12 November 2008

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 17 November 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 Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 20 October 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 Conflict of Interest – Significant and Less than Significant (The Code of Conduct requires Councillors who declare a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

8.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

 

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


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 17 November 2008

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

master program reports

 


 

2008 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

 

14

4

8ü

13

10

1

25

 

21

19

23* 

 

 

29^

 

 

15

Policy Review Committee

7.30 pm

 

3

 

12#

 

7

 

1

20

17#

 

18#+

31@

28

 

16

28

18#+

 

 

 

 

Councillor Briefing / Working Party / Presentation

7.30 pm

11

 

14

 

2Y

 

11

 

 

3

 

 

17

 

26

30

21

25

 

 

24

 

 

 

#    Meetings at which the Management Plan ¼ly reviews are presented

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

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

*     Meeting at which the Management Plan for 2008/2009 is adopted

^     Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

@   Strategic Program progress reports [only business]

ü    Meeting at which the 2007/2008 Annual Statements are presented

Y    Management Plan Councillor Briefings/Public Forum (May)

 

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

-                 Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

-                 Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee). Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Public Officer, Glenn McCarthy on 4732 7649.



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON MONDAY 20 OCTOBER 2008 AT 7:33PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee, and John Thain.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:33pm

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:34pm

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 1 September 2008

PRC 86  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 1 September 2008 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Kaylene Allison, Prue Guillaume and Kath Presdee declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than significant in Item 2 of Confidential BusinessPersonnel Matter – Workforce Issue as they are members of the United Services Union.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM  declared a Less than Significant Conflict of Interest in an item to be raised in Confidential Business as the matter indirectly concerns an individual who voluntarily handed out election material for Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM.

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

1        Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008                                                                            

PRC 87  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the information contained in the report on Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008  be received.

 

 

2        Submission to Infrastructure Australia                                                                             

PRC 88  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

          That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Submission to Infrastructure Australia  be received.

2.     Council endorse the submission to Infrastructure Australia, with the inclusion of identification of the proposed Badgerys Creek Airport site should it not be advanced for the development of Sydney’s second airport, for a inter-modal freight terminal.

 

The City In Its Environment

 

3        Penrith Social Sustainability Grant                                                                                    

PRC 89  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Social Sustainability Grant be received

2.     The establishment of the “Penrith Social Sustainability Grant Program” be endorsed.

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

4        2008 Local Government Association Conference - Request for Late Motions              

PRC 90  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2008 Local Government Association Conference - Request for Late Motions be received

2.     Council seek to amend Tamworth Regional Council’s Motion to the 2008 Local Government Association Conference (Motion 10 on the Conference Business Paper) in relation to the Local Government Elections by adding the following:

 

        i)         That the Local Government Association request the NSW Electoral Commission to undertake a review of the application of a consistent approach, for all elections (Local, State and Federal) in relation to the definition of a polling place and the minimum distance that candidate (party) workers are required to be from all polling place entrances.

 

        ii)         That the Local Government Association request the Federal Government to review the tax deductible allowance applicable to campaign expenses for candidates in local government elections to bring it into line with the allowance for candidates in State and Federal elections.

 

3.     Council submit a late motion to the 2008 LGA Conference in relation to proposed amendments to the Local Government Association Constitution as follows:

 

“That the Association seek to amend the Local Government and Shires Association Constitution so as to allow for the eighteen (18) Local Aboriginal Land Councils to take out independent membership of the Local Government Association of NSW apart from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) membership.”

 

and in the event that this motion is not accepted for the 2008 LGA Conference, it be re-submitted for the 2009 LGA Conference.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM advised the meeting that he had an item to be referred to Confidential Business, being a personnel matter concerning particular individuals and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:41pm

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

The meeting closed to consider Confidential Business, the time being 8:42pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

PRC 91 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the press and public be excluded from the meeting to deal with the following matters:

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

2        Personnel Matter - Workforce Issue                                                                                

 

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

 

RESUMPTION OF BUSINESS IN OPEN COMMITTEE

 

The meeting moved out of confidential session at 8:48pm and the Acting General Manager reported that after excluding the press and public from the meeting, the Policy Review Committee met in confidential session from 8:42pm to 8:48pm to consider personnel matters.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Personnel Matter - Workforce Issue                                                                                

PRC 92  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison

That:

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

2.     The recommendation be endorsed.

 

 

 

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:49pm

The Committee acknowledged that Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM has stated that he may not have fully complied with the adopted Code of Conduct in that he referred a matter to the Committee of the Whole at the Council meeting of the 13 October 2008 and failed to declare a non pecuniary less than significant conflict of interest at that time. This is because the matter he raised and which subsequently came before the Committee of the Whole on 13 October 2008 related to an individual who voluntarily handed out election material for Kevin Crameri OAM. The Committee noted Councillor Kevin Crameri’s apology.

 

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

    


 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

1        2008-2009 Management Plan - September Quarter Review

  

The City as a Social Place

 

2        Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy

 

3        Penrith Regional City Garden Feasibility Study

 

The City In Its Environment

 

4        No Mow Zones

 

5        2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund

 

6        Creation of an Urban Design Review Panel

   

Leadership and Organisation

 

7        Inquiry into NSW Planning Framework

 

8        Annual Report 2007-2008

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Leadership and Organisation

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        2008-2009 Management Plan - September Quarter Review

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

1

2008-2009 Management Plan - September Quarter Review   

 

Compiled by:                Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Vicki O’Kelly, Financial Services Manager

Authorised by:             Barry Husking, Chief Financial Officer   

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

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

     

Purpose:

To present the September Quarter progress report on Council's 2008-2009 Management Plan. The report recommends that the Review be adopted, including revised estimates and expenditures as detailed in the report. A copy of the progress report has been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

Background

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Management Plan progress report for the period ending 30 September 2008 is presented tonight for Council’s consideration.

 

This is the first quarterly review of Council’s 2008-2009 Management Plan, which is the final year of Council’s Strategic Plan for the City of Penrith 2005-2009, Penrith City: the Competitive Edge.

 

Managers have provided details of progress in accordance with their assigned accountabilities. This includes delivery of the ongoing requirements of services, progress of annual tasks and projects and performance against budget. Commentary has also been provided on key achievements for the year to date, as well as issues arising that have impacted on the delivery of the annual program.

 

The General Manager’s report in the document includes comments on key results and issues arising over the first quarter of the year and indicates the focus of organisational efforts for the remainder of 2008-09.

 

The Financial Services Manager’s report is also contained within the review document, and includes information on budget performance, significant issues and proposed variances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Position

Original Surplus

 

$190,523

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less: September Review variations   

 

$(143,246)

 

 

Revised Surplus

 

$47,277

 

 

 

The more significant variations (F – favourable, U- unfavourable) for the quarter include:

                                                                                                                           $000’s

Rates

550.0

F

Net debt servicing

98.9

F

Fringe Benefits Tax

75.9

F

Plant Fuel

(85)

U

Stores and Tools written off

(187.6)

U

Salaries- including the impact of the additional wage increase %

(293.9)

U

Development Related income

(305.0)

U

 

These together with minor variations and reallocations, are discussed in detail in the Financial Services Manager’s report in the summary review document.  Commentary is provided below on the more significant issues in the review.

 

Rating Income- increase of $550,000

In the current economic environment, predicting future development and associated income growth is proving to be an extremely difficult task. Broadly speaking Council is not currently experiencing a high volume of property development however there is significant development taking place in Erskine Business Park.  Predicting rate income growth for the Erskine Business Park has been particularly difficult. Due to the large land area involved it is difficult to predict the number of lots being created, registration dates for those lots and the valuation amounts which are later determined by the Valuer General’s Department.

 

The value of industrial land has risen steeply over recent years and this trend appears to be continuing. Erskine Business Park is delivering unprecedented land sale prices for the Penrith Local Government Area. Valuations for newly created properties are being closely monitored for any discrepancies in the values provided by the Valuer General. A recent valuation objection lodged by Council netted a $280,000 increase in rates revenue for the current financial year. It is estimated that a further 6 lot subdivision of the same land will produce a further net gain of $307,000 this financial year. As a result it is proposed that the estimated rates revenue for 2008-09 be increased by $550,000 for 2008-09.

 

Stores and Tools Written off $187,600

The finalisation of a comprehensive audit of the stock of tools issued to staff has recently been verified by the conduct of a stocktake.  This area has not been verified since 1998 and the total write-off value is a culmination of activity over a period of 10 years.  A number of tools were either damaged or unable to be located and have been written off. Total value of

 

tools currently issued to staff is $330,000.  New procedures recently developed for the ongoing management of tools held by employees will ensure closer monitoring of items.  This will include a future annual stocktake of all employee tools and strict control of the movement of tools between employees.  The Internal Auditor is considering the results of the exercise to determine if there are any areas of particular concern that should be addressed.

 

Salaries- unfavourable $293,900

Council has agreed with the USU to a 4% salary increase effective from November 2008.  The adopted budget has made provision for an increase of 3.2%.  The unfunded costs of the additional 0.8% increase to all staff is $212,900 in the current financial year.  When this was reported to Council salary savings had been identified to fund the proposal. Together with the agreement of the November 2008 increase was agreement of a wage increase of 3.5% for November 2009.  This has provided some certainty for financial modelling and budgeting purposes and is reflected in the Long term Financial Model included in the review document.

 

Other impacts on the overall salaries budget include an initiative which sees the introduction of a new schedule of salaries for professional trainees employed in the skill shortages areas that takes into consideration the work experience relevant to the Traineeship, general work experience and amount of relevant study completed.  The impact in the current year is expected to be $74,800.  A correction to the funding of a position, a small number of position upgrades and an additional short term commitment of staff to the strategic planning process has also impacted the bottom line by $250,000.

 

These costs have been partly offset by additional savings of $244,600 identified in the current quarter and it is proposed that these too be transferred to the bottom line. These savings have eventuated due to vacancies across a number of departments. Most vacant positions are in the process of being filled. Some other identified salary savings are recommended to be retained in the individual departments to enable the engagement of consultants or temporary staff to ensure delivery of some key Management Plan tasks and projects.

 

Development related income $305,000 Unfavourable

DA activity continues to decline especially in the residential area.  There is little activity in the residential release areas or new houses within the established areas. Broader economic impacts are having a noticeable knock on effect to the level of developer and resident confidence in the market place. There is still a reasonable degree of interest in commercial and industrial development although the size and scale of these types of proposals are in decline. It is anticipated that these trends will continue until such time as the residential market recovers from its slump.  Recent changes in interest rates and the first home buyers grant may assist the recovery. 

 

A number of income areas have been impacted by the continuing downturn in building related activity. The main impact has been on Development Application Income which has decreased by $245,000 or 20% compared to the original budget. Income from construction certificates, $50,000 (13%) and DA Infrastructure Income, $30,000 (16%) have also declined These decreases have been partly offset by additional fees for linen release plans of $20,000. 

There has also been some corresponding salary savings of $45,000 which have been directed to the bottom line.

 

Re-votes

There is one adjustment to planned capital works funded from s94 contributions proposed for adoption this quarter:

 

·        Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct $3.0m (s94 and loan funded)

 

The Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct (GPCFP) has been the subject of intensive planning and design to ensure that the completed project best meets the needs of the community.  Council received a comprehensive status report on the Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct major project in late June 2008.  Council had previously endorsed the six shortlisted tenderers for the construction of the project in February 2008.  Council will call for tenders from the short-listed tenderers in mid November with tenders closing 22 December 2008. A report will be presented to a Council meeting in February 2009 with the outcomes of the tender assessment. Assuming a tenderer is awarded the contract construction is expected to commence in March 2009 with an estimated completion date of February 2010.The change in the timing of the project may mean that the loan funds, which are to be repaid from the Glenmore Park Stage 2 s94 may be deferred until 2009-10 by which time there may be some funds available within the plan thus reducing the amount needed to be funded by way of borrowings.  A memorandum has been recently provided to Councillors outlining current status with this project.

 

Other variations with no impact on Surplus

There are currently two projects in the design phase that are unlikely to proceed in the current financial year and it is recommended that the funds be returned to Reserve until there is some certainty about the timing of the projects.

 

·        Erskine Park Rd Culverts Construction $3.0m and Mamre Road/Erskine Park Road Intersection $4.5m (s94 funded)

 

The drainage upgrade for Erskine Park Road and the Erskine Park Road/Mamre Road intersection and Erskine Park Road widening were originally two separate projects.  The projects were to be undertaken separately along with other s94 projects and private works associated with developments along Erskine Park Road  Council identified an opportunity to combine the two projects and to seek additional funding from the Dept of Planning to allow the reconstruction of the length of Erskine Park Road from Lenore Drive to Mamre Road.

 

Council has negotiated an in principle agreement with the Department of Planning (DoP) for an allocation of $1.5m toward the project.  When the designs and costs are completed this agreement will need to be formalised.  The Consultant is completing designs and tender documentation for the combined project and is preparing cost estimates.  However, until the funding arrangement with DoP is finalised and a commencement date for the project is known the funds should be returned to the s94 reserve.

Financial Assistance Grant

As previously reported to Council at the Ordinary Meeting 8 September 2008 an additional amount of $459,642 was received for the Financial Assistance Grant (FAG) compared to that estimated during the budget process.  At the time of preparing the 2008-2009 original budget, a 3% increase on the 2007-08 actual grant received was factored in. The 2008-09 allocation is a 7.6% increase on the previous year. The roads component of the grant is an additional $120,570, compared to 2007-08 actual, which according to Council policy has been added to the roads budget leaving $389,694 available.  At the same meeting Council resolved to transfer these remaining funds to reserve to assist in funding the general revenue component of the key projects in 2009-10 in which year the Long Term Financial Model predicted challenges in preparing a balanced budget with the current level of service delivery.  This transfer is reflected in the updated Long Term Financial Model (LTFM) included in the review document.

 

Long Term Financial Model

Since preparing the last published Long Term Financial Model (LTFM) a number of key factors have been updated not the least of which being additional rating income from non residential rates reported in this review.  The ongoing impact of the additional $550,000 rates income coupled with the predicted growth in rates revenue, confirmation of the 2008-09 base budget, a confirmed wages increase for 2008-09 and 2009-10, the transfer in of the additional 2008-09 Financial Assistance Grant funds allocated to reserve for this purpose results in the LTFM now predicting a smaller deficit for the 2009-10 year.  Strategies to address this will be reported to Council in December when the report outlining the process for the development of the 2009-10 Management Plan is presented.

Format of the Quarterly Review

The adoption of the 2008-09 Management Plan by Council anticipated a revised performance reporting regime to address both Strategy and Service delivery, as reflected in the two volumes of the plan - Part A: Strategic Overview and Part B: Operational Plan and Budget.

 

The progress of Council’s Strategic Program and key issues will continue to be reported and discussed with Council every six months. This will be supplemented by more in-depth discussions of particular issues or areas of the program. Strengthened measures for assessing the delivery of strategic and sustainability outcome measures are also being introduced and this is further discussed in a separate report to tonight’s meeting on the Annual Report.

 

The quarterly Management Plan report to Council and the community is now clearly based on performance of the specified services through which Council’s operations are conducted, together with the usual financial statements and other required information.

 

The Quarterly Review provides a comprehensive progress report on the performance of all Council’s external and internal services (with the exception of the three controlled entities which have separate reporting requirements).

 


Reporting is based on the delivery of the annual program of activities, tasks and projects which was adopted by Council for each service through the Management Plan. The report contains:

·        An ‘executive summary’ of the quarter’s progress with commentary provided by the General Manager and Financial Services Manager together with key results and identification of any service areas requiring greater focus

·        A report on the overall performance, key performance indicators and tasks deliverable for each service, together with a formal budget statement for that service

·        Capital and operating projects progress (similar to previous reports but now arranged to align with the services)

·        Detailed financial statements and summaries.

 

The services performance report which provides much of the basis of the review details the progress of the ongoing and annual deliverables of that service, with the exception of the capital and operating projects which are fully reported elsewhere in the document.

 

It is important to note that the simple expenditure budget snapshot provided under services is supplemented for each service by a fully detailed budget which includes any proposed variations.

Performance Assessment

The review documents incorporate detailed reporting on the year to date performance of each of the services from several principal aspects. These form the basis of the Overall Performance assessment of that service for the year to date. To that is added a Budget Performance snapshot as explained above.

 

The normal expected overall service performance for the first quarter of the year is 25%. However, note that some services (such as in the Operations directorate) are more dependent on the completion of particular projects or works programs, which will strongly influence the result. The model for service reporting is detailed in the review document.

 

The reportable elements of the Service from which its performance is assessed include:

·        Strategic Tasks which link Services to Council’s four year Strategic Program

·        Service Improvements identified through means including ongoing Services Review

·        Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for ongoing requirements of the Service

·        Capital and Operating Projects funded in the annual program

          (NB not all Services contain all of these elements)

 

In addition to the particular KPIs and annual targets which Council adopted in the Management Plan, additional measures have been added to ensure that all the important ongoing activities of service specifications are incorporated. These more generic KPIs for the service have a set target of 100% of ongoing requirements. This approach is initiated in the present review and will be further developed and refined with Managers.

 

All reporting is in terms of year to date progress to fulfil the annual requirements of Council’s program.  Where actions have a life of more than one year, the report is on the performance for 2008-09. Those tasks and projects scheduled to commence after the first quarter are listed in the report but are not included in the performance ratings.

 

Management Plan Performance

From the statements provided by the responsible Managers against the deliverables as explained above, the results for the quarter are as identified in the following table.

 

Table 1. Service Performance Summary ~ September Quarter

 

SERVICE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Completed

GREEN

AMBER

RED

Totals

SERVICES OVERALL        (Service Profiles)

 

58

-

-

58

Strategic Tasks (ST)

2

117

2

-

121

Service Improvements (SI)

1

254

8

-

263

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

N/A

186

7

-

193

Capital Projects

17

102

2

-

121

Operating Projects

5

80

3

-

88

The progress of Council’s program is expressed through the use of percentages and ‘traffic light’ indicators. These are based on the responsible Manager’s statement of the delivery of the annual requirements for that item.

 

Council has for a number of years used a traffic light rating scale for reporting on the performance of Management Plan deliverables. This is supplemented in the new report format by an appropriate rating scale for the expenditure budget performance of services. This new budget scale is adapted from that used in the monthly Financial Health monitoring by the organisation. The rating scales are explained in the table below.

 


Table 2. Guidelines for ‘Traffic Light’ Status Indicators

*

[Green]

General Performance:  Progress for the Year To Date is on target for annual requirements/completion of the relevant action. Normally indicates completion of 90%+ of the scheduled requirements.

Budget Performance:   Expenditure for the Year To Date is under budget by <=15% or over budget by <=5%.

*

[Amber]

General Performance:  Progress is marginal and extra attention is needed. Normally indicates completion of 75%-89% of the scheduled requirements Year To Date.

Budget Performance:   Expenditure for the Year To Date is under budget by >15% or over budget by 6-15%.

[Red]

General Performance:  Progress is not on target and requirement may not be delivered. This should be addressed by the Manager’s commentary. Performance is normally rated as less than 75% of the scheduled requirements Year To Date.

Budget Performance:   Expenditure for the Year To Date is over budget by >=16%.

Text Box: C

Completed (usually applies to Capital & Operating Projects with defined target dates).

Proposed Amendments to Service Elements

To deliver the annual requirements of the operational Management Plan, Council adopted as part of the service program a more detailed set of KPIs and actions. In a number of cases, the present review with its comprehensive assessment of service performance has identified proposed revisions to the detailed program for 2008-09. Any such proposals with a budget impact are directly addressed by the financial statements and commentary provided.

 

Subject to endorsement by Council, amendments to non-financial elements of the operational plan have been incorporated in the present review. These proposed changes are provided as Appendix A to this report.

 

Further Service Improvements which are identified through ongoing review and alignment of services or through the adoption of new policies or plans by Council will continue to be brought forward for confirmation in subsequent reports.

Consolidation of Services – Current and Future

As part of Council’s commitment to continuous improvement service titles/descriptions, the scope of what they deliver and how best they are to be reported on are reviewed on an ongoing basis. One outcome of this process is the consolidation of services which at the time of the Management Plan adoption in June 2008 was 62 services.

 

For this quarterly review, the Planning Property Information Service has been incorporated into the larger ‘Planning Policy and Places’ Service bring this total number of Council services to 61. Due to the size and synergy between these services it was a natural fit. This consolidation will place the level of reporting for this joint service at a more meaningful level. What this highlights is that over the remaining three quarters to 30 June 2009 more service consolidations are likely especially in the light of the current organisational restructure.

Special Initiatives

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

 

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

·        Enhanced Environmental Program (EEP)

·        Community Safety and Neighbourhood Renewal Program

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

 

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

 

In the present review, the progress of these programs is reported within the services format.

Conclusion

The review indicates substantial progress to meeting Council’s challenging annual program. In keeping with Council’s established practice the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer will not make a presentation at this time. Formal presentations are made at the mid-year and end of year reviews. The opportunity is, however, available for Council tonight to seek clarification or elaboration on particular matters in any section of the Progress Report.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.         The information contained in the report on the 2008-2009 Management Plan - September Quarter Review be received

2.         The 2008-2009 Management Plan Review as at 30 September 2008, including the revised estimates identified in the recommended budget, be adopted

3.         The recommended reallocations to projects and amendments to Key Performance Indicators, Strategic Tasks and Service Improvements detailed in the report be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Proposed Amendments to Service Elements

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Appendix 1 - Proposed Amendments to Service Elements

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

Proposed Amendments to Service Elements ~  2008-09 Management Plan

 

Subject to Council’s consideration, the following amendments to detailed elements of the deliverables for Services have been incorporated in the present review.

 

Previous Version

Proposed Amendment to     2008-09 Management Plan

Reason for Change

Services Affected : Planning Property Information & Planning Policy and Places Services (LPM)

2 separate services

Consolidate into one service; the Planning Policy and Places Service.

To improve the level of reporting

Service Affected : Development Applications (DSM)

Sustainability Initiative : Percentage increase in the usage of Council's DA Tracker system

Reword:

Percentage increase in the usage of Council's DA Tracker system and progress towards development and implementation of eDA planning online system.

 

 

To provide greater clarity in measuring the progress of this task. Frequency of reporting is quarterly.

Service Affected : Fleet and Plant Management (CWM)

Sustainability Initiative : Percentage of Council's fleet using bio fuels

Reword:

Monitor the percentage of bio fuels [E10] consumed by Council's fleet.

 

To provide greater clarity in measuring the progress of this task. Frequency of reporting is every 6 months

Service Affected : Transporting Planning & Advocacy (DTAM)

Strategic Task :

Secure agreement of government for the early construction of key road and transport infrastructure for the City, including the Werrington Arterial, Erskine Park Link Road, Jane Street Extension and the UWS railway Station.

 

Delete second listing of the same strategic task.

 

Repeated twice in the same Service page in the 2008-09 Management Plan.

Service Affected : Economic Development (LEDPM)

Strategic Task :

Identify a range of employment, training and partnership opportunities in established areas of the City. [under CA 13.1B]

 

Move to the Community and Cultural Development Service

 

This was an assignment error in the previous version.

Service Affected : Recreation (RM)

Strategic Task :

Prepare detailed plans for the delivery of the recreational facilities identified in Stage one of the Gipps Street Masterplan. [under CA 9.1B]

 

Move to the Design Service

 

This task has been re-assigned to the Design Service.

Service Affected : Bushland Management (PCMM)

Customer Response :

Number of bushcare volunteers active

 

Delete KPI

This KPI is already covered in another KPI for this service. Also the KPI target has been difficult to achieve given impact of seasonal variations.

Service Affected : Parks Construction (PCMM)

Strategic Task:

Complete detailed design and approvals for construction of North Ward skate park. [under CA 9.1B]

Move to the Recreation Service

Re-assigned to the Recreation Service.

Key Project:

North Ward Skate Park Construction

Service Affected : Cemeteries (PDASM)

Strategic Task :

Complete designs for a regional crematorium and cemetery at Castlereagh [under CA7.1A]

Delete this Strategic Task from the Management Plan Quarterly reporting process.

 

Progress for this task is entirely dependent upon the action taken by the Dept of Lands. It has continued to rate as nil progress for the last 9 months. It is proposed that further activity will be reported to Council separately. This task will continue to be monitored by PDASM.

Service Affected : Mapping Information and GIS (IMTM)

Not included in adopted 2008-09 Management Plan

Add new Sustainability Initiative :

Develop and implement a biodiversity mapping layer and database for viewing on the GIS [Biodiversity Action Plan].

Direct assignment from Council’s adopted Biodiversity Action Plan (designated as a High priority)

Service Affected : Printing (IMTM)

Sustainability Initiative:

Ensure Council’s Greenhouse Purchasing Plan is implemented and reported on. [Greenhouse Purchasing Action Plan]

 

Delete this Sustainability Initiative:

Reduce duplication of reporting. This is already covered by the two other service improvements (ie Determine the percentage of environmental choice products utilised in printing & Determine the percentage of “100% recycled paper” utilised in printing.

Service Affected : Records Management (IMTM)

Process Improvement :

Complete Implementation of “Information Management System” (IMS)

 

Delete this Process Improvement

 

Reduce duplication as this is already reported in Project CF00125 IMS.

Service Affected : Risk Management and Insurance (RMC)

Sustainability Initiatives:

Review and report on the effectiveness of Council's Business Continuity Plan.

 

Move to the Corporate Governance Service

 

Reassigned to the Corporate Governance Service.

 

  


 

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

 

There were no reports under this Master Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


The City as a Social Place

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

2        Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy

 

3        Penrith Regional City Garden Feasibility Study

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

2

Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy   

 

Compiled by:                Allison Kyriakakis, Community Safety Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: A community safety plan, building on a partnership with police, the community and other stakeholders is in place and supported by Council’s programs.

Critical Action: Maintain and implement a Community Safety Plan for the City with the aid of relevant stakeholders that responds to current prioritised issues.

     

Purpose:

To recommend to Council the adoption of an Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy that provides a framework to support the implementation and/or suspension of designated areas within the Penrith Local Government Area where the consumption and possession of alcohol is prohibited. The report recommends that the Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy be adopted.

 

Background

Penrith City Council has a large number of open spaces, including 328 hectares of parks, 375 hectares of sporting fields, and 199 hectares of community land for drainage and community uses. There are a total of 540 separate parks and reserves throughout the City and 141 of these parks contain playgrounds.

 

For each of these spaces, Council has a commitment to ensure that the spaces are safe and well-utilised and enjoyed by the community. This includes efforts to work in conjunction with key community stakeholders to minimise antisocial behaviour and encourage people to feel welcome and safe in using the spaces for a range of recreational, cultural and social uses.

 

In addition, Council is also responsible for the maintenance and management of a large network of roads, car parks and footpaths, for which Council is committed to maintaining as safe and accessible spaces for the community.

 

The majority of Council’s open spaces are safe and experience minimum levels of antisocial behaviour and/or alcohol-related incidents. However, consultations with Penrith and St Marys Police and community reporting indicate that in a small number of locations throughout the Penrith Local Government Area, issues of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour are a community concern, particularly at night. This includes a number of identified parks, reserves, sporting ovals, car parks, roads and footpaths.

 

Over three quarters of respondents to Council’s Strategic Community Survey 2008 agreed that they feel safe moving around their neighbourhood during the day, including parks and public spaces. In contrast, only approximately one-third of respondents stated that they feel safe in their neighbourhoods at night.

 

The Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007-2011 identified a priority issue of Harassment and Antisocial Behaviour that required the development of strategies to promote responsible social behaviour in public places. 

 

The impact of antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related incidents in certain spaces results in a negative impact on community perceptions of safety of an area, and hence can often lessen community willingness to utilise public spaces due to fear for their safety. This has further implications on the safety of a location, as spaces which are under-utilised can become isolated, and hence have reduced levels of passive surveillance from members of the public. This can create a situation where opportunities for antisocial behaviour increase, as there are less ‘eyes and ears’ around and hence a reduced likelihood of persons being ‘caught’ or reprimanded.

 

As such, in the interests of public safety and encouraging active use of community space, it was identified that there was a need for a policy to assist Council in minimising alcohol-related antisocial behaviour through the implementation of designated alcohol-free public spaces in identified locations. Alcohol free public spaces can be implemented under the Local Government Act either as Alcohol Free Zones, Section 644, or utilising Section 632, Acting Contrary to Notice.  For the purposes of the draft policy areas subject to Section 632, are referred to as Alcohol Free Areas.  Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas are defined below.

 

The implementation of Alcohol Free Public Spaces would be in conjunction with other efforts to reduce alcohol-related behaviour, such as the implementation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies and treatments, including effective lighting and landscaping treatments to improve visibility and maximise surveillance opportunities.

 

Alcohol Free Zones

 

The Local Government Act 1993, Section 644, provides Councils with the ability to create Alcohol Free Zones for the purpose of prohibiting the consumption and possession of intoxicating liquor in certain areas.

 

Alcohol Free Zones are established through consultation with the Police and community and are in place for a maximum of three years.

 

An Alcohol Free Zone may only be established to include a public road or a public place that is a car park (private car parks, reserves and private premises are not included).

 

Council is required to follow procedures documented in Ministerial guidelines for the establishment of Alcohol-Free Zones.

 

The procedures include:

 

1.   Advertising of the proposed locations and requesting community comment

2.   Advising holders of liquor licences adjacent to intended Zones

3.   Advising Local Police Commanders

4.   Consultation with community groups

5.   Advising the Anti-Discrimination Board of the intention to establish the Zones

6.   Consideration of any representations made in respect of the establishment of the Zones.

 

Alcohol-Free Zones have previously been established at a number of locations within the Penrith Local Government Area, and are currently under review for renewal as they have recently expired.

 

Alcohol Free Zones are enforced by the Police, and the maximum penalty for persons found to be consuming or in possession of alcohol in a designated Alcohol Free Zone is 0.2 penalty points, which equates to a maximum fine of $22.

 

Alcohol Free Areas

 

In other public spaces, including parks, reserves and sporting ovals, Council can make it illegal to consume or possess alcohol by erecting a notice in accordance with Section 632 of the Local Government Act – Acting Contrary to Notice.

 

Alcohol Free Areas are enforced by Police. The maximum penalty is 10 penalty points, which equates to a maximum fine of $1100 for persons found to be in possession or consuming alcohol in an Alcohol Free Area.

 

Policy Development

 

A working group was established by the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership for the development of a Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy to provide a framework for the implementation of both Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

The working group comprised representatives from key stakeholders, including Council, St Marys and Penrith Police, Westfield Penrith, St Marys Area Community Development Project Inc., St Clair Youth & Neighbourhood Team Inc., and SPYNS Inc.

 

The group recommended that Alcohol Free Areas should be established for a three (3) year period to reflect the timeframe of Alcohol Free Zones, so that a review can be conducted to determine the impact of the policy in reducing alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

 

The working group also recommended that in establishing Alcohol Free Areas, consultation should be conducted with identified user groups, such as the sporting groups who use the space and nearby businesses and residents.

 

The draft policy does not propose to support a ‘blanket approach’ to the issue of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in public spaces, but rather provides the community with a clear understanding of the processes that Council will adopt in the determination of nominated alcohol free public spaces.

 

It is proposed that Alcohol Free Areas would not operate on a 24 hour/7 days per week basis as is the case for Alcohol Free Zones.  Alcohol Free Areas would operate during hours that reflect the periods where alcohol related antisocial behaviour is known to occur, e.g. generally during late night/early morning.   There are potentially some locations that will require a wider span of hours to be implemented where there is evidence that the consumption of alcohol and associated antisocial behaviour (possibility during daytime) is having a negative impact on the community who use and/or surround that space.  All proposed locations will be determined utilising Police data and community reporting regarding alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour.

 

The draft policy also contains guidelines for the temporary suspension of Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas to enable the consumption of alcohol for occasions where it is considered suitable, such as weddings and/or community social events.

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy aims to support a proactive approach to promoting responsible social behaviour in designated public spaces and will support Council in its efforts to provide safe, well-maintained and well-utilised public spaces for the community to enjoy.

 

The policy will provide for the establishment, suspension and/or cancellation of Alcohol-Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas in identified locations in the City. The policy would support both Council and the Police in their efforts to minimise alcohol-related antisocial behaviour and enhance public safety in key locations.

 

The policy would also support the actions of the recently formed Crime Prevention Partnership (CPP) in the Penrith Local Area Command, an initiative of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Penrith City Council is the Deputy Chair of the Partnership.  This group is made up of stakeholders including, Council, Penrith Police (Chair), Department of Education, Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing, Department of Health, RailCorp and the RTA.

 

One of the tasks of the CPP is to develop an action plan to address alcohol related crime which was identified as a priority issue for Penrith by the Department of Premier and Cabinet.   

 

A report detailing the proposed locations for the establishment of new Alcohol Free Zones, re-establishment of existing Alcohol Free Zones and proposed locations and timeframes for the establishment of Alcohol Free Areas will be presented to an Ordinary Meeting of Council in December 2008.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy be received

2.     The Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy be adopted to support the establishment, suspension and/or cancellation of Alcohol Free Areas and Alcohol Free Zones in designated areas in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy

5 Pages

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Appendix 1 - Draft Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy

 

 

 

DRAFT

ALCOHOL FREE PUBLIC SPACES POLICY

 

 

Responsible Department:        Public Domain Amenity & Safety

Responsible Section:                Community Safety

 

 

 

OBJECTIVE:

 

To provide a policy for the implementation and/or suspension of designated areas within the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA) where the consumption and possession of alcohol is prohibited, thereby promoting responsible social behaviour in designated public spaces.

 

INFORMATION:

 

Designated locations within the Penrith LGA may be established as areas where it is illegal to consume or possess alcohol.

 

This can be enacted as an Alcohol Free Zone, created in accordance with section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993, on public roads and public car parks.

 

In other areas (e.g. parks, reserves and other public spaces) Council can make it illegal to consume or possess alcohol by erecting a notice in accordance with section 632 and 670 of the Local Government Act 1993. For the purpose of this policy these areas will be known as Alcohol Free Areas as they do not comply with the official definition of an Alcohol Free Zone as defined in the Local Government Act 1993.

 

POLICY:

 

1.   ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ALCOHOL FREE ZONE OR ALCOHOL FREE AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993

 

1.1    Penrith City Council shall establish Alcohol Free Zones on public roads and car parks, within the Penrith LGA, in accordance with Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

1.2    Penrith City Council shall establish Alcohol Free Areas on other public land, within the Penrith LGA, in accordance with section 632 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

1.3    An Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area may only be established by resolution of Council.

 

1.4    When Alcohol Free Zones and/or Alcohol Free Area are established or reviewed by Council, the following information shall be provided.

 

·    Reasons supporting the implementation of the Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area;

·    Locations of Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area;

·    Expiration date of an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area;

·    Times of day that the Alcohol Free Area will apply;

·    List of stakeholders consulted during the implementation process.

 

 

2.   SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF AN ALCOHOL FREE ZONE OR ALCOHOL FREE AREA TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIFIC COMMUNITY EVENT

 

2.1   Request for the suspension of an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area

 

2.1.1   All requests for the suspension of an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area, or part thereof, shall be forwarded to Council in writing at least 60 days prior to the proposed suspension period;

 

2.1.2   All requests for suspension of an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area, shall detail the following information:

·    The organisation or individual requesting the suspension;

·    The reason for the suspension;

·    The section of Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area to be suspended;

·    The date and timeframe for the suspension;

·    Estimated number of people attending the community event;

·    The proposed security and control measures to be implemented;

·    Council may request a copy of the risk management plan for publicly advertised events.

 

Council has a standard form available for such requests to be submitted.

 

2.1.3   Insurance

An applicant seeking approval to suspend an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area, shall provide relevant certificates in respect of a minimum $20 million public liability insurance cover.

 


 

 

2.2   Request for the cancellation of an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area

 

2.2.1   All requests for the cancellation of an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area, or part thereof, shall be forwarded to Council in writing.

 

2.2.2   All requests for the cancellation of an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area, shall detail the following information:

 

·    The organisation or individual requesting the cancellation;

·    The reason for the cancellation;

·    The section of Alcohol Free Zone Alcohol Free Area to be cancelled;

 

Council has a standard form available for such requests to be submitted.

 

 

3    DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF ALCOHOL FREE ZONES OR ALCOHOL FREE AREAS

 

3.1   Suspension or cancellation of an Alcohol Free Zone shall be as per Section 645 of the Local Government Act 1993, requiring a valid resolution of the Council to suspend a Zone.

 

3.2   Suspension or cancellation of an Alcohol Free Area shall require a valid resolution of the Council to suspend the notice designating an Alcohol Free Area;

 

3.3   An application to suspend or cancel an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area shall be forwarded to the Local Police Force for comment;

 

3.4   An application to suspend or cancel an Alcohol Free Zone or Alcohol Free Area shall be assessed under the following criteria:

 

3.4.1   Suspension:

·   Consideration of comments by the Local Police Force;

·   The nature of the event;

·   The proposed number of people attending the event;

·   The security and control measures to be instigated;

·   The timeframe proposed for the suspension of the zone/area;

·   Perceived benefits or otherwise to the broader community interests;

·   Traffic Management Plan and event Management Plan if required by Council;

·   Insurance coverage;

·   Council may undertake any other consultation with relevant stakeholders that it considers necessary.

 

3.4.2   Cancellation:

·   Consideration of comments by the Local Police Force;

·   Perceived benefits or otherwise to the broader community interests;

·   Council may undertake any other consultation with relevant stakeholders that it considers necessary.

 

3.5   Suspension of an Alcohol Free Zone, or suspension of the notice designating an Alcohol Free Area for an event in one year, does not apply to the event in subsequent years. Separate applications shall be submitted as required in line with this policy.

 

3.6   Following determination of the suspension of an Alcohol Free Zone and the appropriate resolutions of Council, the suspension shall be advertised as per Section 645 of the Local Government Act 1993, and the local Police Force advised.

 

3.7   Following determination of the suspension of the notice designating an Alcohol Free Area and the appropriate resolutions of Council, the suspension shall be advertised in a relevant local newspaper, and the local Police Force advised.

 

3.8   Should the application to suspend an Alcohol Free Zone or suspend the notice designating an Alcohol Free Area not be successful, the applicant shall be advised in writing, and the local Police Force notified.

 

 

4    ENFORCEMENT OF ALCOHOL FREE ZONES AND ALCOHOL FREE AREAS

 

4.1   Alcohol Free Zones shall be enforced as per Sections 642, 643, 647, 648 and 649 of the Local Government Act 1993. The Police are responsible for enforcing Alcohol Free Zones.

 

4.2   Alcohol Free Areas shall be enforced as per Section 632 of the Local Government Act 1993. The Police are responsible for enforcing the notices erected by Council.


 

5    SIGNAGE DENOTING ALCOHOL FREE ZONE OR ALCOHOL FREE AREA

 

5.1   An Alcohol Free Zone shall be indicated by the erection of a sign as follows:

 

 

“Alcohol Free Zone

 

For the period

Dd/mm/yy

To

Dd/mm/yy

Pursuant to Section 644

Local Government Act 1993

 

By Order: General Manager

Penrith City Council”

 

A map will also be included on signage to clearly indicate the area covered by the zoning.

 

5.2   An Alcohol Free Area shall be created by erecting a notice in accordance with Section 632 and 670 of the Local Government Act 1993, stating:

 

Penrith City Council

Notice to the Public

 

No intoxicating liquor is to be taken onto or consumed on any portion of this reserve within the specified times, without Council consent.

 

Pursuant section 632 Local Government Act 1993

By Order: General Manager

Penrith City Council”

 

 

The word ‘reserve’ may need to be substituted from time to time by more relevant wording, e.g. park, river foreshore, etc, to properly reflect Council’s resolution.

 

 

POLICY ADOPTED ………………………………………………………..xx/xx/xxxx

 

POLICY TO BE REVIEWED ……………………………………………...xx/xx/xxxx

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

3

Penrith Regional City Garden Feasibility Study   

 

Compiled by:                Grant Collins, Recreation and Cultural Facilities Planner

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning 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.

 

Presenters:                   Oi Choong and Helen Armstrong - Context Landscape Design - Penrith Regional City Garden Feasibility Study Report    

Purpose:

To report the findings of the Penrith Regional City garden Feasibility Study. The report recommends that the information contained in this report be recieved and opportunities be considered in the planning of Penrith Lakes and the Riverlink Precinct for the potential establishment of components of a Penrith Regional City Garden.

 

Executive Summary

 

The Council has sought a feasibility study be undertaken to consider the opportunity for advancing a Regional City Garden.  Council engaged Context Landscape Design to undertake the review which has examined a wide range of international and national public gardens, including botanic gardens and new urban parks.  It also reviews design initiatives and social and environmental innovations that can be incorporated into a model City Garden.

 

The study identifies a City Garden has the potential to help brand Penrith as a leader in environmental sustainability and the application of universal design.  It could also present an inspiring signature to Penrith’s recreational, leisure and tourism infrastructure commensurate with the Regional City status of Penrith as well offering an educative role through stimulating thematic gardens and collaborative research projects with a range of stakeholders.

 

Drawing from the City garden research, recreation analysis and consultative workshops, four major options for a City Garden were explored; a single centrally located site, multiple sites with green connections, the whole City as a garden and a hybrid solution with 2 major feature sites at the Penrith Lakes and the Riverlink Precinct connected by river parklands and the Great River Walk.  The cost benefit analysis revealed that the hybrid model offered the greatest potential to maximise public / private sector partnerships in terms of investment and possible management arrangements. 

 

The study’s assessment of current recreational trends and facilities in Penrith indicates that if a Regional City Garden is modelled on current Botanic Gardens, it will limit its potential as a recreational destination.  Instead there are niche opportunities in Penrith to develop a unique City Garden forging local partnerships such as with the development of Penrith Panthers and the Riverlink Precinct and the Penrith Lakes. 

 

While an area of around 20 hectares has been considered for the garden proper, the study recommends that this should be part of at least 30 hectares to permit future expansion and the eventual inclusion of additional facilities.

 

The cost of establishing a City Garden is extensive and would be beyond Council’s current capacity to deliver.  The cost evaluation in the study indicates that the preferred City Garden hybrid model could be feasible, but would require injection of funding from external stakeholders including other levels of government and the private sector. 

 

The report recommends seeking opportunities in our negotiations on the future planning of Penrith Lakes and the Riverlink Precinct for consideration to be given to the establishment of components of a Penrith Regional City Garden. 

Background

Council allocated funding in 2007/08 to progress a study into the feasibility of establishing a Regional City Garden in the City of Penrith.  A consultant Brief was prepared and Context Landscape Design Pty Ltd was engaged in March 2008 to complete the study.

 

Think tank workshops were conducted with a range of external stakeholders and Council officers on 12 May 2008.

 

A Councillor Briefing and presentation on 26 May 2008 outlined the approach being pursued and progress of the Penrith Regional City Garden Feasibility Study. 

 

The key project aims are:

1.   To assess the potential need, viability and justification for the potential establishment of a City Garden within the City of Penrith;

2.   To identify and explore a range of innovative City garden opportunities and options that provide a quality unique experience for residents and visitors to the City of Penrith;

3.   To assess opportunities and constraints and potential funding sources for the long term operation of a City Garden;

4.   To identify opportunities which incorporate and promote universal design and other core sustainability principles. 

 

The project deliverables are highlighted in the following tasks identified in the Study brief:

·    Provide background information about the Regional City status of Penrith and the relative need or value in establishing a City Garden;

·    Provide advice on whether the changing demographic nature of our community and emerging recreation and leisure trends support the concept of a City Garden;

·    Identify the core sustainability principles which should underpin a City Garden concept and include commentary on the potential impact of climate change on the development of a City Garden;

·    Identify and map existing and proposed Botanic Gardens in NSW;

·    Identify niche opportunities for Penrith in relation to a City Garden;

·    Explore the potential development and viability of a ‘Green Trail’ concept within the Penrith City;

·    Explore the potential viability and development of themed gardens of historical significance displaying Australian native plant species;

·    Prepare a Concept Plan which broadly outlines the key elements which could make up a City Garden for Penrith;

·    Provide informed analysis of the costs to establish and maintain a City Garden and the range of benefits that this development could create for the City of Penrith;

·    Provide advice regarding preferred locational setting and site options within the City;

·    Identify relevant Government agencies (both State and Federal), non-government organisations and private sector interests that could financially contribute to the development of a City Garden; and

·    Advise on the likely key development stages and timeframes which would be required to implement the project.

 

The feasibility study has now been completed and the opportunity has been made available for the consultants to provide a presentation on their findings to Policy Review Committee. 

 

Emerging Themes and Proposed Site Options

 

The Study has identified the following emerging themes for a City Garden

 

1.   Regional Garden at the Edge – A Garden of Eden

This includes consideration of local identity, productive garden/ farms in the region, urban agriculture, botanical and horticultural traditions and celebrating our diverse multi-cultural community.

2.   City as Garden – Garden of Flows

This includes consideration of new forms of urban space including linking existing areas of open space as a ‘City of gardens’ rather than focus on a specific site.

3.   A Futurist Garden

This includes consideration of the potential for pioneering environmental sustainability, demonstrating the latest forms of environmental technology in an artful way, designing for climate change and incorporating universal design principles.

 

Applying these potential themes to the local context requires a particular understanding of the City’s strengths and opportunities.  In exploring the thematic history, the consultants note the settlement and land-use pattern in the City has been influenced directly by the underlying geology, topography and natural features such as the river corridor and related flood plain. 

 

In examining these elements in the wider City context, the importance of the north south ‘green arteries’ along the Nepean River and the South and Ropes Creeks corridors are evident as major structuring elements.  The two creek corridors have been the subject of the development of management strategies and their roles highlighted in providing a major active recreation network.  The planning for future activities in these corridors has recommended their rehabilitation, the enhancement of existing uses including the provision of additional sports playing fields, the embellishment of passive recreation areas and the development of extensive pathway linkages to improve access through the corridors.

 

The importance of the connection to water, particularly the Nepean River and the more recent development of the Penrith Lakes scheme, together with the imposing Blue Mountains backdrop, provides a strong visual influence and unique identity for the City.  The connection to water has therefore emerged as a key consideration when thinking about potential sites for a Regional City Garden.  Opportunities such as the Riverlink Precinct and the Penrith Lakes scheme present key sites within the City which are being planned to undergo substantial redevelopment.  These sites could incorporate the concept of a City Garden, where public / private sector partnerships for example could also assist in its establishment and sustainable management. 

 

City Garden Concept Models

 

In developing a model for the Penrith Regional City Garden the proposed vision and objectives included –

 

·    Creating a different form of open space

·    A place that is uniquely Penrith – revealing local identity

·    Innovative and cutting edge design for sustainability

·    Best practice universal design

·    Working with the community

·    Recreational experiences for all

·    Part of a green web linking existing open space areas

·    Exploring the future (ie climate change) while also acknowledging local history

 

Existing City Gardens 

 

A range of existing City Gardens was analysed for their cost benefit based on their possible similarity to the proposed Penrith City Garden.  These were the Mt Penang Parklands (Central Coast), Orange Botanical Gardens, Cranbourne Royal Botanical Gardens (Victoria) and Auburn Botanical Gardens.  A range of revenue generating activities were offered at each venue but none of the gardens examined were able to be self-supporting on the basis of their gardens alone. 

 

Mt Penang is the closest to this goal but uses its control of adjacent employment lands to subsidise the gardens.  This approach has been used in other significant City Gardens in Sydney including Centennial Park, where the sale of surrounding residential land funded the construction of the parklands.  The key to this approach is the allocation of land in addition to the needs of the facilities themselves.  The study suggests that the existence of a quality recreation / open space feature can enhance the value of the adjacent lands.

 

Preferred Model for the Penrith City Context

 

Based on research of existing City Gardens and the assimilation with the local context, the four major concept models that were explored for their potential within the Penrith Regional City context included -

 

·    A concentrated single site

·    Dispersed multiple sites

·    The whole City as a Garden

·    A hybrid model with 2 linked major feature sites

 

The relevant strengths, weaknesses and cost benefit of each model were explored.  The hybrid model with the major facility located at the Penrith Lakes with a linkage along the Great River Walk and riverside parks through to the Riverlink Precinct, was selected as the preferred model as it presented significant opportunity to negotiate public / private sector partnerships and potential joint investment and management options. 

 

This option recognises that there is substantial redevelopment being considered for these key sites and that opportunities could be available for the establishment of City Garden components in these locations as they emerge.  This provides the potential for joint ownership, management and maintenance.  This option also provides an opportunity to exploit major natural and cultural resources and the natural attraction of the City’s most significant water bodies (Nepean River and the Penrith Lakes), providing a conducive environment for a relaxing and rejuvenating Regional City Garden experience for the whole family.

 

Feasibility Analysis

 

A City Garden would provide an opportunity to enhance the reputation of Penrith City as a leader in environmental sustainability and the application of best practice universal design.  It can consolidate community partnerships and play an important educative role through the provision of stimulating thematic gardens that acknowledge our heritage and would enhance the development of collaborative research projects with universities (building on the ‘Out and About’ universal design initiative with the UWS) and the Sydney Botanic Gardens.

 

Rather than replicating what other areas have created, the study suggests that the design of a City Garden be developed in a different form that is uniquely Penrith, exploring the future including the potential impacts of climate change and showcasing environmentally and financially sustainable design.  As a recreation destination, a City Garden could play a vital role in providing a range of venues for inclusive fun for the whole family and for all people with diverse abilities, particularly based on the water theme and through well developed events that would contribute to the recognition of Penrith as a dynamic and healthy City.

 

The embellishment costs associated with the implementation of the gardens can vary depending on the range and quality of the end product.  As a guide, the report suggests that low end costs could be around $400,000 per hectare, the middle range at $600,000 per hectares and high end costs at between $1.6-2 million per hectare.  These rates do not include specific engineering works such as pools, bridges, lakes or specialised buildings such as research facilities etc.  As a comparison, the recent Cranbourne Botanic Gardens in Victoria stage one 18 hectares cost $11 million and it is estimated that stage two will cost $1.5 million per hectare.  Mt Penang Gardens, approximately 12 hectares, cost $8 million in 2003. 

 

Given the broad range of themes and concepts identified for a potential City Garden, a clear assessment of the annual ongoing operating costs has not been possible in the absence of a concept design.  However, the study notes that it would be possible to recoup between 15% and 40% of operating costs from direct City Garden revenues such as rents and function fees.  The inclusion of activities which provide a commercial return, such as cafes and restaurants, functions, outdoor concerts and celebrations, can provide offsets to ongoing operation costs.

 

A significant recreation feature such as a City Garden can have a positive impact on surrounding land values.  Preliminary modelling by Hill PDA suggests an average externality value uplift of 10% over a hinterland 400m deep, as well as the annual real growth in value due to the proximity of a City Garden. 

 

As will be noted from the above estimates, the cost of establishing a Regional City Garden is substantial and presently beyond Council’s current financial capacity.  A variety of potential funding sources would therefore be required to be drawn upon if the establishment of a City Garden were to proceed.  A range of possible funding sources were identified in the study along with possible implementation stages.  These funding sources include:

 

·    Government Grants, including Australia Council for the Arts, National Heritage Trust, NSW Department of Natural Resources, Stormwater Trust, Tourism NSW.

·    Other private foundations and associations including Gordon Darling Foundation, Philanthropy Australia Inc, Ian Potter Foundation, Myer Foundation, Australian Arts Business Foundation, NSW Community Arts Association.

 

The cost evaluation in the study indicates that the preferred City Garden hybrid model could be feasible, but would require injection of funding from external stakeholders including other levels of government and the private sector.  In this regard a public / private sector partnership model could be considered as an opportunity and would need to be explored with existing major site redevelopment proposals where extensive recreation and leisure facilities are already intended to be established.

 

Conclusion

 

A Regional City Garden that incorporates the latest innovations in sustainable and universal design has the potential to maximise our local partnerships and strengths while helping to establish the City as a leader in developing sustainable environments and in leaving a legacy of a healthy and vibrant City for present and future generations. 

 

The Study has identified that the development of a Regional City Garden requires a significant financial and ongoing resourcing commitment to establish and sustain.  That is presently beyond Council’s current resource capacity. 

 

The Study findings have indicated that the development of a Regional City Garden within the City of Penrith could be a feasible consideration, but would require a significant injection of funding from a range of external stakeholders including other levels of government and the private sector.  The hybrid model that provides 2 key feature sites at the Penrith Lakes and the Riverlink Precinct with themed riverside open space connections along the Great River Walk is the preferred option and would maximise the opportunities emerging with the existing major redevelopment proposals for these sites which will deliver a range of recreation and leisure facilities.

 

As the planning for the Penrith Lakes and the Riverlink Precinct progresses, it is recommended that opportunities be pursued to discuss with the principal stakeholders the potential to advance the development of components of an innovative and sustainable Regional City Garden.  We will provide further advice to Council as opportunities for a City Garden are identified.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Regional City Garden Feasibility Study be received

2.     Council endorse seeking opportunities in our negotiations on the future planning of Penrith Lakes and the Riverlink Precinct for consideration to be given to the potential establishment of components of a Penrith Regional City Garden.  

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Penrith Regional City Garden Hybrid Model

1 Page

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Appendix 1 - Penrith Regional City Garden Hybrid Model

 

 

 

 

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


The City In Its Environment

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        No Mow Zones

 

5        2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund

 

6        Creation of an Urban Design Review Panel

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

4

No Mow Zones   

 

Compiled by:                Janet Rannard, Bushland Management Officer

Authorised by:             Hans Meijer, Acting Parks Construction and Maintenance Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor John Thain

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City’s biological diversity is being protected and conserved through the implementation of a biodiversity conservation and bushland management strategy.

Critical Action: Undertake biodiversity conservation and protection and pursue the effective management of natural areas.

 

Presenters:                   Janet Rannard - Bushland Management Officer - No Mow Zones    

Purpose:

To advise Council of the current location of 'No Mow' zones and the procedure for assessment for inclusion as 'No Mow' zones.  The report recommends that the information regarding "No Mow' zones be received.

 

Purpose of No Mow zones

A no mow zone is an area where mowing of vegetation is not to occur. The purpose of ‘No Mow’ zones in the Penrith Local Government Area is to encourage natural regeneration of native flora where there is resilience and a potential seed bank. Resilience is the ability of plant communities to regenerate after disturbance e.g. fire, weeding or storm, usually due to a good native seed source in the soil. The seed bank is the seed stored in the soil for potential germination.

 

Penrith has numerous pockets of the endangered ecological community Cumberland Plain Woodland, of which only 9% remains due to increased population growth, residential and industrial developments and a reduction of rural uses. An Endangered Ecological Community contains plants or animals which are facing possible extinction which is listed on the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

Once mowing ceases, the vegetation has the opportunity to regenerate from seed which has been stored in the soil.

 

Procedure for assessment

Areas are identified where there is a native tree canopy, e.g. Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey box). These areas have potential for other natives (trees, shrubs, native grasses and groundcovers) to germinate below them from an existing seed bank when mowing has ceased.

.

 


Examples of other councils that have implemented No Mow Zones

·    Bankstown City Council: Hector St in Bass Hill had mowers removed 10 years ago; a diversity of native plants including ‘pea’ shrubs which are difficult to germinate.

·    City of Sydney: Camperdown Cemetery, native Kangaroo grass regenerating despite cemetery having been mown for many years.

·    Campbelltown City Council: Pembroke Park, Campbelltown, Cumberland Plain Woodland Endangered Ecological Community as well as riparian vegetation. Pembroke Park is therefore a conservation, education and recreation resource in close proximity to a heavily urbanised environment.

·    Warringah Council: Brooker Reserve. ‘Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest

Complex’ ecological community.  To conserve and enhance the remnant

Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass) grassland and associated faunal habitats.

 

The examples shown above are to illustrate that regeneration can occur even when mowing has occurred for many years.

 

Penrith LGA Sites currently listed as No Mow zones

 

SITE #

TRIAL START DATE

SITE

ASSET PROTECTION ZONE

GENERAL COMMENTS

1

2005

Kanangra Reserve, Kingswood

House assets on NE side of Reserve and APZ is mown.

Pimelea spicata (endangered) site on Glebe Place. The rest of the area had mowers taken off in 2005.

In 2007 the contractor Rehabitat undertook rehabilitation work ($9000 voted works) entailing contour ripping, planting (1220 plants), brush matting and mulching. On going maintenance and monitoring is occurring.

2

23/01/

2005

 

Trinity Drive, Cambridge Gardens

No mow zone is in centre of the Reserve.

Mowing was stopped following a letter of request from 15 residents due to potential regeneration and erosion. PCM proposed to remove splintered sleeper edge and turf erosion area.

Will approach Cambridge Park PS to assist with planting.

3

Pre 2005

Kurwan Reserve, Goldmark Crescent, Cranebrook

House assets on west side of Reserve and APZ is currently a bare area; no mowing necessary.

Small remnant area required TLC due to damage by bike jumps, and digging reducing the native population and seed source. Work included removing jumps, closing tracks, brush matting and some revegetation.

4

12/07/

2007

Derby/ Doonmore St, Penrith

No mow zone is not close to house assets.

Mowers removed from area in 2007. No significant regeneration observed to date.

5

13/07/

2007

Dorothy Radford, St Clair

No mow zone is in centre of the Reserve with roads on most sides.

Bush regeneration contractor is working in weedy areas. Signs have been installed.

6

24/02/

2006

Brookfield Reserve, Werrington Downs

House assets on N side of Reserve and APZ is mown.

Monitoring for regeneration. Reasonable areas of native kangaroo grass regenerating as well as native Eucalypts.

Mowing will be resumed, preferably on a high setting to minimise soil erosion. Newly regenerated trees and shrubs will be retained and protected.

7

12/07/

2007

Greenbank Drive /Oakland Pd, Werrington Downs

House assets on S side of Reserve and APZ is mown.

Mowing ceased. Bush regeneration contractor worked May – June 08. Boundaries fine tuned to eliminate areas which were not likely to regenerate.

8

09/2007

Ikin St /York Road, Jamisontown

The Reserve is surrounded by roads and drainage canal.

Mowing ceased. Bush regeneration contractor started April 2008 removing exotic grasses. Regeneration of Eucalypts, Wallaby grass etc.

Mowing will be resumed, preferably on a high setting to minimise soil erosion. Newly regenerated trees and shrubs will be retained and protected.

9

06/06/

2008

Behind basketball stadium, Herbert Street, Werrington

Basketball stadium asset on N side is close to no mow zone.

E. moluccana canopy and Themeda ground cover. It has been previously mowed on a few occasions to ‘allow for car parking’ for stadium users. There is a possibility of tree damage by cars and brush cutters as well as compaction impacting on tree root aeration. The no mow zone is close to the stadium.

10

20/06/

2008

Pasturegate Ave behind Huntingdon Parade, Werrington Downs

House assets on W side of Reserve. APZ is mown.

Lovely stand of E. moluccana, E tereticornis, E crebra in Cumberland Plain woodland. Potential for seedling regrowth.  Issues: Neighbour’s grass clippings and golf practice.

 

Future

 

 

 

 

 

Dorset St, Cambridge Park

 

 

 

Table 1.1


Signage is being prepared to place initially in three sites in order to inform members of the public of the reasons why the area is a no mow zone.

 

 

 

Management of No Mow sites

Work involved with managing no mow zones will depend on climatic conditions. Warm wet weather will encourage growth of both weeds and natives. Some natives, irrespective of climate, may take 2-3 years before their seed germinates, and some may germinate more rapidly. The management process is as follows:

·    initial monitoring for regrowth;

·    fine tune the perimeter of zones if regeneration appears not to be likely in some areas;

·    ongoing weed removal to minimise competition for natives.

 

Bush regeneration is an ongoing process, however maintenance diminishes over time as the natives re-establish.

 

Success to date

Dorothy Radford, St Clair

In July 2007, mowing was ceased in some areas of the reserve and natural regeneration is occurring. A bush regeneration contractor has worked in weedy areas and signage has been installed.

 

Brookfield Reserve, Werrington Downs

Since the mowing stopped in 2006, native Kangaroo grass and several Eucalypt seedlings are evident.

Brookfield Reserve 2006: before mowing ceased: bare, dry and dusty.

 

 

2008: the soil structure, health and moisture are improving. Native Kangaroo grass and native Eucalypts are regenerating.

 

Kanangra Reserve, Kingswood

A Bushcare group meets monthly and is targeting the weed African Love Grass. The regeneration in this Reserve is amazing with many native ground cover plants occurring including Alternanthera denticulata, Asperula conferta, Brunoniella australis, Calotis lappulacea and Glossogyne tannensis to name just a few. To date, 55 native species have been identified on this site including the endangered Pimelea spicata.

 

Greenbank Drive/Oakland Parade, Werrington Downs

Mowing ceased in July 2007. A bush regeneration contractor worked between May and June 2008 fine tuning boundaries to eliminate areas which were not likely to regenerate and then removing weed grasses from the core areas. Bursaria spinosa, Dodonaea viscosa shrubs and many different native grass species are regenerating well.

 

Ikin Street & York Road corner, Jamisontown

Mowing ceased in selected areas in September 2007. The boundaries are being fine tuned and weed removal has commenced. There is regrowth of Eucalypt species and a variety of native ground covers.

 

Costs

Some areas may only need to be monitored, whereas other areas may need more intensive work. In the 2007/08 financial year, $15,000 was expended from Bushcare and EEP budgets and 40 Bushcare hours were completed. It is anticipated that a similar cost and time requirement will be required for this financial year.

 

Public safety and asset protection zones

 

At the same time as assisting no mow zones to regenerate, the issue of public safety has been raised. The issue of visibility when grass is long has been raised by some residents. Most grasses would grow to up to one metre high but more often to only 60cm high. Behind property fences asset protection zones are maintained.

 

Comments by Community Safety Coordinator

 

An inspection of the No Mow Zones has been carried out by Council’s Community Safety Coordinator. It is recommended that in certain locations, some works be scheduled to provide adequate surveillance, enhance visibility and minimise opportunities for antisocial behaviour to occur. This includes those parks/reserves which are located within residential areas, as these areas provide linkages to other streets and are frequently used as pedestrian networks for local residents. Examples include the reserve located on the corner of Greenbank Drive and Oakland Parade, Werrington Downs, and the reserve located on Trinity Drive, Cambridge Gardens. Works would include mowing where necessary in between the regeneration areas to create safe walking routes which have good visibility and sightlines.

 

It is anticipated that the signage prepared for installation in the No Mow Zones will help to inform and educate local residents about the purpose of the program, and alleviate any perceptions that the areas are being neglected.

 


Comments by Waste & Community Protection Manager

The Rural Fire Service has provided the following comment regarding proposed no mow zones. “A mowed strip behind residential properties should be continued to be maintained to provide a buffer area between the regenerated grasslands and properties. Depending on the size of these ‘No Mow’ zones, an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) between 4 and 6 metres should be maintained to reduce the potential impact of a fire”. Asset Protection Zone mowing in Penrith LGA generally consists of 2 tractor width cuts (total 10m).

 

Next steps

Other sites

Other sites may be included in the future, however it is important to ensure that the current zones can be maintained before over-committing resources to new sites. Consultation with the local community would be undertaken prior to trialling new locations.

 

Public education

Signage will be provided where appropriate. Information will be provided in the newsletter sent out with the Rates. At Council’s Open Day in August 2008, a display included information about no mow zones for resident’s information. Flyers were also available to take away.

 

Completion of trials

The following is recommended:

·    the sites listed below have mowing returned for the reasons detailed in Table 1.1 and summarised below in Table 1.2

·    trees that have commenced growth be retained

·    all sites to be re-assessed on an annual basis

 

Site#

Location

Recommendation

Site 4

Derby/ Doonmore St, Penrith

No significant regeneration is occurring

Site 6

Brookfield Reserve, Werrington Downs

Mowing will be resumed on a high setting to minimise soil erosion. Newly regenerated trees and shrubs will be retained and protected

Site 8

Ikin St /York Road, Jamisontown

Mowing will be resumed on a high setting to minimise soil erosion. Newly regenerated trees and shrubs will be retained and protected

Site 9

Behind basketball stadium, Herbert Street, Werrington

An asset protection zone needs to be maintained behind the stadium

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on No Mow Zones be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

5

2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund   

 

Compiled by:                Matthew Tempest, Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City’s heritage is being protected and conserved.

Critical Action: Improve our knowledge and engage the City’s communities in heritage conservation and protection.

     

Purpose:

To provide information to Council regarding the next round of the Heritage Assistance Fund 2008/2009.  The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received and that Council support the recommended allocations for funding.

 

Introduction

The Heritage Assistance Fund is a new initiative under the 2007/2008 Management Plan to protect and conserve heritage. It has been set up to financially assist the owners and lessees with this year’s 2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund including non-for-profit community organisations of domestic scale (houses, sheds, garages etc) heritage items such as buildings, houses and archaeological sites.

 

The Heritage Assistance Fund 2008/2009 is offering $30,000 for repair and maintenance work to properties listed in the Penrith Heritage Local Environmental Plan (LEP) as heritage items and items in heritage conservation areas. Potential heritage items (not currently listed) have an opportunity for funding in subsequent funding years. 

Background

Aim of the Fund

 

·           Encourage the repair and maintenance of domestic scale heritage items and promote a positive community attitude to heritage conservation;

·           Provide a mechanism to achieve the conservation of specific elements that are considered important to an area such as streetscapes, fences, timber buildings or heritage items located within the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA);

·           Promote a greater awareness, understanding and appreciation of heritage within Penrith City.

 

Funds are limited to $3,000 per project. However this years funding included the possibility of up to $6,000.00 dependent upon the particular project and at the discretion of Council. In considering the applications for funding, applicants are to demonstrate that the proposed works are essential to maintaining the significance of an item, that is, the work is appropriate from a heritage point of view.

Project Status

The following tasks have been carried out to establish and conduct the 2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund:

·           22 July 2008 - invitations letters sent to all heritage items & heritage conservation area owners, lessees and non-for-profit community organisations

·           July, August & September 2008 – Advertisement on the Local Newspapers;

·           19 September 2008 – Closing date for applications;

·           25 September 2008 – Applications assessed at Council;

·           5 November Reported to Heritage Advisory Committee;

·           17 November 2008 – Report to Policy Review Committee;

·           November 2008 – Following recommendations from the above meeting, applicants will be advised accordingly.

Eligibility for Funding

·           Projects which involve the repair, maintenance or alteration to a domestic scale (houses, sheds, garages etc) heritage building.  Projects can include structural works through to final external painting. These include fences, verandahs, roof cladding and decorative detail; 

·           The item should be a heritage item or in a heritage conservation area listed under the Penrith Heritage LEP 1991;

·           All owners, lessees or non-for-profit community organisations are eligible (excluding commercial, industrial, council and other government departments).

 

Funding will not generally be provided for the following:

·           where funding is reasonably available from another source or where substantial government assistance has been provided;

·           where the applicant has yet to complete other assisted projects (beyond the timeframe given).

Funding Schedule

Application for funding was open from 22 July 2008 until Friday 19 September 2008. Applications were assessed against the eligibility and assessment criteria contained within Heritage Assistance Fund Guidelines on Thursday 25 September 2008.

 

The funding will be issued at three stages as follows:

 

Stage 1 – from $1,000 up to $2,000issued upon lodgement of development application (DA)

Stage 2 – from $1,000 up to $2,000issued upon approval of DA

Stage 3 – from $1,000 up to $2,000 issued upon completion of works

 

The Heritage Assistance Fund guidelines (Attachment No. 3) and flowchart (Attachment No. 5) are attached for your information.

 

Consultant

Development of heritage properties can be complex and usually requires professional design skills. Applicants will need to appoint a consultant that is a registered architect (ideally with heritage experience). A list of consultants for the Heritage Assistance Fund is made available at Council.  If applicants wish to use a different consultant it will be at the discretion of the selection panel.

Funding Applications

There were 19 applications received for the Heritage Assistance Fund. The applications received have been listed and tabled in Attachment No. 1.

Assessment of 2008 Applications

Applications were assessed by a Council’s Heritage Consultant.  The 19 applications were carefully assessed against a set of criteria that were developed to support the effective assessment of applications. After careful consideration against the identified criteria, 10 projects decided upon the $3,000 available funding with 2 projects considered for the $6,000 available funding totalling $42,000 have been recommended for funding. The selection process is summarised in Assessment Matrix in Attachment No.2 and the Application Form is in Attachment No. 4.

 

The table below is a summary of the 12 projects recommended for funding.

 

No.

Owners/Lessees & Non-for-profit community organisations

Project Site

Heritage Status

Project Summary

 

Estimated cost of works

Amount of grant sought

 

1

 

 

 

Dean Newbold

45 Lemongrove Road  Penrith

Conservation Area – P 7 – “Lemongrove Estate”

~  Replace northern fence with hardwood timber fence of the same design

 

 

 

$2,591*

$2,591

2.

 

 

Kerrie & Graham Caverley

22 Warwick Street Penrith

Conservation Area – P33 – Warwick /Derby Street

~  Fan lights above doors

~  Detailing of front verandah

~  Picket fence

~  Matching double driveway gates

~  Finales to be fabricated and installed

~  Porch roof plumbing and connection

~  pathway

$2,080*

$2,080

 

3.

 

 

Allen Barlow & Anne Rice

2 – 26 Great Western Highway Emu Plains

 

Heritage Item – EP 1 – “Emu Hall”

 

~  Repair the slab timber barn

$50,000

$3,000

 

4.

 

 

 

Stephen Charles McDonald

 

183 Maple Road, St Mary’s

 

Conservation Area – SM 3 – Staff Cotttages

 

~  Replace roof (asbestos sheet) of garage with colourbond metal sheets in heritage green.

 

$2,900*

 

$2,900

 

5.

 

 

Necia Merrells

 

22-24 Bunyan Street Leonay

Heritage Item – L 2 – “Edinglassie”

~  Replace entire gutter of home

$5,000

$3,000

 

6

 

 

 

Clayton Searle

46-54 Grays Lane Cranebrook

Heritage Item – CR 1 – Late Victorian Farmhouse

~  Replace drainage line alone northern and eastern boundaries of dwelling

$6,000

$3,000

7.

 

 

 

Margarita Scott

34 Coreen Avenue Penrith

Heritage Item – P 5 – “Combewood”

~  Re-point brickwork at south wall, west wall and entrance hall (as per page 34 of CMP)

$5,280

$3,000

8.

 

 

 

Graham Roberts

6-9 Tallowood Place Cranebrook

Heritage Item – CR 2 – “Kenilworth

~  Prepare a Conservation Management Plan (CMP)

~  All landscape to be reviewed and a written report to add to CMP

~  Heritage trees to be assesses and reviewed with accompanying report

$7,350

$6,000

(this project is has been considered significant and is worthy of the larger amount offered)

9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Robert Thatcher

181 Mamre Road Orchard Hills

Heritage Item – SM 28 – “Mamre House”

~  Replacement of damaged guttering and downpipes

~  Replacement of damaged flashing over verandah

~  Replacement of damaged or missing downpipes

~  Installation of new drainage points where missing and

~  Repair of storm-water drains

$15,000

$6,000

(this project is has been considered significant and is worthy of the larger amount offered)

10.

 

Jacquiline A Haydon

26-28 Nepean Street Emu Plains

Heritage Item – EP16 – “Yodalla”

~  Replace tiles  and front steps of verandah & walkway

$6,000

$3,000

11.

 

Luddenham Progress Association

 

3091-3095 The Northern Road Luddenham

Heritage Item – LU 4 – “Luddenham Progress Hall”

~  Restoration work to the Luddenham Progress Association Building

$13,600

$3,000

12.

 

Sam & Lena Oliva

282 Aldington Road Kemps Creek.  

Heritage Item – KC 5 farmhouse

~  Reconstruct all damaged areas on interior and exterior walls, floors and ceilings.

$104,060

$3,000

* To be paid in 1/3 increments

Applications not recommended for Funding

Many of the applications not recommended for funding offered essential heritage conversation works, but failed in that the fund is intended to assist domestic scale items not commercial entities, refer to items numbers 14,15 & 16 in Attachment No. 1 who have had concessions given with regard to variations to the zoning laws converting a residential zone into a commercial one. The domestic scale applicants, the non-commercial applicants that were unsuccessful have been placed on a short list to take up the funding if one of the successful applicants drop out and they will also be invited to reapply in the 2008/2009 program.

 

However, as an appreciation for their involvement in the funding program, each will be given a “Heritage Maintenance Manual from the NSW Heritage Office; titled “How to carry out work on heritage buildings and sites”. The manual is a brief practical guide on how to care for heritage buildings and sites.

Certificate of Completion

The 2007/2008 Heritage Assistance Fund is nearing its completion and in congratulating each of the successful applicants when their respective projects are finalised it is recommended that a “Certificate of Completion” be issued to each of the successful applicants.

 

It is intended to attach to the final stage payment a “Certificate of Completion” congratulating each of the successful applicants on completing their respective projects.

 

It is further intended to include in the design for each certificate a photo of their respective properties as the back drop to the certificate (e.g. Attachment No. 6 refers to #219 Stafford Street Penrith). This is considered for two reasons, one is that is showcases the successful applicants finished product and secondly it makes the certificate more personal to its recipient.

Heritage Advisory Committee

The report has been presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 5 November 2008. The committee members were in support of the successful applicants as listed in the table above. Further clarification was requested relating to the larger amounts being granted. The table has been updated.

Conclusion

The Heritage Assistance Fund provides an education tool for heritage property owners in enhancing their knowledge and skill in maintaining their property thus taking positive ownership of their property and strengthens positive partnership with Council. The Heritage Assistance Fund also provides a vital mechanism in promoting heritage management and conservation thus enhance quality design and development outcomes.

 

The Heritage Assistance Fund is intended to be held bi-annually. This not only achieves a continued focus on management and conservation of the City’s heritage but demonstrates Council’s commitment and role in valuing the City's history now on behalf of the community for the future.

 

The Heritage Assistance Fund showcases Council’s commitment and role in valuing the City's history now on behalf of the community for the future. The “Certificate of Completion” will further enhance Council’s commitment to heritage and finish each years round of funding on a positive and encouraging note.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund 2008/2009 be received

2.     Council approve the recommended funding allocations as provided in this report.

ATTACHMENTS

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Heritage Assistance Fund List of Expressions of Interest

3 Pages

Attachment

2.  

Heritage Assistance Fund Assessment Matrix

3 Pages

Attachment

3.  

Heritage Assistance Fund Guidelines

6 Pages

Attachment

4.  

Heritage Assistance Fund Application Form

3 Pages

Attachment

5.  

Heritage Assistance Fund Flow Chart

2 Pages

Attachment

6.  

Heritage Assistance Fund Certificate of Completion

1 Page

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Appendix 1 - Heritage Assistance Fund Certificate of Completion

 

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

6

Creation of an Urban Design Review Panel   

 

Compiled by:                Matthew Tempest, Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

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

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

     

Purpose:

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

 

Background

The following matter was reported and adopted by the Development Regulation Working Party on 4 July 2008 meeting and recommended that a further report be presented to the Policy Review Committee.

 

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

Current Situation

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

Options

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

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

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

 

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

 

·        Southern Sydney (Hurstville, Kogarah, Rockdale Councils)

·        Central Coast (Gosford, Wyong Councils)

·        Randwick, Waverly Councils

·        Hastings (Port Macquarie Council)

·        Newcastle Council

 

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

 

·        Sutherland

·        Bankstown

·        Liverpool

·        Parramatta

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The creation of a SEPP 65 Panel is not a mandatory requirement, but rather a Council decision to assist applicants and staff in the development assessment process and promote better quality designs.    The Panel would not determine applications, or be a body for independent hearings, but rather provide commentary and advice to applicants and staff in relation to the architectural merits of a proposal. 

 

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

Option B – Architectural Advisory Service

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

 

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

 

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

Option C - Urban Design Review Panel formed to consider major development types

An “in house” Urban Design Review Panel (UDRP) could be formed to consider all major development in the Penrith local government area.  The panel would preferably consist of internal Council Officers being one planner to administer the process, agenda, minutes of meeting, etc; Council architect, Council landscape architect, and an external architect.

 

The inclusion of an external architect to form part of the UDRP would provide for a degree of independence on a range of major developments including SEPP 65 developments, while at the same time retaining “in-house” knowledge, ownership and input into advice.

 

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

Preferred Option

Option C – The creation of an Urban Design Review Panel to consider major development types, including SEPP 65 development

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

 

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

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

·    Mixed use buildings comprising commercial and/or retail exceeding 2 storeys in height;

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

·    New commercial buildings in Penrith and St Marys CBDs;

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

 

Developments that are subject to the provisions of Local Environmental Plan – Penrith City Centre, where an architectural design competition is required (developments over six storeys in height or on key sites) would not be considered by the Panel, but considered by a special judging panel (City Centre Panel) for the particular project for the architect or an urban designer to comment on.

 

The UDRP would consider SEPP 65 developments, along with other major commercial, retail and industrial developments.  

 

It is envisaged that this UDRP would provide the following advantages:

 

·        The provision of independent professional commentary into the architectural merits of a range of development types to assist staff in their assessment, and which will encourage applicants to work towards the desired design outcome for Penrith;

·        Potential cost savings gained by the applicant, as the professional advice provided will ensure the certainty of a preferred design outcome;

·        Potential cost savings gained by Council in assisting Council’s Architect and Landscape Coordinator from time spent on the assessment of multiple design revisions for each development application;

·        Professional advice received through the process will assist in the training and development of Council’s development assessment staff with regard to architectural and urban design issues.

·        Better quality outcomes in the built environment.

Operational Procedures

The Panel may consider major proposals both prior to a development application being lodged, and again during the development assessment process. It is not anticipated that an applicant will be required to present a proposal to the Urban Design Review Panel prior to lodgement.  This will be a discretionary decision that the applicant can make for those types of developments that have been identified as requiring assessment by the Panel. On receipt of a development application, the matter will be referred to the Panel for comment.  Should there be recommendations made by the Panel in relation to the design issues it will be discretionary on the applicant to undertake those changes.  Once the matter has been referred to the Panel and the applicant has responded to the issues identified, then the application will be determined on its merits.

 

A Draft flow chart of the procedure for the Urban Design Review Panel is appended for your information. 

 

Where a dispute arises, either between Panel members, or with the applicant, the Chairperson will be responsible for resolving the issue.  The Chairperson will be senior environmental planner. The Panel will prepare an independent report into its findings which will be signed off by the Chairperson. 

 

The Panel will not have delegated authority to determine an application. Where applications are referred to Council for determination the Council can accept, modify or not support the recommendations of the Panel.

 

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

Appointment of Panel Members

The next stage is to contact potential architectural companies and seek their interest in being involved in such a Panel. The Department of Commerce has a list of architectural companies that Council may contact. Further “expressions of interest” should be posted in the newspapers to broaden the scope of any interested consultants.  

Review of Panel Operation

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

Cost of Providing Urban Design Review Service

The Development Service Department currently runs a heritage advisory service that has a consultant budget of around $30,000. It is envisaged that the UDRP would be set up similarly. It is anticipated that it would be convened every 3 weeks.  Each panel meeting could cater for approximately 5 items per day (5 hours @ 1 item each hour, plus report writing and site inspections). The panel would consist of three internal Council Officers being one senior environmental planning officer to administer the process, agenda, minutes of meeting, etc; one architect, one landscape architect, plus and external Architect.

 

With a budget of $30,000 it will cost approximately $1,700 per session.  It is likely that the cost of an external Architect would be around $150 per hour which equates to approximately $1,000/day.  It is proposed that the Development Services Department allocate $20,000 from its consultant’s budget for the establishment of this panel and that additional income be obtained from the application of the fees and charges that are outlined in Council’s Management Plan. The $10,000 shortfall equates to approximately 17 applications per annum that would require consideration by the Urban Design Review Panel.  Given the blend of development applications outlined above where input from the Urban Design Review Panel would be required it is likely that the number of applications will exceed 17.

 

The 2008-2009 fees payable by applicants on attendance of a Panel meeting would be:

 

a)   $600 for residential flat buildings as defined in SEPP 65; and

b)   $911 for large scale commercial, mixed use, industrial or development of gateway sites.

 

The current number of development applications, which would be required to be reported to the panel is expected to increase with the movement of Penrith towards its Regional City status. The formation of the Panel is expected to be an overall cost saving measure in the development assessment process, potentially reducing assessment timeframes and improving design outcomes for Penrith. 

 

The six monthly review of the Panel would revisit these figures and check the objectives of the project are being satisfied.

Conclusion

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

 

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

 

Significantly, the Panel only provides advice to the applicant, and comments on the design merits of a particular development proposal, at pre-lodgement stage and after lodgement of the development application.  It does not determine the application. The application is determined in accordance with Council’s procedures.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2.     The “in house” Urban Design Review Panel be composed of one senior environmental planner, one internal architect, one internal landscape architect and one external architect

3.     The appointment of the external architect be either by Expressions of Interest or via written invitation from the Department of Commerce’s list of consulting local architects.

4.     The Urban Design Review Panel be evaluated within 6 months from the date of its inception and reported back to the Policy Review Committee.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

"Draft" Urban Design Review Panel

1 Page

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Appendix 1 - "Draft" Urban Design Review Panel

 

 

 

DRAFT

URBAN DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

PROCESS

 

Development Application lodged

 

 

 


Booking of Panel Appointment

(Administration Staff)

 

 

 

Agenda, Plans, Information,

Pre-lodgement Report (where this occurred)

to Panel Members 7 days prior to meeting

(Administration Staff)

 

 

 


Site inspection (Panel Members, Staff)

Panel Meeting (Panel Members, Applicant,

Assessing Officer, Staff)

 

 

 


Independent Report prepared

(Panel Members, Administration Staff)

 

 

 


Follow-up “in-house”

(Architectural Officer)

 

 

 


Report to Assessment Officer

 

 

 


Records Updated – IT Systems, File

(Administration Staff)

 

 

  


 

 

The City as an Economy

 

 

There were no reports under this Master Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

There were no reports under this Master Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Leadership and Organisation

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

7        Inquiry into NSW Planning Framework

 

8        Annual Report 2007-2008

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

7

Inquiry into NSW Planning Framework   

 

Compiled by:                Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Mahbub Alam, Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote, Environmental Planning Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The organisation is managing its statutory requirements and the needs of a participatory community in a transparent and balanced way.

Critical Action: Develop, review and monitor policies and procedures to enable the organisation to engage more effectively with the community while meeting its statutory and public interest obligations.

     

Purpose:

To inform Council of the opportunity to make a submission to the Legislative Council's Standing Committee on State Development Inquiry into the New South Wales planning framework. The report recommends that Council make a submission based on the commentary and recommendations outlined in the report.

 

Executive Summary

During debate in Parliament on recently passed amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the issue was raised whether there was a need for a systematic review of the NSW planning system as a whole.  The Minister for Planning subsequently requested the NSW Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on State Development to conduct an inquiry into the New South Wales planning framework in the context of national and international trends.  The Committee has invited submissions by 14 December 2008.

 

The terms of reference established for the inquiry have a focus in the need or otherwise to reform the NSW planning legislation, particularly in removing duplication of processes, considering contemporary environmental issues such as climate change and natural resource planning, competition policy and the implications of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) reform agenda for planning in NSW. 

 

This report provides an overview of key matters which we believe should be incorporated in Council’s submission, the principal argument of which is the need for a new Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.  It is recommended Council make a submission to the Committee’s inquiry based on the commentary and recommendations outlined in the report.

Background

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA) is the main statutory vehicle guiding planning outcomes in NSW.  The EPAA provides a comprehensive three tier planning system, allowing for state, regional and local plans, as well as outlining the development assessment process.  Whilst the EPAA attracted considerable support upon its introduction, nearly thirty years of amendments, case law and the proliferation of other natural resource management legislation has meant that the planning regime in NSW is, to say the least, complex and becoming increasingly inefficient.

 

During the recent parliamentary debate on the latest round of planning reforms to the EPAA, the need for more substantive reform which could see a major review of the entire planning system was raised.  Other stakeholders, including groups representing the development industry and the planning profession, have recently made similar observations.

 

Council’s submission to the Department of Planning’s discussion paper on improving the NSW planning system in November 2007 noted that the reforms’ focus on process did not recognise that the quality of an outcome is at least as important, if not more so, than the speed at which it is delivered.  Our submission also argued that the drafting of a new Act, rather than continually revising the existing legislation would enable simplification of the system in a much more coordinated way than is possible with the recent reforms.

Suggested Responses

The Committee has advised its terms of reference have eight key focus areas to enable it to inquire into and report on national and international trends in planning.  The terms of reference, our comments and recommendations are outlined below:

 

a.   The need, if any, for further development of the NSW Planning legislation over the next five years, and the principles that should guide such development.

 

Comment:

As stated above, the EPAA is dated, complex and process orientated legislation.  The myriad of amendments made to the legislation over this time not only adds to this complexity, but also impacts on its legibility and usefulness.  The preferred alternative is to draft and introduce a new act which encapsulates recent changes in planning practise and current issues in planning which were unknown with the original planning legislation was first drafted, eg, climate change, sustainability – economic, social and environmental, and environmental (biodiversity) protection. 

 

The new legislation would also provide a strategic focus on the promotion of responsible sustainable development and address contemporary community issues.  Above all, it must simplify the planning process to efficiently achieve quality outcomes.

 

Retaining the consultation process for all aspects of the plan-making process, including State environmental planning policies, is critical to maintain community participation and support of the outcome.

 

Fundamentally, a planning framework is needed that enables the creation of an environment in which human habitation and associated activities are effectively reconciled with the need for responsible natural resource management, cultural heritage and long term sustainability.  Of necessity, that would require a strategic focus to the planning system that allows participation of those affected by proposals for change.  The planning system should not be simply about development control.

 

The State Government has introduced major strategic policies relating to the growth of Metropolitan Sydney and its subregions.  However, none of these significant planning directives were given statutory recognition under the current provisions of the EPAA.  To ensure effective recognition and implementation of these important strategies guiding urban growth in Sydney, there should be greater flexibility in the planning legislation to enable their recognition as a principal policy initiative. 

 

Over time, there has been a growing recognition by the State and Australian Governments to give effect to legislative controls over management of the natural environment.  The result has been a wide range of Acts which have generated various overlaps and contradictions.  It will be fundamental in a review of the planning framework to ensure that the duplication of legislation affecting natural resource management in NSW be eliminated.

 

A further issue relates to achieving an acceptable reconciliation of the often competing objectives of public institutions and private individuals in relation to land use and development decisions.  Although this could ultimately be difficult to achieve, better direction is required in relation to attaining an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals versus the wider public interest.

 

Recommendation:

The State Government, in partnership with Local Government, the Development Industry and relevant stakeholders, develop a new Act to replace the EPAA based on the following principles:

·   A focus on strategic outcomes underpinned by the triple bottom line elements for long-term sustainability.  These need to be supported by an efficient and effective planning process;

·   Promotion and coordination of responsible, sustainable development to deliver quality outcomes;

·   Recognition of contemporary environmental concerns including the implications of climate change and the inclusion of strategies to respond to this issue;

·   Retention and implementation of a streamlined State, Regional and Local planning hierarchy which recognises strategic policy directions;

·   Reducing complexity through the development of planning strategies and statutory processes tailored to the scope, scale and significance of the planning issue;

·   Embracing community consultation and participation as fundamental components of the planning system;

·   Recognition of Local Government’s primary role in planning for the local area;

·   Integration and coordination of natural resource management with the planning process.  This would see a significant streamlining of the array of State and Federal environmental protection legislation and the removal of present duplication;

·   Recognition of the need to attain an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the wider public interest.

 

b.   The implications of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) reform agenda for planning in NSW.

 

Comment:

On March 26, 2008, the Council of Australian Governments made a commitment to a new microeconomic reform agenda for Australia.  The agenda has a particular focus on removing duplication in assessment and approval requirements between Commonwealth, State and Territory schemes, developing bilateral agreements to achieve efficiencies in biodiversity approvals, achieving greater certainty and efficiency in the development and construction sector by reducing regulatory burdens and delays, and reviewing the Building Code of Australia to remove unnecessary State-based and local government variations. 

 

The identified areas of reform are all significant matters in terms of underpinning a more efficient planning system and should result in overall benefits to the community and other stakeholders.  As such, they appear worthy of support in principle.

 

There are distinct overlaps between the COAG reform agenda and the identified need for a major overhaul of the NSW planning system and in particular the EPAA.  Many of these issues are common to the concerns raised by the development industry, local government and the wider community in relation to the difficulties being experienced with the growing complexity of the EPAA and the duplication in existing legislation at both State and Federal level.  Much of the COAG reform agenda could be effectively delivered in a major review of the EPAA in so far as NSW planning legislation is concerned.

 

Recommendation:

Relevant COAG reforms be incorporated in drafting of a new EPAA, based on the principles outlined in issue (a) above.

 

c.   Duplication of processes under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 and NSW planning, environmental and heritage legislation.

 

Comment:

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSC) establish guidelines for assessment of biodiversity issues.  Both Acts require consideration of similar issues, duplicating assessment criteria and creating unnecessary processes.

 

The overlap is particularly evident in examples where development is proposed in an area where endangered ecological communities are present which have been listed as being of conservation significance under both State and Federal legislation. 

 

Recommendation:

The Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC), the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSC) and Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act be amended to remove unnecessary duplication.

 

d.   Climate change and natural resources in planning and development controls.

 

Comment:

Climate change is expected to have significant impacts on local communities in Australia. These impacts include water scarcity, more frequent and intense storms, sea level rise, erosion and flooding, all of which place increasing burden on infrastructure demands and significantly added responsibility in our planning and development decision making processes.

 

The EPAA Act does not specifically require consideration of, or provide guidance with respect to the implications of climate change in the preparation of environmental planning instruments or assessment of development proposals.

 

Specific provisions need to be incorporated within the EPAA to require and guide consideration of climate change impacts in the preparation of environmental planning instruments and the assessment of development proposals

 

Recommendation:

Provisions be incorporated in the EPAA to require and guide consideration of climate change impacts in the preparation of environmental planning instruments and the assessment of specific development proposals.

 

e.   Appropriateness of considering competition policy issues in land use planning and development approval processes in NSW.

 

Comment:

The EPAA is not an instrument to prevent competition in the market place or to protect private commercial interests, but amongst other things, is an instrument that seeks to promote the interests of the public and the economic and orderly use and development of land.

 

The objects of the EPAA are supported by Section 79C which requires assessment of the likely social and economic impacts of development in a locality.  In arriving at development decisions, Council as the consent authority must make a distinction between the public interest and the private commercial interests associated with any proposal.   As a general rule, the broader public interest is to be preferred over the private interests of commercial operators. In this regard, the Courts have arrived at the fundamental tenet that the prospect of competition is not a relevant town planning consideration in relation to a development proposal, unless there is likely to be a net loss of public benefit.

 

Consideration of competition policy in land use planning needs to have its foundation therefore, in seeking to ensure the social and economic welfare of the community and not in the promotion of private commercial interests.

 

Recommendation:

The current provisions of the EPAA requiring consideration of the social and economic impacts of development remain appropriate considerations and provide an appropriate backdrop for the proper consideration of competition issues.

 

f.    Regulation of land use on or adjacent to airports.

 

Comment:

There is no doubt that the development of aviation facilities at the major capital city airports around Australia is of national significance and should fall under Commonwealth control.  However, the issue of what comprises core aviation activity as opposed to other commercial activities, is becoming increasingly blurred given the privatisation of airport operations and the desire of those entities to expand economic opportunities. 

 

It is reasonable to expect that non-aviation related development should continue to be subject to and accord with State and local planning strategies governing similar development beyond and adjacent to an airport. 

 

Recommendation:

The Commonwealth Airports Act should directly specify core aviation activities that falls within its jurisdiction and hence the Commonwealth’s approval role.  In addition, a more rigorous approval process should be provided for non-aviation development on Commonwealth controlled airport lands that:

·  Provides a level of security, community consultation, planning assessment, and developer contribution equivalent to that applied to developments under State and local planning systems; and

·  Ensures that non-aviation developments on Commonwealth airport lands are consistent with respective State and local planning strategies.

 

g.   Inter-relationship of planning and building controls.

 

Comment:

Planning reforms introduced in 1999-2000 shifted the focus of assessment of applications to carry out development and merged the two assessment processes of concept and construction into one.  This also removed the ability to impose conditions on construction certificates.  These changes have resulted in the necessity for building construction assessment to form a significant component of development assessment and the need for a much higher level of detail to be provided to enable a determination, increasing applicant costs and assessment times. 

 

There would be merit in having an opportunity to be able to apply conditions to a construction certificate, or alternatively moving to a dual assessment process which would result in simplification of DA assessment to compliance with LEPs, DCPs and other EPAA section 79C criteria quantifying the compliance and merit of a proposal. 

 

Also, inconsistency exists between various legislation as is the case with the access provisions of the Building Code of Australia, the Disabilities Discrimination Act and the Disabilities Services Act.  It is essential that the legislation and processes in this area be integrated and simplified to provide desired development outcome and improved process efficiency.

 

Recommendation:

1.  The EPAA be reviewed to provide greater delineation between the assessment and construction processes; and

2.  The provisions of the EPAA, various nationally adopted Standards and Codes and other relevant legislation governing planning and construction activities be integrated, simplified and aligned;

 

 

 

h.   Implications of the planning systems on housing affordability.

 

Comment:

There are numerous factors that impact on new housing affordability in the State, including government taxes and charges, local developer contributions, agency infrastructure charges, construction and materials costs and land prices.

 

Both the State Government and the development industry have recently expressed concerns over the impact of State and local developer contributions is having on housing affordability, particularly in the urban growth areas in Metropolitan Sydney. 

 

In September 2007 the NSW Urban Taskforce reported that infrastructure charges in the Growth Centres amounted to $110,000 per residential lot, $16,000 per residential lot in Queensland, $14,000 per residential lot in Victoria and $614 per residential lot in Perth. This has a significant impact on new housing affordability and is a significant comparative cost disadvantage for new housing development in the State.

 

In response to this issue, the State Government has recently reduced State infrastructure charges for development in the North West and South West Growth Centres and has also approved new legislation which limits the infrastructure items for which contributions can be sought at the local level.  We are awaiting release of the regulations and the introduction of these new requirements.

 

There is a need for the State Government, in consultation with local government and the development industry to examine alternative mechanisms for the funding of infrastructure associated with the delivery of new housing.  In addition, there would seem to be advantage in the Government’s review of its current taxation policies relating to land and housing development as a complementary suite of measures which could enhance new housing affordability and funding equity. 

 

Recommendation:

That State Government, in consultation with local government and the development industry examine alternative mechanisms for the equitable funding of infrastructure in a manner that will enhance new housing affordability.

Conclusion:

The Minister for Planning has asked the NSW Parliament’s Standing Committee on State Development to conduct an inquiry into the New South Wales planning framework, with particular reference to national and international trends in planning.

 

The terms of reference identified are significant matters and all have a substantial bearing on Council’s ability to effectively plan the City and make informed judgements on future land uses and quality development outcomes.  As such, the inquiry is welcomed and worthy of Council making a submission. 

 

The principal argument which we feel should be advanced is the need for a new Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to provide a strategic focus on the promotion of sustainable development, address contemporary environmental and community issues and simplify the planning process. 

 

Accordingly, it is recommended that Council make a submission to the inquiry based on the commentary and recommendations outlined in the report and any additional matters which Council may wish to have included.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Submission to the State Government Standing Committee on State Development Inquiry into NSW Planning Framework be received.

2.     Council make a submission to the NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on State Development Inquiry into the New South Wales planning framework based on the commentary and recommendations outlined in the report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

8

Annual Report 2007-2008   

 

Compiled by:                Glenn McCarthy, Executive Officer

Louise Petchell, Sustainability Unit Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Glenn McCarthy, Executive Officer   

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

Critical Action: Ensure the standard of financial, strategic, sustainability and performance reporting matches leading practice.

     

Purpose:

To seek Council's endorsement of the 2007-2008 Annual Report.  The report recommends that the draft Annual Report be endorsed and submitted to the Department of Local Government. Copies of the draft Annual Report have been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

Background

Section 428 of the Local Government Act requires Council to submit an Annual Report to the Minister for Local Government within 5 months after the end of each year. The Act, Regulations and other legislation sets out the matters that must be included in the Annual Report.

 

These requirements include a copy of the council’s audited financial statements, a report on the actual performance of the council’s principal activities during that year (measured in accordance with the management plan) and additional information about a number of prescribed matters.

 

The Act also specifies that the Annual Report will contain a report on the state of the environment of the local government area meeting certain detailed requirements. It has been normal practice for the State of the Environment Report to be published as a separate accompanying document by most councils.

Current Situation

As Councillors are aware, a major exercise was undertaken during the development of the  2006-2007 Annual Report to produce it as Council’s first major public sustainability report. These efforts were rewarded when Council was awarded the Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) Gold Award for Excellence in Corporate Sustainability.

 

In keeping with Council’s adoption of Sustainability Principles and mainstreaming sustainability into all facets of the organisation, the 2007-2008 Annual Report has also been produced as a Sustainability Report. The draft report details Council’s achievements over the financial year 2007-2008 and is a report card to the community. It is intended to tell the story of our sustainability journey over the reporting period rather than simply meet the requirements of the Act and will be provided to key stakeholders, government organisations as well as the broader community through hard copies as well as electronically on Council’s website.

 

Council has committed to apply the principles of sustainability in all of its operations, and aims to ensure that Council’s decisions, policies and actions should maintain, or better still, improve environmental, social and economic outcomes for future generations, leaving a lasting legacy.

 

The 2007-2008 Annual Report further demonstrates Council’s strong commitment to open and transparent reporting across all aspects of its services and programs.

 

Council is a member of the Australia/New Zealand Sustainability Reporting Alliance which helps develop and share best practice in public agency reporting (as well as being informed by excellent corporate examples). Many of the approaches embodied in the draft Annual Report have been informed by this learning partnership.

 

An extensive evaluation program was carried out following distribution of last year’s inaugural sustainability report and many of these outcomes have influenced changes and improvements to this year’s report.

 

This Annual Report provides information on Council’s performance in the 2007-2008 financial year.  It contains the following elements:

 

·    City Overview

·    Mayor & General Manager’s Messages

·    Organisational profile

·    Mayor & Councillors with wards and biographical details

·    Our People

·    Report on Principles and Indicators

·    Statutory Report

·    Financial Summary

·    Contact details and feedback

 

The theme for this year’s report is “A Shared Journey”. This recognises the role that residents, businesses and agencies have in working with Council to deliver a sustainable Regional City we can all be proud of.

 

The report places a heavy emphasis on the value of Council’s workforce and each principle features case studies to help communicate the organisation’s vision, mission and goals in a contemporary and jargon-free manner.

 

Ensuring the Annual Report meets legislative requirements through the Statutory Report component has involved the compilation of direct commentary from relevant departments and/or references to other parts of the document, where appropriate.

 

Council will, through the Annual Report submitted for consideration tonight, meet all of the present statutory requirements, while continuing formal reporting which supports the mainstreaming of sustainability in the organisation.

Sustainability Indicators for the City and Organisation

Sustainability Indicators for Council itself have been developed, drawn from the international standard for organisational reporting, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), while City Indicators are focussed around the Penrith Sustainability Principals.

 

It is important to note that both the City and Council indicators have been selected for their relevance and importance, rather than simply to match existing data sources.

 

The proposed Sustainability Indicators for the City and Council which have been included in the draft Annual Report are considered a starting point for further engagement with the public and key stakeholders around these important issues.

 

Feedback from Council both at this stage and subsequently will be incorporated in further development of the approach, which will help position Council as a leading sustainability reporter.

State of the Environment Report

Environmental Health Manager’s comment

The Penrith Sustainability Principles were first incorporated into Penrith’s 2004-05 State of the Environment (SoE) Report. The commitment made to develop sustainability indicators for the City and ultimately report on performance using these indicators in an Annual Sustainability Report has now resulted in the complete integration of the SoE Report with the Annual Report.

Integrated Planning and Reporting

Council has taken an active part in consideration of the ‘Integrated Planning and Reporting’ reforms proposed by the Department of Local Government. The Department has recently confirmed that the current statutory provisions for the Annual Report and other reporting have not changed. The Department has also advised that it is continuing to develop a new integrated planning and reporting system for NSW local government. The Department is currently finalising the Draft Amendment Bill, Regulation and Guidelines and release of the proposed planning and reporting system for full public consultation is imminent.

 

Councillors may be aware that the 2007-08 Annual Report was a substantial move to integrate several of the current statutory requirements. This year’s Annual Report takes that work further to provide a more strategic focus to local government as well as a greater emphasis on sustainability principles.

 

As previously discussed with Council, the directions of the Department’s intended reforms are very much in keeping with Council’s own strategic management approach. The enhancements which have been made to Council’s Annual Report will help to ensure that a leadership position is taken in terms of future reporting requirements. The sustainability indicators framework will support the identification of important new information on the City and the organisation as an input for strategic planning.

Conclusion

The 2007-2008 Annual Report constitutes the continuation of the journey toward full public sustainability reporting by Council.

 

This is an important advance towards key requirements of the Strategic Program and the Sustainable Penrith Action Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Annual Report 2007-2008 be received.

2.     The draft 2007-2008 Annual Report be endorsed and submitted to the Department of Local Government.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:          Monday 17 November 2008

Master Program:          The City in its Environment

Issue:                            Built Environment

Report Title:                2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund

Attachments:                Heritage Assistance Fund List of Expressions of Interest

                                      Heritage Assistance Fund Assessment Matrix

                                      Heritage Assistance Fund Guidelines

                                      Heritage Assistance Fund Application Form

                                      Heritage Assistance Fund Flow Chart



Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Attachment 1 - Heritage Assistance Fund List of Expressions of Interest

 

 

 

 

No.

Owners/Lessees & Non-for-profit community organisations

Project Site

Heritage Status

Project Summary

 

Estimated cost of works

Amount of grant sought

 

1

 

 

 

 

Dean Newbold

45 Lemongrove Road  Penrith 

Conservation Area – P 7 – “Lemongrove Estate”

 

~ Replace northern fence with hardwood timber fence of the same design 

 

$2,591

$2,591 

2. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kerrie & Graham Caverley

22 Warwick Street Penrith 

Conservation Area – P33 – Warwick /Derby Street

 

~ Fan lights above doors

~ Detailing of front verandah

~ Picket fence

~ Matching double driveway gates

~ Finales to be fabricated and installed

~ Porch roof plumbing and connection

~ pathway

 

$2,080

$2,080

 

3.

 

 

Allen Barlow & Anne Rice

2 – 26 Great Western Highway Emu Plains 

 

Heritage Item – EP 1 – “Emu Hall”

 

 

~ Repair the slab timber barn 

 

$50,000

$3,000

 

4.

 

 

 

 

Stephen Charles McDonald

183 Maple Road, St Mary’s 

Conservation Area – SM 3 – Staff Cottages

 

~ Replace roof (asbestos sheet) of garage with colourbond metal sheets in heritage green. 

 

$2,900

$2,900

 

5.

 

 

Necia Merrells

 

22-24 Bunyan Street Leonay

 

Heritage Item – L 2 – “Edinglassie”

 

~ Replace entire gutter of home

 

$5,000

$3,000

 

6

 

 

 

Clayton Searle

46-54 Grays Lane Cranebrook 

Heritage Item – CR 1 – Late Victorian Farmhouse

 

~ Replace drainage line alone northern and eastern boundaries of dwelling 

 

$6,000

$3,000

 

7.

 

 

 

Margarita Scott

34 Coreen Avenue Penrith 

Heritage Item – P 5 – “Combewood”

 

~ Re-point brickwork at south wall, west wall and entrance hall (as per page 34 of CMP) 

 

$5,280

$3,000

8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graham Roberts

6-9 Tallowood Place Cranebrook

Heritage Item – CR 2 – “Kenilworth

 

~ Prepare a Conservation Management Plan (CMP)

~ All landscape to be reviewed and a written report to add to CMP

~ Heritage trees to be assesses and reviewed with accompanying report

 

$7,350

$6,000

(this project is has been considered significant and is worthy of the larger amount offered)

9.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Robert Thatcher

181 Mamre Road Orchard Hills

Heritage Item – SM 28 – “Mamre House”

 

~ Replacement of damaged guttering and downpipes

~ Replacement of damaged flashing over verandah

~ Replacement of damaged or missing downpipes

~ Installation of new drainage points where missing and

~ Repair of storm-water drains

 

$15,000

$6,000

(this project is has been considered significant and is worthy of the larger amount offered)

10.

 

Jacquiline A Haydon

26-28 Nepean Street Emu Plains

Heritage Item – EP16 – “Yodalla”

 

~ Replace tiles  and front steps of verandah & walkway

 

$6,000

$3,000

11.

 

Luddenham Progress Association

 

3091-3095 The Northern Road Luddenham 

Heritage Item – LU 4 – “Luddenham Progress Hall”

 

~ Restoration work to the Luddenham Progress Association Building 

 

$13,600

$3,000

12.

 

Sam & Lena Oliva

282 Aldington Road Kemps Creek.   

Heritage Item – KC 5 farmhouse

 

~ Reconstruct all damaged areas on interior and exterior walls, floors and ceilings. 

 

$104,060

$3,000

 

13.

 

 

John Anthony Sultana

1 Hemming Street Penrith  

Conservation Area – P 7 – “Lemongrove Estate”

 

~ Refurbishing the house and building 2 new townhouses at the rear

 

$320,000

$6,000

 

 

14. 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Jose Accounting

28 The Crescent, Penrith 

Conservation Area – P 7 – “Lemongrove Estate”

 

~ Replace rotting timber external boards

~ Paint external business premise 

 

 $4,510 

$6,000

15.

 

Trazpen Lawyers Pty Ltd

19 The Crescent Penrith 

Conservation Area – P 7 – “Lemongrove Estate”

 

~ Painting the exterior of the business premise

 

$11,500

$6,000

16.

 

Stormer Lawyers

 

24 The Crescent, Penrith. 

 

Conservation Area – P 7 – “Lemongrove Estate”

 

~ Repair and repaint roof and guttering which includes removing rust damage and flaking paint  

 

 

$5,577

 

$6,000

 

17. 

 

 

Graham & Evon Stewart

219 Stafford Street Penrith  

Conservation Area – P33 – Warwick /Derby Street

 

~ Replace the front fence

 

$1,720

$3,000

 

18. 

 

 

Cheryl Fitzpatrick

4 Warwick Street Penrith 

Conservation Area – P33 – Warwick /Derby Street

 

~ Painting exterior of house & repair timber work 

 

$5,830 

$3,000

19.

Mr & Mrs Ward

18 Princess Mary Street St Marys

Heritage Item - SM20 - Princess Mary Street Cottages

 

~ Repair & repainting of external walls

 

$12,000

$3,000

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Attachment 2 - Heritage Assistance Fund Assessment Matrix

 

 

 



 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Attachment 3 - Heritage Assistance Fund Guidelines

 

 

 

       2008 / 2009

           HERITAGE ASSISTANCE FUND

 

GUIDELINES

($30,000 funding available)          

                    

1.  BACKGROUND 

   

The 2008/2009 Heritage Assistance Fund has been set up to financially assist the owners, lessees and non-for-profit organisations of domestic scale (houses, sheds, garages etc) heritage items such as buildings, houses and archaeological sites. The fund offers a grant to assist in preparing and lodging a development application to Council for repair and maintenance work to properties listed in the Penrith Heritage Local Environmental Plan (LEP) as heritage items and items in heritage conservation areas.  

 

2.  AIM OF THE FUND

 

·      Assisting the owners, lessees and non-for-profit organisations of domestic scale heritage items and heritage conservation areas in preparing and lodging a development application to carry out works;

·      To encourage the repair and maintenance of domestic scale heritage items and promote a positive community attitude to heritage conservation;

·      Provide a mechanism to achieve the conservation of specific elements that are considered important to an area such as streetscapes, fences, timber buildings or heritage items located within the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA);

·      Promote a greater awareness, understanding and appreciation of heritage within Penrith City.

 

3.  INVITATION TO APPLY

Funds are limited to $6,000 per project. Therefore it is important to demonstrate that your proposal is essential and appropriate to the conservation of the item, for example, if the project is to rebuild a verandah around the house, ensure it is the same as the original. 

 

Should you wish to make an application for funding please ensure it is received at Council no later than Friday 19 September, 2008.

 

4.  ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDING

 

·      Projects which involve the repair, maintenance or alteration (see clause 6A of Heritage LEP 1991) to a domestic scale (houses, sheds, garages etc) heritage building in the Penrith Local Government Area. Projects can include structural works through to final external painting. These include fences, verandahs, roof cladding and decorative detail. 

·      The item should be a heritage item or in a heritage conservation area listed under the Penrith Heritage LEP 1991.

·      All owners, lessees and non-for-profit organisations are eligible (excluding council and other government departments).

 

Funding will not generally be provided for the following:

·      where funding is reasonably available from another source or where substantial government assistance has been provided

·      where the applicant has yet to complete other assisted projects (beyond the timeframe given)

 

5.  ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 

These following criteria provides a useful checklist for assessing projects:

·      Projects that conserve the identified heritage significance of the item

·      The applicant's ability to demonstrate technical and financial responsibility

with regard to the project, and demonstrate ability to complete the project

within 6-12 months after approval from Council

·      The degree to which the applicant will financially contribute to the project

·      Projects that clearly complement broader conservation objectives, e.g.

projects that implement key findings of heritage studies or conservation plans

·      Projects which would encourage the conservation of other heritage items;

·      Projects of demonstrated value to the community, e.g. the restoration of an important local heritage house

·      Projects that are highly visible to the public, e.g. the replacement of a

verandah to a building in a main street location

·      Projects subject to conservation controls where the owner is able to show  hardship arising from conservation work required to the item

·      Urgent projects to avert a threat to a heritage item

 

Funding for Other Repairs

Consideration will also be given to the allocation of funds where works that could not wait for the allocation of funds have been carried out to a heritage item. Applications for assistance in this regard must comply with the following:

·      The works were carried out no more than 12 months prior to the date of the current invitation for assistance

·      The works could not have been delayed to apply for the Fund, by using temporary measures to alleviate the situation

·      The application is supported by written and photographic evidence to demonstrate the above

·      Two quotes were obtained prior to repair works being carried out and are submitted with the application

·      Retrospective funding will not be granted for standard conservation works that are not considered to be urgent

 

6.  LEVEL OF FUNDING AVAILABLE

The maximum level of funding per project will be limited to $6,000 and depending on Council’s discretion. The funding will be issued at 3 stages as follows:

Stage 1 – from $1,000 to $2,000 issued upon lodgement of a DA.

Stage 2 – from $1,000 to $2,000 issued upon approval of DA

Stage 3 – from $1,000 to $2,000 issued upon completion of all approved works (DA fees refunded for successful completion)

 

7.  TIMING & PAYMENT OF PROJECTS

 

From the date of receiving your successful application letter from Council for heritage assistance funding, you have 2 months to submit a Development Application (DA) to Council and you have 6-12 months to complete the project after approval from Council.

 

8.  CONSULTANT

 

Development of heritage properties can be complex and usually requires professional design skills. To be eligible for funding, you will need to appoint a consultant that is a registered architect (ideally with heritage experience). A list of consultants for the Heritage Assistance Fund is available at Council.  If you wish to use a different consultant this will be at the discretion of the selection panel.

 

9.  WHAT YOU NEED TO DO

 

Contact the Council.

It is suggested that you contact Council if you require clarification on the eligibility of the project and/or to discuss the intended conservation works.

 

Please note that works to be funded under the assistance program would normally consist of repair or maintenance works that normally require Council approval via the development application process.

 

To apply for the Heritage Assistance Funding you need to read the guidelines and fill out the application form attached.  For more information contact Matthew Tempest during normal business hours on 4732 7714.

 

Background Research

It will assist your case if you can properly demonstrate why the work you propose is appropriate from a heritage point of view. To do this you may need to do some research, e.g. the Penrith Local Historian at Penrith Local Library and Historical Societies have information on a local history and may also be able to obtain some old photographs.

 

Details of Proposed Works

You then need to decide in detail what work you want to carry out. The conservation works to be carried out needs to be clearly explained. The following must be provided:

·      a written description and schedule of the specific works to be undertaken

·      a photograph of the building, and close-ups of any particular job to be done

·      plans or sketches which illustrate the nature, extent and location of the work

·      a schedule of materials and colours to be used in the proposed works, if applicable (sample brochures from builders of suppliers can be used)

 

Quotes

Next, as with any work, you need to get quotes and it is suggested to submit at least two quotes for the proposed works.  Put these costs alongside the schedule of work you have prepared.  It is preferable that the tradesman selected to undertake the work should have the necessary qualifications and experience in working with heritage buildings. A list of tradesman is available at Council upon request. 

 

Fill in the application form

Fill in the attached application form, keep a copy for your records, staple on the attachments and personally deliver it to the Civic Centre, at 601 High Street, Penrith or send it through the post no later than Friday 19 September 2008 to:

Penrith City Council

P.O. Box 60

PENRITH NSW 2750

Attention: Heritage Assistance Fund

 

10.   SELECTION PROCESS

 

Following receipt of your application a selection committee will assess your application against the eligibility and assessment criteria contained within these guidelines. This may involve an inspection of the property. You will then be notified of the outcome of your application. By lodging an application for funding you have entered into an agreement with Council that will commence if your application is successful.

 

The successful applicants will then have 2 months to submit the DA form to Council and 6-12 months to complete works after approval from Council.

 

At each stage, Council staff may undertake an inspection. This is necessary to ensure that the work has been carried out as per the agreement. Receipts for the work should also be lodged with Council. You will also need to have your consultant certify the work at each stage.

 

Further Information

Should you require further information in relation to Council’s Heritage Assistance Fund or require assistance in completing the application form, please contact Matthew Tempest on (02) 4732 7714. 

 

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

17 November 2008

Attachment 4 - Heritage Assistance Fund Application Form

 

 

 

         2008 / 2009   

           

         Heritage Assistance Fund         Application Form       

 

 

Please refer to the guidelines before completing this application.

 

Applicant

 

Name

 

Address

 

                                                                                                 Postcode

 

Tel                                                                                 Fax

 

Mobile                                                             Email

 

Heritage Property

 

Lot              DP                        No.        Street

 

Suburb                                                                         Postcode

 

The Proposal

(Please attach further information where necessary.)

Brief description of proposed works: attach a more detailed schedule of works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

Present use of the building / site:

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Funds