate the reservation of an infrastructure corridor between EBP and Old Wallgrove Road. 

 

Penrith City Council has co-ordinated a Route Alignment Study for the link road and in November 2004, engaged Maunsell Australia Pty Limited to assess route options, road geometry and costs.   The completed report examined two alternative routes for the “missing link” from Lenore Drive to Old Wallgrove Road.  The report recommended the northern route alignment having regard to road safety, design speed and accessibility to each of the two employment zones and on the basis of higher travel – time savings and a superior benefit cost ratio. 

 

In January 2005, Council presented a Position Paper to the State Government which can be summarised as follows:

 


Link Road

 

§ The provision of a link road connecting EBP to SEPP 59 and M7 is an essential prerequisite for ensuring long-term investment and job-creation within EBP;

§ The link road will also enable the provision of public transport links between EBP and SEPP 59 and St. Marys and Mt. Druitt railway stations. 

 

Proposed Funding Mechanism

 

§ Council’s EBP Section 94 Plan has made provision for that portion of the link road located within the EBP.  This extends from Erskine Park Road to Ropes Creek and includes half of the bridge structures over Ropes Creek;

§ Council has discussed the opportunity of providing a lesser standard construction for the link road across the Ropes Creek corridor to enable the EBP Section 94 Plan to fund the construction the road across that part of the Ropes Creek corridor in the Blacktown LGA.  This can be achieved using a Planning Agreement with EBP landowners within the Blacktown LGA. 

 

In December 2005, the State Government announced its Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney which identified a significant employment initiative, the Western Sydney Employment Hub covering some 2,400ha of land including EBP. The Strategy also nominated the link road as a key infrastructure item to be delivered. 

 

On 9 June 2006, the Minister for Planning declared that the Erskine Park Link Road (EPLR) Network is a project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment (EP& A) Act, 1979.

 

In March 2007, Council prepared a detailed submission to the Director-General of DOP advising that it was extremely concerned that the delay in resolving the link road concept plan is hampering investment decisions in EBP.  We also sought confirmation that senior Council officers will be involved in the formulation of the Working Group, however this did not occur.

 

Public Exhibition

 

The Department of Planning (DoP) has placed on public exhibition the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for the Western Sydney Employment Hub (WSEH).  The Director-General of the Department of Planning has received an application and an Environmental Assessment (EA) from the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for the proposed EPLR Network Concept Plan, which is being advanced as a Part 3A major project.   The DoP has therefore also placed on public exhibition the RTA’s Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment for this proposed road network.

 

The exhibition closes on 28 April 2008 and any submissions to the Department must be made by that date. 

 

Copies of maps depicting the Western Sydney Employment Hub, the land reservation map relating to the link road network, zoning map and link road concept plan have been separately forwarded to Councillors.

 

 

Content of draft SEPP

 

The exhibition documentation incorporates a draft SEPP and associated maps, a draft Explanatory Note and a draft Amendment to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 

 

Key objectives of the draft SEPP are:

 

§ Promote economic development and the creation of employment in the WSEH by providing for the development of major warehousing, industrial, high technology and research facilities;

§ Rezone certain land for employment purposes and environmental conservation,

§ Ensure that development occurs in a logical and cost effective manner in accordance with a staging plan and only after a development control plan (including specific development controls) of remnant vegetation;

§ Conserve and rehabilitate areas that have high biodiversity or heritage or cultural value, in particular areas of remnant vegetation.

 

Key elements of the draft SEPP are set out below:

 

Part 1 – Preliminary

 

§ The draft SEPP shall prevail over LEPs.  It replaces the current zoning controls for EBP and related LEPs in other LGAs with the draft SEPP;

§ Councils will be the consent authority for development within their LGA unless the development is declared to be a major project to which Part 3A applies.

 

Part 2 – Permitted or prohibited development

 

§ The two land use zones are Zone IN1 General Industrial and Zone E2 Environmental Conservation which covers the Erskine Business Park biodiversity corridor;

§ Key zone objectives for the IN 1 General Industrial Zone are:

 

·    To facilitate development for a wide range of employment-generating industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, storage or research purposes, including ancillary office space;

·    To encourage employment opportunities along motorway corridors, including the M7 and M4;

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

·    To facilitate regional road network links to the M7 and M4 Motorways.

 

§ Key zone objectives for the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone are:

 

·         To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values;

·         To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

 

§ Development on unzoned land and subdivision may only be carried out with consent;

§ A consent authority may grant consent to a child care centre only if it is satisfied that the child care centre is intended to provide services to people working in the area in which the child care centre is located.

 

 Part 3 – Exempt and complying development

 

§ Part 3 of the draft SEPP defines certain development as Exempt development and Complying development.

 

Part 4 - Development control plans

 

§ Before development on any land can be granted consent, a site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) must be prepared.  It is understood that DoP’s intention is for the DCPs to be prepared on a site specific basis by the proponent and approved by the Director General, not the Council;

§ The DCP must demonstrate how it integrates with the whole of the precinct and must address certain specified matters outlined in Schedule 5.  Those include - traffic and parking; infrastructure services, staging, biodiversity, flooding, urban design and landscaping, subdivision layout, heritage conservation, extraction and rehabilitation;

§ Clause 20 of the draft SEPP permits a consent authority, in this case being Blacktown City Council and Holroyd Council, to grant consent to development without a DCP having been prepared for that land, if the consent authority is satisfied that an existing precinct plan applies to that land.  This applies to four existing precinct plans prepared under State Environmental Planning Policy No 59 - Central Western Sydney Economic and Employment Area (SEPP 59);

§ This draft SEPP is silent on whether the existing Penrith DCP 2006 continues to apply under the draft SEPP, but presumably this is the case.

 

Part 5 - Principal development standards

 

§ The draft SEPP sets development standards on a number of matters being design, sustainability, height of buildings, rainwater harvesting, development adjoining residential land, development involving subdivision, public utility infrastructure and exceptions to development standards;

§ Sub-clause 28 (7) (Exceptions to development standards) does not allow consent to be granted for development that would contravene either (a) a development standard for complying development or (b) clause 30 or 31 of the draft SEPP.

 

Part 6 - Miscellaneous provisions

 

§ The draft SEPP identifies Penrith City Council and Blacktown City Council as the relevant acquisition authorities for the “Erskine Park Link Road Network”;

§ The draft SEPP identifies the Department of Planning (“the Corporation”) as the acquisition authority for the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone;

§ The draft SEPP does not nominate an acquisition authority for land south of the Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) pipeline, where the link road alignment is yet to be nominated;

§ A clause has been included in the draft SEPP that the consent authority must not consent to development for industrial purposes unless the Director-General has certified in writing to the consent authority that satisfactory arrangements have been made to contribute to the provision of regional transport infrastructure and services;

§ The draft SEPP sets development standards relating to industrial retail outlets and neighbourhood shops.

 

An amendment has been made to the EP&A Regulation 2000 to require a Contributions Plan or a developer agreement (Planning Agreement) for local contributions to be in place before a Development Application can be determined by a Council.

 

Content of draft Erskine Park Link Road Network Concept Plan

 

The exhibition documentation for the link road incorporates a Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

 

The objective of the Project is a road network which links industrial lands within the North West Precinct of the Hub with Erskine Park/Mamre Roads and the M4 and M7 Motorways as well as provide a connection to the South West Precinct of the Hub.  RTA investigations have found that a network of access roads, rather than one link road connected to motorways and main roads would be required to service these lands if developed for industrial employment.

 

The RTA has considered three modelling scenarios to assess the road network that will be required to service the areas north of the water pipeline, nominated as the North West Precincts (NWP), and has selected Network Option C (the EPLR Network) as the preferred network for the NWP.  This option is designed to accommodate additional traffic that will eventually be generated from development of the land south of the water pipeline, nominated as the  South West Precincts (SWP), in conjunction with the remainder of the road network that would be required for the release of the SWP. 

 

The proposed road network is located within the northwest precinct of the WSEH that connects the employment lands with the M4, M7 and Mamre Road.  The road network includes the following road network features:

 

§ A northern east-west route (‘Erskine Park Link Road’ as an extension of Lenore Drive) linking Erskine Park Road to the Old Wallgrove Road interchange with Wallgrove Road and the M7;

§ Eastern and western north-south connections (Old Wallgrove Road and ‘N-S Link’ respectively) linking the northern east-west route to the SWP and a future southern road network;

§ A northern access road to Archbold Road connecting the area to the M4 (at a new interchange with east facing ramps) and the Great Western Highway; and

§ The road links would encompass a 40 metre wide corridor to construct 4 lane divided carriageways. The corridor would be wider at the intersections.

 

The proposal also identifies a number of external regional road works required as a result of the full development of WSEH, including the upgrading of Mamre Road between the M4 to Bakers Lane to four lanes, the upgrading of Erskine Park from Mamre Road to the link road to four lanes, upgrading Erskine Park Road from Coonawarra Drive to Lenore Lane to four lanes, and the upgrading of the Mamre Road intersection with Great Western Highway. 

 

The Land Reservation Acquisition Map shows the proposed road alignment and the lands to be acquired for that road.  A copy of the map is appended to this report.  The Concept Plan  shows the current proposed road network North West Precincts and also the future connections to the South West Precincts south of the water pipeline.  The road alignment for the South West Precincts is not shown as it is yet to be investigated. 

 

The RTA has identified an EPLR Network that would provide the best traffic outcome with appropriate connections to the external road network.  The proposed road network provides road corridors for the key link roads within the North West Precinct.  It is anticipated that road construction would be staged to suit the Hub development and be a four lane road similar to the recently constructed Lenore Drive.

 

Staging of implementation of the EPLR Network would be largely driven by the rate of development in the precinct.  Consequently staging would be flexible being determined by the rate and timing of developments within the precincts and the demand for transport infrastructure generated by those developments.

 

Following approval of this Concept Plan, the individual roadway components of the EPLR Network would be subject to further specific environmental assessment and at that stage alignment and traffic design options would be subject to more detailed evaluation and refinement.     

 

It is understood that the RTA do not intend to either acquire the road corridor for the proposed EPLR Network or construct the road, hence the nomination of Councils as the acquisition authority.  In discussion with DoP, it has been indicated that the Network would be constructed in stages as development advances by developers / land owners.   

 

Key Issues – draft SEPP

 

A number of key issues have been identified from an assessment of the draft SEPP and these are outlined below:

 

1.  Implications of Planning Mechanism

 

The State Government has not proposed any strategic planning mechanism other than the draft SEPP in the proposed development of the WSEH.  The draft SEPP does not include any overarching framework such as a single Masterplan, Precinct Plan or DCP for the whole of the Hub.  The draft SEPP does not incorporate any Structure Plan, Staging Plan or Infrastructure Plan and there is no Infrastructure Delivery or Funding Strategy that can be readily implemented for the EPLR Network, despite this approach being adopted by DoP for their planning investigations related to the significant employment lands investigation area to the south.

 

For an employment area of the scale of WSEH, it is imperative that an integrated approach be taken to its development and the roll-out of required infrastructure necessary to underpin that.  This is particularly important given that WSEH spans four LGAs and there has been a range of planning responses taken to the development of the area historically.  It is of some concern that a strategic approach to the development of the area has not been adopted and that further planning is relegated to a site by site response with DCPs to be prepared by the developer only for the area the subject of that proposal. 

 

It is strongly recommended that the draft SEPP be amended to include a Structure Plan, Staging Plan and Infrastructure Plan and a workable Funding Strategy for delivery of that infrastructure.

 

2.  Implications of Proposed Zoning

 

The list of permissible land uses within the IN 1 General Industrial Zone is considered to be too narrow.  Essentially it permits land uses such as depots, freight transport facilities, light industries, transport depots and warehouse or distribution centres.  A wider range of land uses would be preferred such as food and drink premises (Pubs), service stations and other suitable land uses which would provide a wider range of services to employees of the Hub.  High technology and research facilities which would generate a higher level of employment should also be supported. 

 

A number of internal inconsistencies within the draft SEPP has been noted such as ‘high technology and research facilities’ has been included within the aims of the draft SEPP, but it has been omitted from the objectives and land uses of this zone.  We are also concerned that these limited land uses will make it difficult to achieve worthwhile employment targets within the Hub. 

 

It is recommended that a wider range of land uses be utilised to increase services to workers and to generate a higher level of employment. 

 

3.  Implications of Site Specific DCPs

 

The use of site specific DCPs rather than precinct – wide DCPs will lead to incremental development and fragmented and poorly coordinated provision of utility services and other infrastructure.  Clearly, there is a need for a single concept plan and DCP for the whole of the land, particularly the area south of the water pipeline due to the existence of multiple land ownerships. 

 

In our view it would be far more advantageous to have masterplanning advanced on at least a precinct-wide basis, rather than on a site by site basis, so that there can be effective integration of land parcels, better coordination of development and a clearly identified infrastructure delivery plan which would, amongst other things, identify major transport links and access connections. 

 

It is recommended that Council’s submission to DoP strongly urge that the DoP require the preparation of estate-wide or precinct-wide DCPs rather than site-wide DCPs.

 

4.  Status of DCP 2006 and Concerns over DCP Process

 

Clause 19 of the draft SEPP states that the consent authority must not grant consent to development on any land within the Hub unless a DCP has been prepared for that land.  Schedule 5 sets out the requirements relating to the preparation and content of such DCPs.  Clause 20 of the draft SEPP allows a consent authority to grant consent to development without a DCP having been prepared for that land if an existing precinct plan applies to that land. 

 

The draft SEPP is silent, however, on whether an existing DCP such as Penrith DCP 2006 which covers the EBP area, would continue to apply under this draft SEPP.  It is unclear whether a new DCP is required to be prepared subject to the requirements set down in Schedule 5. 

 

DoP, however, has recently confirmed verbally that Penrith DCP 2006 can continue to operate and that we should include in our submission a request for the draft SEPP to be amended to include a clause, similar to clause 20, that clearly states that our DCP will be recognised as an existing DCP under this draft SEPP.  This is particularly important given that the draft EP&A Amendment Bill 2008 appears to suggest that a Council cannot prepare a DCP for land that is covered by a SEPP.  Our submission will ask for these matters to be urgently clarified.

 

It is also unclear whether the proponent for a draft DCP for land south of the water pipeline would be Council or a developer and whether and when that site specific DCP is to be approved by the Director-General.  The Explanatory Notes within the draft SEPP state that before development on any land can be granted consent, a site-specific DCP must be prepared by the proponent and approved by the Director-General.  This, however, is not stated in the draft SEPP.  It is also unclear who will exhibit and endorse the DCP.   

 

It has been traditionally the case that Councils are the consent authority for DCPs and also for Councils to have the ability to prepare a DCP where required.  It is of some concern that whilst not clearly stated in the draft SEPP, the accompanying explanatory notes suggest quite a different process which would not see any potential engagement of Council in the preparation or approval of DCPs which have the effect of providing guidance and more specific site controls for development within the area.

 

It is recommended that DoP clarify these DCP issues, particularly the ability for Council’s adopted controls for EBP to be maintained and for Council to be the consent authority for development control plans prepared by development proponents. 

 

5.  Inadequate Development Standards and Schedule 5 DCP Requirements

 

It is considered that the development standards contained within the draft SEPP are very general and there is an absence of specific development standards that would otherwise be provided in plans governing development of an employment area. For example, there are no numerical standards for maximum building height, minimum lot size, minimum front setbacks or other subdivision controls.

 

Clause 31 of the draft SEPP permits industrial retail outlets but the retail floor area must not exceed 40% of the combined gross floor area of the Industrial retail outlet and building.  We consider that this should be 20%, as per our draft LEP, rather than the 40% nominated in the draft SEPP.

 

Also, it is noted that neighbourhood shops are limited to a maximum floor area of 80m2, which differs from the 200m2 floor area limit which we have included in Stage 1 of the City-wide Local Plan.  There does not appear to be any limit as to the number or location of neighbourhood shops that can be located in the area.

 

The draft SEPP does not require a DCP to include a detailed analysis of the development proposed within the precinct – this should be a mandatory requirement rather than an optional one.  Schedule 5 also fails to address the following wide range of issues:

 

§ Employment issues, such as employment demand and supply by sector;

§ Access to public transport;

§ Public domain issues;

§ Water management issues including stormwater management and groundwater;

§ Land management issues including erosion and sedimentation and salinity;

§ Soil contamination;

§ Waste management issues;

§ Noise and vibration, especially in regard to land within close proximity to adjoining residential areas.

 

Schedule 3 of the draft SEPP nominates chain wire fences as exempt development.  Within EBP, Council requires a high standard of fencing with fencing behind landscaped areas.  This clause would be contrary to the existing clauses within the adopted Penrith DCP 2006.

 

It is recommended that Council’s submission to DoP strongly urges the DoP to address the various matters raised in this report.

   

6.  Biodiversity

 

Council has consistently sought to establish a continuous biodiversity conservation corridor along both sides of Ropes Creek and its main tributaries.  A continuous biodiversity conservation corridor has been established along the western side of Ropes Creek from the M4 south to the water pipeline, however this is yet to be established for lands further south.  Council has identified the importance of this corridor in the Flora and Fauna Corridor Study and this has been reinforced in the draft Flora and Fauna Conservation LEP.  It forms part of an overall strategy to protect the biodiversity of the Cumberland Plain.

 

The draft SEPP nominates the DoP as the acquisition authority for the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone. However the location of this zone is limited solely to the Biodiversity Conservation Areas located within the Erskine Business Park, which has been the subject of extensive discussions with DoP, DECC and the EBP land owners group.  That process saw the dedication of the EBP biodiversity corridor to DoP with additional funding for its revegetation and management as well as major revegetation of both South Creek and Ropes Creek corridors to the north of EBP.  As a result, an acquisition provision for this E2 zoned land would not seem necessary. 

 

Previous advice from DoP has been that E2 zoned land does not require an acquisition provision to be inserted in a draft LEP.  This position is consistent with the draft LEP template prepared by DoP. 

 

There are significant bushland areas which warrant conservation to the east of Ropes Creek which have not been identified with an E2 zone.  It is understood these have been previously identified in the planning processes and precinct plan approvals undertaken in the SEPP 59 lands in Blacktown LGA as areas warranting biodiversity conservation.  As these lands have regional biodiversity significance and as acquisition provisions are not required for this land, it is considered that such lands should be included within the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone. 

 

It is our view that the E2 land should be identified now by the draft SEPP and that the developer should be obliged to protect biodiversity lands with high conservation significance, consistent with one of the principal objectives identified in the draft SEPP.

 

It is recommended that Council strongly urge DoP to properly address biodiversity conservation issues in the whole of the WSEH area in an equitable and consistent manner by nominating all significant remnant bushland areas warranting biodiversity conservation within the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone.  That should focus on an appropriate biodiversity corridor along both sides of Ropes Creek as well as the bushland areas to the north of the Eastern Creek precinct and along other principal creek tributaries.  DoP should also be requested to remove the acquisition clause from the draft SEPP, consistent with its planning template. 

 

7.  Rainwater Harvesting

 

The draft SEPP provides a consent authority must not grant consent to development unless it is satisfies that adequate arrangements will be made to connect the roof areas of buildings to a rainwater harvesting scheme approved by the Minister.  There are no details of what the scheme would comprise and how it would operate.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that a rainwater harvesting scheme for roof waters from industrial buildings within the area of the WSEH has merit from a sustainability perspective, there is a need for such a scheme to be properly developed, coordinated and managed.  Key issues such as ensuring pre-development environmental flows within local streams are effectively maintained and the water quality of urban run-off meets appropriate standards are critical to resolve and a long-term management strategy required to ensure the effective operation of the scheme in perpetuity.  Given the significance of this initiative, it is our view that DoP should be the relevant authority, in concert with other appropriate government agencies, to develop the scheme for approval by the Minister.  This will need to advance promptly, given that it is intended to be a requirement tied to the issue of development consents.

 

It is recommended that these matters be properly addressed in the draft SEPP.

 

8.   Electricity Easements

 

A number of major electricity easements traverse WSEH.  In Penrith, the current LEP has zoned these predominantly with an industrial zoning, however special provisions are written in to the LEP which would see their use extremely limited which would prohibit development other than for landscaping purposes.  Transgrid has advised on a number of occasions in the past that it does not generally support use of transmission easement land, particularly directly underneath the transmission wires or around the base of towers, for industrial purposes including carparking and vehicle manoeuvring. 

 

Given that, it would be appropriate for a special clause to be inserted into the SEPP which makes it clear what uses can be considered under the transmission easements.

 

Key Issues – draft Concept Plan

 

1.  Acquisition Authority for Erskine Park Link Road Network

 

We acknowledge that the preparation and public exhibition of the EPLR network is a significant advance.  However, the draft SEPP identifies the relevant Council as the acquisition authority for the Link Road corridor rather than the RTA.  Given Blacktown Council’s consistent advice that it does not intend either acquiring the road corridor or constructing that section of the road within its LGA, the approach adopted in the draft SEPP does not appear to be a practical way of implementing the construction of the EPLR Network. 

 

In our view, the characteristics of the proposed EPLR network in terms of its traffic capacity, role, configuration and purpose all suggest that it is a major regional road system and should be considered as a principal arterial network.  It is a major concern that the RTA is not prepared to implement the construction of the EPLR network, nor would it seem is the DoP prepared to be the acquisition authority for the corridor.  Despite previous assurances by DoP that the draft SEPP would be accompanied by a funding strategy for the Link Road, no such funding mechanism has been published. Senior management from both Penrith and Blacktown City Council jointly stressed the importance of this matter to Councils in a meeting held on 8 April 2008 with DoP.  

 

It is recommended that Council’s submission to the DoP strongly urge that the RTA should be the acquisition authority and the construction authority for the full EPLR Network and that the RTA should be the sole authority responsible for the road.  

 

Given the critical importance of implementing the EPLR network as soon as possible, and that many of the major businesses have taken the decision to locate in EBP on the basis that the link road connection to the M7 would be delivered expeditiously, it is further recommended that Council endorse seeking an urgent meeting with the Premier to obtain his support for the acquisition by the RTA of the required land for the link road network and for that authority to urgently advance the construction of the network.  Correspondence has been sent to the Member for Smithfield seeking his support for the deputation.

 

2.  Alignment for Erskine Park Link Road

 

The road alignment for the Erskine Park Link Road nominated on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map and on the draft EPLR Network Concept Plan is not consistent with the preferred alignment nominated by Council in previous advice to DoP and RTA.

 

Our preferred road alignment for the EPLR extends from the end of the current formed section of Lenore Drive, continues along the existing unformed road and then moves north-easterly to cross Ropes Creek near the northern boundary of EBP.  This alignment presents a shorter crossing of the Ropes Creek flood plain and minimises the impact on private holdings on the eastern side of Ropes Creek.

 

It is recommended that Council resubmit its preferred alignment for the road and seek further discussions with the Blacktown Council, RTA and DoP to finalise the road alignment. 

 

3.  Traffic Impact Assessment

 

The modelling analysis has been carried out for several link road options.  The preferred option only deals with the road network north of the water pipeline.  This modelling indicates that there will be minimal impacts on the surrounding road network.  Other options have been addressed that include development south of the water pipeline together with road work configurations to service that area.  This modelling indicates that there will be additional traffic volumes on Mamre Road and Erskine Park Road that will require their upgrading once development south of the water pipeline occurs.

 

It is recommended that these upgrades be undertaken concurrently with the development of the land south of the water pipeline to meet the traffic demands of that area.

 

4.  Intersection Analysis

 

The report has not provided any analysis of intersections and/or micro simulation modelling for the various regional and local road network junctions as part of this project study.  The report advises that this modelling is to be undertaken by the proponents (eg, relevant Councils or private developers) to ensure that intersections within and surrounding the EPLR network will be able to cope with the increase in traffic as a result of the development. 

 

This is considered unsatisfactory and it is therefore recommended that an analysis of the intersection capacity of the intersections is undertaken to identify the improvements required to accommodate the traffic demand that will be generated from the NWP and SWP of the Hub developments.

Conclusion

The WSEH is a major employment initiative of the NSW Government and has been identified in the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney as a key element in boosting economic activity and job creation in Western Sydney.  The DoP should be congratulated on bringing forward a plan for advancing development of the WSEH and the proposed Erskine Park Link Road network for consideration.

 

Given the significance of WSEH and the economic benefits it will deliver, it is imperative that the planning for the area provides a strong platform for decision making on major development proposals as they present.  Our assessment, however, has highlighted a number of key issues which are of concern that are important to be addressed by DoP before it finalises its plans. 

 

In particular, the lack of any overarching strategic planning framework for the WSEH combined with the absence of any Structure Plan, Staging Plan or Infrastructure Plan is likely to impact on achieving an integrated, economic and orderly roll-out of development.  The preparation of estate-wide or precinct-wide DCPs rather than site specific DCPs should be strongly encouraged and the lack of clarity in the DCP process rectified. 

 

Greater equity should be established in the application of the E2 Environmental Conservation Zones throughout the whole of the WSEH and consistency established with the DoP’s planning template in relation to acquisition provisions.

 

It is extremely concerning that as the draft SEPP identifies the relevant Council as the acquisition authority for the Link Road network rather than the RTA, there appears to be no practical way of implementing its construction.  This is exacerbated by the lack of any clear funding strategy for the Link Road network or delineation of responsibilities for its establishment.  It is recommended that Council’s submission strongly urge the RTA be the acquisition and construction authority for the full Link Road Network.   

 

In this regard, Council’s endorsement is sought to pursue a deputation to the Premier seeking his support for the RTA to move as a matter of urgency to undertake the necessary acquisition and construction of the Link Road network between EBP and the M7. 

 

It is also recommended that Council’s submission to the DoP on the draft SEPP and the draft Erskine Park Link Road Network concept plan incorporate the issues identified in this report. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Western Sydney Employment Hub - Public Exhibition of draft SEPP (Western Sydney Employment Hub) 2008 and draft Erskine Park Link Road Network Plan be received

2.     Council endorse a submission to the Department of Planning on the Western Sydney Employment Hub Draft SEPP and Draft Erskine Park Link Road Network plan based on the issues identified in the report. 

3.     Council endorse pursuit of a deputation to meet with the Premier seeking his support for the RTA to move as a matter of urgency to undertake the necessary acquisition and construction of the Link Road network between Erskine Business Park and the M7.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report

 


 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

5

Variation to 88B Instrument for Lot 804 DP 1068323 (No. 16 - 21) Belleview Avenue, Mt Vernon  Applicant:  Renata Bacic;  Owner:  Renata Bacic    

DA07/1288

Compiled by:                Julie Condon, Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Redevelopment of existing areas contributes to safe, sustainable, affordable and satisfying living environments and cohesive communities.

Critical Action:  Formulate and implement social and cultural strategies for redeveloping established areas that support cohesive communities.

     

Purpose:

To seek endorsement from Council to vary a restrictive covenant associated with a residential property and imposed on the original subdivision.  The report recommends that this restriction be varied with the Common Seal of Penrith City Council being affixed to all necessary documentation.

 

Background

Council approved subdivision application DA 01/2345 for the creation of seventeen (17) new allotments for rural residential purposes in Belleview Ave Mt Vernon in June 2004.  As part of that approval, restrictive covenants under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 were imposed.

 

The restriction on the use of land, fourthly referred to in the subject deposited plan, states in section (b):

 

“all development erected on the subject lots will be in accordance with the ‘Siting Plan including Landscape Plan’ as indicated on the Plan Reference Pittenridge Shinkfield Bruce numbered LO1E and dated 20th November 2002. The plan is held by Penrith City Council.”

 

Penrith City Council is nominated as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify, the terms of the restriction.

 

The Siting Plan referred to in the restrictive covenant, nominates individual building envelopes for each site. It was applied to the subdivision to maintain separation between buildings, and provide for preservation of established landscaping to the perimeters of the allotments. (See Siting Plan in Appendix 2)

 

The building envelopes were implemented to reinforce subdivision controls which seek to provide varying setbacks and depth to frontage ratios to avoid a monotonous and uniform streetscape.

 

The location of the building envelopes also seeks to minimise excavation and filling needed by following the natural contours of the site.

 

The applicant has requested the above restriction be varied, proposing a new building envelope which has a greater length along the side boundaries of the site than along the front. The revised building envelope has been sited toward the southern side of the site ostensibly to provide the dwelling and outdoor living areas with a greater exposure to the benefits of the northern sun. The relocated building envelope is of the same area as the original.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is a 1ha allotment situated in the semi-rural locality of Capitol Hill at Mount Vernon. The surrounding area is characterised by rural/residential development in a parkland type setting. The front area of the site forms a topographic high point within the locality. The remainder of the property has a significant slope from the front to the rear. Comprehensive landscaping exists around the perimeter of the site which was implemented as part of the subdivision and now forms a substantial screen of established trees to the proposed development.

 

A cul-de-sac provides the main access to the rural residential properties, which are characterised by gently sloping grassy sites, with significant landscaping provided to the property boundaries. (See Locality Map in Appendix No. 1)

The Proposal

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

 

·    Construction of a two storey, four (4) bedroom brick veneer dwelling with attached four (4) car garage

·    Construction of a cabana to the future swimming pool area

·    Construction of a brick, stone and metal panel front fence

·    Landscaping and site improvements

·    Installation of an Eco Max Onsite Sewerage Management System

 

The development application was accompanied by the following;

·    Statement of Environmental Effects

·    An Acoustic report

·    BASIX Certificate

·    Site and Soil Analysis

·    Submission of justification for variation of building envelope location

·    Waste Management Plan

 

Plans of the proposed development are outlined in Appendix No. 3 and 4.

Assessment of Issues Relating to Positive Covenant

The following table contains an outline of the requirements of the relevant planning controls, and a comparison of the existing and proposed building envelopes.

 

Existing Building Envelope

Proposed Building Envelope

DCP Setback Requirements

Front Setback 22m – 34m offset from street frontage

Front Setback 25m

Front setback 15m

Rear Setback 33 - 35m approximately

Rear Setback 30m – 32m

Rear setback 10m

Side Setbacks 25m (northern side) and 23m (southern side)

Side Setbacks 43m (northern side) and 15.6m (southern side)

Side setback 5m

Area 2000m2

 

Area 2000m2

N/A

 

The table demonstrates that the proposed building envelope complies with all of Council’s minimum requirements for building setbacks.

 

The proposed building envelope is the same area as the original building envelope and will not impact on the existing perimeter landscaping or the requirement for its preservation.

 

The intent behind the setback and building envelope requirements was to create and maintain a streetscape character conducive to the rural setting, to allow for variety of setbacks and open space around the dwelling, and to provide scope for comprehensive landscaping of developments. The building envelope as proposed is unlikely to be inconsistent with these key design principles.

 

The building envelope on the adjoining property to the south is located 15m from the side boundary. A 30m separation between buildings on the two properties will be achieved by the proposal.

 

The subject site is irregular in configuration with an offset frontage to the street. Orientation of the dwelling and building envelope to the north will reduce the impact the proposal has on the streetscape, as the width of the development facing the street is lessened.

 

The dwelling design proposed for the site demonstrates that excavation and filling will be limited to 1.3m in depth. This design complies with the intent of the “Siting Plan”, to minimise site works on the allotment. The development incorporates stepping of levels, both within the dwelling and throughout the exterior terrace and pool area. Filling to the rear of the terrace area will be contained within the rear wall of the structure.

 

The proposed building envelope is orientated east/west and the applicant proposes to take advantage of this by placing living rooms along the northern elevation of the building and by ensuring sunlight will penetrate into the courtyard area.

 

Due to the above issues, and the nature of the variation requested, it is considered that a variation of the building envelope, as proposed, would have minimal impacts visually or on the amenity or streetscape of the locality.

Assessment of Development Application

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration, under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to those matters, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

1.   Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument

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

The provisions of SREP 20 apply to the property. SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the potential impact on water quality.

 

The development application involves an onsite sewerage management system. The system proposed is a self contained Eco Max system, there is ample site area and the design and functionality of the system will have negligible impact on the receiving environment.

 

The compliance of the proposal with the general planning considerations, specific planning policies, and recommended strategies specified in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Part 2 of SREP 20, has been assessed, and it is considered that the development application for the construction of a dwelling and outbuildings and the installation of the proposed On Site Sewerage Management System meets these requirements.

Local Environmental Plan 201 – Rural Lands

The subject site is zoned No 1(c) Rural “C” Zone – Rural/Residential under LEP 201. The proposed development is defined as a dwelling house and associated structures, which are permissible with the consent of Council.

Zone Objectives

The objectives of zone No 1(c) Rural “C” Zone – Rural/Residential are;

(a)  to provide the opportunity for the development of integrated rural/residential development: and

(b)  to promote an innovative approach to rural/residential development; and

(c)  to ensure that development is compatible with the environmental capabilities of the land and to encourage the conservation and enhancement of natural resources by means of appropriate land management techniques; and

(d)  to assist in meeting the demand for rural/residential development in Penrith where it is consistent with the conservation of rural, agricultural, heritage and natural landscape qualities; and

(e)  to ensure that attractive views from main roads and other vantage points are protected and enhanced; and

(f)   to ensure that adequate provision has been made for water and disposal of effluent; and

(g)  to ensure that development does not create unreasonable demands, now or in the future, for the provision or extension of public amenities or services: and

(h)  to ensure that traffic generating developments are suitably located so as not to be adversely affect the safety and efficiency of roads; and

(i)   to ensure that development will not lead to excessive soil erosion or run-off; and

(j)   to ensure that the form, siting and colours of buildings, building materials, and landscaping complement the natural scenic quality of these areas.”

 

The proposed development meets the objectives for the provision of rural residential development, which have been carefully considered in the construction of the subdivision. As such, adequate provision of services has been assured and the onsite disposal of effluent is considered to be satisfactory.

 

The development itself, while large, is well articulated, has a stepped roof form and contains verandahs and a variety of materials in the finishes to break up any apparent bulk. The development itself will be well screened by the established perimeter landscaping to the site. The proposal is consistent with the existing landscape qualities and will not be visible from any main road.

 

The development has attempted to be sympathetic to the existing site attributes. The building design is in keeping with other larger dwellings in the locality. The development site is comprehensively landscaped, and the proposed building design and materials are suitable to blend in with the natural setting.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the objectives for development in the zone.

Development Standards

The site and locality is subject to minimum lot size and density controls. These were considered in the assessment of the subdivision proposal and the subject property complies with the minimum lot size requirement of 1Ha to permit the construction of a dwelling house.

 

The site is located within the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast contour line attached to the draft environmental impact statement for the Second Sydney Airport. As such, it is subject to the provisions of Clause 31 of the LEP, and the dwelling is required to be designed so that interior noise levels will meet Australian Standard 2021 “Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction”. A report, prepared by RSA Acoustics – Acoustic Consultancy, has been submitted in support of the application, and demonstrates that the dwelling will meet these requirements if constructed in accordance with the Acoustic Report.

2.   Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Any Development Control Plan (DCP)

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 – Part 4, Section 4.9 – Rural Development

DCP Objectives

(a)  to provide a framework which will encourage development to observe sound environmental planning principles;

(b)  to promote rural/residential development where it is consistent with the conservation of the rural, agricultural, heritage and natural landscape qualities of the area;

(c)  to minimise the cost to the community of fragmented and haphazard development of rural land by ensuring that development does not create unreasonable demands for the provision or extension of public amenities and services now or in the future;

(d)  to ensure that traffic generating developments are suitable located so that the safety and efficiency of roads is not adversely affected by development on adjacent land; and

(e)  to control development in areas subject to flood hazard

(f)   to maintain and improve water quality of the watercourses within and part of the catchments of the city.”

 

For reasons previously stated in respect to the zone objectives the development is considered to satisfy these DCP objectives.

Design and Numerical Requirements

Part B – Development Issues

 

Setbacks  – A minimum setback of 15m is required. The setback proposed is a minimum of 25m, which complies, and is considered suitable for the site and locality.

 

Services – Reticulated water supply and electricity are available to the site. Effluent disposal is to be via an onsite sewerage management system.

 

Access – The proposed driveway onto and within the site will substantially follow the natural contours. Minimal additional site works will be required. The driveway is to be curved and will enhance the development of the site.

 

Tree Removal – Tree removal is not proposed to facilitate the dwelling construction.

 

Car Parking – A four car garage under the main roof of the dwelling is proposed as part of the development.

 

Noise Generation and Control – The site is subject to the 20-25 ANEF Contour. The dwelling is required to be designed so that interior noise levels will meet Australian Standard 2021 “Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction”. A report, prepared by RSA Acoustics – Acoustic Consultancy, has been submitted in support of the application, and demonstrates that the dwelling will meet these requirements if constructed in accordance with the Acoustic Report.

 

Drainage – The site contains a 50,000 litre in-ground rainwater tank as a part of its infrastructure. This tank serves as onsite detention for the development. All roof water, overflow, and surface water, are required to be to be directed into this rainwater tank.

 

Landscaping – The site contains existing landscaping to all boundaries. The development proposes to retain this landscaping. Additional landscaping is proposed in the areas adjacent to the dwelling, swimming pool and access driveway.

 

Part C – Housing

 

Building Design – The objectives of the LEP and DCP, as well as this section of the DCP require that dwellings are to be designed, sited and landscaped so as to compliment and conserve the natural, rural and agricultural character and scenic quality of the area. 

 

The proposed dwelling is a large two storey design which incorporates a combination of a number of architectural styles. The building includes significant articulation of the walls, with design features to the front elevation. The roof design contains a number of variations in height and direction (See Appendix No 3).

 

The building form has been simplified from that originally proposed and now includes elements of rural character with the provision of eaves, and opening up of walled courtyard areas into verandahs to shade and soften the appearance of the external walls.

 

The existing extensive perimeter plantings will provide a screen to the development and assist it in integrating into the landscape and complementing the existing development in the locality.

 

Fencing – The DCP states that only rural style fencing is permitted. That is fencing of an open rural nature, in character with that normally found in rural areas. As a part of the development, a 1.5m high brick and open metal panel fence is proposed to the front boundary of the site. A 1.8m high brick or stone entry feature is also proposed.

 

This type of fencing is not in accordance with the traditional post and rail or post and wire fences of the City’s rural areas. However, it is low profile and predominantly open in nature. The locality is characterised by development which is more rural/residential in nature and many examples of fencing similar to that proposed are in evidence. The fence proposed is to be constructed across the front boundary of the property and therefore, located behind the established screen of vegetation which exists along the road reserve in front of the site.

 

Penrith Development Control Plan Part 6, Section 6.26 – Land in the Vicinity Horsely Road/Mount Vernon Road Kemps Creek.

 

Relevant DCP Objectives

a)   To protect and enhance the scenic quality and rural character of the area;

b)   To ensure that development is compatible with  the environmental capabilities of the land and to encourage the conservation and enhancement of natural resources by means of appropriate land management technique;

c)   To ensure that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of effluent;

d)   To ensure that adequate consideration has been given to landscaping and the form, siting, building materials and colours of any proposed buildings;

e)   To ensure that allotments are compatible in size and shape with the physical nature of the land , adjoining land uses and the likely use of land in the future”

 

Other than the discussion relating to building design above, the development is considered to be in keeping with the objectives and design and numerical requirements of the DCP.

3.   Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development

The proposed development would be likely to have minimal impacts in terms of access, traffic, public domain, utilities, heritage, or the use of agricultural land. It would result in provision of a further dwelling in an area already characterised by larger rural residential homes. 

 

·    The development has been designed to be responsive to the site. Site disturbance/excavation and filling are minimized and will not exceed 1.3m in depth. The dwelling incorporates stepped floor levels, and the rear of the terrace area utilizes an integrated retaining wall to contain the majority of filling within the building footprint

 

·    No vegetation removal is proposed. Additional landscaping will be provided to the areas surrounding the dwelling, swimming pool and driveway, including replacement of the three removed trees

 

·    Reticulated water, electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The development includes a proposal to capture and reuse rainwater on the premises. An Onsite Sewerage Management System is proposed

 

·    The proposal will have minimal impact on the local road system. Residential traffic only will be generated by the development

 

·    Effluent Disposal - A satisfactory site and soil analysis has been prepared and submitted in support of the application. The site has a minimum size of 10,000m² and the proposed land application area complies with all specified minimum buffer distances. The proposed Eco max Cell system contains and disposes of all effluent within the 132m2 cells

·    The proposed development will have minimal impact on the amenity of the area and is in keeping with the surrounding and adjacent land uses

·    The proposal to construct a dwelling in the rural/residential subdivision will have no adverse social or economic impacts in the locality

·    The development will comply with BASIX legislation for conservation of water and energy

·    The development is not subject to bushfire risk or flooding

4.   Section 79C(1)(c) – The Suitability of the Site for the Development

 

The proposed development fits the locality. Adequate separation is provided between developments on adjoining properties. 

 

Adequate services are available to the site. On site disposal of effluent is proposed.

 

The site is not nominated as bushfire prone. It is not subject to flooding, contamination or slip. The site attributes are conducive to the proposal.

5.   Section 79C(1)(d) – Any Submissions made in relation to the Development

Community Consultation

In accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notification Development Control Plan, the proposed development was notified to the adjoining property owners. No submissions were received in response.

Conclusion

Assessment of the application for the dwelling and ancillary structures including variation to  the 88B Instrument applying to the property demonstrates that it is generally in accordance with all other LEP and DCP requirements and 88B Instrument provisions.

 

Assessment of the application to vary the terms of Restrictive Covenant, fourthly referred to in the 88B Instrument attached to Lot 804, DP 1068323, has demonstrated that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the achievement of the outcomes intended by the planning and subdivision controls for this property.

 

The proposed variation will not compromise the character or amenity of the locality, and will not cause a significant reduction in the spatial separation, and perceived setbacks of development on the streetscape.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Variation to 88B Instrument for Lot 804 DP 1068323 (No. 16 - 21) Belleview Avenue, Mt Vernon be received

2.     The terms of clause (b) of Restrictive Covenant fourthly referred to in the 88B Instrument attached to Lot 804, DP 1068323, be varied as follows as it applies to Lot 804 only:

(b)       All development erected on the subject lot will be in accordance with the proposed building platform indicated on the Site Plan Prepared by Charleston Homes Pty Ltd, Drawing for Job Number BAC34307

 

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

4.     Development Application No 07/1288 for the construction of a dwelling, in-ground swimming pool, pavilion, shed and entry gates, and the installation of an on site sewerage management system, be approved subject to the proposed conditions of Development Consent as follows:

Standard Conditions

4.1       A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A009 – Residential Works DCP

A019 – Occupation Certificate

A046 – Issue of Construction Certificate

D001 – Sedimentation and Erosion Controls

D009 – Covering Waste Storage area

E001 – BCA compliance

E005 – Smoke Alarms

F010 – Septic distance from house

H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H011 – Engineering plans and specifications

H013 – Further details of building components

H014 – Slab design

H015 – Termite protection

H036 – Rainwater tank

H037 – Safe supply from catchment

H038 – Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 – Rainwater tank pumps

H041 – Hours of work

H034 – Bushfire roof sarking

I003 – Roads Act approval

K017 – Stormwater and sewerage plan

L001 – General landscaping

L008 – Tree preservation order

Q001 – Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Special Conditions

4.2      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered for Job No BAC54507, drawn by Charleston Homes and dated 4th July 200y, the application form, the BASIX Certificate, and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions

 

4.3     All boundary fences are to be low profile, open style and rural in character. The front fence is not to exceed 1.5m in height. The brick dwarf wall is not to exceed 300mm above natural ground level at any point.

 

4.4     The future swimming pool is to be the subject of a separate development application to Council.

 

4.5     Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the development, the variation of the Restriction on the Use of land numbered 4(b) in DP 1068323, shall be registered with the Land and Property Information division of the Department of Lands

 

The variation to the covenant shall be in the terms approved by resolution of Penrith City Council

 

4.6     Cut and fill operations on the property are only permitted in conjunction with the building works and shall be strictly limited in depth and extent to that detailed on the approved plans and specifications

 

Before any fill material is imported to site, a validation certificate issued by an appropriately qualified person is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority. The validation certificate must demonstrate that the fill material is free from contaminants and weeds, that it is suitable for its intended purpose and land use, and that it will not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment

 

          If Penrith City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the validation certificate is to be submitted to Council for their reference

 

          {Note: Penrith Contaminated Land Development Control Plan defines an appropriately qualified person as “a person who, in the opinion of Council, has a demonstrated experience, or access to experience in hydrology, environmental chemistry, soil science, eco-toxicology, sampling and analytical procedures, risk evaluation and remediation technologies. In addition, the person will be required to have appropriate professional indemnity and public risk insurance.”}

 

4.7     All house sewer and plumbing work shall be carried out in accordance with Sydney Water's requirements or the Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation 1993

a)       Penrith City Council is both the consent authority and certifying authority for the installation of the On Site Sewage Management System (OSSM), otherwise known as a septic tank system. It is your responsibility to contact Council's Building Approvals and Environment Protection Department to organise all inspections required for the installation of the system. In this regard, the following will require inspection:

·     All internal and external drainage lines and septic tanks before they are backfilled/covered

·     On completion of the system's installation and prior to its commissioning, ensuring compliance with those conditions specific to the installation of the system

 

A copy of the satisfactory inspection reports carried out by Council shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority

 

i.        The septic tank, drainage lines and effluent disposal area shall not be altered without the prior approval of Council. In addition, the septic tank shall not be buried or covered

ii.       There shall be no effluent runoff from the subject property to adjoining premises, public places or reserves

iii.      There shall be available all year round, adequate water supply that is available to the property

 

4.8     The Eco Max Cells shall have a minimum area of 140m2 and shall be prepared in accordance with the “Environmental and Health Protection Guidelines On Site Sewage Management for Single Households” and AS1547:2000

 

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate and the issue of an operational licence for the OSSM system by Penrith City Council, the effluent disposal area shall be:

·    Prepared/ landscaped in accordance with the stamped - approved plans

 

All stormwater and seepage shall be diverted away from the disposal area by using an agricultural drain or earthen bund and dish drain

 

4.9     Prior to the commencement of construction works:

(a)     Toilet facilities at or in the vicinity of the work site shall be provided at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be:

·    A standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer, or

·    If that is not practicable, an accredited sewage management facility approved by the council, or

·    Alternatively, any other sewage management facility approved by council

 

4.10   The recommended construction details to reduce aircraft noise intrusion to meet indoor design sound levels, as detailed in the report prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy and dated 12th May 2006 are to be undertaken during construction. As the recommended construction details are carried out and on completion of the       development, a qualified acoustic consultant shall certify that the        development has been constructed to meet the indoor design sound    levels in accordance with the approved acoustic report

 

4.11   Roof and surface water shall be disposed of in accordance with the    approved drainage design. Overflow from the existing in-ground rainwater tank is to be disposed of into the street gutter

 

4.12   The existing trees to the perimeter of the property, other than those nominated on the site plan to be relocated, shall be retained and duly protected during the construction of the development. Tree protection measures shall be installed before any works can commence on site including the clearing of site vegetation

 

4.13   An Occupation Certificate is to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority on completion of all works and prior to the occupation of the dwelling. The commitments listed in the BASIX Certificate are to be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

The Certificate shall not be issued if any conditions of this consent, but not the        conditions relating to the operation of the development, are outstanding. This       includes submitting the following documentation to the Principal Certifying Authority:

(a)     Written documentation or Compliance Certificate from Penrith City Council certifying to the satisfactory completion of works approved under the Roads Act 1993

(b)     Written documentation or certification attesting to the      satisfactory installation of, and the Licence to Operate the on site sewage management system issued by Penrith City           Council

(c)     Certification from a qualified acoustic consultant certifying that the development has been constructed in        accordance with the approved acoustic report/to meet the indoor design sound levels in accordance with the approved acoustic report

 

4.14   A copy of the Occupation Certificate and all necessary documentation supporting the issue of the Certificate is to be submitted to Penrith City Council, if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.  In the event that a Compliance Certificate was issued by the Principal Certifying Authority certifying compliance that all conditions of the development consent required to be met has in fact been met as well as any documentation stated above, shall be submitted to Penrith City Council if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Siting & Landscape Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

4. View

Elevations

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

Appendix 2 - Siting & Landscape Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

Appendix 3 - Site Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

Appendix 4 - Elevations

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

6

Section 94 Contributions for Dual Occupancies   

 

Compiled by:                Wayne Trew, Project Coordinator Development Contributions

Grant Collins, Recreation and Cultural Facilities Planner

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager

Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Redevelopment of existing areas contributes to safe, sustainable, affordable and satisfying living environments and cohesive communities.

Critical Action:  Formulate and implement social and cultural strategies for redeveloping established areas that support cohesive communities.

     

Purpose:

To provide information to Council on the background to the charging of Section 94 contributions for new dual occupancy developments.  The report recommends the information contained in the report be received.

 

Background

Concern has been expressed over the extent of Section 94 contributions relating to new dual occupancy development, particularly in rural areas.  This report provides the background to the developer contributions sought for this form of development and the relevant principles for those charges.

 

A number of Council’s adopted Section 94 development contributions plans apply to new residential development within the City, including dual occupancies.  Those contributions embrace the delivery of facilities for Cultural Facilities, Library Facilities, Local Open Space Facilities and District Open Space Facilities.

 

The following table summarises the contribution plans, date adopted by Council, and current quarter contributions payable for a dual occupancy development:

 

Facilities

Amount $

Cultural Facilities (adopted 5/5/03)

294.00

Library Facilities (adopted 7/5/01)

777.00

District Open Space (adopted 17/12/07)

4,634.50

Local Open Space (adopted 25/6/07) 

1,674.00

Total

    7,379.50

 

For the district open space, local open space and cultural facilities contributions, a 1% administration charge is applied which is directed to offsetting the costs of Council’s resources involved in the coordination and management of the Section 94 plans and the delivery of required facilities across the City.  This is a common charge implemented by most Councils and is consistent with the Section 94 planning guidelines prepared and issued by the Department of Planning. 

 

Principles Related to Section 94 Charges on Residential Development

In order to provide an equitable approach to the levying of the contributions, all residential development in the City which has the potential to increase the population base, and hence extend the need for community and recreation facilities, is charged at the rates set in Council’s adopted Section 94 plans. 

 

The underlying principle is that all additional dwellings, whether they be in a dual occupancy, town house development, apartment block or a new dwelling in an urban release area, through the addition of new households create a related demand for a range of infrastructure items including community and recreational facilities.  That is, new residential population created by new development creates additional demand on facilities and services within the City.  This is the case whether the residential development is located in an established residential neighbourhood or a rural locality. 

 

In relation to dual occupancy development, only the second (additional) dwelling is charged a Section 94 contribution.  This concession is based on the assumption that either the lot on which the dual occupancy is to be established, or the existing dwelling where one exists, has previously paid for community and recreation facilities already established within the City.  It should be noted this principle also relates to a new single dwelling in a rural area on an existing allotment in as much as it similarly is not charged a Section 94 contribution. 

 

Open Space Contributions

The previous Local Open Space Development Contributions Plan was focused on improvements to local parks and open space areas within the established residential areas of the City.  The investigations undertaken in the PLANS study identified a wider need for open space improvements within the rural areas of the City to better serve and provide a more equitable response to the City’s rural communities.  For this reason, the Local Open Space Development Contributions Plan adopted by Council in June 2007 provided for a range of open space and park improvements in a number of rural areas throughout the City.

 

The newest plan adopted which requires the most substantial payment is the District Open Space Development Contributions Plan which was reported to Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting of 10 December 2007, following its public exhibition and adopted by Council on 17 December 2007.

 

In the formulation of the District Open Space Development Contributions Plan, consideration was also given to the recommendations emerging from the PLANS study, adopted by Council in 2004, which identified a wide range of recreation and cultural facility needs across the City.  This research identified that existing district open space facilities were only just sufficient, and were sometimes deficient, in meeting the demand generated by the existing population, and therefore did not have the capacity to absorb the needs generated from additional residential development in the City.

 

As a result, Council decided that it was appropriate to upgrade its existing recreation land and facilities to meet the demand generated by future development across the City.  It was also considered that, in the interest of keeping costs to a reasonable level, additional land would not be acquired to establish new facilities.  Rather, the approach was taken to make the existing open space land and facilities ‘work harder’ by upgrading them where feasible, and adding new infrastructure where required.

 

The PLANS Study demonstrated that district open space facilities clearly benefit both urban and rural residents, therefore a whole of City approach was required to be adopted.  Therefore, both open space development contributions plans provide an equitable basis for apportioning open space contributions to new development in both urban and rural areas.

 

Benchmarking with Other Councils

In the drafting of the District Open Space Facilities development contributions plan, the contributions were benchmarked with plans in other comparable growth LGAs in Western Sydney.  It was found that the contributions were not unreasonable and were comparable with the range of contributions being charged by those other councils.

 

We have also undertaken recent benchmarking with other councils where rural development opportunities exist and have found that the extent and type of Section 94 contribution vary considerably.  The Section 94 plans for Hawkesbury City Council, Baulkham Hills Shire Council, Sutherland Shire Council, Hornsby Shire Council, Wollondilly Shire Council and Camden Council were reviewed.  The contribution amounts for Open Space relevant to a dual occupancy ranged from approximately $4000 at Hawkesbury City Council to $14,300 at Baulkham Hills Shire Council. 

 

The average Section 94 amount for Open Space was approximately $8,400 which exceeds Council’s current charges.  Many of the Councils required payment of other amounts such as community facilities, drainage, roads and library besides the open space amount.  Given this, it is considered that Council’s charges for dual occupancy developments are reasonable.

 

Advice on Section 94 at pre-development lodgement meetings

It is currently the practice to alert potential developers of what Section 94 plans will apply to a property in pre-lodgement discussions.  The applicant can enquire in more detail and seek the actual amounts applicable at that particular time. 

 

The specific amounts are normally not provided at pre-lodgement meetings unless requested because the development may change as a result of the comments received from the meeting or changes in the applicant’s aspirations.  It is considered more important to advise the developer what Section 94 plans will apply to the site which then enables the applicant to make the necessary enquiries as part of their economic assessment of the project at the appropriate time in the development of the application.

 

Conclusion

Section 94 contributions are charged for the additional dwelling in a dual occupancy development on the basis that the new household occupants will create additional demands for recreation and community facilities in the City.  This principle underpins the nexus for all Section 94 development contributions plans adopted by Council.

 

This approach is relevant whether the dual occupancy development is in an urban or a rural locality, and is the same premise upon which Council seeks contributions for other residential development throughout the City. 

 

The scope of Council’s Local Open Space Development Contributions Plans has been widened in the latest version adopted by Council to encompass improvements to open space and local parks in rural areas to better cater for the future needs of residents in these localities.  It is clear that rural residents access the wide range of district level open space, recreation and cultural facilities in the same way residents in established urban areas do, and as such it is a legitimate and equitable response to levy Section 94 contributions for these facilities for development in rural areas in the same way as we do for development in urban areas.

 

Our investigations indicate that the Section 94 charges for dual occupancy development in Penrith are reasonable and generally consistent with those charged by other Western Sydney Councils. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Section 94 Contributions for Dual Occupancies be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

21 April 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

7

Development Application DA07/0742 for the use of an existing school hall as a Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook  Applicant:  Corpus Christi Parish;  Owner:  Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church    

DA07/0742

Compiled by:                Brad Roeleven, Contract Planner

Peter Wood, Development Assessment Coordinator - North

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Redevelopment of existing areas contributes to safe, sustainable, affordable and satisfying living environments and cohesive communities.

Critical Action:  Formulate and implement social and cultural strategies for redeveloping established areas that support cohesive communities.

     

Purpose:

To consider a development application seeking consent to continue to operate a place of worship and to establish an associated parish administration centre at Corpus Christi Primary School. The report recommends that the application be approved.

 

Background

In September 1987, Council considered a report on the unauthorised use of the Corpus Christi Primary School site as a “place of worship.”  Investigation of this matter arose following concerns from residents. The report noted that, at the time, a “place of worship” was a prohibited use from the school site, and would remain as such until the imminent gazettal of a new local environmental plan (LEP) for Cranebrook. Council resolved then:

 

·    Not to take any action to cease the Church from using the site for the purpose of worship;

·    That subsequent to the gazettal of the Cranebrook LEP, a development application be lodged for the activity.

 

Despite Council’s decision, from September 1987 no development application for parish activities on this site was lodged, until receipt of this application in June 2007.

 

Corpus Christi Primary School has been developed in stages since the first consent granted in 1986 as outlined in the following table:

 

Application No.

Scope of works

Date of consent

105/86

Construction of primary school (stage 1)

9 September 1986

87/87

Construction of primary school (stage 2)

6 November 1987

486/88

Construction of primary school (stage 3)

19 May 1989

338/90

Construction of primary school (stages 4 & 5)

19 November 1990

46/94

Construction of primary school (stage 5)

16 May 1994

Application No.

Scope of works

Date of consent

 

 

 

DA 993935

Extension of operation of Corpus Christi School

20 March 2000

DA06/1014

Alterations and additions including internal refurbishment, construction of new classrooms, administration building, amphitheatre and storeroom

16 February 2007

DA06/1517

Two lot torrens title subdivision

7 May 2007

 

The eastern portion of the site was temporarily occupied by Xavier College, however that activity ceased in January 2004 when the college relocated to a site at Ninth Avenue, Llandilo.

 

The school complex includes a multi purpose hall, which has been used by the Catholic Parish of Corpus Christi as a place of worship since Corpus Christi Primary School commenced operations in 1987. The ongoing use of the hall as a place of worship was brought to Council’s attention during assessment of DA06/1014 for alterations and additions to the school including new classrooms, administration building, amphitheatre and storeroom. Assessment and matters raised in submissions on that application noted that plans identified the hall as a parish centre.  It is evident however, that the parish activities on the site have never been the subject of any development approval. 

 

A review of records indicates that since 1987 Council has received complaints relating to loss of residential amenity from the continued use of the school hall for worship services. Since the most recent application for alterations and additions to the school, complaints and submissions on the matter have intensified.

 

Clarification was sought from the applicant in relation to the inclusion of the “parish centre” on plans accompanying the application for classroom additions (DA06/1014). Given the extent of issues that were raised specifically about the use of the multi purpose hall, not associated with the primary school additions, the applicant decided to excise that aspect of the proposal from the application. The applicant agreed to submit a separate application accompanied by appropriate documentation to address the place of worship use, now the subject of this report.

 

The applicant also agreed to only continue the unauthorised use on terms set by Council until such time as the application was determined. Despite this, Council has continued to receive various complaints about the use, in particular relating to noise and operating hours. The complaints are from one resident. There has been numerous correspondence and discussions with the complainant and the applicant, in an attempt to bring about an amicable solution. It would seem that having agreed operating hours under which the use of the multi-purpose hall needed to satisfy would provide clearer compliance provisions. Should Council consent to this application these controls will be set by Condition. Council has issued a letter dated 7 April 2008 reminding the applicant that all noise generating activities on site are to comply with the relevant legislation and guidelines, with no noise generating activities being carried out on the premises between 10pm and 7am every day ahead of the application being determined.

 

If Council chooses to grant consent to this application, it cannot give retrospective approval for the use of the hall as a place or worship, only consent for the continued use as such.

Site and Surrounds

This application applies to the Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School site in Andromeda Drive, Cranbrook. The school occupies an irregular, but essentially rectangular, shaped allotment of 4.331 hectares, set primarily along an east-west axis between The Northern Road and Andromeda Drive (see Locality Plan in Appendix 1).

 

The northern and southern boundaries of the site are common with low density residential housing fronting Cassar Place and Goldmark Crescent. Land opposite the site to the west, along Andromeda Drive, supports various land uses including a community centre, public open space, residential housing and a child care centre. Land opposite the site to the east, across The Northern Road, has a rural zone, and is used primarily for rural residential purposes.

 

The school campus addresses Andromeda Drive. A substantial parking area with associated driveways is located adjacent to that street frontage. The school complex is principally comprised of two groups of buildings. The main section of the campus is positioned adjacent to the car park, at the western end of the site.  A second, smaller, group of buildings is located towards the centre on the site. The area between these two sets of buildings is occupied by an 18m wide drainage easement, set along a north-south axis, which essentially divides the school property in half. The site is also burdened by a small electricity easement located adjacent to the northern site boundary, towards the Andromeda Drive frontage. Mature vegetation is provided along the northern site boundary, either side of the drainage easement and in proximity of the boundary to Andromeda Drive (see Site Plan in Appendix 2).

The Proposal

This application seeks approval for a change in the use of two existing buildings within the school complex to accommodate the activities of the Catholic Parish of Corpus Christi. To facilitate those uses, various minor building works are also proposed. The matters for which consent is sought are set out below:

 

Place of worship

This application seeks approval for the continued use of the school’s multi purpose hall as a place of worship by the Corpus Christi Catholic Parish. It is noted that this building would also remain as a hall for the primary school.

 

A review of information provided by the proponent indicates that the usage of the multi purpose hall can be categorised as comprising regular scheduled activities, unscheduled but anticipated activities, and the annual events of Easter and Christmas.

 

These circumstances are described in the tables below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly scheduled activities

 

Day

Activity

Duration

Approx. attendance

Monday

-

-

-

Tuesday

·    Individual prayer

·    Mass

·    Choir practice

6.30 pm - 7.00 pm

7.00 pm - 7.45 pm

8.00 pm - 10.00 pm

 

40 people

13 people

Wednesday

·    Mass

9.10 am - 9.55 am

30 people

Thursday

-

-

-

Friday

·    Mass

9.10 am - 9.55 am

30 people

Saturday

·    Choir practice

·    Mass

3.30 pm - 5.30 pm

6.00 pm - 7.10 pm

13 people

360 people

Sunday

·    Mass

·    Mass

·    Baptisms 

7.30 am - 8.40 am

9.30 am - 10.40 am

11.15 am - 12.45 pm

140 people

260 people

140 people

 

Unscheduled but anticipated activities

The parish use of the multi purpose hall also includes other activities, the nature of which would vary throughout the course of the year in terms of frequency and levels of attendance. Those activities are noted as being:

 

Activity

Duration / Frequency

Approx. attendance

Funerals

Held weekdays. Commence after 9.30 am and conclude by 2.30 pm. Four funerals held during 2007 and to date only 1 funeral in 2008.

Unknown

Weddings

Held Saturdays. Would conclude by 5 pm

Unknown

General

Use of meeting rooms weekdays, 9.30 am until  2.30 pm.

10 people

Sacramental programs

Meetings with parents of children involved in this program. About 3 meetings per year. 7.30 pm until 10.00 pm.

Not stated

Parish meetings

About 2 meetings per month, from 7.00 pm until 10.00 pm.

 

Social gatherings

Held on several occasions throughout the year, after the Saturday evening or Sunday morning Mass.  Duration of 1 -3 hours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easter

Day

Activity

Duration

Holy Thursday

Last Supper Mass

7.30 pm - 11.00 pm

Good Friday

Stations of the Cross

Individual Sacrament of Reconciliation

Solemn Commemoration of the Passion of the Lord

10 am -11 am

11.30 am - 1.00 pm

3.00 pm- 5.30 pm

Holy Saturday

Easter Vigil

7.30 pm - 11.00 pm

 

Christmas

Day

Activity

Duration

Christmas Eve

Vigil Mass

Mass

Solemn Midnight Mass

6.00 pm - 7.15 pm

8.30 pm - 9.45 pm

Midnight - 1.30 am

Christmas Day

Mass

9.30 am - 11.00am

 

Parish offices

This component of the application seeks approval for the future use of the current primary school administration building as the administration centre for the Corpus Christi Parish. Currently, the Parish administration is located within the Rectory, at Nos. 92-94 Andromeda Drive.

 

The building the subject of this element of the application is located at the northwest corner of the site, immediately north of the multi purpose hall and adjacent to dwellings fronting Pluto Close.

 

The parish administration centre would operate Tuesdays – Fridays, 9.00 am until 5.00 pm. The applicant advises that 4 staff would be work from this building, 3 fulltime and 1 part time.

 

The school administration will continue to operate from this building until new facilities (approved via DA 06/1014) are completed.

 

Building works

A range of minor works are associated with this application, being:

 

Internal works

·       Removal of various internal walls within the multi purpose hall;

·       Removal of existing school canteen storerooms to create new toilet facilities;

·       Construction of new kitchen, office, store room and music platform;

·       Internal refurbishment of proposed Parish administration offices.

 

External works (multi purpose hall only)

·       Repositioning of a section of existing security fencing, and new pavement, to allow for a wider footpath (set down area) to be created in proximity to the main entry. This access is to be used to provide improved access for events such as funerals and weddings; 

·       New driveway cross over, driveway and gates to permit vehicular access from the existing driveway in proximity to the space between the multi purpose hall and administration building;

·       Enlarged roof awning over northern entry to multi purpose hall in proximity to the administration building;

·       Larger windows to sections of the southern and western elevations;

·       Refurbishment of the primary pedestrian entry including construction of a new awning to create large covered entry space, new stairs, reconfigured pathways and signage;

·       Erection of a cross at the southwest corner of the building.

 

The proposed works will be undertaken in stages as funds become available. Stage 1 comprises the use of the multi purpose hall, without any modifications, as a place of worship.

Planning Assessment

1.       Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of land

This Policy aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.

 

Clause 7 of the SEPP requires that consent must not be granted to any development on land unless Council has considered whether the land is contaminated, and if so, whether the land is, or could be made, suitable for the proposed purpose.

This issue of site contamination was assessed in prior applications for the expansion of the school. As this proposal essentially relates only to the use of existing buildings, this matter does not require further specific investigation.

 

State Regional Environmental Plan 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River

This Plan integrates planning with catchment management to protect the river system and requires that the impact of future land use is to be considered in a regional context. The Plan covers water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, riverine scenic quality, agriculture, and urban and rural residential development. It controls development that has the potential to impact on the river environment. This Plan applies to all parts of the catchment in the Sydney Region except for land covered by Sydney REP No. 11 - Penrith Lakes Scheme.

 

No circumstances have been identified to indicate that this proposal would be inconsistent with any of the general planning considerations, specific planning policies and recommended strategies in Part 2 of the Plan.

 

None of the development controls in Part 3 of the REP are applicable to this proposal.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Land

The site is zoned 2B Residential (Low Density) under this Plan. The activity for which consent is sought is defined as a place of worship, being:

 

“a building or place used predominantly for the purpose of religious worship, whether or not the building or place is also used for counselling, social events or religious training by a congregation or religious group”.

 

The development control table in clause 9 of the Plan provides that a “place of worship” is permissible with consent within the 2(b) zone. The use of the multi purpose hall, and the associated administration building, for worship and parish activities, is considered permissible as these purposes fall within the above definition.

 

Clause 9(2) of the LEP requires that development consent must not be granted unless Council is satisfied that the proposal would be consistent with the: 

 

(i)         aims of the LEP;

(ii)        objectives of the relevant zone; and 

(iii)       objectives of the development controls within the LEP.

 

The relevant aims of the LEP relate to consideration of residential character, residential amenity, environmental performance and community services and infrastructure. Assessment of the application has not identified any circumstances to indicate this proposal would be inconsistent with those aims.  

 

The objectives of the Residential 2(b) zone are to:

 

(i)          reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation values, and

(ii)         promote the established urban and landscape character of traditional residential subdivisions by limiting the range of permissible uses, and

(iii)        allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

 

Similarly, this assessment has not identified any circumstances which indicate this proposal would be inconsistent with those aims.

 

Clause 9(2) further requires that consent not be granted unless Council has considered the objectives of any development control plans applying to the land. Consideration of the relevant provisions of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 is provided later in this report. 

 

Consideration of how this proposal responds to the remaining relevant provision of the LEP is shown in the table below:

 

Clause

Requirement

Assessment

Clause 12

 

Building envelopes, heights, landscaped areas and rear boundary setbacks for development that requires consent

Consent must not be granted to development involving the erection of a building in Zone 2(b) unless the building is wholly within the building envelope, and does not contravene the relevant maximum external wall height or minimum landscaped area for the zone.

This clause is a relevant consideration as it applies to any development which requires approval within the 2(b) zone. However, this application does not propose to construct any building, only to undertake minor, and primarily internal, modifications, to existing buildings. Compliance with this clause, to the extent that it can be applied, is achieved.

Clause 13

 

Provisions for environmental performance in development generally

Consent must not be granted unless council is of the opinion that the proposal has taken into account the following:

 

(a)  the provisions of any development control plan relating to environmental noise, including impacts on both generators and receivers of noise, and

 

(b)  the reduction of contaminated storm water discharge from the site.

 

The issue of noise is addressed at Section 5 below. The proposal is able to meet relevant criteria.

 

 

There would be no alteration to existing arrangements for the collection and discharge of stormwater.

Clause 14   

 

Provision for design principles in development generally

 

Consent must not be granted unless council is of the opinion that the proposed development has taken into account the following:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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