24 June 2009

Dear Councillor,

 

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 29 June 2009 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

 

Barry Husking

Acting General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

2.           APOLOGIES

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 25 May 2009.

 

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

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 1 June 2009.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 15 June 2009.

 

9.           MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

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

11.         QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

12.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 29 June 2009

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

master program reports

 


Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


For members of the public addressing the meeting

 
Council Chambers

Text Box: Lectern

Group Managers                          

                 
          

 
Seating Arrangements

 

 

Director – Special Operations
David Burns

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Jim Aitken OAM
South  Ward

 

Acting Executive Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

Minute Clerk

 

Director
Craig Butler

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                          

                
          

 
   


 

2009 MEETING CALENDAR

February 2009 - December 2009

(adopted by Council 8/09/08 and amended by Council 6/4/09)

 

 

TIME

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meetings

7.30 pm

2

 

6

4v

 

20

3

7ü

12

9

14

23

23

 

25

29*

 

24

28^

 

30

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30 pm

 

9

 

 

15

13

 

14@

 

 

7

16#+

30@

27

18#

 

 

17#+

 

19

16#

 

Councillor Briefing / Working Party / Presentation

7.30 pm

9

2

 

11

1Y

6

10

 

 

2

 

 

16<

20<

 

 

27

31

21

 

23

 

 

 

 

 

#    Meetings at which the Management Plan 1/4ly reviews are presented

 

^  Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

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

@  Strategic Program progress reports [only business]

<    Briefing to consider Draft Management Plan for 2009/2010

ü  Meeting at which the 2008/2009 Annual Statements are presented

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

Y  Management Plan Councillor Briefings/Public Forum (June)

*    Meeting at which the Management Plan for 2009/2010 is adopted.

 

 

 

-                 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 ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 25 MAY 2009 AT 7:33PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor 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.

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 4 May 2009

115  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 4 May 2009 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

116  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:37 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Trevor George Robey

 

Item 11 – Development Application DA08/1275 Torrens Title Subdivision of two lots into five lots at Lot 100 DP591759 and Lot 98 DP 238269 (No 27 & 45) Greenhaven Drive Emu Plains

 

Mr Trevor Robey, an interested citizen, spoke in support of the  recommendation to refuse the subdivision and noted Council’s commitment to sustainability and protection of the natural heritage of the area, including the habitat of several endangered and threatened species.  Mr Robey also encouraged Council to move quickly with the adoption of the Draft LEP 2008 to ensure that E2 zoning will apply to the land, thereby preserving, unspoilt, the escarpment for future generations.

 

 

Ms Kristina McColl

 

Item 11 – Development Application DA08/1275 Torrens Title Subdivision of two lots into five lots at Lot 100 DP591759 and Lot 98 DP 238269 (No 27 & 45) Greenhaven Drive Emu Plains

 

Ms McColl, representing the Emu Heights Escarpment Protection Group, spoke in support of the recommendation to refuse the subdivision.  Ms McColl thanked local residents for their support, noting the impacts that the proposed subdivision would have had on the street and also the local area as a whole.  Ms McColl also thanked Council staff for their attention to detail in reporting this matter, and noted the environmental significance of the Blue Mountains escarpment and why it is important to preserve.  Ms McColl requested more information electronically to assist the public in viewing information on development applications.  The Council’s Development Services Manager stated that his Department was attending to this but it required a software upgrade that was planned in the future.

 

 

Mr Vince Hardy

 

Item 12 - Development Application DA08/1333 for Demolition of a Service Station and Erection of a Nine (9) Storey Mixed Use Development on Part Lots 21 & 22, Sec 30, DP 1855 and Part Lot 46B DP 411863 (No. 182-190) Great Western Highway, Kingswood

 

Mr Hardy, the applicant, spoke in support of the proposed development and briefly outlined the context and strategic background to the application.  Mr Hardy noted the advantages of locating this development in the commercial centre of Kingswood, close to the university and town centre, and provided a description of the architectural and design intent of the proposal.

 

 

Mr Daniel Szwaj

 

Item 12 - Development Application DA08/1333 for Demolition of a Service Station and Erection of a Nine (9) Storey Mixed Use Development on Part Lots 21 & 22, Sec 30, DP 1855 and Part Lot 46B DP 411863 (No. 182-190) Great Western Highway, Kingswood

 

 

Mr Szwaj, architect for the proposed development, spoke in support of the development, outlining the architectural merits of the proposal.  Mr Szwaj noted that the development has a traditional design which responds to the existing streetscape and is well suited to a mixed use of commercial and residential use in Kingswood.  Mr Szwaj concluded by explaining various architectural features of the proposal in detail.

 

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 7:58 pm.

 

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:00 pm.

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

117  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 8:02 pm.

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Local Government and Shires Associations Cultural Awards 2009                                

118  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the Mayoral Minute on Local Government and Shires Associations Cultural Awards 2009  be received.

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 May 2009                                                                                                                                             

119  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 4 May, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting, held on 18 May 2009                                                                                                                                     

120  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 18 May, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Procedural Motion

121  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that Council consider Items 11 and 12 on the agenda before consideration of any other item of business.  Councillor John Thain also indicated that as Item 10 related to an issue within the confidential section of the Committee of the Whole, the item should be considered upon conclusion of the Committee of the Whole.

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

11      Development Application DA08/1275 Torrens Title Subdivision of two lots into five lots at Lot 100 DP591759 and Lot 98 DP 238269 (No 27 & 45) Greenhaven Drive Emu Plains . Applicant: Kevin Smith, Werrington Unit Trust;  Owner: Tresaire Pty Ltd  DA08/1275

122  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA08/1275 Torrens Title Subdivision of two lots into five lots at Lot 100 DP591759 and Lot 98 DP 238269 (No 27 & 45) Greenhaven Drive Emu Plains be received

2.     Development Application DA08/1275 Torrens Title Subdivision of two lots into five lots at Lot 100 DP591759 and Lot 98 DP 238269 (No 27 & 45) Greenhaven Drive Emu Plains be refused for the following reasons:

                   Reasons of Refusal

2.1      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i)of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,1979 the proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of the 7(e) Environmental Protection Zone and is not permitted under Clause 12 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 226.

2.2      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the proposed development is inconsistent with the minimum lot size proposed under Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008.

2.3      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) the proposed development is inconsistent with Penrith DCP 2006 Part 6.8 Blue Mountains Eastern Escarpment Siting Design and Management.

2.4      Pursuant to Section 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Rural Fire Service has not issued a Bush Fire Safety authority under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 and as such Council cannot grant consent under Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

2.5      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the proposal is not in the public interest due to matters raised in submissions.

 

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

 

For

Against

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

 

 

12      Development Application DA08/1333 for Demolition of a Service Station and Erection of a Nine (9) Storey Mixed Use Development on Part Lots 21 & 22, Sec 30, DP 1855 and Part Lot 46B DP 411863 (No. 182-190) Great Western Highway, Kingswood. Applicant: Cityscape Planning & Projects;  Owner: Mr W. S. Quirk                                               DA08/1333

123  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA08/1333 for Demolition of a Service Station and Erection of a Nine (9) Storey Mixed Use Development on Part Lots 21 & 22, Sec 30, DP 1855 and Part Lot 46B DP 411863 (No. 182-190) Great Western Highway, Kingswood be received

2.     Development Application DA08/1333 for Demolition of a Service Station and Erection of a Nine (9) Storey Mixed Use Development on Part Lots 21 & 22, Sec 30, DP 1855 and Part Lot 46B DP 411863 (No. 182-190) Great Western Highway, Kingswood be GRANTED A 3 YEAR CONSENT (in accordance with S95(2) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) subject to the following standard and special conditions and advisory notes:

 

 

Standard Conditions

 

2.1      A001 approved plans – architectural plans prepared by Turner & Associates, (Job No. 08040) in accordance with the following schedule:

 

 

 

Drawing Title

Drawing No

Issue

Prepared

Dated

Cover page, Location Plan & Drawing Schedule

DA00

F

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

Site Analysis

DA01

B

Turner & Associates

17-12-08

Site Plan / Roof Plan

DA02

C

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

Basement Parking Level 3 & Level 4

DA20

G

Turner & Associates

17-12-08

Basement Parking Level 1 & Level 2

DA21

J

Turner & Associates

16-02-09

Ground & Level 1

DA22

J

Turner & Associates

18-02-09

Level 2 & Levels 3-6

DA23

G

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

Levels 7 & 8

DA24

G

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

Sections

DA31

F

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

North Elevation

DA41

F

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

West & East Elevation

DA42

G

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

South Elevation

DA43

G

Turner & Associates

13-03-09

Shadow Diagrams

DA70

 

Turner & Associates

17-12-08

 

A011 - DCP Construction

A017- Separate DA for Commercial Uses

A019 - Compliance Certificate

A026 - Advertising sign

A039 - Graffiti

A046 - Construction certificate

B002 - Demolition Works

B004 - Dust (referring to demolition and excavation and construction of basement)

B005 - Mud/soil

D001 - Sediment and erosion control measures

D009 - Covered waste storage area

D010 - Disposal of excavated waste

E01A - BCA compliance for Class 2-9

E002 - BCA issues to be addressed (two (2) fire isolated stairs and travel distances from some residential units to the stair);

E006 - Disabled access and facilities (compliance report)

E009 - Fire safety statement

F006 - Water tank and nuisance

G002 - Section 73 (Sydney Water)

G004 - Integral Energy

H001 - Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002 - Site requirements for construction

H003 - Traffic management and pedestrian management

H011 - Structural engineering plans and specifications

H025 - Construction of garbage rooms

H033 - Clothes lines

H041 - Hours of work

I003 - Roads Act Approval

K002 - Works As Executed

K019 - Connection to Council’s drainage system

K025 - Pavement seal

K027 - Car parking (118 car parking spaces)

K031 - IN/OUT Separation

K036 - Maintenance Bond

K037 - Performance Bond

N001-6 - Section 94 Contributions

 

Cultural Facilities                                  $14,152

District Open Space                                    $177,390

Footpaths                                                      $10,168

Library Facilities                                            $40,258

Local Open Space                                        $64,127

Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre      $17,038

                                                Total           $323,133

         

P001 - Applicants cost

P002 - Council Fees - Amended

Q001 - Notice of commencement

Q006 - Occupation Certificate for Class 2-9

 

Special Conditions

 

Construction

 

2.2     Suitable shoring practices are to be completed to protect any adjoining property from collapse. Details of shoring practices shall be certified by a Professional Engineer and submitted to Council prior to commencement of work.

 

2.3     A suitable hoarding is to be provided to protect the public during the construction phase.  Details of the proposed hoarding are to be submitted to the council with the Construction Certificate.

 

2.4     All construction vehicles and activities must be fully contained within the site. No vehicles associated with the construction or demolition activities are to stand on the Great Western Highway.

 

 

Engineering

 

2.5     A Roads Act approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act is to be obtained from the Roads and Traffic Authority for any works within the Great Western Highway road reserve.  In this regard the Roads Act approval from the Roads and Traffic Authority is to be gained prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for the development and prior to the separate Roads Act approval being granted by Council for the driveway and footpath works.

 

2.6     A dilapidation report of all Council owned infrastructure fronting the development in the Great Western Highway and in Wainwright Lane is to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of construction.  The report is to include, but not limited to, footpaths, kerb and gutter, pavement and street trees and is to extend 10m either side of the development.

 

2.7     An Engineering Construction Certificate for the provision of engineering works in the road reserves is to be approved by the Certifying Authority. Engineering design drawings are to be prepared strictly in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Part 2.3 Engineering Works and the Guidelines for Engineering Works for Subdivisions and Developments Part 1 – Design.

 

2.8     Basement entry levels are to be designed so that overland water flow does not reach the basement. Details are to be provided to Council for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of works.

 

 

2.9     Pits in driveways and parking aisles shall be installed with medium duty grates.

 

2.10   New heavy duty double width kerb and footway crossing shall be provided in Wainwright Lane.

 

2.11   Any redundant gutter crossings shall be reinstated with kerb and gutter to Council’s satisfaction.

 

2.12   Damaged kerb and gutter shall be reinstated for the full frontage of the site in Great Western Hwy and in Wainwright Lane to Council’s satisfaction.

 

2.13   The concrete footpath along the full frontage of the site in Wainwright Lane and the Great Western Highway shall be constructed to Council’s requirements.

 

2.14   Prior to issue of the construction certificate, the stormwater connection from the site to Council’s stormwater system in the locality shall be designed to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Noise

 

2.15   Compliance with the recommendations contained in the Updated Acoustic Report (Report No. 20C-08-0227-TRP-451121-4) prepared by Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd., 13th March 2009).

 

Traffic

 

2.16   Full time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions are to be provided 10 metres either side of and opposite the access driveway on Wainwright Lane to facilitate heavy vehicle movements, with the installation of signage at no cost to the RTA or Council.

 

2.17   Loading and unloading of vehicles associated the development shall not occur on Great Western Highway.

 

2.18   Appropriate sight lines must be maintained form the proposed driveway fronting Wainwright lane in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004).

 

2.19   All vehicles are to enter and exit the development in a forward direction.

 

Adaptability

 

2.20   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate appropriate documentation is to be submitted to demonstrate that at a minimum, 10% of all residential units (6 units) are to be designed according to the adaptable housing code (AS4299).  Also these residential units are to be provided with accessible parking in accordance with AS4299. 

 

SEPP 65

 

2.21   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for Stages 1 and 2, signage, maintenance issues and waste management are to comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Residential Flat Design Code Better Design Practice statements.

 

Security Management Plan

 

2.22   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a Security Management Plan is to be provided detailing the management of the building(s) and strategies to promote safety and deter crime and antisocial behaviour. This includes use of security personnel, CCTV, access control measures (eg. swipe cards), building alarms and use of intercoms for apartment buildings. This Plan shall also include measures to provide security to lifts and the through the site’s pedestrian link after retail and commercial operating hours to maintain the safety and security of residents.

 

Lighting

 

2.23   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the development shall be provided with lighting in the following manner:

 

a)   Under awning lighting shall be provided along the Great Western Highway building frontage and Wainright Lane frontage, to clearly illuminate pedestrian walkways and entry/exit points.

b)   All entrances/exits shall be well lit to clearly illuminate these areas where people are most vulnerable. 

c)   All lighting shall be vandal proof.

d)   Lighting shall be contained within the property boundary and no lights shall be projected upwards (uplighting of landscaping shall be restricted to tree canopy only).

e)   No lighting shall be projected in such a manner that it would create glare issues for vehicles or pedestrians. 

f)    All street awnings attached to the development should be fitted with under awning lighting.

Car Parking

2.24   Prior to the Occupation Certificate the basement car park shall be treated in the following manner:

 

a)   Vehicle access to all levels of the basement car park shall be accessible by tenants/residents/business operators of the building and their authorised guests only.  Access to the car parking area from Wainwright Lane shall be controlled by an automatic roller shutter with residents and retail patrons having access control devises.  This would minimise/prevent vandalism, theft and crime to vehicles and graffiti vandals from entering the basement areas.  In addition, the safety of persons would be greatly increased.

 

b)   A security system shall be installed on the pedestrian entry/exit points to the basement, including lifts and internal/external stair wells.

c)   All surfaces shall be painted in light coloured paint or finished in light grey concrete to reflect as much light as possible.

d)   All potential entrapment points shall be avoided, eg. under stairs, blind corners and wide columns.  Adequate lighting and mirrors shall be used when certain design features are unavoidable.

e)   An intercom security system and emergency help points shall be installed in all levels of the car park.   

f)    The lifts shall have restricted access to tenants/residents/business operators and be fitted with emergency alarms/phones.

g)   Colour-coded lettering or similar shall be used to identify sections of the car park and assist way-finding in the car park.

h)   Access to waste rooms and storage areas shall be restricted to authorised persons only, with access restricted through the use of a security wipe card system or similar.

                   The layout of the car parking areas associated with the subject development including driveways, access ramp grades, circulating roadways, turn paths, sight distance requirements, overhead clearances for people with a disability, aisle widths and parking bay dimensions (allowing for full door opening) shall be in accordance with AS 2890.1 & 2, (2004). Full details demonstrating compliance must be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

                   Subleasing of car parking spaces is not permitted by this Consent.

 

Street Numbering

 

          2.25   Prior to the Occupation Certificate, the building shall be clearly identified with street numbers visible to assist visitors and emergency services.

 

Waste Management

 

          2.26   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate the development shall provide for waste management in the following manner:

 

a)   The garbage chute system is to comply with the Building Code of Australia.

 

b)   The recycling rooms at each residential level shall be of sufficient size to house 2 x 240 litre mobile bins.

 

c)   The recycling bin rooms, garbage chutes and residential and commercial waste rooms are to be suitably signposted.

 

d)   The gradient of the ramp leading from the garbage rooms to the exit door at Wainwright Lane shall not be steeper than 1in 14.

 

e)   The proposed access door and roller shutters to the loading dock are to be provided with an ABLOY locking system to be installed by Council at the developer’s expense. Council and/or collection contractors will hold the master key.

 

f)    Sufficient space must be provided at the Wainwright Lane level for the storage of bulky goods/furniture prior to its removal.

 

g)   After occupation, waste storage and servicing will ensure the following operations:

•   Right of access onto the site by Council’s waste collection contractors is to be provided and Council and its contractors must be indemnified against any property damage or personal injury.

•   The loading dock must be clear of vehicles in order for bins to be collected.

•   Bins are not to be placed on the street for collection.

•   Waste bins and waste collection areas are not to be accessible to the public or left unsupervised for collection.

 

h)   Council is to be given waste dockets to verify the amount and location of the excavated material taken to land fill sites prior to the construction of any building works.

 

                   Waste management shall comply with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Cityscape Planning & Projects dated December 2008.

 

Landscaping

 

          2.27   Prior to the Occupation Certificate, landscaping is to be completed in the following manner:

         

a)   External walls shall be designed with adjacent furnishings so they are not skateable.  When this is not possible, anti-skate devices shall be robustly incorporated.

 

b)   Public art shall be incorporated into the landscape design. The applicant is to liaise with Council’s Cultural Development Officer in this regard.

c)   An uncoloured broom finish concrete is to be provided on footpaths at the Great Western Highway and Wainwright Lane frontages with appropriate joining between slabs. The extent of the paving shall interface with a “private property” paving type at an appropriate point.

d)   Placement of street trees is to consider street lighting and major street signs.

e)   Underground electrical wiring to permit street trees to mature and provide character for the urban/residential interface is encouraged.

 

                   Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate and to ensure early order of stock, the applicant is to liaise with Council’s Landscape and Urban Design Supervisor regarding the street tree species and street furnishings to be nominated.

 

 

 

Architectural

 

          2.28   The design of the building shall achieve an ABGR rating of 4.5 stars (Australian Building Greenhouse Rating). Documentary evidence is to be provided prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

                   A 20,000 litre water tank shall be provided in the basement for rainwater re-use.

 

                   An additional car wash bay shall be provided adjacent to bay shown on the plans.

 

                   The colonnade shall incorporate surveillance security cameras and additional lighting to minimise vandalism, theft and crime as this area would be “out of sight” from other more public areas fronting the Great Western Highway and Wainwright Lane.

 

                   The following main bathrooms’ layout and door should be mirror reversed so that toilet pans and basins are not seen when entering the apartment – all 201 and 210 apartments on Levels 2-6, A701, A717, A801 and A804.

 

          2.29  All disabled car parking spaces proposed within the development are to be located adjoining the lifts.  Details are to be issued prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

 

For

Against

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:27 pm.

 

1        2008-2009 Management Plan Review as at 31 March 2009                                           

124  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2008-2009 Management Plan Review as at 31 March 2009 be received.

2.     The 2008-2009 Management Plan Review as at 31 March 2009, including revised estimates identified in the recommended budget, be adopted.

3.     The proposed budget reallocations and amendments to tasks detailed in the report be adopted.

 

 

The City in its Broader Context

 

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

 

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:34 pm.

 

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:35 pm.

 

 

2        Finalise Master Plan and Implementation Strategy for the Penrith Civic Arts Space between the JSPAC, Civic Centre and Westfield                                                                            

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Finalise Master Plan and Implementation Strategy for the Penrith Civic Arts Space between the JSPAC, Civic Centre and Westfield be received

2.     Council endorse the Landscape Master Plan

3.     The Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by all parties

4.     A further urgent report be brought back to Council exploring funding strategies to implement the entire scheme and including a timeframe for completion.

 

 

 

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

3        NSW Attorney General's Department Crime Prevention funding                                  

126  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on NSW Attorney General's Department Crime Prevention funding  be received.

2.     The grant for the Plate Safe Program in the amount of $19,445 be accepted.

3.     The grant for the Jane Street CPTED Project in the amount of $64,000 be accepted.

4.     Council write a letter thanking the NSW Attorney General for the grant funding for these two projects.

 

 

4        Grant Funding Allocation - Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care              

127  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Grant Funding Allocation - Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care be received.

2.     Council endorse receipt of the recurrent grant of $25,000 per annum from the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care to provide additional resourcing that will focus on disability services support and co-ordination in the City.

3.     Letters acknowledging this important funding contribution from the NSW Government be forwarded to the Hon Paul Lynch MP, Minister for Ageing and Minister for Disability Services as well as local State Members.

 

5        Healthy Eating at Active Penrith Events                                                                          

128  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Healthy Eating at Active Penrith Events  be received.

2.     Council endorse the implementation of Active Penrith Month.

3.     Entry to Council owned facilities, Penrith Pool, St Clair Leisure Centre, and the tennis courts be free on the dates specified for the purpose of open days.

 

4.     Council accept the grants provided by NSW Cancer Council and NSW Department of Sport and Recreation and authorise Council Officers to enter into funding agreements for these grants.

5.     Council approve $12,000 be allocated from the Recreation Reserve for the purpose of seed funding the 2009 Event.

 

6        Penrith Schools' Boatshed Management Committee                                                       

129  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Schools' Boatshed Management Committee be received.

2.     Council under Section 355 of the Local Government Act approve the following persons to comprise the Management Committee for the Penrith Schools’ Boatshed:

                             -        Ian McRae – President (Penrith Rowing Club)

                             -        Ray Green OAM – Vice President (McCarthy High School)

                             -        Stephen Taite – Treasurer and Pro Tem Secretary (Penrith Rowing                                Club)

                             -        Greg Corner – Boatshed Captain (Penrith Kayak Club)

                             -        Jeff Seers – General Committee (Blaxland High School).

 

 

7        Aquatic and Recreation Institute Conference, and the Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference                                                                                                          

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Aquatic and Recreation Institute Conference, and the Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference be received.

2.     Council nominate Councillor Greg Davies to attend the Aquatic and Recreation Institute Conference.

3.     A further report be brought back to Council in June 2009 on the Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8        St Marys Tennis Centre                                                                                                    

131  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on St Marys Tennis Centre be received.

2.     Council allocate $64,766 from the Recreation Reserve for the purpose of  replacing and repairing the floodlights at St Marys Tennis Courts, including the associated repair and maintenance of the courts and fence.

 

9        Sportsground Management Strategy                                                                                

132  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sportsground Management Strategy be received.

2.     Council approve the development of a Sportsground Management Strategy.

3.     @Leisure be appointed as the consultants to complete the Sportsground Management Strategy.

4.     $71,310 be allocated from Council’s Recreation Reserve for the purpose of completing the Sportsground Management Strategy.

5.     The Draft Sportsground Management Strategy to be the subject of a report to Council at a future Policy Review meeting.

 

23      Appointment of Council Representatives to Joint Regional Planning Panel                  

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Appointment of Council Representatives to Joint Regional Planning Panel be received.

2.     The Council authorise the General Manager to nominate an appropriate Senior staff representative and staff alternate to the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

3.     Council nominate Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Greg Davies and Ross Fowler OAM as Council’s alternate representatives to the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

4.     Council make formal representations to the Department of Planning outlining its concerns in relation to the Joint Regional Planning Panel process.

 

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

13      Tender Number 12-08/09 Provision of Tip Truck Hire                                                    

134  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Number 12-08/09 Provision of Tip Truck Hire be received.

2.     The tenders received from A T Johnson Pty Ltd,C & C Cremona P/L, Earth Civil (NSW) P/L, EDSOG P/L, G & F Plant Hire, J & J Dimech P/L, J Fairhall Earthmoving P/L, Jeffsan Excavations P/L,  Lion Earthworks P/L, N & M Bray, P & D Mizzi P/L, Premier Plant Hire, R & K Deguara & Raygal Pty Ltd. (Fleet Owners) be accepted and included in the relevant Truck Hire listing for a period of twenty-four (24) months with an option to extend the arrangements for a further twelve (12) month period with provision for rise & fall.

 

3.     The tenders received from  A & L Excavation & Haulage, A1 Bobcat & Tipper Service, Davinya Pty Ltd, J Fairhall Earthmoving Pty Ltd, JP & J Refalo, LGS Plant Hire, LRA Transport, Michael Collins, P & R Xiberras P/L, Phil Little, Ronald J Roser Tipper Hire & Supreme Earthmoving P/L (Owner/Operators) be accepted and included in the relevant Truck Hire listing for a period of twenty-four (24) months with an option to extend the arrangements for a further twelve (12) month period with provision for rate adjustments in accordance with the TWU Transport Industry – Excavated Materials Contract Determination IRC No. 4900.

 

14      Tender No 10-08/09 Provision of Locksmith Services                                                     

135  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender No 10-08/09 Provision of Locksmith Services be received.

2.     Neverest Securities Pty Ltd Trading as Mul-T-Security be awarded the contract for the provision of Locksmith Services for a period of 3 years with an option to extend the agreement for a further 2x1 year periods (with provision for rise & fall) subject to satisfactory performance.

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:51 pm.

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:52 pm.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, and the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, declared a pecuniary interest in Item 24 - Result of the Request for Quotation for Council's Advertising Services, as they are Directors of a newspaper circulating in the Council’s area.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM and Councillor Ross Fowler OAM stated that they would leave the Chamber during consideration of this matter.

 

18      Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Committee - Appointment of Committee Members   

136  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Committee - Appointment of Committee Members be received.

2.     Council, under Section 355 of the Local Government Act, approve the following persons to comprise the Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Committee:

          -        Stewart Chapman (RDA)

          -        Stephanie Kaye-Smith (RDA)

          -        David Gibson (RDA)

          -        Sandra Himsley (Pony Club)

          -        Don Swanston (Pony Club)

          -        Rhonda Batten (Pony Club).

                            

3.     The General Manager’s nominee on the Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Committee be Council’s Recreation Manager.

 

 

19      2008-09 Borrowing Program                                                                                              

137  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2008-09 Borrowing Program be received.

2.     Council borrow the 2008-09 Borrowing Program, in line with the adopted Management Plan, on 5, 10 or 15 year repayment schedules.

3.     Council’s General Manager be authorised to negotiate appropriate loan terms in accordance with this report and resolution.

4.     The Council seal be affixed to those documents that are necessary to finalise these borrowings

5.     The final terms and conditions of the borrowings be reported to Council upon completion of the contracts.

 

 

20      Annual GST Compliance Certificate                                                                                 

138  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Annual GST Compliance Certificate be received.

2.     The Mayor, Deputy Mayor, General Manager and Group Manager - Finance sign the 2009 GST Compliance Certificate.

 

 

21      2009 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination                                    

139  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2009 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination be received

2.     The fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors for 2009/2010 be set at the maximum level permitted.

 

 

22      Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 April 2009 to 30 April 2009        

140  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 April 2009 to 30 April 2009  be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 April 2009 to 30 April 2009 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 30 April 2009 be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15      Bestowing the Civic Recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Freda Whitlam, AM                                                                                                                      

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bestowing the Civic Recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Freda Whitlam, AM be received.

2.     Council bestow the Civic recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Freda Whitlam AM, at a Civic Reception, to be held at a mutually convenient time.

 

 

16      Annual Insurance Renewals - Liability & Industrial Special Risk                                  

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Annual Insurance Renewals - Liability & Industrial Special Risk be received.

2.     Council retain its $100,000 claims excess for Public Liability and agree to pay a contribution of $1,078,000 to Westpool for liability cover.

3.     Council retain its $20,000 claims excess for Industrial Special Risk and General Property cover and agree to pay a contribution of $371,000 to United Independent Pools.

 

17      Councillor Representation on an External Organisation                                                 

143  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Councillor Representation on an External Organisation be received.

2.     Council appoint Councillor Robert Ardill as its representative to the Western Sydney Academy of Sport Advisory Forum.

 

Procedural Motion 

144  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that Councillor John Thain take the Chair for consideration of Item 24 – Result of the Request for Quotation for Council's Advertising Service.

 

 

 

 

Having previously declared a pecuniary interest in Item 24, His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM and the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:58 pm.

 

Councillor John Thain then took the Chair for consideration of Item 24 – Result of the Request for Quotation for Council's Advertising Service.

 

24      Result of the Request for Quotation for Council's Advertising Services                        

145  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Result of the Request for Quotation for Council's Advertising Services be received.

2.     Council reappoint Leonard Holt Robb for a period of two years with a two year option.

3.     The terms of reference of the Advertising Working Party be expanded as discussed in the report.

 

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM and the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM returned to the meeting, and the Mayor took the Chair, the time being 8:59 pm.

 

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

QWN 1      Provision of Lighting - Basketball Courts, opposite Werrington Railway Station

Councillor Ben Goldfinch requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the possibility of providing lighting at the basketball courts located opposite Werrington Railway Station.

 

QWN 2      Bus Services to Panthers Club                                                                                 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the provision of bus services available to the Penrith Panthers complex, in view of recent renovations and expected increase in patronage.

 

QWN 3      M4 Toll Issues                                                                                                          

Councillor Mark Davies requested a report to Council concerning the removal of the M4 toll and the possible continuation of the M4 toll cashback.

 

QWN 4      Erskine Park Employment Area                                                                              

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested a report to Council on the development of the Erskine Park Employment Area and the impact of this development on the biodiversity corridor.

 

QWN 5      Health and Wellbeing Community Forum                                                                

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that an amount of up to $2,000 divided equally from all 3 Wards’ Voted Works be allocated to Rotary to fund the holding of the Health and Wellbeing Community Forum.

 

146  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

 

147  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that an amount of $2,000 divided equally from all 3 Wards’ Voted Works be allocated to Rotary to fund the holding of the Health and Wellbeing Community Forum.

 

 

QWN 6      Matter concerning Electricity and Water Charges                                                 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning a report he had previously requested concerning representations to IPART on the increase in electricity and water charges.

 

 

QWN 7      Traffic Matters - St Marys                                                                                      

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested that the following matters be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for investigation:  1) the intersection of Marsden Road, Great Western Highway and Sydney Street in St Marys – visibility issues; 2)  the intersection of Mamre, Lonsdale and Wilson Roads in St Marys – possibility of installing a median strip to prevent right hand turns; and 3)  problems associated with widened Mamre Road bridge, causing increase in traffic at the intersection of Mamre Road and the Great Western Highway.

 

QWN 8      Leukaemia Foundation Fundraising                                                                         

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested that an amount equal to the hall hire cost of Harold Corr Community Hall be allocated from East and North Ward voted works to the Leukaemia Foundation to cover the cost of hiring the hall for a fundraising dance.

 

148  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

149  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM  that an amount equal to the hall hire cost of Harold Corr Community Hall be allocated from East and North Ward voted works to the Leukaemia Foundation to cover the cost of hiring the hall for a fundraising dance.

 

QWN 9      Donation for a local Baseball Player to travel overseas                                        

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested that an amount of $3,950 from East Ward voted works be allocated to offset the cost of travel for Joshua Atkinson to St Louis, Missouri, USA to play in an International Baseball Tournament. 

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, advised that Council had a policy and procedure in place to deal with requests for donations and that this request should be dealt with in the same manner.

 

 

QWN 10    Traffic Issues – Shepherd Street, Colyton

Councillor Greg Davies requested that the Local Traffic Committee investigate the provision of traffic calming devices in Shepherd Street, Colyton on the section towards Roper Road.

 

QWN 11    Road Surface - Irrabella Place, Erskine Park                                                         

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the deteriorating road surface in Irrabella Place, Erskine Park, including damage to kerbing and guttering in the cul de sac. 

 

QWN 12    Donation to 'Great Walk'                                                                                         

Councillor Greg Davies requested that an amount of $1,500 ($500 from each Ward’s voted works) be allocated to the ‘Great Walk’ fundraising activity. 

 

150  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

 

151  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that an amount of $1,500 ($500 from each Ward’s voted works) be allocated to the ‘Great Walk’ fundraising activity. 

 

 

 

 

 

QWN 13    New bridge on Mamre Road                                                                                    

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report to Council on the naming of the new bridge on Mamre Road, and suggesting that it be named the ‘Samuel Marsden Bridge’, reflecting the early history of the location.

 

QWN 14    Mark Leece Oval                                                                                                     

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the fencing of the Mark Leece Oval and requested that quotations be sought for the installation of post and rail fencing to protect these grounds.

 

QWN 15    Provision of footpaving and associated kerb ramps - Banderra Road and Butler Crescent, South Penrith                                                                                                               

Councillor Karen McKeown requested that an amount of $37,800 be allocated from South Ward voted works, to the provision of footpaving and associated kerb ramps in Banderra Road and Butler Crescent, South Penrith as outlined in the memo of 20 May 2009, with this amount to be reimbursed to South Ward voted works when funds become available.

 

152  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

 

153  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Mark Davies that an amount of $37,800 be allocated from South Ward voted works, to the provision of footpaving and associated kerb ramps in Banderra Road and Butler Crescent, South Penrith as outlined in the memo of 20 May 2009 (from the City Works Manager), with this amount to be reimbursed to South Ward voted works when funds become available.

 

QWN 16    Provision of Path Paving - Jacka Street, St Marys                                                 

Councillor Greg Davies requested that an amount of $29,700 be allocated from East Ward voted works, to the provision of footpaving in Jacka Street, St Marys, with this amount to be reimbursed to East Ward voted works when funds become available.

 

154  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

155  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that an amount of $29,700 be allocated from East Ward voted works, to the provision of footpaving in Jacka Street, St Marys, with this amount to be reimbursed to East Ward voted works when funds become available.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

156  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 9:24 pm.

 

Councillors Ben Goldfinch and John Thain left the meeting, the time being 9:25 pm

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

City as a Social Place

 

2        Commercial Matter - Use of CUA Stadium by Penrith Nepean United to Play Sydney FC     

 

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

 

3        Commercial Matter - Tender No 06-08/09 Provision of Security Services                     

 

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

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

4        Personnel Matter - Work Carried out on Dharug Close/Donohoes Road, Mulgoa       

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

Councillors John Thain and Ben Goldfinch returned to the meeting, the time being 9:27 pm.

 

The meeting resumed at 9:29 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 9:24 pm on 25 May 2009, the following being 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

 

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

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Commercial Matter - Use of CUA Stadium by Penrith Nepean United to Play Sydney FC

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Robert Ardill

CW2 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Use of CUA Stadium by Penrith Nepean United to Play Sydney FC be received.

2.     Council allocate $10,000 from the Panthers Precinct Reserve to assist with the stadium and marketing expenses associated with Penrith Nepean United hosting a game against Sydney FC at CUA Stadium.

 

 

3        Commercial Matter - Tender No 06-08/09 Provision of Security Services                     

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

CW3 That the information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Tender No 06-08/09 Provision of Security Services be received.

 

 

4        Personnel Matter - Work Carried out on Dharug Close/Donohoes Road, Mulgoa       

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Robert Ardill

CW4 That the information contained in the report on Personnel Matter - Work Carried out on Dharug Close/Donohoes Road, Mulgoa be received.

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

157  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 be adopted.

 

 

 THE CITY AS A SOCIAL PLACE

 

10      Tender No 06-08/09 Provision of Security Services                                                         

158  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

          That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender No 06-08/09 Provision of Security Services be received.

2.     Nepean Regional Security Pty Ltd be awarded the contract for the Provision of Security Services for a period of 1 year with an option to extend the agreement for a further 2x1 year periods (with provision for rise & fall) subject to satisfactory performance.

3.     The common seal of the Council be affixed to any necessary documentation.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:30 pm.

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                       

   


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Locals recognised in 2009 Queens Birthday Honours

 

2        Director Steve Hackett retires

 

3        Council recognised at Australasian Reporting Awards for 2007-08 Annual Report

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City as a Social Place

 

Mayoral Minute

Locals recognised in 2009 Queens Birthday Honours

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City is widely recognised as a centre of cultural diversity, excellence and access.

          

 

Five people from Penrith City and two Blue Mountains residents with strong Penrith connections were honoured in the 2009 Queen’s Birthday Honours List announced on 8 June. This year’s recipients take the total number of citizens from Penrith City ever to receive the nation’s highest honour – recognising “achievement or meritorious service” - to 102.

 

John Russell KING OAM

 

Mr King of Jamisontown was recognised for service to the fire and emergency services and to the community of Penrith. He has played an active role in the Regentville Bushfire Brigade since 1977, including serving as Vice-President, Brigade Secretary, Deputy Captain, and Training Officer and has been a member of the Rural Fire Service Protocol Team since 1994.

He has served our community in voluntary roles for many years including as a driver for Penrith City Council since 1998 and for Penrith RSL Ladies Auxiliary since 2000. He has been a volunteer for the Sydney International Wheelchair Competition since 2001. He is an active member of the Penrith sub-branch of the Returned and Services League of Australia and has served as a delegate to the Western District Council since 2003.

 

Ronald Frank RICHTER OAM

 

Mr Richter of Penrith, one of Council’s 2006 Wall of Achievement Award recipients in the Sport category, was recognised in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for service to athletics, particularly in a range of voluntary roles.

 

He has served as a volunteer official at a huge range of events since 1978 and in various club official positions for the Little Athletics Association of NSW since 1983. He has qualified as a Chief Judge and attends various State, National and International competitions, and has been a volunteer official with Athletics Australia since 2000. He has been a volunteer official for Athletes with a Disability since 1980 and for Wheelchair Sports New South Wales since 2007. He has also served as a volunteer at Nepean Hospital since 2001.

 

Barry John WALSH OAM

 

Mr Walsh of South Penrith, another of our 2006 Wall of Achievement Award recipients in the Sport category, was recognised in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for service to Rugby League football through administrative roles in the Penrith district.

 

Barry has lived in the Penrith LGA for over 40 years and is an active member of several community clubs and groups. He has been Chair of Panthers since 1999 and has been involved in numerous community initiatives and fundraising endeavours. He has served on the Panthers Football Club board since 1972 and has been a Director on the Panthers Rugby League Club Board since 1983. Barry has been involved in providing huge benefits and support for rugby league, other sports and the Penrith community.

Geoffrey Trevor JONES OAM

 

Mr Jones of St Clair was recognised for service to the community through the Sydney Eisteddfod. He was Chief Executive Officer of the Sydney Eisteddfod - a not-for-profit company that promotes talent through performing arts - from 1986-2006 and Contest Manager from 1978-1986. He continues to serve the Sydney Eisteddfod as a highly valued ambassador

 

Joan REESE OAM

 

Mrs Reese, late of St Marys was recognised for service to the study of early Australian history and genealogy through research and indexing. Mrs Reese died on 10 February 2009.

 

She was previously awarded the NSW Premier's Senior Achievement Award in 1999 for her contribution to the indexing of 19th Century State Archives. She served as a volunteer Researcher and Indexer for State Records NSW from 1983 to 2009. She was also an Honorary Research Officer for the Genealogical Society of Queensland for over 20 years. Mrs Reese was actively involved in the St Marys Band Club for many years including a member of the Board for 10 years.

 

The Reverend Peter Brian KILKEARY OAM

 

Reverend Kilkeary of Winmalee was recognised for service to the community, and to the Strathfield-Homebush Baptist Church. He started out at Penrith Baptist Church, serving there from 1968 to 1971. He has been a long-term member of the Rotary Club and Chair of the Independent Cemetery Trust since 1996. He is a current Board member of the Blue Mountains Health Trust, voluntary Chaplain for the Blue Mountains Local Area Command of the NSW Police and has been a Family Mission Leader with the Scripture Union NSW for over 30 years.

 

Keith Leonard RHIND OAM

 

Mr Rhind of Katoomba received his OAM for service to Rugby League football through administrative roles in the Penrith district. He celebrated over 50 years as a rugby league player and administrator in 2008. He is a life member of the Penrith Panthers Club, having served as Chairman in 1983 and Deputy Chairman for about 20 years. He was involved with several initiatives including the building of sports and community facilities in Penrith.

 

Congratulations to each of these individuals on this well-deserved recognition for their outstanding contributions to Penrith City and our community.

Jim Aitken OAM

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Locals recognised in 2009 Queens Birthday Honours be received.

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Leadership and Organisation

 

Mayoral Minute

Director Steve Hackett retires

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Council values its staff and its workforce culture is adaptable, harmonious, flexible and conducive to high levels of innovation, empowerment, motivation and productivity.

         

 

Director of Special Projects, formerly Director of City Services Steve Hackett retires on 1 July 2009 after 33 years and four months of service to Council.

 

Steve has been an outstanding representative for Council at regional, state, national and international level on many occasions. He has been an inspirational and dedicated leader and his fingerprints are all over many major projects and facilities that will continue to benefit the community for many years to come. He has contributed to the City in many ways, including through his 30 year involvement with the Wallacia Brigade of the Rural Fire Service and his passionate commitment to the local sporting community.

 

Born in Penrith, Steve has lived in the area almost all his life and started at Council as an Administration/Rates Clerk in February 1970. He left Council in 1976 to gain experience elsewhere as an Administration Manager. He returned in 1982, taking up the role as Manager of the new St Clair Recreation and Leisure Centre. For someone who had represented the City in five sports – tennis, rugby league and union, table tennis and squash – this new role was perfect.

 

When Council formed its Recreation and Cultural Services department in 1988, Steve became Manager. Steve helped establish the profile of recreation and leisure within Council and in the community. His time in this role included preparations for the Sydney 2000 Olympics and he was a key player in getting Canoe/Slalom included in the Olympic program.

 

From December 2000 until 2008 Steve served as Director – City Services, responsible for many major events. He helped set up each of Council’s four controlled entities – the Penrith Whitewater Stadium, Ripples St Marys Leisure Centre, JSPAC and Children’s Services – and represented Council as a Director and Company Secretary on each. He was involved in strongly lobbying the State Government to fund the JSPAC extensions.

 

On behalf of Council and the community of Penrith I thank Steve for his outstanding contribution and tireless efforts over the last three decades. He will be well remembered and greatly missed. We wish Steve all the very best for a happy and healthy retirement with his family, especially his wife Shona who has been a constant support throughout Steve’s career.

 

 

Jim Aitken OAM

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Director Steve Hackett retires be received.

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Leadership and Organisation

 

Mayoral Minute

Council recognised at Australasian Reporting Awards for 2007-08 Annual Report

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

         

 

I am pleased to advise that Council’s 2007-08 Annual Report was recognised at the annual Australasian Reporting Awards (ARA) presentation in Melbourne on Thursday 4 June 2009. These prestigious awards celebrate excellence and best practice in annual reporting by private, public and not-for-profit organisations from around Australia and New Zealand.

 

Council was represented by Chief Financial Officer and Director Barry Husking, Senior Sustainability Planner Janine Percy and Communications Officer Rachel Pagitz.

 

Penrith City Council was awarded a special certificate after being named as a finalist in the Communication (public sector) category. Council also picked up a Silver Award having met all the ARA criteria:

·    quality coverage and adequate disclosure of key aspects of the core business

·    address current legislative and regulatory requirements and

·    just failing to reach Gold standard. 

 

Chair of the ARA Committee, Arthur Delbridge said the quality of reports submitted for the awards this year was significantly higher than in previous years, with record numbers of awards at the Gold, Silver and Bronze level. It is a particular honour to be recognised in the Communication category as Council is strongly committed to open and transparent reporting, and communication with our staff, community and other stakeholders.

 

This latest accolade is a tribute to the vision and tireless efforts of Acting Corporate Development Manager, Louise Petchell who tragically passed away in April, and I am pleased her husband Bernard was able to go to Melbourne for the awards presentation. Louise was the driver behind our Council’s incorporation of sustainability across all areas of our planning, operations and reporting, and our innovative Annual Reports over the last two years have been an important part of that.

 

Louise would have been so proud of her team, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all staff involved in producing the 2007-08 Annual Report. Feedback gained from the ARA will help ensure our 2008-09 report is even better.

 

 

Jim Aitken OAM

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Council recognised at Australasian Reporting Awards for 2007-08 Annual Report be received.

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 June 2009

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 15 June 2009

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 1 June, 2009

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton - Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Councillor Karen McKeown – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Pat Sheehy AM – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, James Suprain - Roads and Traffic Authority, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer and Ibrahim El-Jamal – Trainee Engineer

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Michael Pruss – Westbus, Jason Roberts – Westbus, Noel Fuller – Co-ordinator Ranger Services.

 

APOLOGIES

Councillor  Jackie Greenow, Sergeant Natasha Crawford - Penrith Police, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co‑ordinator.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 4 May 2009

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 4 May 2009 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

1        Gascoigne Street, Kingswood - Proposed Restricted Parking Area Scheme Outside St Dominic's College                                                                                                               

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Gascoigne Street, Kingswood - Proposed Restricted Parking Area Scheme Outside St Dominic's College be received.

2.     The proposed Restricted Parking Area Scheme concept design plan be finalised and endorsed for installation.

3.     Affected residents and St Dominic’s College be advised of Council’s resolution.

4.     Council’s Rangers to be advised when the signs have been installed.

 

 

2        Station Street, Penrith - Trial Provision of Part-time ‘Bus Zone’                                    

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Station Street, Penrith - Trial Provision of Part-time ‘Bus Zone’ be received.

2.     The part-time ‘Bus Zone’ on Station Street, Penrith, be made permanent.

3.     Police Licensing Officers and the Licensee of The Red Cow Hotel be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

3        Acacia Avenue & Azalea Court, Glenmore Park - Sight Distances                                

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Acacia Avenue & Azalea Court, Glenmore Park - Sight Distances be received.

2.     Affected residents be consulted regarding loss of parking, and any significant objections be referred to the Local Traffic Committee.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections being received, advanced intersection warning signs (W2-4) be installed for both approaches on Acacia Avenue, together with 50m of double-barrier lines be installed on Acacia Avenue, from Azalea Court northwards.

4.     Councillor Guillaume be advised accordingly.

 

 

4        Henry Lawson Avenue, Werrington County - Speeding Vehicles                                   

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Henry Lawson Avenue, Werrington County - Speeding Vehicles be received.

2.     Option 2 – Installation of Additional Signage and Linemarking be adopted, (ie, additional standard 50km/hr speed signs and pavement markings be installed and additional advisory signs ‘All Streets Are 50km/h Unless Shown Otherwise’ be installed subject to approval from the Roads and Traffic Authority).

3.     NSW Police be requested to conduct regular patrols of Henry Lawson Avenue, Werrington County.

4.     The resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

5        Nepean Triathlon - Sunday 29 November 2009                                                                

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Nepean Triathlon - Sunday 29 November 2009 be received.

2.     The applicant consult in person with all affected residents and businesses regarding the proposed closure with a list of all businesses and comments referred to Council for consideration.  Any objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee prior to the event.

3.     Subject to no objections from affected businesses, approval be given for the temporary closure of Old Castlereagh Road, from just west of the Andrews Road/Cranebrook Road roundabout to near its termination, Leland Street, Gordon Street, Camden Street, Lugard Street, Borec Road, Cassola Place, Lemko Place and Jack Williams Drive west of Borec Road from 6:55am to 9:30am on Sunday, 29 November 2009, for the cycle leg of the Nepean Triathlon, subject to the following conditions:

 

(a)  the organisers be advised that this is a Class 2 Event under the Roads and Traffic Authority’s “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guidelines must be complied with prior to the event (i.e., Transport Management Plan including detour arrangements and risk management plan to be carried out and submitted to the RTA for approval, with a copy to Council);

 

 

(b)  signposting advising the date and time of closure be in place for two weeks prior to the event (the applicant to liaise with the Roads and Traffic Authority regarding size of sign and text height);

 

(c)  advertisements be placed in the local press and on radio for two weeks prior to the event, noting the road closures, and a copy of this advertisement be submitted to Council for information;

 

(d)  the organiser/applicant to co-ordinate with Council’s Traffic Special Events Co-ordinator (Gary Lawson on telephone 4732-7562) regarding barriers and detour signs required for the event and to advise points of delivery for these facilities;

 

(e)  the organisers to ensure competitors obey road rules and Police directions during the event;

 

(f)   the organisers to obtain separate Police approval;

 

(g)  the organisers to indemnify Council in writing prior to the event against all claims for damage and injury which may result from the proposed event;

 

(h)  the organisers to submit to Council a copy of Public Liability Insurance of $10 million, as required;

 

(i)   the organisers to provide documentary evidence to Council prior to the event that the event fully complies with the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001;

 

(j)   suitably accredited traffic controllers/marshals to be used at all traffic control points;

 

(k)  the organiser/applicant be advised.

 

 

6        Riley Street, Penrith - Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Improvements                            

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Riley Street, Penrith - Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Improvements be received.

2.      Council accept Westfield’s funding offer for improvements works to the Riley Street, Penrith pedestrian crossing.

3.      The tiles on the Riley Street pedestrian crossing be replaced with a more distinctive surface that substantially differentiates the pedestrian and road area. This work is to be funded jointly from a future City Works operational budget and urgent LTC budget.

4.      The Roads and Traffic Authority be requested to provide advice as to the adequacy of simultaneous pedestrian countdown timer and pelican phase operation within the traffic signals at the Riley Street pedestrian crossing.

5.      Westbus be advised of the recommendations of this report and be encouraged to resume bus services in Riley Street, Penrith once the implementation of the changes has occurred.

6.      Westfield be advised.

 

 

7        Allen Place Carpark, Penrith - Proposed Modification to Existing 'No Parking' Restrictions

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Allen Place Carpark, Penrith - Proposed Modification to Existing 'No Parking' Restrictions be received.

2.     Consultation be conducted with the affected local businesses and Penrith City Centre Association, and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections, the existing 46m of ‘No Parking’ on the south-east side of Allen Place Carpark, between 435 and 447 High Street, Penrith, be modified to ‘Loading Zone’.

4.     The applicant be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Maxwell Street, South Penrith – Temporary Road Closure  (Raised Council)    

Council’s Road Network Services Engineer advised that further to a previous report to the Local Traffic Committee, construction of the roundabout at Birmingham Road/Maxwell Street, South Penrith will begin on 8 June 2009.  The Southlands developer has advised that Maxwell Street will be closed from 9 June to 13 June 2009 in order to complete asphalt, etc, works associated with the roundabout, and that VMS boards and appropriate traffic control will be in place during the temporary closure.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee note the information.

 

GB 2          Caddens Road/Ulm Road, Orchard Hills - Request for Provision of Speed Advisory Signs  (Raised Westbus)                                                                                                               

The Westbus representative requested the provision of speed advisory signage near the intersection of Caddens Road and Ulm Road, Orchard Hills.  There are existing speed humps at this location but no speed advisory signs at the devices.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council investigate the matter.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 10:00am.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 1 June, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Leadership and Organisation

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 15 June, 2009

 

 

 

PRESENT

Deputy Mayor Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Councillors Kaylene Allison, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously requested by Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 12 June 2009 to 16 June 2009 inclusive.

Leave of absence was granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 12 June 2009 to 16 June 2009.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received for Councillor Robert Ardill and Tanya Davies.

 

Deputy Mayor Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, introduced and welcomed John Gordon to Council who has started as the Parks Manager.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 18 May 2009

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 18 May 2009 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

2        Audit Committee Annual Report                                                                                       

Professor Robert Coombes, Chairperson of the Audit Committee gave a presentation on the achievements of the Audit Committee to date.

 

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report be brought back to the Council on recommendations made in Audit Reports and the actions that have been taken by Council’s staff. The Legal and Governance Group Manager advised that Reports are being presented to the Audit Committee on the recommendations contained within Audit Reports. These can be provided to all Councillors. The General Manager advised that the Audit Committee had requested to receive the Executive Summary of the Audit Reports. The General Manager also indicated that the Executive Summary of Audit Reports will be provided to all Councillors.

 

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Audit Committee Annual Report be received.

 

The City as a Social Place

 

1        Draft Penrith Inclusion Plan - People with Disability 2009-2013                                     

Councillor Prue Guillaume left the meeting at 8:04pm, and did not return.

Councillor Kath Presdee left the meeting at 8:05pm, and did not return.

Council’s Community & Cultural Development Manager, Erich Weller, Community Programs Co-ordinator, Joe Ibbitson and Disability Access Officer, Ben Felten gave a presentation on the Draft Penrith Inclusion Plan.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Penrith Inclusion Plan - People with Disability 2009-2013 be received.

2.     Council endorse the Draft Penrith Inclusion Plan - People with Disability 2009-2013 for Public Exhibition for a period of 28 days.

3.     A further report be prepared on the outcomes of the Public Exhibition process and any proposed changes.

4.     The Access Committee, Volunteers and Staff be thanked for their input and assistance in the development of the Plan.

5.     Councillor Greenow be thanked for her drive and passion, which has been instrumental in the achievements to enhance access for people with disability within the City.

6.     The Access Committee consider encouragement initiatives to facilitate existing businesses to improve access to their premises.

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

QWN 1      Penrith Nepean United                                                                                             

Councillor Marko Malkoc requested a letter be sent to Penrith Nepean United congratulating them on the success of the game played against Sydney FC held at CUA stadium on Tuesday 9 June 2009.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:26pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 15 June, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

  



MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

1        Adoption of the Strategic Plan, the Four Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the 2009-2010 Operational Plan 

  

The City as a Social Place

 

2        Penrith Transport Summit Outcomes

 

3        Building Application BA007984.01 Proposed modification to hours of operation of existing child care centre at Lot 721 DP 717440 (No.28) Waterfall Crescent, Cranebrook . Applicant: Greg and Tracy Walton;  Owner: Greg and Tracy Walton BA007984.01

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

4        Development Application DA09/0314 for a Dwelling House at Lot 21, 22, 23 and 24 DP 2721 (No. 341a) Littlefields Road, Mulgoa. . Applicant: Cityscape Planning and Projects;  Owner: Jamison Investments Pty Ltd DA09/0314

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

5        Development Application DA09/0449, DA09/0451, and DA09/0452 for the formal closure of Malabine, Ballah, and Coolibah Lanes and subdivision to create a single allotment on each site, South Penrith. Applicant: Penrith City Council;  Owner: Penrith City Council

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

6        Development Application DA07/0226 Section 82A Review of the Determination for a Multi-unit Housing Development  comprising of 20 Apartment and Townhouse Dwellings over Basement Car Parking at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76-78) Jones Street, Kingswood. Applicant: Luvamo Pty Ltd;  Owner: Amflo Pty Ltd DA07/0226

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

7        Section 96 Application No. 07/0742.01 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86-90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Corpus Christi Parish;  Owner: Trustees Roman Catholic Church DA07/0742

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

 

The City In Its Environment

 

8        Street Litter Bin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract

 

9        Variation to the Domestic Waste Contract

 

10      Clean Up of Illegal Dumping on Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council Lands

 

The City as an Economy

 

11      2009 Sister Cities Australia National Conference

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

12      Tender Number 13-08/09 Concrete Works - Footpath and Kerb & Gutter

 

13      Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road, Penrith - Intersection Upgrade

 

14      Status of the M4 Motorway Toll

 

15      Local Government Road Safety Program - Roads and Traffic Authority Grant Funding 2009-2010

 

16      Road Classification Review

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

17      Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Limited 

 

18      Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

19      21st Women, Management and Work Conference - 30 to 31 July 2009

 

20      2009 Local Government Association Conference

 

21      Expressions of Interest Reference 24-08/09 Provision of Banking Services

 

22      Commercial Matter - Lease of Unused Public Laneway Adjacent to 22 Peachtree Road, Penrith to Adjoining Business Owner, Petrolink Pty Limited

 

23      Commercial Matter - Council Property Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre

 

24      Commercial Matter - Council Property - Electricity Easement over Public Reserve, Lot 258 DP 245691 Newham Drive and Lot 349 DP 246554 Summerfield Circuit, Cambridge Gardens

 

25      Commercial Matter - Council Property - Electricity Easements over Public Reserve, Lot 212 DP 817299, Paganini Crescent, Claremont Meadows.

 

26      Commercial Matter - Road Closing, Lenore Lane, Erskine Park

 

27      Commercial Matter - Easement to Drain Water over Lots 118 & 119, DP 243599 and Lot 21 DP 714873, Braddon Street, Oxley Park.  Owner:  Penrith City Council - Applicant:  Oen Zoan Castle Hill Investment Group

 

28      Commercial Matter - Electricity Easements over Public Reserve - Lot 2092 DP 812223 Veronica Place, Glenmore Park

 

29      Commercial Matter - Council Property - Electricity Easements over Public Reserve - Lot 4252 DP 817380, The Carriageway, Glenmore Park

 

30      2008 - 2009 Borrowing Program

 

31      Making of Rates and Charges 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010

 

32      Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 May 2009 to 31 May 2009

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Leadership and Organisation

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Adoption of the Strategic Plan, the Four Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the 2009-2010 Operational Plan 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

1

Adoption of the Strategic Plan, the Four Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the 2009-2010 Operational Plan    

 

Compiled by:                Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

Graham Pares, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

Authorised by:             Vicki O’Kelly, Group Manager - Finance

Ruth Goldsmith, Group Manager - Leadership

Barry Husking, Director   

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

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

     

Purpose:

To identify matters arising during the exhibition of the draft Strategic Plan, draft 4 Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and draft 2009-2010 Operational Plan and to propose certain responses and actions be endorsed and where required, incorporated into the three documents.  The report recommends the adoption of Council's draft Strategic Plan, 4 Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and 2009-2010 Operational Plan.

 

Background

From October 2008, the steps leading to the development of Council’s draft Strategic Plan, draft 4 Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and draft 2009-2010 Operational Plan have been extensive especially given the following events over that period.

·           the election of a new Council in September 2008

·           the final instalment in Council’s existing Strategic Plan (2005-2009) due to be replaced on 1 July 2009

·           the NSW government’s proposed legislative changes to the Local Government Act 1993 as part of a new integrated planning and reporting framework in June 2009.

·           the release of the draft Planning and Reporting guidelines and a draft manual for NSW local councils by the Department of Local Government in June 2009.

 

The development of all three documents has been the result of a comprehensive program of engagement which has been undertaken through workshops and briefings with Councillors, key stakeholders and partners through the City Futures Forum and with staff through a targeted survey.

 

Council endorsed the exhibition of the draft Strategic Plan and 4 Year Delivery Program at its Ordinary Meeting of 6 April 2009. The draft Strategic Plan is Council’s principal policy document, guiding its leadership of the City beyond the next ten years.  The draft Strategic Plan identifies the priorities of the Council and the City’s communities, and outlines long term strategies for achieving these goals.

 

The draft 4 Year Delivery Program supports the Strategic Plan, and covers the years from 2009 through to 2013. The Delivery Program sets out in more detail the actions and activities Council will undertake to contribute to the long term strategic directions.  The Delivery Program contains information on all of Council’s programs and responsibilities, related services, key actions and their direct links back to the Strategic Plan.

 

Proposed new legislation addressing the statutory management planning processes of Council had to be taken into consideration.  These proposed changes include the requirement for Council to develop a 10 year+ Strategic Plan, a 4 Year Delivery Program, and annual Operational Plan with an accompanying regime of periodic reporting.  Notwithstanding the fact that they are not yet a legal requirement of Council, and consistent with Council’s role as a leader in management planning, the current draft documents have been prepared to match the intent of the new legislation and should enable a smooth transition upon its introduction.  The further implications of the draft legislative changes for integrated planning are discussed later in the report.

 

The draft 4 year Program 2009-2013 and 2009-10 Operational Plan in combination have been prepared to meet the current legal requirements of the Local Government Act as they pertain to Council adopting a management plan.

 

The draft 2009-2010 Operational Plan consists of 2 parts.

 

·          Part A -  Service Plans, Budget, Revenue Policies and Statutory Statements details each of Council’s 51 specified services including service objectives, actions and tasks to be undertaken to achieve the Delivery Program’s four year actions and individual service budgets. In addition, this Part A includes an overall Budget, a funding summary, a list of all Capital and Operating Projects to be carried out in 2009-2010, together with other required statutory statements.

 

·          Part B - Fees and Charges provides information on all Council fees and charges for 2009-2010.

 

Much of tonight’s report outlines the recommended changes to all three documents as part of the overall adoption the Strategic Plan, the 4 Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the 2009-2010 Operational Plan.

 

Public Consultation

 

An extensive process of public consultation was undertaken for the draft Strategic Plan, 4 Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the Operational Plan. The key actions undertaken since April 2009 are outlined below.

 

1.       Public Notification

 

This included:

·        advertisements in each local newspaper

·        information provided through the official Council News column of local newspapers

·        notices on the homepage of Council’s Website

·        copies of the draft Strategic Plan and Delivery Program were sent to each attendees at the Futures Forum, accompanied by a summary highlighting where the commentary captured at the Forum had been incorporated. Each participant was also invited to provide specific feedback through an on-line survey or the ‘Bang The Table’ on-line discussion forum website.

·        display material provided at the exhibition points (see below).

 

2.       Public Exhibition of Documents

The documents were publicly exhibited at over 80 locations. The draft Strategic Plan and Delivery Program documents went on exhibition from 21 April through to 18 May 2009 and the draft 2009-2010 Operational Plan went on exhibition from 11 May to 9 June 2009.

 

Exhibition points included the Civic Centre, Queen Street Centre, most post offices in the City, the Visitor Information Centre, and all Council libraries, youth centres, neighbourhood and community centres, children’s centres and recreation centres.

 

Copies of the documents in printed form and on CD were available from the Civic Centre, the Queen Street Centre, at the public meeting and at the Children’s Services forum, as well as by telephone or email request. Documents could also able to be to viewed and downloaded from Council’s web page and the ‘Bang the Table’ website.

 

3.       Public Meeting and Consultative Forums

The total attendance for the Public Meeting on 1 June and the Children’s Services Forum on 4 June was 28 members of the public, compared to 38 in the previous year. The breakdown of these figures is provided below.

 

·        The Public Meeting was followed by a consultative forum on the draft Operational Plan was held in the Civic Centre at 7.00pm on Monday 1 June and was attended by 26 members of the public (compared to 37 in 2008). The event was notified to the public through advertisements in all local newspapers and by direct invitations issued to approximately 300 organisations and individuals from previous consultation mailing lists. The arrangements for the public meeting were considered to have been successful, and feedback from attendees was generally very positive.

 

·        The Children’s Services Forum (arranged in conjunction with the Board of the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative) was held on Thursday 4 June. This event was attended by 34 people (compared to 25 in 2008) including 1 parent, 8 centre representatives, 8 Board members, 5 Councillors and 10 other staff members. Given the response to this forum over the last three years, it is proposed that in future this be incorporated into the larger public meeting and consultative forum.

 

 

 

 

 

4.       On-line Community Consultation

 

Council Web page

 

Council’s web page has continued to be used for the provision of exhibition information, the viewing and downloading of the draft Council documents and to provide the Community with an opportunity to make on-line submissions.

 

Although the number of web hits relating to this is not available at this time, it is proposed that this consultation method continue.

 

On-line Discussion Forum – ‘Bang The Table’ (BTT) website

 

For the second year, an interactive and specially-designed website for community consultation (provided by Bang the Table Pty Ltd) was provided for the draft Strategic Plan, Delivery program and the Operational Plan.

 

This online forum was seen as a means of generating additional awareness of and comment on the exhibition and on the priority of particular issues. It was hoped that this approach would encourage members of the community (including young people and those not easily reached through more traditional forms of consultation) to engage more extensively with the process and Council’s planning for the City. The website was operated independently by the consultants at ‘arms length’ from Council (but with any inappropriate/offensive comments immediately removed). Officers monitored the site and had the opportunity to clarify some statements of fact. The ‘Bang The Table’ website was open to the public throughout the whole exhibition period.

 

The results from the Bang the Table (BTT) activity reports are provided in the table below. The usage statistics cover the entire public exhibition period from 21 April to 9 June 2009. Comparison figures from the pervious year have also been provided.

 

Usage Statistics

2008-2009

(Last year)

2009-2010

(This Year)

Number of visits

396

547

Number of unique visitors

245

445

Number of page views

3,219

3,620

Average number of unique visitors per day

8.3

7.5

Average stay time

6.4 minutes

6.8 minutes

Most popular entry point

Roads, Footpaths & Drainage

Operational Plan 2009-2010

Visitors who viewed Council documents

69

174

Number of Council documents downloaded

141

401

 

The value of this form of consultation has been reinforced by the above results. Not only have the number of unique visitors to the site increased by 82% from last year but also in almost every category there has been an improvement.  An important outcome of BTT for Council has been the dissemination of information about Council plans and how to provide formal feedback to this process. In particular, the download statistics show that during the public exhibition period this occurred 401 times. The 2 most popular downloads were the Draft Strategic Plan (87 times) followed by the Draft 4 year Delivery Program (50 times). In addition, 174 unique visitors to the website viewed Council documents as compared with only 69 last year (a 150% increase).

 

Overall this form of consultation has been reasonably successful but has its greater effect when the public are asked to comment on single issues or plans or policies developed by Council. The draft integrated planning legislation includes the requirement for the development of a Community Engagement Strategy. An evaluation of the suitability of engagement tools such as Bang The Table will be a key component in the development of this strategy.

 

5.       Staff Consultation

Staff were advised of the exhibition period of all three plans by internal email and through a hardcopy information notice attached to payslips.  Staff were encouraged to provide comments either personally through contacting the Strategic Plan team, through hardcopy or electronic submissions, or by participating in the on-line forums on the ‘Bang the Table’ website.

Results of Consultation – Public Submissions Received

·        Strategic Plan and Delivery Program Exhibition

 

A total of 10 formal submissions were received during the exhibition period. Of those submissions, two were focussed specifically on issues in the Operational Plan and have been responded to in that context. A summary of the matters raised in each submission for the draft Strategic Plan and Delivery Program have been provided in Attachment 1.

 

·        Operation Plan Exhibition

 

A total of 26 formal submissions were received (10 written/e-mail/on-line submissions and 16 verbal submissions at consultative meetings).According to Council’s established practice, particular matters raised at the consultative meetings have in each case also been treated as submissions. This compares to 38 submissions received in regard to exhibition of the draft 2008-2009 Management Plan. A summary of the matters raised in each submission has been provided in Attachment 2.

 

All people and groups who made submissions received acknowledgement letters or emails. The acknowledgement of submissions also indicated that a further detailed written reply would be provided. Where appropriate, this will be carried out immediately following Council’s consideration of the issues reported tonight, and Council’s adoption of the Strategic Plan, 4 Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and 2009-2010 Operational Plan.

 

Some operational matters raised regarding Council’s existing policies and services, requests for specific actions, or requests for further information, have already been responded to.  In other cases, further actions and the provision of further information by relevant officers will be undertaken. Other key matters raised in submissions or issues requiring Council’s consideration are commented on in more detail in the remainder of this report.

Response to Submissions and Future Directions

·        Analysis of Strategic Plan and Delivery Program Submissions Received

A complete list of all submissions received for the draft Strategic Plan and Delivery Program during the exhibition period is provided in Attachment 1.  In summary, the submissions generally expressed support for the draft documents with suggested areas of priority from those matters identified as strategic directions or delivery actions.  In some instances the issues raised were further addressed in the Operational Plan, however there were no submissions that identified issues that had not been addressed.

 

The submission from Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council indicated support for the proposed planning directions and confirmed their commitment to an ongoing working relationship with Penrith City Council.  They referenced their previous submission in response to the draft LEP 2008 exhibition.

 

The submission from the Chamber of Commerce, whilst indicating support for the documents, suggested that the draft 4 year Delivery Program 2009-13 could be improved through a greater level of detail.  Subsequent discussion regarding the submission identified the concern that it is difficult for partners to identify how they will contribute or where they can provide assistance unless specific and detailed plans are available.

 

As advised previously, the draft Strategic Plan and 4 year Delivery Program were developed with the Department of Local Government’s proposed integrated planning framework in mind.  During the exhibition period the draft legislation were released outlining the requirements for:

·        Council to create a Community Strategic Plan (CSP) for a period of at least 10+ years.  The development of the CSP must follow the engagement process outlined in Councils adopted Community Engagement Strategy (CES).

·        The development of a 4 Year Delivery Program that outlines how Council will pursue those elements of the CSP that they are able to deliver. 

·        A Resource Strategy is also required to accompany the CSP and Delivery Program.  The Resource Strategy will include three elements - a Long Term Financial Plan, a Workforce Strategy and Asset Management Strategy. 

·        Annual Operational Plans will draw down from the Delivery Program those activities that Council will be undertaking during that specific period, in conjunction with the other Services that are undertaken to pursue the delivery of Council’s Charter.

·        Council to nominate to uptake the changes over three time periods.  Category One councils will be required to provide compliant plans by March 2010, Category 2 by March 2011 and Category 3 by March 2012.

 

It is felt that the current draft documents that are the subject of this report align themselves with the intentions of the proposed legislation.  However a specific review process will need to include the development of the Community Engagement Strategy and the Resource Strategy. This would also be an appropriate time to consider further the matters raised in the submission from the Chamber of Commerce and examine the integration of other strategies and action plans that Council presently has,  to present a clearer picture of the work that Council will be undertaking.  It is proposed that the review process will be undertaken to enable Council to meet the timeframe required to be in the Group One category.

 

Recommended Changes to the Strategic Plan and Delivery Program

 

During the exhibition period, the draft documents were contrasted with leading examples of similar plans from other public and private organisations.  This process has led to the following recommended changes to the presentation of the documents:

 

·        Change of theme title – ‘Regional’ to ‘Leading’

 

During the preparation of the draft Strategic Plan, much emphasis was placed upon the recognition of Penrith as a Regional City.  Many of the strategic directions in the Plan and delivery actions describe how we will be recognised in that context and what the community expectations are.  During the exhibition period, the issue of what a regional city is has been reviewed in light of the commentary captured at the Futures Forum, the discussions at the Councillor workshops and informal discussions with key partners at various opportunities from that time.

 

Given the designation of Penrith as a Regional City within the context of the Metropolitan Strategy, it is recommended that it best sits as an overarching statement of the future City, rather than an individual theme for the City.   It is evident that each theme makes a contribution to the overall emphasis on Penrith as a Regional City and that the objectives and strategic directions support this. 

 

To make this change, an alternative title is required for that theme.  The commentary captured during the preparation, and the underlying drive of the strategic directions and narrative for that theme describe the role of leadership within the context of a Regional City.  Accordingly it is recommended that the first of the five key themes be changed from ‘a Regional City’ to ‘a leading city’ and that our status as a Regional City be promoted more visibly in the final design of the document and throughout all the narrative within the documents.

·        Addition of Target Date to Strategic Plan – Strategic Plan 2031

The review of similar strategic plans that span periods in excess of 10 years showed that consistently they include a target date or nominated end date for the particular plan.  In discussion regarding a potential date that could be useful for inclusion with the Penrith Strategic Plan, the key focus areas of the Plan were considered. 

 

As outlined in the recommendation above, promoting the status of Penrith as a Regional City rather than just as a theme within the Strategic Plan was felt to be a strong statement.   The Metropolitan Strategy, within which our Regional City status is recognised, outlines directions pertinent to the 2031 timeframe.  Accordingly it is proposed that the Strategic Plan be anchored to a similar timeframe, as many of the Strategic Directions target outcomes relative to delivering on the expectations of a Regional City.  It also provides a clearer timeframe for our partners and communities to envisage and work towards.

 

 

·        Minor Changes to the Strategic Plan and Delivery Program Format

 

As part of the overall review of the draft Strategic Plan and draft 4 year Delivery Program, supporting sections within the documents have been added to assist in understanding the context of the documents.  These include the following changes:

o   Proposed front cover design

o   Inclusion of the “Australian Declaration toward Reconciliation” statement in Delivery Program

o   Inclusion of a Glossary and Commonly Used Terms in Delivery Program

o   Inclusion of the Vision and Mission in Delivery Program

o   Inclusion of  information on Councillors, and organisational functions

o   Removal of the Program pages in the Delivery Program being replaced with list of Programs aligned to Services to provide clear linkages to the Operational Plan

 

Examples of the changed documents have been provided to demonstrate the manner in which they improve the readability and enhance the recognition of the status of the documents.

 

It is recommended that the draft Strategic Plan and 4 year Delivery Program 2009-2013 be adopted with the proposed changes as outlined in this report.

 

·        Analysis of the 2009-2010 Operational Plan Submissions Received

A summary of the matters raised in each public submission on the Draft Operational Plan has been provided in Attachment 2.  Most of the matters raised at either the public forums or in writing were able to be responded to by the relevant Manager or in terms of current policy.

 

The issues reported below in more detail relate to specific matters in the Operational Plan. The proposed response by the responsible Manager(s) and recommended action is indicated in each case.

__________________________________________________________________________

 


Participation by Farmers in Local Produce Programs

 

Matter:

 

A representative from the Hawkesbury Harvest (community based) organisation highlighted three issues:

1.       A need to get more information to local food producers to get greater participation in the Hawkesbury Harvest programs. The markets currently have a capacity of up to 60 stalls but at present, only 30 stalls are filled. Barriers to participation include the limited access to information made difficult for some local farmers, who come from a non-English speaking background.

2.       The rules behind selling of local produce through the use of roadside stalls.

3.       Where in Council’s Operational Plans did it refer to Rural Policy or the Rural Lands Strategy?

Response by the Acting Environmental Health Manager

 

1.       As part of an auditing program Council will be visiting agricultural properties. Information could be provided to local food producers on the Hawkesbury Harvest markets if they are interested in participating as a stall holder.

2.       Under draft Local Environmental Plan 2008, roadside stalls are proposed to be permitted in the rural zones.  Roadside stalls will be able to sell agricultural produce from the property on which the stall is situated or from an adjacent property.  It is programmed for the new plan to come into force by the end of September 2009.  A copy of the draft LEP 2008 may be viewed or downloaded from Council’s website.

3.       Council advocates the preservation of sustainable agriculture and local food production and has included these issues in the public exhibition version of the Operational Plan - Part A on page 22 and 23. Tasks include supporting the Hawkesbury Harvest program, the markets and protecting and promoting local food production.

 

Recommended Action:

 

Advice on these matters be forwarded to the Hawkesbury Harvest organisation.

 

 

Services and Facilities for Young People and Men

Matter:

 

A representative from the Don Bosco Youth Recreation Centre highlighted three issues:

1.       Large numbers of young people use the Centre and it is an issue and that for some events they are turning people away. One of their greatest concerns is reducing the numbers of sessions available to groups of young people with special needs. These groups are now coming to the Centre every fortnight instead of weekly.

2.       The image of young people is very poor. Could Council’s Media Liaison Officer seek out positive stories about the contribution of young people and promote these to the local press?.

3.       A need for more space for activities for men that are not structured or done in groups. (For example, the Men’s Shed program would be beneficial if a program similar to that could be initiated in St Marys).

 

Response by the Community and Cultural Development Manager

 

1.       Council is refurbishing the Memorial Hall in St Marys and it is anticipated that this space will be able to provide additional space for activities and gatherings, including for groups of people with disabilities. Penrith Youth Interagency and Nepean Disability Interagency are the relevant forums for discussion regarding youth programs for young people with special needs. Council also employs a Youth Development Officer who can provide support and advice to organisations developing programs and activities for young people with a disability. The Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct Reference Group, of which Don Bosco is a member, will also provide a valuable forum through which opportunities to more efficiently use space in the precinct can be identified.

2.       Council employs a Media Liaison Officer to communicate stories regarding Council services and priorities in the local community. This officer has, in fact, produced 16 media releases regarding young people in the last 12 months. All of these media releases have been positive stories about young people. These have included for example, the Wall of Achievement which includes categories for young people, the youth music scholarships, Youth Week, the Cranebrook skate park and the Youth Summit.

The Penrith Youth Interagency is an interagency made up of services working with young people. This interagency is also an excellent forum to act as a voice for young people in the City, and to produce positive media articles regarding young people in the Penrith LGA. Council’s Youth Development Officer will be encouraging services who participate in the Interagency to issue press releases and provide photo opportunities for the local press to promote the profile of young people in the City.

3.       Council takes an active role in informing the community of the range of services available for men in the Penrith area. Information regarding the range of services targeting men is available on Council’s Community Services Directory accessible in hardcopy or on Council’s web page. Council will support community groups and organisations to access various funding opportunities for the establishment of more services for men in Penrith including St. Mary’s. Once the Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct site construction phase is completed the viability of a men’s shed or men’s space can be investigated.

Recommended Action:

 

Advice on these matters be forwarded to the Don Bosco Youth Recreation Centre

 

 


Anti-Social Behaviour in Wainwright Lane, Kingswood

 

Matter:

 

A local Kingswood resident raised concerns about an increase in anti-social behaviour in Wainwright Lane, Kingswood stemming from existing developments and unsafe environment. The resident has asked that design improvements can be made to draw the right business mix to that area.

 

Response by the Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager

 

This location was recently included in a Community Safety Audit that incorporated Kingswood Station, and the surrounding area.  A number of issues have been raised regarding Wainwright Lane including street lighting, graffiti, footpath condition and lighting in Red Cross Park.  A number of recommendations are currently being considered for improvements to this location and these will be prioritised for inclusion in future programs.

 

Recommended Action:

 

Advice on this matter be forwarded to the Kingswood resident.

 

 

Stage 2 Redevelopment of Memory Park

 

Matter:

 

A number of submissions were received from the City of Penrith RSL sub Branch raising concerns about the finalisation of stage 2 landscaping of the redeveloped Memory Park.

 

Response by the Major Projects ManagerCouncil and the RSL have had discussions on the proposed upgrading of the memorial and the layout of the park for quite some time.  The park has two primary functions: a memorial/celebration site and a central CBD park that is heavily utilised by visitors and staff in the CBD.

 

To resolve the functions and operation of the park, a Plan of Management has been developed for the park.  The cost of developing this plan has been met by the RSL Sub Branch.

 

The major upgrading of the memorial contemplated a new location in the park and this was to also address some operational problems that the RSL were having with events in the park.

 

To address these issues and resolve the site location for the new memorial and Master Plan for the park has been developed.  This plan has been developed in consultation with the RSL and funded by Council.

 

The RSL has funded the new memorial and Council has funded the cost to integrate this into the existing park.  The remainder of the works identified in the Master Plan are not yet funded and no commitment was made as to when this could occur.  This was explained to the RSL in progressing the memorial upgrade.

 

The upgraded memorial and the new location provide improved functionality for the RSL services in the park and have met the objectives of the staged implementation of the Master Plan.  The remainder of the Master Plan works will be considered, along with other projects in the City, for funding in future programs.

 

Recommended Action:

 

Advice on these matters be forwarded to the City of Penrith RSL sub Branch.

 

 

Changes to the Long Day Care Fee Structure

 

Matter:

 

A number of questions were raised at the Children’s Services Forum regarding the increase in Long Day Care fees and the policy behind this. Particular questions raised included:

1.       Why the 9 hour, 11 hour split fee structure was chosen for Long Day Care Centres,

2.       Concerns about this policy and its effect upon shift workers and Children’s Services staff who have a rotating shift. Related concerns include the inability for some families to indicate set hours of care required in advance due to shift work.

3.       Whether Council could extend the age of care for children over the age of 12 for children with additional needs

Response by the Children’s Services Manager - Operations

 

1.       Some of Council’s centres are open for 11½ hours per day and this comes at a cost. 9 hours was chosen as it was felt to be fair and reasonable for families who live and work locally; Council wants to encourage families to use the care they need so that we can contain costs; we need to offer a minimum of 8 hours so families can claim Child Care Benefit (CCB). There are guidelines for service providers to follow with regard to the implementation of CCB and Council will follow these. Changes to CCB for parents were posted on the relevant Department’s website just recently and Council is just awaiting any changes to CCB for providers to be distributed.

2.       At the time of enrolment, families are asked to indicate the hours of care required – this will not change. Council does this because we want to ensure that we meet the child: staff ratios at all times during the day.  In some cases, Council need to request part-time staff to work additional hours to cover early mornings and late afternoons; at some services, Council employs additional staff to maintain ratios.   In each case, Council will analyse the staffing required and provide it accordingly.   Council wants to ensure that we maintain the quality of service throughout the day.   An increase in fees will mean greater out of pocket expenses for families in some cases which will result in an increased level of Child Care Tax Rebate which can be claimed quarterly. Council will continue to negotiate with families about start and finish times.

3.       Council’s Out of School Hours (OOSH) services are for children aged 5-12 years with priority for children aged 5-9 as they are the most vulnerable.  If a child with a disability meets the criteria for the OOSH Integration project and the centre has a vacancy, in some cases that child can attend over the age of 12.   Philosophically, there would be a problem with children over this age attending the same program that children as young as 4 ½ in some cases attend.  Each matter is considered individually.

 

Recommended Action:

 

Advice on these matters be forwarded to the attendees of the Children’s Service Forum

 

 

Riverlink Precinct Planning

 

Matter:

 

A submission was received from residents on Blakie Road, Penrith requesting an update on the Riverlink Precinct planning process.

Response by the Acting Local Planning Manager

 

The Riverlink Precinct planning process commenced with the adoption of a Precinct Plan in May 2008.  Since then Council has undertaken four major studies to guide the future content of the draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) that will apply to the precinct.  The four studies are:

 

1.       Flooding

2.       Visual character and urban design

3.       Traffic transport and access

4.       Economic impact and land use analysis

These studies are currently being analysed. A report to Council on these studies, and the recommended way forward in terms of policy directions and future planning controls, will be presented as part of the Local Plan Stage 2 (Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010) in August 2009.

Recommended Action:

 

This information be forwarded to the residents of Blakie Road, Penrith

 

 

Victoria Bridge Walkway

 

Matter:

 

A submission was received from an Emu Plains resident seeking the provision of a walkway on the outside of Victoria Bridge. Residents have tolerated the unsafe and unfriendly inside walkway for long enough. The local member claims RTA can’t do anything to the bridge because of its historical significance. The increasing number of walkers and riders deserve a safe and scenic crossing of our beautiful river.

Response by the Design and Technical Advice Manager

 

The Victoria Bridge, Great Western Highway is under the care and control of the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA).  Council is aware of community concerns regarding pedestrians and cyclists crossing the bridge.  Council shares these concerns and has lobbied the RTA for some years to consider options to separate pedestrians and cyclists from traffic using the bridge. Council has also undertaken its own investigations for options to build a safer shared pedestrian and cycleway crossing of the Nepean River and will continue to pursue this matter with the State Government.

 

Recommended Action:

 

This information be provided to the Emu Plains resident in response to the submission.

 

 

Bridge for Stony Creek Road and St Marys Road, Berkshire Park

 

Matter:

 

A submission was received from an Oxley Park resident requesting that a bridge to be constructed above the flood level St Marys Road and where it crosses Wianamatta/South Creek at Berkshire Park as part of a Flood Evacuation Route.

Response by the Design and Technical Advice Manager

 

Council has investigated options for this crossing in conjunction with Blacktown City Council.  It is considered that upgrading of the culverts is an appropriate measure to improve the approaches to the crossing and reduce the frequency of closure of the road due to flooding.  These works are subject to funding being available.

The proposal for a high level bridge crossing is not justified as in the longer term the development of the North West Growth Sector will provide alternate connections between Stony Creek and Richmond Roads.

 

Recommended Action:

 

Advice on these matters be forwarded to the Oxley Park resident.

 

 

CBD Shuttle Buses, More Car Parking and Bike Racks in Public Places

 

Matter:

 

A submission was received from the Penrith City Centre Association relating to three public transport and parking issues: :

1.       the provision of a shuttle bus service for the City.

2.       the land behind the ambulance station be developed as a secure car park there with lighting

3.       the need to look at bike racks in public areas to encourage another modes of transport (eg in Judges Carpark and other locations in the CBD areas).


Response by the Major Projects Manager

 

1.       The review of the LEP and DCP will address issues of parking. Consideration of such initiatives as a city shuttle bus would be a great alternative to alleviate parking issues.

2.       Council has established a Working Party to develop a parking station strategy for the CBD. The strategy will need to provide sustainable outcomes. An option to be considered by the Working Party is the possibility of remote parking for CBD staff and to encourage workers to park at the edge of City leaving car parks for shoppers and short term stays.  The Road network needs to be able to support the growth of the City and find a balance between development and car parks.  Council has looked at the provision of a carpark near the football stadium that could be used by workers weekdays and spectators on weekends.  That would mean that a new car park would need to be built on the fringe of the City.

3.       Bike racks are located at all local railway stations however Council will look at this request.

 

Recommended Action:

 

Advice on these matters be forwarded to the Penrith City Centre Association.

 

 

Proposed Changes to the 2009-2010 Operational Plan Document.

 

Based upon the public exhibition, a number of changes are proposed to both Part A and Part B of the draft 2009-2010 Operational Plan.

 

·        Changes to Part A ~ Service Plans

During the exhibition period the opportunity has been taken review the Service Plans in the Operational Plan for changes such as to :

o   Reflect new Service names, the movement of the Economic Development functions to the new PVEDC entity, the reallocation of Program responsibilities to other Group Managers

o   Correct formatting, duplications and typographical errors

o   Reflect the inclusion of new program groupings to improve reporting requirements

o   Remove tasks that are not able to be resourced in 2009-2010, tasks considered to be day-to day activities and tasks included in error.

o   Consolidate tasks to improve reporting and clarity of outcome

 

A detailed list of all proposed changes to the Part A ~ Service Plans are provided in Attachment 3.

 

Also provided in Attachment 4 is a mock-up of what the amended Services Plans will look like in the final document.

 

·        2009-2010 Operational Plan ~ Part A : Budget Adjustments

The financial estimates included in the draft Operational Plan placed on exhibition are based on the information that is available at the time. During the exhibition period further budget adjustments have been required as a result of Council decisions, or as additional information has emerged. 

 

The exhibition document of the draft 2009-2010 Operational Plan presented a balanced budget.  During the exhibition period a small number of adjustments have been made while maintaining a balanced budget for 2009-2010, if Council adopts all the proposed recommendations contained in this report.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting on 25 May 2009, revotes relating to the March Quarterly Review were adopted and these are now included in the 2009-10 Operational Plan. The March revotes totalled $7.8m for capital works and $5.5m for operational projects and the 2009-10 budget now incorporates these revotes (excluding $30,900 to be included in 2010-11 for a 2-year operational project).

 

There has only been one resolution made by Council during the Exhibition Period that has had a financial impact on the 2009-10 Budget position. This resolution on 25 May 2009 determined the amount of fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors for 2009-10 and represented a small decrease of $6,019 on the draft budget allowance. The final 2009-10 budget will also be adjusted to reflect the outcomes of any Council resolutions that may be made tonight. 

 

Provided in Attachment 5 is a complete list of budget changes during the Exhibition Period.  The more significant changes to the budget not previously reported to Council are detailed below with their impact on the budget surplus, favourable (F) or unfavourable (U), indicated where applicable.

 

Penrith General Cemetery Columbariums   (No Effect)

 

The Penrith General Cemetery Masterplan includes the construction of two Columbariums at Penrith General Cemetery which are to be funded from the Cemetery Reserve. Construction of the two columbariums is required to ensure the sustainability of ashes niches for the community. The total cost of the project has been identified as $100,000, with 30% payable ($30,000) in 2008-09 which was included in the March 2009 Quarterly Review process. The remaining $70,000 has now been included in the 2009-10 budget.

 

Additional Ripples Subsidy   (No Effect)

 

Council has now received a formal request from the Board of Ripples to increase their level of subsidy in 2009-10 by $350,000. The draft 2009-10 budget included a base subsidy of $310,000 bringing the total subsidy required to $660,000. The amount requested is the same as the revised 2008-09 subsidy. A thorough budgeting process was conducted in conjunction with Council’s Financial Accountant – Entities to ensure the amount requested was reasonable and fair. As this request for an additional subsidy was envisaged at the time of preparation of the Draft 2009-10 Budget, this amount had been allowed for and as a result has no impact on the budget surplus.

 

Path Paving Program   ($100,000 U)

 

As reported to Council on 18 May 2009 further savings of $400,000 have been achieved in the 2008-09 path paving program. Approval was given for these savings to be utilised as part of the 2009-10 program thus increasing the budget from $150,000 to $550,000. A full list of path paving projects to be constructed under this $550,000 allocation is included as Attachment 6.

 

As reported to Council these savings have been achieved primarily due to the scale of the 2008-09 program which has attracted good unit rates and also due to good project management.  Careful planning of each project resulted in a high level of re-use of excavated materials within the program and other projects of Council. Additional costs for the relocation of services was also limited by the realignment of footpaths where appropriate and through agreements with the utility companies.

 

The priority of the path paving program was reinforced by Council during the budget process.  Funding directed to increasing the 2009-2010 budget allocation by a further $100,000 has been identified during the finalisation of the budget resulting in a total Path Paving Program allocation for 2009-2010 of $650,000. An increase to this budget will also be included in the high priority unfunded list for consideration if additional funding becomes available from within the budget during the year. As previously resolved a report will be provided to Council on funding strategies available to address the identified backlog over the next 3 years. 

 

The path paving program has been identified as a potential source of matching funding for a $1.6m Federal Government Job Funds grant for three priority Bike Path routes to connect City Centres to urban areas.   The outcome of the grant application will not be known until sometime in the new financial year.  It is recognised that using the path paving program budget for this purpose is not the preferred option and all alternative funding sources are being investigated and will be  reported to Council when the outcome of the grant application is known.

 

Erskine Park/Mamre Rd Intersection Upgrade/West Catchment Drainage    

(No Effect)

 

These projects have been combined and are proposed to be constructed under one tender with the total cost of the project estimated at $8.8m. The Erskine Business Park s94 plan provides funds for the intersection upgrade and the drainage upgrade ($7.3m), but does not make provision for any widening of Erskine Park Road ($1.5m) as the need for this is not generated by the estate.  The development of the remainder of the Western Sydney Employment Hub lands south of the pipeline will trigger the upgrade of Erskine Park Road.

 

Council put forward a submission to both the RTA and Department of Planning (DoP) to provide the additional $1.5m required to widen the road as part of the intersection/drainage works.  This is a more cost effective method and would save approximately $0.5m. The DoP agreed in principle and the plans were modified accordingly.  Formal confirmation from the DoP that the additional funding of $1.5m will be provided is required before the project can be put to tender.  This was requested from the Department some time ago and changes to key staff within the department has delayed this confirmation. Until this is received, tenders cannot be called.

 

The matter is being pursued with the Department and, given that there is some uncertainty as to when confirmation will be received, it is recommended that the project be withdrawn from Council’s program and reinstated, through a quarterly review, when DoP provide the necessary advice.

 

Urban Sustainability Grant   (No Effect)

 

As reported to Council on 23 April 2007 grant approval was given for a project titled “Sustainable Playing Fields for Western Sydney” for a total of $1.1m to implement a three year project, in alliance with Camden and Auburn Councils, supported by a research partnership with the University of Western Sydney. The project design included research and management of optimum watering regimes for playing fields (initially targeting an identified set of fields at the three councils), in conjunction with research by UWS, integrated with other opportunities, such as Sydney Water recycling schemes.

 

Advice has now been received that the final instalment of the grant being $281,500 will now be paid to Council in 2008-09.  Accordingly the grant income budget and associated transfer to reserve have now been moved forward from 2009-10 to 2008-09.

 

Integrated Local Plan- DoP Grant   (No Effect)

 

This adjustment relates to the Planning Reform Grant of $50,000 to support the preparation of the City Wide Local Plan through the development of the Urban Study and Strategy. As Milestone Three is expected to be achieved by September 2009 it is anticipated that we will receive this payment in the first quarter of 2009-10.  Accordingly the budget for the receipt of the grant has been moved from 2008-09 to 2009-10.

 

Library s94 Plan Contributions   (No Effect)

 

A Ministerial Direction dated 31 May 2009 considered that levying for library book stock is not considered an appropriate item of infrastructure for which contributions should be levied.  This has resulted in a reduction of $73,038 in the expected income from Section 94 contributions in 2009-2010 with a corresponding decrease in the associated transfer to reserve.

 

Insurance Premiums   (No Effect)

 

The 2009-2010 annual insurance renewal premiums for Public Liability (PL/PI) and Industrial Special Risk (ISR) were reported to Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 25 May 2009.  As a result the 2009-2010 annual premiums have now been revised with a reduction of $100,000 for PL/PI and $59,700 for ISR to reflect the agreed premiums. It is proposed that this saving of $159,700 be transferred to the Insurance Reserve where it could be applied to projects relating to the prudent management of Council’s assets and risk management strategies. This would leave the reserve an estimated closing balance of $294,000 in 2009-2010.

 

Employee Costs   ($169,179  F)

 

During the exhibition period further reviews continued into departmental structures resulting from the recent organisational restructure. The net effect of these refinements has seen $169,179 returned to general revenue. Services and Programs will not be affected by these refinements.

 

Enhanced Environmental Program (EEP) Projects   (No Effect)

Further refinement of all 2009-10 Enhanced Environmental Program (EEP) projects, funded under the 2002-03 Special Rate Rise, has occurred during the Exhibition Period. A number of reallocations occurred and are listed below:-

·        Stormwater Infrastructure Projects (EEP) - $43,762 Reduced

·        Release Area Resourcing (50/50 EEP) - $23,772 Increased

·        Penrith Recycled Water Feasibility Study (EEP) - $12,750 Increased

·        Implement Plans of Management (EEP) – $25,000 Reduced

·        Samuel Marsden Ave Creek Rehabilitation (EEP) - $24,280 Increased

·        Peachtree Creek SW Rehab Design and Construction (EEP) - $7,960 Increased

 

A rationalisation of sustainability projects has also occurred during this period with the following projects now being included under the project called Sustainability Programs. This project now totals $100,000.

·        Greenhouse Strategy Initiatives (EEP) – ($30,000)

·        Sustainable Design Advisor (EEP) – ($15,000)

·        Sustainability Street (EEP) – ($25,000)

 

Annual Report   ($20,000  U)

 

The Annual Report has always been a significant component of Council’s legislative reporting requirements.  The new Integrated Reporting provisions now require the incorporation of other documents, such as the State of the Environment Report.  Council has been developing a more integrated report, based on our sustainability principles, for the past two years to meet the emerging reporting requirements.  This has demonstrated our leadership in moving towards more transparent and clearer information and enables us to better engage with, and report to, our communities.  An ongoing source of funding is required to enable Council to meet its legislative obligations for an integrated Annual Report. In the interim, an additional $20,000 has been allocated to this task from available funds and $2,500 has been transferred from printing expenses to recognise the scope of activities now undertaken.

 


Asset Construction Reserve   ($40,030  U)

 

The changes proposed during the exhibition period have resulted in a reduction in the amount transferred to the Asset Construction Reserve of $40,030. The amount transferred to the Asset Construction Reserve provides an allowance for significant movements in the current budget assumptions.  There are two key areas, Financial Assistant Grant (currently estimated to increase by 3%), and government levies such as the bushfire Levy, where council’s budget is unable to be confirmed until after the start of the financial year.  Holding funds in reserve provides some degree of comfort to allow for variances to the assumptions on which the budget and these items are based. This Reserve now contains a total allowance of $165,545.

 

Other minor variations totalling $9,149 (unfavourable) retain a balanced budget for 2009-2010.

 

·        Changes to Part A: Rating Information

 

Each year, the Minister for Local Government approves a maximum general rate increase for the next financial year that applies to all NSW councils. This year the maximum general increase for all NSW councils was 3.5% and the figures published in the Draft Operational Plan were based on this general increase.

 

Following the draft Operational Plan being published, the Minister for Local Government approved an increase for Penrith City Council of 3.789 % which took into consideration income that Penrith City Council lost this current financial year due to the 20% limit on the increase of rates for properties that are categorised as farmland. This year the income lost due to this restriction amounted to an approximate $197,980. Whilst other income that Council loses each year due to valuation objections and rate qualifier changes is calculated as a dollar amount on top of the permissible income, the income lost due to the farmland restriction is provided as a percentage increase to the permissible income.

 

Due to the change to the maximum percentage increase approved for Council the figures published in the draft Operational Plan have changed. The effect of the increased percentage rate to the figures in the Draft Operational Plan is that the minimum residential rate increased by $1.95 (with a total increase from 2008-2009 of $25.35) and the minimum business rate increased by $2.50 (with a total increase from 2008-09 of $32.45). Conversely, the ad valorem rate for all rate categories has decreased slightly from the figures in the draft Operational Plan.

 


The following table replaces the table on Page 61 of the draft Operational Plan and shows the ad valorem rate, the minimum rate, and the net anticipated revenue for each rate category and sub-category.

 

CATEGORY

Anticipated revenue             $' 000s

Increase

Number of properties

Residential

Ad valorem Rate in $

0.0043214

 

 

 

 

Minimum Rate

$695.10

52,968

$25.35

60,790

Farmland

Ad valorem Rate in $

0.0021607

 

 

 

 

Minimum Rate

$695.10

931

$25.35

401

Business

Ad valorem Rate in $

0.0077989

 

 

 

 

Minimum Rate

$889.40

13976

$32.45

2545

Business -Penrith CBD

Ad valorem Rate in $

0.0089565

 

 

 

Minimum Rate

$889.40

2395

$32.45

422

Business- St Marys Town Centre

Ad valorem Rate in $

0.0120503

 

 

 

Minimum Rate

$889.40

676

$32.45

235

 

 

Total

$70,946

 

64,393

 

The Making of Rates and Charges

This matter is addressed in a separate report in tonight’s business paper.

 

·        Changes to Part B ~ Fees and Charges

A number of changes to the draft 2009-2010 Fees and Charges have been proposed during the exhibition period. The majority of these changes relate to the Section 94 Contributions and Childcare Fees.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

The most substantial change in Section 94 results from the recent review conducted by the Department of Planning. Following the review the Minster for Planning made two Ministerial Directions on 31 May 2009. The first relating to the Glenmore Park Stage 2 Development Contributions Plan “where a monetary contribution was required as a result of a Development Consent authorising Residential Development on land within the areas defined by this plan, this contribution shall not exceed an amount per lot of $36,534 for the Surveyors Creek Precinct and $41,617 for the Western Precinct.” As a consequence of this direction this plan is currently under review and at the completion of the review new Contribution rates will replace those listed.   The second is in relation to the Library Facilities Development Contributions Plan whereby levying for library book stock is now not considered an appropriate piece of infrastructure for which contributions should be levied.

 

Proposed changes to advertised Children’s Services Fees

 

Council’s advertised fees for long day care from January 2010 was for a differential fee of $66 per day for 9 hours care and $70 per day for 11 hours care. Tamara was the exception to these fees with the proposed fees for Tamara being $65 per day for children three years old and over and $70 per day for children under three. At the Children’s Services Forum for the management plan on June 4 questions were raised in relation to the impact of this proposal on the Child Care Benefit to which parents would be entitled; as this benefit was a capped hourly entitlement. Previously Council’s daily fee had been for 11 hours care and parents were entitled to 11 hours of rebate regardless of the amount of care actually used. Council officers’ initial inquiries into this matter indicated that parents would still be entitled to the 11 hour rebate. Following the questions raised at the forum the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has been requested for a formal response to these matters. This response has not been received at the time of preparing this report. Should the advice be that the parents entitlement to CCB are affected by Council’s decision it is recommended, that instead of the advertised differential fees, a single daily fee of $67.00 be adopted for all long day care centres with the exception of Tamara whose fees would be $65 per day for Children three years old and over and $67.00 for children under three.

 

Provided in Attachment 7 is a complete list of all proposed changes to the 2009-2010 Operational Plan : Part B ~ Fees and Charges.

 

Conclusion

The draft Strategic Plan and 4 year Delivery Program capture and present the key commentary obtained during an extensive engagement program with community and key stakeholders.  They provide a clear commitment to a shared vision for the future of our City and provide a solid foundation that will be built upon in subsequent reviews.

 

The draft 2009-2010 Operational Plan, as directed by Council, represents a comprehensive address to the final year of the Strategic Program set by this Council, as well as providing for the future needs of the City.

 

After consideration of the submissions made in respect to the draft Operational Plan, and of the proposed variations, Council needs to adopt its Operational Plan for 2009-2010, including such variations to that originally exhibited as it decides on, in order to comply with the legislative requirements under the Local Government Act 1993.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.       The information contained in the report on Adoption of the Strategic Plan, the Four Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the 2009-2010 Operational Plan  be received.

2.       The recommended actions, including changes to the draft budget, staff establishment and tasks as detailed in the report be adopted, and those which relate to variations to the exhibited draft plan be incorporated into the Operational Plan.

3.       The Strategic Plan, 4 Year Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the 2009-2010 Operational Plan, as amended, be formally adopted.

4.       Council approve for expenditure the budget as detailed in the 2009-2010 Operational Plan, and on that basis formally vote these funds for the 2009-2010 financial year.

5.       Those individuals and organisations who made submissions on Council’s draft Strategic Plan, 4 year Delivery Program and Operational Plan be thanked for their input and advised of Council’s decision.

6.       Those projects in the 2008-2009 Management Plan, which were approved by Council in the March Quarter Review 2009 to be carried forward, be added to the adopted Operational Plan for 2009-2010.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Strategic Plan & Delivery Program Submissions

1 Page

Attachment

2.  

2009-2010 Operational Plan Submissions

4 Pages

Attachment

3.  

Part A Service Plan Changes

4 Pages

Attachment

4.  

Amended Service Plans

53 Pages

Attachment

5.  

Budget Changes

3 Pages

Attachment

6.  

Footpath Delivery Program 2009-2010

1 Page

Attachment

7.  

Fees and Charges Changes

3 Pages

Attachment

   


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

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        Penrith Transport Summit Outcomes

 

3        Building Application BA007984.01 Proposed modification to hours of operation of existing child care centre at Lot 721 DP 717440 (No.28) Waterfall Crescent, Cranebrook . Applicant: Greg and Tracy Walton;  Owner: Greg and Tracy Walton BA007984.01

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

 

4        Development Application DA09/0314 for a Dwelling House at Lot 21, 22, 23 and 24 DP 2721 (No. 341a) Littlefields Road, Mulgoa. . Applicant: Cityscape Planning and Projects;  Owner: Jamison Investments Pty Ltd DA09/0314

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

5        Development Application DA09/0449, DA09/0451, and DA09/0452 for the formal closure of Malabine, Ballah, and Coolibah Lanes and subdivision to create a single allotment on each site, South Penrith. Applicant: Penrith City Council;  Owner: Penrith City Council

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

6        Development Application DA07/0226 Section 82A Review of the Determination for a Multi-unit Housing Development  comprising of 20 Apartment and Townhouse Dwellings over Basement Car Parking at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76-78) Jones Street, Kingswood. Applicant: Luvamo Pty Ltd;  Owner: Amflo Pty Ltd DA07/0226

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

7        Section 96 Application No. 07/0742.01 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86-90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Corpus Christi Parish;  Owner: Trustees Roman Catholic Church DA07/0742

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

2

Penrith Transport Summit Outcomes   

 

Compiled by:                Walter Sinnadurai, Transportation Planner

Authorised by:             David Yee, Acting Design and Technical Advice Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: A plan is being implemented for the provision of public transport facilities and services that reasonably matches the travel needs of the community for access to employment centres, education facilities and other activity centres.

Critical Action: Advocate for the public transport system to be accessible and offer a range of appropriate transport modes suited to the patrons’ requirements.

     

Purpose:

To advise Councillors on the outcomes of the Penrith Transport Summit that was held on 10 March 2009.  The report recommends that the information be received.

 

Background

At Council’s Ordinary meeting held on 1 December 2008, Council resolved to hold a Transport Summit in March 2009.  The resolution stemmed from the Strategic Planning Councillor workshops held in late 2008, where there was a unanimous recognition by Councillors of transportation as being one of the key issues and challenges for the City.

Current Situation

The Penrith Transport Summit was organised by the Transport Planning Unit within the Design and Technical Advice Department and held on Tuesday 10 March 2009 at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre in Penrith.  The Summit was facilitated by Brendan Blakeley of Elton Consulting on behalf of Council. 

 

The Summit was attended by approximately 100 people.  Attendees included representatives from NSW State Government agencies, other Local Government Councils, health services, community associations, business organisations and industry. 

 

The Summit guest speakers Dr Garry Glazebrook and Peter McCue along with official guests and Summit attendees were formally welcomed by the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM. 

 

Dr Glazebrook gave a broad overview of the need for effective transport planning and discussed some global issues likely to affect transportation in coming years.  This included the impacts of climate change, peak oil production and rising fuel costs leading to the need to significantly change the way we move around our cities.  He then outlined the recent history of transport planning for the Sydney Metropolitan area.  These issues clearly identified the urgent need for a coordinated long term plan for transport in Sydney.  Dr Glazebrook set out his vision of a 30 year plan for transport infrastructure and services for the metropolitan area. 

 

Following on from the Dr Glazebrook’s presentation Peter McCue explained the NSW active transport initiatives currently being undertaken by the NSW Government.  He outlined the wide ranging benefits to the community and individuals that can be achieved through active transport (ie cycling and walking).  These included reductions in traffic and greenhouse gases, improvements in personal health which in turn reduce broader health costs, a better sense of community and savings in vehicle operating costs.  It was clear that active transport and its associated direct and indirect benefits should be an integral part of the cities transport solutions. 

 

The Summit was designed to be both informative and participatory.  The keynote presentations gave a high level view of some transport issues to facilitate the audience to be thinking about the broader transport issues rather than specific details.  For the interactive workshop sessions the participants were allocated to small groups of 8-10 people.  This provided an opportunity for attendees to brainstorm and discuss opportunities and challenges for transportation in Penrith and the region in the year 2030.  The day was concluded in a plenary session where the outcomes of the group discussion sessions were presented and discussed by the room facilitators.

 

Summit Outcomes

Elton Consulting was engaged to independently facilitate the Summit and report the key outcomes of the day.  Attachment 1 to this report provides a summary of the issues and strategies discussed at the Summit.

 

The workshop sessions provided an opportunity for attendees to participate actively in facilitated small group discussions.  To give some structure to the discussion the groups were asked to consider the following two questions:

 

1.   Key issues for how people should be moving around Penrith and the region in 2030

 

2.   Ideas and strategies to ensure how this movement could be achieved.

 

Each group identified the key ideas through a consensus process.  This was then reported back to the plenary session at the end of the Summit.  This resulted in seven key ideas for issue 1, and ten key ideas for issue 2, as set below:

 

 

Issue 1

Issue 2

1.   Reduced reliance on private vehicles through greater transport choices

1.   Regional coordination of transport planning

2.   Increased community knowledge about transport options and people are making sustainable and active transport choices

2.   Support transport research

 

3.   Seamless travel through integrated ticketing and improved modal coordination

3.   Promote community awareness and education

 

4.   Land use planning is supporting appropriate travel choices

4.   Improve public and active transport marketing

5.   The community feels safe and secure when using public or active transport options

5.   Establish designated growth areas and design transport options around those areas

6.   Increased number of people working either from home or closer to home

6.   Link transport hubs to major community assets

7.   Penrith is better connected through both its north to south and east to west axes

7.   More industry and community engagement and involvement in policy development

 

8.   Consistent transport planning approach across state and local government

 

9.   Bus service improvements

 

10. Linking with the region

 

In addition to the above all the ideas from each group were collected and have been analysed by Council Officers.  This analysis indicates that the ideas largely aligned with Council’s Penrith Integrated Transport and Land Use Study (PITLUS), which has key elements included in Council’s Strategic Plan.

 

A summary of all the issues and ideas from the Summit has been collated that shows how they align with the PITLUS outcomes and sets the actions necessary to advance the various issues.  This has been sent to Councillors under a separate memo.  Many of the issues are outside the control of Council to deliver as they directly relate to the provision and operation of transport infrastructure and services.  It is clear that Council will need to continue it’s lobbying of all levels of government and its agencies to deliver many of the identified transport initiatives.

 

The ideas coming from the Summit included many “big picture” concepts and long term thinking as well as specific local issues that may be addressed in the shorter term.

 

The State Government has recently announced a change in the structure of various departments and agencies involved in transport planning and service delivery.  The stated aim of these changes includes several of the issues identified in the Summit particularly in regard to coordination of planning and the integration of timetables between transport modes.

 

A number of issues identified in the Summit relating to walking and cycling are within Council’s ability to directly influence and implement.  Many of these initiatives have been incorporated within various Council policies and planning for City centres of Penrith and St Marys as well as the various release areas.

 

Conclusion

 

The Summit has confirmed that:

 

·    The transport issues identified by the Summit participants have confirmed many of the earlier findings of the PITLUS.

 

·    There is support for encouraging both walking and cycling in the City as one of the transport options that will also have a positive impact on the health of the community.

 

·    Council needs to continue to take a leadership role in advocating to both State and Federal Government, for the provision of adequate transport services and infrastructure for Penrith

 

The key issues identified by the Transport Summit have largely been incorporated into the 2009+ Strategic Plan to advocate for a comprehensive, integrated, sustainable transport system for the Penrith LGA and the region.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Penrith Transport Summit Outcomes be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Penrith Transport Summit Consultant Report

21 Pages

Attachment

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

3

Building Application BA007984.01 Proposed modification to hours of operation of existing child care centre at Lot 721 DP 717440 (No.28) Waterfall Crescent, Cranebrook   Applicant:  Greg and Tracy Walton;  Owner:  Greg and Tracy Walton    

BA007984.01

Compiled by:                Allison Cattell, Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Peter Wood, Acting Development Services Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

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

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

     

Purpose:

To enable Council to determine a proposal to modify a development consent for an existing child care centre by extending the hours of operation. The report recommends approval subject to amended and additional conditions.

 

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

Background

Development Application No.40/86

 

Council at its meeting of 17 June 1986 consented to Development Application No. 40/86 for the erection of a brick veneer, purpose built child care centre on the subject site. The child care centre was approved subject to conditions of consent to cater for a maximum of 25 children.

 

In October 1986, the applicant requested an amendment to the condition of consent which sought to change fencing to paling instead of brick. The request was approved 6 November 1986 under delegated authority.

 

Council at its meeting of 21 April 1987 considered a further application to modify the development consent by amending the hours of operation of the existing child care centre from between 9am to 4pm (Monday to Friday) to between 7am and 5pm (Monday to Fridays). The report to Council acknowledged “some noise will be occasioned by vehicles moving to and from the site and with people entering and leaving the premises”. As a consequence Council resolved to extend the hours of operation to between 8am and 5pm (Monday to Fridays) for reasons discussed later in the report.

 

On 1 March 1990, Council approved an amendment to the number and age of children permitted to attend the existing child care centre allowing a maximum of 30 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years of age. On 6 December 2004, a request to modify the age of children in care to include toddlers between the age of 2 and 3 years of age was approved.

 

Development Application 95/0331

 

A new Development Application No.95/0331 was received 6 September 1995 seeking approval for an Out-Of-School-Hours (OOSH) care facility to operate from the site simultaneous with the child care centre. The proposal sought approval to operate an OOSH care facility from 6:00 to 8:30am and 3:30 to 6:30pm Monday to Friday with the child care component predominantly being used between 8am and 5pm. The site would have operated from 6am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday. Council refused this application at its meeting of 18 December 1995 for reasons discussed later in the report.

 

Development Application 960250

 

A new Development Application was made on 20 September 1996 to reduce the proposed hours of the proposed OOSH facility to commence at 7am. This application was also refused by Council at its meeting of 18 November 1996 given concerns of scale and impact on the amenity of the area.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Waterfall Crescent and Mount Close, Cranebrook as shown in the Locality Map in Appendix No. 1. The site is 889.1m² in area, is orientated in a north-south direction and has a gentle slope from the north eastern corner of the property to the south western corner.

 

The site is currently occupied by a purpose-built child care centre with associated car park area providing for five (5) car spaces.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by low density residential development.

The Proposed Development

The proposed modification of Development Consent No. 40/86 is limited to the extension of the hours of operation of the existing child care centre from the approved hours of 8am to 5pm (Monday to Friday) to new hours of 7:30am to 5:30pm (Monday to Friday) only.

 

The application was accompanied by a statement detailing the proposed modification as attached in Appendix No. 2.  The existing conditions of Development Consent No.40/86 are attached in Appendix No. 3 for reference.

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Having regard to those matters, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

Section 96 – Modification of consents generally

The applicant has made application under Section 96(1A) – Modifications involving minimal environmental impact. Given the proposal includes the modification of hours of operation for an existing child care centre the application can be assessed in accordance with this section of the Act. The proposal represents a modification involving minimal environmental impact as the proposed extended hours of operation are within the daytime period in accordance with the Industrial Noise Policy (INP).

 

The proposal represents substantially the same development as first approved under Development Consent No.40/86 as the child care centre will continue to provide long day care for an additional hour during weekdays. The proposal does not seek to increase the intake of children nor increase the demand upon existing infrastructure such as car parking.

 

The application as made does not allow for a reconsideration of any previous development applications approved on the site. As the proposal is limited to increased hours of operation, the assessment of any impact that may result from the proposed modification is limited to the issues arising from the additional proposed half hour in the morning and the afternoon only.

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands)

The subject land is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low density) under this plan. Child Care Centres are permissible with consent in this zone.

 

An objective of this zone is to “limit [the] range of compatible non-residential uses.” Council has no record of complaint about the Child Care Centre since commencing its operations which would suggest the use is compatible.

 

In accordance with Clause 13 – Provisions for environmental performance in development generally, the impacts on both generators and receivers of noise is to be considered. The application was referred to Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer who provided the following comments:

 

“As the centre is applying for a 30 minute extension of time in the morning and again in the afternoon, I can only consider the potential impact during these times. There are two points of concern in relation to noise. These are the noise from the opening and closing of the entry gate and the noise from the car parking area. It is likely the noise in relation to the gate could be suitably conditioned as I believe there would be a simple solution to this issue without the need for a detailed noise report.

 

In relation to noise from the car park area:

 

-    The requested extension is 30 minutes on either side of the approved hours of operation and these times remain well within the daytime period as outlined in the Industrial Noise Policy (INP). This policy has generally been applied to other childcare centres;

-    The centre is not proposing an increase in the number of children and as such there would not be an increase in car movements associated with the centre;

-    It could be assumed that an extension in drop off and pick up times could spread out the arrivals and departures and therefore could reduce any potential noise impact;

-    The adjoining residents are shielded from the car park by fencing and the building itself;

-    A condition could be imposed to prevent children playing outside during the proposed extension times.”

 

It is noted that the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP) was prepared by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and is considered best-practice in assessing operational noise. It is used as a guideline by Penrith Council in the absence of its own noise emission policy.

 

To provide for reasonable noise control, a new condition is recommended for a Noise Management Plan to be provided to Council for assessment and approval for the hours between 7:30am and 8:00am and between the hours of 5:00pm and 5:30pm prior to commencement of the proposed hours of operation (Condition No. 29). It is recommended that the Noise Management Plan provide for the following:

 

a)   Children will not play outside during the proposed extended hours of operation;

b)   All staff arriving between the proposed extended hours of operation will park within the provided car spaces on site;

c)   A sign is to be erected in a visible location advising the opening of car doors and the gate within the site is to be conducted in a manner such that noise is minimised;

d)   Contact details for the operator of the child care centre in the event contact is to be made by Council to advise of any complaint for record, attention and/or action.

 

A condition is also recommended to provide for noise mitigation treatment to the existing gate (Condition No.30)

 

Subject to the above recommended conditions of consent, adjoining residents are not likely to be unreasonably affected by noise during the proposed extended operating hours.   

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no Draft Environmental Planning Instruments that apply to this proposed development.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

Notification and Advertising (Chapter 2.7)

 

The application was notified in accordance with this policy as outlined under Community Consultation.

 

Child care centres (Chapter 3.3)

 

The proposal is to be considered on its merits, include an assessment of the current operation of the centre and the requirements of this policy. This includes assessment of the objectives and controls of the policy. As previously discussed, this will be limited to the proposed modified operating hours only.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives and provisions of this section as:

 

·     the location and design will remain unchanged and will continue to minimise any impact on the amenity of the surrounding area; and

·     adverse impact to residential development from traffic generated by the child care centre during the proposed extended operating hours will be minimised particularly as the applicant proposes approximately ten percent of the maximum children intake will arrive during the proposed extended hours;

·     the scale of the child care centre, vehicle access, car parking, shade and landscaping will continue to remain as approved in previous development consents for the site;

·     existing boundary fencing will continue to contain noise generated from the child care centre. A condition is recommended to provide for minor alteration to the existing gate to minimise noise (Condition No. 30).

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

This section is not applicable for the subject application.

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

Noise

 

Advice received from Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer confirms the proposed hours of operation are within the ‘daytime’ period as defined within the Industrial Noise Policy between 7am and 6pm and is not therefore likely to generate offensive noise.

 

Site management requirements

 

The proposed hours of operation are to be complied with and a condition is recommended to amend an existing condition to reflect the proposed hours of operation (Condition No.20).

 

The operators of the site are to manage noise sources within the additional proposed operating times to provide continued compatibility with the surrounding established residential community. Conditions are recommended to provide for this outcome by way of a Noise Management Plan (Condition 29).

 

All other operations of the child care centre will remain unchanged.

 

Traffic

 

The application was referred to Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer who provided the following comments:

 

“the extension to operational hours by 30 minutes in the morning and afternoons respectively, will not have an adverse impact on traffic movements in the locality. The time changes are minor and will not have a noticeable effect on traffic movements, in fact it may assist in a staggered arrival and departure.”

 

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer raised no objection to the proposal. Additional demand on car parking is not proposed as the existing numbers of children and staff will remain unchanged. The proposal is likely to alleviate traffic concerns in allowing for staging of times for children to be picked up and dropped off allowing for traffic flow to be less concentrated. For these reasons, it is unlikely the proposal will result in negative traffic impacts.

 

Interaction between the development and the community

 

In investigating the compliance history of the site for an indication of the past performance of the use as a child care centre, no complaints were found.

 

Nonetheless, it is expected that proposed additional half hour in the morning and evening will be compatible with the surrounding residential occupations as they are well within the Industrial Noise Policy and are therefore unlikely to result in nuisance noise emission.

 

The proposed additional hour of operation is likely to allow for greater service and flexibility for those customers using the child care facility and is likely to be well received by the parents and/or carers using the centre.

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

The site is suitable for the proposed additional hours of operation as:

 

·    A Child Care Centre is currently operating on the site the subject of this development application;

·    Adequate separation of noise sources during the proposed additional hours of operation can be achieved;

·    The proposed additional hours of operation are within the daytime hours nominated within the Industrial Noise Policy which is the accepted standard for assessing noise impacts; and

·    Adjoining properties are shielded through orientation of the building and fencing from sources of noise.

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

Community Consultation

 

A total of 25 nearby and adjoining residents were notified of the proposed application with the exhibition period being between 2 March and 16 March 2009 in accordance with Council’s Notification and Advertising policy under Chapter 2.7 of Penrith DCP 2006. 

 

One submission and a petition signed by 13 people in opposition to the proposed development were received on 17 March 2009. Three submissions in support and one petition signed by 19 people raising no objection to the proposed development were received on 3 April 2009.

 

It should be noted that the majority of those that signed the petition in objection also signed a separate petition that they had no objection to the proposal.

 

 

 

Submissions

 

The following issues were raised in the submissions in opposition to the proposed development and have formed part of the assessment:

 

1.   Additional hours of traffic and residential ambience;

2.   Traffic flow, narrow streets and street parking;

3.   Age and health of residents;

4.   Sleep disturbance due to noise;

5.   Previous development applications and long day care operations.

 

The following advantage was raised in support for the proposed development and has formed part of the assessment:

 

1.       Added convenience for working parents the proposed additional operating times would provide.

 

The above issues have been addressed under the heading of Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development.

 

A separate issue was raised pertaining to past development applications that were refused by Council. The concern raised indicated that grounds for refusal commented that the hours of operations as proposed were not compatible with the surrounding area.

 

Upon investigation into previous development applications, it is confirmed that an out-of-school-hours (OOSH) facility at the subject site (DA95/0331) was refused in 1995 due to the likely conflict between the existing child care centre and the proposed OOSH facility that were to both operate from the site. Council refused this application 18 December 1995 stating:

 

“It is considered that the site has reached its optimum development potential in relation to the number of children that can be feasibly accommodated. The proposal for a Before and After School Care service operating from the site is of concern primarily due to the effect that it is likely to have on the amenity of the surrounding area. This is directly related to early commencement for the service and the movement of children to and about the site. An opportunity may, however, exist for the applicant to consider reviewing the commencement time to a more reasonable hour, say 7:30 am at the earliest…”

 

The extension of the hours of operation for the existing approved use as a child care centre does not introduce the same issues of conflict given the single use of the site.

 

As determined 21 April 1987, the modification of Development Consent No.40/86 which permitted hours of operation from between 8am and 5pm considered the proposed commencement time of 7am unreasonable in 1987 concluding:

 

“The proposal to extend the hours of operation of this centre is for the purpose of providing a better service to its customers. Whereas there would appear to be no objection to the centre remaining open until 5pm, the commencement of the use at 7am would be likely to give rise to disturbance to occupants of dwellings in the locality”.

 

In support of the above conclusion, it is likely that the commencement of the use would have resulted in staff arrival to the site ahead of 7 am which would be unreasonable and contrary to the INP. This is not the case for the proposed operating hours of 7:30 and a condition of consent is recommended to reinforce this outcome (Condition No.20).

Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

Responses received from the notification process raised both concern and support for the proposed development. On balance and based on the above discussion and recommended conditions of consent, the proposed additional hour of operation is unlikely to unreasonably impact upon the nearby residential community and the wider community utilising the facility.

Conclusion

In assessing this application against the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands) and Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposal satisfies relevant requirements.

 

With the recommended conditions, the proposal is unlikely to have a negative impact on the amenity of adjoining residents. The proposed modification is in the public interest and is worthy of support.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application BA007984.01 for the Building Application BA007984.01 Proposed modification to hours of operation of existing child care centre at Lot 721 DP 717440 (No.28) Waterfall Crescent, Cranebrook be received

2.     Development Application BA007984.01 be approved and Development Consent No.40/86 be amended in the following manner:

Condition 20

The hours of operation are to be from 7:30am to 5:30pm Monday to Friday only.

As amended 29 June 2009 in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

Condition 29

A Noise Management Plan is to be provided that confirms the following for hours between 7:30am and 8am and between 5pm and 5:30pm:

a.    Children will not play outside during the proposed extended hours of operation;

b.    All staff arriving between the proposed extended hours of operation will park within the provided car spaces on site;

c.    A sign is to be erected in a visible location advising the opening of car doors and the gate within the site is to be conducted in a manner such that noise is minimised;

d.    Contact details of the operator of the child care centre in the event contact is to be made by Council to advise of any complaint for record, attention and/or action.

 

As included 29 June 2009 in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Condition 30

The existing gate is to be altered to mitigate noise prior to the commencement of extended hours of operation.

As included 29 June 2009 in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

3.     Those people who made a submission are to be notified of the decision.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality map for 28 Waterfall Crescent Cranebrook

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Statement of modification for Consent No.40/86

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Conditions for Development Consent No.40/86

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality map for 28 Waterfall Crescent Cranebrook

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 2 - Statement of modification for Consent No.40/86

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 3 - Conditions for Development Consent No.40/86

 

 

 

Conditions of Consent Number 40/86

(as amended 6 November 1986, 21 April 1987 and 6 December 2004)

1.   Before usage of the development commences, all of the conditions of this consent are to be complied with to Council’s satisfaction and it is the responsibility of the applicant to advise Council’s Town Planning Department when the development is ready for inspection. (This inspection is a separate requirement to the final inspection of the building which is carried out by Council’s Health and Building Department);

2.   All alterations to services and municipal facilities as necessitated by the development shall be the responsibility of the applicant;

3.   This consent shall lapse if the development to which it refers is not commenced within two (2) years after the date of the consent; provide that Council may, if good cause be shown in a written application requesting an extension of time, grant an extension of the consent for a further twelve months pursuant to Section 99(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979;

4.   Arrangements satisfactory for the City Engineer are to be made for the provision of common drainage and the disposal of drainage from the site. Details are to be submitted for approval prior to the approval of the Building Application;

5.   The provision of garbage bin receptacles of a type and in a location satisfactory to Council;

6.   Provision of a garbage storage area to the satisfaction of the City Health Surveyor;

7.   A Certificate of Classification under Ordinance 70 is to be obtained prior to occupation of the building;

8.   The submission of building plans and specifications under cover of a formal Building Application to the satisfaction of the City Health Surveyor;

It is to be noted that the consideration of this application has been limited generally to matters relating to site treatment and that detailed consideration has not been given to the internal layout of the building or matters controlled under the provisions of the relevant building requirements;

Applicants are advised that it is in their interests to consult with Council’s Health and Building Department with respect to these matters prior to the preparation of working drawings;

9.   Submission of a schedule of proposed external finishes including sample material for Council’s consideration and approval in conjunction with the submission of a Building Application;

10. All land not required to be sealed is to be landscaped in accordance with a plan of landscaping which is to be submitted for Council’s consideration and approval concurrently with the Building Application;

11. No development other than landscaping is to take place within 5.5 metres of Waterfall Crescent frontage;

12. All land required for vehicular access and parking is to be concreted or sealed with a bituminous pavement to Council’s satisfaction;

13. The vehicular crossing close to front of building is to be used for ingress purposes only and appropriately signposted ‘IN’ to Council’s satisfaction;

14. The vehicular crossing near intersection of Mount Close is to be used for egress purposes only and appropriately signposted ‘OUT’ to Council’s satisfaction;

15. Heavy duty paved vehicular footway crossings are to be provided at all points of ingress and egress to the satisfaction of and under the supervision of the City Engineer;

16. The subject development, including landscaping, is to be maintained in a clean and tidy manner to Council’s satisfaction at all times and any direction given by Council in this regard is to be given immediate compliance;

17. The use is to operate so as not to cause injury to the amenity of the persons residing in the vicinity and any direction of Council in this regard is to be given immediate compliance;

18. That a sign be erected on the site within 28 days of this consent being issued, notifying intended purchases of the proposed use. The sign is to contain information relating to the hours of operation, number of places and type of activity. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that this sign is maintained at all times until the centre is operational;

19. The applicant is to consult with Council’s Town Planning Department concerning the planting of extra landscaping for the purpose of screening the activity from adjoining residential development;

20. The hours of operation are to be from 8 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday;

As amended 21 April 1987 in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

21. The security fencing is to be a 1.8m lapped, capped and stained construction. Details of the construction are to be submitted with the building application;

      As amended 6 November 1986 in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

22. The applicant should note that at building application stage the plans must be submitted by Council to the Board of Fire Commissioners;

23. Any proposed advertisement or advertising structures must comply with the requirements of Ordinance 55 and Council’s Draft Sign Policy;

24. A suitably designed sandpit is to be constructed in the outdoor play area. The applicant is to consult with Council on design details;

25. Windows or glass panels are to be provided indoors to improve viewing access from the playroom to the playground area;

26. Provision of an indoor storeroom for playroom 1 (Youth and Community Services Requirement);

27. Compliance with the requirements of the Department of Youth and Community Services;

28. The Child Care Centre shall provide for a maximum attendance of thirty children between the ages of two and five years.

      As amended 6 December 2004 in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

4

Development Application DA09/0314 for a Dwelling House at Lot 21, 22, 23 and 24 DP 2721 (No. 341a) Littlefields Road, Mulgoa.   Applicant:  Cityscape Planning and Projects;  Owner:  Jamison Investments Pty Ltd    

DA09/0314

Compiled by:                Jonathon Wood, Trainee Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Peter Wood, Acting Development Services Manager   

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

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

     

Purpose:

The development application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal involves an objection to a development standard, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards, proposing a variation to the standard exceeding 10%. The report recommends that the information be received and that Council refuse to grant consent to the proposal.

 

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

Background

Council is in receipt of a development application for the erection of a dwelling house on the subject site. The proposed development is located in a ‘paper’ subdivision dating back to the late 1800’s comprising 34 lots between 486m2 and 644m2 in area. The total area of the lots in the one ownership in the subdivision is 18542 m2 or 1.85Ha. The paper subdivision means that the proposed development will be located on the corner of Littlefields Road and Church Road, although Church Road is unformed and is heavily vegetated.

 

The site, and associated lots adjoining the site, have been subject of a number of development applications in the past which are summarised below:

 

§ DA05/1149 for the proposed consolidation of 34 lots and subdivision into two (2) lots, which was withdrawn on 20 September 2005 due to inconsistencies with the minimum lot size for subdivision and the erection of a dwelling house under Clauses 13 and 14 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Mulgoa Valley (SREP 13).

§ DA08/1010 for a proposed Veterinary Surgery, which was approved on 16 February 2009.

§ DA09/0163 for a proposed Child Care Centre on an adjoining allotment, which was refused on 5 May 2009 due to a number of issues including the bushfire prone nature of the site, parking, accessibility, acoustic impacts, and required play areas. 

 

The current application involves the consolidation of four (4) lots into a single lot and the provision of a dwelling house on the newly created lots. The major issue identified as part of the assessment of the application relates to the requirement for a minimum of 10 hectares of land to enable the erection of a dwelling house, pursuant to Clause 14(2) of SREP 13. The proposed lot size is 2439m2, which equates to 2.44% of the required lot size. The applicant has submitted an objection to the requirement under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards (SEPP 1), which is discussed in detail within this report. 

 

As the proposal involves a SEPP 1 objection proposing a variation greater than 10%, in this case the objection relates to an objection of approximately 97.5%, the application has been referred to Council for determination in accordance with Planning Circular 08-014. In addition, were Council to be supportive of the variation, concurrence from the Director General of the Department of Planning is required in accordance with Planning Circular No. B1 issued 17 March 1989.

 

The current application is the subject of a ‘deemed refusal’ appeal to the Land and Environment Court of NSW, with the ‘callover’ date set down for 25 June 2009. As the proposal requires concurrence from the Director General, Council sent correspondence dated 2 June 2009 to the Department of Planning notifying of the appeal, as well as seeking a position from the Department on the SEPP 1 objection and the likelihood of concurrence being issued. A response has not been received at the time this report was finalised.

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The site is located on the northern side of Littlefields Road, approximately 350m north east of Mulgoa Road. It is an irregular L-shaped proposed allotment with a frontage of 11.58m to Littlefields Road, a depth of 80.9m, and a total area of 2439m². Whilst the proposed site is currently vacant a dwelling currently exists on the current land holding of 1.85Ha. A number of advanced Eucalypt trees are present. It is undulating, with a cross fall of some 9m from the north-western boundary to the south-eastern boundary. This equates to approximately a 1 in 6 gradient. The site is identified as bushfire prone, as well as accommodating Shale Plain Woodland.

 

The surrounding area contains a variety of built forms and land uses. Immediately to the north and north east is vacant vegetated land, to the west is Mulgoa Park, to the south is a recent 21 lot subdivision (known as Littlefields Mulgoa), and to the east is a 5 hectare rural property.

 

The Proposed Development

 

The proposed development comprises the following:

 

§ The construction of a single storey dwelling, clad with metal roof sheeting and selected brickwork;

 

·    The dwelling to contain a kitchen, laundry, bathroom, living area, theatre room, and five (5) bedrooms;

 

·    The provision of two (2) dedicated parking spaces beneath a freestanding carport;

 

·    A setback of some 50 metres from Littlefields Road, and a 12.5m setback to ‘Church Road’ (unformed). The proposal incorporates a 6m setback from the proposed northern boundary (side), 3m to the proposed southern boundary (side), and 14m from the proposed western boundary (rear). It should be noted that the site boundaries do not currently exist and would only be created in accordance with a condition of the development consent for the veterinary surgery referred to earlier requiring consolidation.

 

·    Removal of a number of mature Forest Red Gym Eucalypts (17) as part of the proposal;

 

·    The provision of additional landscaping on the site; and,

 

·    A pump-out sewer system.

 

Planning Assessment

 

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1-Development Standards (SEPP 1)

The aim of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards is to provide:

 

‘flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Act’.

 

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to the minimum lot size requirement for the erection of a dwelling house under the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13-Mulgoa Valley. The objection has been prepared in accordance with Clause 6, which outlines:

 

“Where development could, but for any development standard, be carried out under the Act (either with or without the necessity for consent under the Act being obtained therefore) the person intending to carry out that development may make a development application in respect of that development, supported by a written objection that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specifying the grounds of that objection.”

 

Clause 14(2) of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Mulgoa Valley, outlines:

 

(2)  A dwelling-house may not be erected on an allotment of land having an area of less than 10 hectares if that land is within the area identified as Area B on sheet 2 of the map.

 

The site is located within Area B on sheet 2 of the map and is therefore required to have an allotment of land of not less than 10Ha to enable the erection of a dwelling house. The subject development site is 2439m² and as such does not comply with the control. For context, the site achieves 2.439% of the required allotment size.

 

The definition of a ‘development standard’ is outlined in Section 4(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as:

 

development standards means provisions of an environmental planning instrument or the regulations in relation to the carrying out of development, being provisions by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements or standards in respect of:

 

(a)  the area, shape or frontage of any land, the dimensions of any land, buildings or works, or the distance of any land, building or work from any specified point,

 

Council’s Legal Officer has advised that the development control pertaining to minimum lot size is sufficiently defined as a ‘development standard’, and thus a SEPP 1 objection can be considered by Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 6, the applicant is required to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard, ‘is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case’.

 

The thrust of the argument in the SEPP 1 objection presented by the applicant relates to the underlying aims of the standard being the zone objectives, are said to be achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance with the minimum lot size requirement. The SEPP 1 objection concludes:

 

“Pursuant to SEPP 1, strict compliance with the development standard is considered unnecessary or unreasonable when development can demonstrate that it satisfies the underlying objectives of the development standard.

 

A planning assessment of the proposed development against the relevant zone objectives of SREP 13 demonstrates that it satisfies all the underlying objectives of the relevant standard.

 

Accordingly, it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard is both unreasonable and unnecessary and that Council can approve the proposed development.”

 

Comment:

 

Through the judgement in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827-21 December 2007, Chief Judge Preston identified ways in which it can be demonstrated that strict compliance with a standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable:

 

1.   The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

2.   Establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

3.   Establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

4.   Establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

5.   Establish that "the zoning of particular land" was "unreasonable or inappropriate" so that "a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land" and that "compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary"

 

Based on the SEPP 1 objection submitted with the development application, it can be seen that the applicant has presented a case that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. Chief Justice Preston, through the judgement in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827-21 December 2007, provided principles by which to assess an objection made under SEPP 1. The Chief Judge suggests that support of an Objection be based on the following:

 

(a)                That the objection is well founded

(b)                That the granting of consent is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1

(c)                That the matters identified in Clause 8 to SEPP 1 are satisfied:

 

   i.     Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

       ii.     The public benefit of maintaining the planning control adopted by the environmental planning instrument.

 

The discussion provided below provides a basis for forming a view on whether items (a) through (c) are satisfied.

 

Discussion

 

The relevant objectives of the zone, being Zone 1 Rural Conservation, referred to in the SEPP 1 objection are as follows:

 

“(a)  to conserve the rural, heritage and natural landscape of the valley,

(b)  to provide for the development of agricultural, residential, tourist and recreational land uses which are compatible with the rural and natural landscape and heritage of the valley,

(c)  to protect the visual amenity of the valley,

(d)  to avoid fragmentation and alienation of prime agricultural land, and

(e)  to maintain the low density of rural settlement”

The applicant has argued that the proposal demonstrates consistency with objective (d), which is not disputed. The purported consistency with objectives (a), (b), (c) and (e) is disputed and is discussed in detail. The development site is identified within Area B of Sheet 2 of the map, which is an area identified with a requirement for a minimum 10Ha allotment size to enable the erection of a dwelling house. The intent of such a requirement is to ensure that the low density of the Mulgoa Valley is retained, which in turn ensures that the rural and landscape setting is conserved. The applicant has provided several statements purporting to the consistency of the proposal with these objectives:

 

·    “The subject site is located on the fringe of both a village and rural-residential environment as opposed to an area that portrays purely rural scenic or natural landscape values…therefore, any development of the subject site has a limited ability to compromise the nominated values of the Mulgoa Valley.”

 

·    It is outlined that the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2002 (Villages of Mulgoa & Wallacia) (LEP2002) and the recent subdivision of land immediately to the south of the development site has “dramatically altered the landscape values of the immediate precinct and rendered this objective largely irrelevant given the new urban form and character of those adjacent lands.”

 

·    It is also outlined that, “development of the subject site will provide a slightly more dense settlement pattern, however, it will remain much less dense than that village type environment provided to the south of the site.” A diagrammatic illustration of the altered density patterns was also provided.

 

The argument provided has some merit, however the proposal is deemed inconsistent with these objectives, based on:

 

·    The important character transition that the site and surrounds (north of Littlefields Road) provides, in terms of the provision of a transition between the urban and rural landscape.

 

·    The fact that the development site is located outside the confines of LEP 2002.

 

·    The identification of the site as a proposed E3- Environmental Conservation zone under the provisions of draft LEP 2008. The draft LEP prescribes a minimum 10Ha lot size specific to this particular development site as opposed to the RU5- Village zone, with a minimum 550m2 lot size, which the majority of properties to the south and south-west are zoned as. It is also important to note that the controls pertaining to lot size contained within the draft Penrith LEP 2008 cannot be varied, and therefore upon gazettal of the draft there is no scope for entertaining a proposal such as this application.

 

·    The potential for such a proposal to generate an undesirable precedent, which will enable some 95 allotments to the north of the site to be developed in a similar fashion. This would have major impacts on the rural character of the valley and eliminate any transition between the rural and urban landscape setting.

 

In addition to those matters outlined above, a point worthy of further discussion relates to the intent of Clause 14(2). Sheet 2 of the ‘map’ contained within SREP 13 identifies an area of Mulgoa Valley being defined as Area B, namely two (2) portions of land, one totalling some 4.9Ha in area (within which the site in question is located) and another totalling some  57Ha in area. Upon closer examination of these areas, it can be seen that those areas defined as Area B exhibit unusual subdivision patterns, and undersized allotments. The areas identified as Area B are ‘paper’ subdivisions, created during early settlement of the Mulgoa Valley. From these observations, it can be inferred that the purpose of Clause 14(2) was to force consolidation of these undersized and unusable allotments where  a residential dwelling is proposed and to prevent further residential development in these areas.

 

A further point of discussion is the fact that the four (4) lots associated with the proposed development are in the same ownership as the other 30 lots surrounding the development site. Therefore there is scope to achieve the intent of Clause 14(2) by consolidating these lots to form a parcel of land some 1.8 hectares in size and retain the existing dwelling house located on the site. 

 

In summary, it is considered that the SEPP 1 objection accompanying the application does not demonstrate that compliance with Clause 14(2) would be ‘unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case’, nor has it been demonstrated that compliance with Clause 14(2) would hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a) (i) & (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

For these reasons the SEPP 1 objection is not well-founded and has not demonstrated that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore the minimum lot size requirement is a specific circumstance for this site such that if compliance isn’t necessary in this instance then there would be no other instance where it would be. Therefore the objection should not be supported as the granting of consent would not be consistent with the aims of the policy. 

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Mulgoa Valley

 

(i)  Permissibility

 

The subject site is zoned as Zone 1 Rural Conservation under the provisions of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Mulgoa Valley. The proposal is purported to be defined as a ‘dwelling-house’ which is defined under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Model Provisions 1980 as:

 

dwelling-house means a building containing 1 but not more than 1 dwelling.

 

Where a dwelling is defined as:

 

dwelling means a room or suite or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

 

The proposal is appropriately defined as a dwelling house and is permissible within the zone, with development consent by virtue of the fact that it is not listed as a prohibited use in the zone.

 

(ii) Aims & Objectives of the Plan

 

The proposal is deemed inconsistent with four (4) key aims and objectives contained within Clause 3 of SREP 13, namely:

 

(e)  to conserve the rural landscape of the valley,

(f)  to protect the setting of the Mulgoa village within the rural landscape,

(g)  to allow orderly and economic development which is compatible with the rural and natural landscape and heritage of the valley,

(j)  to enable rural residential development where it is consistent with the conservation of the rural and natural landscape, heritage and agricultural qualities.

 

The inconsistencies stem from the identification of the site within Area B on sheet 2 of the map, and the requirement for a 10Ha parcel of land for the erection of a dwelling. The intent of such a requirement is to ensure that the low density of the Mulgoa Valley is retained, which in turn ensures that the rural landscape and setting is conserved. The applicant has provided several statements purporting to the consistency of the proposal with the rural landscape character of the Mulgoa Valley as outlined in the zone objectives discussion under SEPP1.

 

The argument provided has some merit, however the proposal is deemed inconsistent with objectives (e), (f) (g) and (j), for reasons outlined in the zone objectives discussion under SEPP1.

 

As the proposal is inconsistent with these aims and objectives it should not be supported.

 

(iii)   Objectives of the Zone

 

The proposal is inconsistent with several of the objectives of the zone, namely:

 

(a)  to conserve the rural, heritage and natural landscape of the valley,

 

(b)  to provide for the development of agricultural, residential, tourist and recreational land uses which are compatible with the rural and natural landscape and heritage of the valley,

 

(e)  to maintain the low density of rural settlement,

 

The inconsistency of the proposal with these three (3) objectives has been discussed in detail previously in this report and does not warrant additional comment here.

 

Clause 12- Development consent criteria

 

Clause 12 outlines that the consent authority shall not grant consent to an application to carry out development for any purpose:

 

(a)  if any proposed building will be located on ridge tops or if it will intrude into the skyline when viewed from road or other public places,

 

Comment: The building will not intrude into the skyline and is not located on a ridge top.

 

(b)  unless it is satisfied that the proposed development will not adversely affect the historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of any item of environmental heritage in the valley,

 

Comment: The proposal will not adversely affect the significance of any item of environmental heritage.

 

(c) if services, in particular arrangements regarding the provision of water and disposal of effluent satisfactory to the requirements of the Water Board, are not adequate or will not be provided in a reasonable time,

 

Comment: Reticulated water is available to the site. The applicant has proposed a pump-out septic system to be utilised to dispose of effluent. Consultation with Sydney Water regarding a proposal on the adjoining allotment has revealed that the site is not within the connection area for the recent sewer connection program associated with parts of Mulgoa and Wallacia. Given the site constraints, there is no scope for an aerated on-site sewage management system. Therefore there is no alternative other than a pump-out septic system, which is deemed undesirable.

 

(d)  unless it is satisfied that the proposed form and siting of buildings, colours, landscaping, and building materials are appropriate for the rural character of the valley and are consistent with the Design and Management Guidelines or their intent,

 

Comment: The proposal is generally consistent with the Design & Management Guidelines, and a discussion against these criteria can be found further in this report. 

 

(e) if any proposed development will detract from the vistas of an item of environmental heritage as documented in the Design and Management Guidelines,

 

Comment: The proposal will not detract from the vistas of any nearby items of environmental heritage.

 

(f) unless it is satisfied that the development will not be exposed to unacceptable risk from bushfires,

 

Comment: The applicant has submitted a Bushfire Attack Assessment Report in support of the application that is the same as the assessment submitted with a previous development application for a veterinary surgery on the site. The building footprint is similar to that of the veterinary surgery. That report was forwarded to the Rural Fire Service who raised no concerns in relation to the threat of bushfires, subject to the imposition of conditions. Based on this it is considered that subclause (f) is deemed satisfied.

 

(g) if extensive areas of vegetation will be cleared,

 

Comment: Approximately 17 mature native trees are to be removed as part of the proposal. The applicant has submitted a Flora & Fauna Assessment in support of the application. In addition, the proposal was subject to a ‘7 part test’ under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. There is inconsistency between the information provided in the Flora & Fauna assessment and proposed plans, with a recommendation that ‘no trees should be removed outside the built form and car manoeuvring areas’. However six (6) trees located well clear of the building envelope are proposed to be removed as part of the development. The removal of this existing mature vegetation is deemed unnecessary and inconsistent with this control. In addition, the proposal has not made an attempt to site the proposed dwelling and associated outbuildings in areas that will minimise the extent of tree removal.

 

(h) unless it is satisfied that the agricultural viability of holdings and potential of the land will not be adversely affected,

 

Comment: The proposed site holds little agricultural potential due its size and topography, i.e. less than 2500 square metres however the total land holding of 18542 m2 retains potential.

 

(i) unless it is satisfied that Aboriginal and European archaeological material on the land will not be adversely affected,

 

Comment: The site is not identified as containing any Aboriginal and/or European archaeological material and an appropriate condition of consent can require work to cease if such items are unearthed.  Based on this information it is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect Aboriginal or European archaeological material on the land.

 

(j) unless it is satisfied that the view from Mulgoa Road will not be adversely affected,

 

Comment: The proposal is located some 330m from Mulgoa Road and the site has no direct address to Mulgoa Road. 

 

(k) unless it is satisfied that the rural setting of Mulgoa village will not be adversely affected,

 

The proposal will have no adverse impact on the rural setting of Mulgoa Village. The proposal has integrated features that are complimentary to the surrounding built environment, particularly through the use of construction materials. Approval would however set a precedent with great potential to impact significantly on the rural setting of Mulgoa Village.

 

(l) unless it is satisfied that development and its access will not be exposed to unacceptable risk from flooding,

 

Comment: The subject site is not affected by flooding.

 

(m) unless it is satisfied that the development will not adversely affect the hydrology of Mulgoa Creek, and

 

Comment: Mulgoa Creek is located approximately 700m to the east of the subject site. The proposed development will cause a small increase in the impermeable surface area of the site and thus has potential for an increase in stormwater leaving the site. However, due to the scale of the proposal, as well as the drainage concept proposed, it is considered that there will be negligible impact on Mulgoa Creek.

 

(n) unless it has considered any Development Control Code prepared pursuant to clause 17,

 

Comment: No development control code has been prepared in accordance with Clause 17.

 

(o) unless it is satisfied that the proposed development is appropriate for the size and shape of the land to which the development relates,

 

Comment: As discussed in detail previously the development site is substantially undersized when compared to the 10ha requirement under clause 14(2). Of particular concern is the requirement to rely on a pump-out septic system, due to inadequate space to provide an aerated system. Council’s on-site sewerage management system DCP , whilst not strictly prohibiting pump-out systems, outlines that un-sewered rural lots should be a minimum size of 1ha as a result of new subdivisions.  It is acknowledged that the proposal does not involve ‘subdivision’, however the intent of the policy is to restrict the creation of undersized allotments- to enable adequate disposal area. In addition, the proposal involves the removal of a substantive number of trees with little regard for the retention of the existing vegetation.

 

The application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development is appropriate for the size and shape of the land to which the development relates.

 

(p) unless it is satisfied that the proposed bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design and external appearance of that development is appropriate for the rural character of the valley,

 

Comment: The development is well setback from Littlefields Road to mitigate potential visual impacts on the valley. Moreover the applicant has outlined:

 

“The built form has also been designed to reflect the architectural characteristics of a traditional Australian Colonial homestead. These characteristics are represented by the use of a shallow sloping hipped roof form and wide shading, post supported verandas around the full extent of the built form. Further, windows and openings are relatively narrow with a strong vertical emphasis that contrasts strongly with the horizontal emphasis of the broader built form. Proposed external finishes include metal roofing and brickwork, which also reflects traditional materials used as part of this architectural styling.”

 

The measures outlined by the applicant are not disputed, however it is considered that additional articulation could be provided to the southern elevation, which fronts Littlefields Road.

 

Of greatest concern is the density of the development, given the large inconsistency with Clause 14(2) of the SREP- which clearly relates to the density of development. The application has not demonstrated that the density of the development is appropriate for the rural character of the valley. In depth discussion regarding the density of the proposal can be found previously in this report.

 

(q) unless it is satisfied that the proposed development will not adversely affect the amenity of the area, and

 

Comment: The scale of the development will have negligible impacts in terms of noise, solar access, or traffic generation. It is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the area. Again however approval would set a precedent with significant potential to impact on the amenity of the area.

 

(r) unless it is satisfied that adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which that development relates and it has considered whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved.

 

Comment: As outlined previously approximately 17 mature trees are to be removed as part of the proposal. The applicant has submitted a detailed Flora & Fauna Assessment in support of the removal of the trees. A number of trees on the site are able to be preserved as part of the proposal, and a condition of consent could require that the six (6) trees identified for removal outside the building footprint be retained, however it would be more appropriate to redesign the dwelling to facilitate the retention of a greater number of trees. 

 

A landscape plan has been submitted with the proposal. The proposed plantings are sympathetic to the landscape characteristics of the locality.

 

Clause 14- Dwelling Houses

 

Clause 14(2) outlines:

 

(2) A dwelling-house may not be erected on an allotment of land having an area of less than 10 hectares if that land is within the area identified as Area B on sheet 2 of the map.

 

The development site is located within the area identified as Area B on sheet 2 of the map, and is therefore inconsistent with this requirement. The site in question is 2439m² and represents only 2.439% of the required allotment size. The applicant has lodged an objection to this standard pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards. This has been discussed extensively in this report and the SEPP 1 objection is not supported.

 

Clause 16- Preservation of Trees

 

Consent is sought for the removal of approximately 17 mature Red Gum Eucalypts to facilitate the construction of the dwelling.  

 

A discussion of the scale of tree removal has been discussed previously in this report.

 

Clause 17- Development Control Codes

 

There is no development control code applicable to the site.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Design & Management Guidelines

 

Clause 12(d) gives a statutory role to the Design and Management Guidelines. The guidelines provide detailed advice on design, siting and land management issues covered by the regional environmental plan for Mulgoa Valley. An important point to note is where the guidelines stipulate; the guidelines are not intended to be rigid or prescriptive, but have been designed to provide flexibility in their interpretation and use. A summary of the guidelines is provided below:

 

 

 

Siting

 

- Site on mid-slope to avoid visual impact on ridges

 

The development is sited mid-slope and does not protrude above the ridgeline.

 

- Set back from public roads at least 30m,or at least 100m from Mulgoa Road. Site topography may enable/require variation of the distance

 

Proposal is setback approximately 50m from Littlefields Road. It is noted that the proposal is only setback some 17m from Church Road, however Church Road is part of a ‘paper subdivision’ and unformed at present. 

 

- Screen from view from heritage items and their curtilages

 

No heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

- Minimise excavation, filling and high foundations, by avoiding steep slopes and longer facades should be parallel to the contours.

 

The site is undulating and requires approximately 1.2m of cut to accommodate the proposal and is therefore not consistent with this guideline control.

 

-Group buildings to form sheltered sunny areas and avoid visual confusion

 

N/A

 

- No structures should be located in the view corridors linking the historic places of Cox’s Cottage, St.Thomas Church and Fernhill.

 

The structure is not located in the view corridors.

 

Vistas of Heritage Items

 

The guidelines outline that no development should be permitted in ‘certain vistas of the major heritage items’. The site is not located within these vistas as outlined in diagrams 3, 4 and 5.

 

Building Form

 

- Two storey height maximum.

 

The proposal is single storey with an external wall height of approximately 2.7m.

 

- Pitched roofs are preferable (e.g. minimum 30 degrees, maximum 45 degrees) and skillions alone should be avoided except as verandahs or for extensions.

 

The proposal exhibits a roof pitch of 20 degrees to the primary roof structure and a pitch of 10 degrees to the verandah, which is not consistent with the pitch stipulated in the REP.  

 

- Large elements, especially flat surfaces, should be avoided: facades and roof lines should be broken into small elements.

 

No large flat surfaces are proposed, with the front and rear facades broken into smaller elements through the provision of articulation, windows, and verandas.

 

-Horizontal rather than vertical emphasis of buildings.

 

The proposal places a horizontal emphasis on the buildings.

 

-Windows and doors expressed as openings in solid walls, with vertical rather than horizontal emphasis, and avoiding large unbroken glazed panels.

 

The majority of windows exhibit a vertical emphasis.

 

-Verandahs, wide eaves, trellises and pergolas to relate to structures to natural ground level and to vegetation.

 

The shared front verandah/entryway, eaves over the main windows and landscaping features will relate the front façade to ground level.

 

Materials

 

Building materials should match or complement those of older rural buildings and heritage items. Examples of appropriate materials are:

 

Walls- Dressed Hawkesbury sandstone, rendered brickwork, rendered concrete blockwork, pise, mud brick, earth wall construction, painted weatherboard (horizontal), corrugated iron, timber slab construction

 

Roofs- slate, timber shingles, clay tiles of traditional shape and colour, corrugated iron, and ribbed sheet metal.

 

Colours

 

Colours derived from the local natural landscape, especially the stone and soil, and from the traditional colours of the historic buildings of the valley are the most appropriate. Examples are:

 

·    Walls- Light Indian Red, Biscuit, Light Stone, Drab, Light Red/Brown, Light Cream, Pink Beige, Brown Pink. Lighter colours, but avoiding white and avoiding variegated and mottled colours in brickwork.

 

·    Roofs- Unpainted iron, Vellum, Light Olive Green, Paynes Grey

 

·    Trim- Bold rich deep colours such as Maroon, Terracotta, Brunswick Green.

 

Roofing will be incorporate the use of ‘bushland’ (khaki green) colorbond, exposed brickwork in Austral ‘Kings’ hue. Windows will be aluminium ‘Woodland Grey’, and posts, ramps and decking will be ‘Merbau Kiln Dried Dressed Timber’. The proposed colour scheme is generally consistent with the design guidelines.

 

Planting

 

- Retain existing stands of native vegetation (refer Figure 3.5 of the study).

 

- Retain historic plantings of exotic or non-local native trees and shrubs where they have been identified as significant, or which form a positive visual feature in the landscape, or complement a place of historic or cultural significance.

 

- Selectively think regrowth vegetation in the Fernhill/Cox’s Cottage/St Thomas Church precinct to restore the landscape to historic parklike character. In particular, retain the rough barked angophora species and their hybrids. For screening or to enhance this landscape character, clumps of three or four of these angophoras should be planted in appropriate locations. Naturally occurring seedlings or those specifically propagated for the purposed should be used.

 

- Where possible use local native species for revegetation.

 

The existing landscaping is not identified as holding any historic significance, however the scale of the tree removal is considered unsatisfactory as little regard has been given to the opportunities for the retention of vegetation.

 

Signage

 

- Related to style, character and function of the building or activity they advertise.

 

- Not freestanding in the natural landscape, but related to walls, fences, or buildings.

 

- No larger than 0.72 metres, maximum height 2 metres.

 

- No illuminated signs

 

- Guided by a distinctive sign system for the valley based on colonial letter faces, proportions, sizes and details.

 

No advertising signage is proposed as part of the application.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River

 

SREP No. 20 applies to the subject land and stipulates that the consent authority shall not grant consent to an application unless it is of the opinion that the carrying out of the development is consistent with any relevant, general and specific aim of SREP 20.  The general aims and objectives of the plan are directed towards improving the amenity of the river and protecting the lands within the river valley, including scenic quality.  

 

The proposal will have minimal impacts and is considered not to compromise the water or scenic qualities of the river environment given the satisfactory drainage concept.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008

 

Permissibility

 

The subject site is zoned E3 – Environmental Management under draft Penrith LEP 2008. The proposed development is defined as a dwelling house, which is a permissible use in the zone.

 

LEP & Zone Objectives

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with objective three (3) of the E3-Environmental Management zone:

 

To protect and enhance the open rural landscape of the Mulgoa Valley, including its agricultural qualities and its cultural heritage values.

 

This stems largely to those matters discussed in detail pertaining to the SEPP 1 objection.

 

Development Standards

 

Section 6.8 Dwelling Houses on Certain Land within Llandilo & Mulgoa

 

Section 6.8 outlines:

 

(2) Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a dwelling on land shown as “Clause 6.8 (2) land” on the Clause Application Map unless the land has an area of at least 10 hectares.

 

(3) If 2 or more lots need to be consolidated to achieve a minimum area under subclause (1) or (2), a consolidation plan must be lodged before or at the time of applying for development consent for the construction of a dwelling.

 

(4) The development standards specified in this clause are excluded from the operation of clause 4.6.

 

The site is identified on the Clause Application Map and thus Council cannot grant consent to the erection of a dwelling on the site, as the site does not have an area of at least 10 hectares. Subclause (4) is also of great importance, in that Clause 4.6 (exceptions to development standards) does not apply to Section 6.8. Clause 1.9(2) of the Draft LEP outlines that the provisions of SEPP 1 do not apply. Therefore there is no scope for a variation to the 10 hectare lot size for the erection of a dwelling house under the provisions of draft Penrith LEP 2008.

 

Based on this inconsistency with the Draft LEP, the proposal should not be supported as it is clearly in contradiction with the intent and desired future character of the valley. The provisions of the draft instrument should be given significant weight, as it can be identified as both certain and imminent. The application was lodged after the exhibition period of the Draft LEP had ceased, and is an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Draft LEP, as exhibited, before any potential for increased density is removed.

 

Section 6.12 Mulgoa Valley

 

Section 6.12 Mulgoa Valley lists a number of consent criteria which are detailed below.

 

(3) Before granting development consent for any purpose on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must be satisfied of the following:

 

(a) that any proposed building will not be located on a ridge top and will not intrude into the skyline when viewed from a road or other public place,

 

(b) that the proposed development will not adversely affect the historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of any heritage item in the valley,

 

(c) that the proposed form and siting of buildings, colours, landscaping, and building materials are appropriate for the rural character of the valley,

 

(d) that the proposed development will not detract from the vistas of a heritage item specified on the Scenic and Landscape Values Map,

 

(e) that extensive areas of vegetation will not be cleared for the proposed development,

 

(f) that adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the development relates and about whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved,

 

(g) that the agricultural viability of holdings and potential of the land will not be adversely affected,

 

(h) that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage resources on the land will not be adversely affected,

 

(i) that the view from Mulgoa Road and the rural setting of the villages of Mulgoa and Wallacia will not be adversely affected,

 

(j) that the safety and efficiency of Mulgoa Road will not be adversely affected,

 

(k) that any upgrading required to maintain safety and efficiency will not detract from the present rural character of Mulgoa Road.

 

These items reiterate many of those currently contained within Clause 12 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Mulgoa valley. As these have been discussed previously they do not warrant further elaboration in this section of the report, suffice to say that the proposal is unsatisfactory with regards to items (e) and (f) and as such the proposal should not be supported.  

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

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

 

The relevant sections of Penrith DCP 2006 are outlined below:

 

2.4     Erosion and Sediment Control

 

The applicant has outlined that the measures outlined in the ‘Blue Book’ (Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction) will be incorporated during construction. A condition of consent could reinforce this.

 

2.6     Landscape

 

A landscape plan has been prepared in accordance with this section of the DCP and is considered satisfactory.

 

The extent of tree removal has been discussed previously in this report.

 

2.9     Waste Planning

 

A waste management plan can be conditioned to be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

2.11   Car Parking

 

Penrith DCP 2006 outlines a requirement for two (2) parking spaces. The proposal includes the provision of two (2) parking spaces in a covered carport, and thus complies with the control.

 

2.12   On-site Sewage Management

 

The applicant has outlined that a pump-out system is to be utilised as part of the proposal. The policy outlines:

 

Pump-out systems have the following additional requirements:

• Installation of new pump-out systems will only be considered where no alternative systems are available.

 

Confirmation has been received from Sydney Water outlining that the adjacent site cannot be connected to the reticulated sewer system and the previous application for the veterinary surgery established that the current site cannot be connected to reticulated sewer. As part of the previous application for a veterinary surgery on the site, Council’s Senior Environment Officer outlined that the proposal should not be supported, as the applicant has the option of utilizing additional lots to provide an adequate disposal area- which is an option available to this proposal. This view is not disputed and whilst the proposal does not contravene any of the mandatory controls within this section of the DCP as it does not involve subdivision, it is inconsistent with its intent to achieve minimum 1Ha land areas for dwellings to cater for on-site effluent disposal.

 

2.13   Tree Preservation

 

The removal of trees has been covered previously in this report.

 

(a)  Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

 

This section is not applicable for the subject application.

 

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

 

Built and Natural Environment

·    The public domain and the public/private interface

 

No fencing is proposed in close proximity to the development site, which will ensure that the public/private interface currently associated with the site is retained.

 

·    Urban design matters

 

The design of the proposed dwelling will project a form that is predominantly consistent with the character of the locality. The level of articulation provided to the southern elevation is deemed inadequate, as it provides no address of Littlefields Road.  

 

·    Access, traffic and transportation impacts

 

The proposal will have a negligible impact on the existing road network. 

 

·    Site management requirements

 

It is the responsibility of the owner of the site to install and maintain the septic system, rainwater tanks, drainage system and the landscaping on the site. Such matters could be reinforced through the imposition of conditions of consent. 

 

·    The need for infrastructure and services like open space, water and sewerage, roads or social services

 

Water services already exist for the existing dwelling. As discussed previously the applicant proposes to utilise a pump-out system. This is undesirable, however it has been established that no alternative is available to the site.

 

·    Practical remediation measures to alleviate any concern and protect the environment

 

Landscaping the site would ‘soften’ the built form. A landscape plan has been submitted with the application and is satisfactory with the exception of the identification for a number of existing mature trees, located outside the building envelope, to be removed. These trees could be required, through the imposition of a condition of consent, to be retained. 

Social and Economic

·    Interaction between the development and the community

 

The interaction between the development and the community will be neutral, with no identifiable impacts.

 

·    Will the proposal threaten the local community’s desired future character of the area

 

Given the site falls well below the required lot size under the provisions of SREP 13 and draft Penrith LEP 2008, the proposal would set a precedent inconsistent with the desired future character of the area.

 

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

 

The proposal exhibits a number of non-compliances with development controls and relevant standards that confirm the proposal is not suitable for the development site proposed. These concerns arise from:

 

·    The requirement for a pump-out sewerage system.

·    The identified removal of six (6) trees located well clear of the building footprint.

·    The existence of a current dwelling on the land holding.

 

These matters have been discussed previously in this report.

 

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

(i) Referrals

The application was not referred to other sections of Council.

 

(ii) Community Consultation

 

In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposed development was notified to adjoining property owners and advertised in the local paper with the exhibition period from 16 April 2009 to 30 April, and from 2 June to 16 June 2009 to widen the extent of notification to affected property owners. One submission was received regarding the proposal, and the issues raised are outlined below:

 

Issue Raised

Comment

Permissibility of dwelling based on provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13.

This has been discussed extensively in this report.

Density created by the proposal as well as potential for the proposal to create a precedent which will enable further buildings within the immediate locality

This has been discussed extensively in this report.

Impact on the rural landscape and ambience of the locality.

This has been discussed extensively in this report.

 

 

 

 

(e)  Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

 

As the proposal is inconsistent with several aims, objectives and provisions of the relevant EPI’s and DCP, the development is not in the public interest as it would set an undesirable precedent.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

Section 94 Contributions are not applicable to the proposed development as no additional allotments are created.

Conclusion

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Mulgoa Valley, Mulgoa Valley Design and Management Guidelines, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River, draft Penrith LEP 2008, and Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 and found to be unsatisfactory.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is not well founded as it has not demonstrated consistency with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards. Matters raised in the submission objecting to the proposal are justified and the undesirable precedent which would be set by approval is not in the public interest.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0314 for a Dwelling House at Lot 21, 22, 23 and 24 DP 2721 (No. 341a) Littlefields Road, Mulgoa. be received

2.     The objection to the minimum allotment size prescribed by Clause 14(2) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13- Mulgoa Valley not be supported

3.     DA09/0314 for a Dwelling House on Lots 21, 22, 23 & 24 in DP 2721 at 341a Littlefields Road, Mulgoa be refused for the following reasons:

3.1       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not meet the following matters prescribed by Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.13 – Mulgoa Valley:

 

1.  Clause 3(2)(e)& (f)& (g) & (j)- Aims, objectives etc

2.  Clause 8 (3)- Zone Objectives, particularly objectives (a), (b) & (e)

3.  Clause 12(c)& (g)&(o)&(p)

4.  Clause 14(2)- Dwelling-houses

 

3.2       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not meet the following matter prescribed by Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008:

 

1.   Clause 6.8 (2)- Dwelling Houses on Certain Land within Llandilo & Mulgoa

 

3.3       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposed site is not suitable for the development based upon:

 

1.   The requirement for a pump-out sewage system

2.   The identified removal of five (5) trees located well clear of the building footprint

 

3.4       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is not in the public interest as it would set an undesirable precedent

 

4.    Those people who made a submission are to be notified of the outcome.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

5

Development Application DA09/0449, DA09/0451, and DA09/0452 for the formal closure of Malabine, Ballah, and Coolibah Lanes and subdivision to create a single allotment on each site, South Penrith  Applicant:  Penrith City Council;  Owner:  Penrith City Council    

 

Compiled by:                Jonathon Wood, Trainee Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Peter Wood, Acting Development Services Manager   

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

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

     

Purpose:

The development applications are referred to Council for determination as the proposal involves an objection to development standards, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards, with the proposed variations to the minimum lot width and area exceeding 10%. The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received and consent be granted to the subject applications.

 

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

Background

Council is in receipt of three (3) development application for the formal closure of Coolibah, Ballah, and Malabine Lanes and a torrens title subdivision to create a single lot on each site.

 

As the applications propose variations to development standards exceeding 10% they are required to be reported to Council in accordance with directions from the Director General under Department of Planning Circular No.B1 dated 17 March 1989.

 

The sites are all located within South Penrith and are three (3) of many walkways that have been provided to enable pedestrian access and provide connectivity between roads. A large number of these laneways have been a constant source of complaint to Council by nearby residents which stems largely from observations of anti social behaviour. At it’s Ordinary Meeting dated 13 December 2004, Council resolved to recommend to the Department of Lands the legal closure of:

 

·    Malabine Lane, South Penrith

·    Ballah Lane, South Penrith

·    Coolibah Lane, South Penrith

·    Baronesa Lane, South Penrith

·    Korimul Lane, South Penrith

·    Nardu Lane, South Penrith

·    Shannon Lane, St Clair

·    Javelin Lane, St Clair

·    Timber Lane, Werrington Downs

 

The formal road closure process, including the advertisement of the closures, has been completed with liaison between Penrith City Council and the Department of Lands. The current applications have been submitted to formalise the closure of the aforementioned lanes and for the creation of a separate lot in their place, which will in turn enable Council to approach adjoining land owners who may be interested in purchasing (part of) the lot from Council.

 

Should a number of property owners be interested, the newly created lot would be further subdivided to enable consolidation with adjoining lots in the future.

Site and Surrounds

Each site is dealt with in turn:

Malabine Lane

The subject site is situated on the northern end of Malabine Place and continues through to connect to Korimul Crescent. The site is some 229.5m2 in area and currently contains a concrete footpath that connects Malabine Place and Korimul Crescent. The surrounding area is characterised by low density residential development, with detached single dwellings being the predominant housing form in the locality.

Ballah Lane

The subject site is situated on the western end of Ballah Court and continues through to connect to Nerang Circuit. The site is some 228.6m2 in area and currently contains a concrete footpath that connects Ballah Court and Nerang Circuit. The surrounding area is characterised by low density residential development, with detached single dwellings being the predominant housing form in the locality.

Coolibah Lane

The subject site is situated on the eastern end of Coolibah Place and continues through to connect to Nerang Circuit. The site is some 238.4m2 in area and currently contains a concrete footpath that connects Coolibah Place and Nerang Circuit. The surrounding area is characterised by low density residential development, with detached single dwellings being the predominant housing form in the locality.

The Proposed Development

The proposed developments involve the closing of each laneway and the subdivision of each lane to create single lots to enable future subdivision and consolidation with adjoining properties. The proposal is supported by plans of lot creation and road closure prepared by Vince Morgan Surveyors.

Planning Assessment

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

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards (SEPP 1)

The aim of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards is to provide:

 

‘flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Act’.

 

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to the minimum lot width and area development standards of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6, which outlines:

 

Where development could, but for any development standard, be carried out under the Act (either with or without the necessity for consent under the Act being obtained therefore) the person intending to carry out that development may make a development application in respect of that development, supported by a written objection that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specifying the grounds of that objection.

 

The definition of a ‘development standard’ is outlined in Section 4(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as:

 

 development standards means provisions of an environmental planning instrument or the regulations in relation to the carrying out of development, being provisions by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements or standards in respect of:

(a)  the area, shape or frontage of any land, the dimensions of any land, buildings or works, or the distance of any land, building or work from any specified point,

 

The development control pertaining to minimum lot width and lot size is sufficiently defined as a ‘development standard’, and thus a SEPP 1 objection can be considered by Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 6, the applicant is required to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard, ‘is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case’.

 

The applicant has outlined:

 

In a recent Land and Environment Court hearing Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 - 21 December 2007, Chief Judge Preston identified ways in which it can be demonstrated that strict compliance with a standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable: 

 

1.         The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. 

 

2.         Establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary. 

 

3.         Establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

4.         Establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

5.         Establish that "the zoning of particular land" was "unreasonable or inappropriate" so that "a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land" and that "compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary"

 

Whilst argument can be formulated for points four (4) and five (5), the basis of demonstrating that compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable stems from point two (2). The site in question is identified as a ‘road’ which has subsequently been closed (and is formalised as part of this application). To facilitate the sale and further subdivision of the site, it is a requirement of the Department of Lands to register the lot. The intent of the proposal is to enable the lot, over time, to be consolidated into those lots adjoining the site. Therefore the site itself will not be developed as a separate parcel of land. The underlying objectives of the clause have been identified previously as:

 

(1)     The objectives of this clause are to prescribe minimum lot areas and minimum lot widths for land within a residential or rural – residential zone that will:

(a) provide for development that promotes housing choice;

(b) encourage lot dimensions and lot areas appropriate for development permissible in each zone;

(c) maintain the prevailing settlement patterns in each of the residential and rural residential zones;

 

As the site will not be developed for residential purposes on a stand alone basis, with the end result seeing the site being consolidated within the existing established settlement pattern, it is clear that the underlying objectives of the development standards are irrelevant. The consequence being that compliance with the standard is unnecessary.

 

Comment: Through the judgement in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 - 21 December 2007, Chief Judge Preston provided principles by which to assess an objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1.

 

The Chief Judge suggests that support of an Objection be based on the following:

 

(a)     That the objection is well founded

(b)     That the granting of consent is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1

(c)      That the matters identified in Clause 8 to SEPP 1 are satisfied:

 

   i.     Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

 ii.     The public benefit of maintaining the planning control adopted by the environmental planning instrument.

 

With regard to these matters:

 

a)   The objection is deemed well founded.

 

b)   The granting of consent will be consistent with Clause 3 of the SEPP, in that the applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the standard would hinder the attainment of Object 5(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for orderly and economic development of land, and that compliance with the standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

(i)         Non-compliance does not raise any matter of significance for state or regional environmental planning.

(ii)        There is no identifiable public benefit of maintaining the planning control adopted by the environmental planning instrument in this instance. 

 

Therefore in accordance with Clause 7 of the SEPP, Council may grant consent to the proposal notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the objection discussed above. It is important to note that in accordance with point 12 of Circular No. B1, dated 17 March 1989 and produced by the Department of Planning, the Director’s concurrence may be assumed.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998- Urban Land (LEP 1998)

Permissibility

The subject sites are all zoned 2(b) - Low Density, under the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998- Urban Land. The proposed development is defined as torrens title subdivision, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

LEP and Zones Objectives

The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of both the LEP and the zone itself as it will promote consolidation of the laneways with adjoining lots achieving low density residential development.

 

Development Standards

The only relevant development standards are contained within Clause 10(5) and relate to minimum lot size and lot width.

 

Clause 10(5) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998- Urban Land outlines:

 

(5)     The council must not grant consent to subdivision of land within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e) unless the area and width of each of the resultant lots will be in accordance with the controls for the zone set out in Table 1 below:

                            

Table 1 General Subdivision Controls

 

Standard Lot

Internal Lot

Zone No.

minimum area

minimum width

minimum area

minimum width

2(a1)

600 m2

20 m

700 m2

20 m

2(a)

600 m2

15 m

700 m2

20 m

2(b)

550 m2

15m

650 m2

15 m

2(c)

475 m2

12m

525 m2

15 m

2(d)

400 m2

12m

450 m2

15 m

2(e)

 400 m2

10m

 

450 m2

12m

 

The clause requires a minimum lot size of 550m2, and a minimum lot width of 15m in a 2(b) zone. The subject development sites do not comply with these provisions and exhibit the following dimensions:

 

·    Coolibah Lane exhibits a total size of 238.4m2 and varies in width from 3.67 to 3.69 metres. 

·    Ballah Lane exhibits a total size of 228.6m2 and is 3.65 metres wide

·    Malabine Lane exhibits a total size of 229.5m2 and is 3.7 metres wide

 

These standards are discussed in detail under “SEPP 1”.

 

2.   Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no draft environmental planning instruments applicable to the proposal.

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

The relevant sections of Penrith DCP 2006 are listed below.

 

Part 4 Section 4.7 Residential – Guidelines for Subdivision

 

This section of Penrith DCP 2006 relates to the subdivision of existing allotments of land, particularly infill and Greenfield sites. The proposals are not a traditional subdivision as they will not facilitate the erection of a dwelling house, nor will the resultant lots be able to be developed for any other residential purpose without further subdivision and consolidation. The intent of the current proposals is to facilitate the amalgamation and consolidation of the lot into neighbouring properties, should buyers be identified. Therefore an assessment against the provisions of this section of the DCP is not warranted. 

 

4.   Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

This section is not applicable for the subject application.

 

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

Built and Natural Environment

The proposals will not generate any impacts on the built and natural environment, as no works are proposed on the site.

 

Social and Economic

The proposals will serve as an initial step towards enhancing community safety and preventing anti-social behaviour. This will be achieved when the amalgamation and consolidation of the lots, to be created as part of this proposal, occurs. It can be seen that this is a positive outcome for the local community and addresses a concern often raised by members of the community.

 

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

The sites are suitable for the proposed subdivision and do not contain any identified constraints. 

 

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

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan for the City of Penrith 2006 – Notification and Advertising, the proposed development was not notified as it should be noted that the formal road closing process conducted previously, in association with the Department of Lands, involved the advertisement of the path closures to members of the public under Section 35 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

8.   Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

The proposals are deemed to be in the public interest as they will facilitate the practical closure of the laneways and enable future amalgamation and consolidation of the site to occur. This will be in the form of increasing the size of adjoining neighbouring properties should property owners be interested in purchasing the land. This process will improve community safety and rectify a situation in accordance with the resolution of Council at its 13 December 2004 meeting.

 

Section 94 Contributions

There are no Section 94 Contributions payable for the subject applications as the sites are all located within established residential areas where contributions only relate to creation of lots capable of increasing the residential population through additional dwellings which will not result without a separate development application.

 

Other Issues

Restriction on Title

To ensure the sites cannot be developed for residential purposes in its proposed form, it is proposed to place a condition on each of the consents requiring the registration of a positive covenant, with wording to the effect of:

 

The linen plan of subdivision is to be supported by an 88B instrument creating a Restriction as to User or easement regarding the following:

 a)     The proposed lot shall be consolidated with one or more of the adjoining lots prior to residential structures and/or development being permitted on the land.

Council shall be nominated as the only authority permitted to modify, vary or rescind such restriction as to user.

Conclusion

Council, at its Ordinary Meeting on 13 December 2004, resolved to proceed with the closure of the subject laneways for the purposes of improving the safety and wellbeing of members of the community. The current applications involve the formalisation of the lane closures and the creation of a single lot in their place, which will facilitate further amalgamation and consolidation of the sites to adjoining properties.  The applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 Objection pertaining to the development standards contained within Clause 10(5) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998- Urban Land. It has been demonstrated that compliance with the standards are unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and therefore Council may grant consent to the proposal in accordance with Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0449, DA09/0451, and DA09/0452 for the formal closure of Malabine, Ballah, and Coolibah Lanes and subdivision to create a single allotment on each site, South Penrith be received

2.     The submitted SEPP be supported.

3.     Development Applications DA09/0449, DA09/0451, and DA09/0452 be approved subject to the following standard conditions:

A02f             (Approved Plans)

G002            (Section 73 Certificate)

M008           Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the original plan and ten (10) copies shall be submitted to Penrith City Council.

All necessary easements for drainage or services are to be included on the subdivision plan.

The following information is to be shown on one (1) copy of the plan.

§ All existing drainage and services are wholly contained within the lot served and/or covered by an appropriate easement.

M009          The linen plan of subdivision is to be supported by an 88B instrument creating a Restriction as to User or easement regarding the following:

a)      The proposed lot shall be consolidated with one or more of the adjoining lots prior to residential structures and/or development being permitted on the land.

Council shall be nominated as the only authority permitted to modify, vary or rescind such restriction as to user.

M014          (Surveyors Certificate

Q008          (Subdivision Certificate)

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

6

Development Application DA07/0226 Section 82A Review of the Determination for a Multi-unit Housing Development  comprising of 20 Apartment and Townhouse Dwellings over Basement Car Parking at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76-78) Jones Street, Kingswood  Applicant:  Luvamo Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Amflo Pty Ltd    

DA07/0226

Compiled by:                Brad Roeleven, Contract Planner

Authorised by:             Peter Wood, Acting Development Services Manager   

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

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

     

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a formal request, under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to review an earlier determination which refused consent for the construction of a multi unit housing development. This report recommends that approval be granted for this application.

 

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

Site and Surrounds

The development site comprises two parcels of land positioned at the southern end of Jones Street, Kingswood. This site is of a regular shape, with a street frontage of 31.63m, a depth of 101m and a total area of 3,126m2. This land is set along an East-West axis.

 

The land slopes away from Jones Street east towards the rear boundary, with a change in level of about 4m over the length of the site. The land is vacant and only partially enclosed by boundary fencing. The only vegetation of consequence is three trees positioned adjacent to the southern boundary towards the rear of the site. 

 

The allotments are not burdened by any easements. The owners of 16 Edward Street (Lot 72 DP 241989) adjacent to the rear (eastern) boundary of the site have entered into a Deed, dated 12 October 2005, consenting to the creation of an easement to allow the land to drain to Edward Street.

 

Approval has been granted to DA 05/1023 for a minor subdivision of the subject land and road dedication works to permit the construction of a cul-de-sac at the southern end of Jones Street, opposite the subject land. A consequence of these works is the reduction in the size of the development site to 2,990m2. In light of this approval, this assessment has proceeded on the basis that a masterplan, as would otherwise be required by clause 14A of Penrith Local Environment Plan 1998, is not required.  All calculations for the purposes of confirming compliance with numerical controls is based upon a site area of 2990m2.

 

Jones Street is characterised by a mixture of older style single dwellings and more recent dual occupancies, villa and townhouse developments. This variety in built form arises from the transition from low density to medium - high density development consistent with the prevailing 2(d) Residential zoning.

Background

At its meeting on 5 June 2006 Council approved DA05/1023 for the construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising of 15 x 3 bedroom townhouses, with associated basement car parking, at the subject development site. That approval is valid for a period of 5 years, being until 5 June 2011.

Development Application 07/0226

Development Application 07/0226 (DA 07/0226) was lodged on 2 March 2007 seeking approval for the construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising of 20 apartment and townhouse dwellings over a basement car park. A brief summary of that development scheme is set out below:

 

·    The dwellings accommodated in a series of four detached buildings, each of two storeys, set in a linear arrangement down the length of the site. Block A, an apartment style building, comprises 8 x 2 bedroom units. Blocks B, C & D each contain 12 x 3 bedroom townhouses.

·    Block A, at the western end of the site, addressing Jones Street, would have a setback ranging from 3.5 m to 7.775 m. Block D, at the eastern end of the site would have a rear boundary setback of 6m. Side boundary setbacks range between 4.8m- 9m (south) and 3m-6.7m (north).

·    Vehicle access is via a 6.2 m wide driveway connecting the basement car park to Jones Street.

·    Basement level parking for 40 vehicles, including visitor spaces and a car wash bay. The basement design comprises a mix of single and stacked spaces.

 

The assessment DA 07/0226 raised the following issue:

 

·    The proposed development was unsatisfactory in respect of solar access and has demonstrated substantial variation to the development standards and departure to the development controls. Accordingly, the proposal is not supported.

 

The application was refused under Delegated Authority. The Notice of Determination, dated 21 July 2008, contained the following reasons for refusal:

 

·    The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives set out in Clause 13(1) (a) and (b) of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) in that the proposal provides deficient environmental performance attributed to poor solar design principles proposed to Blocks A and D of the proposed development (Section 79(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979). 

 

·    The proposed development does not satisfy the development standards stipulated in Clause 13(2)(a) of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) in that the proposal provides insufficient solar access in respect to a minimum 3 hours of direct sunlight to the living zones of proposed Unit Nos. 3,4,7 and 8 and TH Nos. 10,11 and 12. (Section 79(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

·    The proposed development does not provide effective internal amenity to proposed Unit Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8     and TH Nos. 10, 11 and12 due to insufficient solar access at a minimum 4 hours of direct sunlight to     living zones of those dwellings a stipulated in Clause 5.7 – Solar Planning of Section 4.5 – Residential – Townhouse Development and Clause 5.8 – Solar Planning of Section of 4.6 – Residential – Apartment Development in the Penrith Development control Plan 2006. (Section 79(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

·    The proposed development would create an undesirable precedent for inappropriate multi-unit housing development that is not in the public interest. (Section 79(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

Request for a Review of the Determination of Development Application 07/0226

On 25 November 2008 the proponent lodged an application with Council for a review of the refusal of DA 07/0226, consistent with Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application was accompanied by:

 

·    Amended architectural plans

·    Revised hydraulic plans

·    A written statement in support of the revised scheme, addressing statutory and merit based planning considerations

 

In summary the revised scheme incorporates the following key design changes from the original proposal:

 

·    Reconfiguration of the complex from 4 to 3 separate buildings. Block A, addressing Jones Street, remains unaltered in its orientation. However, all dwellings within Blocks C and D are now set across the site along a North- South alignment

·    Minor redesign of Block A to improve solar access, particularly those units along the southern side of that building

·    Alteration of pedestrian access onto and across the site through the introduction a linear pathway along the northern site boundary

·    Introduction of a second, communal, outdoor area of open space

 

An assessment of this information identified a range of issues that required resolution, being:

 

·    Submission of further supporting information

·    Submission of a complete package of architectural drawings

·    Inclusion of additional information within the architectural drawings to confirm or clarify various design matters

·    The need for design amendments to reduce the scale of the development, increase landscaped area, improve internal amenity/privacy/safety/accessibility, and improve the presentation of the development

 

The applicant subsequently lodged amended information on 20 March 2009. It is these plans which are the subject of this assessment. In summary, these plans include the following additional changes:

 

·    The size of the first floor of Blocks B and C have been reduced through the loss of 1 bedroom in 4 of the units

·    The plan and elevations of the first floor of Blocks B and C have been modified

·    Amendments to the material of construction and design of the western elevation of Block A

·    Changes to the configuration of the main pedestrian pathway along the northern site boundary

·    Various changes to windows size/design/placement of various units

·    Alterations to the arrangements for the collection and disposal of stormwater

Review of a Determination

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows for Council to formally review its decision of certain applications subject to specified criteria being satisfied regarding:

 

·    The timeframe within which the request for a review is received

·    The payment of required fees

·    The matter not having already been considered on appeal to the Land and Environment Court

 

In considering the application Council must:

 

·    Be satisfied that the application the subject of the Review is substantially the same as that in the original application, noting that the Act allows a proponent to amend their proposal in conjunction with an application for a Review

·    Publicly notify and consider any submissions it receives

 

All of the above criteria have been satisfied.

 

In formally determining an application for Review, the Act allows for the original determination to be either confirmed or changed, and requires the decision to be made by either a senior delegate, or by the Council itself. This matter is reported to Council for determination as the application was refused under delegated authority by Senior Staff.

Planning Assessment

1.       Key Issues

 

1.1     Land Contamination

 

SEPP 55 aims to provide a framework for the assessment, management and remediation of contaminated land throughout the state. Clause 7 (1) of SEPP 55 prevents Council from consenting to a development unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

Table 1 of the Department of Planning’s Planning Guidelines for Contaminated Lands identifies land activities which may cause contamination. The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, issued in 1992 by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, also contains a table listing examples of land uses that might result in land contamination.

 

It is understood that the subject land has not supported any activities identified in these documents. The information is sufficient to conclude that Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation report is not required. Accordingly the provisions of this Plan are satisfied.

 

1.2     Solar Access

 

The primary reason for refusal of DA 07/0226 was the lack of solar access to various units within the complex.

 

The initial plans lodged with this Review respond to this issue by altering the orientation of the rear group of townhouses such that they are now shown to be set along a north – south alignment. Various design amendments are also provided to Block A, at the Jones Street boundary, to improve solar access to units on the southern side of that building.

 

However, these drawings did not support the applicant’s contentions that improved solar access had been achieved. It was further considered that proposal also failed to meet the environmental performance requirements of clause 13 of PLEP 1998 with regards to protection from summer sun.

 

The revised plans received on 20 March 2009 now incorporate additional measures which improve solar access during winter, and afford better shade protection during summer. These arrangements are consistent with contemporary design principles for solar access and are now sufficient to fulfil the requirements of PLEP 1998.

 

1.3     Built form (Building length and building separation)

 

Section 5.2 of Part 4.5 of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006) provides controls regarding the length of building (20m) and building separation (minimum 4m). The objective of these controls is to achieve stepped or articulated building forms, allow for landscaped elements to visually soften and scale buildings and maintain amenity both within the site and for adjacent properties.

 

The built form nominated with DA 07/0226 complied with these requirements however the revised scheme the subject of the Review does not.

 

The initial revised proposal has realigned all of the townhouses on a north-south axis to improve solar access in order to address the reasons for which DA 07/226 was refused. To achieve this reconfiguration the number of blocks within this complex has been reduced from 4 to 3. As a consequence Blocks B and C, located in the centre and at the rear of the site, are both 27m in length.

 

The applicant was advised that the built form of the revised proposal was not satisfactory, and that the following design amendments were necessary:

 

·    Greater articulation is required to the footprint of Blocks B and C

·    The length of blocks B and C is to be reduced to 20m

·    Greater articulation of the southern elevation of Blocks B and C, particularly at the first floor, is required

 

The revised plans lodged on 20 March 2009 did not reduce the length of Blocks B and C, but did include various design amendments, being:

 

·    Greater articulation to eastern (rear) elevation of Block A

·    Townhouse Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 12 have been reduced from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms. This has reduced the quantity of floor space at western and eastern ends of the first floor of Blocks B and C, provided for a reduced building volume, building bulk and greater articulation to the line of the upper floors of these buildings, particularly along the southern elevation

 

The proponent also provided a written submission in support of this revised scheme, containing the following assertions:

 

·    The siting and form of the proposal mimics that promoted in the DCP

·    The scale of the building is strictly of 2 storeys and complies with setback, envelope and height controls

·    There are other developments in the locality which exceed the 20m building length control

·    The proposal is of a scale consistent with the size of the site and the outcomes allowed for under the current zoning

·    A development that strictly complies with the 20m building control would be of equal impact to this proposal

·    The design has been modified to improve articulation and reduce perceived scale

·    The site is of a size that could support up to 5 two storey dwellings which, combined, would present a similar bulk and scale to this proposal

 

These assertions are valid only to the extent that that the building has been modified to reduce volume and scale, improve articulation, and that it otherwise complies with the primary controls in the PELP regards height, envelope and setbacks.

 

However the suitability of the proposed building lengths needs to be considered in conjunction with the separation provided between those built forms. Without adequate separation between the blocks, a linear built form will read as an unbroken mass when viewed from surrounding properties.

 

While the 20m/4m controls represent a preferred outcome, arguably consideration can be given to longer buildings provided that the space separating each element is also adequate. In this proposal, the maximum length of Block A is 21m, while Blocks B and C are 27m each. The separation between the Blocks A, B and C vary at both the ground and first floor levels, as follows:

 

Blocks A and B

 

·    Ground floor

6.5m at southern boundary

10.5m through the centre of the site

10m at the northern boundary

·    First floor

7m - 11m at southern boundary

9m through the centre of the site

14m at the northern boundary

 

Blocks B and C

 

·    Ground floor

5m at southern boundary

3.5m through the centre of the site

5m at the northern boundary

·    First floor

6.5m - 14m at southern boundary

4m through the centre of the site

6.5m -14m at the northern boundary

 

It is evident that the separation between Blocks A and B, at both the ground and first floors, comprises distances well in excess of the 4m minimum. Proportionally, this separation is greater than the proportional increase in the length of the building beyond the 20m minimum.

 

For Blocks B and C, the separation distances at the ground floor, while an increase beyond the 4m minimum, are less generous. This separation distance would need to increase a further 400mm to proportionally reflect the increased building length. Further amendments to achieve this increased separation is not warranted however as it would not achieve any material improvement for the amenity of adjacent sites. Of more consequence is the separation distances at first floor, which are well in excess of the 4m minimum and are greater, proportionally, than the increase in the length of the building beyond the 20m minimum.

 

Design amendments to the first floor of Blocks B and C, being a reduced building volume and increased articulation at the western and eastern ends have sufficiently improved the massing, articulation and presentation of the buildings. These changes, in conjunction with the generous side boundary setbacks which will allow for deep soil plantings, and the stepping of the building down the site which breaks the line of the roof, will work in combination to provide an acceptable built form outcome.

 

It is therefore concluded that the building length and separation, as described on the revised plans received 20 March 2009, is acceptable.   

 

 

 

1.4     Drainage

 

Drainage easement

 

The majority of the site falls away from Jones Street and consequently it is not possible to connect this development to drainage system at the western of the site (Jones Street). This proposal therefore must rely upon an alternative means of connection to Council’s stormwater drainage system.

 

This application relies upon the creation of an easement over land abutting the site to the east (No. 16 Edward Street Kingswood). A Deed exists between relevant parties for this purpose. Notwithstanding that Deed, the easement has not yet been created and legally registered against the affected allotments.

 

To ensure that this easement is created this report recommends a condition requiring the applicant to submit evidence of its registration prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the development.

 

Stormwater collected from roof and hard stand areas is directed to two onsite detention (OSD) tanks for collection and controlled discharge to Edward Street, via the proposed easement noted above.

 

Council’s Development Services Engineer has reviewed these arrangements and is satisfied as to the technical aspects of its operation.

 

Clause 12(2) of PLEP 1998 provides a definition of landscaped area, being:

 

means that part of the site not occupied by a building and which is predominantly landscaped with gardens, lawns, shrubs and trees and is available for the use and enjoyment of the occupants of the site. It does not include areas used for driveways, parking areas, garbage storage areas or any area less than 2 metres wide, except a verge at least 1 metre wide that is located next to a driveway and landscaped with trees and shrubs, but may include a verandah associated with a landscaped area.

 

While the use of the setback area as an above ground detention basin is consistent with LEP requirements,  the setback area does not fulfil the above definition in that the rear setback is ‘not available for the use and enjoyment of the occupants of the site’. This is because access to the rear back is only available by way of a gate located at the eastern end of the pathway along the northern property boundary. The architectural plans include a notation to the effect that this gate is security access only to allow for maintenance of the detention area.

 

This rear landscaped area is a significant open space element whose contribution to the amenity of the site should not be lost in order to resolve a drainage matter. While typically the rear setback area might only be available to adjoining units, rather than as communal open space for the entire complex, the current scheme neither allocates this space to the adjacent townhouse, nor provides any other form of connection to this part of the site.

 

This matter can be resolved by design amendments and suitable condition has been included in the recommendation.

 

 

1.5     Landscaping

 

Total landscape area

 

Subject to the development being altered to ensure the rear setback is made more accessible, as discussed above, the revised scheme now achieves a minimum landscaped area of 42%, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 40% in clause 12(3) PLEP 1998.

 

The application was not accompanied by an updated landscape plan as it was recognised that landscaping in general was not a key concern, and that this element of the scheme could be reasonably addressed if it were possible to resolve the fundamental issues of built form and drainage.

 

This report therefore recommends a condition requiring the applicant to provide a revised landscape plan for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for the development.

 

1.6     Vehicular access and parking

 

Arrangements for access and car parking are satisfactory, subject to compliance with conditions in the recommendation.

 

1.7     Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

 

The initial scheme includes a primary pedestrian pathway extending along most of the site, set parallel with and close to the northern property boundary. This element of the proposal, as described in the plans lodged with the application for Review, was poorly resolved in terms of its presentation and utility, particularly with regard to crime prevention considerations.

 

The amended plans received 20 March 2009 have solved concerns with this pathway by:

 

·    Providing for a more generous design to improve the form of the pathway.

·    The provision of a security gate and video intercom to control access onto the site via this pathway and resolve the possibility of this pathway as otherwise implying public access through to Edward Street.

·    Minor modification to the northern elevation of Townhouses 6-12 such that each dwelling now has a clear entry point focused towards this pathway.

 

1.8     Privacy

 

The initial scheme as described in the plans lodged with the application for Review contained various instances where a poor level of privacy would result for certain units arising from window placements or treatment of the interfaces between private and communal spaces. These circumstances related to privacy within the site, rather than between the proposal and existing, adjacent developments. 

 

The amended plans received 20 March 2009 have resolved concerns through suitable design amendments.

 

1.9     Sustainability

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix) 2004 aims to establish a scheme to encourage sustainable residential development under which residential development must be accompanied by a list of commitments by the applicant as to the manner in which the development will be carried out.

 

Original DA 07/0226 was accompanied by the required certification demonstrating achievement of the prescribed water and energy conservation targets. Updated certification has been provided with the amended design.

 

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

 

The relevant planning instruments applicable to this application are:

 

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55- Remediation of land

·    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 20 –Hawkesbury Nepean River

·    Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1988- Urban Land

 

Subject to the recommendations in this report, the proposal is compliant with these instruments. 

 

3.       Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

 

No Draft Environmental Planning Instruments that affect the site.

 

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

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006) applies to the proposal and the relevant considerations have been addressed under key issues.

 

5.       Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Any Planning Agreements

 

There are no planning agreements relevant to the assessment of this proposal.

 

6.       Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

 

No matters prescribed in the Regulation are relevant in the consideration of this application. 

 

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

 

The likely impacts were assessed in detail with the consideration of DA 07/0226, and were limited to a lack of internal amenity (solar access) for various dwelling within the proposed complex.

 

Likely impacts identified in relation to the revised scheme accompanying this application for a Review related to matters of:

 

·    Quantity of landscaped area

·    Arrangements for the collection and disposal of stormwater

·    Design issues relating to building length, separation of built elements, bulk, presentation, privacy, solar access and internal pedestrian pathways

 

These issues are resolved through a combination of design amendments achieved to date, and the obligations arising from the conditions of consent provided at the recommendation to this report.

 

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

 

No circumstances have been identified to establish that the site is not suitable to for this proposal.

 

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

 

Referrals

 

The table below outlines the results of internal and external referrals issued in respect of this proposal:

 

Development Engineer

No objections subject to conditions

Building Surveyor

No objections subject to conditions

 

Community Consultation

 

The application for review was publicly exhibited in accordance with Part 2.7 of Penrith DCP 2006 from 10 December 2008 until 24 December 2008. A total of 15 submissions were received, all of which objected to the proposal.  The comments received are grouped, summarised and addressed below.

 

Scale

·    Surrounding developments are single family residences and there is nothing of this scale in the immediate vicinity

·    Council has previously rejected applications for 8 townhouses on this land – how is it possible to now build 20 units. The site can only accommodate only 10 dwellings

·    Basement car parking allows developer to profiteer by cramming 20 units onto the site

 

Response

 

The scale of the proposal is satisfactory; having been the subject has detailed consideration in the assessment of original DA 07/0226 and this current application for Review.

 

The application rejected by Council involved 20 apartments and not 8 townhouses.

 

Form

·    Proposal is aimed at the lower end of the rental market given the small size of the units and their poor design constant turnover of tenants will result in the complex eventually falling into disrepair

 

 

Response

 

It is not possible to comment specifically on this claim.

 

Location

·    Too large for a dead end street. Almost all residents in Jones Street will be affected

·    The site is the highest point in the immediate area and therefore will result in visual disruption which will detract from the character of the neighbourhood

 

Response

 

Consideration and assessment of traffic generation and impact upon the local road network has not identified any unacceptable impacts. While the visual presentation of the area will alter as a consequence of the introduction of this development, the degree of change is not considered to adversely erode the presentation and visual amenity of the locality.

 

Traffic

·    Will create more traffic congestion in Jones St and/or Second Ave, which is compounded during University semesters

·    Extra traffic will be dangerous for children and the elderly as there is no footpath

·    Has there been consultation with local/state traffic authorities regarding the feasibility of this development

 

Response

 

The issue of traffic generation was considered in the assessment of DA 07/0226 which noted that the proposal would produce a minor increase in local traffic flow, but that no adverse traffic generation impacts are expected as the local road network has adequate spare capacity to cater for this increase. Council’s Development Services Engineer has provided conditions for the upgrading of Jones Street (t create a formal cul-de –sac).

 

Amenity

·    Volume/noise/pollution from traffic and noise from the increased population on this site will erode amenity

·    Loss of privacy to adjoining site from overlooking from upper level bedrooms

·    No solar access in winter to the rear yard of each townhouse and no solar access in summer to common areas due to overshadowing from the proposed buildings

·    Significant overshadowing of adjacent properties in Calgaroo Crescent.

·    Air vent from basement will affect adjacent sites in Calgaroo Crescent. How is ventilation of fumes managed in terms of noise, filtration

·    Will common areas be constant lit at night?

·    An additional 20 dwellings will compound the effects of pollution upon existing housing

 

Response

 

It is acknowledged that the introduction of additional dwellings on to this site will result in a degree of increase in general noise however this will always be the case with new, infill development. No circumstances have been identified to indicate that this proposal would generate specific noise levels which would warrant refusal, or modification, of the proposal.

 

The proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable opportunities for overlooking of adjacent sites. Similarly overshadowing is limited, and will not materially reduce the amenity of affected allotments. Solar access to units and open space within the development is satisfactory.

 

Night-lighting of communal areas will be addressed via condition in the consent notice requiring details to be provided for approval with the Construction Certificate. 

 

Ventilation of the basement is not anticipated to impact upon adjacent properties given the location of the air vents.

 

Parking

·    Insufficient parking for dwellings and visitors which will impact upon existing residents

 

Response

 

The required number of on-site parking spaces, for residents and visitors, are provided.

 

Servicing

·    Additional cars parked in the street will prevent garbage trucks from being able to turn

·    In sufficient room for garbage bins to fit on the street for collection

·    Bins left out on the street will affect the streetscape

 

Response

 

Arrangements for access by services vehicles, and storage of garbage bins, is satisfactory. Creation of the formal cul-de-sac will aide access for service vehicles.

 

Security

·    No guarantee that security systems will be maintained over time

·    Courtyards may provide for observation/access to adjacent properties

 

Response

 

These concerns are not considered to be valid.

 

Pedestrian movement

·    Concern walkway linking Jones Street with Calgaroo Crescent which is very busy and is used by School children. As there is no footpath the children must walk along the street.

 

 

 

 

 

Response

 

This circumstance does not alter as a consequence of this proposal. Any approval for this application would include the requirement for payment of a levy towards the cost of construction a footpath.

 

Construction

·    Extent of excavation is excessive and will impact upon foundations of adjacent buildings

·    The period of construction will be considerable. Heavy vehicles accessing the street will make life difficult for months.

 

Response

 

Any consent would include conditions to manage construction impacts to minimize inconvenience and disturbance to the locality. The consent would also include conditions addressing the management of excavation and impacts upon adjacent sites.

 

Property values

·    Adjacent sites will be devalued

 

Response

 

This claim is not supported by any evidence to allow for further evaluation.

 

Drainage

·    Water runoff patterns will alter affecting properties to the east

 

Response

 

Stormwater is able to be managed to avoid any adverse impacts on adjacent sites.

 

Fencing

·    Will there be new boundary fencing ? If so, what type of fence is proposed and who will pay the cost

 

Response

 

This report recommends that boundary fencing details be provided on the landscape plan which the applicant will need to submit for approval. The cost of boundary fencing is to be met by the applicant.

 

Notification

·    Many residents were not informed of this application which will prejudice their ability to comment on the matter

·    Not one person was notified by council of this application

·    It is a very busy time of year to notify residents who have other pressing commitments

 

 

Response

 

The application was notified in accordance with Part 2, Section 2.7 of DCP 2006.

 

10.     Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

 

No circumstances have been identified to suggest that this development would not be in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions

The following Section 94 Contributions are applicable to the development and included in the recommended conditions.

 

Facility

Amount

Cultural Facilities

$2,266.00

District Open Space

$53,201.00

Footpaths

$1,628.00

Local Open Space

$19,232.00

Neighbourhood Centre

$2,728.00

Total Contributions

$79,055.00

 

Conclusion

This amended proposal accompanying this Section 82A Review has resolved the solar access concerns which underpinned the initial decision to refuse Development Application 07/0226. In addition, through negotiation with the applicant, the following addition improvements have also been achieved:

 

·    The size of the first floor of Blocks B and C have been reduced through the loss of a bedroom in 4 units

·    The plan and elevations of the first floor of Blocks B and C have been modified

·    Improvements to the material of construction and design of the western elevation of Block A

·    Changes to the configuration of the main pedestrian pathway along the northern site boundary

·    Various changes to windows size/design/placement of various units

·    Alterations to the arrangements for the collection and disposal of stormwater

 

It is therefore concluded that the application is now in a form that is able to be supported, subject to ancillary matters being resolved through the submission of further supporting information. These ancillary matters are included in the recommendation as conditions of the consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA07/0226 Section 82A Review of the Determination for a Multi-unit Housing Development  comprising of 20 Apartment and Townhouse Dwellings over Basement Car Parking at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76-78) Jones Street, Kingswood be received

2.     That pursuant to Section 82A (4A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council change the determination of Development Application 07/0226 to approval

3.     Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council grant approval to Development Application 07/0226 as follows:

3.1       Architectural plans prepared by Amflo Architects Pty Ltd

Drawing No.

Title

Date

Issue

06499-01F

Site Analysis

24.2.09

F

06499-02F

Site Plan

24.2.09

F

06499-03F

Basement Floor Plan

24.2.09

F

06499-04F

Ground Floor Plan

24.2.09

F

06499-05F

First Floor Plan

24.2.09

F

06499-06F

Roof Plan

24.2.09

F

06499-07F

Elevations/Sections

24.2.09

F

06499-08F

Elevations/Sections

24.2.09

F

06499-09F

Adoptable Units

24.2.09

F

06499-10F

Winter Shadow Diagrams

24.2.09

F

06499-11F

Summer Shadow Diagrams

24.2.09

F

06499-12F

Equinox Shadow Diagrams

24.2.09

F

06499-13F

Basement Ramp Details

24.2.09

F

06499-15F

Landscape Calculation Plan

24.2.09

F

 

3.2       Hydraulic plans prepared by United Consulting Engineers

 

Drawing No.

Title

Date

Issue

04MB1695/D01

Site and Roof Drainage Plan (Sheet 1)

17.4.09

L

04MB1695/D02

Site and Roof Drainage Plan (Sheet 2)

17.4.09

L

04MB1695/D03

Site and Roof Drainage Plan (Sheet 1)

20.3.09

J

04MB1695/D04

Site and Roof Drainage Plan (Sheet 2)

20.3.09

J

 

As amended in Red.

Standard Conditions

 

3.3       A008 -        Works to BCA requirements

A009 -        Residential Works DCP

A011 -        Engineering Works DCP

A014 -        Lot consolidation

A019 -        Occupation Certificate

A02F -        BASIX commitments

A038 -        Lighting locations

A043 -        Air conditioner for existing dwelling

B005 -        Mud/Soil

B006 -        Hours of work

D001 -                  Implement approved sediment & erosion control   measures

D002 -        Spray grass

D005 -        No filling without prior approval

D007 -        Filling of land

D009 -        Covering of waste storage area

D010 -        Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

E002 -        BCA issues to be addressed

E006 -        Disabled access and facilities

E008 -        Fire safety list with Construction Certificate

E009 -        Annual fire safety-essential fire safety (Class 2-9 buildings)

E01A -        BCA Compliance (Class 2-9)

F006 -        Water tank & nuisance

G002 -        Section 73

G004 -        Integral Energy

G005 -        Rainwater tank-Plumbing

H002 -        All forms of construction

H003 -        Traffic safety during construction or subdivision works

H011 -        Engineering plans & specifications

H013 -        Further details of building components

H014 -        Slabs/footings

H015 -        Termites

H01F -        Stamped plans on site

H022 -        Survey

H024 -        Glass installations AS1288

H036 -        Rainwater tank

H037 -        Safe supply of water from catchment

H038 -        Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 -        Rainwater tank pumps

I003  -        Roads Act approval 1

K002 -        WAE drawings & certificates

K004 -        Easement creation

K009 -        On-site detention

K019 -        Connection to Council’s system

K025 -        Pavement seal

K036 -        Performance bond

K037 -        Maintenance bond

L002 -        Landscape construction

L003 -        Report requirement

L006 -        Landscaping

N001 -        Section 94 Contributions

 

                                      Cultural Facilities            $2,266.00

                                      District Open Space                 $53,201.00

                                      Footpaths                                $1,628.00

                                      Local Open Space                   $19,232.00

                                      Neighbourhood Centre             $2,728.00

 

P001 -        Costs

P002 -        Fees associated with Council land

Q001 -        Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q006 -        Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

 

3.4       Roads Act Approval

           Under the Roads Act, 1993 the following works are to be approved by Penrith City Council before the Construction Certificate for the development is issued.  Plans and inspection fees are to be lodged with Penrith City Council for the following works in the road:

(a)       Provision of kerb and gutter, drainage, road pavement, vehicle crossover and layback along with any ancillary works for the provision of a cul-de-sac head in Jones Street.  All utility services affected by the proposed works are to be relocated to the satisfaction of the relevant utility provider.  Any additional driveway works required to provide access to existing properties in Jones Street shall be shown on the engineering plans. New driveway works shall match with existing.  All works are to be undertaken at no cost to Council

            Contact Penrith City Council’s Development Engineering Unit on (02) 4732 7777 to ascertain applicable fees

            All works are to be designed and constructed in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Part 2.3 Engineering Works and the Guidelines for Engineering Works for Subdivisions and Developments Part 1 – Design and Part 2 – Construction.  The works are to be completed before an Occupation Certificate is issued for the development

3.5      A Construction Certificate for the provision of engineering works (on-site-detention system) is to be approved by the certifying authority.  Engineering design drawings are to be prepared strictly in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Part 2.3 Engineering Works and the Guidelines for Engineering Works for Subdivisions and Developments Part 1 – Design

3.6                Land at the end of Jones Street is to be dedicated to Council, at no cost to Council to accommodate the cul-de-sac head and verge / footway area

3.7                All car parking and manoeuvring areas associated with the subject development including driveways, access ramp grades & widths, circulating roadways, turn paths, sight distance requirements, overhead clearances for people with a disability, aisle widths, parking bay grades and parking bay dimensions (allowing for full door opening) shall be in accordance with AS 2890.1- 2004 and Council’s requirements.  Full details demonstrating compliance must be submitted with the Construction Certificate

3.8      Submission of evidence of registration of a drainage easement over adjacent Lot 72 DP 241989 to be provided prior to the issue of Construction Certificate

3.9      Submission of a revised landscape plan, consistent Part 2, Section 2.6 of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, and to the satisfaction of Council, which must also include notations identifying arrangements for the fencing of all boundaries of the site. This revised plan is to be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

3.10    Submission of an amended design to which provides for an improved connection between the area of rear open space and the balance of the development. This may comprise alterations to Townhouse 12 to improve the visual and/or physical connection to this area, or otherwise improve communal access to this area. These plans are to be approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

3.11    All costs associated with construction of boundary fencing, as nominated on the approved landscape plan, shall be borne by the applicant

4.     All those people who made a submission to be notified of this decision.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Ground Floor

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Elevations

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 2 - Ground Floor

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 3 - Elevations

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

7

Section 96 Application No. 07/0742.01 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86-90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook  Applicant:  Corpus Christi Parish;  Owner:  Trustees Roman Catholic Church    

DA07/0742

Compiled by:                Deepa Randhawa, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Peter Wood, Acting Development Services Manager   

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

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

     

Purpose:

To determine an application  to amend Condition No. 16 of the Place of Worship Development consent to allow the windows and doors on the western side of the building to be open during mass and other gatherings in the parish building at Corpus Christi Primary School. The application has been assessed in accordance with Sections 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the report recommends that the application be refused.

 

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

Background

The school complex includes a multi purpose hall, which has been used by the Catholic Parish of Corpus Christi as a place of worship since Corpus Christi Primary School commenced operations in 1987.

 

The ongoing use of the hall as a place of worship was brought to Council’s attention during assessment of DA06/1014 for alterations and additions to the school. Council required a separate development application seeking consent to continue to operate a place of worship and to establish an associated parish administration centre at Corpus Christi Primary School, which was lodged with Council in June 2007.

 

At its meeting of 23rd June 2008, Council considered a report on this application and granted consent for continuation of the operation of a place of worship and to establish an associated parish administration centre.

 

The approval was subject to a number of conditions including Condition No. 16, to require all doors and windows to be closed when the public address (P/A) system is in use or when the band is playing in the parish hall. This condition was imposed to ensure compliance with a recommendation of the Noise Impact Assessment report to mitigate any potential noise impacts on the adjoining residential area.

 

Site and Surrounds

The school occupies an irregular, but essentially rectangular, shaped allotment of 4.331 hectares, set primarily along an east-west axis between The Northern Road and Andromeda Drive (see Locality Plan Attachment 1).

 

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

 

The school campus addresses Andromeda Drive. A substantial parking area with associated driveways is located adjacent to that street frontage. The school complex is principally comprised of two groups of buildings. The main section of the campus is positioned adjacent to the car park, at the western end of the site includes the parish hall.  (See Site Plan Attachment 2)

The Approved Use

Place of worship

Council approved use of the school’s multi purpose hall as a place of worship including regular scheduled activities, unscheduled but anticipated activities, and the annual events of Easter and Christmas.

 

These activities are described in the tables below:

 

Weekly scheduled activities

 

Day

Activity

Duration

Approx. attendance

Monday

-

-

-

Tuesday

·    Individual prayer

·    Mass

·    Choir practice

6.30 pm - 7.00 pm

7.00 pm - 7.45 pm

8.00 pm - 10.00 pm

 

40 people

13 people

Wednesday

·    Mass

9.10 am - 9.55 am

30 people

Thursday

-

-

-

Friday

·    Mass

9.10 am - 9.55 am

30 people

Saturday

·    Choir practice

·    Mass

3.30 pm - 5.30 pm

6.00 pm - 7.10 pm

13 people

360 people

Sunday

·    Mass

·    Mass

·    Baptisms 

7.30 am - 8.40 am

9.30 am - 10.40 am

11.15 am - 12.45 pm

140 people

260 people

140 people

 

Unscheduled but anticipated activities

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

 

Activity

Duration / Frequency

Approx. attendance

Funerals

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

Unknown

General

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

10 people

Sacramental programs

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

Not stated

Parish meetings

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

 

Social gatherings

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

 

 

Easter

Day

Activity

Duration

Holy Thursday

Last Supper Mass

7.30 pm - 11.00 pm

Good Friday

Stations of the Cross

Individual Sacrament of Reconciliation

Solemn Commemoration of the Passion of the Lord

10.00 am -11.00 am

11.30 am - 1.00 pm

 3.00 pm- 5.30 pm

Holy Saturday

Easter Vigil

7.30 pm - 11.00 pm

 

Christmas

Day

Activity

Duration

Christmas Eve

Vigil Mass

Mass

Solemn Midnight Mass

6.00 pm - 7.15 pm

8.30 pm - 9.45 pm

Midnight - 1.30 am

Christmas Day

Mass

9.30 am - 11.00am

 

Parish offices

The approval included for the use of the current primary school administration building as the administration centre for the Corpus Christi Parish.

 

The parish administration centre operates Tuesdays – Fridays, 9.00 am until 5.00 pm.

The Current Proposal

The applicant seeks to modify Condition 16, which reads:

 

“All windows and doors are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing”

 

 to read:

 

“All windows and doors at the rear of the building used as the place of public worship that face dwellings in Pluto Place are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing.”

 

The applicant has suggested an additional condition which reads:

 

“All windows and doors are to be closed during the evening band practice”

 

An Acoustic Report has been submitted in support of the application, which is discussed under the Noise Assessment heading later in this report.

 

(see Plan of windows and doors to be open -Attachment 3)

Planning Assessment

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act), provides that a development consent may be modified if it results in substantially the same development as originally considered and approved by Council. The current application seeks modification to a condition of the consent, which if modified would not alter the use such that substantially the same development as previously approved would result. Therefore the proposed development is within the scope of a modification request.

 

Additionally, the provisions of Section 79 of the Act are required to be considered for any application to modify a consent. The following matters are considered relevant to the current application:

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan -1998- Urban Land ( LEP)

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

 

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

 

The development control table in clause 9 of the Plan provides that a “place of worship” is permissible with consent in a 2(b) zone. The place of worship and the associated educational/ religious programs are considered permissible as these uses fall within the above definition. The proposed modification does not change the permissibility of the uses.

 

LEP and Zone Objectives

 

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

 

(i)         aims of the LEP;

(ii)        objectives of the relevant zone; and 

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

 

The relevant aims of the LEP relate to consideration of residential character, residential amenity and environmental performance.

 

(a)       to promote development which safeguards the residential amenity of the area; and,

 

(b)       to provide for high levels of residential amenity, particularly acoustic and visual privacy.

 

Assessment of the noise issues indicates that the proposal would be inconsistent with these aims, which are discussed later in this report.

 

The relevant objective of the Residential 2(b) zone is to:

 

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

 

Similarly, this assessment has identified circumstances which indicate this proposal would be inconsistent with this objective.

 

Clause 9(2) further requires that consent not be granted unless Council has considered the objectives of any development control plans applying to the land.

 

Clause 13(3) provisions for environmental performance in development require that consent must not be granted unless council is of the opinion that the proposal has taken into account the following:

 

(a)        the provisions of any development control plan relating to environmental

noise, including impacts on both generators and receivers of noise.

 

Consideration of the relevant provisions of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 is provided later in this report. 

2.       Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) Amendment No. 17

The plan proposes various, relatively minor, general amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). The activities proposed by this application would not result in any inconsistency or non-compliance with the terms of this draft plan.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP - 2006

The following parts of the DCP are relevant in this assessment:

 

Part 2.7 - Notification and Advertising

The purpose of this section of the DCP is to establish procedures for the notification of development proposals. This application was publicly notified and exhibited, from 1st December until 15 December 2008 in accordance with requirements of this Plan. The results of this public consultation process are discussed later in this report.

 

Part 4.2-GPart G – Non Residential Development

 

The objectives of the plan are to ensure that non-residential development should be planned and designed according to principles of traditional suburban design, and to preserve the amenity of residential neighbourhoods with the intent to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties, as well as to the neighbourhood character.

 

The amenity of the neighbourhood is likely to be affected by the noise impacts as discussed under Noise Assessment section of the report.

4.       Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

No matters prescribed in the Regulation are relevant in the consideration of this application. 

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

Noise Assessment

A review of Council records indicates that since 1987 Council has received complaints relating to loss of residential amenity from the continued use of the school hall for worship services. Since the most recent application to continue to operate a place of worship and to establish an associated parish administration centre, complaints and submissions on the matter have intensified.

 

The original application was accompanied by a Noise Impact Assessment report along with a supplement to the report to address the operational noise from the existing parish activities and assess the potential impacts upon neighbouring premises against relevant noise legislation and policies.

 

The report was assessed by Council’s Senior Environment Officer who recommended appropriate conditions to comply with the Noise Impact Assessment report and the management of the parish activities generally.

 

Condition No. 16, required all windows and doors to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing.

 

This condition was recommended by Council’s Senior Environment Officer to reflect the recommendation of the Applicant’s supplement to the Noise Impact Assessment report to ensure that compliance with relevant noise criteria was able to be achieved. The report recommended that if the use of the hall must involve a P/A system and band practices or performances, then all windows and doors are to be closed to meet relevant noise criteria.

 

The current application is accompanied by a Noise Impact Assessment report prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates and additional information provided by the applicant. This report includes measurements undertaken at two locations at Andromeda Drive and one location at Pluto Place during a Saturday mass where music was provided by a live band. The windows along the western side of the building facing Andromeda Drive were open during this time.

 

Council’s Senior Environment Officer has assessed the documents and has provided the following comments:

 

“It is concluded that the opening of the selected windows along the Andromeda Drive side of the building would not result in noise generation that exceeds the relevant criteria. However a point to be considered is that that the level of noise generated by a live band can be influenced by lowering the levels of the P/A systems and amplifiers and as such it would be difficult to determine if the band and the P/A system were set at the level they normally would use them at during these recent assessments.

 

Nevertheless this can be suitably conditioned and therefore it is not necessary to require further information at this point”

 

Keeping in view the above Council’s Senior Environment Officer has suggested an approval subject to a trial period of twelve (12) months, after which a further determination can be made and should trial consent be granted the following conditions be applied:

 

·    All windows and doors at the rear of the building used as the place of public worship that face dwellings in Pluto Place are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when the band is playing.

 

·    All windows and doors are to be closed during the evening band practice.

 

·    Only windows and doors outlined in the Music Noise Compliance survey provided by Renzo Tonin and Associates dated 21 October 2008 are permitted to be open during the times when the P/A system is in use.

 

·    In the event of on going noise complaints relating to the development being received by Council, the owner and /or occupier of the church and related development may be required by Council to obtain the services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to undertake a noise impact assessment on the development to address the concerns of the community.

 

·    The noise impact assessment report is to be prepared and provided to Council within 45 days of being requested. The assessment report is to be approved by Council with any recommendations being implemented in accordance with the approved assessment report.

 

·    Within 30 days of consent the P/A system is to be provided with suitable sound limiters to ensure that the sound volume for the system can not be adjusted beyond a level that would result in the generation of noise that exceeds the established noise criteria for the development. Details of the limiters are to be provided to Council. All bands and music are to be played through the P/A system to ensure noise levels can be registered.

 

The current Noise Impact Assessment report has demonstrated that the opening of selected windows along the Andromeda Drive side of the building would not result in noise generation that exceeds the relevant criteria and activities within the parish hall are generally able to operate without nuisance for surrounding residential properties while the P/A system or a live band is operating. However it should be noted that compliance is reliant upon sound limiters to ensure the volume for the P/A system can not be adjusted beyond a level that would result in the generation of noise that exceeds the established noise criteria for the development. 

 

In addition it should be noted that the consent for the use of an existing school hall as a Place of Worship was approved subject to high reliance upon mitigation measures and appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Noise Impact Assessment report and the management of the parish activities.

 

It is considered the issue of noise emission remains contentious. Compliance with the required noise criteria is reliant upon sound limiters and amplification only through the P/A and failure to do so may not maintain the noise to a reasonably acceptable level.

 

Given the ongoing noise related complaints, a due consideration is required to be given to the surrounding residential neighbourhood to ensure noise or other impacts are reduced or negated in order to maintain the amenity of the area.

 

A twelve month trial is not considered to be viable solution in this case as the mechanisms to control the noise within the permissible levels may be effective within the first twelve months of trial time, however may fail later on if not monitored consistently. Council requires to takes into consideration the long term reliance upon a management plan or practices to ensure compliance. Failure to ensure compliance will result in irrevocable circumstances and complaints similar to the current situation. 

 

It is considered an approval to allow the windows and doors to the western elevation to be open may result in irrevocable noise impacts that will have to be endured by the residential community and therefore Council is not in a position to risk any adverse noise impacts that may compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

 

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

The opening of the western side of the windows of the parish hall is likely to detrimentally affect the existing amenity of the nearby residential area and therefore it is considered that the site is not suitable for modifications as nominated with this application.

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

Community Consultation

The development application was publicly exhibited in accordance with Part 2.7 of Penrith DCP 2006 from 1 to 15 December 2008.

 

A petition signed by seventeen (17) objectors and one individual letter were received during the exhibition period. The issues raised are noise generated from the music activities in the hall and from parishioners in the car park.

8.       Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

The circumstances identified in the noise assessment suggest the at any potential noise impacts emanating from the P/A system is likely to result in adverse impacts upon the amenity of surrounding residents and therefore would not be in the public interest.

Conclusion

This application seeks to open the windows facing Andromeda Drive to the parish hall when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing. The key issue identified in the assessment conclude that the control of noise is reliant upon further mitigation measures and it is considered amendment to vary Condition No. 16 is not appropriate under these circumstances.

 

This consideration addresses the relationship of the development to its immediate and broader locality.

 

Having regard to all of the above matters, it is considered that the proposal does not meet the relevant aims, objectives and controls of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan-Urban Land 1998 and Penrith Development Control Plan 2006. As such, the proposal is not acceptable and it is recommended for refusal. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Section 96 Application No. 07/0742.01 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86-90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook be received

2.     The report on the Section 96 Application 07/0742.01 for modification of Condition No. 16 of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641  (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook, be received., be refused for the following reasons:

 

2.1       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that the proposal is inconsistent with the aims and  objectives f (i) and (ii) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998- Urban Land, which requires to promote development which safeguards the residential amenity of the area and to provide for high levels of residential amenity, particularly acoustic privacy”

 

2.2.      The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that the proposal does not satisfy zone objective (iii) for the 2(b) (Low Density) Zone in clause 9 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998- Urban Land (Penrith City Centre), which allows “a limited range of compatible non-residential uses”

 

2.3       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that the application does not satisfy Part 4.2 clause 8.1 of Development Control Plan –2006, which requires “Non-residential development should be planned and designed according to principles of traditional suburban design, and to preserve the amenity of residential neighbourhoods”

 

2.4       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the proximity of the adjoining residential development is such that the site is not suitable for this proposal

 

2.5       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that the proposal is not in the public interest as it is contrary to the recommendation of  the special condition No.2.33 of  item No.7 of Council’s meeting of the 23 June 2008 for determination of the original application for the development, which read “All windows and doors are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing”

 

3.     The persons who made submissions in respect of the proposal be advised of Council’s decision in writing.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Doors & Windows Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

Appendix 3 - Doors & Windows Plan

 

 

 

  


The City In Its Environment

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

8        Street Litter Bin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract

 

9        Variation to the Domestic Waste Contract

 

10      Clean Up of Illegal Dumping on Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council Lands

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

8

Street Litter Bin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract   

 

Compiled by:                Geoff Brown, Waste Management Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Barry Ryan, Waste and Community Protection Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Waste to landfill and indiscriminate dumping are significantly reduced and resource recovery is optimised.

Critical Action: Develop and implement service systems to complement waste reduction strategies and satisfy community needs.

  

Previous Items:            Non Domestic Waste Contract Tenders - Ordinary Meeting - 5 March 2007  

Purpose:

To obtain Council's approval to vary the Street Litter Bin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract in light of a major increase in waste disposal costs being passed on to the contractor, Remondis.  The report recommends that the waste disposal cost component of the Street Litter Bin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract be funded by Council and that this be reflected in the service price payable to Remondis.

 

Background

On 5 March 2007 Council considered a number of Non-Domestic Waste Collection Tenders and resolved that Remondis be the preferred tenderer for the Street Litter Bin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract. 

 

The agreement was signed on 28 May 2007 and services commenced on 7 October 2007.

 

The contract provided for the emptying of 462 street litter bins nightly and the waste disposed of at a suitable waste management facility that would optimise resource recovery (i.e. remove any recyclables from the waste prior to the residual waste being sent to landfill).  All costs associated with the emptying and disposal of the waste were to be borne by the contractor. 

 

The tendered price was $7,960.00 per week. This price is made up of two components – a collection cost and a disposal cost; the collection cost being $7,203.80 (90.5%) and disposal costs being $756.20 (9.5%).  This price is subject to annual CPI adjustments, as required under the terms of the Contract. Remondis nominated Galloway Waste Processing Facility at Seven Hills as the disposal facility. This facility processes the street litter bin waste and separates the recyclables. The gate fee at this facility at the time of tender was $90 per tonne.

 

The tendered price also included an adjusted service rate when the number of street litter bins increases or decreases above or below 15% of the number of bins in the field at the time of tender. This adjusted service rate is $2.189 per bin which is made up of collection and disposal costs.

 

 

Current Situation

On 30 May 2008, Galloway notified all its customers, including Remondis and Council that it would be increasing its disposal and processing costs, effective 1 July 2008, from $90 per tonne to $130 tonne - this represents a 44.4% increase in disposal costs.  Galloway claims the disposal and processing price was increased due to increases in the State Government Levy, coupled with increases in fuel, transportation and operational costs.

 

Remondis’ contract price variation only increases with the general CPI which was 3.795% from 1 July 2008.

 

Remondis has made a submission to Council requesting approval for a variation in the tender price to account for the exorbitant increase.  The adjustment proposed relates only to the tipping component of the tender price (9.5% of the total tender price) to account for the actual gate fee for disposal. 

 

The 44.4% adjustment proposed by Remondis will increase the annual contract amount for disposal/processing cost to $58,936.28 which is $19,121.48 more than their current contract entitlement. However, this amount only provides for the price quoted by Galloway for 2008/09 and it has now been indicated by Galloway that their price per tonne for processing will increase by a further 60% to approximately $200 per tonne in 2009/10.

 

Further, the waste levy will be increased on 1 July 2009 from $7 to $10 per tonne each year for the next seven years. It has also been noted from the release of the 2009/10 landfill processing rates that the operators of these facilities have increased their costs by up to 20%. These increases cannot be predicted and if Council did nothing then this would further exacerbate the situation.

 

The actual annual tipping/processing costs for 2008/09 (based on an estimated 288 tonnes @ $130 per tonne) amounts to $37,440 which is $3,375 less than Remondis’ current contract entitlement of $40,814.80.

 

Obviously, Remondis would have factored in a profit and inflation rate to their tendered price, to account for rising tipping/processing costs, however the inflation rate at the time of tendering would not have anticipated the increase that has been passed on by Galloway.  Remondis would be concerned that future unpredictable waste disposal cost increases would mean that the contract is not viable.

 

On considering Remondis’ proposal and examining alternative options for the disposal/processing of the street litter bin waste it appeared that a better alternative than considering the variation would be for Council to take responsibility for the disposal /processing costs of the street litter bin waste.

 

Prices obtained by staff for waste disposal/processing costs per tonne for street litter bin waste in 2009/10 are as follows (prices include the environmental levy):

 

·    WSN Eastern Creek Landfill   $157.27   (no resource recovery)

·    SITA Camellia MRF                 $152.50  (approximately 40% resource recovery)

·    Galloway MRF                $200.00   (approximately 20% resource recovery)

 

Should Council adopt the proposal to fund the disposal component of this contract then it will be recommended that the litter bin waste be transported to the Camellia MRF at $152.50 per tonne for 2009/10. Council staff have contacted Remondis to discuss the proposal and they advise that they have no objections.

 

Further, if Council adopt the proposal to fund the landfill/resource recovery costs in lieu of an adjusted service rate, the new collection rate for Remondis for the 2008/09 period would be $7,477.19 per week, or $388,813.88 per annum, representing collection costs only. This amount will be inflated by CPI in accordance with the terms and conditions on the contract for 2009/10.

 

Under the current contract the request by Remondis is not one that Remondis can legally enforce, however their request is not unreasonable given the uncertainty of increasing waste disposal costs.

 

Acting Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

In the Draft 2009-10 budget, an amount of $444,666 has currently been provided for the base Street Litter Bin Contract. The revised estimate for 2009-10 under the proposed pricing structure change to the Street Litter Bin Waste Collection Contract would be $433,039. This cost is based on current predictions of a zero per cent inflation factor for the year ending June 2009. This, when applied to the 2008-09 contract price, results in an estimate of $388,814 for collection costs. Disposal costs for 2009-10 of $44,225 have been calculated based on 290 tonnes at $152.50 per tonne.  The proposed pricing structure would therefore represent a saving of $11,627 on the amount provided in the Draft 2009-10 Budget for the Street Litter Bin Contract.

 

Legal Officer’s Comment

 

The terms of the current contract provide that the contract price can only be varied in accordance with adjustments to CPI. The only other method by which an adjustment in the contract price can occur is by mutual agreement between the parties. If Remondis are forced to absorb the increased disposal costs (something they could not reasonably predict), they are concerned that those increased costs may mean the contract is not viable.

 

In the circumstances, and on the basis that Council can obtain a significantly cheaper disposal rate, it would seem reasonable and beneficial to both Council and the contractor, that the disposal component of the contract be severed and Council take responsibility for the disposal /processing costs of the street litter bin waste.

 

Summary

Council currently pays for the disposal and processing of waste under the Domestic Waste and Non-Domestic Waste Contracts, other than the Street Litter Bin Contract.  Given the uncertainty and volatile nature of increasing waste disposal costs, it would seem unreasonable for the contractor to bear these additional costs.

 

Therefore, it will be recommended that Council take responsibility for the disposal processing costs and that the street litter bin contract be adjusted accordingly. Council staff will endeavour to negotiate longer term contracts with waste disposal/processing companies to obtain surety of price into the near future.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Street Litter Bin Waste Collection and Disposal Contract be received.

2.     Council approve a new pricing structure for the Street Litter Bin Waste Collection Contract to exclude the tipping component, which is to be borne by Council effective 1 July 2009.

3.     The new weekly price (2008/09) for the Street Litter Bin Waste Collection Contract be $7,477.19 per week ($388,813.88 per annum), subject to annual CPI adjustments in accordance with the terms of the contract, effective from 1 July 2009.  The adjusted service rate will be reduced to $2.056 per bin (2008/09), in accordance with the terms of the contract plus CPI.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

9

Variation to the Domestic Waste Contract   

 

Compiled by:                Geoff Brown, Waste Management Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Barry Ryan, Waste and Community Protection Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Waste to landfill and indiscriminate dumping are significantly reduced and resource recovery is optimised.

Critical Action: Develop and implement service systems to complement waste reduction strategies and satisfy community needs.

     

Purpose:

To seek Council approval to vary the contract.  The report recommends that the Waste and Community Protection Manager in consultation with the Group Manager - Legal and Governance be authorised to vary the Domestic Waste Contract.

 

Background

I refer to the Councillor Workshop of 9 February 2009 wherein Council was briefed on the implementation of the new three bin waste collection service (including organics collections), which is to commence on 3 August 2009.

The new service would provide a weekly organics service (food and garden waste), a fortnightly residual garbage service (leftover waste) and a fortnightly recycling service. Council was advised at this Workshop that a weekly residual garbage service could be provided (in lieu of the fortnightly service) for families with children whilst they (the children) are in nappies. The service may also be provided for people who need to dispose of waste on a weekly basis for medical reasons.

Council was also advised of various bin configurations in lieu of the standard service for households who compost their organic waste or those who have a large residual garbage (leftover waste) output.

Increasing the residual garbage (leftover waste) collection frequency to a weekly service constitutes a variation to the contract terms and conditions and requires agreement by both parties and both parties shall have regard to the contract aims and objectives in considering the variation. The aims and objectives include:-

·    To facilitate a sustained effort to increase the type, quality and amount of resources recovered from the waste stream

·    To maximise and preserve the resource integrity and value of recoverable and reusable materials within the waste stream

·    To provide high standard, integrated waste and resource recovery services, based on “best practice” principles, which are complementary to national, state and regional waste management policies, as well as Council’s own Domestic Waste Strategy

·    To fulfil Council’s obligations under legislation relating to provision of waste and resource recovery services

However, given the limited number of people who may require a weekly residual garbage service, in comparison to the volume of people receiving the standard service, the aims and objectives of the contract can still be maintained.

SITA have agreed to provide this service. The following table provides the cost for each additional weekly service, as provided by Council’s collection contractor, SITA Environmental Solutions. The current service rate is $1.25 which increases and fluctuates to a peak of $1.34 as a result of productivity levels and resourcing.

An estimation of the total additional cost (collection costs and disposal costs) is also provided.  These costs will escalate by CPI.  However, it should be noted that with food waste being disposed of on a weekly basis in the residual bin (which is likely to occur when households are provided with a weekly residual garbage service), this cost will escalate when issues such as processing waste through Alternative Waste Treatment Facilities, and the closure in 2014 of the Eastern Creek landfill site for the disposal of putrescible waste.

Table 1                           

 

2009/2010 Service Rate

Extra Weekly Service Rate

 

Up to 2,000

2,000 to 5,000

5,000 to 10,000

10,000 to 50,000

$1.25

$1.34

$1.28

$1.34

$1.09

 

 

Additional annual collection and disposal cost

 

2,000
services

5,000
services

10,000
services

50,000
services

 

$134,680

$328,900

$673,400

$3,042,000

 

It is difficult to estimate the number of households that will need to take up the weekly service option.

Statistics have been obtained on the number of people in the community who have profound/severe, moderate and mild disabilities, and children under five years of age (who may therefore be in nappies).

Given the variety of physical and/or intellectual disabilities, it is difficult to estimate the number of households that will need a weekly service. 

Whilst a weekly residual garbage (leftover waste) service can be provided to all properties receiving the weekly organics service, this will impact on:

·         the sustainability outcomes of our service (increasing greenhouse gas emissions)

·         the quality and quantity of recoverable resources (a reduced volume and a reduced quality of compostable products)

·         an increase in the amount of waste being sent to landfill

·         a significant increase in the overall domestic waste management costs

The following table indicates estimated waste diversion rates should Council provide a weekly residual garbage (leftover waste) service in addition to the weekly organics service.

Table 2                                  Waste Diversion Rates

Additional weekly services (households)

0

2,000

5,000

10,000

50,000

Waste diversion (from landfill)

66.52%

65.72%

64.51%

62.49%

46.34%

 

The lower waste to landfill diversion rate reflects the high likelihood of residents continuing existing practices of placing food organics into the residual garbage (leftover waste) bin when collected on a weekly basis. 

It is estimated that the service may be required by up to 2,000 households;  however, if this figure increases to 5,000 or even 10,000 there will be no significant variation in waste diversion targets. If the service was provided to all households there would be a substantial reduction in waste diversion rates, and it is unlikely that the objectives of the contract and domestic waste strategy would be achieved.

The NSW Government’s target for the diversion of domestic waste from landfill is 66%. As indicated above, this target will be achieved with the introduction of the standard three bin service including weekly organics collections, fortnightly residual garbage (leftover waste) collections and fortnightly recycling collections. The target will diminish with the provision of a permanent weekly residual garbage (leftover waste) collection. This will in turn impact on the aims and objectives of our contract and the City’s sustainability outcomes and potentially on future waste performance incentive payments.

Therefore it is essential that weekly services for residual garbage only apply to households with children in disposable nappies and residents generating medical waste (other than contaminated or hazardous waste) where the volume of waste and/or its odour nuisance level may require a weekly service.

Acting Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

The Domestic Waste Function is required to be self-funding and annual charges are calculated to cover operational costs and to provide a contribution towards the funding of future waste services and technologies.

 

As such, any variation to the Domestic Waste contract to provide for an extra weekly service would impact on the balance of the Domestic Waste Reserve.  The current predicted balance of this Reserve is $3.2m as at June 2010.

 

Summary

 

The new three-bin waste collection service provides for weekly organics collection (including food waste), fortnightly recycling collections and fortnightly residual garbage collections.

 

In light of concerns that residents with children in nappies and residents with medical conditions may not be able to cope with the fortnightly residual garbage collection, a weekly service will require a variation to the contract, as outlined in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Variation to the Domestic Waste Contract be received.

2.     The Waste and Community Manager in consultation with the Group Manager - Legal and Governance be authorised to vary the Domestic Waste Contract in accordance with the terms of this contract.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

10

Clean Up of Illegal Dumping on Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council Lands   

 

Compiled by:                Laurie Cafarella, Co-ordinator Community Protection

Authorised by:             Barry Ryan, Waste and Community Protection Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Key agencies, institutions, landholders and the community are cooperatively engaged in enhancing the visual amenity of the City.

Critical Action: Engage key agencies, landholders and the community in the implementation of Council’s Landscape Strategy and in promoting clean environments.

     

Purpose:

To advise Council of grant funding of $50,000 from the Department of Environment & Climate Change for the removal of asbestos contaminated waste illegally dumped on Deerubbin Aboriginal Land Council lands.  The report recommends that the information be received and that Council auspice $50,000 in grant funding to the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council for this project.

 

Background

Grant funding is provided by the Department of Environment & Climate Change (DECC) under the Aboriginal Lands Clean Up Program for the removal of illegally dumped waste on Aboriginal lands.

 

DECC provided the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) with a $50,000 grant in June 2007 to commence a rehabilitation project (Stage 1) on land owned by the Deerubbin LALC that has been subjected to illegal dumping.  This funding was auspiced by Penrith City Council.

 

Stage 1 of this project was completed in December 2008 and negotiations continued between DECC and the Deerubbin LALC for further funding to complete the rehabilitation of the site.

 

Current Situation

The Deerubbin LALC have held further discussions with DECC to finalise the clean up and rehabilitation of the land under the Aboriginal Lands Clean Up Program.

 

Briefly, the Deerubbin LALC’s proposal is to:

 

·             Complete the removal of friable asbestos from their property

·             Provide a perimeter fire trail around the site and remove unwanted fire trails

·             Revegetate parts of the site affected by clearing

 

DECC have advised that they are prepared to fund the Deerubbin LALC proposal but require Council to auspice the grant funding (as provided in Stage 1 of the project). 

 

However, DECC required that the grant funding documents be completed and returned within a two week time frame which did not provide sufficient time to report the matter to Council prior to execution of the documents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Clean Up of Illegal Dumping on Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council Lands be received.

2.     Council endorses the auspicing of the $50,000 grant funding to the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council for the removal of asbestos contaminated waste illegally dumped on Deerubbin Aboriginal Land Council lands.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


The City as an Economy

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

11      2009 Sister Cities Australia National Conference

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City as an Economy

 

 

The City as an Economy

 

 

11

2009 Sister Cities Australia National Conference   

 

Compiled by:                Colin Dickson, Acting Economic Development and City Marketing Manager

Authorised by:             Colin Dickson, Acting Economic Development and City Marketing Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Programs are attracting domestic and international visitors to the City for access to cultural and sporting exchange and experiences and language education and training.

Critical Action: The City's international relationships are maintained and opportunities for enhancing these relationships are explored.

     

Purpose:

To advise Council of the 2009 Sister Cities Australia National Conference at Tamworth to be held from 19-22 July, 2009.  The report recommends that the information be received and that Councillor Greenow represent Council at the Conference.

 

Background

Sister Cities Australia is an association of cities, towns and shires in Australia who have a sister city relationship with cities and towns from both overseas and within Australia. The association conducts an annual Conference that focuses on the framework needed to foster and support successful sister city relationships.

 

In 2009 the Conference is being held in country NSW in Tamworth between 19-22 July. The theme for the Conference is “Back to Basics” and the Conference program explores the framework that is required to successfully obtain and/or strengthen existing sister city relationships.

 

Sessions at the Conference will be conducted by a range of international and local speakers with sister cities experience along with a series of case studies/presentations by Tamworth’s sister cities - Gore, New Zealand, Sannohe, Japan, Chaoyang District, People’s Republic of China.

 

Current Situation

Councillor Jackie Greenow has indicated that she would be interested in representing Council at this Conference and considering her role as Chairperson of the Penrith International Friendship Committee, it would be most appropriate that she attend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2009 Sister Cities Australia National Conference be received.

2.     Councillor Greenow represents Council at the 2009 Sister Cities Australia National Conference in Tamworth from 19-22 July, 2009.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

12      Tender Number 13-08/09 Concrete Works - Footpath and Kerb & Gutter

 

13      Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road, Penrith - Intersection Upgrade

 

14      Status of the M4 Motorway Toll

 

15      Local Government Road Safety Program - Roads and Traffic Authority Grant Funding 2009-2010

 

16      Road Classification Review

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

12

Tender Number 13-08/09 Concrete Works - Footpath and Kerb & Gutter   

 

Compiled by:                Gowry Gowrythasan, Civil Operations Engineer

Authorised by:             Hans Meijer, City Works Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: An asset management strategy is in operation for civil infrastructure that optimises its use and maintains it to agreed standards fit for its contemporary purpose.

Critical Action: An Asset Management Strategy for civil assets is developed, maintained and implemented.

     

Purpose:

To advise on the outcome of Tender 13-08/09 for the provision of  concrete works for footpath and kerb and gutter as required on a unit rate basis for an initial period of 2 years with an option to extend the agreement for a further 1 year period with provision for rise and fall.  The report recommends that the information be received and that a schedule of rates contract be awarded to Kodi Civil Pty Ltd as the primary contractor with Devcon Civil Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

 

Background

Tenders for the provision of concrete works for footpath and kerb & gutter works were advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, Penrith Press and posted on the eTendering web site on 3 March 2009 and closed on Tuesday 31 March 2009.

 

Tender Documents

It was proposed in the tender that Council may select and rank up to three (3) companies and place them on a preferred list of Contractors.

 

Tenderers were required to submit their tender on a standard pro-forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria. Tenderers were also required to complete a schedule of rates setting out a unit rate for each component of the construction. It was stated in the tender documents that the work will be on an “as required basis” in accordance with the tendered unit rates. Estimates of quantities were provided as a guide only with no guarantee of actual volumes.

Tender Evaluation Committee

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Robert Lewis, (Acting Supply Officer-Contracts), Nada Karunakaran (Project Engineer- City Works) and Vijay Vijaysivajie (Project Engineer- City Works). Mal Ackerman (Supply Coordinator) was overseeing the process.

 

 

Tender Evaluation Criteria

The selection criteria advertised and used in selecting the successful tenderers were as follows:

 

General Criteria

·    Company Information

·    Tenderer profile

·    Company contact details

·    Critical Assumptions

·    Compliance to the tender and contract conditions

·    Conflict of Interest declaration

·    Conformance statements & other relevant Declarations

·    Business References

·    Relevant Insurances

·    Occupational Health & Safety

 

Evaluation Criteria-Tenderer’s Capability

Scope of requirements

·    Demonstrated ability in the construction of similar work

·    Relevant Experience

·    Response Times

 

Cost / Price

·    Unit rates

·    Payment terms

·    Rise and fall provisions

 

 Business Management

·    Financial Viability

·    Safety Record

 

Management and Administration

·    Project Management skills

·    Company Resources and Personnel

·    Quality Assurance Systems.

·    Environmental Management Systems.

 

Summary of tenders received

A total of 13 responses were received to the advertised tender. The response received from Holry Pty Ltd could not be accessed from the files provided and was subsequently withdrawn from the tender process by the Company.

 

Ally Property Services Pty Ltd

Chrisos Civil Pty Ltd

Danste Pty Ltd

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd

Enwon Australia Pty Ltd

Holry Pty Ltd

IW Contracting Pty Ltd

JAK Concreting Pty Ltd

Kodi Civil Pty Ltd

Pave-on-Line Pty Ltd

Performance Concrete Pty Ltd

Roadworx Group

Western Star Constructions Pty Ltd

 

Evaluation of Offers

Prices

Unit rates were requested for each of the specified work categories in the tender documents. Each item of work was allocated an estimate of quantity. Each of the tenderer’s unit rates were annualised based on the estimates provided and summarised in the table below from lowest to highest.

 

Tenderer

Annualised cost (ex-GST)

Kodi Civil Pty Ltd

$618,400.00

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd

$709,588.00

Danste Pty Ltd

$801,150.00

Roadworx Group

$831,310.00

IW Contracting Pty Ltd

$949,910.00

Enwon Australia Pty Ltd

$954,800.00

Ally Property Services Pty Ltd

$1,063,600.00

Pave-on-Line Pty Ltd

$1,071,250.00

Performance Concrete Pty Ltd

$1,460,500.00

Chrisos Civil Pty Ltd

$2,400,872.50

Western Star Constructions Pty Ltd

$4,178,300.00

JAK Concreting Pty Ltd

Incomplete price schedule

 

Comments on Price submissions

JAK Concreting Pty Ltd

JAK Concreting Pty Ltd submitted an incomplete pricing schedule by not specifying all unit rates as requested and was therefore excluded from the final evaluation

 

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd

The tendered prices submitted by Devcon Civil Pty Ltd had a number of exclusions these were as follows:

·    Asphalt restoration work; this was tendered as an extra based on a rate per tonne with a minimum of 1 tonne

·    Supply and place base material; this item was tendered at a rate per square metre

·    Transport and disposal of excavated waste; this was tendered at a rate per tonne.

 

Based on the unit rates tendered the additional cost impact for each of the specified items of work was calculated. The annualised cost for Devcon Civil Pty Ltd allows for these adjustments.

 

 

Danste Pty Ltd

In the tender received from Danste Pty Ltd an obvious error was made (to the extended value) whereby a unit rate was not multiplied correctly by the quantity. On the basis that this was a minor administrative error, this adjustment has been incorporated into the annualised total for the Company’s tender.

 

Compliance-Tenderer’s capability

All tenders received (excluding JAK Concreting Pty Ltd) were fully assessed against the evaluation criteria based on their submissions. The Evaluation Committee determined that all tenderers complied with the evaluation criteria and demonstrated their capability in performing the specified works.

 

After a review of the tendered unit rates, it was determined by the Evaluation Committee that there was no advantage to Council in further considering the higher priced tenders submitted by the following tenderers.

 

Danste Pty Ltd

Roadworx Group

IW Contracting Pty Ltd

Enwon Australia Pty Ltd

Ally Property Services Pty Ltd

Pave-on-Line Pty Ltd

Performance Concrete Pty Ltd

Western Star Constructions Pty Ltd

Chrisos Civil Pty Ltd

 

Although it was stated in the tender documents that Council may select up to 3 tenderers on the preferred list of contractors, it was determined that there was no advantage in selecting more than 2 in this instance as the anticipated volume of work  is insufficient to warrant a panel of 3 contractors.

 

Both Devcon Civil Pty Ltd and Kodi Civil Pty Ltd were short listed for further review.

 

Kodi Civil Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Peakhurst NSW, were incorporated in 2007 and currently employ 16-22 staff. The Company have been operating as a civil engineering contractor with projects including concrete works, asphalt works, footpaths, driveways, kerb & guttering, kerb ramps, roundabouts & medium strips. The Company have also completed works associated with road construction, car parks, landscaping, bulk earthworks, bus shelters and play surfaces.

 

The Company have recently completed kerb & gutter work for Campbelltown City Council (2009) and are currently engaged by that Council for their footpath program (work 25% complete). The Company also have an existing contract with Warringah Council to construct 140 bus shelters over a 3 year contract period. The Company have an integrated environmental management system that complies with the requirements of ISO9001:2000 (Quality), ISO14001:2004 (Environment) and ASNZS4801:2001 (OH&S)

 

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd

The Company is based at Blacktown NSW and were incorporated in August 1986 as Enileap Pty Ltd. The Company changed their name in March 2007 to Devcon Civil Pty Ltd and are a third generation family owned and operated business. They operate as a civil engineering contractor and have extensive experience in a wide range of associated works including; footpaths, cycle paths, kerb & guttering, stormwater pits, drainage and general concrete works.

 

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd is Council’s current contractor for the installation of new footpath works and has been engaged as the preferred contractor for the past 3 years. During this period their performance has been more than satisfactory.

 

Tenderer Interviews

The Evaluation Committee conducted interviews with both Devcon Civil Pty Ltd and Kodi Civil Pty Ltd. Both tenderers confirmed their full understanding of the scope of requirements and further demonstrated their capability in performing the required works.

 

Referee Checks

Referee checks were carried out on the short listed companies. In all cases reports indicate a high level of performance, workmanship and customer satisfaction.

 

Financial Health Checks

Independent financial health checks were undertaken by Corporate Scorecard (this Company is an approved contractor on the State Government Procurement List). There were no adverse outcomes as a result of the financial health checks. The reports received revealed that both Kodi Civil Pty Ltd & and Devcon Civil Pty Ltd are sound and both have the financial capacity to undertake the specified work.

 

Summary

Both Kodi Civil Pty Ltd & Devcon Civil Pty Ltd demonstrated their capacity and capability in performing the specified works. It is recommended by the Evaluation Committee that both tenderers be placed on the panel of approved contractors and that Kodi Civil Pty Ltd be appointed as the preferred contractor and Devcon Civil Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

 

 

Acting Financial Services Manager’s comments

The awarding of this tender does not commit Council to expenditure in relation to a specific project nor does a specific funding source exist.  Instead the proposed contractors will be used to complete works within existing budgets as required.

 

Tender Advisory Group comments

The tender for the provision of concrete works has been assessed and the Evaluation Committee’s methodologies for assessing the tenders submitted appears sound.  Having regard to the tendered price and the ability of the tenderers to undertake the contract work the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee is supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Number 13-08/09 Concrete Works - Footpath and Kerb & Gutter be received.

2.     Kodi Civil Pty Ltd be appointed as the preferred contractor for the provision of Concrete works for footpath and kerb and gutter for a period of 2 years (subject to rise & fall) with an option to extend the arrangements for a further 1 year period subject to satisfactory performance.

3.     Devcon Civil Pty Ltd be appointed as the secondary contractor to be engaged in the event that the preferred contractor is unable to complete allocated works within a suitable time frame or they are in default of their obligation under the terms of the contract agreement.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

29 June 2009

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

The City Supported by Infrastructure

 

 

13

Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road, Penrith - Intersection Upgrade   

 

Compiled by:                Craig Ross, Major Projects Manager

Authorised by:             Craig Ross, Major Projects Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

Councillor Robert Ardill

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Road network capacity, safety and efficiency are improved and traffic congestion is reduced.

Critical Action: A program is being implemented to address deficiencies and areas of congestion in the Local Road Network.

     

Purpose:

To provide Council with information on the proposed signalisation of the Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road intersection, the methodology for calculating the Benefit Cost Ratio, and a list of alternative projects.  The report recommends the information be received.

 

Background

At its meeting of 6 April 2009, Council called for a report that addresses the proposed signalisation of the above intersection and provide a list of alternative Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) projects in the City that are of a similar budget.

 

At its meeting of 4 May 2009, Council also called for a report that provided an explanation of the calculation of the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) for Black Spot project assessment.

 

This report addresses those issues.

 

The NSW government announced its commitment to the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Mulgoa Road and Jamison Road in February 2007.

 

The RTA has developed designs for the intersection upgrade and in the community consultation, indicated that the commitment was based on safety grounds and that $15m has been allocated to the project.  Earlier advice from the RTA indicated that the initial (pre-design) budget was set at $7m.

 

The RTA designs propose the removal of the roundabout and the provision of a signalised intersection with right turn and left turn lanes on all approaches.  A copy of the consultation material is included as attachments to this report.

 

Correspondence has been sent to the Minister for Roads and to the RTA seeking advice on the justification of the Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road intersection upgrade.  A reply has not yet been received to this request, however the community consultation material for the project indicates that the project benefit is increased safety for motorists and pedestrians.

 

Current Situation

Projects that Council submits for State or Federal funding require justification for the project to be part of the application.  Funding programs are generally of two categories:

 

·    Safety related (Black Spot) and

·    Capacity related (network improvements)

 

Black Spot Projects

Black Spot projects are nominated accident sites, where injury accidents are occurring or have the potential to occur (identified by way of a Road Safety Audit), and are supported by a positive BCR and appropriate crash remediation treatment. 

 

For Black Spot funding, the justification is based on the reported crash history at the site in question and the ranking of projects, for funding allocation, is based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) for the project. 

 

The calculation of the BCR is based on RTA methodology and uses the crash history for the preceding five years.  A value is assigned to accidents that would have been prevented if the proposed facility were in place (the Benefit).  There are also discounts applied to this amount for accidents that would be inherent in the proposed facility.  For traffic signals, there is usually an increase in rear end accidents.  The benefit is then compared to the cost of the facility to generate the BCR.  Projects are then ranked by their BCR with the available funding directed to the projects with the higher BCR.

 

For State or Federal funding, projects cannot be submitted without a minimum three injury accidents over the last five years accident data available to Council and with a BCR less than 2. 

 

The RTA selects projects ranked on a BCR after it has confirmed the accident history.  As there is a fixed amount of funding for each State each year, projects across the whole of NSW must contend for the pool of funds available. 

 

Generally 100% Federal funding is allocated to projects with BCR greater than 7 (depending on the strength of other projects nominated).  Unfunded projects are then considered for 50% State funding.

 

Council’s analysis for the Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road signals indicates a BCR of 0.08 based on a project cost of $15m.  The low BCR relates to the high cost of the facility.

 

Network Improvement Projects

For capacity related projects, the analysis addresses Level of Service (LoS).  This is a qualitative measure of the operational condition of an intersection or section of road which has been adopted by road authorities.  The LoS is a function of travel speed, delay, freedom to manoeuvre, traffic interruptions and comfort and convenience. 

 

To provide a solid basis for justification of road network improvements, Council developed the Penrith Arterial Roads Study (PARS).  This is a Sydney wide network model that has assessed the LoS of the main and secondary roads in the network. 

 

The projected growth in the area has also been incorporated into the model to identify the required upgrades to accommodate the future growth. 

 

The latest PARS analysis indicates the Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road intersection will require upgrading (based on capacity) by 2016.  The PARS model includes 5,000 dwellings at Penrith Lakes, which will have a significant influence on the intersection upgrade.  The Penrith Lakes development is currently under review.

 

Accident History

The NRMA published a media release in May 2005 that gave advice that related to avoiding accidents at roundabouts and Stop signs.  In that report it was indicated that the Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road roundabout was the third worst in NSW and had 34 incidents recorded.  The NRMA report indicated that the records were based on comprehensive insurance claims for 2004.

 

The NRMA also produced a list of “NSW’s Top 101 Crash Sites Based on NRMA Insurance Motor Comprehensive Claims Data”.  This list included the Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road intersection and ranked it at number 68 with 26 claims.  The list was based on comprehensive claims data for July 2006 to June 2007.  There is another version of the same list published that indicates that the source data is comprehensive claims for July 2006 to June 2007 plus compulsory third party claims data for July 2001 to June 2006.  The lists are identical.  The NRMA reports are included in the attachments to this report.

 

Council’s database for accidents is sourced from the RTA and includes injury and non-injury accidents where police are in attendance.  The accident details are sourced from the police report on the accident.  The RTA data does not include unsubstantiated/unreported accidents.

 

Table 1, below, lists the accident history for the Mulgoa Road/Jamison Road intersection based on Council/RTA data:

 

 

TABLE 1

ACCIDENT HISTORY

 

Year

Injury Accidents

Non-injury Accidents

Total

2000

2

2

4

2001

4

3

7

2002

6

3

9

2003

6

8

14

2004

3

5

8

2005

1

0

1

2006

2

0

2

2007

1

2

3

 

 

The NRMA top 101 list also has other sites in the LGA listed.  A comparison of Council/RTA data and NRMA claims for the listed sites is shown in Table 2, below:

 

 

 

TABLE 2

COMPARISON FOR LISTED SITES

Site

Year

NRMA Claims Data

RTA Crash Data

Mulgoa Rd/Jamison Rd

2004

34

8

Mulgoa Rd/Jamison Rd

2006/2007

26

5

The Northern Rd/M4

2006/2007

39

16*

Mulgoa Rd/M4

2006/2007

30

15*

Great Western Highway/Mamre Rd