31 July 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 3 August 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

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Karen McKeown - 29 July 2009 to 8 August 2009 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 20 July 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

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 27 July 2009.

 

9.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

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

 

11.         QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

12.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 3 August 2009

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY 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
Craig Butler

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Jim Aitken OAM
South  Ward

 

Acting Executive Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

Minute Clerk

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

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#

 

27

17#+

 

19

16#

 

 

 

 

 

#    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 20 JULY 2009 AT 7:44PM

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 Acting Executive Officer.

PRESENT

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

 

 LEAVE OF ABSENCE

208  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Jackie Greenow for the period 20 July 2009 to 21 July 2009 inclusive.

 

APOLOGIES

209  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the apology from Councillor Mark Davies be accepted.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 29 June 2009

210  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 29 June 2009 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

211  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:47 pm.

 

 

 

Mr David Williams

 

Item 8 - Development application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay. Applicant: David Williams;  Owner: David and Laura Williams

 

Mr Williams, the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal and outlined a brief history of the application.  Mr Williams detailed the efforts made to minimise the impact of the development on the amenity of the neighbourhood, with the aim of fitting in with the design of other buildings in the area.

 

Ms Jacqueline Connor

 

Item 8 - Development application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay. Applicant: David Williams;  Owner: David and Laura Williams

 

Ms Connor, representing an affected neighbour, spoke in opposition to the proposed development, citing impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and solar access.  Ms Connor stated that neighbours were concerned that the scale of the proposed development would be incompatible with surrounding two storey dwellings, and requested that consideration of the matter be deferred so that Council could consider some amendments to the proposed development. 

 

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

212  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:57 pm.

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Launch of Aboriginal Women's Art Project

Councillor Prue Guillaume left the meeting, the time being 8:00 pm.                                                  

213  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Launch of Aboriginal Women's Art Project be received.

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 3 June 2009         

214  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 3 June, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 10 June 2009                                                                                                          

215  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 10 June, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 July 2009

216  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 6 July, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

4        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting Held on 13 July, 2009                                                                                                                                     

217  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 13 July, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Audit Committee                                                                                                                 

218  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the information contained in the report on Audit Committee be received.

 

2        Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 38 DP 607665, No. 5 Tasman Street, Cambridge Park.  Applicant:  David Walter Pty Ltd on behalf of M Christie & R Mason - Owner:  Penrith City Council                                                                                             

219  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 38 DP 607665, No. 5 Tasman Street, Cambridge Park.  Applicant:  David Walter Pty Ltd on behalf of M Christie & R Mason - Owner:  Penrith City Council be received.

2.     Council grant an easement to drain water over Open Space land on Lot 38 DP 607665, No. 5 Tasman Street, Cambridge Park to benefit Lots 217/218 DP 13531, No. 27 Eton Road, Cambridge Park.

3.     Payment of compensation by the applicant to Council in the amount of $4,000 be required for the grant of the easement over Lot 38 DP 607665, No. 5 Tasman Street, Cambridge Park.

4.     The applicant be responsible for all drainage costs including the extension of Council’s 750mm pipe by a minimum distance of 4.8 metres at the rear of No 23 Eton Road.

5.     The applicant be responsible for all survey, legal and registration costs associated with the creation of the easement.

6.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all necessary documentation to effect registration of the easement.

 

 

3        Summary of Investments for the period 1 June 2009 to 30 June 2009                            

220  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

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

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

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

4.   The Agency Collection Methods as at 30 June 2009 be noted.

 

 

4        Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference                                          

221  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

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

2.     Council nominate Councillors John Thain, Marko Malkoc and Kevin Crameri OAM as its representatives to attend the Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume returned to the meeting, the time being 8:03 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

6        Community Assistance Program 2008 - 09 Rolling Component - Projects Approved Under Delegation January - June 2009                                                                                        

222  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the information contained in the report on Community Assistance Program 2008 - 09 Rolling Component - Projects Approved Under Delegation January - June 2009 be received.

 

 

5        Support Services for Men in the Penrith LGA                                                                 

223  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Support Services for Men in the Penrith LGA be received.

2.     A Men’s Services Sector Strategy Action Plan be developed, similar to the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy.

3.     The information summarised in the report on Support Services for Men in the Penrith LGA be distributed as widely as possible throughout the local area, including all neighbourhood centres and other relevant agencies.

 

7        Fair Trade                                                                                                                           

224  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Fair Trade  be received.

2.     Council endorse a trial of the purchase of Fair Trade products and a report be submitted to Council upon completion of this trial.

3.     Council investigate details of other products which meet the principles of Fair Trade.

 

 

A Green City

 

8        Development application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay. Applicant: David Williams;  Owner: David and Laura Williams                                                                                                                           DA09/0323

225  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that further consideration of this matter be deferred until the Ordinary Meeting of 3 August 2009, pending a site visit by Councillors. 

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 Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

 

 

A Liveable City

 

9        Tender Number 11-08/09 Construction of Gross Pollutant Trap - Mamre Road           

226  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Number 11-08/09 Construction of Gross Pollutant Trap - Mamre Road be received.

2.     The tender received from Devcon Civil Pty Ltd be accepted and a contract awarded for the construction of a Gross Pollutant Trap at Mamre Road St Marys for the lump sum fixed cost of $114,980.27 plus GST.

3.     A memo be provided to all Councillors following completion of this project, summarising the overall project cost.

 

10      Belar Place and Carinya Avenue Carpark, St Marys                                                      

227  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Belar Place and Carinya Avenue Carpark, St Marys be received.

2.     The total estimated cost of $95,000 to formalise both car parks, be provided from Council’s Car park Reserve Fund.

3.     An urgent report be presented to Council outlining the feasibility of linemarking all carparks in West Lane, St Marys.

 

 

11      Turf Cricket Wicket Construction at Jamison Park Field No. 5 and Dukes Oval Practice Wickets                                                                                                                               

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Turf Cricket Wicket Construction at Jamison Park Field No. 5 and Dukes Oval Practice Wickets be received.

2.     Council allocate $66,000 from the Recreation Reserve as a contribution towards the development of Turf Cricket Wicket Construction at Jamison Park Field No. 5 and Dukes Oval Practice Wickets.

3.     Council offer to loan an amount of $23,000 to the Nepean District Cricket Association, which is to be repaid within 12 months from entering into a loan agreement.

 

 

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

QWN 1      Penrith Museum of Printing - Purchase of Printing Press                                      

Councillor John Thain requested that an amount of $375, be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works, towards the purchase of a printing press for the Penrith Museum of Printing.

 

229  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain 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.

 

 

230  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that an amount of $375, be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works, towards the purchase of a printing press for the Penrith Museum of Printing.

 

 

QWN 2      Damage to Corner of Nutt and Boscobel Roads, Londonderry                             

Councillor John Thain requested a memo reply to all Councillors detailing the findings of an inspection of the corner of Nutt and Boscobel Roads, Londonderry to ascertain damage to drainage in this area.

 

QWN 3      'Keep Penrith Working'                                                                                            

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council concerning the ‘Keep Penrith Working’ report, and including Council participation and considering the possibility of appointing ‘Keep Penrith Working’ Champions.

 

QWN 4      Dangerous Tree - Chateau Place, St Clair                                                              

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply concerning a dangerous tree in a property in Chateau Place, St Clair and requested that an on-site meeting take place with the owner of the property with a view to the removal of the tree.

 

QWN 5      Broken Street Light - Francis Greenway Avenue, St Clair                                    

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply concerning a broken street light in Francis Greenway Avenue, St Clair and requested that this be repaired as a matter of urgency.

 

QWN 6      Speeding Vehicles in Lester Place, St Clair                                                            

Councillor Tanya Davies requested that the matter of speeding vehicles in Lester Place, St Clair be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for investigation, including the installation of a speed monitoring device.

 

QWN 7      Advertising Program for New 3 Bin Waste Service                                                

Councillor Tanya Davies requested that Council review its advertising program regarding the new 3 Bin Waste Service, specifically outlining options for changes to size of bin and /or frequency of collection of the different bins.  Councillor Tanya Davies also requested that a contact name be provided for those member of the community seeking information in this regard.

 

QWN 8      Samuel Marsden Baseball Fields                                                                            

Councillor Robert Ardill requested a report to Council outlining funding options to assist with the preparation of the Samuel Marsden Baseball Fields for the International Masters Games to be held in October this year.

 

QWN 9      Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre - Safety Concerns                                           

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that Council write a letter to the Management Committee of the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre concerning occupational health and safety issues at Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre, raised by staff of the Werrington Community Project Inc. 

 

QWN 10    Commercial Matter - to be considered in Committee of the Whole                      

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that an item concerning a legal matter be referred to Committee of the Whole as the item refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

QWN 11    Fundraising for Purchase of Porte Welcab Vehicle                                                 

Councillor Greg Davies requested that an amount of $1,800 be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works, towards the provision of two fundraising events to enable the purchase of a Porte Welcab vehicle.

 

231  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.

 

 

232  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that an amount of $1,800 be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works, towards the provision of two fundraising events to enable the purchase of a Porte Welcab vehicle.

 

QWN 12    Advertising Program for New 3 Bin Waste Service                                                

Councillor Greg Davies requested an urgent meeting to discuss the advertising campaign for the new garbage service.

 

QWN 13    Footpath outside Autumnleaf Neighbourhood Centre                                            

Councillor Greg Davies requested that an amount of $5,850 be allocated from East Ward voted works, towards the provision of a footpath outside Autumnleaf Neighbourhood Centre.

 

233  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.

 

 

234  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that an amount of $5,850 be allocated from East Ward voted works, towards the provision of a footpath outside Autumnleaf Neighbourhood Centre.

 

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:40 pm.

 

QWN 14    Leave of Absence                                                                                                     

Councillor Karen McKeown requested Leave of Absence from 29 July 2009 to 8 August 2009 inclusive.

 

QWN 15    Mulgoa Progress Association Bicentenary Celebrations                                       

Councillor Karen McKeown requested an urgent report outlining possible activities to celebrate the Mulgoa Progress Association Bicentenary, and funding sources, for approximately $5,000, to enable this event to proceed.

 

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:43 pm.

 

QWN 16    Location of Bus Stop in Maxwell Street, South Penrith                                         

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply addressing the concerns of a business owner in Maxwell Street, South Penrith regarding the bus stop which has been located outside his business address.

 

Committee of the Whole

 

235  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:44 pm.

 

Councillor Robert Ardill left the meeting, the time being 8:44 pm.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 8:44 pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

Councillor Robert Ardill returned to the meeting, the time being 8:45 pm.

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Tanya Davies that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

A Leading City

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lease of Shops 1 & 2 at Gaymark Place, 134 Henry Street Penrith                                                                                                                      

 

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.

 

 

A Green City

 

3        Legal Matter - 13 Chapman Street, Werrington                                                              

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

4        Commercial Matter 

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as it refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

The meeting resumed at 9:03 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:44 pm on 20 July 2009, the following being present

 

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch,  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 - Council Property - Lease of Shops 1 & 2 at Gaymark Place, 134 Henry Street Penrith                                                                                                                      

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

CW2 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lease of Shops 1 & 2 at Gaymark Place, 134 Henry Street Penrith be received.

2.     Council grant a two (2) year lease with a two (2) year option to Stephen Lanyon and Ellen Brabin in accordance with the terms and conditions as outlined in the report.

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

 

 

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 8:47 pm.

 

 

3        Legal Matter - 13 Chapman Street, Werrington                                                              

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

CW3 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Legal Matter - 13 Chapman Street, Werrington be received.

2.     Council facilitate the removal of waste from the subject site.

3.     Council request the RID Squad meet the cost of the removal and disposal of the waste.

4.     Following the removal of the waste, the owner be requested to remove overgrown material from the site and secure it to prevent further incidents of waste disposal.

 

 

4        Commercial Matter

 

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM  seconded Councillor John Thain

 

          CW4  That all matters relating to the issue of orders and the commencement of proceedings relating to unauthorised business activities in rural areas be deferred until after the LEP process for Stage 1 is finalised by the Council.

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

236  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Tanya Davies that the recommendation contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 be adopted.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:08 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                                                       

   


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 27 July, 2009

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Leading City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 27 July, 2009

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill (arrived 7:47pm), 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 - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 13 July 2009

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 13 July 2009 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

1        Draft Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy

Community and Cultural Development Manager, Erich Weller and Community Programs Co-ordinator, Joe Ibbitson gave a presentation on the Draft Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 7:35pm.

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 7:38pm.

Councillor Robert Ardill arrived to the meeting, the time being 7:47pm.

         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy be received

2.     Council endorse the Draft Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy for Public Exhibition for a period of 28 days.

3.     That a further report be prepared on the outcomes of the Public Exhibition process and any proposed changes to the documentation for consideration by Council.

 

4.     A memo reply be provided to all Councillors outlining measures to encourage people to become involved in volunteering and also detailing the strategies employed to communicate the Draft Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy.

 

 

2        Housing Opportunities for Older People                                                                           

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Housing Opportunities for Older People be received

2.     Council host a Mayoral Forum for accessible Housing Opportunities for Older People and Older People with disability in Penrith LGA as outlined in this report.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:13pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 27 July, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

A Leading City

 

1        2009 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference

 

2        RTA 2009/2010 Road Funding Grants

 

URGENT

 

12      Community Building Partnership applications from Penrith City Council

  

A Green City

 

3        Development application DA08/0886 Expansion of existing educational establishment Lot 201 & 202 DP 1021191 Lot 11 & 12 DP 1037710 (No. 132-140) Bringelly Road, Orchard Hills. Applicant: Ingham Planning;  Owner: Pared Ltd DA08/0886

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

 

4        Development Application DA09/0221 for a Community Facility at Lots 7, 8 and 9 DP 247158 (No. 46) Bringelly Road and Lot 5 & 6 DP 250412 (No. 49) First Street Kingswood. Applicant: Mission Australia;  Owner: Mission Australia DA09/0221

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

 

5        Development Application  DA09/0402 for Stage 4 of the Great River Walk at various lots between Victoria Bridge and the M4 Motorway, Emu Plains. Applicant: Penrith City Council;  Owner: Penrith City Council, Department of Planning, Department of Lands, Roads & Traffic Authority. DA09/0402

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

 

6        Fire safety assessment of Erskine Park Shopping Centre. Applicant: Nil;  Owner: G.E.S.P. Pty Limited

 

7        Fire safety report on 37 Leland Street Penrith. Applicant: Nil;  Owner: Mr. Spiro Gouriotis & Mrs. Areti Gouriotis

 

URGENT

 

13      Development Application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay. Applicant: David Williams;  Owner: David & Laura Williams DA09/0323

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

 

 

A Liveable City

 

8        Purchase of a New Emergency Response Vehicle for the Penrith State Emergency Service

 

9        Naming of a Park in St Marys

 

10      Federal Government 2010/2011 "Auslink Black Spot Program" Submissions

 

11      Proposal to close parcel of land located between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close, St Clair

  

 


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        2009 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference

 

2        RTA 2009/2010 Road Funding Grants

 

URGENT

 

12      Community Building Partnership applications from Penrith City Council

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

2009 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference   

 

Compiled by:                Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:             Glenn Schuil, Acting Executive Officer   

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Strategic Direction:  We champion responsible and ethical behaviour

     

 

Executive Summary

This report advises Council of proposed motions for the Local Government Association Annual Conference to be held in Tamworth from 24 – 28 October 2009, and seeks endorsement from Council to submit the motions, as detailed, to the Conference.

 

The proposed motions cover the following matters:

 

1.   Paid Adoption Leave

2.   Penalties for the illegal dumping of waste

3.   Local Government consultation in the review, development and implementation of the new Public Health Act

4.   Local Government Association Constitution – Proposed Amendments

 

The report recommends that:

 

1.    the information contained in the report on 2009 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference be received.

2.    the four (4) motions detailed in the report be submitted for inclusion in the 2009 Local Government Association NSW Conference Business Paper.

Background

The Local Government Association of NSW (LGA) will hold its annual policy-making Conference in Tamworth from 24 – 28 October 2009. The theme of the Conference will be “Tough Times, Smart Solutions”.

Current Situation

Council’s voting delegates were determined, at the Ordinary Meeting held on 29 June 2009, to be Councillors Ben Goldfinch, Marko Malkoc, Robert Ardill, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Karen McKeown and Kath Presdee. Other available Councillors have been authorised to attend the Conference as observers. Up to three (3) Aboriginal observers, nominated by the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, will also be attending as observers.

Motions to Conference

Council is entitled to submit motions for consideration at the Conference. Motions submitted should seek to alter existing policy through the addition or deletion of elements, or to introduce new policy.

The following four (4) motions have been identified either by Council (Motions 2 & 4), or by the Group Managers/Managers as possible issues for which motions can be framed for debate at the Conference:

 

1.     Paid Adoption Leave

2.     Penalties for the illegal dumping of waste

3.     Local Government consultation in the review, development and implementation of the new Public Health Act

4.     Local Government Association Constitution – Proposed Amendments

 

The second motion (‘Penalties for the illegal dumping of waste’) has been formulated as a result of a Council resolution arising from the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 18 May 2009 (Item 1) re Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad, which called for:

“a further report be brought back to Council regarding Council making representations for the review of fine amounts for littering offences, particularly if the offence included undertaking removing litter on behalf of another person.”

 

In addition to the motion to be raised at the Local Government Association Conference, this matter will be raised at the next Western Sydney RID Squad meeting to have the RID Squad make representations to the appropriate NSW Government agencies to increase the on the spot penalties for the illegal dumping of waste, as outlined in Motion 2 of this report.

 

The fourth motion (‘Local Government Association Constitution – Proposed Amendments’) was previously submitted by Council to the 2008 Conference as a late motion. The Conference did not accept this as a late motion because it involves a change to the Local Government Association Constitution and therefore requires sufficient notice in order to be brought before the Conference. Under the circumstances, Council resolved to resubmit this motion to the 2009 LGA Conference.

 

This motion was originally formulated arising out of a Discussion Paper prepared by Mr Robert Lester, Regional Delegate nominated by the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, for the Sydney and Newcastle Region of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983.

 

Mr Lester has since had further discussions with Council officers and three Councillors from the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (Northern, Western and Sydney/Newcastle Regions) and in the light of those discussions, the ‘Motion’, ‘Note from Council’ and ‘Detailed Supporting Case’ have been amended and amplified to more fully explain the intent of the Motion. The amendments were also made in consultation with Ms Carolyn Gartside from Council.

 

Mr Lester asks that Penrith City Council continue its support for an alternative Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) representative process. He has indicated that an ideal outcome would be if the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) were to give a commitment by resolution to include in its annual budgeting the financing of 18 Local Aboriginal Land Council delegates to attend the annual Local Government and Shires Association Conferences.

 

If the Conference adopts the motion, then LALC’s will have the opportunity to discuss future attendance with NSWALC and an agreed process for that attendance. If those discussions are not successful, then the LALC’s can consider the establishment of an alternative process for representation to future Conferences.

 

The following are the Motions that are proposed to be submitted to the LGA Annual Conference:-

 

MOTION 1

 

Subject: Paid Adoption Leave

 

Motion Text

 

That as part of negotiations for the next Local Government (State) Award, the Local Government Association support the introduction of three (3) weeks paid “short adoption leave” for an employee who is the primary care-giver of the adopted child, at the time of placement of the child with the employee.

 

Note from Council:

 

At present, the Industrial Relations Act 1996 allows an employee adopting a child to take up to three (3) weeks unpaid “short adoption leave” at the time of placement of the child with the employee. They may take a further unbroken period of unpaid “extended adoption leave”. The total of “short adoption leave” and “extended adoption leave” must not exceed 52 weeks. The Local Government (State) Award 2007 does not contain any adoption leave provisions.

 

Detailed Supporting Case:

 

It is recommended that the Local Government (State) Award be amended to include provision for a period of three (3) weeks paid leave for an employee who is adopting a child, provided that the employee is the primary care-giver of that child.

 

At present, the Industrial Relations Act 1996 allows parents to take up to 3 weeks “short adoption leave” which is unpaid. They may take a further unpaid period called “extended adoption leave”.  The total of “short adoption leave” and “extended adoption leave” must not exceed 52 weeks.

 

The Local Government (State) Award 2007 does not contain any leave provisions for adoptive parents. 

 

It is proposed that the Award be changed to provide 3 weeks paid adoption leave for an employee who is the primary care-giver of an adopted child.

 

People who adopt children from overseas are required to travel and remain in the birth country for a specified number of weeks. Upon return, couples are required to undertake all legal requirements to formalise the arrangements in Australia.  Such a motion shows support for the growing number of adoptive families in Australia. 

 

Other couples may adopt a child from Australia.

 

Regardless of the country of birth, couples receive little notice of the pending placement.  Approx. 6 weeks before the placement, couples are given details of the child available for placement including their age, sex and any special needs. This means that couples have very little time to acquire all of the resources they will need in terms of clothes, furniture etc… for the child before taking responsibility for him or her. 

 

There are a growing number of people who are turning to this avenue to create a family. This is an area that is being neglected in the Local Government (State) Award, with the emphasis being on only granting paid maternity leave in connection with the pregnancy or the birth of a child of the employee.  

 

The Federal Government already recognises adoptive families by its intention to include them in their paid parental leave scheme, which is due to commence on 1 January 2011.  

 

By improving conditions in this way, local government sends a message to the adoptive community of inclusion and acceptance of diversity. It provides much needed financial support to adoptive families. 

 

MOTION 2

 

Subject: Penalties for the illegal dumping of waste

 

Motion Text

 

That the Local Government Association approach the NSW Government with the view to increasing on the spot penalties for the dumping of waste, particularly for that waste that has been collected by a contractor under payment for removal, and the waste is then illegally disposed of.

 

Note from Council:

 

Penrith City Council is a member of the Western Sydney RID Squad which has been highly successful in locating and prosecuting persons who are illegally dumping waste. A significant number of illegal dumping incidents relate to the illegal dumping of waste that has been collected by a paid contractor under the pretext that the waste will be taken to an appropriate landfill.  The contractor is paid not only for the collection of the waste, but also the waste disposal fees. By disposing of the waste illegally, the contractor not only saves tipping fees, but also transport costs to the landfill, saving a considerable sum of money.

 

Penalty infringement notices for this offence is $750 for an individual or $1,500 for a corporation, which is not a significant penalty for the nature of the offence. Given that the landfill fee charged for tipping of the waste may be well in excess of the penalty, the amount of the penalty is not a dis-incentive to illegal dumpers.  

 

Detailed Supporting Case:

 

The reason people dispose of waste illegally are many and varied, however Council has observed an increasing trend in the illegal disposal of waste by contractors, or persons otherwise paid to remove the waste on behalf of the owner of the property.

 

The person/contractor is paid not only for the collection of the waste, but also for the waste disposal fees. By disposing of the waste illegally, the contractor not only saves tipping fees, but also transport costs to the landfill, saving a considerable sum of money.

 

Landfill rates are increasing substantially due to both charges by the landfill owners and additional State government landfill levies. Penalties for the illegal dumping of waste have not increased for a number of years.

 

Penalty infringement notices for this offence is $750 for an individual or $1,500 for a corporation, which is not a significant penalty for the nature of the offence. Given that the landfill fee charged for the tipping of the waste may be well in excess of the penalty, the amount of the penalty is not a dis-incentive to illegal dumpers.  

 

Penalty infringement notices must be of a value that will not only provide a significant penalty to the offender, but also act as a significant deterrent for those who are contemplating this illegal act.

 

MOTION 3

 

Subject: Local Government consultation in the review, development and implementation of the new Public Health Act

 

Motion Text

 

That the Local Government Association request NSW Health to conduct its review of the Public Health Act 1991 in full consultative partnership with local government during both the review, development and implementation phases.

 

Note from Council:

 

Penrith City Council is concerned that the new Public Health Act (the “Act”) is being developed without appropriate consideration being given to the impact that the Act will have on local government, placing added responsibilities on councils and further demands on Councils’ resources.

 

Penrith City Council is concerned there has been inadequate communication in the review of the Act and that there is a need for local government to contribute to ensure that aspects it will administer are effective, relevant and can be resourced adequately.

 

The implementation of public health laws requires a coordinated approach and requires an effective partnership with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.  Local government needs to be consulted and be fully prepared for its role.

 

NSW Health could develop a model similar in concept to the successful Food Regulation Partnership that was developed between local government and the NSW Food Authority to ensure that legislation and processes are in place for the effective implementation of the Act. This would ensure an integrated, consistent and thorough approach.

 

 

 

Detailed Supporting Case:

 

The current Public Health Act was introduced in 1991 following a review of

the previous 1902 Act. The existing Public Health Act includes a series of legislative requirements governing a wide range of public health related issues that place a responsibility on local government. These range from general powers to respond to public health risks that may emerge from time to time, through to specific provisions dealing with identified risks associated with specific industries or arising from individual conduct. 

 

Examples of Council’s responsibilities include; regulation of skin penetration premises and processes, microbial control (legionnaires), health standards of public swimming pools and guidelines for the operation of mortuaries and burials.

 

NSW Health released an issue paper in 1999 which was aimed at facilitating community discussion. Since then there has been little communication from NSW Health on the progress of the Public Health Act review. 

 

There is a need to have this legislation adapt to reflect the changing nature of society and risks to public health. The issue paper included a review of “Co-ordination with Local Government” and extended to:

a)   the need to clarify the role of local government with respect to public health legislation;

b)   whether the current arrangements in relation to the local government’s role for the enforcement of the Public Health Act are adequate and appropriate;

c)   mechanisms to improve co-ordination between health and local government in relation to public health including (but not limited to) those discussed above.

 

The new Public Health Act and Regulations appear to be forthcoming (the NSW Health website currently indicates that “the NSW Department of Health has conducted a review of the Public Health Act 1991, draft legislation is currently being prepared”) although there has been no formal indication from NSW Health to this effect.

 

The Subordinate Legislation (Postponement of Repeal) Order 2008 under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 postponed the repeal and subsequent remaking of the various regulations under the Public Health Act until 1 September 2009.  There has been no indication that any legislative changes will be introduced before this date meaning there may be a further postponement of the repeal.

 

The contemporary and emerging public health issues pose further responsibilities on local government’s role in caring for local communities, and local government needs appropriate laws to respond to these issues. Importantly, any additional responsibilities placed on local government should only be done with full consultation.

 

To enable local government to contribute and prepare for a new Public Health Act, NSW Health should be asked to develop a partnership with local government similar to the NSW Food Regulation Partnership developed between local government and the NSW Food Authority. This would provide a more adequate opportunity for local government to participate in the review process.

 

 

 

MOTION 4

 

Subject: Local Government Association Constitution – Proposed Amendments

 

Motion Text

 

That the Local Government Association seek to amend Rule 19 of the Local Government and Shires Association Constitution so as to provide for eighteen (18) of the twenty-seven (27) New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council delegates to the Conference to take out independent membership of the Local Government Association of NSW, based on representation from (2) two Local Aboriginal Land Councils within each of the nine (9) Regions, apart from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) corporate membership of nine (9) delegates.

 

Note from Council:

 

The intent of the amendment is to provide a fair and equitable process for Local Aboriginal Land Councils’ membership of the Local Government Association of NSW and attendance at the Conference through a regional process.

 

The Association should note that the NSWALC has been in discussions with the Local Government and Shires Association regarding participation in the upcoming 2009 Conference. However, there is still no formal process in place for Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) participation should the NSWALC determine in future that it does not wish to participate.

 

It is therefore proposed that the Conference adopt this motion and refer it to its Executive Committee to hold discussions with the NSWALC and LALC representatives to find a solution to address and provide a fair and equitable process for Local Aboriginal Land Councils’ membership through an independent regional process.

 

Under Rule 19 of the Local Government Association of New South Wales Constitution, the NSWALC is currently entitled to twenty-seven (27) delegates to the Conference, with a maximum of three delegates from any one Region as defined by the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. There are nine now (9) Aboriginal Land Council Regions in NSW.

 

The Motion proposes that these twenty-seven (27) delegates be made up in the future of:

 

·     nine (9) delegates from the NSWALC subject to it being a financial member

(i.e. the nine-member elected New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council); and

 

·     eighteen (18) Regional delegates from Local Aboriginal Land Councils appointed at a meeting of Chairpersons of elected Boards within a region defined under the NSWALR’S Act 1983 as amended, based on two (2) delegates from each of the nine (9) regions with those regions to have independent membership to that of the NSWALC subject to those Land Councils being financial members.

 

 

 

 

Detailed Supporting Case:

 

In 2000 the Local Government Association made a significant and historic decision to change its Constitution to recognise the Aboriginal Land Council as members of the Association. This action enabled contribution by the elected Aboriginal voice to the Local Government Agenda.

 

The former President of the Local Government and Shires Association NSW, Mr. Peter Woods, attended a meeting of NSWALC in March 2001 and presented the Association’s proposal for the NSWALR to become members of the Association. The NSWALC accepted the proposal.

 

The NSWALC was then to determine a process as to how the delegates were to be selected to represent the Aboriginal people of NSW at future Local Government Association Annual Conferences. This determination was never formalised.

 

In mid 2001, as an interim measure and because of the necessity to attend the first conference, a decision was made that each regional Councillor and each regional Chairperson would be the delegates to attend, and this process continued until the October Conference in 2003. In November 2003, the NSW Government appointed an administrator to the NSWALC. During the next three and a half years, the administrator refused to provide funding for Regional delegates to attend LGA Conferences.

    

During the absence of elected Aboriginal representatives at the Conferences from 2004 onwards, Penrith City Council supported the Local Government Association putting forward a number of motions calling on the NSW Premier to ensure adequate funding for the attendance of the thirteen (13) Regional Aboriginal Land Council delegates (at that time) to attend LGA Conferences. The motions stressed the need to ensure the voice of Aboriginal people was maintained and the continuity of Aboriginal representation retained within the Association.

 

Furthermore, Penrith City Council continued its support of Aboriginal people by its own commitment to sponsor up to three (3) Aboriginal observers from the Local Deerubbin Aboriginal Land Council to accompany the Council’s Delegation to LGA Conferences.

 

Under Schedule 5 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, there are now (9) Aboriginal Land Council Regions in NSW (previously 13), with these Regions comprising 121 Local Aboriginal Land Council Areas as follows:

 

Central Region

Dubbo, Gilgandra, Mudgee, Narromine, Nyngan, Quambone, Trangie, Warren Macquarie, Weilwan, Wellington

Central Coast Region

Birpai, Bowraville, Bunyah, Coffs Harbour, Forster, Karuah, Kempsey, Nambucca, Purfleet/Taree, Stuart Island Tribal Elders Descendants, Thunggutti, Unkya

Northern Region

Amaroo, Anaiwan, Armidale, Ashford, Coonabarabran, Dorrigo Plateau, Glen Innes, Guyra, Moombahlene, Nungaroo, Red Chief, Tamworth, Walhallow, Wanaruah

North Coast Region

Baryugil, Birrigan Gargle, Bogal, Casino, Grafton-Ngerrie, Gugin Gudduba, Jali, Jana Ngalee, Jubullum, Muli Muli, Ngulingah, Tweed Byron, Yaegl

North Western Region

Baradine, Brewarrina, Collarenabri, Coonamble, Goodooga, Lightning Ridge, Moree, Mungindi, Murrawari, Narrabri, Nulla Nulla, Pilliga, Toomelah, Walgett, Wee Waa, Weilmoringle

South Coast Region

Batemans Bay, Bega, Bodalla, Cobowra, Eden, Illawarra, Jerrinja, Merrimans, Mogo, Ngunnawal, Nowra, Ulladulla, Wagonga

Sydney and Newcastle Region

Awabakal, Bahtaba, Darkingjung, Deerubbin, Gandangara, Koompahtoo, La Perouse, Metropolitan, Mindaribba, Tharawal, Worimi

Western Region

Balranald, Broken Hill, Cobar, Dareton, Ivanhoe, Menindee, Mutawintji, Tibooburra, Wanaaring, Wilcannia, Winbar

Wiradjuri Region

Albury and District, Bathurst, Brungle/Tumut, Condobolin, Cowra, Cummergunja, Deniliquin, Griffith, Hay, Leeton and District, Moama, Murrin Bridge, Narrandera, Onerwal, Orange, Peak Hill, Pejar, Wagga Wagga, Wamba Wamba, West Wyalong, Young

 

The Motion, if passed, would give an opportunity for eighteen (18) of these Local Aboriginal Land Councils to take out independent membership of the Local Government Association of NSW, entitling these LALC’s to send delegates to future Conferences, irrespective of whether or not New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council was a financial member of the Association.

 

Under the present Constitution, if the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council does not take out financial membership of the Association, then there is no Aboriginal delegate representation at all at the Conference from either the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council nor the Local Aboriginal Land Council structure (as has been the case since the 2004 Conference).

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2009 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference be received.

2.     The four (4) motions detailed in the report be submitted for inclusion in the 2009 Local Government Association NSW Conference Business Paper.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

RTA 2009/2010 Road Funding Grants   

 

Compiled by:                Hans Meijer, City Works Manager

Authorised by:             Hans Meijer, City Works Manager   

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate leadership, and plan responsibly for now and the future

Strategic Direction: We deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability

     

 

Executive Summary

To advise Council of the RTA 2009/10 Road Funding Grants. The Roads and Traffic Authority provides various Road Funding Grants to councils each year, to assist with the maintenance of regional roads, road safety and traffic related issues. The report recommends that Council accept the grants.

Background

The Roads and Traffic Authority provides various Road Funding Grants to councils each year, to assist with the maintenance of regional roads, road safety and traffic related issues.

 

Advice has been received from the RTA of the following grants for 2009/2010.

 

1.   Regional Roads

The Regional Road Block Grant is made up of the following components:

 

•        Road Component: Allocated to maintenance work on regional roads.

 

•        Supplementary Road Component:   This is available for road work, as determined by Council, on regional roads. In 2009/2010, this component is allocated to the Rural Roads Widening Program for the resurfacing of Eighth Ave, Llandilo (from Second Ave to Third Ave).

 

•        Traffic Facilities Component: For the installation and maintenance of regulatory

signs and lines on local and regional roads.

 

Council can access a 50% contribution for specific works on Regional roads under the REPAIR Program.  Penrith City Council’s allocation under this program in recent years has been as follows:

 

·    2009/2010:        $250,000

·    2008/2009:        Not successful.

·    2007/2008:        $694,000*

·    2006/2007:        $250,000

·    2005/2006:        $250,000

·    2004/2005:        $250,000

·    2003/2004:        $250,000

·    2002/2003:        $250,000

·    2001/2002:        $250,000

·    2000/2001:        $244,500

·    1999/2000:        $249,000

 

*  In 2007/08, additional funding was allocated by the RTA to Luddenham Road ($144,000) and Forrester Road ($300,000).

 

The RTA has advised that Council has been successful in achieving the maximum amount of $250,000, in the 2009/2010 REPAIR Program, for the reconstruction of Forrester Road, North St Marys, between Commonwealth Cr and 200m north of Commonwealth Cr.  The total cost of the project is estimated at approximately $644,000.  The balance of the project costs ($394,000) are included in the 2009/2010 Road Reconstruction Program.

 

The RTA advises that the following 2009/10 Program Funding is available to Council:

 

Regional Roads

2009/10

Basis of Grant

Block Grant - Road Component

$416,000

100%

Block Grant - Supplementary Road Component

$156,000

100%

Block Grant - Traffic Facilities Component

$373,000

100%

Total Allocation to Penrith City Council

$945,000

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on RTA 2009/2010 Road Funding Grants be received.

2.     The RTA 2009/10 Program Funding Block Grant in the amount of $945,000 be accepted.

3.     Council accept the grant of $250,000, offered under the 2009/2010 Roads and Traffic Authority REPAIR Program, for the reconstruction of Forrester Road, North St Marys, between Commonwealth Cr and 200m north of Commonwealth Cr.

4.       The Supplementary Road Component in the amount of $156,000 be allocated to the resurfacing of Eighth Ave, L landilo (between Second Ave and Third Ave).

5.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to the “Agreement for Block Grant Assistance to Council for Regional Roads 2009/2010”.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

3        Development application DA08/0886 Expansion of existing educational establishment Lot 201 & 202 DP 1021191 Lot 11 & 12 DP 1037710 (No. 132-140) Bringelly Road, Orchard Hills. Applicant: Ingham Planning;  Owner: Pared Ltd DA08/0886

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

 

4        Development Application DA09/0221 for a Community Facility at Lots 7, 8 and 9 DP 247158 (No. 46) Bringelly Road and Lot 5 & 6 DP 250412 (No. 49) First Street Kingswood. Applicant: Mission Australia;  Owner: Mission Australia DA09/0221

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

 

5        Development Application  DA09/0402 for Stage 4 of the Great River Walk at various lots between Victoria Bridge and the M4 Motorway, Emu Plains. Applicant: Penrith City Council;  Owner: Penrith City Council, Department of Planning, Department of Lands, Roads & Traffic Authority. DA09/0402

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

 

6        Fire safety assessment of Erskine Park Shopping Centre. Applicant: Nil;  Owner: G.E.S.P. Pty Limited

 

7        Fire safety report on 37 Leland Street Penrith. Applicant: Nil;  Owner: Mr. Spiro Gouriotis & Mrs. Areti Gouriotis

 

URGENT

 

13      Development Application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay. Applicant: David Williams;  Owner: David & Laura Williams DA09/0323

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

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

3

Development application DA08/0886 Expansion of existing educational establishment Lot 201 & 202 DP 1021191 Lot 11 & 12 DP 1037710 (No. 132-140) Bringelly Road, Orchard Hills  Applicant:  Ingham Planning;  Owner:  Pared Ltd    

DA08/0886

Compiled by:                Greg Hall, Principal Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Objective: We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Strategic Direction:  We respond to the impacts of climate change, and support the principles of sustainability

     

 

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a Development Application from Ingham Planning on behalf of the Pared Foundation for extensions to the existing schools at Lots 201 & 202 DP 1021191, Lots 11 & 12 DP 103771 (No. 140) Bringelly Road Orchard Hills. Given the prominence of the subject site from Bringelly Road, the scale of the extensions proposed and the community interest received by Council to date, the application is being reported to Council for determination.

 

The subject site is zoned Rural 1(b) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 25 (Orchard Hills) (SREP 25). The proposed development is defined as an “educational establishment”, which is permissible with the consent of Council under the provisions of Clause 28(2)(b) State Environmental Planning Policy 2007 (Infrastructure) (SEPP 2007). The proposed development has been advertised in the local newspaper and notified to nearby and adjoining residents. Council received 5 submissions in response to the proposal.

 

An assessment of the proposal, including the submissions received by Council, under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken. The key issues arising in this regard are access, parking and traffic, noise impacts and out of character with area. Having regard for all of the relevant matters, it is considered that the proposed development is satisfactory, subject to the enforcement of conditions, of operating in such a manner as to present only minimal adverse impacts on the local community.

 

This report therefore recommends that the application be approved subject to conditions.

Site and surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Bringelly Road, approximately 250m north of its intersection with The Northern Road. It has an area of 3.15 hectares, is partly undulating with scattered tree cover. The school currently occupies Lot 201 which is generally regular in shape, has a frontage to Bringelly Road of 102m and an area of 1.011ha. It is now operating out of five (5) demountable buildings used as classrooms, temporary hall and temporary chapel. The existing cottage is being used as an administration block.

 

The site currently has a new building being constructed which will contain classrooms, offices, library and student and staff amenities.

 

The site is bounded by Bringelly Road, Caddens Road and Quigg Place. The locality to the north comprises Kingswood High School, a Childcare Centre and a single and two storey dwelling houses. To the east, rural residential developments with large dwelling houses dominate, and to the south is a large parcel of land containing a medical centre. To the west, the land use is predominantly residential.

Background

Council granted development consent in July 1998 (DA 980090) to use the subject site for the purpose of a school in two stages for 90 students. Stage 1 was to initially accommodate 20 students within the existing cottage commencing operation in the year 1999. Stage 2 was to construct a single storey brick-tile building to accommodate an additional 70 students commencing operation in the year 2000.

 

In December 1998 consent was granted (DA986306) to install a temporary demountable classroom and a toilet facility behind the existing building for a maximum of 20 students. The consent was limited to a period of 12 months from the date of commencement. This consent also amended DA980090 to use the existing cottage as an administration facility for the school. 

 

Modification to DA 986306 was granted in April 2000 to allow the operation of the demountable classroom for another 12 months.  This modification also approved an increase in the number of students within the demountable building to 40. Consent was granted (DA00/2128) for an additional demountable classroom in September 2000 and an increase in students to a maximum of 90 (which was in accordance with the SREP 25 provisions). Condition No. 6 of DA00/2128 required the demountable building to be removed from the site at the beginning of the 2003 school year. This was intended to allow the school to cater for a total of 90 students until the completion of the permanent building as approved under DA 980090.

 

Development Consent No DA986306 was modified in December 2000 allowing the demountable classroom approved under this consent to also remain until the beginning of the 2003 school year. 

 

Council in August 2006 granted consent for the erection of a more permanent school building which contained classrooms, offices, library and student and staff amenities for 90 students.

 

This building is currently under construction.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

 

·    A 2 storey office / administration building including a chapel and library;

·    Kindergarten rooms adjacent to the administration facilities;

·    Primary school classrooms (Yrs 1/2, 3/4 and 5/6) (maximum student number 225);

·    Secondary school buildings (for girls only) having a similar layout to the primary school modules (Yrs 7 – 12) (maximum student number 150);

·    A school gymnasium / auditorium building; specialist learning rooms for science, technics and music;

·    New access point from Bringelly Road;

·    Associated landscaping but in particular plantings around the perimeter of the site and within the development to assist in reducing any visual impact and scale of the proposed buildings. Where possible existing vegetation is retained and incorporated into the development.

·    75 space car parking area;

·    Dedicated student pick-up / drop – off stopping area;

·    Dedicated internal bus bays;

·    A playing field and hard court areas;

 

The proposal will be staged over a number of years to correspond with the natural growth of the school. The staging plan submitted with the application indicates the following staging of works:

 

Stage 1

Construction of the current Development Application approved building and car parking and access driveways.

 

Stage 2

Single story General Learning Areas (GLA’s) including general learning and science rooms, sports field and games court.

 

Stage 3

Two single storey rooms (home base and staff room) and completion of front car park.

 

Stage 4

Two single storey general learning rooms, music and drama rooms at the rear of the site.

 

Stage 5

Completion of the main front building including the library and chapel.

 

Stage 6

School gymnasium.

 

Stage 7

Single story food technology and specialist learning/staff room.

 

The school has been designed to cater for a total of 375 students and approximately 20 full time staff members at capacity.

 

The application was accompanied by the following reports:

 

·    Statement of environmental effects

·    Traffic and parking report

·    Acoustic impact assessment

·    Tree assessment report

·    Stormwater management strategy

·    Phase 1 contamination assessment

 

Plans and elevations of the development are appended. Additionally, a full set of site plans, floor plans and elevations will be provided under separate cover to Councillors.

Planning Assessment

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with following key considerations identified:

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP 2007)

The matter was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) under SEPP 2007.

 

The RTA at its Regional Committee meeting raised no objection to the proposal subject to certain matters relating to suitable bus and student drop off locations being clarified and conditions imposed.

 

These matters have now been clarified and the conditions are included in the recommendation. 

 

The provisions of Clause 28(2)(b) also apply to the development which permits the expansion of the existing educational establishment.  This matter is discussed further in the SREP 25 section of the report.

 

Clause 32 requires Council to consider certain requirements prior to determination of the Development Application.

 

Clause 32 states:

 

“Determination of development applications

 

(1)     (Repealed)

(2)     Before determining a development application for development for the purposes of a school, the consent authority must take into consideration all relevant standards in the following State government publications (as in force on the commencement of this Policy):

a.   School Facilities Standards – Landscape Standard – Version 22 (March 2002),

b.   School Facilities Standards – Design Standard (Version 1/09/2006),

c.   School Facilities Standards – Specification Standard (Version 01/11/2008).

(3)     If there is an inconsistency between a standard referred to in subclause (2) and a provision of a development control plan, the standard prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

(4)     Copies of the standards referred to in subclause (2) are available for inspection by the public at the head office of the Department of Planning and such other offices of the department (if any) as the Director-General may determine.

(5)     If a development application has been made before the commencement of the amendment to this clause by State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) Amendment (Group Homes) 2009, and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if that amendment had not been made.”

 

The school has been designed around these guidelines which provide a range of practical designs, developed over many years. The guidelines have been addressed by the architects in the development and layout of the proposed buildings.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

When carrying out planning functions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council must consider the possibility that a previous land use may have caused contamination of the site as well as any potential risk to health or the environment resulting from such contamination. An assessment must then be made as to whether the land should be remediated, or its use restricted, in order to reduce the risk.

 

History of land use needs to be considered as an indicator of potential contamination. Where there is no reason to suspect contamination after acting substantially in accordance with the Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines (a State Government publication), the proposal may be processed in the usual way. However, where there is an indication that the land is, or may be, contaminated, the appropriate procedures outlined in these Guidelines should be followed. 

 

The application was accompanied by a preliminary contamination assessment report that indicated:

 

“that the site is has low potential for contamination and does not pose a significant risk or harm to human health or the environment under the current land use”

 

The report also has recommended that a Stage 2 contamination assessment be undertaken to confirm the potential for contamination which they have suggested is low.

 

The provision of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – “Remediation of Land”, requires Council to consider a report that summarises the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land in relation to its potential contamination likelihood. The Stage 2 contamination assessment will involve undertaking a suitable sampling and testing plan to address potential for any contamination over the site.  The consultant has suggested that based on the information obtained for the site it is likely that there will be a low potential for contamination and is not likely to pose a significant risk or harm to human health or the environment.

 

If the Stage 2 contamination assessment identifies any contamination of the site the report will also identify a range of remediation measures to remediate the site to a suitable standard for the school.

 

If remediation works are required the applicant will need to submit a Development Application for these works which will need to be completed and appropriately validated before any construction approvals can be issued and the works commence on site.

 

This additional assessment is to be undertaken prior to the issue of a construction certificate and is recommended as a condition of the recommendation.

 

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

SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Relevant to the proposal is the requirement to assess potential impacts on water quality.

 

There will be a requirement for suitable sedimentation and erosion controls to be in place prior to any site work commencing in any conditional approval. This will provide an adequate guarantee that water quality leaving the site is suitable for its receiving environment. There is also provision of an existing open grounded stormwater detention basin to limit the quantity of water leaving the site. The provisions of the SREP 20 are therefore considered to be satisfied.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 25 – Orchard Hills (SREP 25)

The site is currently zoned Rural 1(b) under SREP 25 and educational establishments are prohibited in this zone. SREP 25 permits the school on Lot 201 by virtue of Schedule 2 as referred to by Clause 30, which states:

 

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this plan, a person may, with the consent of the consent authority, carry out development of land described in Schedule 2 for the purposes, and subject to the conditions (if any), specified in that Schedule.”

 

Schedule 2 of the SREP 25 permits “Infants School for Pared Foundation on the subject site with a maximum of 90 students”.

 

This schedule relates only to the original allotment of the school.

 

This development now involves other adjoining allotments that have been purchased over time by the Pared Foundation.

 

Whilst educational establishments are prohibited in this zone and the proposal is contrary to Schedule 2, the proposed use is permissible within the subject site under the provisions of clause 28(2) (b) of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 which states:

 

“(2)       Development for any of the following purposes may be carried out by any person with consent on any of the following land:

 

(b)         development for the purpose of the expansion of existing educational establishments—on land adjacent to the existing educational establishment.”

 

The proposed development involves land that was not included in the previous approvals but is adjacent to the existing educational establishment. The state policy prevails over other environmental planning instruments including the current provision of SREP 25 that limits student numbers on Lot 201 to 90.

 

The proposed extension is a permissible use based on the above clause within SEPP 2007. Council’s Legal Officer has confirmed the above and that the proposed development is a permissible use.

 

The objectives of the Rural 1(b) zone under SREP 25 are as follows:

 

(a)     To protect and promote rural land uses

(b)     To protect and promote the scenic qualities of the rural landscape

(c)     To allow development consistent with the land capabilities, rural aesthetics and rural economics

(d)     To identify certain areas suitable for more intensive rural settlement subject to certain environmental, design and servicing constraints

(e)     To protect certain areas, which have long-term urban potential, from development, which could jeopardise that potential

 

The land is within a transitional area identified in SREP 25 under Clause 20.  The objective of which is to enable the land to function as an interface between the urban area to the west and the larger lot rural residential area to the east and south-east.  The intent of this transition area is to ensure the location of proposed buildings promotes a low-density settlement pattern, and the rural landscape quality along The Northern Road is protected and preserved.

 

The use of this site as a School and the proposed buildings do not compromise the zone objectives for the following reasons:

 

·    The use of the site as proposed, will enable the land to appropriately function as a transition zone between the semi-rural residential and more intensive urban development across Bringelly and The Northern Roads as there is a combination of clusters of building and larger more open areas which captures elements of both development types;

·    The design and siting of the new school buildings is considered appropriate, having regard to future development potential of the site;

·    The subject site is set some distance away and not readily visible from The Northern Road;

·    There is the provision of a landscaped buffer along Bringelly Road to minimise any visual impact of the development when viewed from Bringelly Road;

·    The proposed building materials and colour scheme are sympathetic to the rural/urban setting; and

·    The inclusion of verandah elements, roof pitch and composition of building elements would not compromise the aesthetic quality of the rural/urban setting of this part of Orchard Hills.

 

Clause 25: Development Control Code

 

Clause 25 of SREP 25 requires Council to take into consideration the provisions of any development control code that applies to the land prior to the granting of consent. Orchard Hills Development Control Code No. 2 applies to the subject site, which is addressed below. 

 

Orchard Hills Development Control Code No.2

The purpose of this Code is to provide adequate controls, which will guide the nature, siting and design of development within this part of Orchard Hills which forms an important gateway entry into the urban areas of Penrith. The Code provides objectives, development principles and development consent criteria, which the proposal is required to meet before consent can be granted. 

 

Objectives of the Code

(a)     To ensure that development does not adversely affect the scenic qualities, character and amenity of this part of Orchard Hills.

(b)     To promote the continuation of the open, semi-rural character and regionally significant landscape setting of this part of Orchard Hills, particularly as viewed from The Northern Road and the M4 Motorway.

(c)     To recognise that this part of Orchard Hills forms part of an important entry to the residential areas of Penrith, and that careful management of development in this location is critical to conserving the values of this City entry.

(d)     To restrict the establishment of commercial or retail related activities within this part of Orchard Hills which would:

·    Alter the character or scenic quality of the locality;

·    Detract from the existing landscaping setting

·    Promote the commercialisation of lands adjoining The Northern Road; or

·    Generate traffic volumes which cannot be readily accommodated within the existing road pattern, or which create a traffic safety problem.”

 

Principles to Guide Development

“(a)   Penrith Council’s vision, which is one of a region with a harmony of urban and rural qualities with a strong commitment to environmental protection and enhancement.

(b)     Maintenance and enhancement of the landscape qualities of the land including, although not limited to, those aspects set out on the Landscape Principles Plan.

(c)     The promotion of the regionally significant scenic landscape quality of the area, especially as viewed from the M4 Motorway and The Northern Road, thereby protecting the important role this area plays in the containment of the existing urban areas of the City, within a prominent rural setting.

(d)     Maintenance of the area as a low density rural settlement area, thereby helping to protect agriculture and scenic qualities, promoting the rural environment of Penrith, and preventing development being exposed to traffic noise.

(e)     Providing opportunities for new patterns of rural/residential living, which can satisfy certain market demands in Western Sydney.

(f)      Permitting some intensification of development on lands, where agricultural importance and servicing constraints are less, whilst ensuring the adjacent rural activities are not prejudiced and landscape quality is promoted.

 

In this respect, the establishment of commercial or retail activities which alter the scenic quality of the locality and/or detract from the existing landscape setting will not be supported.”

 

The planning controls for this site, place significant emphasis on the need to protect the scenic and rural qualities of the existing landscape.  Potential visual impact, associated with any new development on this site, is particularly sensitive because of its location within a transitional area, between the established residential suburbs and commercial developments adjoining the site and nearby on The Northern Road.

 

The proposed scale of the development and associated landscaping will help to maintain the predominant rural residential character of Bringelly Road and Caddens Road. This is achieved by the provision of boundary landscape planting around the site of nature trees.  The majority of the buildings except for the front building facing Bringelly Road and the gymnasium are low scale single storey which assists in maintaining the current character of the area.

 

Additionally, the design, height and setback of the building will prevent the development from excessively dominating the streetscape.  In effort to respond to the visual attributes of the site and the potential impacts of the development, the landscaping of the site will retain existing significant trees and provide additional planting within the car parking area, along Bringelly Road, and in front of the proposed building.  It is therefore considered that the development has responded adequately to this aspect its potential environmental impacts.

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

Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008

The site is subject to Stage 1 of LEP 2008 which proposes an RU 4 (Rural Small Holdings) zoning.

 

Under this zone schools are permissible with consent.

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

 

Section 2.1 Contaminated Land

 

This matter has been previously discussed.

 

Section 2.4 Erosion and Sediment Control

 

The proposed development includes the provision for appropriate strategies to manage and minimise erosion and sedimentation during construction which is a condition of the approval.

 

Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising

 

The proposed development was advertised in the local newspaper and notified to nearby and adjoining residents. The application was advertised between 17 September 2008 and 1 October 2008. Council received 5 Submissions. The matters raised are discussed later in the report.

 

 

 

 

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

 

(i)               Context and Setting

 

The proposed scale of the development and associated landscaping will help to maintain the predominant rural residential character of Bringelly Road and Caddens Road. Additionally, the design, height and setback of the building will prevent the development from excessively dominating the streetscape.

 

(ii)              Access, Parking and Traffic

 

The application was accompanied by a traffic report.

 

The proposed development will involve an upgrade and extension to the existing car park to include a total of 75 car parking spaces along with a bus bay and student set down area which is not currently provided on site in a formal arrangement.

 

A new access point is proposed located approximately midway along the school’s Bringelly Rd frontage and the existing access point being changed to exit only.

 

The proposed development which will increase the student and staff numbers will also result in an increase in traffic generated by the school.

 

This will have potential impact on the surrounding roads and intersection safety and operation.

 

The report has concluded:

 

“the INTANAL analysis shows that the proposed additional traffic demands excepted to be generated by the increased enrolments will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity”

 

Penrith DCP 2006 does not provide any car parking requirements for schools and the traffic report has estimated the car parking demand based on recent surveys of a number of similar schools.

 

The results have indicated

 

0.15 spaces per student in the morning peak

 

0.17 spaces per student in the afternoon peak.

 

Based on the maximum student number of 375 the morning peak would generate the need for 56 spaces and the afternoon peak would generate 64 spaces.

 

The proposed development will provide 75 spaces which is 11 spaces more than the afternoon peak period.

 

The number of spaces provided is in excess of the amount of car parking provided by other schools in the Penrith area.

 

A condition of the approval has required the submission of a traffic management plan to address how the management of vehicles and pedestrians during the morning and afternoon peak periods will be handled to avoid any potential safety conflict on the site.

 

The RTA and Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer have raised no objection to the development on traffic grounds.

 

(iii)             Noise Impacts

 

The application was accompanied by an Acoustic report prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associated P/L.

 

The report undertook noise measurements at five points that represented the most potentially affected residential locations.

 

The locations were:

 

·    171 Bringelly Rd –residential property west of the site across the road

·    Caddens Rd –residential properties north of the site across the road

·    3-4 Quigg Pl-residential properties north east of the site across the road

·    12 Wakefield Pl-residential property south east of the site and sharing a common property with the site.

·    Medical Centre- commercial property south of the site sharing a common property.

 

The potential noise impact will be from `general noise within the classrooms, music and singing from the music room, students playing on the sports field, air conditioning units and activities within the gymnasium. Traffic noise on and off the site is also a source.

 

The noise report has concluded:

 

“Noise impact from the proposed development upon the potentially most affected noise sensitive residential locations, has been qualified and compared to the noise guidelines set by Penrith City Council and the DEC.

 

It is anticipated that noise compliance is achieved during proposed indoor classroom activities and outdoor sports activities during day and evening periods.

 

Noise from the vehicles in the proposed car park is predicated to comply with the set criteria at all nearby noise sensitive receivers.

 

Additional traffic noise on surrounding public roads was also found to comply with the set noise criteria”

 

The report has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health Department who agreed with the reports conclusion.

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

 

The part of the subject site is currently used as an educational establishment. The development is well suited to the site and provides a transition from the residential to the rural area. It is considered that the proposal has been designed in a manner which is consistent with the character of the locality.

 

6.   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 application was advertised between 17 September 2008 and 1 October 2008.

 

During the period Council received 5 submissions raising a number of issues which are grouped, summarised and addressed below.

(a)     Increase in Traffic

·    Impact of the increase in traffic on the local roads and intersections especially Caddens Rd.

·    Compromise the safety of residents in the locality

·    Increase in road maintenance work

Comment

The matter of traffic generation and impact has been discussed previously in the report.  The traffic report that accompanied the application addressed the impact of the traffic on the local road system including the intersections.

 

The report concluded that the additional traffic demands excepted to be generated by the increased enrolments will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity.

 

As a result if the generation will not have an unacceptable impact in terms of traffic in the local area the safety of residents will be unlikely to be compromised.

 

The increase in traffic generation is unlikely to cause a significant increase in the need for road maintenance in the local area given the existing traffic volumes in Bringelly and Caddens Rd.

(b)     Parking

·    Current problems with parking on the street in Caddens Rd and Quigg Pl.

·    On street parking with larger school events

Comment

The development proposes to provide 75 on site car parking spaces together with a drop off and bus zone.

 

The current site uses an informal pick up and drop off area at the end of Quigg Place with vehicles parking along the length of Quigg Place waiting to collect students.

 

The new proposal will not require this existing situation as all students will be dropped off and collected from the front of the school in Bringelly Rd.

 

A condition has been imposed that will restrict the use of Quigg Place for student drop off and collection and that the access from Quigg Place is to be limited to maintenance and larger delivery vehicles only.

 

The proposed development will also provide bus parking on site and the need for buses to park on the street should be reduced.

 

The layout of the car park at the front of the site would provide some opportunity for the open area to the north to be used as overflow parking for larger events at the school to reduce the need for on street parking.

 

A suitable condition is recommended to require arrangements for overflow parking on site for the larger events which may occur infrequently.

(c)     Out of Character with Areas

·    Impact on the Urban Outlook

·    School out of character with the area

·    Inconsistent with SREP 25 intent and zone objectives

Comment

The site is located at the edge of the rural area where it adjoins the residential area and forms a transition between the two areas.

 

The school development is consistent with the existing school development along Bringelly Rd (Kingswood High) which is located in the immediate vicinity of the site.

 

The site is also partly surrounded by other non residential uses being the medical centre and the preschool which adjoins the site to the south and north.

 

The development still provides a large open area on the corner of Bringelly and Caddens Roads which assists in reducing any visual impact of the development from the adjoining residential areas.

 

It is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the rural outlook and is not out of character with the surrounding area

 

The matter of the development being inconsistent with SREP 25 zone objectives has been previously discussed in the report.

(d)     Noise

·    Increase in the noise generated by the school.

Comment

This matter has been previously discussed in the report.

(e)     Construction of Quigg Place

·    Construction of Quigg Pl needed for the future subdivision of the property to the east of the site.

Comment

Quigg Place was partly constructed as a result of the subdivision that created existing allotments to the east.

 

The concern is raised by the property owner that adjoins the site to the east which would have relied upon the future extension of Quigg Place to subdivide their property.

 

A report for a number of subdivisions in the locality that created the existing allotments in Quigg Place was reported to Council on 17 August 1998 and the recommendation of the report was to support a road layout in the locality which included providing a single road (Quigg Place) that would provide future access to the rear portions of the properties to the east when they subdivided.

 

At the above meeting Council resolved that the applications be deferred pending a further report.  There is no evidence of a further report being prepared to Council for the road pattern and the application for the subdivision was approved which dedicated and constructed Quigg Place as it currently exists.

 

There is no adopted DCP in the immediate area that defined the extension of Quigg Place.

 

The property owner who has raised the issue lodged an application in 1999 and was granted approval to subdivide their land which was contingent on obtaining an access agreement across Pared’s land (Lot 202 DP1021191).  This agreement was never obtained and the consent lapsed.

 

The current provision under SREP25 for subdivision allows for 4000m2 allotments.  The Stage 1 Draft LEP proposes a minimum allotment size of 2ha. As a result the respondent’s property will not have any subdivision potential.  As a result the future access from Quigg Place will not be needed.

 

As there is no adopted DCP for the extension of Quigg Place, Council has no legal provision to require the owner to make provision for the extension of Quigg Place as part of this development.

 

Also the school does not rely on any access from Quigg Place and as a result there is no nexus to require any works to be undertaken.

 

The building locations proposed by the development are clear of the likely road reserve if Quigg Place was extended in the future, however a small part of the buildings would be located close to the property boundary of any future allotment if Quigg Place extension was dedicated and constructed in the future.

 

The development does not prevent the extension of Quigg Place to occur in the future and provide potential access to the rear of the adjoining properties.  This opportunity is not lost by the proposed development.  In order to ensure that this opportunity is not lost it is recommended that a condition be imposed preventing any further buildings or encumbrances being constructed in this area

 

The owner of the property to the east has a 310m frontage to Caddens Rd which could provide alternate access to the site.

 

(f)      Other Matters

·    Decrease in property values

·    Location of other high schools in the locality to cater for secondary education

·    Additional load on existing infrastructure.

Comment

No evidence has been provided to demonstrate the development will result in the decrease of property values.

 

The location of other schools in the locality providing secondary education is not a matter that has relevance under the matters Council must consider in determining an application.

 

The approval has conditions requiring the development to make appropriate arrangements for water, sewer, electricity and telecommunications with the relevant service provider.

 

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

 

The site is considered suitable for the proposed educational establishment and is permissible in the zone. The development meets the aims and objectives of the relevant environmental planning instrument. In considering the issues raised during the exhibition period it is unlikely the development will adversely impact on adjoining residents, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

Section 94 Contributions

There is no Section 94 Contributions Plan applicable to the subject proposal.

Conclusion

The site is within a transition area identified in SREP 25.  The objective of the transition area is to function as an interface between the urban areas and the larger rural residential areas.

 

The transition area is to promote buildings with a low density and the rural landscape quality is protected and preserved.

 

The proposed developments scale is generally single storey and the proposed boundary landscaping will assist in protecting and preserving the rural quality.

 

The development has responded in a satisfactory manner to maintaining and protecting the existing rural landscape quality.

 

The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and development requirements of SREP 25.

 

The development involves an extension to an existing school which will cater up to 375 students ranging from kindergarten to year 12.

 

The application provided a number of technical reports dealing with contamination, traffic and noise that have demonstrated the proposed development can operate within the acceptable environmental limits.

 

These reports have been assessed and their conclusions have been supported by the various Council technical officers.

 

Clause 28 of the proposed extension is permissible with the consent of Council under the provision of State Environmental Planning Policy – Infrastructure 2007.

 

The proposed extension is also permitted under the Draft LEP 2008.

 

The proposed extension to the school is compatible with the surrounding area and land uses.

 

The proposed development will provide an additional educational facility for the local area and permit another choice for the public in terms of education for children in the Penrith area.

 

The recommendation contains a number of conditions that will ensure any impact on the surrounding area is minimised and within acceptable levels and limits.

 

The matters raised by the respondents do not warrant refusal of the application.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development application DA08/0886 Expansion of existing educational establishment Lot 201 & 202 DP 1021191 Lot 11 & 12 DP 1037710 (No. 132-140) Bringelly Road, Orchard Hills be received.

2.     Development application DA08/0886 Expansion of existing educational establishment Lot 201 & 202 DP 1021191 Lot 11 & 12 DP 1037710 (No. 132-140) Bringelly Road, Orchard Hills be approved subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

2.1 A001      Approved Plans (Delete Basix)

 

 

 

Ground Floor Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

First Floor Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Roof Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Western Ground Floor Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Eastern Ground Floor Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Western First Floor Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Elevations 1

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Elevations 2

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Sections

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Landscape Concept Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

Staging Plan

Project Number 05007 issue C August 2008 prepared by NBRS & P Architects

 

 

A011 DCP Construction

A012 Food shop

A026 Advertising sign

A039 Graffiti

B002 Demolition

B003 Asbestos

B004 Dust

B005 Mud soil

B006 Hours of work

D001 Erosion and sediment

D006 Site filling

D010 Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D131 (Acoustic Report prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates P/L dated 10 November 2005)

E01A BCA compliance class 2-9 buildings

E002 Disabled persons access should be provided to the gymnasium mezzanine and to the computers room

Documentary evidence that the building will comply with Section J (Energy Efficiency) is required.

E006 Disabled access and facilities

E008 Fire safety list with CC

E009 Annual fire safety- essential fire safety class 2-9

G003 Section 73

G004 Integral Energy

H001 Stamped plans and erection of site notice class 2-9

H002 All form of construction

H024 Glass installation

H041

H011 Engineering plans and specification

H022 (ground floor slab) survey

K002 WAE

K019 Connection to Council’s system (add P002)

K025 All land required for vehicular access and parking is to be concreted or sealed with a bituminous pavement.

K034 WAE for Filling (Add D006)

K036 Maintenance Bond

K037 Performance Bond

K038 Fill

P001 Applicants cost

P002 Council Fees - Amended

          Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, all fees associated with Penrith City Council-owned land and infrastructure shall be paid to Council.  These fees include Road Opening fees and Infrastructure Restoration fees

Q001 Notice of commencement and appointment of the PCA

Q006 Occupation certificate for class 2-9

 

Special Conditions

2.2     Quigg Place is not to be used as a drop-off or pick up point for the school.

2.3     No pedestrian access is to be made available for students from Quigg Place.

2.4     No vehicle access to the school is to be provided from Quigg Place.

2.5     The provision for suitable overflow parking on site during larger events held on the site.

2.6     Lots 201 and 202 DP 1021191 and Lots 11 and 12 DP 1037710 are to be consolidated into one title prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

2.7     The area of the future extension of Quigg Place is to be free of any buildings or encumbrances.

 

Environment

2.8     A phase 2 report is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant EPA (DECC) guidelines and submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the release of a Construction Certificate for the site. The assessment shall be undertaken as recommended by the stage 1 Preliminary Contamination Assessment dated August 2007 prepared by Geotechnique Pty Ltd.  If the Phase 2 report recommends remediation works to be undertaken a separate Development Application is to be lodged for the proposed remediation works and determined before the commencement of any building works.

 

2.9     Any works that are required to be undertaken by the phase 2 report are to be certified by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant once completed and a validation certificate is required to be provided prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the development.

 

Engineering

2.10   A revised car parking / vehicular access plan is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

2.11   All internal roads, car parking and manoeuvring areas associated with the subject development including driveways, turn paths, sight distance requirements, aisle widths, parking bay grades and parking bay dimensions (allowing for full door opening) shall be in accordance with AS 2890.1 – 2004, AS2890.2 – 2002 and Council’s requirements. The revised plans are to detail compliance with AS 2890.1 – 2004, AS2890.2 – 2002 and Council’s requirements.

 

2.12   A drainage design plan detailing the proposed method of stormwater drainage disposal by gravity to Council’s drainage system is to be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

2.13   Stormwater runoff from parking and open areas shall be directed to the stormwater drainage system.  Stormwater pre-treatment devices shall be used to remove litter, sediment and oil.  Specifications of the stormwater pre-treatment device including details on maintenance and cleaning of the device are to accompany the Construction Certificate application.

 

2.14   Before an Occupation Certificate is issued for the development a positive covenant for Water Quality Device/s shall be registered on the affected properties in the following terms:

 

2.15   Registration of Positive Covenant

For the purposes of the positive covenant:

 

·    “structure and works” shall mean the Water Quality Device constructed on the land as set out on the drawing number XXXX by (Designer) approved on XXXXX by Penrith City Council under Development Consent No 08/0886, including all structures, pipes, pits, drains, walls, tanks, chambers, basins and surfaces designed to improve the quality of stormwater discharging from the subject site or any device that replaces the said device.

 

·    ‘the Act” means the Conveyancing Act 1919.

 

The registered proprietors covenant with the Council of the City of Penrith (Council) that they will maintain and repair the structure and works on the land in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

 

1.   The registered proprietor will:

·    Keep the structure and works clean and free from silt, rubbish, debris and other pollutants.

·    Maintain and repair at the sole expense of the registered proprietors the whole of the works, including all structures, so that the Water Quality Device functions in a safe and effective manner in accordance with the design intent and the requirements of the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule for the particular structure.

 

2.   For the purpose of ensuring observance of the covenant, Council may by its servants or agents at any reasonable time and upon giving the person against whom the covenant is enforced not less than 2 days notice (but at any time without notice in the case of an emergency), enter the land and view the state of construction, maintenance or repair of the structure and works on the land.

 

3.   By written notice Council may require the registered proprietors to attend any matter and carry out such work within such time as the Council may require to ensure the proper and efficient performance of the structure and works and to that extent 88F(2)(a) of the Act is hereby agreed.

 

4.   Pursuant to Section 88F (3) of the Act, Council shall have the following additional powers pursuant to this covenant:

a.   In the event that the registered proprietor fails to comply with the terms of any written notice issued by the Council as set out above, the Council or its authorised agents may enter the land with all necessary equipment and carry out any work which Council in its discretion considers reasonable to comply with the said notice referred to in (c) hereof.

b.   Council may recover from the registered proprietor in a court of competent jurisdiction:

·    Any expense reasonable incurred by it in exercising its powers under subparagraph (a) hereof. Such expense shall include reasonable wages for Council’s own employees engaged in effecting the said work, supervising the said work and administering the said work together with costs, reasonably estimated by the Council, for the use of machinery, tools and equipment in conjunction with the said work.

·    Legal costs on an indemnity basis for the issue of the notices and recovery of the costs and expenses together with the costs and expenses of registration of a covenant charge pursuant to Section 88F of the Act or providing any certificate required pursuant to Section 88G of the Act or obtaining any injunction pursuant to Section 88H of the Act.

 

5.   This covenant shall bind all persons who claim under the registered proprietors as stipulated in Section 88E (5) of the Act.

 

2.16   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a maintenance manual for the Water Quality System (i.e. Gross Pollutant Trap / Rain Garden) shall be submitted to, and the details approved by Penrith City Council.

 

2.17   I003 – Roads Act Approval 1

(h) Opening of the road reserve for the provision of services including stormwater.

(i) Placing of hoardings, containers, waste skips, etc. in the road reserve.

(m) Embankment works in the road reserve around the detention basin

 

2.18   An Engineering Construction Certificate for the provision of engineering works (drainage, inter-allotment drainage, 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.

 

2.19   K004 – Amended

Where the disposal of drainage involves the provision of drains across lot boundaries, drainage easements shall be provided. The width of the drainage easement is to be in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Engineering Works Development Control Plan and Guidelines for Engineering Works for Subdivisions and Developments, Part 1–Design and Part 2–Construction.

 

2.20   The easement shall be registered with the Land and Property Information division of the Department of Lands [prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate]. A copy of the registered easement for drainage is to be submitted to the Certifying Authority and Penrith City Council, if Council is not the Certifying Authority.

 

2.21   The applicant is to grant an easement to Penrith City Council for drainage and overland flow purposes on the location shown on the plan accompanying this consent and on the basis that no claim for compensation will be made and that the applicant will meet all associated survey and legal costs.

 

2.22   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate an easement for drainage and overland flow shall be provided and evidence of registration shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Penrith City Council, if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority

 

2.23   An on-site detention system shall be provided to restrict stormwater discharges from the site to pre-development flows. The system is to provide for all storms up to and including the 1% AEP event. In addition, a positive covenant shall be registered on the site for the on-site detention system before an Occupation Certificate is issued for the development.

 

2.24   Engineering details and supporting calculations for the on-site detention system are to be prepared by a qualified Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer and is to accompany the Construction Certificate application for the development in the form of an Engineering Construction Certificate.

 

{Note: If Penrith City Council is the Certifying Authority for the Construction Certificate for the entire development on the site, the Construction Certificate application fee shall include the fee for the On-Site Detention System.}

 

2.25   On-site detention system levels are critical and should be carefully checked prior to construction to ensure they are built in accordance with approved plans and will have the required volume of storage.

 

2.26   Submission of WAE plans

On completion of the on-site detention system, Works-As-Executed (WAE) plans, prepared by a registered surveyor or the design engineer, are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. If Penrith City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the WAE plans is to be submitted to Council prior to occupation. The WAE plans are to be certified by the designer of the system and are to clearly make reference to:

·         the works having been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and

·         the actual storage volume and orifice size provided, and

·         any variation to the approved design and required remedial works, and

·         the anticipated performance of the system with regard to the design intent.

 

2.27   Registration of Positive Covenant

Before an Occupation Certificate is issued for the development, a positive covenant shall be registered on the property for the on-site detention system in the following terms:

 

For the purposes of the positive covenant:

 

·    “structure and works” shall mean the on-site detention system constructed on the land as set out on the drawing annexed hereto and marked with the letter “A”, being drawing No XXXXX revision XXXXX prepared by XXXXX and dated XXXXX (whatever is the last date on the plans) approved by XXXXX (insert certifiers name) under Development Consent No XX/XXXX approved by Penrith City Council on XXXXX, including all gutters, pipes, drains, walls, kerbs pits, grates, tanks, chambers, basins and surfaces designed to temporarily detain stormwater on the land.

 

·    ‘the Act” means the Conveyancing Act 1919.

 

The registered proprietors covenant with the Council of the City of Penrith (Council) that they will maintain and repair the structure and works on the land in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

 

(a)  The registered proprietor will:

·    Keep the structure and works clean and free from silt, rubbish, debris and other pollutants.

·    Maintain and repair at the sole expense of the registered proprietors the whole of the works, including all structures, so that the on-site detention system functions in a safe and effective manner in accordance with the design intent.

 

(b)  For the purpose of ensuring observance of the covenant, Council may by its servants or agents at any reasonable time and upon giving the person against whom the covenant is enforced not less than 2 days notice (but at any time without notice in the case of an emergency), enter the land and view the state of construction, maintenance or repair of the structure and works on the land.

 

(c)  By written notice Council may require the registered proprietors to attend any matter and carry out such work within such time as the Council may require to ensure the proper and efficient performance of the structure and works and to that extent 88F(2)(a) of the Act is hereby agreed.

 

(d)  Pursuant to Section 88F (3) of the Act, Council shall have the following additional powers pursuant to this covenant:

i.    In the event that the registered proprietor fails to comply with the terms of any written notice issued by the Council as set out above, the Council or its authorised agents may enter the land with all necessary equipment and carry out any work which Council in its discretion considers reasonable to comply with the said notice referred to in (c) hereof.

ii.    Council may recover from the registered proprietor in a court of competent jurisdiction:

·    Any expense reasonable incurred by it in exercising its powers under subparagraph (a) hereof. Such expense shall include reasonable wages for Council’s own employees engaged in effecting the said work, supervising the said work and administering the said work together with costs, reasonably estimated by the Council, for the use of machinery, tools and equipment in conjunction with the said work.

·    Legal costs on an indemnity basis for the issue of the notices and recovery of the costs and expenses together with the costs and expenses of registration of a covenant charge pursuant to Section 88F of the Act or providing any certificate required pursuant to Section 88G of the Act or obtaining any injunction pursuant to Section 88H of the Act.

 

(e)  This covenant shall bind all persons who claim under the registered proprietors as stipulated in Section 88E (5) of the Act.

 

The existing detention basin is to be re-configured to suit the proposed school development. The re-configured basin shall conform to the requirements stated in J Wyndham Prince’s Stormwater Management Strategy dated 8 November 2005 Section 4.2.2 “Detention Basin” and the following conditions. Full details including all calculations, levels and sections shall be forwarded to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Details of retaining structures and battered slopes and banks shall be included.

 

Retaining walls and works to raise the on-site detention basin embankment shall be confined to the subject property and the road reserve shall be filled and restored to natural level. The basin shall be fenced on the boundary with a 1.8m high man proof fence. Battered slopes shall not exceed 4:1 horizontal to vertical.

 

Appropriate warning signage shall be erected in the vicinity of the detention basin warning against deep and flowing water.

 

The treatment of overland flows through the site shall be provided on engineering plans and shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Before an Occupation Certificate is issued for the development, a positive covenant shall be registered on the affected properties for the overland flow path in the following terms:

 

For the purpose of the positive covenant:

·    “structure and works” shall mean the overland flow path constructed on the land as detailed on the plans approved by Council including pavement and fencing.

 

The registered proprietors covenant with the Council of the City of Penrith (Council) that they will maintain and repair the structure and works on the land in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

(a)  The registered proprietor will:

·    Keep the structure and works clean and free of goods, materials, plant and machinery.

·    Maintain and repair at the sole expense of the registered proprietors the whole of the works, including all structures, so that the overland flow path functions in a safe and effective manner in accordance with the design intent.

 

(b)  For the purpose of ensuring observance of the covenant, Council may by its servants or agents at any reasonable time and upon giving the person against whom the covenant is enforced not less than 2 days notice (but at any time without notice in the case of an emergency), enter the land and view the state of construction, maintenance or repair of the structure and works on the land.

 

(c)  By written notice Council may require the registered proprietors to attend any matter and carry out such work within such time as the Council may require to ensure the proper and efficient performance of the structure and works and to that extent 88F(2)(a) of the Act is hereby agreed.

 

(d)  Pursuant to Section 88F (3) of the Act, Council shall have the following additional powers pursuant to this covenant:

(iii)       In the event that the registered proprietor fails to comply with the terms of any written notice issued by the Council as set out above, the Council or its authorised agents may enter the land with all necessary equipment and carry out any work which Council in its discretion considers reasonable to comply with the said notice referred to in (c) hereof.

(iv)       Council may recover from the registered proprietor in a court of competent jurisdiction:

·    Any expense reasonable incurred by it in exercising its powers under subparagraph (a) hereof. Such expense shall include reasonable wages for Council’s own employees engaged in effecting the said work, supervising the said work and administering the said work together with costs, reasonably estimated by the Council, for the use of machinery, tools and equipment in conjunction with the said work.

·    Legal costs on an indemnity basis for the issue of the notices and recovery of the costs and expenses together with the costs and expenses of registration of a covenant charge pursuant to Section 88F of the Act or providing any certificate required pursuant to Section 88G of the Act or obtaining any injunction pursuant to Section 88H of the Act.

 

(e)  This covenant shall bind all persons who claim under the registered proprietors as stipulated in Section 88E (5) of the Act.

 

 

2.28   Q003 - Compliance Certificates (Engineering)

Including filling operations on site

Accessible parking spaces are to be provided at close proximity to the main entrances.

 

 

2.29   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a Traffic Management Plan is to be lodged and approved by Penrith City Council indicating how the safety of vehicles and pedestrians will be ensured throughout the car park and drop off/bus zones.

 

Roads & Traffic Authority

 

2.30   Car parking provision shall be provided to Council’s satisfaction. Suitable provision is to be made for the on-site parking of vehicles during special events undertaken at the school.

 

2.31   Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

2.32   The layout of the entry and exit driveways, car parking area, drop-off/pick up zones and bus zone including sight distance requirements, aisle widths, ramp grades, turning paths, driveway widths, and bay dimensions are to be in accordance with AS2890.1-2004and AS2890.2-2002.

 

2.33   The swept path of the longest vehicle (including garbage trucks and buses) entering and exiting the subject site, as well as manoeuvrability through the site shall be in accordance with AUSTROADS. In this regard, plans showing that the proposed development complies with this requirement shall be submitted to Council for approval.

 

2.34   All vehicles are to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

2.35   Appropriate signage and line marking shall be installed for the entry and exit driveways, car parking areas, drop-off/pick up zones, bus zone and loading areas

 

2.36   Consideration could be given to providing a pedestrian crossing facility across Bringelly Rd within the school frontage. It is noted that any crossing facility would need to meet RTA warrants and would need approval from the Local Traffic Committee.

 

2.37   All landscaping, signage, fencing and parked buses are not to impede sight lines to pedestrians.

 

2.38   A construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Council, for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

2.39   All construction vehicles are to be contained wholly within the site.

 

2.40   The developer shall be responsible for all public utility adjustment/relocation works, necessitated by the above works and as required by the various public utility authorities and/ or their agents.

 

2.41   All works associated with the proposed development are to be carried out at no cost to the RTA.

 

2.42   The student numbers for the school is not to exceed 375 unless otherwise approved by Council.

 

3.     That those people making submissions are notified of the determination.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Floor Plans

5 Pages

Appendix

3. View

Elevations and Landscape Concept Plan

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 2 - Floor Plans

 

 

 





 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 3 - Elevations and Landscape Concept Plan

 

 

 



 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

4

Development Application DA09/0221 for a Community Facility at Lots 7, 8 and 9 DP 247158 (No. 46) Bringelly Road and Lot 5 & 6 DP 250412 (No. 49) First Street Kingswood  Applicant:  Mission Australia;  Owner:  Mission Australia    

DA09/0221

Compiled by:                Robert Craig, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Objective: We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Strategic Direction:  We respond to the impacts of climate change, and support the principles of sustainability

     

 

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

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a Development Application from Mission Australia for a proposed community facility consisting of a 2 storey community services centre (Family Support Services Centre) and 6 × 2 storey town houses (Family Accommodation Centre) at Lots 7, 8 and 9 DP 247158 (No. 46) Bringelly Road and Lot 5 & 6 DP 250412 (No. 49) First Street, Kingswood. Mission Australia is a national charity and community service organisation providing integrated social services and support to needy Australians, with particular focus on families, children, the youth and the homeless. The proposed facility is a mixed-use community facility that will provide family day care services and community support services to assist families with special family support needs.

 

Given the prominence of the subject site from Bringelly Road, the considerable capital investment associated with the proposal, the likely public benefits of the proposal and the community interest received by Council to date, the Development Application is reported to Council for determination.

 

The site is zoned 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). The proposed development is defined as a “community facility”, which is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development has been advertised in the local newspapers and notified to nearby and adjoining residents. A site notice was also placed on the site. Council received 4 submissions in response to the proposal.

 

An assessment of the proposal, including the submissions received by Council, under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken. The following key issues have emerged as a result of this assessment process:

 

·    The applicant’s SEPP 1 (State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards) objection seeking a variation from Council’s development standards relating to the maximum external wall height of a building and the minimum landscaped area of a site.

·    Access, parking and traffic.

·    Noise impacts.

·    Hours of operation.

·    Safety, security and crime prevention.

·    Social impacts.

 

These matters are discussed in detail in the report.

 

Having regard for all of the relevant matters, it is considered that the proposed development is capable, subject to the enforcement of conditions, of operating in such a manner as to present only minimal adverse impacts on the local community. The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory.

 

This report therefore recommends that the application be approved subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

Background

 

The subject site was purchased by Mission Australia in September 2007 and has not been occupied since that time. Prior to this the site was used as a community facility providing support services to children with disabilities and their families and carers. This facility was owned and administered by Northcott Disability Services (previously the NSW Society for Crippled Children). Council approval for this facility was issued in April 1965.

 

Mission Australia attended a pre-lodgement meeting with Council in relation to their development proposal in October 2008.

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The subject site is situated on the north-eastern corner of the intersection of Bringelly Road and Baden Powell Avenue, approximately 600m south of the Great Western Highway. The site also has frontage to First Street. The site is 4,077m2 in area a 2.5m cross-fall from east to west. A Locality Plan is held at Appendix No. 1.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by residential development including a mix of older established single dwellings and newer in-fill medium density housing.

 

The site is currently occupied by a vacant single-storey brick building which was previously used as a community facility providing support services to children with disabilities and their families and carers. The main entrance of the existing building fronts Bringelly Road. At the rear of the site fronting First Street is a single-storey fibro dwelling with related structures at the rear. There are several existing trees and shrubs on the site including 3 mature Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box) trees situated on the south-east corner of the site.

 

The Proposed Development

 

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

·    Demolition of existing buildings and structures.

·    A community facility consisting of a 2 storey community services centre (Family Support Services Centre) and 6 × 2 storey town houses (Family Accommodation Centre). The proposed facility is a mixed-use community facility that will provide family day care services and community support services to assist families with special family support needs.

·    Car parking including 25 on-site car spaces for the Family Support Services Centre and 6 on-site resident car spaces for the Family Accommodation Centre.

·    Related signage, landscaping, tree removal and stormwater drainage works.

 

Copies of the photomontage of the Family Support Services Centre, site plan, floor plans and elevations submitted with the application are provided under separate cover to Councillors.

 

Family Support Services Centre

 

The Family Support Services Centre is primarily intended to serve as a base for Mission Australia’s family day care scheme. Family day care is home-based small group child care for young babies through to pre-teens and can offer care during standard hours, before/after school and during school holidays. The proposed facility will offer playgroup activity sessions (0-5s), a homework club (5-12s), parent group meetings and associated child care, parent group sessions and associated child care, parent and carer education and training sessions, a toy library and consultancy rooms for related support services such as community health, financial counselling and legal services which will be provided by other not-for-profit organisations.

 

The Family Support Services Centre is proposed to be sited on the western part of the site fronting Bringelly Road and Baden Powell Avenue. The ground floor includes an entry foyer, meeting rooms, consulting rooms, children’s activity rooms, toy library, amenities and a reception area. A children’s outdoor play area is also proposed at ground level. The first floor contains office space and amenities for Mission Australia’s administrative and field staff and related staff from other not-for-profit organisations providing related support services from the facility.

 

Car parking for the Family Support Services Centre is to be situated in the centre of the site and will be accessed from Baden Powell Avenue. The car park will provide 22 car spaces for the Family Support Services Centre, including 2 accessible car spaces. A visitor drop-off zone fronting the main pedestrian entry is also proposed and this will be accessed from Baden Powell Avenue and include 3 additional car parking spaces for the Family Support Services Centre (inclusive of 1 accessible car space).

 

The proposed hours of operation of the Family Support Services Centre are as follows:

 

·    Playgroup activity sessions (0-5s): 9.30am-11.30am, Monday to Saturday; 1pm-3pm, Monday to Friday.

·    Homework club (5-12s): 3.30pm-5pm, Monday to Friday.

·    Parent group meetings and associated child care: 10am-12 noon, Monday to Friday.

·    Parent group sessions and associated child care: 7pm-9pm, Monday to Friday.

·    Parent and carer education and training sessions: 7pm-9pm, Monday to Friday.

·    Toy library: 9am-5pm, Monday to Friday; 5pm-8pm, Thursday (by appointment only); 9am-12 noon, Saturday (by appointment only).

·    Occasional major event (1 per school term) such as a parent expo, family barbecue or seminar: 9am-5pm, Saturday.

·    Office: 8am-6pm, Monday to Friday.

 

Family Accommodation Centre

 

The Family Accommodation Centre is proposed to be sited on the eastern part of the site fronting First Street. Each unit contains ground floor living areas, 2 first floor bedrooms and a single car garage and will have access to a private courtyard. The garages will be accessed via a central driveway off Baden Powell Avenue. Provision has also been made for 1 accessible garaged car space. Visitor car parking for the Family Accommodation Centre is proposed as on-street parking on First Street. The Family Accommodation Centre is intended to provide short to medium-term accommodation for 6-12 months for families with 1-3 children who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

 

Planning Assessment

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in 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) – The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

 

Permissibility

 

The subject site is zoned 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land). The proposed development is defined as a “community facility”, which is permissible with the consent of Council. A community facility is defined in Schedule 2 of the LEP as follows:

 

“community facility” means a building, place or facility, whether or not provided by the council, provided for use by groups having similar physical, cultural, social, recreational, ethnic or other interests or beliefs, but (in the development control table) does not include a club which is registered under the Registered Clubs Act 1976 or a building or place specifically defined elsewhere in this Schedule;

 

Based on the details of the application, the proposed development meets the requisite criteria of the community facility definition.

 

LEP and Zone Objectives

 

The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP. The particular objectives of the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone are as follows:

 

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

(ii) to protect the character of traditional cottage development and streetscapes, and

(iii) to consolidate population and housing densities, and

(iv) to expand housing choices by allowing multi-unit housing up to a two storey appearance, and

(v) to promote a variety of housing types or forms upon each site, and

(vi) to allow a range of compatible non-residential uses.

 

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies each of the relevant objectives of the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone.

 

Development Standards

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant development standards contained in the LEP relating to multi-unit housing and development generally in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone, as detailed below.

 

Development Standards

Requirement

Compliance

Clause 11(4) – Lot Size

800m2

Yes (1,189m2 – Family Accommodation Centre only).

Clause 11(4) – Lot Width

18m

Yes (41m – First Street).

Clause 12(3) – Building Envelope

1.8m from property boundary and 45o height plane.

Family Support Services Centre and Family Accommodation Centre both within building envelope.

Clause 12(3) – External Wall Height

6.5m

No (7m – Family Support Services Centre). Refer to discussion regarding SEPP 1.

Clause 12(3) – Landscaped Area

40%

No (38% – 1,550m2/ 4,077m2). Refer to discussion regarding SEPP 1.

Clause 12(4) – Rear Setback

6m for 2 storey and 4m for single storey.

Yes (4.45m – Family Support Services Centre). Note that the Family Support Services Centre shade structure, store room and car park garage are setback less than 4m. Refer to discussion regarding Clause 12(7).

Clause 13(2) – Solar Access

§ 3 hours direct sun to living areas.

§ 3 hours direct sun to neighbouring living areas.

§ Ceiling insulated to R3.0.

§ Walls insulated to R1.5.

§ Shading devices.

§ Yes. 9am-12 noon.

 

§ Yes. 9am-3pm.

 

§ Energy efficiency requirements addressed via BASIX Certificate.

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 12(7)

 

Council may consent to the erection of a related non-habitable structure which is not compliant with the required rear building setback provided it will only have minimal adverse impact on the site and any adjoining land. In this regard, the proposed shade structure, store room and car park garage associated with the Family Support Services Centre are setback less than 4m from the northern property boundary. However, these encroachments are considered negligible in the circumstances and meet the test of only having minimal adverse impact on the site and the adjoining property.

 

Clause 14 – General Design Principles

 

The proposed development is consistent with the general design principles detailed in this clause and relating to protection of local topography, streetscape and character, compatibility with the scale and design of neighbouring development and provision of contemporary standards of amenity within dwellings and open space areas.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

The proposed development does not comply with Council’s development standards relating to the maximum external wall height of a building and the minimum landscaped area of a site. In this regard, Clause 12(3) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land) stipulates that in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone the maximum allowable external wall height of a building is 6.5m and the minimum required landscaped area of a site is 40%. The proposed development includes a maximum external wall height of 7m (Family Support Services Centre) and a landscaped area of 38% (1,550m2/4,077m2), representing proposed variations from the relevant development standards of 7.7% and 4.9% respectively.

 

The applicant has accompanied the application with a written objection to the development standards contained in Clause 12(3) of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1). SEPP 1 enables Councils to approve a development proposal that does not comply with a particular development standard where in the circumstances of the case the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the standard to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Section 4(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 defines development standards as follows:

 

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:…

 

(c) the character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design or external appearance of a building or work,…

 

(f)  the provision of public access, open space, landscaped space [emphasis added], tree planting or other treatment for the conservation, protection or enhancement of the environment,…

Based on this definition, it is considered that Council’s requirements relating to the maximum external wall height of a building and the minimum landscaped area of a site can be categorised as development standards. Council is therefore able to consider the SEPP 1 objection submitted by the applicant.

 

External Wall Height

 

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the maximum allowable external wall height of a building (6.5m) in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone is reproduced below.

 

“The specific purpose of the standard is set out in Clause 12(1) of the PLEP 1998. The general purpose of the maximum external wall height controls are to achieve site-responsive development at a scale which is compatible with existing housing in the locality by controlling visual impacts relating to height and bulk and to minimise the impact of loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views.

 

The proposal provides an external wall height of 6.5 metres for the residential apartment building and 7 metres for the community centre. The LEP requires a maximum 6.5 metres. Therefore the proposed variation to the LEP control equates to 500mm.

 

The external wall height objectives with comments related to the objection are as follows:-

 

a) Achieve site-responsive development at a scale which is compatible with existing housing in the locality by controlling visual impacts relating to height and bulk.

The only part of the proposal which does not comply with the control is the south-eastern corner of the community use building. This is due to the slope of the land and equates to only 500mm. The development will not be out of scale with the surrounding locality and will not present as significantly bulky within the streetscape.

b) Minimise the impact of loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views.

The area of non-compliance is located in the south-eastern corner of the building adjacent to Baden Powell Avenue. Any additional impact from the non-compliance in relation to overshadowing will fall over the street rather than neighbouring properties. Privacy impacts are also minimised due to the location of the non-compliant area of the building adjoining the street.

 

In conclusion, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable due to the minor variation to the control sought and the proposal’s compliance with the objectives for external wall height. The proposal will maintain a better scale relationship with the other housing development in the vicinity and will enhance the character and quality of development in the area.

 

Compliance with the development standard is unnecessary as the objectives of the control are realised as noted in the table above. There is no harm to the environment as a result of the non-compliance. Therefore, the support of Council respectfully requested in considering this variation to the development standard.”

 

Comment:

 

Clause 12(2) of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) defines the external wall height of a building as follows:

 

“external wall height” of a building means the vertical distance measured between natural ground level at any point at which the building is sited and the topmost point of any external or enclosing wall within the development site, but excluding the sides and faces of any dormer windows…

 

In accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 1, it is considered the applicant’s objection is well founded and is consistent with the aims of the SEPP outlined in Clause 3 in that compliance with the standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary. In this regard, the scale of the proposal is compatible with existing housing in the locality in terms of height and bulk and will achieve only minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy and views. The shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate there will be no impacts on adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing. Copies of the submitted shadow diagrams are provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

The maximum proposed external wall height of 7m is considered negligible in the circumstances given it relates only to a portion of the building which is not directly adjoining a residential neighbour but rather presents to public roads. The extent of the non-compliance is minimal (50cm) and in any case will aide in an attractive corner presentation of the building to Bringelly Road.

 

In summary, the SEPP 1 objection has adequately addressed the matters prescribed in State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has demonstrated that compliance with the prescribed maximum external wall height would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Landscaped Area

 

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the minimum landscaped area of a site in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone is reproduced below.

 

“The specific purpose of the standard is set out in Clause 12(1) of the PLEP 1998. The general purpose of the landscaped area controls is to provide appropriate separation between buildings and to protect and enhance the environmental features of localities.

 

The proposal provides a landscaped area of 1,550m2 or 38% of the site. The LEP requires 1,631m2 or 40% of the site. Therefore the proposed variation to the LEP control equates to 81m2.

 

The landscaped area objectives with comments related to the objection are as follows:-

 

c) Achieve an appropriate separation between buildings and site boundaries and preserve private open space corridors along rear fence lines.

The proposal includes extensive landscaping to both components of the development. Landscaping will be provided within the courtyards of the residential apartments to contribute to the streetscape and green corridors within the locality. Extensive planting will be provided along all boundaries of the site to provide natural screening for the residential properties to the north and to provide an improved streetscape appearance for the entire site.

The car park for the FSSC use will have landscaped verges surrounding and trees between some parking spaces provided in planters. Additionally the proposal provides 63% of the landscaped area as soft landscaping which allows adequate stormwater infiltration allowing greater plant growth and sustainability.

d) Protect and enhance the environmental features, which are characteristic of each of the residential zones, by requiring sufficient space on-site for effective landscaping and on-site stormwater detention.

The character of the neighbourhood will not be compromised by the level of landscaped area to be provided. The landscaped area to be provided does not significantly reduce the ability of the property to support vegetation and present to all street frontages with substantial planted areas.

A Stormwater Concept Plan is provided which demonstrates sufficient on-site stormwater detention to comply with this objective.

 

In conclusion, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable due to the minor variation to the control sought and the proposal’s compliance with the objectives for landscaped area. The proposal will provide extensive areas of landscaping to present to all streets in a landscaped setting enhancing the character and quality of the area.

 

Compliance with the development standard is unnecessary as the objectives of the control are realised as noted in the table above. There is no harm to the environment as a result of the non-compliance. Therefore, the support of Council respectfully requested in considering this variation to the development standard.”

 

 

 

Comment:

 

Clause 12(2) of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) defines the landscaped area of a site as follows:

 

“landscaped area”, of a site, 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.

 

In accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 1, it is considered the applicant’s objection is well founded and is consistent with the aims of the SEPP outlined in Clause 3 in that compliance with the standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary. In this regard, appropriate separation has been achieved between the proposed buildings and the northern property boundary providing for the retention of a private open space corridor either side of the boundary fence line. In addition, the application has been accompanied by a detailed landscape plan for the site which will provide for the high quality embellishment of the site by suitable ground covers, shrubs and trees which, at maturity, will complement the height, scale, design and function of the proposed development. The landscape plan also includes provision for the retention of 2 mature Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box) trees situated on the south-east corner of the site. As such, the proposal will protect and enhance the environmental features which are characteristic of the surrounding area. Adequate provision has been made on the site for on-site stormwater detention.

 

In summary, the SEPP 1 objection has adequately addressed the matters prescribed in State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has demonstrated that compliance with the prescribed minimum landscaped area would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

In order to appropriately identify the Family Support Services Centre, the proposed development incorporates 3 illuminated flush wall signs as follows:

 

·    Southern elevation (western end) – Mission Australia logo and Family Support Services Centre name within a rectangular proportion of 3m wide × 1m high (to be primarily viewed from Bringelly Road by northbound pedestrians and motorists).

·    Southern elevation (above main pedestrian entry) – Mission Australia logo and Family Support Services Centre name within a rectangular proportion of 2.25m wide × 1m high rectangle (to be primarily viewed from Baden Powell Avenue).

·    Northern elevation (western end) – Mission Australia logo within a rectangular proportion of 0.75m wide × 1m high (to be primarily viewed from Bringelly Road by southbound pedestrians and motorists).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) aims to ensure that outdoor advertising is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, provides effective communication in suitable locations and is of high quality design and finish. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed signage is consistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 64 and pursuant to Clause 8(b) satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1 of the SEPP. While Clause 22 of SEPP 64 imposes certain restrictions on wall advertisements, these restrictions are not applicable in this case given that the proposed signage constitutes “business identification signage” and therefore cannot be classified as a wall advertisement.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997)

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997) (REP 20) integrates planning with catchment management to protect the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, requiring the impact of future land use to be considered in a regional context. The plan covers water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, riverine scenic quality, agriculture and urban and rural-residential development. It controls development that has the potential to impact on the river environment. The plan applies to all parts of the catchment in the Sydney region (15 local government areas, including Penrith), except for land covered by Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 11 – Penrith Lakes Scheme. The REP is supported by an Action Plan, which includes actions necessary to improve existing conditions.

 

The proposed development is in accordance with the general planning considerations set out in Clause 5 of the REP and the relevant specific planning policies and related recommended strategies set out in Clause 6.

 

2.   Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

 

Draft Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)(Amendment No. 17)

 

The Department of Planning issued a circular on 13 November 2008 advising that from 1 March 2009, draft environmental planning instruments that were exhibited prior to 1 March 2006 and which have not yet been gazetted should not be considered pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) Amendment No. 17 satisfies this criterion and therefore does not require consideration with regard to the subject Development Application.

 

3.   Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – The Provisions of any Development Control Plan

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

 

Section 2.1 Contaminated Land

 

The subject site was purchased by Mission Australia in September 2007 and has not been occupied since that time. Prior to this time the site was used as a community facility providing support services to children with disabilities and their families and carers. This facility operated from 1965 onwards.

 

No potentially contaminating activities are currently being undertaken on the site. Based on the site history there is no evidence to suggest that any potentially contaminating activities have occurred on the site in the past.

 

 

Section 2.2 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

 

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) aims to ensure development is appropriately designed to reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed. By introducing measures to achieve appropriate natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement and space management, it is anticipated that this will assist in minimising the incidence of crime and contribute to perceptions of increased public safety.

 

The external facade of the proposed Family Support Services Centre has been designed with appropriate glazing to achieve natural surveillance opportunities toward the exterior areas of the site and assists in limiting concealed areas. The ground floor reception area will be attended at all times by reception staff during general business hours to manage and oversee the ground floor operations. A closed circuit television (CCTV) system will also be in place to provide further capacity for staff to oversee the premises. The main pedestrian entry will be secured by way of intercom and automatic door openings.

 

Council’s Community Safety Coordinator has reviewed the proposed development with regard to community safety and CPTED principles and has provided the following comments in this regard:

 

“As the development consists of both community facilities and private residential units, it is important that appropriate measures are in place to clearly differentiate the public and private spaces within this development.

 

Discussions with local Police have highlighted that a number of residential apartment blocks in the Kingswood area have recently been targeted by break and enter and property theft. Police have recommended that appropriate target-hardening and CPTED measures be put in place to minimise the risk of break and enter offences. This includes the use of appropriate security locks and fittings on doors and windows, and avoiding landscaping which restricts surveillance opportunities to view the property from the street.

 

It is important that appropriate CPTED principles and security considerations are utilised to minimise the crime risk associated with the development and promote safety in and around the development.”

 

Council’s Community Safety Coordinator has provided conditions of consent that should be applied to the proposed development to enhance the safety and security of all users of the development and to minimise the crime risk associated with the development. These conditions relate to matters such as site, building and landscape design, lighting, use of CCTV cameras, access control and building signage. Each of these matters can be suitably conditioned should approval of the proposal be forthcoming.

 

It should be noted that while Council’s Community Safety Coordinator consulted with the St Marys Police, no formal written submission was received by Council.

 

 

 

 

Section 2.4 Erosion and Sediment Control

 

The proposed development includes provision for appropriate strategies to manage and minimise erosion and sedimentation during the course of the development works.

 

Section 2.6 Landscape

 

The application has been accompanied by a detailed landscape plan for the site which will provide for the high-quality embellishment of the site by suitable ground covers, shrubs and trees which, at maturity, will complement the height, scale, design and function of the proposed development. It should be noted that the landscape plan includes provision for the retention of 2 mature Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box) trees situated on the south-east corner of the site.

 

Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising

 

The proposed development was advertised in the local newspapers and notified to nearby and adjoining residents. The application was advertised between 25 March and 8 April 2009. A site notice was also placed on the site. Council received 4 submissions in response to the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and considered later in this report.

 

Section 2.9 Waste Planning

 

The application has been accompanied by a waste management plan and it suitably describes the likely waste generation of the proposal and identifies appropriate actions to mange the generation, storage and disposal of wastes. Council’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the proposed development with regard to waste management and is satisfied with this aspect of the proposal.

 

Section 2.11 Car Parking

 

Each unit within the proposed Family Accommodation Centre has been provided with a single car garage (n.b. the garage for Unit 6 constitutes an accessible car space). Visitor car parking for the Family Accommodation Centre is proposed as on-street parking on First Street. The proposed Family Support Services Centre has been provided with car parking in the centre of the site for 22 vehicles (including 2 accessible car spaces) and a visitor drop-off zone fronting the main pedestrian entry, including 3 additional car parking spaces (inclusive of 1 accessible car space).

 

Based on Council’s minimum car parking requirements, the proposed development generates demand for car parking as follows:

 

Car Parking Controls

Compliance

Child Care Centres

1 car space per 4 children:

30 ÷ 4 = 7.5 car spaces

Yes. Provision has been made for a total of 25 on-site car spaces for the proposed Family Support Services Centre.

Office Premises

1 car space per 40m2 gross floor area:

660m2 ÷ 40m2 = 16.5 car spaces

Multi-Unit Housing – Town Houses

1 bedroom: 1 car space; 2 bedrooms: 1.5 car spaces; 3 or more bedrooms: 2 car spaces; visitor parking: 1 car space per 5 dwellings (may be provided on-street where available):

6 × 1.5 = 9 resident car spaces

6 ÷ 5 = 1.2 visitor car spaces

Partial compliance. Provision has been made for a total of 6 on-site resident car spaces for the proposed Family Accommodation Centre. Refer to the discussion below regarding this non-compliance. First Street can comfortably accommodate up to 5 on-street car spaces adjacent to the site.

 

While on-site resident car parking for the proposed Family Accommodation Centre technically falls short by 3 car spaces, it is considered that the proposed parking allocation is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In this regard, the proposed dwellings are intended to accommodate families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. There is not likely to be high levels of car ownership among these families and each dwelling will still enjoy the benefit of its own car space. Furthermore, the proposed dwellings are technically a hybrid between an apartment-style and town house form of development. Apartments with 2 bedrooms only require provision for 1 car space per dwelling (not 1.5 car spaces) pursuant to Council’s minimum car parking requirements. The proposed Family Accommodation Centre complies with this requirement. On this basis and in consideration of the significant public benefit likely to result from this proposal, it is therefore considered that the proposed level of on-site resident car parking is satisfactory.

 

Section 2.11 Tree Preservation

 

Although the site is mapped as containing remnant Shale Plains Woodland (a subset of Cumberland Plain Woodland, an endangered ecological community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995), the site is extensively developed and cleared of the majority of its original vegetation. There are several existing trees and shrubs on the site including 3 mature Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box) trees situated on the south-east corner of the site.

 

The application has been accompanied by an Arborist Report prepared by Australian Tree Consultants. The report concludes that the general condition of the majority of trees on the property is poor due to the trees either being over mature, declining and structurally unsound or due to the trees having suppressed growth habits from over planting or overshadowing by larger trees. These trees are therefore recommended for removal by Australian Tree Consultants.

 

The 3 mature Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box) trees situated on the south-east corner of the site are noted as being structurally sound with further potential for canopy and trunk development. On this basis, and also given these trees are visually prominent and native to the Cumberland Plain, Australian Tree Consultants has recommended that these trees be retained on the site. The applicant proposes to retain 2 of these trees (Trees 9 and 14), however due to the large canopy of Tree 13 and its intrusion into the site, the applicant proposes the removal of this tree. While retention of this tree would represent the idyllic outcome, it is considered that the applicant has made a genuine and considered attempt at retaining the other 2 significant trees on the site. In addition, the proposed landscape strategy for the site is of a high quality and will more than compensate for the removal of this tree.

 

 

 

 

Section 3.1 Advertising Signs

 

As discussed earlier, the proposed development incorporates 3 illuminated flush wall signs in order to appropriately identify the Family Support Services Centre. While consistent with the aims, objectives and assessment criteria specified in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64), the proposed signage does not satisfy several of Council’s residential signage controls (i.e. one business identification sign per property, maximum dimensions of 1.2m × 0.6m and generally no illumination).

 

However, it is considered unreasonable to restrict this proposed community facility to a maximum of 1 sign with maximum dimensions 1.2m × 0.6m. In addition, given 2 of the 3 signs are to be primarily visible from Bringelly Road (i.e. a higher order road than a local residential street), the proposed scale and illumination of this signage is considered acceptable. In relation to the proposed sign to be primarily visible from Baden Powell Avenue, it is considered that this sign is essential for way-finding purposes (i.e. the main pedestrian entry) and is of a suitably restrained scale. In terms of illumination of this sign, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that no adverse impact will result on neighbours situated on the southern side of Baden Powell Avenue. In this regard, details of the intended illumination of each sign and light spill details will be required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for the development. This matter can be conditioned accordingly.

 

Section 3.2 Baby Care Rooms

 

The proposed Family Support Services Centre does not strictly satisfy Council’s requirements for the provision of baby care rooms in community facilities of this scale (i.e. a 20m2 baby care room). However, the ground floor amenities incorporate nappy change and related facilities and the ground floor children’s activities rooms share additional nappy change and related facilities. In addition, the child care area provides for a kitchenette with connection to adjoining rooms with appropriate seating where necessary. The applicant has also noted that the ground floor meeting and consulting rooms will be made available when required to families where privacy is necessary. Ultimately the applicant argues that the Family Support Services Centre will provide for a flexible and amenable set of opportunities which effectively meet the intent of Council’s requirements for the provision of baby care rooms in community facilities of this scale. It is considered that the applicant’s case has merit in that the proposed Family Support Services Centre represents a unique facility targeting the needs of families and as such it will provide numerous opportunities for carers and children to be catered for in an appropriate manner.

 

Section 3.3 Child Care Centres

 

The proposed Family Support Services Centre is intended to serve as a base for Mission Australia’s family day care scheme. The family day care centre component of the facility is intended to operate differently to the traditional long day child care centre in that children will arrive and depart the site throughout the day and typically stay for around 2 hours. While this different form of operation is noted, the proposal has been assessed against Council’s development controls for child care centres and has been found to comply with each control as follows:

 

 

 

Development Controls

Compliance

1.   Amenity

Yes.

2.   Location

Yes.

3.   Vehicle Access and Parking

Yes.

4.   Noise

Yes.

5.   Shade

Yes.

6.   Landscaping

Yes.

7.   Private Dwelling

Not applicable.

8.   Toilet Facilities

Yes.

9.   Fire Safety and Emergency Exits

Yes.

10. Floor Space

Yes.

Development Controls

Compliance

11. Out of School Care

Yes.

12. Work Based Child Care Centres

Not applicable.

 

Section 4.5 Residential – Town House Development

 

The proposed Family Accommodation Centre dwellings are technically a hybrid between an apartment-style and town house form of development. However, for the most part, it is considered that the configuration of the dwellings most represents a town house form of development. The proposal has therefore been assessed against Council’s development controls for town houses and with the exception of car parking and landscaped area (refer to earlier discussions regarding these matters), has been found to comply with each control as follows:

 

Development Controls

Compliance

5.2 Urban Form

Yes.

5.3 Front and Rear Setbacks

Yes.

5.4 Driveways and Parking

No. Refer to earlier discussion regarding car parking.

5.5 Landscaped Area

No. Refer to earlier discussion regarding SEPP 1.

5.6 Building Envelope and Side Setbacks

Yes.

5.7 Solar Planning

Yes.

6.1 Significant Townscapes and Landscapes

Yes.

6.2 Corner Sites and Park Frontages

Yes.

6.3 Building Design

Yes.

6.4 Energy Efficiency

Yes.

6.5 Design of Dwellings and Private Courtyards

Yes.

6.6 Garage Design

Yes.

6.7 Garden Design

Yes.

6.8 Paving Design

Yes.

6.9 Fences and Retaining Walls

Yes.

6.10 Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Outlook

Yes.

6.11 Safety and Security

Yes.

6.12 Accessibility and Adaptability

Yes.

6.13 Storage and Services

Yes.

 

4.   Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Provisions of the Regulations

 

There are no regulations applicable to the proposed development.

 

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

 

(i)        Context and Setting

 

The proposed development fits in with the developing context of medium density residential development to the north. The site has 3 separate road frontages and therefore is considered well suited to the proposed development. This location limits the number of residences which directly abut the site, thereby limiting the impacts on the overall amenity of the neighbourhood. In terms of the 2 properties directly adjoining the site to the north, appropriate ameliorative measures are planned to limit any impacts in this regard.

 

The proposed built form of the Family Support Services Centre is configured to minimise bulk and scale along the northern property boundary in deference to neighbouring residential sites. A raking articulated roof rises from the north to a ridge above the second storey along the southern facade which will minimise visual, privacy and overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties while being prominent at the most public corner of the site. The first floor (northern elevation) has been stepped in and highlight windows have been provided to this elevation.

 

(ii)        Access, Parking and Traffic

 

Each unit within the proposed Family Accommodation Centre has been provided with a single car garage (n.b. the garage for Unit 6 constitutes an accessible car space). These garages will be accessed via a central driveway off Baden Powell Avenue. Visitor car parking for the Family Accommodation Centre is proposed as on-street parking on First Street. The proposed Family Support Services Centre has been provided with car parking in the centre of the site for 22 vehicles (including 2 accessible car spaces) and a visitor drop-off zone fronting the main pedestrian entry, including 3 additional car parking spaces (inclusive of 1 accessible car space). The car park and visitor drop-off zone will be accessed from Baden Powell Avenue.

 

The proposed access arrangements are considered satisfactory. The car parking provided is in accordance with Council’s minimum car parking requirements. The design of the driveways and internal layouts of the car parking areas comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 – Off-Street Parking Facilities.

 

The site is accessible by both rail and bus services. The site is located within 700m walking distance from Kingswood Railway Station. Bus stops are also located on both sides of Bringelly Road immediately adjacent to the site.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Traffic Report prepared by Masson Wilson Twiney. The Traffic Report indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately 40 vehicles per hour during its busiest peak period. The report concludes that the overall additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposal can be accommodated within the existing road network capacity.

 

Council’s Access Committee and Development Engineers are satisfied with the proposed development in terms of access, parking and traffic considerations.

 

It should be noted that the family day care component of the proposed Family Support Services Centre will have the capacity to accommodate up to 30 children but will typically be attended by approximately 10 children on any one day. This aspect of the facility would operate differently to the traditional long day child care centre in that children would arrive and depart the site throughout the day and typically stay for approximately 2 hours. Therefore from a traffic perspective, this aspect of the facility would not have the intensity of a typical long day child care centre where arrivals are concentrated during the morning peak and departures during the afternoon peak.

 

(iii)      Heritage

 

Council received a submission from the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council requesting its representatives inspect the subject land to evaluate the likely impact of the proposed development on the cultural heritage of the land. In response, a letter was sent to Deerubbin in May advising that the subject site is extensively developed, cleared of the majority of its original vegetation and situated in a highly urbanised part of the suburb of Kingswood. Based on these factors Deerubbin was advised that there is considered to be little likelihood of Aboriginal cultural material occurring on the site and therefore it would be unreasonable in these circumstances for Council to request the applicant to submit an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment for the site. Deerubbin was provided with the opportunity to advise Council otherwise however no response has been received to date.

 

(iv)       Water and Energy

 

Introduced by the NSW Government, BASIX, the Building Sustainability Index, ensures dwellings are designed to use less potable water and be responsible for fewer greenhouse gas emissions by setting energy and water reduction targets for houses and units. BASIX applies to all residential developments throughout NSW with a total estimated cost of works of $50,000 or more.

 

BASIX is an online program whereby the user (usually the building designer) enters data relating to the house or unit design (e.g. location, size, building materials, etc) into the BASIX tool. BASIX analyses this data and determines how it scores against the water and energy targets. The design must pass specific targets (which vary according to location and building type) before the user can print the BASIX Certificate.

 

The BASIX Certificate lists all the commitments the user has agreed to. The proposed development satisfactorily incorporates the commitments nominated by the BASIX Certificate for the Development Application stage of the proposal. The Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) will check these and the other BASIX commitments at the various stages of construction of the development.

 

(v)        Flora and Fauna

 

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(vi)       Waste Management

 

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(vii)      Noise Impacts

 

The application has been accompanied by a Noise Assessment (and a subsequent addendum) prepared by Wilkinson Murray. This report provides an assessment of the likely acoustic impacts from the site on nearby properties and the likely acoustic impacts of noise emission on the site from Bringelly Road traffic. The key areas assessed within the report and related recommendations are detailed below: Each of the following matters can be conditioned accordingly where necessary.

 

·    Air Conditioning – The first floor plant room of the Family Support Services Centre will be required to incorporate acoustic louvres and ductwork with acoustic lining to provide appropriate noise attenuation.

·    Children’s Outdoor Play Area – Noise from the Family Support Services Centre children’s outdoor play area will be mitigated by a 2m high acoustic masonry fence which is proposed along the northern property boundary and also by acoustic absorption lining soffits (otherwise known as eaves) surrounding the play area. However in accordance with the Noise Assessment recommendations, the height of the boundary fence will need to be increased to 2.2m. This matter can be conditioned accordingly.

·    Car Park – A 2m high acoustic masonry fence is proposed along the northern property boundary adjacent to the proposed Family Support Services Centre car park. Noise from vehicles accessing this car park will comply with the relevant noise criteria.

·    Traffic Noise from the Development – Noise arising from traffic generated by the proposed development is expected to meet the relevant DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) criteria.

·    Bringelly Road Traffic Noise – The windows of the Family Support Services Centre ground floor meeting rooms to face Bringelly Road are to be treated with 6.38mm laminated glass. Traffic noise levels in the Family Support Services Centre outdoor play area will be satisfactory.

·    Construction Noise – Noise levels during construction works are expected to exceed the relevant DECC criteria, which is typical of constriction activity near to residences. To control this noise, it has been recommended that the quietest available plant be used and regularly maintained and fitted with appropriate mufflers, the use of hydraulic hammers be minimised during demolition works and all works be limited to DECC’s recommended standard work hours.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the proposed development with regard to noise impacts and is satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the Noise Assessment and related addendum. Conditions of consent have been provided in this regard to satisfactorily control noise impacts from the proposed development, including a special operational condition requiring that the Family Support Services Centre children’s outdoor play area not to be used after 6pm.

 

 

 

 

(viii)     Hours of Operation

 

The proposed hours of operation are considered reasonable in the circumstances. It should be noted that the applicant has proposed ameliorative measures for site activities intended to occur after 6pm in order to limit residential amenity impacts. In this regard, these activities will be low-scale and children will not be permitted to play externally after 6pm. In addition, the applicant will be required to manage the dispersion of visitors from the site on evenings and for the several weekend gatherings to be held throughout the year. The weekend gatherings (on Saturdays) will be limited to 4 per year and will not be permitted to operate after 4pm. These matters can be conditioned accordingly.

 

(ix)      Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

 

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(x)        Social Impacts

 

The proposed development is intended to offer an integrated approach to meeting the changing social needs of the local community, with particular focus on families, children, the youth and the homeless. It is intended to serve the local community with the following social and support services:

 

·    Family Accommodation – Short to medium-term accommodation for families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. On-site support services and case management for families will include assistance with financial counselling, relationship counselling, mental health issues, nutritional planning, parenting and life skills, advocacy, legal and migration issues, employment and training.

·    Family Day Care – The proposed facility will offer playgroups and a homework club for use by carers and education and training sessions for parents and carers.

·    Young Parents Network – A range of support activities for parents under 24 years.

·    Informal Parent Discussion Groups – Sessions addressing parenting skills and child development for groups such as refugees, working parents and Sudanese families.

·    School Services – A base for services to 2 St Marys schools (St Marys Community Hub) and 4 Mount Druitt schools (Mount Druitt Community Hub).

·    Miscellaneous Services – A venue for community health, financial counselling and legal services provided by other not-for-profit agencies (e.g. weekly child and family nurse check-ups, periodic dental screening of children, weekly speech therapy services and weekly counselling services for families with young children).

 

Council’s Social Planner (Community and Cultural Development Team) has reviewed the proposed development with regard to social impacts and has provided the following comments in this regard:

 

“The proposed operation to 9pm on two week nights periodically throughout the year may require careful management to minimise negative impacts of noise and traffic generation on neighbouring residential areas. Event gatherings on Saturdays may also have negative impact due to traffic generation on residential neighbours. Once the centre is operational, it may be prudent to outline how complaints from local residents regarding noise will be attended to, or how other issues of concern will be handled.

 

A condition to limit impacts to the residential neighbours to the north of the site may be appropriate to minimise negative impacts of evening and weekend event operations (including noise and lighting) on neighbouring properties.

 

Information has been provided which indicates that CCTV and intercom systems will be operated at the site. This will assist to manage the secure operations of the site.

 

If methods for managing the dispersion of visitors from the site following evening activities and larger weekend events are not established, unreasonable nuisance to the residential neighbours may result. It is recommended that the applicant be required to manage the dispersion of visitors from the site on evenings and weekend gatherings.

 

It is recommended that further consideration be given to the management of the Family Accommodation component of the proposal. This may be managed through a requirement for a manager to be on-call after closing hours of the Family Support Services Centre. This may be more suitable than solely providing telephone contact numbers for assistance (from other organisations) in the case of emergency.

 

Many accommodation services, such as women’s refuges, are structured to have a manager on-call at night to provide telephone support to clients. This accommodates the needs of clients while encouraging independence and responsibility for self while not putting excessive financial strain on the refuge program.

 

In regards to the public interest, the applicant proposes a facility which is likely to provide a range of services that provide substantial benefit to members of the local community. The comments above have been provided to assist in the preparation of mechanisms to minimise negative impacts on other community members.”

 

Each of the matters raised by Council’s Social Planner can be suitably conditioned should approval of the proposal be forthcoming.

 

(xi)      Economic Impacts

 

The proposed development is expected to employ a construction team of up to 100 people during peak periods of construction. Local people and businesses will be afforded opportunities for short-term and medium-term employment as part of the construction works with related flow-on economic benefits to the community in terms of financial injection into the business sector of the Penrith area.

 

Mission Australia intends to operate the proposed facility for the long-term and therefore the economic benefits to the local economy of Penrith will be ongoing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(xii)     Site Design

 

Family Support Services Centre

 

The Family Support Services Centre has been designed to have a broad east-west primary orientation to maximise passive solar energy benefits while wrapping around the north-western end of the site to create a sheltered private internal northern courtyard and children’s outdoor play area. Street setbacks have been designed to afford a strong landscaped context for the development while fitting with the developing context of medium density residential development to the north. In this regard, the Family Support Services Centre is to be setback a minimum of 6.69m from the Bringelly Road property boundary and a minimum of 6.91m from the Baden Powell Avenue property boundary. The Family Support Services Centre presents a public interface to the southern (Baden Powell Avenue) and western (Bringelly Road) streetscapes with primary entry for pedestrians and vehicles orientated to the south from Baden Powell Avenue but separated for functionality and safety.

 

 

Family Accommodation Centre

 

The Family Accommodation Centre has also been designed with street setbacks which will afford a strong landscaped context for the development and maximise the natural external landscape connections at ground floor level. In this regard, the Family Accommodation Centre is to be setback a minimum of 6.73m from the First Street property boundary and 3m from the Baden Powell Avenue property boundary (being the secondary street frontage for the Family Accommodation Centre). Articulation is provided in the facade and roof through recessed and projecting volumes in addition to skillion verandah/terrace elements around the permitter.

 

Accessibility

 

The application has been accompanied by an Access Review prepared by Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting. This report provides advice and strategies to maximise reasonable provisions of access to the proposed development for people with disabilities in response to the accessibility requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. These requirements relate to matters such as ingress and egress, paths of travel, circulation areas and accessible toilets. Of particular note, Unit 6 in the Family Accommodation Centre has been designed to be fully wheelchair accessible and will have access to an accessible garaged car space.

 

The Access Review recommends a series of measures to be incorporated into the detailed construction design plans for the proposal to ensure an appropriate degree of accessibility for the development. Each of the recommendations in the Access Review is capable of being incorporated into the detailed construction design plans for the proposal. This matter can be conditioned accordingly.

 

In addition, it should be noted that the application was referred to Council’s Access Committee for comment. The Access Committee considered the matter at its meeting held on 1 April 2009 and raised the following issues:

 

·    Width of entry door in accessible unit (Unit 6).

·    Location of accessible car space.

 

The preceding matters can be conditioned accordingly. In this regard, the entry door width for Unit 6 is to be compliant with Australian Standard 1428 – Design for Access and Mobility and the accessible car space is to be relocated closer to the Family Accommodation Centre’s entry foyer.

 

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

 

The subject site has previously been used for the purposes of a community facility. This form of development is considered particularly suited to the site given it has 3 separate road frontages which limits impacts on residential neighbours. The site attributes are therefore considered conducive to the development proposal. It is also considered that the proposal has been designed in a manner consistent with the character of the locality.

 

 

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

 

Community Consultation

 

In accordance with Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposed development has been advertised in the local newspapers and notified to nearby and adjoining residents. The application was advertised between 25 March and 8 April 2009. A site notice was also placed on the site.

 

Council received 4 submissions in response to the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and considered below.

 

·    Structural impacts of demolition works on adjoining dwelling.

 

Comment:

 

The existing brick building on the subject site has been built flush with the northern (side) property boundary and abuts an existing garage and rear bedroom situated on 44 Bringelly Road. Based on investigations undertaken by the applicant’s consultant structural engineer in consultation with the property owners of 44 Bringelly Road, it has become apparent that the original construction of the current garage and rear bedroom would have been open-sided. This means that these spaces would have only become enclosed when the northern masonry wall on 46 Bringelly Road was built as part of building additions related to the previous use of the site. In effect, upon demolition of the northern wall on 46 Bringelly Road, the garage and rear bedroom situated on 44 Bringelly Road would once again be subject to the external elements.

 

In response to this matter, Mission Australia has committed to constructing a new framed and lined wall within the property boundaries of 44 Bringelly Road in order to enclose the subject garage and rear bedroom. Mission Australia has also committed to providing interim weather protection to these areas while demolition and construction occurs and will provide new fascia flashing to cover the junction between the existing roof structure/sheeting with that of the new boundary wall.

 

Council’s Building Surveyor has advised that as the garage and rear bedroom are attached to the dwelling and have an external wall less than 900mm from the boundary, a Fire Resistance Level (FRL) of 60/60/60 is required to comply with the Building Code of Australia (Housing Provisions). However, the new acoustic wall proposed along this boundary (being core filled concrete block work) will have a FRL far greater than 60/60/60 and will effectively achieve fire separation between the two properties provided that the height of this wall is extended to the top of the garage and rear bedroom for the length of this structure (i.e. increased from 1.8m to 2m). This matter can be conditioned accordingly. Council’s Building Surveyor has also advised that the proposed construction of the new framed and lined wall within the property boundaries of 44 Bringelly Road does not constitute structural work and therefore can be undertaken as exempt development. It should be noted that Mission Australia has worked in close consultation with the property owners of 44 Bringelly Road to achieve the proposed solution to this matter.

 

In addition, prior to the commencement of demolition works, the applicant will be required to submit a dilapidation report for the existing dwelling at 44 Bringelly Road documenting the existing condition of the dwelling including any existing damage or cracks. This matter can be conditioned accordingly. The report will be made available by Council in any private dispute arising from damage as a result of the proposed demolition works.

 

·    Management of asbestos.

 

Comment:

 

The following condition of consent will be applied to any approval of the proposal to ensure the appropriate management of asbestos as part of the demolition works:

 

You should read Council’s Fact Sheet titled “Handling and Disposal of Fibrous Cement Products” before any demolition works commence on the site.

 

Prior to commencement of demolition works on site, a portaloo with appropriate washing facilities shall be located on the site and the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:

·    Measures are in place so as to comply with the WorkCover Authority’s “Short Guide to Working with Asbestos Cement” and

·    The person employed to undertake the works is a licensed asbestos removal contractor and is holder of a current WorkCover Asbestos Licence.

 

Any demolition works involving the removal of all asbestos shall only be carried out by a licensed asbestos removal contractor who has a current WorkCover Asbestos Licence.

 

All asbestos laden waste, including asbestos cement flat and corrugated sheeting must be disposed of at a tipping facility licensed by the Environmental Protection Authority to receive asbestos wastes.

 

 

 

·    Management of termites.

 

Comment:

 

Prior to the commencement of demolition works, the applicant will be required to submit a Termite Building Inspection Report and Termite Management Plan to reduce the risk of the spread of termites to adjoining properties. This matter can be conditioned accordingly.

 

·    Adequacy of access and car parking and arrangements.

 

Comment:

 

As discussed earlier, the proposed access and car parking arrangements are considered satisfactory.

 

·    Reduction in surrounding property values.

 

Comment:

 

No evidence has been provided to support this claim. This concern is not considered sufficient to justify refusal of the application.

 

·    Community safety and security.

 

Comment:

 

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

In addition, Mission Australia has advised that all potential clients for the proposed Family Accommodation Centre will be screened as to their level of needs in regards to housing, living skills and relationships. A review of each client will be conducted after 3 months to ensure that all tenancy and program guidelines are being adequately maintained prior to the lease being extended beyond the initial 3 month period.

 

·    Hours of operation.

 

Comment:

 

Concern has been raised that the proposed facility will operate until 9pm on weekday nights to run the parent group sessions and parent/carer education and training sessions. In response, the applicant has advised that these activities are only intended to operate once per week and will involve a maximum of 10 adults and 15 children on the site at any one time. Children will not be permitted to play externally after 6pm. The toy library is also proposed to operate from 5pm to 8pm on Thursday evenings, however these sessions will be by appointment only. This level of activity is considered low-scale and discrete and it is therefore considered that these operations can be appropriately managed to limit residential amenity impacts. In addition, the applicant will be required to manage the dispersion of visitors from the site on evenings and for the several weekend gatherings to be held throughout the year. The weekend gatherings (on Saturdays) will be limited to 4 per year and will not be permitted to operate after 4pm. These matters can be conditioned accordingly.

 

·    Noise impacts.

 

Comment:

 

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

·    Dust impacts.

 

Comment:

 

The applicant will be required to employ dust suppression techniques to reduce any potential nuisances to surrounding properties. This matter can be conditioned accordingly.

 

 

Referrals

 

The table below summarises the results of internal referrals in relation to the proposal:

 

Referral

Comments

Building Surveyor

No objection, subject to conditions.

Development Engineer

No objection, subject to conditions.

Environmental Health

No objection, subject to conditions.

Community Safety Coordinator

No objection, subject to conditions.

Community & Cultural Development

No objection, subject to conditions.

Access Committee

No objection, subject to conditions.

 

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

 

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development. Community facilities are permissible in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone and the proposal meets the aims and objectives of the relevant environmental planning instruments. The proposed development is likely to improve the overall appearance of the site.

 

The properties in the immediate vicinity of the site were notified of the development proposal. In considering the issues raised in the resident submissions, it is unlikely that the proposed development will adversely impact on adjoining residents, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

Given the proposed residential units are ancillary and related to the overall use of the site for the purposes of a community facility, no Section 94 contributions are to be levied on the proposed development. However, where separate tenancies are proposed for long-term use or should Mission Australia at any time in the future seek a subdivision of the land to excise the dwellings onto a separate land title with a view to selling the dwellings, Council would then at this stage levy for any Section 94 contributions relevant at that time. This matter can be appropriately conditioned via an advisory condition.

 

Conclusion

 

Having regard for all of the relevant matters, it is considered that the proposed development is capable, subject to the enforcement of conditions, of operating in such a manner as to present only minimal adverse impacts on the local community. The concerns raised by the submitters are acknowledged, however, on balance, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory and the grounds of objection are not considered sufficient to justify refusal of the Development Application.

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0221 for a Community Facility at Lots 7, 8 and 9 DP 247158 (No. 46) Bringelly Road and Lot 5 & 6 DP 250412 (No. 49) First Street Kingswood be received.

2.     The objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to the minimum landscaped area and maximum external wall height provisions under Clause 12(3) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) be supported.

3.     Development Application DA09/0221 for a Community Facility at Lots 7, 8 and 9 DP 247158 (No. 46) Bringelly Road and Lot 5 & 6 DP 250412 (No. 49) First Street Kingswood be approved subject to the following conditions:

          Standard Conditions

          3.1     A001          Approved plans

            A008          Works to BCA requirements

A009           Residential works DCP

A011                    Engineering works DCP

A014                    Lot consolidation

A019                    Occupation Certificate

A026                    Advertising signs

A029                    Hours of operation and delivery times

A032                    Goods in buildings

A038                    Lighting locations

A039                    Graffiti

 

A046                    Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of                  works

B001                    Demolition of existing structures

B002                    Australian Standard for demolition and disposal to                              approved landfill site

B003                    Asbestos

B004                    Dust

B005                    Mud/soil

B006                    Hours of demolition work

C003                    Uncovering relics

D001          Implement approved sediment and erosion control          measures

D006                    No filling without prior approval

D007                    Filling of land

D009                    Covering of waste storage area

D010                    Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D013                    Approved noise levels

D014                    Plant and equipment noise

E002                     BCA issues to be addressed

E006                     Disabled access and facilities

E009           Annual fire safety – essential fire safety (Class 2-9 buildings)

E01A                    BCA compliance for Class 2-9

G002                    Section 73

G004                    Integral Energy

H001                    Stamped plans and erection of site notice (Class 2-9)

H002                    Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of                  construction works

H003                    Traffic safety during construction

H006                    Implement waste management plan

H025                    Construction of garbage rooms

H033                    Clothes drying facilities

H041                    Hours of construction work

I003                      Roads Act approval

K001                    Engineering Construction Certificate

K003                    Drainage design

K009                    On-site detention

K019                    Connection to Council’s system

K021                    Splay corners

K025                    Pavement seal

K027                    Car parking

K029                    In crossings

K030                    Out crossings

L001                     Approved landscaping plans

L002                     Landscaping construction

L003                     Landscaping report requirements

L005                     Planting of plant material

L006                     Australian Standard landscaping requirements

L007                     Tree protection measures

L008                     Tree preservation order

M013          Street trees

P001                     Costs

P002                     Fees associated with Council land

Q001                    Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q006                    Occupation Certificate

Q010                    BASIX Certificate

          Special Conditions

3.2     In order to improve surveillance, landscaping shall provide clear lines of sight and avoid concealment areas in public areas, along footpaths and along the frontages of the site.

3.3     Dense vegetation and shrubs with top to bottom foliage shall be avoided. Low ground cover or high canopied vegetation is preferred to enable clear sight lines and maintain visibility.

3.4     All walkways and common areas within the development shall be open and clear of potential entrapment spots.

3.5     All walkways and common areas shall be clearly visible from building windows and unhindered by vegetation or other obstructions.

3.6     Access to common areas of the development shall be limited to staff, patrons, occupants and their authorised guests to ensure that the facilities do not provide excuse-making opportunities for unauthorised people entering the development.

3.7     Access to the private courtyards of the residential units shall be restricted to residents and their authorised guests only. Access control or territorial reinforcement measures shall be put in place to clearly separate public and private spaces. This can be in the form of fencing or landscaping treatments which clearly define the private space.

3.8     Access to the family day care areas of the development shall be controlled to restrict unauthorised access to these areas.

3.9     A closed circuit television (CCTV) system shall be installed at the entrance/exit to the Family Support Services Centre.

3.10   The Family Support Services Centre children’s play areas shall have only one entry/exit point (excluding emergency exit points) to ensure supervision of all persons entering/exiting the room.

3.11   Car parking areas shall be well lit in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

3.12   Patrons attending the centre outside of normal business hours shall be encouraged to park in specific car spaces close to the venue entrance. This shall be encouraged in centre literature and signage in the car park.

3.13   The automatic gates to be installed at the entrance to the central car park area shall be kept locked outside of normal business hours and/or controlled by a swipe card system (or similar).

3.14   The following design measures shall be applied to all public toilet        areas of the development:

                                      (a) Toilets shall be clearly visible and signposted in all public areas.

                                      (b) Entrances to toilets shall be clear of all screening to allow                                           surveillance by the public and staff.

                                      (c) Toilet cubicle doors shall open outward to allow access in an                                     emergency. Doors shall also have spring-opening hinges to allow                                    doors to remain open when not in use.

                                      (d) The rear of toilet doors shall have hooks located half way down                                to ensure handbags cannot be accessed over the top of the door.

                                      (e) There shall be a gap between the door and floor and door and                                  ceiling.

                                      (f) Toilet fittings shall be flush to walls to avoid tampering or                                            stashing of items.

3.15   A Security Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The Security Management Plan shall detail the intended management of the development and strategies to promote safety and deter crime and anti-social behaviour. This includes use of security personnel and/or systems (e.g. a closed circuit television system), access control measures (e.g. swipe cards) and/or use of building alarms.

3.16   An alarm system shall be installed to enhance security of the development.

3.17   All buildings shall be clearly identified with visible street numbers to assist visitors and emergency services.

3.18   Adequate illumination shall be provided for directional signage and for building identification signage.

3.19   Internal and external signage shall be large and legible with strong colours, plain language and standard symbols (e.g. for toilets) and use simple graphics.

3.20   Signage shall be provided indicating where to go for help or assistance.

3.21   Details of the intended illumination of the site signage and light spill details shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. In this regard, it shall be demonstrated that no adverse impact will result on neighbouring properties.

3.22   The acoustic masonry fence along the northern property boundary shall be increased in height to 2.2m. This modification shall be incorporated into the Construction Certificate plans for the development.

3.23   The dispersion of visitors from the site on weeknight evenings and on Saturday gatherings shall be appropriately managed to mitigate any impacts on neighbouring properties.

3.24   Council’s approval is limited to a maximum of 4 special events (such as parent expos, family barbecues and/or seminars) per calendar year. The approved hours of operation of these events are 9am-4pm, Saturday.

3.25   A plan of management for the site shall be prepared detailing how complaints from local residents regarding noise or other issues of concern will be attended to. Details shall be submitted prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

3.26   A manager shall be on-call after closing hours of the Family Support Services Centre to suitably respond to emergency situations which may arise in relation to the Family Accommodation Centre and to provide telephone support to residents of the Family Accommodation Centre.

3.27   Each of the recommendations contained in the Access Review (Version 2, dated 12 March 2009) prepared by Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting shall be incorporated into the Construction Certificate plans for the development.

3.28   The entry door width of Unit 6 (Family Accommodation Centre) shall be compliant with Australian Standard 1428 – Design for Access and Mobility and the accessible car space for this unit shall be relocated closer to the Family Accommodation Centre’s entry foyer. These modifications shall be incorporated into the Construction Certificate plans for the development.

3.29   The acoustic masonry fence/wall along the common (northern) property boundary with 44 Bringelly Road shall extend in height to the same level as the roof of the adjoining garage and rear bedroom (i.e. increase in height from 1.8m to 2m), for the length of the garage and rear bedroom only. This modification shall be incorporated into the Construction Certificate plans for the development.

3.30   Prior to the commencement of demolition works, a Termite Building Inspection Report and Termite Management Plan to reduce the risk of the spread of termites to adjoining properties shall be submitted and approved.

3.31   In relation to the Family Accommodation Centre, should separate tenancies be proposed for long-term use or should approval be sought for a subdivision of the land to excise the dwellings onto a separate land title, Council will at this time levy for the payment of any relevant Section 94 contributions.

3.32   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, details of the proposed external building materials and colours for the Family Accommodation Centre shall be submitted and approved.

3.33   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, full details of all proposed fencing (including materials and colours) shall be submitted and approved.

3.34   Prior to the commencement of demolition works, the applicant shall submit a dilapidation report for the existing dwelling at 44 Bringelly Road, Kingswood, documenting the existing condition of the dwelling including any existing damage or cracks. The report will be made available by Council in any private dispute arising from damage as a result of the approved demolition works.

3.35   The demolition works shall be undertaken in accordance with the Structural Engineer’s Report (Reference No. 207179, dated 23 March 2009) prepared by Demlakian Consulting Engineers.

3.36   Prior to the commencement of the demolition works, the applicant shall submit a hazardous materials report.

3.37   All verge areas are to be turfed for the full width from the back of kerb to the property boundary at completion of the works.

3.38   The children’s outdoor play area is not to be utilised after 6pm.

3.39   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a certificate shall be submitted from a qualified acoustic consultant certifying completion of each of the recommendations contained in the Noise Assessment Report (Report No. 07345, Version A) prepared by Wilkinson Murray dated February 2009 and the additional information letter prepared by Wilkinson Murray dated 30 April 2009.

3.40   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the following information is to be submitted to Council for consideration and approval:

                   (a) Details of the air conditioner plant to be installed and the                         appropriate acoustic attenuation to be installed that meets the                      requirements of the Noise Assessment Report (Report No. 07345,               Version A) prepared by Wilkinson Murray dated February 2009 and              the additional information letter prepared by Wilkinson Murray dated                    30 April 2009.

                   (b) Construction details of the acoustic fence to be constructed along                    the northern property boundary of the development site.

3.41   A dilapidation report of all Council owned infrastructure fronting the development in Bringelly Road, First Street and Baden Powell Avenue is to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of construction. The report is to include, but not be limited to, footpaths, kerb and gutter, pavement and street trees and is to extend 10m either side of the development.

3.42   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, 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.

3.43   All car parking and manoeuvring areas associated with the subject development, including driveways, access ramp grades and widths, circulating roadways, turn paths, sight distance requirements, overhead clearances for people with disabilities, aisle widths, garage dimensions and parking bay grades and 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.

3.44   The blind aisle for the residential garages shall be amended to include a 1m   extension for turning manoeuvres in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1. Single garages shall comply with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 for full door opening (i.e. 3.2m × 5.4m).

4.     The individuals who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision and of the consideration given to their concerns.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

5

Development Application  DA09/0402 for Stage 4 of the Great River Walk at various lots between Victoria Bridge and the M4 Motorway, Emu Plains  Applicant:  Penrith City Council;  Owner:  Penrith City Council, Department of Planning, Department of Lands, Roads & Traffic Authority.    

DA09/0402

Compiled by:                Jonathon Wood, Trainee Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Objective: We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Strategic Direction:  We respond to the impacts of climate change, and support the principles of sustainability

     

 

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of Stage 4 of the Great River Walk on the western embankment of the Nepean River, between Victoria Bridge and the M4 Motorway bridge. The Great River Walk is a concept developed in 1996 for a continuous recreational trail along the Hawkesbury Nepean River system, from its source at Lake Bathurst near Goulburn, to Broken Bay, some 570km in length. Stage 4 of the Great River Walk is in accordance with the Council endorsed and publicly exhibited Great River Walk Penrith Concept Masterplan (2003). Previous stages of the Great River Walk have been granted consent and have now been implemented, including:

 

§ Stage 2: DA06/1964 was approved on 8 August 2007. It involved the formalisation of a pedestrian path link from Nepean Avenue to the Log Cabin steps, provision of a lookout area, and the reconstruction of existing concrete steps.

 

§ Stage 5: DA08/0066 was approved on 5 March 2008. It involved the extension of the established pedestrian path by approximately 370m, extending from the rowing platform north of Victoria Bridge to the weir. Stage 5 also incorporated the provision of interpretative signage and outdoor furniture.

 

The previous stages have focused on the eastern embankment of the Nepean River, and the formalisation and improvement of existing facilities. The current application takes a similar approach by upgrading the existing facilities on the western embankment; with a major aspect of the application involving the provision of a 2.5m wide shared pedestrian path/cycleway directly adjacent to River Road. This will provide a sealed path of travel to replace the existing informal track that has developed along the eastern grassed shoulder of River Road.

 

The development application is referred to Council for information and determination as the proposal involves the upgrade of a significant recreational asset within the City. The report recommends that the information be received and that Council grant consent to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site/land is located on the foreshore and upper extent of the western bank of the Nepean River, bounded generally by Victoria Bridge to the north, and the M4 Motorway overpass to the south. The extent of the area covered by the proposal is illustrated by the locality map (see Appendix 1).

 

The surrounding area contains a variety of land uses. To the northern end of the works area, in close proximity to Victoria Bridge, is a small cluster of dwellings, two (2) of which are listed heritage items being Emu Hall and residence associated with the former police station at Punt Road. In addition, Regatta Park is located at the northern end of the works area. Beyond Regatta Park, in a southerly direction, is the established residential streetscape that extends along the western side of River Road, all the way to the M4 Motorway bridge- which is the southern limit of the works area for the current proposal. 

The Proposed Development

The proposed development comprises the following:

 

§ Provision of a 2.5m shared pedestrian/cyclist pathway located on the eastern side of River Road, directly adjacent to the road reserve, from the Regatta Park car park to approximately the Lewers Gallery car park- where it links to the existing pathway;

 

·    Rationalisation of existing connections between the upper and lower path, and the upgrade of the existing path surface where required;

 

·    Demolition and replacement of the existing concrete stairs to Victoria Bridge to enable improved pedestrian access. At this point way finding signage is to be integrated to identify the cycle route, which continues to River Road, and to advise of the steep/informal nature of the grassed route along the foreshore and embankment areas;

 

·    Provision of bollard markers to outline the informal grass path extending from Victoria Bridge upper foreshore area to Regatta Park. A gravel path is to be provided running parallel to the upper path, located next to the waters edge;

 

·    Upgrade of the existing picnic area associated with Regatta Park, as well as the provision of viewing decks in the foreshore area, one of which will enable water access;

 

·    Provision of a steel grated landing and steps, located opposite the intersection of Hunter Street and River Road, to enable pedestrian access from the upper path to the lower path;

 

·    Provision of a reinforced plastic viewing deck to enable water access within the southern portion of the development area.

 

Site plans of the proposed will be enclosed separately for the information of Councillors.

Planning Assessment

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C and 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to those matters; the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

Section 91A- Development that is Integrated Development

 

The works are within 40m of the Nepean River and therefore consideration of this Section of the Act is required. The application was referred to the Department of Water and Energy who have confirmed that as the works are undertaken by a public authority, Council is exempt from requiring a Controlled Activity Approval. For this reason the development application is not defined as ‘integrated development’, and further consideration of Section 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is not required.

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

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 (SREP 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 aims 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 impact and will not compromise the water, or scenic, quality of the river environment given the satisfactory erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented as part of the proposal. Upon implementation of the kerb and guttering on the eastern side of River Road (not part of the current application), stormwater will be managed in such a way as to improve bank stability, and prevent further ‘scouring’ that can be observed on parts of the lower path.

 

Given the proximity of the development to the river, a number of specific policies warrant further discussion and are covered in turn below:

 

Part 2 General planning considerations, specific planning policies and recommended strategies

 

(5)   Cultural heritage

 

SREP 20 outlines:

 

Policy: The importance of the river in contributing to the significance of items and places of cultural heritage significance should be recognised, and these items and places should be protected and sensitively managed and, if appropriate, enhanced.

 

There are a number of items identified as being of heritage significance in close proximity to the proposed development area. The identified items of heritage significance, as well as the impact of the proposal on these items, are addressed further in this report (Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991- Environmental Heritage Conservation (LEP 1991)).

 

In addition to items identified under LEP 1991, the Conservation Management Plan submitted with the development application discusses in detail the Aboriginal history associated with the subject development area. During the formulation of the conservation management plan, an archaeological survey was undertaken in association with the following groups; Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, Darug Tribal Aboriginal Council, and Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation. The archaeological survey revealed low archaeological potential largely due to disturbances (natural and human induced); however this does not detract from the Aboriginal cultural significance associated with the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. The conservation management plan suggests that Penrith City Council should work closely with the relevant organisations to develop appropriate interpretations and displays of the area’s Aboriginal heritage. This is to occur with a number of aspects of the Great River Walk and there will be interpretative signage provided at key points along the walk to advise of the significance of the area.

 

The Conservation Management Plan submitted with the development application adequately addresses matters referred to in Section 6(5) of the SREP20.

 

(7)   Riverine scenic quality

 

SREP 20 outlines:

 

Policy: The scenic quality of the riverine corridor must be protected.

 

The proposal will not detract from the scenic quality of the setting as the works proposed are unobtrusive, and the scale of works are minimal within the actual foreshore area of the riverbank. The provision of the shared pedestrian/cyclist path will be located directly adjacent to River Road and will not detrimentally affect the scenic quality of the riverine corridor.

 

Part 3 Development controls

 

(15)   Land uses in or near the river

 

SREP 20 outlines additional matters that must be considered by the consent authority when considering a proposal located in or near the river.

 

 (a)  The need to locate access points where riverbanks are stable, away from river shallows and major beds of attached aquatic plants, away from fishing grounds and fish breeding areas, where the proposed activities do not conflict with surrounding recreational activities, and where significant fauna and wetland habitats will not be adversely affected.

 

Two (2) water access points, in the form of grated landings, are proposed and have been located to minimise the impact on the riverbank, and minimise the impact on relevant flora and fauna. Geotechnical investigations have been conducted to ascertain the most appropriate locations for the water access points.

 

 

(b)  The need to require remedial works, such as the re-establishment of flora and fauna habitats.

 

The works within close proximity to the river are limited in scale, and have been designed to minimise any adverse impacts on the riverbank. The works will not remove substantive levels of vegetation, and the conservation management plan identified there is no threatened or endangered flora or fauna species. The works set out within the River Road Riparian Corridor Plan of Management will continue to be implemented to enhance the flora and fauna values of the Stage 4 study area. In addition, a condition of consent is recommended to require any disturbed areas to be restored.

 

(c)  The potential for use of the land as a buffer to filter water entering the river.

 

Levels of water filtration will not change appreciably as a result of the current proposal. It is proposed to provide kerb and guttering to the eastern side of River Road- although this does not form part of the current development application. Upon completion of the kerb and guttering, this will limit the volume of surface runoff to the embankment and therefore reduce the rate of water entering directly into the river.

 

(d)  The need for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

 

The applicant has outlined that sediment and runoff will be managed in accordance with the NSW Department of Housing’s guidelines ‘Managing Urban Stormwater-Soils and Construction’. It has also been outlined that a soil and water management plan will be prepared and implemented prior to the commencement of construction works, this will be reinforced by the imposition of recommended conditions.

 

(e)  The need for a Vegetation Management Plan.

 

The conservation management plan, and works set down within the River Road Riparian Corridor Plan of Management, outline detailed recommendations for enhancing vegetation along the foreshore and riverbank.

 

(16)   Land uses in riverine scenic areas

 

The area associated with the proposal is identified as a riverine scenic area under the provisions of the SREP. Therefore the consent authority must address the additional matters for consideration set down within the SREP. These are outlined below:

 

(a)  The need to prevent large scale, high density or visually intrusive development on waterfront land or on slopes and ridgetops which are visible from the river or the surrounding visual catchment. (This requires consideration of the proposed form and siting of buildings, of the colours and building materials used, and of landscaping.)

 

No buildings are proposed and the works associated with this stage of the Great River Walk will not impact on the visual amenity of the area as viewed from the river and associated surrounds.

 

 

(b)  Whether the materials used in stabilising the banks are consistent with the scenic character of the area as described in the Scenic Quality Study.

 

No bank stabilisation works are proposed.

 

(c)  Whether the development will damage the banks of the river or creeks.

 

The submitted conservation management plan demonstrates that the development will not cause damage to the banks of the river.

 

(d)  Whether the development is adequately set back from the river.

 

Minimal works are proposed to the lower path which is in closest proximity to the river. The provision of the upper path will have minimal, if any impact, on the visual quality of the area.

 

(e)  Whether it is necessary and appropriate to increase public recreational and visual access to the river.

 

The works will increase public recreational access to the river, which is appropriate as it is consistent with the adopted Great River Walk Masterplan, conservation management plan, and the River Road Riparian Corridor Plan of Management. Increasing recreational opportunities will be beneficial for residents of the local government area, and the provision of a formalised walking/cycling path will improve access for current users and enable a greater number of residents, with varying degrees of mobility, to utilise the walking path.

 

(f)  The need for conditions of consent to protect the scenic character, such as conditions requiring tree planting.

 

(g)  Whether any proposed works will improve scenic quality by repairing degradation.

 

In response to matters (f) and (g), the recommendations contained within the conservation management plan and River Road Riparian Corridor Plan of Management are sufficient to protect the scenic character of the area and, over time, the implementation of recommendations will improve the scenic quality of the river.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

 

Permissibility

The development area is part zoned 6(a)- Public Recreation and Community Use and part zoned 6(d)- Regional Open Space under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). The proposed development is most closely categorised as a recreation area, which is defined as:

 

“an outdoor area which provides for social, recreational and leisure activities, and includes associated structures (playground equipment, boardwalks, cycleways and the like),”

 

Recreation areas are permissible with consent in both the 6(a) and 6(d) zones.

 

 

 

Zone Objectives

 

The objectives of the 6(a) and 6(d) zones are detailed below:

 

Zone No. 6(a) Public Recreation and Community Uses

 

 (i) to provide for a range of open space, recreational, drainage and community uses; and

(ii) to ensure that development:

 

(a) is for a purpose that promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, and

(b) does not substantially diminish public use of or access to open space, and

(c) does not adversely affect the natural environment, any items or areas of heritage significance or the existing amenity of the area, and

(d) does not adversely affect the public infrastructure located on the land.

 

Comment: The proposal provides for a recreational use to be utilised by members of the community. The proposal promotes the use and enjoyment of open space and will not diminish access or use of open space and will not impact adversely on; the natural environment, items of heritage significance, public infrastructure or the amenity of the area.

 

Zone No. 6(d) Regional Open Space:

 

 (i) to reserve land for regional open space; and

(ii) to ensure that development:

 

(a) is for a purpose that promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space; and

(b) does not substantially diminish public use of or access to open space; and

(c) does not adversely affect the natural environment, any items or areas of heritage significance or the existing amenity of the area.

 

Comment: The proposal will not alter the designation of the land for open space. The proposal promotes the use and enjoyment of open space and does not diminish public use or access to open space. The proposal has also demonstrated it will not adversely affect; the natural environment, any item of heritage significance, or the existing amenity of the area.

 

Development Standards

 

There are no specific development standards applicable to this proposal.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation)

 

Penrith LEP 1991- Environmental Heritage Conservation (LEP 1991) applies to all land within the City of Penrith, with the general aim to assist in the conservation and enhancement of the heritage items and heritage conservation areas of the City of Penrith.

 

The following items of heritage significance are identified within LEP 1991 as being in close proximity to the proposed development area:

 

·    EP1 Emu Hall – including dwelling, outbuildings and trees, located at Lot 2, DP 614436, Great Western Highway

·    EP2 Former police station and residence including trees, located at Lot A, 1 Punt Road

·    EP18 Lewers Bequest and Penrith Regional Art Gallery - including gallery and garden, located at Lot 3, DP 504935, 86 River Road, and Lot B1, DP 419667

·    NR4 Victoria Bridge, located on the Great Western Highway

·    NR5 Ferry Crossing – including Ferry Road and Punt Road, located at Ferry Road and Punt Road

·    NR6 Rowing course

 

Clause 9 of PLEP 1991 outlines:

 

The Council must not grant consent to an application to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item unless it has made an assessment of the effect the carrying out of that development will have on the heritage significance of the item and its setting.

 

The Conservation Management Plan formulated in 2004 for the broad Great River Walk concept, outlines in detail matters of natural, aboriginal, and historical heritage. As well as review of relevant literature on the subject matter, detailed archaeological surveys were conducted and informed a large component of the Conservation Management Plan. The plan provides a substantive number of recommendations and strategies to ensure the impact of the Great River Walk on the heritage significance of any items is minimised.   

 

The path upgrade and provision of a formalised lookout area will provide opportunity to maximise views of the river and also provides potential siting for future interpretive signage reflecting the important historical themes of the area. The proposal will not directly impact upon the previously mentioned heritage items due to the measures outlined in the Conservation Management Plan, as well as the fact that the scale of work associated with the proposal is minimal.

 

A submission was received regarding the impact of the proposal on Emu Hall and this is discussed in detail in the submissions section of this report.

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

 

There are no draft environmental planning instruments associated with the proposal, as the works area is outside the scope of Stage 1 of draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008. 

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 Department of Housing’s ‘Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction’ will be incorporated during construction. A condition of consent will reinforce this. 

 

 

2.7 Notification & Advertising

 

In accordance with this section of the DCP, the proposal was advertised in the local paper and placed on public exhibition from the 20th May to the 3rd June 2009. A number of submissions were received regarding the proposal and these are summarised later in this report.

 

It should also be noted that public consultation occurred for the Plan of Management for the area, as well as during the design process for this stage of the Great River Walk.  Suggestions presented by members of the public were also incorporated in to the design of the proposal.

 

2.9     Waste Planning

 

A waste management plan will be conditioned to be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

2.10   Flood Liable Land

 

The land on which the proposal is to be carried out is identified as flood prone. Council’s Senior Development Engineer has no objection to the proposal, subject to recommended conditions, as it does not incorporate habitable structures, and those structures proposed are unlikely to be affected during flood events.

 

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

 

There are no matters relevant warranting specific mention.

 

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

Built and Natural Environment

·    The public domain and the public/private interface

 

The proposal will upgrade the existing facilities associated with Regatta Park, as well as making provision for a 2.5m wide shared pedestrian/cyclist path which will enhance usability. In addition, the proposed lookout at Hunter Street, as well as the provision of water access decks, will enhance access for residents to the river. The works will also provide for interpretive signage in the future, to educate users of the significance of the area. As a result of the proposal the public domain will be improved and no adverse impacts will be generating related to the public/private interface.

 

·    Urban design matters

 

The design of the proposal is consistent with the character of the locality, and the riverine scenic quality associated with the area will not be diminished. Upon completion of the proposed works, access by users will be enhanced, and provide greater opportunities for safe access, as well as enabling use of the upper path by residents with varying levels of mobility.

 

·    Access, traffic and transportation impacts

 

The proposal enhances connectivity for users between the existing lower path, and the worn track adjacent to River Road. On completion, a consistent path of travel will be provided between Victoria Bridge and the M4 Motorway overpass. It is worth noting that a parking bay will be established opposite Lewers Gallery clear of the proposed pathway when the kerb and guttering is provided- although this does not form part of the current development application.

 

·    Site management requirements

 

Erosion and sediment control measures are to be implemented during construction, and the provision of such measures will form a condition of consent. Moreover, a condition will require that appropriate rehabilitation is undertaken to restore any areas disturbed by construction works.

 

Social and Economic

·    Interaction between the development and the community

 

As discussed previously in this report, the proposal will enhance pedestrian/cyclist connectivity along the western side of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. The proposal will promote the interaction of the community with this significant corridor of open space, as well as enhancing usability for all members of the community. The provision of lookouts and water access decks will again promote interaction between the community and the river foreshore, and enable the future provision of interpretative signage to convey the historical significance of the area.

 

·    Will the proposal threaten the local community’s desired future character of the area

 

The current proposal seeks to formalise those works embodied within the Great River Walk Masterplan and the River Road Riparian Corridor Plan of Management. Significant lead up work undertaken by Council, in conjunction with community consultation, has lead to this development application and the proposal is consistent with the adopted masterplan and adopted plan of management. Therefore the proposal is deemed to be consistent with the desired future character of the area.

 

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

 

The development area is currently an area utilised by members of the community as a pedestrian and cycle route for both recreation and as a path of travel along the eastern edge of Emu Plains. The provision of the shared pathway adjacent to River Road, as well as the provision of water access and lookout opportunities, will encourage more use of the area and enable the locality to become a more attractive spot for visitors and members of the community.

 

The suitability of the site was established during the planning of the Greater River Walk Masterplan, as well as during the preparation of the River Road Riparian Corridor Plan of Management.

 

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

Referrals

The application was referred to a number of sections of Council and the following comments were received:

 

Access Committee

 

No objections to the proposal were received from members of the Access Committee; however a suggestion was made for sheltered rest areas to be provided along the upper path where possible. A condition of consent will require consideration be given to the provision of sheltered rest areas (suitable for those with mobility issues) and such areas be implemented where appropriate. 

 

Building Surveyor

 

No objections were received regarding the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Development Engineer

 

No objections were received regarding the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Local Plan Team

 

No objections were raised regarding the proposal, however suggestions were made relating to the provision of water decks in three locations, the first near Regatta Park, the second near the Hunter Street lookout, and the third further south towards the M4 overpass. This is to enhance the experience for users and activate the bank and river. The proposal incorporates water decks in the first and third areas suggested. The applicant has outlined that the Hunter Street location would not be appropriate due to the dense vegetation, and difficulties with bank stability.

 

Traffic Engineer

 

No objections were raised regarding the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions. Suggestions were received to increase the width of the shared path to a minimum distance of 3.5m to accord with the relevant sections of Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14- Bicycles. This was discussed at length with the applicant who outlined there were very few sections where this could be achieved due to the constrained width between River Road and the steep embankment. In addition, there were concerns with disturbing the riverbank in close proximity to the edge of the embankment, as well as the potential for confusion where very small sections of the pathway extend to a width of 3.5m. For this reason, the increase in width was deemed inappropriate when considered in association with the site constraints given the proposed pathway is not specifically designed as a cycleway, and the Austroads guide is simply a guide.

 

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 a public exhibition period from 20 May 2009 to 6 June 2009. A total of five (5) submissions were received and the issues raised in submissions are discussed below:

 

Issue Raised

Comment

Safety for motorists answering mobile phones once the kerb and guttering is provided on the eastern side of River Road. 

Little can be done to alleviate this concern, however it is against the law to answer a mobile phone while driving. Moreover, the kerb and guttering does not form part of the current application.

Loss of informal parking for residents in the event they have guests over.

When the eastern side of River Road is provided with kerb and guttering the informal parking element will be removed, and there will not be adequate width on the eastern side to enable parking. However, along the western side of River Road, the road is wide enough to facilitate on-street parking - as is the existing situation. Moreover, the kerb and guttering does not form part of the current application.

Opportunities for pedestrian crossovers to streets along the western side of River Road. 

Pedestrian footway crossings (refuge islands and pram ramps) are incorporated into the design process and will facilitate access to the eastern side of River Road to the Western side of River Road.

Exotic Species of vegetation has started to develop in areas along the riverbank.

Advice was provided with the development application regarding the management of the vegetation along the riparian corridor. This advice provides recommendations on matters such as weed control, regeneration works, soil stabilisation, signage, monitoring programs, and community safety. A condition of consent will require the recommendations be implemented.

A maintenance access ramp opposite number 56 River Road is quite steep and potentially dangerous to members of the public.

The access ramp in question is currently cut into the river embankment to provide maintenance access. Changing the grade of the ramp is not feasible as it would cause instability on the river embankment.

Additional exposure to Emu Hall, which presents privacy and security concerns, by incorporating a trail and providing bollard markers along the top of the bank at the rear of Emu Hall. It was also raised that the value of the property would be detrimentally affected.

The area in question is identified on plans as a gravel pathway, however the applicant has outlined this is incorrect, and the existing informal grass track will remain. For this reason the level of use will not increase substantially beyond the current levels of use. It was further outlined that the bollard markers could be reduced to a height of some 300mm to alleviate any visual impact. In relation to property values, no evidence has been submitted indicating that the value of the property would be adversely affected as a result of the proposal.

The provision of a trail along the boundary of Emu Hall will increase persons throwing rubbish over the fence, as well as potential for persons to interfere with the boundary fence.

The situation, upon completion, will not result in a formal trail- the existing situation will be retained with the exception of some 300mm bollard markers. Therefore the levels of use will not increase markedly.

Bollards should be established off Punt Road to prevent vehicle access down behind the house located on Punt Road- similar to those erected along the length of River Road.

A condition of consent will require the provision of bollards or gates to prevent vehicle access to the area referred to. This will restrict instances of anti-social behaviour.

 

 

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

 

The upgrade of the existing track (where applicable) and the provision of a 2.5m wide shared pedestrian/cyclist path, water access decks, viewing platform, and upgrade of the Regatta park area as part of Stage 4 of the Great River Walk will be advantageous to the local community and visitors to the area. The proposal will upgrade the area to a contemporary, passive recreation spot with greater interaction opportunities with the river itself, as well as improving access for all users.

The application is part of the regional Great River Walk project, being 570km in length along the Hawkesbury Nepean River from Broken Bay to the Southern Highlands.  This is of broad community benefit making the route from Victoria Bridge to the M4 overpass more usable and enhancing the functionality of the area as well as providing greater aesthetic, visual and historical appeal.

Conclusion

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River, Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998-Urban Land, Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991- Environmental Heritage Conservation, and Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, and found to be satisfactory.

 

The completion of Stage 4 of the Great River Walk is an essential element of the wider Great River Walk project, and will be of great benefit to members of the community.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application  DA09/0402 for Stage 4 of the Great River Walk at various lots between Victoria Bridge and the M4 Motorway, Emu Plains be received.

2.     The DA09/0402 for Stage 4 of the Great River Walk be approved, subject to the following conditions:

 

2.1  Standard

          A001 (Approved Plans)

          A011 (Engineering Works DCP)

          A019 (Occupation Certificate)

          A039 (Graffiti)

          A046 (Construction Certificate)

          C003 (Uncovering Relics)

          D001 (Erosion & Sediment Control)

          D002 (Spraygrass)

          D009 (Waste Storage Areas)

          E001 (BCA Compliance)

                   E002  (BCA issues to be addressed- insert ‘Handrails and balustrades on stairs, landings and decks where the external ground surface is more than 1 metre below the floor level, must comply with the BCA, specifically in regard to height and having no gaps in excess of 125mm’)

          E006 (Disabled Access and Facilities)

          H001 (Stamped Plans & Erection of Site Notice)

          H002 (All forms of Construction)

          H003 (Traffic Control Plan)

          H011 (Engineering Plans and Specifications)

          H041 (Hours of work)

          L001 (General)

          L005 (Planting of Plant Material)

          L006 (Aust Standard)

          L008 (Tree Preservation Order)

          P001 (Applicants Cost)

          Q01f  (Notice of Commencement & Appointment of PCA)

Special Conditions

2.2    Any areas disturbed during construction works are to be suitably rehabilitated

2.3    A soil and water management plan is to be prepared and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of works on site

2.4    Consideration is to be given to the provision of sheltered rest areas, suitable for persons with limited mobility, where appropriate

2.5    The gravel path identified behind Emu Hall is to remain an informal grassed path. Bollard markers are to be a maximum 300mm high

26     Path linemarking and regulatory signage is to be provided in accordance with Section 6.2 of the RTA’s NSW Bicycle Guidelines 2005

2.7    Shared-use path advisory signage G9-259-1 Keep Left and G9-259-2 Warn When Approaching is to be provided in accordance with Section 6.6 of the RTA’s NSW Bicycle Guidelines 2005

2.8    Consideration is to be given to the provision of bike parking facilities at the key areas of Stage 4 of the Great River Walk, such as the amphitheatre and/or lookout points

2.9    Shared-use path crossing signage shall be installed for both approaches at the crossing at the southern most point of the pathway

2.10  The gradient at the southernmost point of the pathway is to be rectified to assist cyclists/people with a disability who are required to stop at the road edge

2.11  Under the Roads Act, 1993 the following works are to be approved by Penrith City Council before the commencement of works.  Plans and inspection fees are to be lodged with Penrith City Council for the following works in the road reserve:

(a)     Provision of the concrete path and handrails adjoining the proposed kerb & gutter in River Road.

         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

2.12  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

2.13  The plans are to be structurally certified by a qualified practising structural engineer.  The structural certification, along with any Geotechnical investigations, are to be submitted for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Roads Act Approval

2.13  Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, all fees associated with Penrith City Council-owned land and infrastructure shall be paid to Council.  These fees include Road Opening fees and Infrastructure Restoration fees.

3.     Those making submissions be notified of the outcome.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Map

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Property Details

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Map

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 2 - Property Details

 

 

 

Lots Associated with Proposal

 

Part Lot 126 DP 751662

Part Lot 125 DP 751662

Part Lot 124 DP 751662

Lot 11 DP 751662

Lot 10 DP 751662

Lot 8 DP 65738

Lot 7 DP 65738

Lot 23 DP 243048

Lot B DP 190049

Lot A DP 190049

Lot 1 DP 614436

Lot 7039 DP 94188

 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

6

Fire safety assessment of Erskine Park Shopping Centre    Owner:  G.E.S.P. Pty Limited    

 

Compiled by:                Colin Wood, Building Approvals Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Objective: We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Strategic Direction:  We respond to the impacts of climate change, and support the principles of sustainability

     

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a report from the New South Wales Fire Brigades concerning fire safety issues at the Erskine Park Shopping Centre.  The Brigade inspects sites as part of their duties either routinely or on request.  The above premise was inspected following a complaint from a non-disclosed person.

 

Following the inspection by the Brigade, Council received a report recommending certain fire safety works be completed at the premises.  Section 121ZD of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires the matters resulting from an inspection of the Brigade be tabled to a Council meeting.

 

Council Officers also inspected the premises.  This has identified some additional fire safety matters to those identified by the Brigade.

 

This report recommends Council issue the owner of the premises a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order No. 6 under Section 121B of the Act to include all fire safety matters.  It is also recommended Council advise the Brigade of its decision.

 

Statutory process

 

The fire safety upgrading provisions are contained in Orders 6, 8, 10 and 11 of Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act).  Council is the custodian of these provisions and has ultimate powers to inspect any premises.  The New South Wales Fire Brigade (the Brigade) also have limited powers under the Act.  This report relates to such a circumstance where the Brigade have advised Council of fire safety issues and request Council to determine the matter.

 

Order 6 is the basic fire safety order and the one most commonly used.  Here owners of a premises can be directed to complete works in the following circumstances:

 

(a)        where fire safety or fire safety awareness are not adequate to:

(i)         prevent fire

(ii)        suppress fire

(iii)       prevent the spread of fire

(iv)       ensure or promote the safety of people in the event of fire

 

(b)        if the maintenance or use of the premises constitutes a significant fire hazard.

 

Order 8 can direct any person to cease an activity at a premises if it constitutes a life threatening hazard.  Orders 10 and 11 are given in extreme cases and only apply where an Order 6 and 8 has previously been given and the works remain outstanding.  Order 10 relates to the cessation of use of a premises and Order 11 directs people to leave a premises or not enter a premises.

 

Section 121ZC of the Act relates to powers of the Brigade.  Here the Brigade can do the following:

 

(a)        issue an Order 6 on any premises where the works are non structural.

(b)        issue an Order 8 where the premises is a place of shared accommodation such as a boarding house, guesthouse, backpackers, motel and the like.

(c)        issue an Order 10 or 11 where a person has failed to comply with Orders 6 or 8 issued by them (Note:- these are generally only issued in extreme cases where the matters are likely to be life threatening).

 

Under Section 118L of the Act, the Brigade can inspect any premises of shared accommodation or any other premises when requested by the Council, a person who is the owner, lessee or occupier of the building or when they receive a complaint in writing.  In most instances, the inspection is initiated by a complaint and in these circumstances the complainant is rarely disclosed to Council.

 

When the Brigade serve an order under Section 121ZC, they must forward a copy of the order to Council.  In accordance with Section 121ZE, the Brigade must advise Council whether or not the order is in force and any action proposed to be taken in relation to the order.  In most instances, the Brigade will initially advise they intend to reinspect the premises within a set time.  If works remain outstanding, the Brigade generally write to Council and hand it over for follow up action.  The Brigade would have the ability to instigate their own legal action but it is unclear if they have ever exercised this power.

 

The Brigade do not need to serve an order in every case however, they must advise Council if they inspect any premises under Section 118L.  These would generally apply when the works are extensive or structural issues are identified.

 

When a Council receives advice from the Brigade that they have inspected a premises under Section 118L of the Act, Council must table any report and recommendations it receives to a meeting of the Council and determine whether or not it will exercise its powers under the Act to give an Order to rectify the situation.  Council must also give notice of its determination to the Commissioner of the New South Wales Fire Brigade.

 

In this particular instance, the Brigade initially inspected the Erskine Park Shopping Centre following a complaint from a non-disclosed person.  The Brigade have not issued an Order in this case but have elected to refer it to Council for determination.

 

 

 

 

Advice from the New South Fire Brigades concerning general fire safety issues

 

The New South Wales Fire Brigade has written to Council and highlighted the following fire safety matters needed to be addressed:

 

(a)     The hydrant booster serving the shopping centre has been installed in a remote location at the south west corner of the premises with no signage indicating its location.  Appropriate signage should be provided.

 

(b)     The hydrant booster is located approximately four metres from an electrical substation.  The electrical substation should be located at least 10 metres from the hydrant booster in accordance with 7.3(f) of AS2419 – Fire hydrant installations.  The substation will need to be relocated.

 

(c)     No block plan is provided at the hydrant booster.  A suitable metal embossed block plan is required at the hydrant booster.

 

(d)     An anti tamper locking strap with a 003 key operated pad lock attached was missing from the hydrant riser.

 

(e)     The attack hydrant located in the car park has a broken wheel valve.

 

Council inspected the premises and highlighted some additional fire safety issues

 

When giving reports to Council under Section 118L of the Act, the Brigade tend to concentrate on general fire safety issues and those matters that concern them directly, such as: hydrants, sprinklers, evacuation systems and the like.  The Brigade is not necessarily assessing the entire building and it is therefore important for Council to inspect the premises and provide a complete fire safety assessment. 

 

Council has inspected the premises and confirmed the only matter completed on the Brigade’s list was the anti tamper locking strap (Item (d)).  At the time of the inspection, Council also identified the following fire safety issues:

 

(a)     The hydrant riser outside the “Contours Fitness” tenancy in the car park needs vegetation removed, suitable signage and vehicular bollards provided.

 

(b)     All tenancies will require a minimum of 4.5 kg AB(E) portable fire extinguisher.  Each extinguisher will need to be wall mounted and suitably sign posted.

 

(c)     There is evidence of a fire and smoke alarm system in the building yet many tenancies and roof spaces are not protected.  A complete system of fire and smoke alarms complying with AS1670 is to be installed throughout the entire development.  A detail of the proposed system will need to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the commencement of works.

 

(d)     Some emergency lights and illuminated exit signs have been provided to the building but there appears to be a deficiency in some areas.  A complete system of emergency lighting and illuminated exit signage throughout the entire development is required.  A plan showing the location of all existing and proposed fixtures is to be submitted to Council for consideration prior to the commencement of work.

 

(e)     There is concern with the fire door separating the Franklin’s tenancy from the mall area as Officers could only locate a manual override system and it does not appear to be automatic.  Compartmentation of the building is critical to reducing fire spread and it also promotes life safety.  Council should require the submission of a plan showing the compartmentation of the building and request the owner to verify the operation of the fire door in the Franklin’s tenancy.

 

(f)      An evacuation procedure will need to be developed for the site.  This will instil appropriate coping behaviours in staff and ultimately lead to improved fire safety awareness for both staff and patrons alike.

 

Conclusion

 

All fire safety issues identified by the Brigade and Council will need to be addressed by the owner of the premises.  In this regard, it is recommended Council send the owner a notice of its intention to serve a fire safety order. 

 

Council will need to write to the Brigade advising them on the action taken by Council.  A copy of the notice of intention will be included in the correspondence to the Brigade.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Fire safety assessment of Erskine Park Shopping Centre be received.

2.     Council prepare a Notice of Intention to Serve an order incorporating all items identified by the Brigade and Council.

3.     The Brigade be advised on the action taken by Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

7

Fire safety report on 37 Leland Street Penrith    Owner:  Mr. Spiro Gouriotis & Mrs. Areti Gouriotis    

 

Compiled by:                Colin Wood, Building Approvals Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Objective: We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Strategic Direction:  We respond to the impacts of climate change, and support the principles of sustainability

     

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a report from the New South Wales Fire Brigades concerning fire safety issues at Leland Street, Penrith.  The Brigade did not advise Council why they inspected the premises in the first instance although they did issue an Order No. 6 on 19th February 2009 in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

 

A subsequent reinspection of the premises by the Brigade revealed that items remain outstanding and they have referred it to Council for our determination.  Section 121ZD of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires the matters resulting from an inspection of the Brigade be tabled to a Council meeting.

 

Council Officers also inspected the premises.  This has identified some additional fire safety matters to those identified by the Brigade.

 

This report recommends Council issue the owner of the premises a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order 6 under Section 121B of the Act to include all matters.  It is also recommended Council advise the Brigade of its decision.

 

Statutory Process

 

The fire safety upgrading provisions are contained in Orders 6, 8, 10 and 11 of Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act).  Council is the custodian of these provisions and has ultimate powers to inspect any premises.  The New South Wales Fire Brigade (the Brigade) also have limited powers under the Act.  This report relates to such a circumstance where the Brigade have advised Council of fire safety issues and requested Council to determine the matter.

 

Order 6 is the basic fire safety order and the one most commonly used.  Here owners of a premises can be directed to complete works in the following circumstances:

 

(a)        where fire safety or fire safety awareness are not adequate to:

(i)         prevent fire

(ii)        suppress fire

(iii)       prevent the spread of fire

(iv)       ensure or promote the safety of people in the event of fire

 

(b)        if the maintenance or use of the premises constitutes a significant fire hazard.

 

Order 8 can direct any person to cease an activity at a premises if it constitutes a life threatening hazard.  Orders 10 and 11 are given in extreme cases and only apply where an order 6 and 8 has previously been given and the works remain outstanding.  Order 10 relates to the cessation of use of a premises and Order 11 directs people to leave a premises or not enter a premises.

 

Section 121ZC of the Act relates to powers of the Brigade.  Here the Brigade can do the following:

 

(a)        issue an Order 6 on any premises where the works are non structural.

(b)        issue an Order 8 where the premises is a place of shared accommodation such as a boarding house, guesthouse, backpackers, motel and the like.

(c)        issue an Order 10 or 11 where a person has failed to comply with Orders 6 or 8 issued by them (Note:- these are generally only issued in extreme cases where the matters are likely to be life threatening).

 

Under Section 118L of the Act, the Brigade can inspect any premises of shared accommodation or any other premises when requested by the Council, a person who is the owner, lessee or occupier of the building or when they receive a complaint in writing.  In most instances, the inspection is initiated by a complaint and in these circumstances the complainant is rarely disclosed to Council.

 

When the Brigade serve an order under Section 121ZC, they must forward a copy of the order to Council.  In accordance with Section 121ZE, the Brigade must advise Council whether or not the order is in force and any action proposed to be taken in relation to the order.  In most instances, the Brigade will initially advise they intend to reinspect the premises within a set time.  If works remain outstanding, the Brigade generally write to Council and hand it over for follow up action.  The Brigade would have the ability to instigate their own legal action but it is unclear if they have ever exercised this power.

 

The Brigade do not need to serve an order in every case however, they must advise Council if they inspect any premises under Section 118L.  These would generally apply when the works are extensive or structural issues are identified.

 

When a Council receives advice from the Brigade that they have inspected a premises under Section 118L of the Act, Council must table any report and recommendations it receives to a meeting of the Council and determine whether or not it will exercise its powers under the Act to give an Order to rectify the situation.  Council must also give notice of its determination to the Commissioner of the New South Wales Fire Brigade.

 

In this particular instance, the Brigade served an Order 6 on the owner and a follow up inspection by the Brigade found the order had not been satisfied.  The Brigade have decided to hand the matter to Council for determination.

 

 

 

 

Advice from the New South Wales Fire Brigade concerning general fire safety issues

 

The New South Wales Fire Brigade has written to Council and highlighted the following fire safety matters needed to be addressed:

 

(a)     A hydrant block plan has not been provided.

(b)     Signage for the booster assembly has not been provided.

(c)     The locking strap for the booster main wheel valve has not been provided.

(d)     The hydrant and booster certification has not been supplied.

(e)     The egress paths were not clear at the time of the inspection.

 

Council inspected the premises and highlighted some additional fire safety issues

 

When giving reports to Council under Section 118L of the Act, the Brigade tend to concentrate on general fire safety issues and those matters that concern them directly, such as: hydrants, sprinklers, evacuation systems and the like.  The Brigade is not necessarily assessing the entire building and it is therefore important for Council to inspect the premises and provide a complete fire safety assessment. 

 

Council has inspected the premises and confirmed the only matter completed on the Brigade’s list was the certification for the hydrant system (Item (d)).  At the time of the inspection, Council also identified the following fire safety issues:

 

(a)     An exit sign is required to be located over the main entrance of the office portion of the building. 

 

(b)     A complete system of emergency lights and illuminated exit signs will need to be installed in the warehouse portion of the building.  A detail on the proposed location of fixtures will need to be submitted to Council for assessment prior to installation.

 

(c)     A fire hose reel is required to be located on the first floor office portion of the building.   A detail on the proposed location of the fire hose reel will need to be submitted to council for approval prior to installation.

 

(d)     The fire hose reels and the exit paths in the warehouse portion of the building were obstructed by materials at the time of the inspection.  This will need to be addressed by the provision of suitable line marking on the floor to delineate the areas to be kept clear at all times.

 

(e)     The exit doors to the warehouse portion of the building require a lever action latch that can be opened from inside the building without recourse to a key.

 

(f)      A pathway is to be provided around the building to link the northern and western exits with the front of the building.  Currently the areas to the north and west of the building are overgrown and this will also need to be addressed.

 

(g)     An evacuation procedure will need to be developed for the site.  This will instil appropriate coping behaviours in staff and ultimately lead to improved fire safety awareness for both employees and patrons alike.

 

Conclusion

 

All fire safety issues identified by the Brigade and Council will need to be addressed by the owner of the premises.  In this regard, it is recommended Council send the owner a notice of its intention to serve a fire safety order. 

 

Council will need to write to the Brigade advising them on the action taken by Council.  A copy of the notice of intention will be included in the correspondence to the Brigade.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Fire safety report on 37 Leland Street Penrith be received.

2.     Council prepare a Notice of Intention to Serve an order incorporating all items identified by the Brigade and Council.

3.     The Brigade be advised on the action taken by Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

8        Purchase of a New Emergency Response Vehicle for the Penrith State Emergency Service

 

9        Naming of a Park in St Marys

 

10      Federal Government 2010/2011 "Auslink Black Spot Program" Submissions

 

11      Proposal to close parcel of land located between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close, St Clair

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

8

Purchase of a New Emergency Response Vehicle for the Penrith State Emergency Service   

 

Compiled by:                Laurie Cafarella, Co-ordinator Community Protection

Authorised by:             Barry Ryan, Waste and Community Protection Manager   

Strategic Objective: Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Strategic Direction: The risk from emergency events to our communities is minimised

     

 

Executive Summary

To advise Council of the proposed purchase of a new emergency response vehicle for the Penrith State Emergency Service (SES) through grant funding from the NSW SES.  The report recommends that the information be received and Council proceeds with a motor vehicle subsidy application to the NSW SES for the purchase of a new emergency response vehicle for the Penrith SES.

Background

The SES is a community based, volunteer organisation whose purpose is to protect lives and property during storm and flood events and other natural disasters. The SES also provides Council with advice and assistance with floodplain risk management.

 

NSW councils, in partnership with the State Government, provide financial and practical support to local SES units including operational buildings and vehicles.

 

The NSW SES provides a range of assistance to SES units designed to ease the financial burden on councils.  This assistance includes a motor vehicle subsidy for the purchase of new emergency response vehicles.  This subsidy is on a dollar for dollar basis with a maximum of $60,000 being available for the purchase of such a vehicle.

 

To be eligible for the subsidy Council is required to complete a motor vehicle subsidy application detailing the type of vehicle proposed, reason for purchasing the vehicle and the financial contribution Council will be providing for the purchase.

 

Current Situation

In recent discussions with the Penrith SES Controller, an existing emergency response vehicle was identified as requiring replacement.  This vehicle, purchased in February 1996, is 13 years old and is no longer economical to maintain. It is intended to replace this vehicle with the purchase of a new crew cab vehicle chassis.

 

Last year, Council purchased a replacement vehicle body at a cost of $70,000.00 which was fitted to the vehicle chassis requiring replacement, and it is now intended to fit this body to the new crew cab chassis. The value of this body, together with $10,000.00 from the sale of the old vehicle chassis, will be Council’s “in kind” contribution towards the purchase of the vehicle.


 

The total cost for the purchase of the new vehicle, including fitting of the body to the chassis, installing winch and bull bar, and modifying the chassis for the body is $135,081.60 (including GST).  This is offset by the value of Council’s “in kind” contribution from the previous purchase of the vehicle body ($70,000.00) and the trade-in value of the former vehicle ($10,000.00 reserved auction price). Consequently, the amount of funding required from the NSW SES will be $55,081.60.

 

In discussions with the NSW SES regarding the proposed vehicle purchase, Council was advised that this “in kind” contribution would be accepted as a financial contribution and Council would be eligible to receive the required motor vehicle subsidy funding. 

 

As a consequence, the proposed vehicle purchase would place no additional financial burden on Council should it proceed with a motor vehicle subsidy application, and is likely to reduce the increasing costs of maintaining an ageing vehicle.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Purchase of a New Emergency Response Vehicle for the Penrith State Emergency Service be received.

2.     Council proceed with a motor vehicle subsidy application to the NSW State Emergency Service for the purchase of a new emergency response vehicle for the Penrith State Emergency Service.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

9

Naming of a Park in St Marys   

 

Compiled by:                Lyndall Ryman, Parks Secretary

Authorised by:             John Gordon, Parks Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Jackie Greenow

Strategic Objective: Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Strategic Direction: We have safe and well-maintained parks, that encourage healthy activity and community wellbeing

     

 

Executive Summary

To seek Council’s endorsement for the naming of the sporting fields at Roper Road, Colyton as “Kevin Dwyer Park”. The report recommends that the information be received and that an application be made to the Geographical Names Board for official gazetting.

Background

A request has been received from Councillor Jackie Greenow to name the sporting fields at Roper Road, Colyton as ‘Kevin Dwyer Park’.

 

The Geographical Names Board (GNB) requires that naming proposals meet the following criteria:

·    The use of a person’s name for park names should normally only be given posthumously;

·    Names of Aboriginal origin or with an historical background are preferred;

·    Council agrees to the proposed name;

·    If considered appropriate, the names of eminent persons may be perpetuated, particularly those of early explorers, settlers, naturalists.

 

Once an application for naming is submitted to the GNB, the remaining process involves a number of steps. One of these includes public exhibition of the proposed naming. The entire process takes approximately eight to ten months.

 

Proposed Name

 

Kevin Dwyer’s family settled in the Penrith area in 1798, being farmers on the original “Cranebrook” property, which is now part of the Penrith Lakes Scheme.

 

Kevin served on Penrith City Council for twenty-two years (1977-1999) fulfilling the role of Mayor on three occasions and Deputy Mayor on twelve occasions. He was an executive member of the Local Government Association and was actively involved in the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils for many years.

 

He served as Chairman of the Nepean-Hawkesbury Catchment Committee for five years (1983-1988) and Deputy Chairman several times.

 

Kevin served on the Prospect County Council and the Joint Council of Rivers and its Advisory Committee as Delegate and Chairman.

 

He was a Director of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic & Recreation Centre (Ripples), a Director of the Whitewater Centre, and a Director of the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.

 

He was a member of the Economic Development and Employment Committee; the St Marys Community Precinct Working Group; the Children’s Services Working Party and the St Marys Residential, Civic and Community Projects Steering Committee.

 

As well as the above Council appointments, Kevin was involved in many community activities, including:

 

· On the Board of the Queen Victoria Hospital

· The Board of the Penrith Symphony Orchestra

· A Life Member of the Penrith District A.H.&I Show Society

· The Board of the St Marys Band Club

· The Board of Emmaus – Erskine Park

· The Colyton/St Clair Lions Club

 

Kevin served on the St Marys Development Committee the whole time he was a Councillor and held the position of President at the time of his death in 2004.

 

He also served on the St Marys South Public School Council for many years and was the President at the time of his death.

 

He was a Delegate for the St Marys Branch of the Combined Pensioners & Superannuants Association and was representing them in the City when he met with the accident that resulted in his death.

 

Kevin was a member of the original St Marys Historical Society along with his wife, Margaret. They joined the newly formed St Marys & District Historical Society in 1996 and he was the Vice-President at his death.

 

Few people in the community have been held in such high esteem as Kevin Dwyer, who richly deserved the honours he received, being the Order of Australia and the Centenary Medal.

 

The sporting fields at Roper Road, Colyton has never been officially named but has been referred to by local residents as the Roper Road soccer fields.

 

Conclusion

Given the significant contribution made by Kevin Dwyer to the community of St Marys, and indeed the entire area serviced by Penrith City Council, it is considered appropriate that a significant community sporting facility be named in his honour. Due to his involvement with the St Marys Band Club Football Group it is recommended that the Roper Road soccer fields be the endorsed location. It is understood that the choice of this site is supported by Mr Dwyer’s family and a number of community organisations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Naming of a Park in St Marys be received.

2.     That Council endorse the naming of the sporting fields on Roper Road, Colyton as ‘Kevin Dwyer Park ’ and make application to the Geographical Name Board for the official gazetting.

3.     Following gazettal, an official naming ceremony be held at the sporting fields.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

10

Federal Government 2010/2011 "Auslink Black Spot Program" Submissions   

 

Compiled by:                David Drozd, Senior Traffic Engineer

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

Strategic Objective: Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Strategic Direction: We have access to an interconnected transport network, and our reliance on cars is reduced

     

 

Executive Summary

To seek Council’s endorsement for projects nominated under the Federal Government’s 2010/2011 “Auslink Black Spot Program”.  The report recommends that the six nominated projects be submitted to the NSW Black Spot Consultative Panel of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA).

Background

The RTA has invited Council to identify and nominate new conforming projects for the 2010/2011 program, and to forward its submissions to the NSW Black Spot Consultative Panel by Friday, 21 August 2009.

 

Current Situation

 

The following six projects listed in Table 1 are recommended for endorsement by Council for nomination under the National Black Spot Program.  The RTA will only fund a maximum of five projects each nomination year and therefore Council is encouraged to prioritise its projects according to their Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).  As with last year’s submission, Council has included a supplementary project in the program.

 

Nineteen projects were shortlisted from the total list of identified locations and Black Lengths in the LGA that met the minimum eligibility criteria for the program (ie, three injury accidents in five years).  Of these 19 locations, the nine highest risk locations were more thoroughly examined with remediation treatments and costs attributed to each project.  The final list of six projects offers the Penrith LGA the greatest yield in terms of accident savings for this nomination year.

 

Analysis of the accidents is based on the RTA recorded accident data available to Council for the last five years from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2008.  Nominated projects were prioritised according to the number of injury crashes that had occurred over the last five years, and the ability to successfully remediate the accident hazards at that location by way of an appropriate treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1
List of Projects to be Submitted to RTA

 

Item


Primary Road

Intersecting Street or Section of Road

Total Number of Accidents (5 years data)

Total Number of Casualty

Accidents

Proposed

Treatment

 

Cost Estimate

 

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

1

Bennett Rd, Londonderry

Carrington Rd

4

3

MIST, improve vertical & horizontal alignment, street lighting

$125,000

10.4

2

Colless St, Penrith

Lethbridge St

9

4

MIST, street lighting

$75,000

8.3

3

Littlefields Rd, Mulgoa

3.3km between Roxys Way & The Northern Road

9

5

Guardrail, street lighting, roadside hazard removal

$125,000

7.8

4

Lemongrove Rd, Penrith

Thurston/Macquarie Sts

10

5

Improved superelevation, chevron signage, channelisation

$75,000

7.8

5

The Crescent, Penrith

Evan St/Macquarie St

14

4

Roundabout, street lighting

$250,000

5.5

6

Henry St, Penrith

High St

7

3

Kerb works, at grade threshold

$65,000

4.0

 

In addition to sites on Council’s road network, it is noted that the locations under the RTA’s control and management, as shown in Table 2, below, have high accident histories resulting in multiple casualties.

 

TABLE 2
List of Sites Under RTA Control & Management

 

Item


Primary Road

Intersecting Street

Total Number of Casualty Accidents (5 yrs)

1

Mamre Rd

Western M4

29

2

The Northern Rd

Western M4

27

3

Mulgoa Rd

Western M4

21

4

Mamre Rd

Lonsdale/Wilson Rds

18

5

Western M4

Roper Rd

18

6

Richmond Rd

Star Ct

17

7

Great Western Hwy

Charles Hackett Dve

15

8

Mamre Rd

Erskine Park Rd

14

9

Great Western Hwy

Parker Rd

13

10

Parker Rd

Jamison Rd

12

 

The RTA will be advised that these locations on its Arterial Road Network should be investigated as a matter of priority due to their high casualty accident rates.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Federal Government 2010/2011 "Auslink Black Spot Program" Submissions be received.

2.     Council endorse the six projects listed under Table 1 of this report for submission to the Roads and Traffic Authority for funding under the Federal Government 2010/2011 “Auslink Black Spot Program”.

3.     The Roads and Traffic Authority be requested to investigate traffic safety on roads under its jurisdiction at locations indicated in Table 2 of this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

11

Proposal to close parcel of land located between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close, St Clair   

 

Compiled by:                Allison Kyriakakis, Community Safety Co-ordinator

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

Strategic Objective: Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Strategic Direction: We feel safe in our neighbourhoods, and proud of our public spaces and local centres

     

 

Executive Summary

The area of open space between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close has been the subject of extensive representations to both Council and police from residents concerning issues related to antisocial behaviour and malicious damage in addition to a police investigated assault. This location is quite unorthodox in design, shape and topography and is not suitable for recreational or leisure purposes. It is being used predominantly as a pedestrian thoroughfare. A Community Safety Audit conducted in August 2007 showed that the area of open space has limited opportunities for surveillance and does not provide a safe access route for pedestrians, particularly at night for reasons detailed in the report. The Audit recommended that this area be investigated for closure.

 

Although the area of open space is not a pedestrian laneway, due to its predominant use as pedestrian thoroughfare, Council’s adopted procedure for investigating the closure of pedestrian laneways was applied to assess the closure of this area of open space. This procedure identified that 230 pedestrians used this area over a two day period and that the main users were school aged children and young people during morning and afternoon peak times with only sporadic use at other times; the majority of users interviewed indicated that they would oppose the closure although one third of those interviewed indicated that they could easily take an alternate route; there were alternative safer routes available but these involved a further maximum walking distance of approximately 600 metres; residents with properties adjoining the area of open space were in full support of the closure; only one objection was raised as a result of letterboxing the properties in the surrounding area that could be affected by the closure. The police statistics showed that there have been 68 incidents reported to them between July 2007 and May 2009. These related to malicious damage, graffiti and one reported assault with the majority of these incidents occurring at night.

 

Due to the high level of incidents concentrated in this area, the high level of support from residents for this land to be permanently closed, the unsafe nature of this area to be used as a pedestrian thoroughfare and the presence of safer alternate routes, albeit with increased walking distances, it is recommended that this area of open space be permanently closed.

 

This report therefore seeks Council endorsement for the reclassification of a portion of open space between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close, St Clair from Community Land to Operational Land to enable it to be potentially subdivided and developed into two separate housing blocks. This process of reclassification and subdivision can take a minimum of two years to complete. Due to the lengthy period for this process the report also recommends that the area of open space be fenced at both ends to prevent access and hence alleviate the issues of antisocial behaviour and malicious damage. Council staff will continue to maintain the space in accordance with adopted service schedules.

Background

The small area of land located between Diamantina Close and Reddington Avenue, St Clair, has been subject to ongoing incidents of antisocial behaviour and malicious damage in addition to a police investigated assault. 

In response to concerns from local residents, Council conducted a Community Safety Audit at this location in August 2007. The Audit was attended by Council staff, local Police and local residents, and identified evidence of graffiti, malicious damage, alcohol consumption and antisocial activities. The Audit also highlighted that the orientation of buildings surrounding the site provide limited opportunities for surveillance of the area, which although used frequently as a thoroughfare and does not provide a safe access route for pedestrians, particularly at night. A recommendation of the Audit was that the area be investigated for closure.

Description of site

The land is quite unorthodox in design, shape and topography. As indicated by the aerial view in Figure 1, there is a narrow entry point from the Reddington Avenue (western) access point, sloping upwards to a wider area of land at the Diamantina Close (eastern) access point. The land is approximately 2,042 square metres in size, comprising two parcels of land currently zoned as Operational Land (656 square metres) and Community Land (1,386 square metres).

As indicated by Figures 1 and 2, the land fronts onto five (5) properties which are battleaxe blocks at the southern boundary of the land with access from Shearer Street. There are no fences between these houses and the parcel of land and subsequently they are particularly vulnerable to antisocial behaviour and malicious damage caused by persons passing through.

As indicated by Figures 3 and 4, the land is not suitable for recreational or leisure purposes given the slope of the land, uneven topography, presence of drainage structures including kerb and gutter, and close proximity to residential properties. The land is predominately used as a makeshift access way between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close. Evidence of pedestrian usage patterns are identified in Figures 3 and 4 which show a desire line that has been created by many years of pedestrian use. Residents in the immediate vicinity consider this area to be a catalyst for many of the issues impacting negatively on their properties and well being. They have requested that Council consider what options could be considered to minimise antisocial behaviour in the interests of public safety and local amenity.

 

 


Coloured copies of Figures 1-4 and 6 are separately enclosed for the information of Councillors.

Figure 1: Aerial view of parcel of land from Reddington Avenue to Diamantina Close, St Clair

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: view of land from the Reddington Avenue entry point. Battleaxe blocks

 are located to the right within the photograph

 


 

 

 

Figure 3: View of land facing east heading towards Diamantina Close.

Graffiti and malicious damage is evident on the colourbond fence located to the left.

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: View of land leading towards Diamantina Close entry point. This photograph denotes the uneven surface and erosion of land caused by frequent pedestrian usage patterns.

 

 

 

Community Safety Audit

 

To investigate community safety concerns in this space, a Community Safety Audit was conducted in August 2007. The Audit was facilitated by Council’s Community Safety Coordinator and attended by local Police, local residents and key community stakeholders and other Council staff. The Audit identified evidence of graffiti, malicious damage, alcohol consumption and antisocial activities and given the unorthodox design and shape of the area, recommended that the location be investigated for closure.

The audit also noted that levels of real and perceived safety for pedestrians using this space are compromised by a lack of surveillance onto this site. The area is also not lit, which makes the space unsafe for pedestrians walking through the space at night. This is supported by community reporting and police data which indicates that the majority of reported offences in this space occurred at night.  The area is unsuitable for any installation of lighting as it would impact on neighbouring properties and as stated earlier in the report the area is not conducive for recreational purposes or a pedestrian thoroughfare.  

Although this location is not a pedestrian laneway the procedure previously adopted by Council to investigate request for the closure of laneways was utilised to assess potential impacts of the closure of this area of land.

Council’s Community Safety Coordinator also began discussions with Council’s Property Development Department regarding the feasibility of and process required to reclassify this land for possible future sub division.

Comments from Property Development Manager

 

Council’s Property Development Department is currently investigating the reclassification of the portion of this land which is classified as Community Land to Operational Land, described as Lot 33 DP843119, to enable it to be potentially subdivided and developed into two separate housing blocks.  An application has been submitted to the Planning Department to undertake the actual reclassification and rezoning. This is a lengthy process, which is subject to the exhibition of the Stage 2 LEP. It is anticipated that the reclassification, subdivision and sale of this land will take a minimum of two (2) years from the reclassification and rezoning process. A full implementation of services is required which includes water, sewer, gas, electricity, etc.

Three adjoining owners can be approached to add the additional land at the rear of their properties along the battleaxe sector of the land with a minimal cost to overcome the problem in addition to the creation of two residential blocks.

To alleviate the issues of antisocial behaviour and malicious damage during the reclassification process, it has been proposed to erect fencing to prevent access to this parcel of land during the reclassification process.

 

Procedure for assessing suitability of land closure

 

As stated earlier in the report the assessment procedure previously adopted for the closure of pedestrian laneways was implemented.

 

This procedure involves the gathering of a significant amount of data, including:

 

a)   Determination of total daytime pedestrian usage, age range of users, and peak usage times of the land;

b)   Measurement of the length of the detour if the land was closed;

c)   Determination of the presence of an overland drainage water flow path and presence of utility services;

d)   Direct consultation with adjoining property owners and neighbourhood stakeholders, including letter-boxing, to measure support or otherwise for the closure of the land;

e)   Consultation with local police to retrieve any relevant statistics concerning events associated with the land.

 

The data gathered for each of these considerations is detailed in the following sections of this report.

 

a)    Determination of total daytime pedestrian usage, age range of users, and peak usage times of the land

 

Pedestrian Traffic Study

 

To assist with accurately determining levels of pedestrian usage, peak usage times and age-range of users, Council engaged the services of a consultant to conduct a Pedestrian Traffic Study of the area proposed for closure.

 

The research objectives of this study were to:

-     Identify the origin and destination of the pedestrians;

-     Determine the peak times of main usage of the space;

-     Determine the gender and age range of users (i.e. children, teenagers and adults);

-     Determine the origin and destination as well as frequency of those using the area, and

-     To assess the likely impact of and views of those using the space regarding the proposed closure.

 

Methodology

 

Fieldwork was conducted on Tuesday 31st March between the hours of 7:00am – 7:00pm and Wednesday 8th April between the hours of 7:00am and 6:00pm (earlier finish due to the end of daylight savings). There were two (2) key elements of the research:

-     A tally of all persons who walked through the area in half hour intervals, including their gender and an estimate of age;

-     An interview with willing participants (aged 15+) to obtain more detailed information regarding their origin/destination, demographics, main use of the area, and personal views on the proposed closure.

 


 

 

Tally for DAY 1

Tally for DAY 2

TOTAL FOR THE 2 DAYS

Children/Infants

(0-12 years old)

41

24

65

Teenagers

(13-19 years old)

25

82

107

Adults

(aged 20+)

18

40

58

TOTAL

84

146

230

Figure 5 Pedestrian Tally

 

Figure 5 provides a tally of each instance a person walked through the grassed area. The figures may reflect the same person walking in the space more than one time in the day.

 

The total number of pedestrians counted in the space over the 2 days was 230, with 84 persons counted on Day 1 and 146 counted on Day 2 of the study. School aged children and young people are the main users of the space, followed by adults.

 

It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the pedestrian counts on Day 1 and Day 2 of the fieldwork due to inclement weather on the first day of the study.

 

These surveys indicate that the area is most often used between the hours of 7.30am and 8.30am, and 2.30pm and 3.00pm, primarily by children and young people travelling between school and home. The area is used sporadically at other intervals during the day by adults, who indicated they were using the space as a walkway to and from the St Clair Shopping Centre. There did not appear to be a significant discrepancy between numbers of males and females using the space.

 

Pedestrian Interviews

Of the 230 people counted walking through the space over the two days, a total of 63 people were interviewed. This is a relatively low number of respondents, and it is therefore important that this data be regarded as indicative only. 

Of those interviewed, nearly all (94%) lived in St Clair, two-thirds (65%) were aged 15-24 and half (49%) were students. 65% of respondents indicated that they use the space twice a day. St Clair Shopping Centre, St Clair High School and St Clair Primary School were the main origin and destination of respondents. 60% of respondents were walking from Diamantina Close to Reddington Avenue, and 40% were walking in the opposite direction (toward Diamantina Close). Two-thirds of those interviewed had commenced their walk from home, and one quarter had commenced their walk from school.

The majority of those interviewed indicated that they would oppose the closure, with inconvenience the main reason given for the opposition, as the space being used was the shortest possible pedestrian route. A small number of users indicated that they would support the closure of the space to minimise incidents of antisocial behaviour and vandalism. Nearly one-third of respondents mentioned that they could easily take an alternate route.

Whilst the closure would be likely to cause an inconvenience to those residents using the route on a regular basis, there are alternative routes available that could be used. An assessment of alternative routes by Community Safety staff also found that the alternative routes provide safer and better lit routes for pedestrian use. Particularly given that the route is predominantly used by school-aged children, the use of the safest possible routes should be encouraged, rather than those that may provide quicker, more convenient access at a higher safety risk. 

 

b)   Measurement of the length of the detour if the land was closed

 

Measurements were conducted to determine the distance of alterative pedestrian routes that could be used to access Diamantina Close from Reddington Avenue should the land be closed.

Figure 6 (below) indicates the alternative routes for pedestrians requiring access to Diamantina Close from Reddington Avenue. The shortest route is indicated by the line via Chatres Street; through the reserve located on Chatres Street, Hickory Place, Chardonnay Road, and along Sandalwood Avenue. This detour is a further distance of approximately 596 metres. Another alternative route is indicated by the line, via Chatres Street, Chardonnay Road and Sandalwood Avenue. This detour is a further distance of approximately 611 metres.

 

Figure 6: Maximum alternative pedestrian routes from Reddington Avenue to Diamantina Close

An assessment of these alternative routes was carried out by Community Safety staff. Upon assessment, staff indicated that the alternative routes provide a safer access route than the thoroughfare between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close.

This is due to both alternative routes providing greater levels of passive surveillance for pedestrians, given the number of residential properties which front the street. This is in comparison to the access route between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close, which has limited levels of passive surveillance due to the orientation of adjacent properties which back on to the area. This increases the risk of crime at this location as there are less ‘eyes and ears’ around, which reduces levels of real and perceived safety for pedestrians using this thoroughfare.

The alternative routes are also provided with street lighting which enhances safety for pedestrians using these alternative routes at night. In comparison, the thoroughfare between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close is not lit and is therefore perceived to be not as safe for pedestrian use at night. Consultations with local residents and examination of Police data also indicate that the majority of reported offences occur at this location at night, when the area is very dark.

c)   Determination of the presence of an overland drainage water flow path and presence of utility services

 

There is no overland drainage water flow path in this area. Stormwater lines, kerb and gutter, and drainage pits exist within the space.

 

Sydney Water Plans indicate that a sewer runs along the western boundary of the reserve.

Telstra have local phone connections which serves the houses in Shearer Street which back onto the reserve.

 

d)   Direct consultation with adjoining property owners and neighbourhood stakeholders, including letter-boxing, to measure support or otherwise for the closure of the land

 

On-Site Community Meeting

On 12th March 2009 an on-site meeting was held with residents whose properties adjoin the land or are in close proximity to the land.  The meeting was facilitated by David Burns, Group Manager, City Presentation; Yvonne Perkins, Manager Public Domain Amenity and Safety; and Allison Kyriakakis, Community Safety Coordinator.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposal for the physical closure of the location with the residents and to gauge whether they would be supportive of the construction of fencing at each end of the laneway to restrict public access from Diamantina Close and Reddington Avenue. 

Eleven (11) residents were in attendance at the meeting. All in attendance indicated that they would be supportive of physical closure of the land to restrict public access. No residents who were in attendance at the meeting indicated that they would oppose closure of the land.

Residents were also advised that the proposed fencing, if approved, would be a temporary measure to restrict access to the land during the investigation of the reclassification and possible sale.

Letter box drop to nearby residents

 

A letter was distributed to residents within the area (155 properties) who would most likely be affected by the proposed closure. Residents were invited to provide comment to Council regarding their support or otherwise for the proposed closure of this parcel of land.

Only one response was received from a local resident in opposition to the proposed closure.

e)   Consultation with local police to retrieve any relevant statistics concerning events associated with the land.

 

St Marys Local Area Command provided statistics on the number and type of reported incidents in this location from the period July 2007 to May 2009.

During this period, a total of 68 incidents in this vicinity have been reported to the Police. Reporting has increased since the Community Safety Audit was held in 2007, as residents were encouraged to reports any incidents directly to the Police.

Of the reported incidents, 23 (33%) were malicious damage to property offences, 44 (64%) were graffiti incidents, and there was also one reported assault in the space. The types of malicious damage reported included fences that had been kicked or damaged, and an incident involving a small explosive. The graffiti was primarily spray paint to fences adjoining the land.

The majority of reported incidents were reported as occurring on a Friday (27%), followed by Saturday (15%) and Thursday (15%). The majority of incidents were also reported as occurring in the evening, from 6:00pm until 12:00 midnight. This is reflective of discussions with local residents at the Community Safety Audit held in August 2007 and ongoing representations which have raised concerns for safety due to the majority of offences occurring at night when the area is dark and surveillance limited.

Data obtained from Council’s Graffiti database also indicates that this area is frequently targeted by graffiti vandalism. For the six-month period from 1st January 2009 to 19th June 2009, Council has removed 13 instances of graffiti from this area, being 233.28sqm, all being paint out on colourbond fencing from properties in Diamantina Close.

 

These statistics are reflective of anecdotal evidence provided by local residents which indicates that the area is a hotspot for graffiti, malicious damage, and antisocial behaviour which is adversely impacting on the local community.

Conclusion

There is a high level of support from local residents for this land to be permanently closed to alleviate issues of malicious damage and antisocial behaviour at this location.  

The pedestrian study confirmed that the land is being utilized as a makeshift thoroughfare, although the site itself is not suitable for this type of use. Findings from the Community Safety Audit and ongoing investigations have highlighted that the area does not provide a safe pedestrian access route, particularly given the limited passive surveillance to the area and lack of lighting. 

Police data and community reporting indicate that the area is a catalyst for various offences including malicious damage, graffiti, antisocial behaviour and a reported assault, with a large number of offences reported over the past two years. These incidents are having a detrimental impact on neighbouring residents who continue to report ongoing incidents at this location. 

Whilst it is anticipated that the closure of this land will cause a minor inconvenience to pedestrians who use the route as a shortcut, alternative routes are available. Safety assessments indicate that these alternative routes would provide safer, well-lit routes for pedestrians. 

It is therefore proposed that to alleviate the issues experienced at this location, that this land be investigated for reclassification and potential sub division and development into two housing blocks. As this process can take up to two years it is also recommended that fencing and security gates be erected to prevent access to this location during the investigation.  The type of fencing will be selected in conjunction with property owners.

Council staff will continue to maintain the property in accordance with current maintenance schedules. 

Funding for the fencing and gates can be provided from the 2009 -2010 Community Safety budget.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposal to close parcel of land located between Reddington Avenue and Diamantina Close, St Clair be received.

2.     Investigations continue into the reclassification of the land and its potential sub division and disposal.

3.     Temporary fencing and security gates be erected to prevent access to this location during the investigation.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Urgent Reports

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

12      Community Building Partnership applications from Penrith City Council

 

13      Development Application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay. Applicant: David Williams;  Owner: David & Laura Williams DA09/0323

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

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting - Urgent Report

3 August 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

12

Community Building Partnership applications from Penrith City Council   

 

Compiled by:                Andrew Moore, Acting Financial Services Manager

Ray Richardson, Grants Support Officer

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

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate leadership, and plan responsibly for now and the future

Strategic Direction: We deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability

     

 

Executive Summary

Council is advised that the following applications have been identified as the subject of Council-initiated submissions to the NSW Government under the Building Community Partnerships program.

 

The Report includes an update on Council-initiated projects, which require a matching contribution from Council as well as an update on applications either referred to, or initiated, by clubs and community groups that Council is aware of.

 

The Report includes advice on the source of Council contributions to both Council-initiated and community projects, including whether funding is available within current programs, if it has been identified in a Developer Contributions Plan and will become available at a future date, or whether no source of current or future funding has been identified. An update on the status of Council’s District Open Space Plan is the subject of a further report to Council’s Policy Review Meeting 17 August 2009, with the future of the plan unlikely to be determined until early 2010.

 

Generally only one project proposal for each local council will be considered within the area of that council in any one electorate. Councils may submit project proposals for a location in each electorate within their area.

 

The application form requires “Councils to indicate the preference ranking for [each] project if submitting projects for more than one electoral district within their boundaries.” Penrith City Council is proposing submissions for the four electoral districts within its boundaries and is therefore required to provide overall ranking of all its projects.

 

A preference ranking of all Council initiated projects as required by the Community Building Partnership Program is as follows:

 

1.       Jamison Park Shared Pathway, South Penrith- Penrith electorate

2.       Werrington Downs Walking Trail- Londonderry electorate

3.       Roper Road Soccer Field, Colyton – Mulgoa electorate

4.       Erskine Park Community Hall Kitchen – Smithfield electorate

5.       Chameleon Drive Footpath, Erskine Park – Smithfield electorate

 

Background

The purpose of this Report is to advise Council of the applications identified as the subject of applications to the NSW State Government under the Community Building Partnership program, following feedback provided by Council at the Council Briefing held 6 July and subsequent advice received from Local Members.

 

At the Council Briefing Council identified a priority for projects within each Electorate.

 

An initial assessment will be conducted of applications by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Incomplete applications or those not satisfying the criteria will be advised and given 10 working days to provide the outstanding information. Applications failing to satisfy this requirement will not be eligible.

 

If all criteria are properly addressed the application proceeds to the Local Member of the relevant electorate for comment and recommendation on ranking. The Premier will consider this advice when deciding which proposals will be funded.

 

Initial discussions with the Members for Penrith and Mulgoa have indicated that Council’s proposals for Jamison Park Shared Pathway and Roper Road Soccer Field would be welcomed. However, any final endorsement will depend upon the Members’ assessment of all submissions received for their electorates.

 

Preliminary discussions with the Members for Londonderry and Smithfield have not indicated a preference for any particular proposal.

 

The deadline for applications is 10 August 2009. Decisions are expected to be announced early in December 2009. Approved projects must be completed by 31 December 2010.

Coloured copies of the maps of Jamison Oval, Werrington Downs Walking Trail and Chameleon drive have been provided as a separate attachment for Council.

 

 

1.       Council initiated submissions

 

Penrith electoral district

 

Penrith electoral district has an allocation of $300,000 under the Community Building Partnership. The Penrith electorate includes a portion of both Penrith and Blue Mountains City Councils.

 

A.      Jamison Park Shared Pathway, South Penrith

 

Jamison Park is an important regional sports facility, hosting in excess of 5,500 participants on its busiest weekends. The original proposed submission was for a total project to the estimated value of $540,000. As the project was to be funded with a maximum contribution of 50% from the NSW Community Building Partnership program it was determined to stage the construction of the shared pathway as an existing pathway already exists along the western side of Jamison Park.

 

Stage 1 of the shared pathway will result in the construction of 1.6km of 3m wide pathway along the southern, eastern and northern internal perimeter of the park at a total cost of $432,000.

 

Stage 2 will involve widening of the existing pathway along York Road.  Funds for Stage 2 may be available from within the District Open Space Developer Contributions Plan pending the outcome of the current plan review.

 

Funding comments

 

Funding being sought through the NSW Community Building Partnership program is $200,000. The pathway has been identified in the District Open Space Plan and the remaining required funding of $232,000 for Stage 1 is within the allocation of this plan. The plan currently has a budgeted balance of $253,132 as at 30 June 2010 however as discussed above the future of the plan, and the projects within the plan, remains unclear. Should this plan, or this project within the plan, not exist in the future funding of this project will need to be provided from within the 2010-2011 Path Paving Program.

 

Londonderry electoral district

 

Londonderry electoral district has an allocation of $400,000 under the Community Building Partnership. The Londonderry electorate includes a portion of Penrith, Hawkesbury and Blacktown Councils.

 

B.      Werrington Downs Walking Trail

 

The proposal is to complete the construction of an integrated Walking Trail through Werrington and surrounding suburbs. A total of 2.7km of 1.5m wide path is proposed to be constructed. This will result in a 14km continuous walking circuit for use by the community. These links will be both on road and through parks. It will link key parks in Werrington County, Werrington Downs, Cambridge Park, Cambridge Gardens and Kingswood Park at a total cost of $322,600.

 

Funding comments

 

Funding being sought through the NSW Community Building Partnership program is $161,300. The District Open Space Plan identifies some of these links and has an allocation of $116,300 that would be directed to this project.  The Local Open Space Plan identifies the remainder of the links and can provide the remaining $45,000 of matching funds. Should this application be successful any reduction of funding available through the review of the District Open Space Plan, will be reallocated from the 2010-2011 Path Paving Program.

 

Universal Design Playground at Rance Park, Werrington

 

A proposal considered by Council on 6 July was to apply for grant funding to assist in the construction of a universal design playground within Rance Park, Werrington.

 

The cost of the playground without any associated ancillary works would be in the vicinity of $300,000-$350,000, including preliminary and professional fees.

 

 

Issues

 

This project is being proposed before the adoption of a Masterplan for Rance Oval. The location of the playground within the oval precinct has not been resolved. More work is required to finalise the Masterplan for this precinct and the preferred location of the universal design playground.

 

The draft Masterplan in its present state would require the construction of two accessible amenities in the precinct: one at the cricket pavilion (included in a Local Space Open Plan) and one adjacent to the playground, together with a shade structure (unfunded).

 

The additional funding required to deliver the necessary infrastructure to support the needs of people with diverse abilities to access the playground, including a modular accessible toilet facility in close proximity to the playground; the development of on-street car parking, accessible parking spaces that will also accommodate mini-buses and a turning circle in Albert St are estimated at an additional $450,000, bringing the total estimated cost of the playground to $800,000 plus the expenditure of $250,000 from the Local Open Space Plan. The securing of these funds would require a significant review of Council’s approved 2009-2010 Delivery Program.

 

Council officers will undertake to complete the Rance Oval Masterplan and to bring forward a recommendation for the location and funding of the City’s first Universal Playground for consideration as a priority in the 2010-11 budget process.

 

Funding comments

 

No current or future source of funding has been identified for Council’s required matching funding of $175,000 for the construction of the playground as a stand-alone facility. In addition to these costs the location of this playground would also require the construction of an accessible toilet and car park along with landscaping works at an additional cost of approximately $450,000. A funding source for these additional costs has not been identified. If this proposal had been progressed it would have been proposed that the works be loan funded however this would require an annual repayment of approximately $90,000 with a ten year repayment term.

 

Funding for the construction of paths and the replacement of amenities for the cricket club has been identified in the Local Open Space Action Plan. The proposed location of the universal design playground in the Draft Masterplan is too far away from the proposed cricket pavilion/amenities building to be able to service the needs of playground patrons.

 

Council’s District Open Space Plan provides for the construction of two universal design adventure playgrounds as part of the Gipps Street redevelopment and at the Penrith Lakes Parklands. It is possible that an amendment to the District Open Space s94 plan could move the location of one of the playgrounds to the Rance Oval site however the s94 plan is under review and may not be able to accommodate the funding for the playground in its revised format. It is premature to commit Council funding of $175,000 (matching funds) and $450,000 (ancillary works) prior to the adoption of the Draft Masterplan for Rance Oval and the resolution of the District Open Space Developer Contributions Plan.

 

 

Smithfield electoral district

 

Smithfield electoral district has an allocation of $400,000 under the Community Building Partnership. The Smithfield electorate includes a portion of Penrith, Blacktown, Holroyd and Fairfield Councils.

 

C.      Erskine Park Community Hall Kitchen

 

The Erskine Park Community Hall is Council’s second largest neighbourhood facility and has a large catchment area that includes Erskine Park, St Clair and Twin Creeks. The Hall can accommodate up to 300 people and is used extensively for large community activities and private functions. A recent assessment of the facility found the hall to be in good condition. However the hall kitchen is a standard domestic style kitchen that is in need of refurbishment.

 

The proposed refurbishment work would include the installation of stainless steel bench tops, new cupboards, a semi-industrial oven, an industrial dishwasher and an industrial refrigeration unit at a total cost of $60,000. New kitchen blinds would also be installed. The Erskine Park Community Hall is a valuable community asset. This project would ensure that the facility continues to meet the needs of the community now and into the future.

 

Funding comments

 

A grant of $30,000 is being sought through the NSW Community Building Partnership program. Matching funding would be made available from Council’s existing Neighbourhood Facilities Improvement Program.

 

D.      Chameleon Drive Footpath, Erskine Park

 

A footpath paving project has been nominated on the suggestion of the Member for Smithfield, Ninos Khoshaba, MP.

 

This proposal is for the construction of a 285m length of 1.2m wide footpath on the north side of Chameleon Drive from Erskine Park Road to Ridgeview Crescent at a total cost of $26,000. The path links to an existing 1.2m wide footpath in Chameleon Drive and to a recently constructed path in Erskine Park Road.

 

Funding comments

 

Funding being sought through the NSW Community Building Partnership program is $13,000. The pathway has been identified in the ‘Missing Links’ path paving program presented to Council at its Policy Review Meeting on 18 May 2009 and matching funding would be available from existing program funding if the grant application was successful.

 

Mulgoa electoral district

 

Mulgoa electoral district has an allocation of $300,000 under the Community Building Partnership. The Mulgoa electorate includes a portion of Penrith and Liverpool City Councils.

 

 

E.      Roper Road Soccer Field, Colyton

 

Penrith City Council is seeking grant funding of $125,000 as part of the NSW Community Building Partnership Program towards the construction of a playing field at Roper Road, Colyton.

 

Concept plans for the construction of two playing fields at Roper Road have been developed, however the costs involved in construction and land rehabilitation significantly exceed the funds available under the grant program and a matching contribution from Council.

 

The project scope has been amended to fit within a $250,000 budget framework that will enable Council to undertake the construction of one playing field measuring approximately 115 metres x 70 metres, that will have the capacity to accommodate a variety of sports such as rugby league, soccer, and touch football.

 

The $250,000 will be expended on:

 

Sports that utilise this facility will use the existing car park and amenities located at the Roper Road Playing Fields to the north of the site. 

 

Funding comments

 

The provision of an additional field on this site is included in Local Open Space Plan.  Council’s contribution of $125,000 is within the allocation of the Plan. The budgeted closing balance of this plan as at 30 June 2010 is a deficit of $386,334. Therefore it would be proposed that should this application, along with others funded by this plan, be successful that external borrowings, repaid by the plan, be included in the 2010-2011 Operational Plan to address any increased deficit.

 

2.       Community applications

 

Council should note that the following is not a comprehensive list of submissions going forward from the community for consideration under the Community Building Partnership Program. They are the projects that Council at the Briefing on 6 July requested to be referred to the relevant group.

 

 

Penrith electoral district

 

a.       Great Community Transport Council Depot Refit, Kingswood

No approach has been made to Council for a contribution to this project.

 

The organisation was seeking quotations at the time this Report was prepared and no estimate of costs was available.

 

Londonderry electoral district

 

b.       Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre (PVRSC), Cambridge Park

 

Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre has commissioned a facility plan with a schedule of improvements to address the Building Code of Australia (BCA) compliance issues at the stadium as well as enhancing the facilities.

 

A review of the budget will determine the shortfall between committed funds and the project cost. PVRSC will submit an application to the Community Building Partnership with committed funds forming a contribution.

 

Funding comments

 

An initial scope of works identified that $1.7m would be required for this project and Council has previously committed $850,000 from the Asset Renewal program towards the refurbishment. $250,000 is also available, as the result of a Federal Grant, for replacing the floor of a sports hall at the Centre.

 

As a result, $1.1m is available towards resourcing a project at PVRSC.

 

c.       Rance Oval Pavilion, Werrington

 

Penrith District Grade Cricket Club uses Rance Oval for 5th Grade cricket. The public toilets and changing facilities in the park are inadequate to service the players, spectators and the general public and there is an inadequate storage shed/shade facility in the park.

 

It was intended that funding for this project would be raised from the Local Space Action Plan, a grant application to the NSW Department of Sport Recreation Regional Facilities Program and a contribution from Penrith District Grade Cricket Club.

 

With no funds available for the project, a reduction in the scope of works is contemplated so that the Club is able to apply to the Community Building Partnership. Phasing of the project is planned to enable the Club to make an application to Cricket NSW for additional resources to complete Stage 1 on the understanding that S94 contributions will become available to resource later stages.

 

Funding comments

 

The Local Open Space Action Plan Section 94 (S94) Developer Contributions Plan identified that $250,000 be allocated to develop a new amenities block at Rance Oval, incorporating public and accessible toilets as well as changing facilities and club accommodation. Designs for the development of this facility have been completed. A quantity surveyor cost analysis estimated the cost of these works at $610,000 approximately 18 months ago. This figure may now be between $650,000 - $675,000.

 

$250,000 remains identified in the Local Open Space Action S94 Developer Contributions Plan but currently funds are not available within that Plan. It is uncertain when and what funds would be available to contribute to this project from the Department of Sport and Recreation as its grant programs are currently under review. The Club have confirmed that their contribution would only be possible if a grant application to Cricket NSW were successful. There is no current grant application lodged with Cricket NSW and no feedback from Cricket NSW regarding the likelihood of any assistance.

 

Mulgoa electoral district

 

d.       Glenmore Park Brumbies JRLFC/Glenmore Park High School (fence and lighting)

 

New facilities are unlikely to be created in Glenmore Park in the near future. A review has been undertaken of sports ground facilities in proximity to Glenmore Park which identified Glenmore Park High School as the site with the best potential to create a community sports ground asset.

 

There is ‘in principle’ support from the School to allow its sports field to be floodlit and made available to the community for sports. Costs are estimated at $130,000 and quotes for the work are currently being sourced by the club.

 

Funding comments

 

Council currently does not have any funds to contribute to the capital project. The Club will submit an application to the Community Building Partnership fund. The Club have committed to fund-raising so that a contribution to the project can be included in the application. Council Officers have met with the Club and are assisting the Club’s representatives in compiling the funding submission.

 

e.       Cook Park / Nepean District Soccer (seating), St Marys

 

Cook Park is an important District and Regional football (soccer) facility with the Nepean District Soccer Football Association using it for representative games and grand finals. Penrith Nepean United uses the venue as its home ground in the Football NSW Telechoice State Premier League. The facility is owned and maintained by Penrith City Council and allocated to users on a seasonal basis.

 

The facility requires 500 undercover seats to comply with Football NSW ground specifications for Premier League football. A Federal Grant will fund 360 undercover seats. The cost to provide an additional 140 seats to enable the ground to retain its Premier League status is approximately $60,000.

 

Funding comments

 

Penrith City Council has received a $100,000 grant from the Federal Government from a 2007 election commitment for installation of seating at Cook Park.

 

The Club will be submitting an application for $60,000 to supplement the federal grant and deliver a total of 500 undercover seats. Council Officers are assisting the Club with this submission.

 

 

 

f.       Cook Park – NSW AFL (cricket oval floodlighting), St Marys

 

St Clair Australian Football League (AFL) utilise Cook Park Cricket Oval, as well as Cook and Banks Reserve. The AFL NSW/ACT has prioritised floodlighting Cook Park Oval to enable both the development of the Club and the sport in Penrith. AFL NSW/ACT indicates it will assist St Clair AFL Club to submit an application for $150,000 to the Community Building Partnership fund for the installation of floodlights.

 

Funding comments

 

This project was included in Council’s 2008-09 Management Plan, which allocated $65,000 to be funded from the Local Open Space Plan. The project was not commenced as the Club and AFL were unable to obtain matching funds. It is proposed that this application will secure the matching funds required and allow this project to be reinstated.  Confirmation of Council’s contribution will support the Club and AFL NSW/ACT submission to the Community Building Partnership.

 

The budgeted closing balance of this plan as at 30 June 2010 is a deficit of $386,334. Therefore it would be proposed that should this application, along with others funded by this plan, be successful that external borrowings, repaid by the plan, be included in the 2010-2011 Operational Plan.

 

g.       St Marys BMX / Penrith Panthers BMX (lighting)

 

The St Marys BMX track is a regional facility and has hosted a number of State championships. A number of issues have been identified, including the lack of floodlighting restricting access for training and competition at night when demand is highest. A lighting design has been developed with a cost estimate of $137,000.

 

Council Officers are supporting the Club to develop an application for the Community Building Partnership.

 

Funding comments

 

There are no identified sources of matching funds in Council’s budgets.

 

h.       Mark Leece Oval / St Clair Soccer (fencing)

 

St Clair United Football Club uses Mark Leece Oval and wishes to erect a pole and rail fence around the pitch to create a safer environment for the 2,000 weekly users. The oval is regularly damaged by vehicle vandalism, often rendering it unusable until repaired at a cost to community groups.

 

The Club have obtained quotes of $36,000 for the fencing. Council Officers are working with the Club and Nepean District Soccer Association in compiling the application.

 

Funding comments

 

The submission will identify a matching contribution of $18,000 from funds generated by commissions paid by Telstra for housing a mobile phone tower in the park.

 

Funding Summary

 

During the development of the 2009-10 Operational Plan the financial challenges facing Council over the next few years were well documented and the Long Term Financial Model indicates that there will be a number of years where a deficit budget is projected prior to reviews of programs and priorities. It will be at least 2012-13 before a surplus base budget is likely and this prediction is contingent on a number of assumptions including rates increases, growth within the City, wage increases and interest rates.

 

The challenges that were confronted during the development of the 2009-10 Operational Plan mean that little scope exists within the current budget to accommodate new projects. As part of the Operational Plan development a number of programs were either curtailed or unable to be funded and  a commitment was made to consider these high priority unfunded projects for funding during the year if any additional funds became available. The priority of the matching funding sourced from general revenue grant applications in this report needs to be considered against this existing list. If Council were of a mind to re-direct some of the current year’s general revenue funded asset programs and commit to supporting the applications discussed in this report then the published programs will have a number of items that will need to be deferred until the following year’s Operational Plan. 

 

While it is acknowledged that not all of the projects proposed, including the community initiated projects, will be successful the potential commitment made by Council through matching funding totals $2,369,300 with $625,000 of this from general revenue and $102,300 from existing programs requiring redirection and $850,000 already allocated to the project that is the subject of the application (PVRSC).

 

The table below shows all known projects along with any known costs and highlights the funding required if each of the highest ranked Council projects for each electorate were successful and, if funds permitted, the Community applications requiring Council contributions were also successful.

 

          * This excludes ancillary items discussed in report.

             # To be provided from enhanced 2010-2011 Path Paving Program if plan/project repelled.

 

If the applications which have an associated s94 Developer Contributions commitment are successful then borrowings to provide those funds in advance of receipt of the contributions will need to be considered. Appropriate use of loan funds is an important consideration when discussing any funding strategy. If the grants with s94 components are not funded with loan funds then Council will see a further deterioration of our Unrestricted Current Ratio, one of the key financial indicators used to gauge a Council’s financial sustainability as accounting for 94 deficits offsets these against current assets thus reducing the numerator in the ratio calculation leading to a lower ratio. As discussed within this report loan funds form a key component of the funding strategy and in part ensure that Council’s unrestricted current ratio is not further eroded. The forecast ratio for 2009-10 is 1.23:1. Without the use of loan funds for the above projects, were suggested, the revised estimate would be1.19:1.

 

The effect of the additional proposed borrowings on Council’s Debt Service Ratio, another key financial ratio, will be minor and Council will remain well below the upper limit recommended for this ratio.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Community Building Partnership applications from Penrith City Council be received.

2.     Council endorse the submission of the applications to the NSW Government’s Community Building Partnership Program detailed in this Report.

3.     Council endorse the reallocation of the 2010-2011 Path Paving Program pending successful applications for the Jamison Park Shared Pathways and or the Werrington Downs Walking Trail projects should the funding not be available within a revised District Open Space Developer Contribution Plan.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Jamison Park Shared Pathway map

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Werrington Downs Walking Trail map

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Chameleon Drive Pathway map

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 1 - Jamison Park Shared Pathway map

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 2 - Werrington Downs Walking Trail map

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 3 - Chameleon Drive Pathway map

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting - Urgent Report

3 August 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

 13

Development Application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay  Applicant:  David Williams;  Owner:  David & Laura Williams    

DA09/0323

Compiled by:                Stephen Krimmer, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Objective: We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Strategic Direction:  We respond to the impacts of climate change, and support the principles of sustainability

  

Previous Items:            Development application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay - Ordinary Meeting - 20 July 2009  

 

 

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

 

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Meeting on Monday 20 July 2009, Council resolved that further consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit by Councillors. A site visit was conducted on 29 July 2009. As a result, a further recommendation was agreed to by the applicant that the attic windows on the south western elevation be constructed of frosted glass. This will further reduce impacts on privacy and overlooking from the attic area. A condition will be included in the development consent to ensure this occurs.

 

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of a multi level dwelling. The application seeks a variation to the 50% landscape requirement and is supported by the submission of an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1.

 

The proposed development consists of two storeys and attic at the front, and two storeys, an attic and basement at the rear. The land has a significant fall towards the rear boundary and an existing swimming pool. Under the objective of the Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands, development is required to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings, protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value, and to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

 

The dwelling achieves these objectives by providing an innovative and site responsive development that compliments the surrounding area and minimises impacts on adjoining properties.

 

The SEPP 1 objection has demonstrated that full compliance with the minimum landscape area requirement is unreasonable due to requiring the existing swimming pool and paving on site to be counted as built area. The proposed dwelling would achieve full compliance with the minimum landscape area if the swimming pool was removed or included as landscape area. The minimum landscape area variation and the proposed dwelling are unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality.

 

In accordance with the new reporting procedures provided by the Department of Planning, the matter is forwarded to Council for determination. The report recommends that the SEPP1 objection be supported and the development application be approved. The report also recommends Council consider adopting as a policy position the inclusion of paved areas in association with a swimming pool into landscape area calculations and investigate the inclusion of swimming pools as landscape area in Stage 2 of the LEP and DCP.

 

Background

 

A development application for the construction of a multi level dwelling at Lot 26 DP 237406, No 24 Parklands Ave Leonay was lodged in August 2008 (DA08/0790). This application was subsequently withdrawn as a number of issues including privacy, overlooking, design, use of attic, landscape area and building envelope encroachments were not able to be resolved.

 

A further application was submitted incorporating amendments addressing the above issues. The application was accompanied by the submission of an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the provisions of clause 12 of Local Environmental Plan 1998 –Urban Lands, requesting a variation to the landscape requirement of 50%.

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The site was originally held in joint ownership with the adjoining property to the rear being No. 176 River Road. It is situated on the south eastern side of Parklands Avenue and located approximately 100m from the Nepean River. The properties to the rear of the site directly face the Nepean River. The site is 556 m² in area, and orientated in a north west to south east direction. It has a fall of approximately 3.5m from the front to the rear.

 

The site currently contains a swimming pool at the rear lower level of the property and a carport frame/storage area toward the front on the higher level platform. The site is landscaped with significant vegetation across the rear of the property.

 

The carport frame and storage area are to be demolished as part of the proposed work. The swimming pool is proposed to remain. The site was originally held in joint ownership with the adjoining property to the rear being No. 176 River Road.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by residential development comprised of a mix of single and two storey dwellings.

 

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

 

·    Construction of a two storey dwelling and attic at the front, and two storeys, an attic and basement at the rear

·    Demolition of the existing carport framing and storage area.

·    Installation of associated landscaping

 

The development application was accompanied by:

 

·    An objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands.

·    Statement of Environmental Effects

·    Site and Building Plans

·    BASIX certificate

·    Waste Management Plan

 

Assessment of SEPP 1 Objection

 

A State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) has been lodged in support of the development application.

 

SEPP 1 seeks to provide flexibility in the application of planning controls where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives stated in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These objectives relate to the proper management of resources to promote the welfare of the community and environment, and, to promote the orderly and economic use of development of the land.

 

The SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the provisions of Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Lands, and in particular the provisions of Clause 12(3). The relevant clause states:

 

The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building in Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e) unless the building is wholly within the building envelope, and does not contravene the maximum external wall height or minimum landscaped area.

 

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval for the construction of a dwelling which proposes a landscaped area of 30.7%. This variation proposes a departure of 38.6% from the development standard.

 

1) Development Standard

 

The SEPP 1 objection is required to demonstrate that compliance with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instrument and zone can still be achieved regardless of the variation to the development standard.

 

The objectives for Zone 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection) are as follows: 

 

(i)to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation value.

 

The proposed dwelling is sited so as to minimise the amount of vegetation required to be removed and to utilise the existing land levels by stepping down the slope. Most trees outside of the building footprint are to remain. The site is not identified as being in a Heritage Conservation Area.

 

(ii) to protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value by limiting the range of permissible uses and requiring larger residential allotments.

 

The existing allotment size is similar to that of surrounding properties and a dwelling is a permissible land use.

 

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

 

The proposed development does not include further non-residential uses.

 

The objectives for Section 12 of LEP 1998 Urban Lands are as follows:

 

(a)  Achieve site-responsive development at a scale which is compatible with existing housing in the locality by controlling visual impacts relating height and bulk.

(b)  Minimise the impact of loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views.

(c)  Achieve an appropriate separation between buildings and site boundaries and preserve private open space corridors along rear lines.

(d)  Protect and enhance the environmental features, which are characteristic of each of the residential zones, by requiring sufficient space on-site for effective landscaping and on-site stormwater detention.

 

In regard to these objectives, the proposed dwelling has been designed to make the most of the site constraints by using the existing levelled platform areas on the site and retaining the existing substantial vegetation and swimming pool. Visual and privacy impacts are minimised in the design of the dwelling by:

 

·    Articulating the building to incorporate smaller upper floor areas which are stepped back to provide increasing setbacks from the boundaries than the lower floor areas. This configuration also serves to reduce overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties.

·    Minimising windows and glazed areas in the side elevations of the dwelling.

·    Installing privacy screening to balconies

·    The potential for loss of views of adjoining properties with outlooks toward the Nepean River is minimised by siting the dwelling into the slope with the front entrance lower than street level in response to the fall of the land.

·    Adequate separation between site boundaries is provided consistent with surrounding development. The existing open space corridor along the rear boundary line which contains the existing swimming pool and landscaping will not be impacted upon.

·    Existing environmental features will be protected by minimising vegetation removal. Appropriate stormwater disposal to the easement at the rear of the property is proposed.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is made on the premise that the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the following basis:

 

·    The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

·    The dwelling is reasonable development for the site.

·    The extent of the landscaping proposed is not inconsistent with that existing currently on the property.

·    The proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone.

·    The new dwelling has been designed to be site responsive and achieves the setback requirements from the adjoining dwellings.

 

In response to the submission the following comments are made. The SEPP 1 objection is considered appropriate under the circumstances because:

 

·    The reduced landscape area provided on the site is a result of the existing swimming pool on the allotment.

 

·    The proposed dwelling would comply with the minimum landscape area if the pool was removed; however, the applicant has requested the pool to remain.

 

·    The proposal would also comply with the landscape area requirement if the pool and surrounding area were considered as part of the in the landscaped area calculation. Landscaped area is defined in the LEP as being;

 

“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.”

 

It may be argued that the use of the paved area of land surrounding the swimming pool achieves the intent of landscaped areas as it is set aside for the use and enjoyment of the occupants of the site. Advice has been received from Council’s Legal Officer to the effect that it is not contrary to the clause in the LEP to include paved areas around a pool in the landscape area calculation.

 

·    Section 12(7) of the LEP allows the construction of non-habitable structures (including swimming pools) where they do not comply with the minimum landscape area if the proposed structure will have minimal adverse impact on the subject site and any adjoining site. As the swimming pool exists on the site and the proposal relates to dwelling, this section cannot be applied, however the result is the same.

 

·    The size of the proposed building footprint of the dwelling is not excessive and is in keeping with surrounding developments. A dwelling is a permissible use on the site, and a reduction in the size of the dwelling to maintain full compliance with the minimum landscape area would be unreasonable and unnecessary, and impede development of the site.

 

2) Section 5 - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Assessment of the SEPP 1 objection also needs to consider against the objectives stated in Section 5(a) (ii) of the EP&A Act which is as follows:

 

“(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land

 

It is considered that the proposed dwelling and associated landscape area will ensure attainment of the objectives of section (ii) and refusal would be unreasonable in this regard for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

·    The dwelling is reasonable development for the site.

·    The proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone.

·    The new dwelling has been designed to be site responsive and achieves the setback requirements from the adjoining dwellings.

 

 

3) Department of Planning Circular No. B1

 

The Department of Planning’s Circular No. B1 specifies other matters which should be considered by Council in its consideration of SEPP 1 objections including:

 

1) Clause 8 – is the Development standard inappropriate in general terms and should Council review its planning controls? Draft instruments may also be impacted upon if SEPP 1 is repeatedly used on a clause which may be affected.

 

2) Clause 9 – the likelihood of similar applications being made and the cumulative effect of similar approvals.

 

3) Clause 11 – dealing with applications to extend non-conforming development by more than 10%.

 

Development applications for new works on residential properties in Penrith Local Government Area often result in pressure being placed on the minimum landscape area provisions.  In the instance of 24 Parklands Avenue, the proposal involves a site which already has an established swimming pool.

 

It is considered that the minimum landscape area provisions retain their validity and are consistently applied and enforced on greenfield sites across the Council area. The issue of including swimming pools and associated paving in landscaped area calculations is one which is to be given consideration when Council’s Stage 2 LEP and DCP are prepared.

 

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. For the purpose of this report, the dwelling levels will be referred to as stated on the plans. i.e. Lower floor, Ground Floor, First Floor and Attic

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

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20.

 

The provisions of SREP 20 apply to the property as it falls within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment. SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the potential impact on residential development and water quality. The proposed development will have minimal impacts on the total catchment management, water quality and water quantity. No heritage items are located on the site. The dwelling is located on a cleared area with minimal tree removal required. The dwelling will have minimal visibility from the riverine corridor and its scenic quality. Stormwater will be controlled and directed to a stormwater easement at the rear of the property.

 

The proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the SREP.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

 

Under the terms of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) the land is zoned as Zone No 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection). The proposed development is defined as a dwelling, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

2(a) Zone Objectives

 

The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone as described in the above SEPP 1 assessment.

 

Development Standards

 

Section 12 of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands) provides requirements for building envelopes, heights of buildings, landscape areas and rear boundary setbacks for development that requires consent to satisfy.

 

 

Building Envelope and Maximum External Wall Heights

 

Under Clause 12(3) of the LEP, a building is required to be constructed within the building envelope and maximum external wall heights being 6.5m.

 

The proposed dwelling does not comply with the building envelope and maximum external wall heights. The applicant has provided information demonstrating that a variation can be considered in accordance with Clause 12(6) which states:

 

“Council may consent to a building which is not wholly within the relevant building envelope or contravenes the maximum wall height control if, in the opinion of Council, the application demonstrates that a variation to those controls is necessary to improve the design, external appearance or utility of the proposed building”

 

 

 

Maximum External Wall Height

 

The maximum external wall height permitted is 6.5m. The wall height at the front elevation of the dwelling approximately 5.8m, however due to the slope toward the rear boundary, the external wall height increases as the land falls to the rear and therefore the walls exceed the maximum height in some places.

 

The external wall height does not exceed the 6.5m on the South West side.

 

The external wall of the first floor on the North eastern side of the dwelling results in a non-compliance where the land falls and floor levels are maintained. The wall height extends up to approximately 7.7m on this side, being 1.2m over the maximum wall height requirement.

 

A variation to the maximum wall height is considered appropriate due to the fall of the land and measures incorporated into the building design to reduce its impacts. The north eastern side of the dwelling has only two windows. One being of glass blocks adjoining the staircase to prevent opportunities for overlooking and one small kitchen window. The sides of the balcony will also be provided with privacy screening.

 

Building Envelope

 

The dwelling encroaches within the required building envelope. A variation is considered necessary as a result of the fall of the land towards the rear of the property. The roof configuration has been designed to maximise compliance with the building envelope requirement. Due to the fall of the land, the building envelope encroachment increases as the land falls towards the rear. The greatest area of non-compliance is where all three levels and attic are located over each other.

 

The dwelling design is well-articulated and avoids long, bulky lengths of wall. The first floor and attic levels are stepped in from the rear elevation, avoiding excessive building height.

 

Overlooking opportunities are minimised with reduced window areas on these elevations. The windows include a glass block window adjoining the staircase, a small kitchen window, garage and attic windows. Privacy screens are provided to the sides of the balconies, and return part way across the front to maximise retention of privacy to the adjoining properties.

 

The non-compliance with the building envelope and maximum wall height requirements will not significantly increase impacts on privacy, overshadowing or overlooking.

 

The site is extremely constrained due to the slope of the land and existing development. The design of the dwelling is sensitive to the fall of the land and the variations are considered necessary to improve the design and external appearance.

 

Landscaped Area

 

The minimum landscape area non-compliance has been addressed above in the assessment of the SEPP 1 objection.

 

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

 

Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 – “Residential Single Dwellings” is applicable to the current development application and the following sections are relevant to the assessment process.

 

Section 3.4.1 Hazard and risk – flooding

 

The objective of this clause is to ensure that residents and their property are not exposed to unacceptable risk or damage from flooding during peak storm events. The proposed dwelling was referred to Council’s Development Services Engineer and the dwelling was found to be in compliance with flood related controls and the proposed floor levels were satisfactory.

 

Section 4.4 Preferred Configurations for New Dwellings

 

The objective is to ensure new dwellings adopt key features of established suburban design including entrances, the windows to main living rooms and private courtyards face the street or the rear boundary, and garages are architecturally integrated within building forms. The development is considered to comply with these objectives and will also maintain a green corridor along the rear boundary.

 

Section 5.2 Urban Form

 

The objective is to ensure new buildings show characteristics of established suburban neighbourhoods. Dwellings should be oriented to face the street, building forms should be stepped or articulated, and relate to the shape of their surrounding garden areas.

Design measures include articulated building forms and facades and stepping floor plans to provide a variety of roof forms and pitches;

 

Section 5.3 Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

 

The objective is to ensure setbacks reflect the character of established garden suburbs, and provide for development of flora and fauna corridors. The proposed 5.5m front setback is considered suitable as it allows the dwelling to maximize the use of existing level building platforms on the site and reduce the need for cut and fill on site. A 15.998m rear setback is satisfactory and the proposed side setbacks are consistent with surrounding development.

 

Section 5.4 Landscaped Area and Parking

 

The objective is to retain a reasonable proportion of each site for landscaped garden areas, conserve significant existing vegetation, and provide reasonable separation between neighbouring dwellings. Landscaped area is discussed above, adequate parking areas are provided and conditions will be included to ensure driveway grades are in accordance with AS2890.1.

 

Section 5.5 Solar Planning

 

The objective is to improve the energy efficiency of dwellings and achieve a high standard of residential amenity. Due to the existing orientation of the lot, some overshadowing impacts are inevitable.

 

The applicant has demonstrated that the dwelling meets acceptable solar standards and that existing neighbouring and proposed private open spaces receive adequate solar access. The higher sections of the dwelling are located towards the northern area of the site to reduce impacts on overshadowing towards the adjoining southern areas. Roof pitches are directed away from adjoining properties. Adjoining properties will achieve the minimum sunlight requirements outlined in this section.

 

A satisfactory BASIX certificate has also been submitted to demonstrate adequate energy and water efficiency measures are incorporated into the dwelling.

 

The dwelling has been designed to maximise potential uptake of solar energy for the panels on the northern side of the roof.

 

Section 6.1 Significant Landscapes

 

The objective is that in areas of particular significance to natural conservation or high environmental character, new development should demonstrate detailed design measures to protect that conservation significance or character. In this regard the dwelling design and location maintains natural topography and preserves most established trees.

 

Section 6.3 Building Design

 

The objective is that dwellings be surrounded by private gardens, their facades should display a variety of materials and shading structures and garages should be integrated with the overall architectural form and design. The proposed dwelling is considered to comply with these objectives.

 

The presence of a double garage is minimised as it has two doors separated by a pier or column and the front setback is considered suitable in relation to the dwelling.

 

Cut and fill requirements are to be restricted to a maximum of 1 metre. Due to the slope of the land, excavations will extend up to 2.5m in some places. Minimal filling is required. The extent of cut is considered acceptable to allow the lower level to be located with maximum separation from the rear site boundary and will have minimal impacts on neighbouring properties. All excavations and retaining are to be certified by a structural engineer.

 

Section 6.4 Energy Efficiency

 

The development proposal is compliant with the requirements of the BASIX certificate.

 

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

The development generally complies with the objectives of the planning controls and the impacts of the development are expected to be minimal. The site is constrained by its steep slope, existing benching and structures, and potential impacts on privacy. However the proposed dwelling is designed and located in a position to minimise the amount of vegetation required to be removed, reduce loss of privacy and utilise the existing land levels.

 

The impact of the development on streetscape will be minimal as the street appearance will be a two storey dwelling with attic. The dwelling will be set lower than the street level.

 

Stormwater is to be directed to the easement at the rear of the property, creating minimal impact on adjoining properties.

 

Appropriate conditions are to be included relating to site management during construction. An appropriate waste management plan has been provided. Hours of work and construction noise will also be subject to consent conditions.

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the construction of a dwelling. Whilst there are many limitations resulting from the slope of the land and flooding, these issues have been addressed to ensure a suitable dwelling design has been proposed in keeping with the objectives of the relevant planning documents.

 

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

Referrals

The application was referred to the following stakeholders and their comments have formed part of the assessment:

 

Referral Body

Comments Received

Development Engineer

No objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

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 notified to nearby and adjoining residents. Council notified fourteen (14) residences in the area and has received two (2) submissions in response.

 

The application was advertised between 17 April 2009 and 1 May 2009.

 

The following issues were raised in the submissions received and have formed part of the assessment.

 

Issue Raised

Comments

Description of application

The application was originally lodged being described as a two storey dwelling. The description has been modified to reflect the exact nature of the building being a dwelling consisting of two storeys and attic at the front and three storeys and attic at the rear

Visual impact due to bulk and scale

Due to the slope of the land and existing site constraints, an innovative approach is necessary to allow a dwelling to be constructed on the lot. The dwelling will have a two storey appearance with attic at the front boundary; and three storeys and attic at the rear. As the lowest level is being cut into the ground, the visual impacts will be reduced and the rear elevation will be partially screened by the existing boundary fencing and vegetation.

 

As a result, the dwelling will generally appear as  two storeys with an attic when viewed from the rear. The design of the dwelling combines varied roof lines, higher levels being stepped in and reduced in size than lower levels; assisting in reducing visual impacts due to bulk and scale.

Privacy and Overlooking

Of most concern raised were potential privacy impacts from the attic floor area. The previous application (DA08/0790) showed the attic area providing access to a usable balcony area that would provide substantial opportunities for overlooking and privacy issues to adjoining properties.

 

The proposal has been amended so the attic does not have a usable balcony area and does not provide access to outside the attic area. Conditions are proposed to be applied to ensure no modifications are made to allow this area to be used as a balcony at any time.

 

The attic area has high-light windows to minimise overlooking opportunities. The minimal width and low ceiling height make the attic area unlikely to be used for any habitable purposes. Conditions are also to be included requiring the attic area to only be used only for storage and non-habitable purposes.

 

Impacts on privacy and overlooking from windows in the side elevations will be minimal due to the size and placement of windows.

 

The ground floor balcony is provided with privacy screen timber louvers to the sides and a two metre return on both ends. The balcony width of 2.325m reduces the likelihood of large gatherings or high noise activities to occur. The balcony is located approximately 16m from the rear boundary.

 

The first floor balcony is a smaller, narrower balcony associated with bedrooms only. These are considered as low use rooms and to have minimal impacts on privacy. This balcony will be provided with privacy screening to the sides. The minimal 1.5m width of the balcony reduces the likelihood of this balcony being used for regular or noisy activities.

 

The majority of existing vegetation on the site is to be retained to provide screening. The applicant has proposed privacy screening along the south western boundary to further minimise opportunities for overlooking. This privacy screening is required to be a minimum height of 400mm above the existing fence line and located to reduce impacts of overlooking into adjoining properties.

Landscaping

The trees identified to remain on the site plan outside of the building footprint are to be retained and appropriate conditions are to be included to ensure tree protection measures are installed on the site. Any tree removed is to be replaced with a native tree of mature height in a suitable location.

Overshadowing

Due to the existing orientation of the lot, some overshadowing impacts are inevitable.

 

The applicant has demonstrated that the dwelling meets acceptable solar standards and that existing neighbouring and proposed private open spaces receive adequate solar access. The higher sections of the dwelling are located towards the northern area of the site to reduce impacts on overshadowing towards the adjoining properties to the south. Roof pitches are directed away from adjoining properties. Adjoining properties will achieve the minimum sunlight requirements outlined in Penrith DCP 2006.

Excavation

Cut and fill is generally to be restricted to a maximum of 1 metre, however, due to the slope of the land, cut may extend up to 2.5m in some places to accommodate the lower floor level. Minimal filling is required. The cut is considered acceptable to maximise setback of the lower level from the rear boundary and will have minimal visual impacts on neighbouring properties.

Non-compliances with development standards relating to building envelope, building height, wall height, building design, overshadowing, overlooking and landscape area.

These issues have been addressed above in the report. An amended building envelope diagram has been provided illustrating the building envelope non-compliance as the land falls to the rear. RL’s for finished heights of the dwelling have been provided for verification at the completion of the dwelling.

Site constraints relating to flooding, swimming pool, driveway and topography

The floor levels of the proposed dwelling are above the minimum required by Council’s flood policy. Conditions relating to flooding and driveways gradients are to be included in the consent. The existing swimming pool is to remain on site. A portion of the house will extend over the swimming pool.

Comparable dwellings

The proposed dwelling will have a similar visual impact to that of nearby dwellings when viewed from the street frontage. The front facade presents a contemporary dwelling in keeping with the character of the area. Due to the steep fall of land towards the rear boundary, the dwelling will have the appearance of increased height.

 

Nearby dwellings also have balconies with some opportunities for overlooking into adjoining properties. Adequate design and privacy measures are considered to have been achieved to reduce these impacts.

Ceiling Heights

The proposed ceiling heights comply with the Building Code of Australia in relation to the use of the rooms. The areas of low ceiling heights are not considered to unduly impact on the proper functioning of those rooms.

 

Conclusion

Under the objective of the Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands, development is required to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation value, protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value by limiting the range of permissible uses and requiring larger residential allotments, and to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

 

The subject development application seeks approval to construct a dwelling and is supported by a SEPP 1 objection seeking a variation of the minimum landscape area from 50% to 30.7%.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is supported as it is demonstrated that the minimum landscape area requirement is unreasonable in this case and that the attainment of the objectives of Clause 5(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will not be hindered by the proposal.

 

The development is considered satisfactory under the heads of consideration of Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

The minimum landscape area variation and the proposed dwelling are unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality.

 

The landscape variation and proposed dwelling is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning instruments as outlined above and a site responsive dwelling is considered to have been achieved.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0323 Multi-level dwelling Lot 26 DP 237406 (No. 24) Parklands Avenue, Leonay be received

2.     The submitted SEPP 1 be supported.

3.     Council consider adopting as a policy position the inclusion of paved areas in association with a swimming pool into landscape area calculations and investigate the inclusion of swimming pools as landscape area in Stage 2 of the LEP and DCP.

4.     DA09/0323 for a multilevel dwelling consisting of two storeys and attic at the front and three storeys and attic at the rear at 24 Parklands Avenue LEONAY  NSW  2750, be approved subject to the attached conditions:

4.1       A001 Approved plans that are architecturally drawn

A008 Works to BCA requirements

A009 Residential Works DCP

A011 Engineering Works DCP

A043 Air conditioner for existing dwelling

A046 Obtain a Construction Certificate

B002 Demolition

D001 Implement approved sediment & erosion control measures

D009 Covering of waste storage area

D010 Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

E001 BCA compliance

E005 Smoke detectors-interconnect

F006 Water tank & nuisance

G005 Rainwater tank-Plumbing

H01F Stamped plans & erection of site notice

H002 All forms of construction

H011 Engineering plans & specifications

H013 Structural details required

H014 Slabs/footings

H015 Termites

H18F Timber framework

H022 Survey

H024 Glass installations

H030 Roof finishes

H036 Rainwater tank

H037 Safe supply of water from catchment

H038 Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 Rainwater tank pumps

H041 Hours of Work

I003 Road Act Approval

K011 Flooding RL 29.8m AHD

K013 Flooding Survey RL 29.8m AHD

L007 Tree protection measures

L008 Tree Preservation Order

P001 Costs

P002 Fees associated with Council land

Q01F Notice of Commencement of Appointment of PCA

Q05F Occupation/Compliance Certificate

Special Conditions

4.2      Driveway Grades - Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the certifying authority should ensure that driveway grades are in accordance with AS2890.1

4.3      Privacy (ground floor balcony) - The ground floor balcony is to be provided with a fixed timber louvre privacy screen, angled so as to prevent downward viewing. Screening must be located on both ends and provide a minimum two metre return along the balustrade on both sides.  Screening shall be constructed to a minimum height of 1.5m above finished floor level of the balcony. Details are to be provided prior to the issue of a construction certificate

4.4      Privacy (first floor balcony) - The first floor balcony is to be provided with a fixed timber louvre privacy screen, angled so as to prevent downward viewing. Screening must be located on both ends and shall be constructed to a minimum height of 1.5m above finished floor level of the balcony. Details are to be provided prior to the issue of a construction certificate

4.5      Landscaping - Tree removal is only permitted in accordance with the stamped approved plan. The remainder of the trees are to remain on site. Any approved tree removed is to be replaced with a native species of similar mature height in a suitable location prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate

4.6      Cut - Details of all proposed excavation, earthworks and structural concrete are to be prepared and certified by a suitable qualified structural engineer and submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate. Consideration must be given to impacts on adjoining properties as a result of any excavation

4.7      Attic area - The attic area shall not be used for any habitable purposes. The attic shall be used for storage and non-habitable uses only. Access from the attic to outside the attic is prohibited. No doors are permitted to be constructed to provide access outside from the attic. The roof sheeting material adjoining the south western side of the attic must remain at all times. The area outside the attic shall not be used as a balcony or for any trafficable use

4.8      Survey - On completion of the frame and roof of the dwelling, a survey is to be submitted to the principle certifying authority demonstrating compliance with the RL’s stipulated on the plan

4.9      Privacy screening to fence line - Privacy screening is to be provided along the South western boundary to further minimise opportunities for overlooking. Privacy screening is to consist of lattice or similar material to a minimum height of 400mm above the existing fence line.  Permission must be sought from adjoining property owners to construct the privacy screening on the dividing fence. Alternatively the privacy screening must be contained wholly within the property boundaries.

4.10    Attic windows – The attic windows on the south western elevation are to be constructed of frosted glass.

5.     Those persons who have made submissions be notified of the determination.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations & Shadow Diagram

8 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

3 August 2009

Appendix 2 - Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations & Shadow Diagram