9 October 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 12 October 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 Kaylene Allison - 29 September 2009 to 1 November 2009 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 28 September 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

 

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 12 October 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
Kevin Crameri OAM
North 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@

19

 

7

16#+

30@

27

18#

 

27

17

 

21

16#

 

 

 

 

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

 

^  Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor (meeting to commence at 7:00 pm)

<    Briefing to consider Draft Management Plan for 2009/2010

@  Strategic Program progress reports [only business]

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

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

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

Y  Management Plan Councillor Briefings/Public Forum (June)

 

 

 

 

-                 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 28 SEPTEMBER 2009 AT 7:02PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

 

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 7 September 2009

313  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 7 September 2009 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 September 2009                                                                                                                                     

314  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 September, 2009 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 14 September, 2009                                                                                                                 

315  A MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 14 September, 2009 be adopted, with the deletion of recommendation 3 of Item 1 - Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors, with the resolution to now read: 

“That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors be received.

2.     Council advertise for 28 days’ a public notice of its intention to adopt the amended Policy.

3.     A motion be put forward to the Local Government Association Conference seeking that provision be made in the Director- General’s Guidelines issued in relation to the “Payment of expenses and provision of facilities to councillors” under section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993, to allow Councils to make a daily payment to Councillors attending Conferences and training related to their civic duty to compensate them for loss of income due to their absence from work, with the daily payment being capped in terms of both amount and days per year.”

 

Upon being PUT to the meeting the MOTION was CARRIED.

 

 

Mayoral Minute

 

1        Year in Review                                                                                                                   

316  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Year in Review be received.

 

Councillors Ross Fowler OAM, Greg Davies, Kevin Crameri OAM, John Thain, Jackie Greenow, Tanya Davies and the General Manager, Alan Stoneham, congratulated the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, on his term of office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Election of Mayor                                                                                                               

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Election of Mayor be received.

2.     In the event of more than one Councillor being nominated, the method of election for the office of Mayor be open voting, by way of show of hands.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, handed over to the Returning Officer (General Manager) Mr Alan Stoneham, to conduct the election of the Mayor.

The Returning Officer indicated that he had received two (2) nominations for the position of Mayor and asked whether there were any other nominations.  No other nominations were forthcoming.

The Returning Officer stated that the following nominations were in order:

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM was nominated by Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Ross Fowler OAM and Ben Goldfinch, and that Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM accepted the nomination for the position of Mayor.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow was nominated by Councillors Karen McKeown, Prue Guillaume, Kaylene Allison and Kath Presdee, and that Councillor Jackie Greenow accepted the nomination for the position of Mayor.

 

The Returning Officer then conducted the ballot.

 

Voting for Councillor Kevin Crameri  OAM – Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Ross Fowler OAM, Robert Ardill, Mark Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Tanya Davies, Marko Malkoc and Jim Aitken OAM.

 

Voting for Councillor Jackie Greenow – Councillors Jackie Greenow, John Thain, Greg Davies, Kath Presdee, Karen McKeown, Prue Guillaume and Kaylene Allison.

 

The Returning Officer then declared the voting closed and that the result was as follows:

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM – 8 votes

Councillor Jackie Greenow – 7 votes.

 

The Returning Officer declared Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM duly elected as Mayor for the 2009/2010 Mayoral Term.

 

 

 

Former Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, placed the Mayoral Chains on Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM and Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM took the chair, the time being 7:31 pm.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, thanked his colleagues for their support.

 

Councillors Jackie Greenow, Greg Davies, Karen McKeown, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, John Thain, Ross Fowler OAM and the General Manager, Alan Stoneham congratulated Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM on his election as Mayor.

 

 

2        Election of Deputy Mayor                                                                                                 

318  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Election of Deputy Mayor be received.

2.     In the event of more than one Councillor being nominated, the method of election for the office of Deputy Mayor be open voting, by way of show of hands.

3.     In accordance with Section 231 (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, the term of office of the Deputy Mayor for the 2009/2010 period be the same as the term of office of the Mayor (until the next Mayoral election to be held in September 2010).

 

The Returning Officer indicated that he had received two (2) nominations for the position of Deputy Mayor and asked whether there were any other nominations.  No other nominations were forthcoming.

The Returning Officer stated that the following nominations were in order:

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM was nominated by Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kevin Crameri OAM and Ben Goldfinch, and that Councillor Ross Fowler OAM accepted the nomination for the position of Deputy Mayor.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown was nominated by Councillors John Thain, Greg Davies, Prue Guillaume and Kaylene Allison, and that Councillor Karen McKeown accepted the nomination for the position of Deputy Mayor.

 

The Returning Officer then conducted the ballot.

 

Voting for Councillor Ross Fowler OAM – Councillors Ross Fowler OAM, Jim Aitken OAM, Robert Ardill, Mark Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Tanya Davies, Marko Malkoc and Kevin Crameri OAM.

 

 

Voting for Councillor Karen McKeown – Councillors Karen McKeown, Jackie Greenow, John Thain, Greg Davies, Kath Presdee, Prue Guillaume and Kaylene Allison.

 

The Returning Officer then declared the voting closed and that the result was as follows:

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM – 8 votes

Councillor Karen McKeown– 7 votes.

 

The Returning Officer declared Councillor Ross Fowler OAM duly elected as Deputy Mayor for the 2009/2010 Mayoral Term.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM thanked his colleagues for their support.

 

Councillors Jackie Greenow and John Thain congratulated Councillor Ross Fowler OAM on his election as Deputy Mayor.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, thanked the Returning Officer, (General Manager) Alan Stoneham, for the conduct of the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

 

 

3        Councillor Fees                                                                                                                   

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Councillor Fees be received.

2.     In the interest of transparency, Councillor Fees be displayed on Council’s website.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:56 pm.

 

 

 



PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                       

   


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Congratulations to our 2009 Wall of Achievement award recipients and Honoured Citizen of Penrith 

 

2        Deputy Mayor Ross Fowler OAM appointed Chair of United Independent Pools and reappointed Chair of Westpool

 

3        Council congratulates Councillor McKeown

 

4        Council receives a Westpool 2008-09 Local Government Risk Management Excellence Award

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Congratulations to our 2009 Wall of Achievement award recipients and Honoured Citizen of Penrith 

Strategic Objective: We work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City

         

 

I would like to congratulate Council’s 2009 Wall of Achievement Award recipients, and our fourth Honoured Citizen of Penrith, Freda Whitlam AM, who were honoured at a special ceremony in the Nepean Room on Thursday 24 September.

 

Council has been recognising Penrith’s quiet achievers through the Wall of Achievement since 1997 and this year we recognised 24 outstanding individuals in seven categories: Civic, Community Services, Sport, Business, Culture & Environment, Carer and Penrith Appreciation.

 

Congratulations to our 2009 Wall of Achievement award recipients: Valerie Anderson, Merle Blatch, John Boccanfuso, Linda Coates, Catherine Craig, Patricia Curry, Margaret Dwyer, Gina Field, Margaret Gibbs, Joy Gillett, Joyce Leavett-Brown, Christine McKinnon, Joan McKinnon, Reginald Menz, Karl Preuss, Bill Reeves, Barry Roots, Audrey (Sue) Sewter, John Smith, Michael Soper, Sherrille Stephens, Bob Thatcher, Sister Joyce Vella, and Craig Werner.

 

Penrith City’s greatest asset is its people. The outstanding contributions each of the award winners have made to our community across all areas of life make Penrith City a better place for all. The awardees have their photograph, name and award category displayed on the Wall of Achievement at Penrith City Central Library and the St Marys Business Centre for twelve months, and a permanent record of their details is kept on Council's website.

 

Freda Whitlam’s recognition as an Honoured Citizen is a testimony to her significant contribution to Australia and Penrith. Since moving to Penrith in 1976 she has been one of our area’s greatest advocates. She was a driving force in the establishment of the University of the Third Age and the University of Western Sydney in our City and has been actively involved in many local committees and organisations including Edinglassie Retirement Village and the Q Theatre.

 

Freda was awarded the Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in 1987 for service to education and to the community. She has constantly demonstrated her dedication to the people of Penrith City, including volunteering her time and expertise to countless organisations and conferences, large and small.

 

Only three individuals have previously received the Honoured Citizen award: the Honourable Faye Lo Po’ AM, the Honourable Ron Mulock AO, and the Honourable Peter Anderson AM.

 

Congratulations once again to Freda and all our Wall of Achievement award recipients on this well-deserved recognition, and thank you for your efforts for Penrith. Well done also to Council’s Events team for organising yet another excellent event.

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Congratulations to our 2009 Wall of Achievement award recipients and Honoured Citizen of Penrith  be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Deputy Mayor Ross Fowler OAM appointed Chair of United Independent Pools and reappointed Chair of Westpool

Strategic Objective: We share aspirations for our region’s future, and achieve them through collaboration

         

 

It is my pleasure to advise that Deputy Mayor Ross Fowler OAM was appointed Chair of United Independent Pools (UIP) on Wednesday 30 September 2009 and also reappointed Chair of Westpool on Monday 12 October 2009.

 

UIP is a strategic alliance between Westpool and Metro Pool, with a membership of 15 councils from across Sydney with a total asset value of $3.3 billion.

 

It was formed in 2005 to reduce insurance costs to member councils through bulk purchase of insurance, and improve efficiency. It achieves value-for-money solutions to a wide range of insurance and risk management issues, including property and motor vehicle insurance, and provides a forum for exchange of information, ideas and resources for the benefit of members.

 

Cr Fowler OAM has previously served as the Chair of UIP in 2006.

 

Westpool is a co-operative local government self-insurance scheme which was established to help stabilise insurance costs, and achieve significant savings and long-term benefits for member councils through effective risk management.

The organisation was established in 1988 and now has seven member councils. It is Councillor Fowler’s 17th successive term as Chair, and he was elected unopposed at Westpool’s Annual General Meeting on Monday 12 October.

 

Once again, I congratulate him on both these noteworthy appointments.

 

 

Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Deputy Mayor Ross Fowler OAM appointed Chair of United Independent Pools and reappointed Chair of Westpool be received.

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Council congratulates Councillor McKeown

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate our leadership, and encourage innovation

         

 

 

I would like to congratulate Councillor Karen McKeown on being named a National Ambassador for the Year of Women in Local Government in 2010 by the Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA). Their Ambassador Program celebrates the outstanding achievements of individual champions for women in local government, and raises awareness of the valuable contributions of women in the sector.

 

Cr McKeown’s selection as one of just 21 ambassadors recognises her active involvement in local government, and her passionate advocacy for women in our region. Since her election to Council in 2004 she has been involved in many initiatives to empower and educate women, including the Western Sydney Young Women’s Leadership Program and Council’s award-winning Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy.

 

Cr McKeown served as Deputy Mayor in 2006-07, is one of Council’s two Sustainability Champions and has represented Council on numerous committees, boards and working parties. She is also the President of the NSW branch of the Australian Local Government Women’s Association.

 

Cr McKeown’s dedication to the people of Penrith City continues with her recent appointment to the Nepean Regional Taskforce on Homelessness, launched by the federal Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women, the Honourable Tanya Plibersek MP here at the Civic Centre on Wednesday 30 September.

 

Congratulations to Cr McKeown on these significant achievements.

 

 

 

Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Council congratulates Councillor McKeown be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Council receives a Westpool 2008-09 Local Government Risk Management Excellence Award

Strategic Objective:  We champion responsible and ethical behaviour

         

 

It gives me great pleasure to announce Council has been awarded a Risk Management Excellence Award at Westpool’s 2008-09 Annual General Meeting on Monday 12 October 2009. 

 

The annual Local Government Risk Management Excellence Awards recognise initiatives taken by Westpool member councils to manage and reduce risk.

 

Council won the prestigious award for an external audit undertaken earlier this year which reviewed Council’s Development Application process.

The Independent Review of Development Applications was conducted by Internal Audit Bureau as part of Council’s internal audit program. An action plan has been developed to improve processes and reduce risk exposures.

 

Penrith City Council previously won a Westpool Local Government Risk Management Excellence Award in 2007 for service risk assessments as part of enterprise risk management, and in 2005 for tree inspection and assessment procedures.

 

I congratulate Council staff, including Development Services Manager Paul Lemm, Internal Auditor Peter Browne and Risk Management Co-ordinator Ken Muir, for this outstanding achievement.

 

 

Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Mayor

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Council receives a Westpool 2008-09 Local Government Risk Management Excellence Award be received.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains.  Owner:  Penrith City Council - Applicant:  N F Billyard Pty Ltd

 

2        Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

3        Action Taken on Resolutions of the 2008 Local Government Association Conference

 

4        Deed of Agreement between Penrith City Council and Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation

 

5        2008-2009 Financial Statements

 

6        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 August 2009 to 31 August 2009

 

A City of Opportunities

 

7        Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme 2009 Funding Round Outcomes

 

A Green City

 

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

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

 

9        Development Application DA08/0958 - Section 96 Modification - Alteration to Finished Landform - Lot 1 DP 542395, Lot 740 DP 810111 (No. 1725) Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek. Applicant: SITA Australia Pty Ltd;  Owner: SITA Australia Pty Ltd DA08/0958

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

10      Development Application DA09/0789 for a Multi-Unit Housing Development at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood. Applicant: Amflo Pty Ltd;  Owner: Luvamo Pty Ltd DA09/0789

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

 

URGENT

 

14      Penrith Recycled Water Project Stage 2

 

15      Development Application DA 09/746 Proposed Alteration and DA 09/0746 Additions to Existing Bulky Goods Retail Centre at Lot 10 & 11 DP 1046110 (No.13 -25) Pattys Place, Jamisontown - Supacentre Applicant: Pipven Pty Ltd: Owner: Pipven Pty Ltd.

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

 

A Liveable City

 

11      Bus Network Review - Approval of New Roads for Bus Routes

 

12      Expressions of Interest Reference 03-09/10 for Construction of Penrith Commuter Carpark 

 

13      Floodplain Management Authorities 50th Anniversary Annual Conference - 23 February 2010 to 26 February 2010

 

URGENT

 

16      Bus Network Review - Approval of New Roads for Bus Routes (Item 9 - Report to Local Traffic Committee, 12/10/2009)

  

 


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains.  Owner:  Penrith City Council - Applicant:  N F Billyard Pty Ltd

 

2        Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

3        Action Taken on Resolutions of the 2008 Local Government Association Conference

 

4        Deed of Agreement between Penrith City Council and Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation

 

5        2008-2009 Financial Statements

 

6        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 August 2009 to 31 August 2009

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains.  Owner:  Penrith City Council - Applicant:  N F Billyard Pty Ltd   

 

Compiled by:                Bob Anderson, Property Officer - Valuation

Authorised by:             Brian Griffiths, Property Development 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

The applicant, N F Billyard Pty Ltd (Architects), on behalf of the owners, H & C Belotti, I & P McKeown and Finishing Touches Pty Ltd, has requested an easement to drain water over Council’s Open Space land described as Lot 3, DP 255380 at Nepean Street, Emu Plains.

 

Council is entitled to compensation if an applicant wishes to create an easement on Council’s land for the benefit in developing, improving or satisfying drainage requirements on their land.

 

This report recommends to Council the granting of the easement to drain water over the Open Space land described as Lot 3 DP 255380 in favour of the adjoining owners land described as Lot 4 DP 232928 located at 34 Gough Stre et, Emu Plains.

Background

Council is the owner of Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains with an area of 3.962 hectares which is an Open Space area incorporating drainage pipes to Jamison’s Creek.

 

Current Situation

The applicant, N F Billyard Pty Ltd, on behalf of the owners H & C Belotti, I & P McKeown and Finishing Touches Pty Ltd, has development consent to construct a multi-unit development comprising five (5) units over Lot 4 DP 232928 at No. 34 Gough Street, Emu Plains.

 

As part of the development, there is a need to drain water from No. 34 Gough Street through Council’s land to join up with an existing drainage pipe within Council’s land at Lot 3 DP 255380, as indicated on the attached plan.

 

The existing pipeline and easement was designed to accommodate the future drainage of adjoining properties.  Council will retain the right to vary or modify the easement once created to include any additional properties in the future, subject to compensation.

 

Compensation payable to Council in the amount of $5,000 plus GST has been assessed which represents the effect of creating the drainage easement over Council’s land.  The applicant is also responsible for all survey, legal and registration costs.

 

The effect of the easement will not reduce the value of the existing parcel in Council’s ownership nor adversely affect the future use of the land as Public Reserve and classified as “Community” land under the Local Government Act.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains.  Owner:  Penrith City Council - Applicant:  N F Billyard Pty Ltd be received.

2.     Council grant an easement to drain water over Open Space land at Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains in favour of Lot 4 DP 232928 at No. 34 Gough Street, Emu Plains.

3.     Payment of compensation by the applicant in the amount of $5,000 plus GST be required for the creation of the easement over Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains.

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

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains.  Owner:  Penrith City Council - Applicant:  N F Billyard Pty Ltd

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 3 DP 255380 Nepean Street, Emu Plains.  Owner:  Penrith City Council - Applicant:  N F Billyard Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Pecuniary Interest Returns   

 

Compiled by:                Adam Beggs, Administration Officer - Policy and Council Support

Authorised by:             Glenn Schuil, Acting Executive Officer   

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Strategic Direction: As a City, we expect responsible and ethical behaviour

     

 

Executive Summary

Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) concerns “Honesty and Disclosure of Interests”, and requires all elected members and designated persons to complete an initial Pecuniary Interest Return, and every year thereafter an annual return.  Designated persons include the General Manager, other senior staff, and staff holding a position identified by the Council as a position of a designated person, because it involves the exercise of certain functions such as regulatory or contractual functions.  First returns have to be completed and lodged within three months of becoming a councillor or designated person. Annual returns have to be completed and lodged within three months of 30 June each year.

Current Situation

Section 450A of the Act regarding the registration and tabling of returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons is as follows:

 

 Register and Tabling of Returns
450A.


1. The General Manager must keep a register of returns required to be lodged with the General Manager under Section 449.

2. Returns required to be lodged with the General Manager under Section 449 must be tabled at a Meeting of the Council, being:

 

(a) in the case of a return lodged in accordance with section 449(1) - the first Meeting held after the last day for lodgement under that subsection; or

(b) in the case of a return lodged in accordance with section 449(3) - the first Meeting held after the last day for lodgement under that subsection; or

(c) in the case of a return otherwise lodged with the General Manager - the first Meeting after lodgement.

 

A register of all returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons, in accordance with Section 449 of the Act, is currently kept by Council as required by this part of the Act.

 

All returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons under Section 449 of the Act must be tabled at a Council Meeting as outlined in Sections 450A(2)(a), (b) and (c) above.

 

 

 

 

The following Section 449(3) returns have been lodged:

 

Councillor

Return Period

Date Lodged

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

1 September 2009

Councillor Kaylene Allison

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Councillor Robert Ardill

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Councillor Greg Davies

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Councillor Mark Davies

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

14 September 2009

Councillor Tanya Davies

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 August 2009

Councillor Jackie Greenow

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Councillor Prue Guillaume

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Councillor Marko Malkoc

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

11 August 2009

Councillor Karen McKeown

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Councillor Kath Presdee

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

4 August 2009

Councillor John Thain

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

 

 

 

Name

Position Title

Return Period

Date Lodged

Malcolm Ackerman

Supply Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

11 August 2009

Terry Agar

Local Planning Co-Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

7 September 2009

Mahbub Alam

Environmental Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 September 2009

Robert Anderson

Property Valuation Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 September 2009

Zukauskas Antanas

Works Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 September 2009

Natasha Baker

Senior Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 July 2009

Mark Bakker

Building Regulatory Team Leader

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

6 August 2009

Graham Bambrick

Customer Service Supervisor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Zig Barglik

Works Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Linden Barnett

Group Manager – Workforce & Workplace

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Steven Barratt

Building Regulatory Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Paul Battersby

Senior Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 July 2009

Jojivini Maejiirs

Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 September 2009

Peter Blazek

Property Management Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Darrell Boggs

Ranger – General

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Stephen Britten

Group Manager – Legal & Governance

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

22 July 2009

Mark Broderick

Regional & Urban Planning Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 July 2009

Geoffrey Brown

Waste Management / Contracts Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009


Peter Browne

Internal Auditor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Matthew Bullivant

Legal Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

David Burns

Group Manager – City Presentation

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Amanda Burns

Companion Animals Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

4 September 2009

Craig Butler

Director

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 August 2009

Laurence Cafarella

Coordinator Community Protection

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Vanessa Campbell

City Marketing Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

14 September 2009

Allison Cattell

Environmental Planner - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 September 2009

Abdul Cheema

Senior Environmental Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Steven Chong

Senior Environmental Planner - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 September 2009

Julian Clark

Environmental Health Officer (Compliance)

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Lindsay Clarke

Parks Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Judy Cobb

Neighbourhood Facilities Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Grant Collins

Recreational and Cultural Facilities Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

13 August 2009

Belinda Comer

Environmental Health Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Julie Condon

Development Enquiry Unit Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009

Kelly Connor

Senior Environmental Health Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

10 August 2009

Anthony Crichton

Senior Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009

Ashlee Cutter

Trainee Environmental Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Teresa Dalton

Environmental Health Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Albert Davis

Animal Services Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Monique Desmarchelier

Healthy People Partnership Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Colin Dickson

Marketing, Partnerships & Events Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Rodney Esdaile

Senior Development Engineer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

16 September 2009

Michelle Everingham

Administration Services Supervisor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

7 September 2009

Keith Fryer

Works Coordinator – Construction & Resource

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Noel Fuller

Coordinator Ranger and Animal Services

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Karin Fuller

Ranger – Parking

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Christopher Gardner

Information Management and Technology Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Stephen Gillis

RID Squad Senior Investigations Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Ruth Goldsmith

Group Manager - Leadership

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Geoff Goodacre

Customer Services Officer – Development Services

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Peter Graham

Works Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Brian Griffiths

Manager Property Development

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Andrew Gunner

HR Systems Administrator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009

Aileen Gutierrez

Trainee Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

1 September 2009

Len Hall

RID Squad Investigation Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 September 2009

Carmel Hamilton

Sustainability Education Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Elizabeth Hanlon

Senior Environmental Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Rachel Hannan

Environmental Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Tracey Haslam

RID Squad Investigation Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Christopher Hawkins

Surveyor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Phil Hendrie

Public Domain Operations Supervisor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

John Hollier

Planning Information Unit Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

10 August 2009

Graham Howe

Building Projects & Maintenance Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

4 September 2009

Justin Howe

Environmental Compliance Officer (Compliance)

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009

Paul Humphreys

Workforce Training Development Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

29 July 2009

Barry Husking

Director

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

19 August 2009

Sam Innes

Senior Waterways Officers

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Tanya Jackson

Senior Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

17 August 2009

Amanda James

Human Resource Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

4 August 2009

Nadadajah Karunakaran

Projects Engineer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 September 2009

Vince Klajevic

RID Squad Investigation Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Stephen Krimmer

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 July 2009

Allison Kyriakakis

Community Safety Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Peter Lang

Marketing Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

11 September 2009

Aimee Lee

Environmental Planner - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

17 August 2009

Paul Lemm

Development Services Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

10 August 2009

Graham Liehr

Environmental Health Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

26 August 2009

Kenneth Lim

Management Planning Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Vanessa Luck

Environmental Health Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

29 July 2009

Ryan Maestri

Fire Safety Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Belinda Manley

Animal Services Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Carlie Mason

Environmental Health Officer (Compliance)

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Stephen Masters

Senior Development Engineer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

14 September 2009

Paul Maynard

Ranger – General

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Andrew Mazur

Ranger – Parking

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Kristy McCreadie

Senior Environmental Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

4 August 2009

Amanda McMurtrie

Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Johannes Meijer

City Works Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Anthony Milanoli

Senior Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Wayne Mitchell

Group Manager – City Infrastructure

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Kenneth Muir

Risk Management Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

29 July 2009

Vanessa Muscat

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Kenneth Myhill

Fleet Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

28 July 2009

Roger Nethercote

Group Manager – People & Places

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

31 August 2009

Vicki O’Kelly

Group Manager – Finance

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Paul Page

City Marketing Supervisor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

1 September 2009

Jonathan Page

Environmental Health Officer (Compliance)

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Geoff Payne

OH&S & IM Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Janine Percy

Senior Sustainability Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Yvonne Perkins

Public Domain Amenity & Safety Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

16 September 2009

Nora Pillon

Casual Health and Building Surveyor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Pukar Pradhan

Senior Environmental Planner - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009

Anthony Price

Environmental Health Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

9 September 2009

Steven Purvis

Senior Ranger – General

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Krystie Race

Senior Sustainability Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

16 September 2009

Deepa Randhawa

Environmental Planner - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

23 September 2009

Daria Rech

Stormwater Management Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

7 September 2009

Bernadette Riad

Senior Sustainability Planner

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Hamish Roberston

Natural Resource Management Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Andrew Robinson

Recreation Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 August 2009

Craig Ross

Major Projects Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

4 September 2009

Barry Ryan

Manager Waste and Community Protection

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Glenn Schuil

Acting Executive Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Geoffrey Shuttleworth

Manager Economic Development and City Marketing

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

29 July 2009

Gurvinder Singh

Development Team Leader

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

15 September 2009

Indar Singh

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

31 August 2009

Carl Spears

Media Liaison Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

4 August 2009

Gowry Sriskandagowrythasan

Civil Operations Engineer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

15 September 2009

Colin Stevenson

Library Services Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

17 August 2009

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

14 September 2009

Joan Suckling

Resources Librarian

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

15 September 2009

Matthew Tempest

Environmental Planner - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 July 2009

Wayne Trew

Project Coordinator Development Contributions

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 September 2009

Glen Tuckwell

Building Projects & Maintenance Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

6 August 2009

Jeanne Uren

Ranger – Parking

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 July 2009

Gabor Very

Casual Health and Building Surveyor - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

30 July 2009

Vijay Vijayasivajie

Project Engineer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

7 September 2009

Joe Vocisano

Ranger – Parking

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

5 August 2009

Drago Vrh

Fire Safety Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Erich Weller

Manager Community & Cultural Development

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

11 August 2009

Danielle Welsh

Manager Personnel Services

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 September 2009

Thomas Wheeler

Trainee Environmental Planner DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

26 August 2009

Gordon Williams

Environmental Planner - DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 September 2009

Jonathan Wood

Trainee Environmental Planner DA

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

27 July 2009

Peter Wood

Development Services Coordinator

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

6 August 2099

David Yee

Design & Technical Advice Manager (Temp)

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

24 July 2009

Allegra Zakis

Senior Environmental Planner - EP

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

Mary Zuber

Environmental Marketing Officer

1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009

3 August 2009

 

The following Section 449 (1) returns have been lodged:

 

Name

Position Title

Due Date

Date lodged

Alex Alagiah

Asset Systems Engineer

30 September 2009

26 August 2009

Greg Butchard

Senior Asset Coordinator

30 September 2009

10 August 2009

Wendy Butler

Graduate Environmental Planner

30 September 2009

21 August 2009

Heather Carroll

Graduate Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

30 September 2009

21 August 2009

Ian Catto

Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

30 September 2009

17 August 2009

Robert Craig

Senior Environmental Planner

30 September 2009

11 August 2009

Aldo Credaro

Asset Coordinator

30 September 2009

24 August 2009

Adrian Estreich

Senior Environmental Health Officer

30 September 2009

5 August 2009

Craig Field

Caretaker / Building Services Officer

30 September 2009

23 September 2009

Nabil Garas

Ranger – Parking

30 September 2009

5 August 2009

Joshua Giblin

Acting Human Resources Officer

30 September 2009

11 September 2009

John Gordon

Parks Manager

30 September 2009

26 August 2009

Greg Hall

Principal Planner DA

30 September 2009

4 September 2009

Murray Halls

Public Domain Coordinator

30 September 2009

7 September 2009

Janet Keegan

Children’s Services Manager

30 September 2009

4 September 2009

Jessie Koza

Environmental Health Officer (Compliance)

30 September 2009

6 August 2009

John Krkach

Building Maintenance Supervisor

30 September 2009

6 August 2009

Garry Lawson

Traffic & Special Events Coordinator

30 September 2009

5 August 2009

Mark McLachlan

Asset Coordinator

30 September 2009

4 August 2009

Michael Mendham

Supervisor Halls and Cleaning

30 September 2009

6 August 2009

Andrew Moore

Financial Services Manager

30 September 2009

3 August 2009

Evan Rowse

Tree Management Officer

30 September 2009

3 August 2009

Samantha Sutherland

Human Resource Officer

30 September 2009

26 August 2009

Robert Taylor

Engineering Coordinator

30 September 2009

11 August 2009

Beth Wade-Ferrell

Companion Animals Officer

30 September 2009

10 August 2009

Suzanne White

Restorations & Maintenance Engineer

30 September 2009

11 September 2009

Colin Wood

Building Approvals Coordinator

30 September 2009

17 August 2009

 

The returns have been lodged prior to the due date for the receipt of the returns and are kept in a register held by the Acting Executive Officer. The Acting Executive Officer has the returns available in the Chamber.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Pecuniary Interest Returns be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

3

Action Taken on Resolutions of the 2008 Local Government Association 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

The 2008 Local Government Association of NSW (LGA) held its Annual Conference in Broken Hill from 25 – 29 October 2008.

 

Penrith City Council submitted eleven (11) motions to the Conference.

 

The Local Government Association has provided an ‘on-line Action Report’ on the Conference resolutions which is progressively updated as action takes place.

 

Information is now provided on the resolutions/action taken and the current status of the eleven (11) motions submitted by Council.

 

The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Current Situation

The following table shows the eleven (11) motions submitted by Penrith City Council to the 2008 Local Government Association of NSW (LGA) Annual Conference held in Broken Hill from 25 – 29 October 2008. The table also indicates the Conference resolutions/action taken and the current status.

 

The motions were categorised by the LGA into Category 1 and Category 2 motions as follows:

 

Category 1       Matters not covered by existing policy and matters involving change of policy.

                        These motions were given priority over Category 2 motions.

 

Category 2       Those matters that are reaffirmations of existing policy.

Motions grouped under this category shall be adopted under a general motion – subject to the reservation that, should any delegate wish any motion to be taken from Category 2 for general discussion, it shall be open to the delegate to request Conference to do so. In view of the importance of some Motions in Category 2, especially those of an urgent nature, the Executive is empowered to resubmit those it considers to be important for Conference’s consideration.

 

Of the eleven (11) motions submitted:

·      3 were determined as Category 1 Motions (Motions 50, 66 & 83)

·      4 were determined as Category 2 Motions (Motions 106, 123, 140 & 141)

·      1 was covered by other Motions on the Business Paper (Motion 128)

·      1 was withdrawn (Motion 168)

·      1 was a Late Motion (Motion L37)

·      1 was too late and not accepted on the Business Paper (Amendment to LGA Constitution)

 

The usual ‘static Action Report’ on the Conference resolutions is no longer compiled by the LGA. Instead, the LGA is now providing an ‘on-line Action Report’ on its website that is progressively updated as action takes place on the respective Conference resolutions.

 

The complete ‘on-line Action Report’ from the 2008 LGA Conference reporting on motions submitted by all councils is available on the LGA website at  http://www.lgaactionreport.lgsa.org.au/

 

MOTION 50 - Request for Guidelines and Education in Preparing for an Influenza Pandemic (Category 1)

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association request NSW Health to prepare guidelines and education to local government in preparing for an influenza pandemic.

 

Resolution

 

That the Local Government Association request NSW Health to prepare guidelines and education to local government in preparing for an influenza pandemic.

 

 

Action

 

Letter to Minister Della Bosca

13 Nov 2008

 

Response From

 

The Hon John Della Bosca

Minister for Health

23 Feb 2009

 

Response

 

Several resources are available to Local Governments in NSW wishing to update their pandemic influenza preparedness plans. Of particular interest is the NSW Human Influenza Pandemic Plan, which provides guidance as to the expected role of local government in the pandemic response and also provides useful business continuity planning advice for all sectors.

 

Regarding the issue of education, the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet requested an opportunity to address this conference on pandemic planning and local government, but, unfortunately, the request was declined. Within NSW Health, each Area Health Service has a Biopreparedness Officer who is available to assist in providing education to local government on request. I enclose their contact details.

 

NSW Health has also worked with the State Emergency Management Committee’s secretariat in developing an education presentation that is available through NSW Health or through the Committee for District and Local Emergency Management Committees.

 

NSW Health welcomes the interest of the Local Government Association in pandemic planning, Should you wish to obtain further information, please contact Jan Fizzell, Biopreparedness Unit of the NSW Department of Health, on 01 9391 9425.

 

MOTION 66 - Liquor License Applications (Category 1)

 

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association request that the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Authority (CLGA) require that where a council makes a submission in relation to an application for a liquor license, that a copy of the council’s submission be attached to the Community Impact Statement (CIS) that is submitted with the application for the license.

 

Resolution

 

That the Local Government Association request that the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority (CLGCA) require that where a council makes a submission in relation to an application for a liquor license, that a copy of the council’s submission be attached to the Community Impact Statement (CIS) that is submitted with the application for the license.

 

 

Action

 

Letter to CLGCA

13 Nov 2008

 

Response

 

No response received as yet.

 

MOTION 83 - Standard Structure for the Creation of a Business Unit

                         (Category 1)

 

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association request that the State Government develop a standard structure for councils to adopt, for the creation of a Business Unit to carry out Council’s functions as a Certifying Authority and Principal Certifying Authority in relation to developments.

 

Resolution

 

That the Local Government Association request that the State Government develop a standard structure for councils to adopt, for the creation of a Business Unit to carry out Council’s functions as a Certifying Authority and Principal Certifying Authority in relation to developments.

 

 

Action

 

Letter to Minister Perry

 

Response From

 

The Hon Barbara Perry MP, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)

 

 

 

 

Response

 

This matter is most appropriately directed to the Minister for Planning, who is responsible for administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 under which certification in relation to developments is legislated.

 

 

MOTION 106 – Nomination of the Indian Myna Bird as a Threatening Process under the Threatened Species Act (Category 2)

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association request the NSW Government to undertake further investigation into the environmental impact of Indian myna birds and the feasibility of the Indian myna bird being listed as a key threatening process under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

 

LGA Executive Note

 

This is existing Local Government Association policy or subject to ongoing work and appropriate representation.

 

MOTION 123 – Payroll Tax (Category 2)

 

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association call on the State Government:

·      to continue Local Governments’ current exemption from payroll tax; and

·      to not reduce the current payroll tax threshold, as it will place an additional financial burden on small business.

 

 

LGA Executive Note

 

These matters were taken into account with the Local Government Association’s submission to the IPART review.

 

MOTION 128 – NSW Fire Services Levy Reform (covered by other Motions on Business Paper)

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association call on the State Government to not reform the NSW Fire Services Levy as recommended by IPART, whereby councils will be required to impose a property based levy through the rating system as the means of funding the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

 

LGA Executive Note

 

This is existing Local Government Association policy or subject to ongoing work and appropriate representation.

 

MOTION 140 – State Emergency Service Vehicles (Category 2) 

 

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association make representations to the NSW State Government for an increase in funding to Councils towards provision of State Emergency Service (SES) vehicles, particularly larger operational vehicles.

 

 

LGA Executive Note

 

This is existing Local Government Association policy or subject to ongoing work and appropriate representations.

MOTION 141 – Cost Recovery Provision for Compliance Actions (Category 2) 

 

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association request that the Department of Planning incorporate cost recovery provisions for compliance actions, similar to those contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (POEO Act), in both the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EPAA) and the Local Government Act (LGA).

 

 

LGA Executive Note

 

This is existing Local Government Association policy or subject to ongoing work and appropriate representations.

MOTION 168 – Labour Market (Withdrawn by Council) 

 

 

Motion

 

That the Local Government Association works toward introduction of an industrial award which recognises and responds to challenges and a shifting focus in service provision of Local Government thus ensuring staffing of local operations is adaptive and the delivery of service to the community remains viable and competitive.

 

 

LGA Executive Note

 

The current Local Government (State) Award’s Clause 2, Statement of Intent, commits the award parties to cooperating positively to increase the structural efficiency of Local Government by providing measures that include the delivery of quality services to the community and continuous improvement. In accordance with this commitment, future negotiations will be expected to take into account councils’ sustainability and skills shortages on the one hand and the increasing demand for service provision on the other.

 

LATE MOTION L37 – Local Government Association Constitution – Proposed Amendments (Too Late)

 

Motion

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

Council was not successful in amending Tamworth Regional Council’s motion, but the Conference accepted and passed a separate late motion from Penrith City Council as follows:

 

Urgent Motion L37

 

That the Local Government Association request the Electoral Commission to undertake:

1.    A review of the application of a consistent approach, for all elections in relation to the definition of a polling place and the minimum distance that candidate workers are required to be from all polling place entrances.

2.    An enquiry into the length of time taken to determine local government elections.

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

4.    That all polling booths should be created within the council area unless there be exceptional circumstances.

 

That the Local Government Association ask for an independent review to be undertaken in regards to the costings and conduct of the 2008 local government elections.

 

That the following issues be raised with the NSW Electoral Commission:

·        Recycling of ballot papers;

·        Education and advertising;

·        Declared institutions;

·        Delays in refund of monies;

·        Training of returning officers and polling booth staff;

·        Scrutineering involvement;

·        Rigidity of names on ballot papers;

·        Incorrect and absence of voters on electoral rolls.

 

LATE MOTION – Local Government Association Constitution – Proposed Amendments (Too Late)

 

Motion

 

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

 

 

Too late and not accepted on the Business Paper.

 

Council resolved on 10 November 2008

to resubmit this motion to the 2009 Local Government Association Conference. This is scheduled as Motion 2 to the 2009 Conference.

 

Council’s staff will follow up with the Executive of the Association on the progress on outstanding Motions 66 and 83.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Action Taken on Resolutions of the 2008 Local Government Association Conference be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

4

Deed of Agreement between Penrith City Council and Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation   

 

Compiled by:                Mark Broderick, Acting Sustainability & Planning Manager

Authorised by:             Ruth Goldsmith, Group Manager - Leadership  

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

Strategic Direction: We work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City

     

 

Executive Summary

·      At its Policy Review Committee meeting on 18 August 2008, Council resolved to set up an independent Economic Development Entity that would combine the roles and functions of Council’s Local Economic Development Department and the Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation [PVEDC]

·      The new entity was created in late 2008 by reconstituting the PVEDC to reflect the outcomes of the economic development review conducted by Council in partnership with the PVEDC and in consultation with a range of business organisations and Council’s key economic partners

·      A Deed of Agreement has been drafted to detail the functions of the PVEDC and outline the responsibilities of the parties.

·      The report recommends Council endorse the Deed of Agreement and authorise the General Manager to execute the document.

Deed of Agreement

The Deed of Agreement has been prepared with Council’s Legal and Governance Department overview and agreement.  It requires PVEDC to undertake specific economic development functions on Council’s behalf.  Those functions comprise:

·      The provision of information and advice on a range of economic development and employment related matters to ensure that Council is able to continue with its leadership role in economic development

·      Develop strategies to work towards delivering the identified job targets

·      Undertake specific economic development functions and activities primarily associated with Penrith’s role as a regional business centre and its attractions for investment, and

·      Develop, promote and implement agreed economic development opportunities.

 

The Deed of Agreement nominates key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with budget, marketing, investment attraction and job creation, partnerships and business promotion.  Whilst these KPIs are largely generic in nature, the PVEDC will provide more specific KPIs as part of its annual Business Plan, which will be presented to Council for endorsement.

 

The content of the Deed has been discussed with the PVEDC and substantially agreed, with just a few minor aspects still to be resolved.  It is considered appropriate for the General Manager to finalise these details.  A copy of the Deed of Agreement is attached.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Deed of Agreement between Penrith City Council and Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation be received.

2.     Council endorse the Deed of Agreement and authorise the General Manager to execute the document.

3.     In accordance with the terms outlined in the Deed of Agreement, Council provide the funds to the PVEDC as follows:

a.   Fifty percent of the allocated annual funding within one month of Council agreeing with the PVEDC Business Plan, and

b.   The balance of funding within six months of the payment of the above.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Deed of Agreement

8 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Deed of Agreement

 

 

 

 

 

DEED OF AGREEMENT

 

 

This Deed made the                        day of                 2009

 

BETWEEN: Penrith City Council of 601 High Street Penrith in the State of New South Wales (“Council”) (ABN 43 794 422 563)

 

AND:         Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation Limited of Henry Street Penrith in the State of New South Wales (“PVEDC”) (ABN 57 103 058 24)

 

1. RECITALS

 

1.1       The Council is engaging PVEDC to undertake a number of its economic development functions specified in Annexure A.

 

1.2       The Council is also requiring the delivery of  jobs specified in Annexure B and requires that the Council and PVEDC work towards achieving those jobs in the City of Penrith (herein called ‘the City”) and its Region.

 

1.3       PVEDC, subject to funding, has agreed to undertake the functions on Council’s behalf and work towards the delivery of job targets.

 

1.4       The terms of the Agreement are set out herein.

 

 

2. INTEPRETATION

 

Unless the contrary intention appears:

 

2.1       monetary references are to Australian currency;

 

2.2       the clause and subclause headings are for convenient reference only and have no effect in limiting or extending the language of the provisions to which they refer;

 

2.3       a cross reference to a clause number is a reference to all its subclauses;

 

2.4       words in the singular number include the plural and vice versa;

 

2.5       words imputing one gender include the other;

 

2.6       a reference to a person includes a partnership and a body whether corporate or otherwise;

 

2.7       a reference to any legislation or legislative provision includes any statutory modification, re-enactment, regulation or statutory instrument issued under that legislation;

 

2.8       A reference to a clause or subclause is a reference to a clause or subclause of this Deed; and

 

2.9       Where a word or phrase is given a particular meaning, other parts of speech and grammatical forms of that word or phrase have corresponding meanings.

 

3. OPERATIVE PART

 

3.1       In consideration of the payments to be made to PVEDC and set out herein PVEDC agrees to undertake the functions as set in Annexure “A” and to work towards achieving the Job Targets as set out in Annexure “B”.

 

3.2       PVEDC shall perform the functions of Council to standards that would be expected of persons or organisations having skills in the delivery of the functions set out in Annexure “A” and “B”.      

 

3.3       PVEDC will within 3 months of the date hereof and then annually prepare a business plan that includes its strategic directions, programs, projects and initiatives that will promote and lead to achieving jobs, KPIs, and a budget and present the business plan to the Council in such format that the Council reasonably requires.  The Council within one month of the date of the business plan being submitted to it, in its absolute discretion must agree or not agree with the business plan.  If the Council does not agree to a business plan then the Council will inform PVEDC in writing of its concerns and reasons and allow PVEDC one month to review the business plan and re-present it to Council.

 

3.4       PVEDC will annually in September, as part of its application for funding for the subsequent year, report to the Council in such format as the Council reasonably requires the performance of PVEDC with regard to its business plan.

 

3.5       If the Council agrees to a business plan then the Council will provide the funds to PVEDC as follows:

 

·          fifty percent of the allocated annual funding within 28 days of the Council’s receipt of the business plan;

·     balance of funding within six months of the payment of the above.

 

3.6       PVEDC may make a submission to Council for earlier payment(s) of part of the annual funding allocation approved by Council for the implementation of its business plan. Such a payment will be at the full discretion of Council.

 

3.7       PVEDC will employ suitably qualified staff to undertake the functions set out in this Agreement.  Both parties acknowledge that the employees shall be employees of PVEDC and PVEDC shall indemnify the Council against any claim, damages, judgment  or any matter of the like that shall be brought against the Council in respect of the employees.

 

3.8       PVEDC will pay all staff in accordance with the relevant industrial laws.

 

3.9       PVEDC will carry such insurance as reasonably agreed with the Council from time to time.

 

3.10     PVEDC will ensure that at all times it complies with the Occupation Health and Safety Act (2000) NSW.  PVEDC agrees that it will comply with reasonable directions in this regard.

 

3.11     PVEDC will only invest monies that are granted, paid or otherwise held by the PVEDC on Council’s behalf or come from Council or paid as a result of Council’s actions or efforts into investments authorised by the Department Local Government Minister’s order 08-48 from August 2008, and the Penrith City Council’s investment policy as adopted from time to time.

 

PVEDC will invest monies that are granted, paid or otherwise held by the PVEDC  on behalf of a third party other than the Council at the discretion of the Board and in consultation with Council.

 

4. TERM

 

4.1       This Deed will terminate on 31 October 2014 but can be terminated where the Council considers that the functions are not being properly discharged but only after giving PVEDC at least 3 months written notice.

 

4.2       For the purpose of 4.1, in determining if PVEDC is properly discharging its functions Council will have regard to its performance with regard to implementing the business plan.

 

4.3       Council will have the right to terminate this Agreement if it does not agree to the business plan set out in clause 3.3 after allowing PVEDC all rights under clauses 3.3 and clause 5.

 

4.4       Should the Council and PVEDC not be able to agree on the insurance as set out in clause 3.9 then either party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement.

 

4.5       Six months prior to the termination date of this deed Council and PVEDC will meet to negotiate a new Deed.

 

5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

 

5.1       The parties to this agreement are free to use reasonable efforts to resolve by negotiation any problems that arise between them under this agreement. Neither party will resort to legal proceedings or terminate this Contract, until the following process has been exhausted.

         

5.2     Notification

 

(a)        If a problem arises under this agreement which is not resolved by the discussion between the parties or is sufficiently serious that it cannot be resolved at an operational level either party may notify the other party that the matter should be referred to the General Manager of Council and Chief Executive Officer of PVEDC for consideration.

 

(b)        Should the General Managers fail to reach a resolution in accordance with subsection (a) within five (5) working days (or such other time frames agreed between the parties) the parties may agree to mediation prior to taking any form of legal proceedings. The mediator will be selected by an agreement between the parties. If an agreement cannot be reached between the parties then a mediator shall be selected by the president of the Law Society of N.S.W. The cost for the mediation should be borne equally between the Council and PVEDC.

 

(c)     The parties agree that they must actively participate in any mediation.

 

(d)        The parties agree that they will continue this agreement while attempts are made to resolve the dispute.

 

6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

 

6.1       This Deed constitutes the entire agreement between the parties in relation to its subject matter and supersedes all previous negotiations, documents, and agreements about this subject matter.

 

7. APPLICABLE LAW

 

7.1       This Deed shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law for the time being in force in the State of New South Wales, and the parties agree that the courts of that state shall have jurisdiction to entertain any action in connection with this Deed, and hereby submit themselves to the jurisdiction of those courts.

 

8. SEVERABILITY

 

8.1       Each provision of this Deed and each part thereof shall, unless the context otherwise necessarily requires it, be read and construed as a separate and severable provision or part.

 

8.2       If any provision or part thereof is void or otherwise unenforceable for any reason then that provision or part shall be severed and the remainder shall be read and construed as if the severable provision or part had never existed.

 

 

 

 

9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW

 

9.1       The parties agree that in fulfilling the terms of the Agreement that they will comply with all relevant laws of the State and Commonwealth.

 

10. CONFIDENTIALITY

 

10.1     Any information provided by either Council or PVEDC to the other shall be treated as confidential unless:

 

·     It is publicly available.

·     It is provided by either party for general distribution.

·     It is subpoenaed by the courts.

·     There is a legal requirement to disclose it.

 

10.2     If there is a need for either Council or PVEDC to share confidential information with a third party either Council or PVEDC will first have the other party sign a non disclosure agreement that is acceptable to Council and PVEDC.

 

10.3     Both Council and PVEDC recognise that the need to keep information confidential may survive the Deed between both parties.

 

 

 

EXECUTED AS A DEED by the parties

 

SIGNED

On behalf of Penrith City Council by its Authorised Officer

 

……………………….                  ……………………….

Authorised Officer                   

 

 

In the presence of

 

……………………….       ……………………….

Witness                                         

 

SIGNED on behalf of the Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation Limited by its Authorised Officers

 

……………………….       ………………………..

                                                     

In the presence of

 

……………………….       ………………………..

Witness

Annexure A: Functions to be Performed

 

I:       General Economic Development Advice and Activities

 

The Entity will be responsible for providing information and advice on a range of economic development and employment related matters to ensure that Council is able to continue with its leadership role in economic development which is critical to the sustainable development of the City and its businesses and provides greater local job choices and security for its present and future residents. Such advice will consist of the following:

 

·    Provide regular updates on national, regional and local economic development trends and relevant research covering employment, business development, investment and other relevant local and regional economic indicators.

·    As appropriate provide information on contemporary trends in economic development with the focus on job generation at the local and regional levels.

·    As appropriate, provide input into council’s strategic program and management plans on matters relating to economic development and employment.

·    Participate in and as appropriate facilitate economic and employment development forums and other such meetings and consultations.

·    Represent Council and Penrith businesses as its champion on economic development and employment matters.

·    Support Council in leveraging funding support for appropriate projects.

 

II:     Specific Economic Development Functions and Activities

 

·    Market and promote Penrith’s role as a regional business centre and its attractions for investment.

·    Develop and maintain an active web presence.

·    Represent and promote the interests of local businesses; commercial, industrial and agricultural landowners and developers.

·    Develop and facilitate implementation of a range of programs to support the growth of local businesses, with a focus on the needs of small businesses.

·    Develop and implement a range of programs to service and attract investment into the City based also on the findings of the following key research work conducted regionally and in Penrith:

 

o Employment planning strategy [Council]

o Regional employment strategy [Regional]

o Inward investment strategy [Council]

o Economic elements of the Penrith City Centre Strategy, Penrith City Centre Vision and St Marys Town Centre Strategy [Council]

 

·    Facilitate an industry partnership program to leverage support for implementing business development and marketing programs.

·    Engender cooperation and collaboration between representative economic and business organisations in the City, in the region and as appropriate globally.

·    Facilitate partnerships with State and Commonwealth agencies, business and learning organisations and the like.

·    Seek support, including financial support, for business development and investment promotion programs.

·    Represent Penrith businesses on the Boards of the NSW Business chamber [Western Sydney Council] and the Penrith Valley Business Enterprise Centre [BEC] and as appropriate maintain links and work with the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce, the City and Town Centre Associations and the Penrith Valley Home Based Business Network on job creation initiatives in the City.

·    Promote and facilitate the participation of local businesses in high quality business awards.

·    Present to Council in September every year a business plan and funding program for the following financial year [1 July – 30 June].

·    Take carriage of the co-ordination of initial major commercial enquiries.

·    Monitor and report on jobs delivery in the City, including agreed jobs targets.

 

III:       Develop, promote and implement other economic development opportunities agreed between Council and PVEDC.

 

IV:    Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

 

The KPIs below are largely generic in nature and represent the broad outcomes Council seeks. The Corporation will provide more specific and relevant KPIs as part of its annual business plans presented to Council for endorsement.

 

·    Business plan is well structured and reflects Council’s economic development and job creation agenda.

·    Budget and business plan targets satisfactorily met.

·    Business related media coverage beyond the City [regionally, in NSW and Australia].

·    Number of investor contacts and conversions.

·    Number of investment and business events.

·    Number of existing businesses participating in new business development/R&D/export programs etc.

·    Quality and reach of marketing and investment attraction documents and programs and advice provided to potential investors.

·    Success of online promotion and marketing.

·    Proportion of funding or other forms of support leveraged from public and private sector for events, training programs etc.

·    Contemporary business and related programs [particularly online programs] introduced to engage small businesses.

·    Success and robustness of business partnership and activities undertaken as well as relationships established, including those with Council.

·    Level of local landowner support, including Council as a landowner, provided in investment attraction and job creation programs [particularly in the centres].

 

Annexure B: Job Targets

 

 

The jobs target is essentially based a “Jobs Challenge 2031” paper prepared for Council as part of the economic development review process. The target established by Council is for 40,000 additional jobs to be created by 2031. The places where these jobs will be created and the attendant job numbers is provided in the Chart below:

 

 

According to the chart the greatest number of jobs will occur in the following “places” in the City led as detailed below by new release areas which collectively account just under half of all jobs, followed by Penrith City Centre:

 

·    New Release Areas                                           18,000  (45%)

·    Penrith City Centre                                             10,000  (25%)

·    St Marys Town Centre                               1,150    ( 3%)    

·    Erskine Business Park  (additional 2009+)            4,600   (11%)             

·    Western Sydney Employment Hub              4,000   (10%)    

·    Other (eg existing industrial estates)             2,250   (  6%)

 

TOTAL                                                            40,000

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

5

2008-2009 Financial Statements   

 

Compiled by:                Brett Richardson, Business Analyst

Authorised by:             Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

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 staff have prepared the Financial Statements, using the accrual method of accounting, and comply with Australian Accounting Standards and the New South Wales Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. The Financial Statements were referred to Council’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 7 September 2009, and in accordance with the Act, a period of public exhibition followed. During this time, no submissions were received. The 2008-2009 Financial Statements are now ready to be presented to Council with the unqualified auditor’s opinion.

Background

The Financial Statements are prepared by Council’s staff, using the accrual method of accounting, and comply with Australian Accounting Standards and the New South Wales Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. The statements are required to be audited by an independent auditor, and lodged with the Department of Local Government by 7 November 2009.

 

The Local Government Act has detailed provisions for the completion of the financial statements. The process is:

 

1.            Council staff prepare the statements,

2.            Council issues a statement that the accounts are in order,

3.            Council refers the statements to its auditors,

4.            The auditors complete their work and return the statements with an audit opinion attached,

5.            The reports are put on public exhibition, and

6.            The reports are presented with the auditor’s reports at an Ordinary Meeting.

 

The unaudited 2009 Financial Statements were presented to Council’s Audit Committee on 19 August 2009. This step included the endorsement of the Financial Statements by the Audit Committee prior to their presentation to Council. At that meeting, the Audit Committee resolved that:

“1. the information contained in the report on 2008-09 Annual Financial Statements be received.

 2.  the Audit Committee is satisfied with the answers it has received and is unaware of any reason why the Statements should not be adopted

 3.  the Audit Committee refers the statements (after adjustments discussed in the meeting are affected) to Council for signing

 4.  the Audit Committee requests commentary be provided to Council as discussed at the meeting to assist Councillors in understanding the statements

 5.     the Audit Committee requests the General Manager to write to the Department of Local Government seeking the rationale behind a 1.5 benchmark for the Unrestricted Current Ratio”

Council completed steps 1, 2, and 3 at its Ordinary Meeting of 7 September 2009. A copy of the report to the Ordinary Meeting of 7 September 2009 is attached for information. The Audit Certificates have now been issued, and Council submitted its Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2009 to the Department of Local Government on 9 September 2009. The Department of Local Government has since advised that Penrith City Council was the 7th Council in New South Wales to lodge their 2008-2009 Financial Statements.

 

The audited Financial Statements have been placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Public notice has been given of Council’s intention to present these Statements to this meeting. Written submissions from the public were required to be received by the Council by 2 October 2009.  No submissions have been received.

 

The presentation of these reports completes the final stage of the Annual Financial Statements process.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on 2008-2009 Financial Statements be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Draft 2008-2009 Annual Financial Statements report

7 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Draft 2008-2009 Annual Financial Statements report

 

 

 







 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

6

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

 

Compiled by:                Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

Andrew Moore, Financial Services 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

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 August 2009 to 31 August 2009, and a reconciliation of invested funds at 31 August 2009. The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Background

CERTIFICATE OF RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I hereby certify the following:

 

1.   All investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, relevant regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

2.   Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled as at 31 August 2009.

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 August 2009 to 31 August 2009 be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 August 2009 to 31 August 2009 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 31 August 2009 be noted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

 

 




  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

7        Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme 2009 Funding Round Outcomes

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

7

Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme 2009 Funding Round Outcomes   

 

Compiled by:                Vesna Kapetanovic, Community Projects Officer (WSAAS)

Teresa Luk-Leung, Senior Social Planner

Authorised by:             Tracy Leahy, Acting Community and Cultural Development Manager   

Strategic Objective: We have access to what we need

Strategic Direction: Our City’s services and facilities are provided equitably, and can be accessed by those in need

     

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the outcome of the 2009 Penrith Community Development and Support Expenditure Scheme (CDSE) Category 1 Funding Round.

 

CDSE is a state wide initiative that recognises registered clubs’ financial contribution towards supporting projects and services that contribute to the wellbeing of the local communities.

 

The 2009 CDSE funding round attracted 101 applications and a total of $555,549 have been distributed to a total number of 33 community organisations.  The projects funded range from services targeting children, families, elderly, people with a disability, women and the Aboriginal community.

 

Background

 

The Community Development and Support Expenditure (CDSE) scheme is a statewide initiative that recognises Registered Clubs’ significant financial support for projects and services that contribute to the wellbeing of their communities.

 

Registered clubs that earn over $1 million annually in gaming machine revenue provide funding for community projects and services and in turn receive dollar-for-dollar gaming tax deductions.


The scheme was introduced in 1998 by the NSW Government and allows clubs to claim a tax deduction of up to 1.5% on gaming machine revenue over $1 million for monies spent on community support.

 

The CDSE program is carried out in partnership with the NSW State Government, local Registered Clubs, local Government and NSW Council of Social Services (NCOSS).

 

CDSE Category 1 expenditure is allocated to projects/services that contribute to the welfare and broader social fabric of the local community, and are aimed at improving the living standards of low income and disadvantaged people.

 

Category 1 funding expenditure targets community welfare and social services, community development, community health services, and employment assistance activities.

 

The Penrith LGA Process

 

The Penrith Local CDSE Committee is established to assess and rank all eligible Penrith CDSE funding applications.

 

The Penrith Local CDSE Committee has a core membership of:

 

·    The CDSE eligible clubs in Penrith (Emu Plains Sporting and Recreation Club; St Marys Band Club; Penrith RSL Club; Penrith Paceway Club; Penrith Gaels Club; Nepean Rowing Club; Panthers Rugby League Club; St Marys Rugby League Club; Penrith Bowling Club; St Marys RSL Club; Henry Lawson Club; Penrith Golf Club; Kingswood Sports Club)

 

·    Penrith Council’s Senior Social Planner

 

·    Department of Community Services (DoCS)

 

·    Local representative of the Council of Social Service of NSW (NCOSS)

 

The Local Committee meets to:

 

·    Identify the community service priorities for Category 1 expenditure in Penrith based on local evidence provided by Penrith Council’s Community Development Department and DoCS advice on regional and whole-of-government community service priorities

 

·    Advise qualifying clubs in Penrith of the identified community service priorities for Category 1 expenditure

 

·    Assess Category 1 funding applications received by the local committee as to whether they align with the identified community service priorities

 

·    Inform qualifying clubs in Penrith of the outcomes of the assessment of Category 1 applications.

 

Penrith Council’s Community Projects Officer convenes the local Penrith committee, provides information to the community and undertakes administration to support the scheme.

 

2009 Funding Round for Penrith

The 2009 CDSE Funding Round opened on 2 March and closed on 3 April, and was promoted extensively through the media, local networks and interagencies.

 

This year, the Penrith CDSE Committee received 101 applications and a total of $553,549 CDSE funds were distributed to a variety of community organisations.

 

Some examples of the type of projects that were funded in the 2009 CDSE Round are:

 

·    Penrith Women’s Health Centre received $7,600 to purchase equipment to maintain and enhance quality service delivery for local women.

 

·    The Salvation Army Youthlink received $15,000 to support the ongoing operation of the Café Horizons Youth Training Program in St Marys.

 

·    North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre received $2,050 towards program and equipment costs for the Men’s Social group that meets within the Centre.

 

·    Sailability Penrith Lakes received $4,875 to purchase a purpose built sailboat to enable people with disabilities to sail.

 

A list detailing the names of the organisations and projects, which were successful in receiving CDSE funding 2009, is attached for information.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme 2009 Funding Round Outcomes be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Final CDSE Approved Funding 2009

5 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Final CDSE Approved Funding 2009

 

 

 





  


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

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

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

 

9        Development Application DA08/0958 - Section 96 Modification - Alteration to Finished Landform - Lot 1 DP 542395, Lot 740 DP 810111 (No. 1725) Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek. Applicant: SITA Australia Pty Ltd;  Owner: SITA Australia Pty Ltd DA08/0958

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

 

10      Development Application DA09/0789 for a Multi-Unit Housing Development at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood. Applicant: Amflo Pty Ltd;  Owner: Luvamo Pty Ltd DA09/0789

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

 

URGENT

 

14      Penrith Recycled Water Project Stage 2

 

15      Development Application DA 09/746 Proposed Alteration and DA 09/0746 Additions to Existing Bulky Goods Retail Centre at Lot 10 & 11 DP 1046110 (No.13 -25) Pattys Place, Jamisontown - Supacentre Applicant: Pipven Pty Ltd: Owner: Pipven Pty Ltd.

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

8

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

 

Compiled by:                Deepa Randhawa, 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

     

 

Previous Items:                     Section 96 Application No. 07/0742.01 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2009

 

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 an application pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, from Corpus Christi Parish to amend Condition No. 16 of Development Consent No. 07/0742. The modification is to allow the doors and windows on the western side of the building to be open during mass and other gatherings in the parish building at Corpus Christi Primary School.

 

The application was previously reported to Council at its meeting of 29 June 2009 and it was resolved that consideration of this matter be deferred, “so that a site inspection may be undertaken by all interested Councillors of the proposed modification and that, at the site inspection, both parties be invited, with Council officers to request that the youth band referred to in the report be in attendance and perform so that noise implications may be considered.”

 

The recommendation of the previous report to Council was to refuse the application based on the consideration that compliance with the required noise criteria was reliant upon mitigation measures and failure to do so may not maintain the noise to a reasonably acceptable level for the surrounding residential area.

 

In response to Council’s resolution of 29 June 2009, a site inspection was carried out by Councillors, Council staff, a number of church members and adjoining residents on 13 August 2009 while a live band was playing at the parish hall between the hours of 6.00pm to 7.00pm.

 

In addition, the applicant has submitted an addendum to the proposal to clarify the timings and the duration of when the live band plays.

 

The application has been assessed in light of the site inspection and the additional information provided by the applicant against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Having regard for all of the relevant matters, the proposed modification is capable of, subject to the enforcement of conditions, being trialled for a period of twelve months to assess any potential noise impacts on the surrounding residential areas.

 

This report therefore recommends that the modification be approved subject to additional conditions of consent for a trial period of twelve (12) months.

Background

The school complex includes a multi purpose hall, which has been used by the Catholic Parish of Corpus Christi as a place of worship since Corpus Christi Primary School commenced operations in 1987.

 

The ongoing use of the hall as a place of worship was brought to Council’s attention during assessment of DA06/1014 for alterations and additions to the school. Council required a separate development application seeking consent to continue to operate a place of worship and to establish an associated parish administration centre at Corpus Christi Primary School, which was lodged with Council in June 2007.

 

At its meeting of 23rd June 2008, Council considered a report on this application and granted consent for continuation of the operation of a place of worship and to establish an associated parish administration centre.

 

The approval was subject to a number of conditions including Condition No. 16, to require all doors and windows to be closed when the public address (P/A) system is in use or when the band is playing in the parish hall. This condition was imposed to ensure compliance with a recommendation of the Noise Impact Assessment report to mitigate any potential noise impacts on the adjoining residential area.

Site and Surrounds

The school occupies an irregular, but essentially rectangular, shaped allotment of 4.331 hectares, set primarily along an east-west axis between The Northern Road and Andromeda Drive (see Locality Plan at Appendix No. 1).

 

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

 

The school campus addresses Andromeda Drive. A substantial parking area with associated driveways is located adjacent to that street frontage. The school complex is principally comprised of two groups of buildings. The main section of the campus is positioned adjacent to the car park, at the western end of the site includes the parish hall (see Site Plan at Appendix No. 2)

The Approved Use

Place of worship

Council approved use of the school’s multi purpose hall as a place of worship including regular scheduled activities, unscheduled but anticipated activities, and the annual events of Easter and Christmas.

 

These activities are described in the tables below:

 

Weekly scheduled activities

 

Day

Activity

Duration

Approx. attendance

Monday

-

-

-

Tuesday

·    Individual prayer

·    Mass

·    Choir practice

6.30 pm - 7.00 pm

7.00 pm - 7.45 pm

8.00 pm - 10.00 pm

 

40 people

13 people

Wednesday

·    Mass

9.10 am - 9.55 am

30 people

Thursday

-

-

-

Friday

·    Mass

9.10 am - 9.55 am

30 people

Saturday

·    Choir practice

·    Mass

3.30 pm - 5.30 pm

6.00 pm - 7.10 pm

13 people

360 people

Sunday

·    Mass

·    Mass

·    Baptisms 

7.30 am - 8.40 am

9.30 am - 10.40 am

11.15 am - 12.45 pm

140 people

260 people

140 people

 

Unscheduled but anticipated activities

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

 

Activity

Duration / Frequency

Approx. attendance

Funerals

Held weekdays. Commence after 9.30 am and conclude by 2.30 pm.

Unknown

General

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

10 people

Sacramental programs

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

Not stated

Parish meetings

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

Not stated

Social gatherings

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

Not stated

 

 

 

 

Easter

Day

Activity

Duration

Holy Thursday

Last Supper Mass

7.30 pm - 11.00 pm

Good Friday

Stations of the Cross

Individual Sacrament of Reconciliation

Solemn Commemoration of the Passion of the Lord

10.00 am -11.00 am

11.30 am - 1.00 pm

 3.00 pm- 5.30 pm

Holy Saturday

Easter Vigil

7.30 pm - 11.00 pm

 

Christmas

Day

Activity

Duration

Christmas Eve

Vigil Mass

Mass

Solemn Midnight Mass

6.00 pm - 7.15 pm

8.30 pm - 9.45 pm

Midnight - 1.30 am

Christmas Day

Mass

9.30 am - 11.00am

 

Parish offices

The approval included for the use of the current primary school administration building as the administration centre for the Corpus Christi Parish.

 

The parish administration centre operates Tuesdays – Fridays, 9.00 am until 5.00 pm.

The Current Proposal

The applicant seeks to modify Condition 16, which reads:

 

“All windows and doors are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing”

 

to read:

 

“All windows and doors at the rear of the building used as the place of public worship that face dwellings in Pluto Place are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing.”

 

The applicant suggested an additional condition which reads:

 

“All windows and doors are to be closed during the evening band practice”

An Acoustic Report has been submitted in support of the application, which is discussed under the Noise Assessment heading later in this report.

 

(See Plan of windows and doors to be open in Appendix No. 3)

Addendum to the Proposal

The applicant has submitted an addendum to the proposal to clarify the hours and days when the band plays and the submission is summarised as follows:

 

§ The youth band is rostered to play once a month on Saturday evenings during mass between 6.00pm to 7.00pm,

§ The band would play for a total of 16 minutes during mass;

§ The 7:30am mass on Sunday mornings does not play live music;

§ The doors and windows to the western elevation would only be open during the warmer months ( September to March);

§ All windows and doors will be closed during the evening band practice.

 

The applicant has further suggested twelve (12) month trial consent to monitor any noise impacts of the development upon the surrounding residential areas.

Site Inspection

As per the resolution of Council’s meeting of 29 June 2009, a site inspection was carried out by Councillors and Council staff on 13 August 2009 while a live band was playing at the parish hall between the hours of 6.00pm to 7.00pm. The site inspection was also attended by a number of church representatives and local residents.

 

The doors and windows along the western side (Andromeda Drive) of the building were open while the band was playing. The band consisted of an organ, a keyboard, a guitar, drums and five (5) members of the band. The P/A system was set with noise limiters to ensure that the volume for the system would not result in the generation of noise that exceeds the established noise criteria for the development.

 

It should be noted that the use of the drums was minimal and the band was not playing to its full complement as all the members of the band were not present at the time. The drums were used intermittently for a total duration of 10- 15 minutes during the time of the inspection.

 

The results of the site inspection were not conclusive to determine any potential noise impacts and therefore the report recommends a time limited approval to gauge the noise impacts of the live band when playing under normal circumstances during a Saturday night mass.

Planning Assessment

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act), provides that a development consent may be modified if it results in substantially the same development as originally considered and approved by Council. The current application seeks modification to a condition of the consent, which if modified would not alter the use such that substantially the same development as previously approved would result. Therefore the proposed development is within the scope of a modification request.

 

Additionally, the provisions of Section 79 of the Act are required to be considered for any application to modify the consent. The following matters are considered relevant to the current application:

 

 

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan -1998- Urban Land ( LEP)

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

 

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

 

The development control table in clause 9 of the Plan provides that a “place of worship” is permissible with consent in a 2(b) zone. The place of worship and the associated educational/ religious programs are considered permissible as these uses fall within the above definition. The proposed modification does not change the permissibility of the uses.

 

LEP and Zone Objectives

 

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

 

(i)         aims of the LEP;

(ii)        objectives of the relevant zone; and 

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

 

The relevant aims of the LEP relate to consideration of residential character, residential amenity and environmental performance.

 

(a)       to promote development which safeguards the residential amenity of the area; and,

 

(b)       to provide for high levels of residential amenity, particularly acoustic and visual privacy.

 

Assessment of the application has taken into consideration the noise issues and therefore it is considered that a trial period is a viable solution to determine if the modified proposal is capable of maintaining and providing an acceptable level of residential amenity consistent with the above objectives.

 

The relevant objective of the Residential 2(b) zone is to:

 

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

 

Similarly, a trial period will provide an opportunity for assessment to consider if the modified proposal will result in a compatible non residential use consistent with this objective.

 

Clause 9(2) further requires that consent not be granted unless Council has considered the objectives of any development control plans applying to the land.

 

Clause 13(3) provisions for environmental performance in development require that consent must not be granted unless council is of the opinion that the proposal has taken into account the following:

(a)        the provisions of any development control plan relating to environmental

noise, including impacts on both generators and receivers of noise.

 

Consideration of this provision of Development Control Plan 2006 is provided later in this report.

 

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

 

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

 

The plan proposes various, relatively minor, general amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). The activities proposed by this application would not result in any inconsistency or non-compliance with the terms of this draft plan.

 

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

 

Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP - 2006

 

The following parts of the DCP are relevant in this assessment:

 

Part 2.7 - Notification and Advertising

 

The purpose of this section of the DCP is to establish procedures for the notification of development proposals. This application was publicly notified and exhibited, from 1st December until 15 December 2008 in accordance with requirements of this Plan. The results of this public consultation process are discussed later in this report.

 

Following Council’s resolution for a site inspection, letters were sent to all interested parties to notify them of the site inspection held on site on 13th August 2009. In total there were three representations from the residents, however only one representation raised matters related to the noise generation during the weekend mass. This issue is discussed later in the report under Noise Assessment.

 

Part 4.2-GPart G – Non Residential Development

 

The objectives of the plan are to ensure that non-residential development should be planned and designed according to principles of traditional suburban design, and to preserve the amenity of residential neighbourhoods with the intent to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties, as well as to the neighbourhood character.

 

The report recommends to trial the development for an opportunity to assess if the modified proposal will result in a compatible non residential use consistent with this objective.

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

No matters prescribed in the Regulation are relevant in the consideration of this application. 

 

 

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

Noise Assessment

A review of Council records indicates that since 1987 Council has received complaints relating to loss of residential amenity from the continued use of the school hall for worship services. Since the most recent application to continue to operate a place of worship and to establish an associated parish administration centre, complaints and submissions on the matter have intensified.

 

The original application was accompanied by a Noise Impact Assessment report along with a supplement to the report to address the operational noise from the existing parish activities and assess the potential impacts upon neighbouring premises against relevant noise legislation and policies.

 

The report was assessed by Council’s Senior Environment Officer who had recommended appropriate conditions to comply with the Noise Impact Assessment report and the management of the parish activities generally. Condition No. 16, required all windows and doors to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing.

 

This condition was recommended by Council’s Senior Environment Officer to reflect the recommendation of the Applicant’s addendum to the Noise Impact Assessment report to ensure that compliance with relevant noise criteria was able to be achieved. The Noise Impact Assessment report recommended that if the use of the hall must involve a P/A system and band practices or performances, then all windows and doors are to be closed to meet relevant noise criteria.

 

The current application is accompanied by another Noise Impact Assessment report prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates and additional information provided by the applicant. This report includes measurements undertaken at two locations at Andromeda Drive and one location at Pluto Place during a Saturday mass where music was provided by a live band. The windows along the western side of the building facing Andromeda Drive were open during this time.

 

Council’s Senior Environment Officer has assessed the latest documents and has provided the following comments:

 

“It is concluded that the opening of the selected windows along the Andromeda Drive side of the building would not result in noise generation that exceeds the relevant criteria. However a point to be considered is that that the level of noise generated by a live band can be influenced by lowering the levels of the P/A systems and amplifiers and as such it would be difficult to determine if the band and the P/A system were set at the level they normally would use them at during these recent assessments”.

 

Council’s Senior Environment Officer has further suggested an approval subject to a trial period of twelve (12) months and should a trial approval be granted the following conditions be applied:

 

·    All windows and doors at the rear of the building used as the place of public worship that face dwellings in Pluto Place are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when the band is playing.

 

·    All windows and doors are to be closed during the evening band practice.

 

·    Only windows and doors outlined in the Music Noise Compliance survey provided by Renzo Tonin and Associates dated 21 October 2008 are permitted to be open during the times when the P/A system is in use.

 

·    In the event of on going noise complaints relating to the development being received by Council, the owner and /or occupier of the church and related development may be required by Council to obtain the services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to undertake a noise impact assessment on the development to address the concerns of the community.

 

·    The noise impact assessment report is to be prepared and provided to Council within 45 days of being requested. The assessment report is to be approved by Council with any recommendations being implemented in accordance with the approved assessment report.

 

·    Within 30 days of consent the P/A system is to be provided with suitable sound limiters to ensure that the sound volume for the system can not be adjusted beyond a level that would result in the generation of noise that exceeds the established noise criteria for the development. Details of the limiters are to be provided to Council. All bands and music are to be played through the P/A system to ensure noise levels can be registered.

 

The Noise Impact Assessment report has demonstrated that the opening of selected windows along the Andromeda Drive side of the building would not result in noise generation that exceeds the relevant criteria while the P/A system or a live band is operating. However it is noted that compliance is reliant upon sound limiters to ensure that the volume for the P/A system can not be adjusted beyond a level that would result in the generation of noise that exceeds the established noise criteria.

 

The consent for the use of an existing school hall as a Place of Worship was approved subject to appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Noise Impact Assessment report and the management of the parish activities.

 

The previous recommendation to refuse the modified condition was based on the fact that compliance with the required noise criteria was reliant upon the application of sound limiters on electrical equipment and that amplification was only to be through the P/A.  The key concern about the proposal was that the suitability of the proposed activity in terms of noise impacts was not guaranteed without proper on-site management practices. It was thought at the time, that this uncertainty in the potential noise impacts did not offer enough safeguards to warrant support of the application.

 

In light of the additional information provided by the applicant, the result of site inspection and recommendations of Council’s Senior Environmental Officer it is considered that a twelve month trial is a viable solution in this case as to monitor the noise impacts.

 

An approval to allow the windows and doors to the western elevation to be open during a trial period will provide a good opportunity to monitor whether the mechanisms to control the noise within the permissible levels are effective. This will inform if the development is capable of, subject to the enforcement of conditions, maintaining the amenity of the surrounding residential areas.

 

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

 

The opening of the western side of the windows of the parish hall for a trial period of twelve months highly reliant upon compliance with additional conditions is unlikely to detrimentally affect the existing amenity of the nearby residential area and therefore it is considered that the site is suitable for modifications as nominated in this report.

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

Community Consultation

The development application was publicly exhibited in accordance with Part 2.7 of Penrith DCP 2006 from 1 to 15 December 2008.

 

A petition signed by seventeen (17) objectors and one individual letter were received during the exhibition period. The issues raised are noise generated from the music activities in the hall and from parishioners in the car park.

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

The Noise Assessment Report submitted by the applicant concludes that the opening of the selected windows along the Andromeda Drive side of the building would not result in noise generation that exceeds the relevant criteria.

 

The additional information submitted by the applicant explains that the live band plays only once a month for the duration of 16 minutes during mass between the hours of 6.00pm to 7.00pm on a Saturday night.

 

However the circumstances identified in the assessment suggests that as compliance of the acceptable noise criteria is subject to reliance upon management practices therefore it considered that is reasonable to trial the development to assess the noise impacts generating from the P/A system and the likely impacts upon the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

In the event of any ongoing noise complaints relating to the development being received by Council, the owner and /or occupier of the church may be required by Council to obtain the services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to undertake a noise impact assessment of the development to address the concerns of the community.

 

It is further recommended that during this period the noise impacts of when the P/A system is in use or when the band is playing is to be monitored and recorded on two occasions and the finding are to be accompanied with any further application for the continuation of the consent.

Conclusion

This application seeks to open the windows of the parish hall facing Andromeda Drive when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing for a twelve (12) month trial period. The assessment concludes that a twelve month trial period is suitable to assess any likely adverse impacts of the development and therefore recommends approval of a time limited approval to allow the doors and windows on the western side of the building to be open during mass and other gatherings in the parish building at Corpus Christi Primary School.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Section 96 Application DA07/0742.01 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook be received.

2.     The Section 96 Application 07/0742.01 for modification of Condition No. 16 of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641  (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook, be approved subject to the following amended and additional conditions:

 

Amend Condition No. 16 to read:-

 

2.1     All windows and doors at the rear of the building used as the place of public worship that face dwellings in Pluto Place are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing

 

The following new conditions be added

 

2.2     Consent for the doors and windows on the western side of the building to be open during mass and other gatherings in the parish building at Corpus Christi Primary School is limited to a 12 month period from the date of the modified approval

 

The doors and windows to the western elevation shall only be open during the warmer months from September to March

 

All doors and windows are to be closed when the P/A system is in use or when a band is playing upon the expiration of the 12 month trial period. A further application may be lodged before the expiration date for Council’s consideration to further extend this period or amend this requirement

 

2.3     The live band is to operate as per the schedule submitted by the applicant in the following manner:

 

§ The youth band is rostered to play once a month on Saturday evenings during mass between 6.00pm to 7.00pm

§ The band would play for not more than a total of 30 minutes during mass

§ The 7:30am mass on Sunday mornings shall not play live music

§ The doors and windows to the western elevation would only be open during the warmer months ( September to March)

§ The 7:30am mass on     Sunday mornings shall not play live music

§ All windows and doors shall be closed during the band practice

 

2.4     Only windows and doors outlined in the Music Noise Compliance survey provided by Renzo Tonin and Associates dated 21 October 2008 are permitted to be open during the times when the P/A system is in use

 

2.5     In the event of on going noise complaints relating to the development being received by Council, the owner and /or occupier of the church and related development may be required by Council to obtain the services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to undertake a noise impact assessment on the development to address the concerns of the community

 

2.6     The noise impact assessment report is to be prepared and provided to Council within 45 days of being requested. The assessment report is to be approved by Council with any recommendations being implemented in accordance with the approved assessment report

 

2.7     Within 30 days of consent the P/A system is to be provided with suitable sound limiters to ensure that the sound volume for the system can not be adjusted beyond a level that would result in the generation of noise that exceeds the established noise criteria for the development. Details of the limiters are to be provided to Council. All bands and music are to be played through the P/A system to ensure noise levels can be registered

 

2.8     The noise impacts of when the P/A system is in use or when the band is playing whilst the doors and windows to the western  are open is to be monitored and recorded on two occasions and the finding are to be provided to Council

 

3.     The persons who made submissions in respect of the proposal be advised of Council’s decision in writing.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Windows & Doors Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 3 - Windows & Doors Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

9

Development Application DA08/0958 - Section 96 Modification - Alteration to Finished Landform - Lot 1 DP 542395, Lot 740 DP 810111 (No. 1725) Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek  Applicant:  SITA Australia Pty Ltd;  Owner:  SITA Australia Pty Ltd    

DA08/0958

Compiled by:                Steven Chong, 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

Karl Berzins, of Berzins Environmental Planning Pty Ltd was engaged to undertake a review of the assessment process. It was considered appropriate that the application be independently assessed as Council currently utilises the land fill site for the disposal of waste.

 

Council is in receipt of a request from SITA Australia to modify development consent 451/89, enabling alterations to the finished landform of a waste facility at Lot 1 DP 542395 and Part Lot 74 DP 752022, (No. 1725) Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek (see Locality Plan in Appendix No. 1). The proposed development seeks to rectify a discrepancy relating to the approved plans and condition 52 of the development consent which requires a slope of 5% for the finished landform of the land fill. The approved plan did not enable the 5% slope to be established. The amended plans now show a gradient of 5% over the entire site and thus accord with the requirements of condition 52. To achieve this 5% gradient, the finished height has increased from 65 metres AHD to 73 metres AHD.

 

The original proposal was determined at the Ordinary Council meeting of the 18th of September 1990. Subsequent amendment to the proposal was determined at the Ordinary Council meeting of the 5th of November 2001. In accordance with the provisions of the legislation the request to modify the development consent is reported to Council for determination.

 

The site is zoned 1(a) (Rural “A” Zone-General) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 (Rural Lands). The proposed development is defined as an “extractive industry”. The site is regulated by Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.9- Extractive Industries (No 2) and the use is permissible under that instrument with the consent of Council. The proposed development has been notified to nearby and adjoining residents, with three (3) submissions received 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:

 

·    Noise impacts

·    Visual impacts

·    Water pollution

·    Traffic 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 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 and that Condition 6 be amended to reflect the correct plan depicting final landform associated with the waste facility.

Background

Approval for landfill on the site was granted at Council’s Ordinary Meeting on the 18th September 1990.  The approved development involved extraction of materials for the brick and tile manufacturing industry and rehabilitation of the resultant void with non-putrescible waste.

 

The applicant estimated that a void space of approximately 13 million cubic metres would be available for waste disposal. The rehabilitation program proposed a stable, self-draining final landform reaching a height of RL 56m AHD, having average side slopes of 1%.

 

In 1993, the company submitted an application to Council to permit the disposal of putrescible waste on the site.  A new rehabilitation plan prepared for the site foreshadowed utilisation of extracted resource as cover material for the operations and for the capping/vegetation layers.

 

The company proposed an increase in the waste disposal capacity of the development in excess of 17 million cubic metres and proposed a final landform height of RL 115m AHD. The proposed final level was some 56 metres above the highest existing point on the site and 6 metres above the highest landform (Mt Vernon) within a substantial radius.  This application was refused by Council.

 

A subsequent appeal to the Land and Environment Court, in 1994, was dismissed on the basis that the Court considered amongst other things that, given the capacity of the site and the extent to which the surface would be, almost totally, taken up by the landfill itself, it would be inappropriate to approve the development in regard to adjoining land uses and potential land uses.  Since the appeal the site has operated, in accordance with it’s consent, as an extractive industry and non-putrescible waste landfill.

 

In 2001, a Section 96 modification to Development Consent No. 451/89 was submitted to increase the side slopes of the finished landform to a grade of 5% with the result that the finished height of the landform increased from 56 m AHD to 65 m AHD.  The rationale for the increase in side slope was to comply with industry best practice and the Environment Protection Agency’s (EPA) environmental guidelines for Assessment, Classification and Management of Non-Liquid Wastes.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 5 November 2001, Council resolved to approve the abovementioned modification subject to a number of conditions.  One of the conditions (Condition 52) read as follows:

 

The finished landform shall have a minimum slope of 5% in accordance with the provisions of the Landfill Environmental Management Plan dated 1 January 1998 defined in EPA Licence No. 004585 dated 11 October 2000 as approved by Council the modification of this consent.

 

On 16 February 2007, an “enabling clause” to the current planning instrument was approved and gazetted to permit an “advanced waste treatment facility” to be a permissible land use on the subject land.  SITA Environmental Solutions, the current operators of the site, subsequently obtained a Part 3A approval (issued by the Minister for Planning on 15 April, 2008) for the construction and operation of a facility to process 120,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of waste and 14,400 tpa of biosolids. 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site has a combined area of approximately 86 ha most of which is being used for extractive industry or landfill purposes.  The office and maintenance buildings are located in the south-eastern corner of the site.  The extreme western part of the land that adjoins Badgerys Creek has been retained as a natural buffer.  There are numerous dams and watercourses located on the surrounding lands.  The advanced waste treatment facility is located in the north-western corner of the site.  The landscaped bund walls approximately 5 metres high have been constructed on the boundaries of the land.

 

The surrounding lands are used for rural and rural residential purposes.  The Twin Creeks residential development is located 1 km to the north of the subject land.

 

The subject land has direct access to Elizabeth Drive. 

The Proposal

Slope of fill batter

 

The first aspect of the proposal deals with a discrepancy between the approved plans and Condition 52. Condition 52 of the modified consent requires that a minimum slope of 5% be achieved over the extent of the finished landform. However, a detailed review of one of the stamped approved plans associated with the modified consent, depicting the final landform, indicates that certain sections of the site would not achieve the minimum 5% slope.  The applicant has requested that the discrepancy be amended and has submitted revised plans that show a finished slope of 5% over the entire site. 

 

The revised plans indicate that to achieve the 5% slope an increase of the finished landform height is required. This will increase the final landform from 65 metres AHD to 73 metres AHD, a difference of some 8 metres in certain sections, as compared to the modified consent issued in November 2001.  It should be noted that all landfill experiences settlement and to achieve a final landform height of 73 metres it will be necessary to have a maximum interim or construction height of 79 metres AHD.  As compared to the original consent issued in September 1990, the increase in final landform height equates to a difference of some 17 metres, from 56 metres AHD to 73 metres AHD. Prior to settlement this difference is some 23 metres.

 

The footprint of the proposed landform will not increase.  There will be no change to the nature or location of sedimentation basins on the site.  The fill will be capped and revegetated as per the conditions of the existing consent.

 

The increase in height will result in an additional 1.5 million cubic metres of fill being imported onto the site.  This will extend the lifespan of the landfill component on the site by approximately 3-4 years.

 

Hours of Operation

 

The second aspect of the proposal relates to the hours of operation of the facility.  The following table shows the approved operating hours of the quarry and landfill operation as well as the applicant’s proposed hours.

 

Existing Hours of Operation

Proposed Hours of Operation

a)  Quarrying activities, waste receipt and compaction

All activities

Monday – Friday  7.00am – 6.00pm

(with 15 trucks (waste receipts) permissible between 6.00am to 7.00am.)

Monday – Friday  6.00am – 6.00pm

Saturday  8.00am -5.00pm

Sundays and Public Holidays  8.00am -4.00pm

Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays 8.00am – 4.00pm

 

b)  Other operations apart from those listed above

 

Saturday  1.00pm -4.00pm

Sundays and Public Holidays  8.00am -4.00pm

 

 

Since notification of the proposal, the applicant has advised that the request to change the operating hours has been deleted from the proposed amendment.  The operating hours are to remain as per the existing consent.

Statutory Assessment

Modification of consent

An applicant may seek Council’s consideration to a modification of development consent provided the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same as the original consent.  Council has the ability to refuse, or approve subject to conditions, a modification of an existing consent based on the merits of the proposal. In determining the merits, Council must have regard for submissions received after notification and consideration of relevant Section 79C(1) matters. 

 

Also as the development is designated development, Clauses 35 & 36 in Schedule 3 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 are relevant.  These clauses provide the heads of consideration for Council to form an opinion of whether the alterations and additions do not significantly increase the environmental impacts of the total development.

 

The proposed development, as modified, is substantially the same as approved.  That is, the land uses are still extractive industry and disposal of non putrescible waste. The principal modification involves constructing the final landform with slopes that are in excess of 5% and are in accordance with current EPA requirements. The 5% gradient results in a surface that is not conducive to ponding and water infiltration is minimised. Moreover, the modification seeks to eliminate a discrepancy between condition 52 and the stamped approved plans. In doing so, the extractive industry will achieve compliance with condition 52 contained within the modified consent. 

 

The modification will result in an additional 1.5 million cubic metres of fill to be transported onto the site.  The original approval consented to approximately 13 million cubic metres of fill to be used in the formation of the final landform.  The current modification increases the volume of non-putrescible fill to be disposed of on the site by 11%.  It is likely that this will extend the life of the development by 3-4 years.  The finished height of the final landform will increase from 56 metres to 73 metres, as compared to the original consent, but the footprint of the development will not change. The finished height of the final landform, as compared to the modified consent, will increase from 65 metres to 73 metres.

 

The proposed increased height of the land fill is varied over the final landform with the greatest increase in final landform height restricted to the south-eastern quadrant of the site.  The maximum increase in height with respect to the existing approved plans, associated with the modified development consent, is 7 metres. As compared to the original consent the maximum increase in height is 17 metres. The site is bordered by vegetated bund walls which to a significant extent screen the landfill activities on the site from adjoining properties and public roads.

 

The proposed alterations to the final landform do not significantly increase the environmental impacts of the total development and the matter can be determined as a modification to the existing consent rather than Council requiring the lodgement of a new development application.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 9 - Extractive Industries (No. 2)

This planning instrument makes extractive industries a permissible land use on land identified in the REP, consequently overriding the current Penrith planning instrument, being Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201. The REP identifies the subject land as containing clay/shale resources of regional significance.  Consequently, extractive industries are a permissible use on this site. 

 

The disposal of non-putrescible waste is also permissible under the relevant planning instruments as it is an industry or undertaking “which depends for its operation on the winning of extract material from the land upon which it is carried on”.

 

The site currently enjoys development consent for the continued extraction of clay/shale from the site and its rehabilitation by filling with non-putrescible waste. The current proposal seeks to modify the final landform and as a result several conditions of development consent. The requested modifications do not compromise or alter the permissibility of the development.

 

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

The major issue of relevance is that of the cumulative environmental impact of the development proposal on the catchment. In particular, the need to ensure that water quality of the creeks near the site, and ultimately the river, is not adversely affected as a result of the proposed activities.

 

SREP 20 contains a policy designed to ensure that future development does not prejudice the achievement of the goals of use of the river for primary contact recreation (being recreational activities involving direct water contact, such as swimming) and aquatic ecosystem protection in the river system.  If the quality of the receiving waters does not currently allow these uses, the current water quality must be maintained, or improved, so as not to jeopardise the achievement of the goals in the future.

 

Specifically, Council is required to quantify and assess the likely impact of any predicted increase in pollutant loads on receiving waters.

 

The application proposes changes to the landform in order to comply with an existing condition of development consent.  The type and scale of works that are proposed are already occurring on the land and the proposed amendments do not result in the need to change the environmental safeguards with regard to minimising water pollution on receiving waters that are already in place.

 

The sediment basins have been designed to accommodate the higher discharge rate of potentially sediment laden surface waters from the steeper side slopes of the proposed final landform.  The basins are strategically located with EPA licensed off-site discharge points. In addition to the sediment basins, the Landfill Environmental Management Plan includes a comprehensive surface and ground water sampling regime. This, combined with a strategy of minimising disturbed areas, combined with early vegetation establishment of exposed areas will ensure that there will be no unacceptable impact upon the water quality of nearby creeks. Therefore, the proposed modification satisfies the requirements of the SREP.

 

The likely impacts of the development

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  In consideration of the request to modify the consent, the main issues that have arisen in the assessment relate to:

 

·          Noise impacts

·          Visual impacts

·          Water pollution

·          Traffic impacts

 

Noise impacts

A noise assessment was submitted with the application, which was reviewed by Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer. Detailed discussions were also held between Council and the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW). Comments provided have indicated that the DECCW are proposing to amend their licence issued for the site to require new provisions to incorporate mitigation measures identified in an acoustic report dated July 2009 and entitled ‘Elizabeth Drive SAWT & Landfill Cumulative Noise Assessment’ . Therefore the applicant will be required to comply with these new licensing provisions, relating to the emission of noise during capping activities, which are considered adequate is ensuring that noise impacts from the proposal are acceptable. The activity on the site can be undertaken with minimal disruption to the adjoining resident’s amenity given the licensing requirements implemented by the DECCW.

 

Visual Impacts

This issue has been addressed in a previous section of this report. 

 

The proposed increase in height of the landform is not uniform.  Over a considerable part of the site the increase is between 1 and 2 metres.  In the south-eastern quadrant of the site the final landform is in parts 6 metres higher than the current approved maximum height.  It should also be noted that there are temporary overburden stockpiles on the site that are higher than the final height of the landform.

 

The previous modification of consent issued in 2001 introduced the need for the 5% minimum slope requirements as part of the on-going management of the site. Since then parts of the landfill has been modified to comply. Consequently, there are already parts of the existing land form that exceed the 65m height level. It was necessary to do this to achieve the 5% slope requirement for proper environmental management and to comply with the relevant licensing requirements administered by the DECCW.

 

This modification request will not introduce in the landform the full extent of the change since parts of the site are already in excess of the 65m height level.

 

Site inspections reveal that the proposed landform will be screened from adjoining properties to a significant extent by the perimeter bund walls that contain established and establishing trees. 

 

Water pollution

The stormwater draining from the proposed landform will be directed into sedimentation basins on the site, where velocities will be greatly diminished prior to discharge from the site.  There is no need to augment or change the location of these basins as the footprint of the final land form will not change.  Also this aspect of the proposal is licensed by DECC.

 

Traffic impacts

The proposal will increase the life span of the operation by 3-4 years.  The number of daily truck movements will not increase significantly.  The site is serviced by regional roads that have the capacity to accommodate any slight increase in truck numbers if such an increase eventuates.

Public Interest

Council is required to advertise, in accordance with its advertising policy, an application to modify a development where the original development application was advertised. Under the provisions of clause 14 of the Penrith DCP – Notification and Advertising, Council may dispense with notification and advertising requirements if the proposed modification is unlikely to prejudice:

a) any person(s) who were previously notified of the development application; and

b) any person(s) who previously made a submission in respect of the development application; and

c) any matter(s) raised in the previous submission(s) in respect of the development application.

 

The original application and subsequent amendments were advertised development and submissions were received from a broad spectrum of the local community. However, it appears unlikely that the current modification proposal would prejudice persons who previously made a submission.

 

Therefore, submissions were merely invited from adjoining owners, who are the persons most likely to be affected by this application.

 

In addition, submissions were received from:

·    Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water

·    Department of Water and Energy

 

 

Department of Environment, Climate Change, & Water (DECCW)

DECCW has no objections to the proposed modification and notes that the final landform will have slopes greater than 5% which comply with the primary environmental goals of Benchmark Technique 28 of the NSW EPA Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste landfills (1996).

 

DECCW also has no objection to the proposed amendment and will take steps to ensure that the conditions of the environmental protection licence issued by the Department are the same as the noise conditions for the recently approved Advanced Waste Treatment Facility in the north-western corner of the site.

 

Department of Water and Energy

The Department recommends that any change of landform does not affect the riparian vegetation and its restoration.

 

The proposed new landform does alter the footprint of the existing approved development and as a result will not have a detrimental impact on the riparian corridor of Badgerys Creek.

 

Adjoining Owners

The application was notified to a total of seven (7) adjoining landowners from 22 September to 6 October 2008.  Three (3) submissions objecting to the development have been generated from the surrounding landowners.  These objections are summarised below and comments provided where appropriate.

 

Extension of hours

There will be significant adverse impacts upon the community as follows:

 

·    Normal operating conditions for building sites are 7.00am.  This opening time should apply to the proposal.  A 6.00am opening time will result in significant truck movements in the locality.

 

·    The hours of operation at the end of the day should also not be extended for the same reason.

 

·    The increase in noise associated with the truck movements both in the morning and the afternoon will be substantial given the rural nature of the locality.

 

·    The approval of the adjoining Advanced Waste Treatment Facility (AWTF) was based on the current landfill operation and was sufficient for the AWTF to be approved.

 

·    The proposal is an industrial operation and not appropriate in a rural residential setting especially in regard to the negative impacts on adjoining residents’ amenity.

 

·    There has been an incremental approach in developing the site with the result of significant impact on the neighbouring area.  Council should have regard to these previous approvals.

 

·    The applicant has not justified their statements that the proposal would be of assistance to the community.

 

Comment:

The adjoining owner’s concerns in regard to extended hours do not need to be addressed as the applicant has withdrawn their request to extend the hours of operation.

 

Changes to Existing Contours

·    The proposal results in a considerable increase in the height of the landfill site.

 

·    There will be an increase in dust, noise and odour.

 

·    There is a requirement for a higher earth bund wall around the site as the adjoining residents can already see the stockpiles and trucks operating within the site.

 

·    There is a risk of water runoff and contamination onto adjoining land.

 

·    The operations would be more clearly visible from adjoining rural residential land and therefore have an impact on the use of that land.

 

·    The proposal would restrict the development of housing on adjoining land and results in a devaluation of adjoining land.

 

·    The difference in adjoining property levels (46-48 metres AHD to the finished contour level of 79 metres AHD) is too great and will severely impact the enjoyment and value of adjoining land.

 

·    The proposal will result in an unacceptable visual impact in the rural locality.

 

Comment:

The proposed increase in height of the landform is not uniform.  To achieve the required 5% slope over the entire site, there is variation in the required volume to achieve adequate height to enable the 5% slope. Accordingly, over a considerable part of the site the increase is between 1 and 2 metres from the landform approved in 2001 by the modified development consent.  In the south-eastern quadrant of the site the final landform is in parts 6 metres higher than the current approved maximum height.  It should also be noted that there are temporary overburden stockpiles on the site that are higher than the final height of the landform.

 

The proposed landform will be screened from adjoining properties to a significant extent by the perimeter bund walls that contain established and establishing trees.  The land fill is seen from sections of Elizabeth Drive; however the separation distance of the landfill from the road means that it is difficult for an observer to notice a 6 metre increase in the height of the landform.

 

The shape of the final landform will, over time and with revegetation, appear natural and not out of character with hills in the locality (i.e. the hills to the west of Luddenham Road and the hills of Mt Vernon.  It should be noted that these hills have a height of approximately 100 m AHD and are therefore higher by 25 metres than the proposed final landform.

 

The proposed amendments will result in an additional 3-4 years of operational life of the site.  Current conditions of consent outline measures to be implemented to minimise the generation of dust. Such measures include dampening of unsealed roads and access paths, the implementation of erosion and sediment control measures, and the revegetation of portions of the site in instances where exposed materials are stockpiled for more than 6 months. 

 

The proposed amendment will not significantly affect the amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining landowners.

 

Independent assessment of DA

·    Penrith City Council uses the site for the disposal of its own rubbish and to avoid a conflict of interest, an independent assessment of the DA should be undertaken.

 

Comment:

The proposed amendment has been assessed and reported upon by Karl Berzins of Berzins Environmental Planning Pty Ltd (an independent planning consultant).

 

Effect on adjoining land

·    The use of adjoining land for the purpose of horse training and agistment is being compromised in that animals are becoming frightened with a greater risk of injuring themselves.

 

·    The consideration by Council of the extension of the landfill land use must take into account the zoning of surrounding land.

 

·    The landfill site is incompatible with the future use of adjoining lands as employment generating lands. Extension of the timeframe of the consent and operating hours will be detrimental to the development of adjoining lands for employment generating uses.

 

Comment:

There is no evidence that the established landfill operation, which has been in existence for approximately 20 years, has had an adverse impact on adjoining land uses.

 

The additional 3-4 years of landfill operation will not compromise the development of surrounding lands for employment generating uses if the land in the locality is rezoned.

 

Complying with the 5% gradient

·    The applicant’s justification for increasing the height of the fill is questioned in that the 5% gradient could be achieved with lower contours.

 

·    The will be a negative impact on adjoining properties due to increased velocity of stormwater leaving the site.  There will also be changes to the runoff direction from the site.

 

Comment:

The proposed amendments to the contours are an endeavour to resolve the conflict between the approved plans and Condition 52 of the existing consent.  (The finished landform shall have a minimum slope of 5% in accordance with the provisions of the Landfill Environmental Management Plan dated 1 January 1998 defined in EPA Licence No. 004585 dated 11 October 2000 as approved by Council the modification of this consent.)

 

The proposed contours (i.e. final landform) comply with the requirements of Condition 52.

 

The stormwater draining from the proposed landform will be directed into sedimentation basins on the site, where velocities will be greatly diminished prior to discharge from the site.  This aspect of the proposal is licensed by DECC.

 

Inappropriate zoning

·    The SITA site is an industrial site.  The proposed amendments make it more of an industrial site. It is inappropriate not to zone surrounding lands as employment lands within a short time frame (3-5 years).

 

Comment:

The future zoning of the subject land and adjoining lands is being investigated by the Department of Planning.  Information contained on the Department of Planning website, dated 28 September 2009, outlined ‘The Department of Planning conducted detailed investigations into proposed employment lands at Badgerys Creek but ultimately did not release the land because of servicing and infrastructure constraints’. Detailed information on this matter is unavailable at present; however a request to rezone surrounding lands is beyond the scope of this application. 

 

Conclusion

The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the present development nor will it create any significant additional impacts.  Rather, the proposal reduces the risk of harm to the environment and provides a more contemporary and acceptable environmental outcome for the site in line with current environmental standards.

 

As such, approval of the application to modify the consent in the terms outlined in this report is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA08/0958 - Section 96 Modification - Alteration to Finished Landform - Lot 1 DP 542395, Lot 740 DP 810111 (No. 1725) Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek be received

2.     Development Application DA08/0958 - Section 96 Modification - Alteration to Finished Landform - Lot 1 DP 542395, Lot 740 DP 810111 (No. 1725) Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek be approved subject to the following:

2.1       Amended Condition No 6 to read:

 

Development is to take place as specified within the Environmental Impact Statement prepared on behalf of the applicant by R W Corkery and Co Pty Ltd and Planners North Pty Ltd and submitted to Council as part of the development application on Council's file D25050/13602 DA 2 except where amended or altered by these conditions or the Landfill Environmental Management Plan dated 1 January 1998 defined in EPA licence No 004585 dated 11 October 2000 as approved by Council in the modification of this consent or Drawing No. 21-17412-C005, dated 08.05.08 prepared by GHD and entitled “Proposed Landfill Contours Increase of Depth of Fill over DA Contours” or as directed otherwise by Council from time to time

 

2.2     Insert a new condition:

 

The proposal is to operate in accordance with the license issued by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water at all times

 

3.     The applicant and those making a submission be informed of Council’s decision.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site Plans

5 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 2 - Site Plans

 

 

 





 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

10

Development Application DA09/0789 for a Multi-Unit Housing Development at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood  Applicant:  Amflo Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Luvamo Pty Ltd    

DA09/0789

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 has previously considered an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in respect to this proposal. Council, at its meeting of 29 June 2009, deferred consideration of this application pending a site inspection by Councillors. This site inspection was undertaken on 27 July 2009. This application was unable to be determined as the 12 months had lapsed since Council’s refusal of DA07/0226 on 21 July 2008. As a result, the applicant has lodged a new development application.

 

Council is in receipt of a Development Application from Amflo Pty Ltd for the construction of a Multi-Unit Housing Development at Lots 16-17 DP 38919, (No. 76-78) Jones Street, Kingswood. The proposed development consists of 4 x 2 bedroom and 8 x 3 bedroom town houses, 6 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom apartment-style dwellings and associated basement car parking. Given the community interest received by Council to date in relation to the development of this site, 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 “multi-unit housing”, 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 notified 121 properties in the area and received 7 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:

 

·    Scale and design of the development

·    Neighbourhood character

·    Traffic impacts

·    Parking

·    Amenity 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

At its Ordinary Meeting on 5 June 2006, Council approved a Development Application (DA05/1023) for the construction of a multi-unit housing development on the subject land which consisted of 15 x 3 bedroom town houses and associated basement car parking. A subsequent Development Application (DA07/0226) for the site was lodged on 2 March 2007 which sought approval for the construction of a multi-unit housing development consisting of 20 apartment and town house dwellings and associated basement car parking. This application was refused on 21 July 2008 by Council under Delegated Authority as the proposed development was unsatisfactory in respect of solar access and proposed a substantial variation to Council’s solar access requirements.

 

On 25 November 2008 the proponent lodged an application with Council for a review of the refusal of DA07/0226 in accordance with Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application included a revised development scheme for the site to address the grounds for refusal of DA07/0226. Several further amendments were made to the proposal by the proponent during the assessment process for the Section 82A review. The Section 82A review was recently reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 29 June 2009. The Council report recommended approval of the modified proposal however Council deferred a decision on the Section 82A review pending a site inspection by Councillors which has since been undertaken.

 

Given 12 months have now lapsed since Council’s refusal of DA07/0226 on 21 July 2008, Council is no longer able to review its decision on DA07/0226 pursuant to Section 82A(2A)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proponent has therefore lodged a new Development Application for Council’s consideration. The new Development Application is consistent with the revised development scheme submitted as part of the Section 82A review.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site comprises two parcels of land positioned at the southern end of Jones Street in Kingswood. This site is of a regular shape, with a street frontage of 31.63m, a depth of 101m and a total area of 3,126m2. The land is set along an east-west axis. See Locality Plan at Appendix No. 1.

 

The land slopes away from Jones Street east towards the rear boundary, with a change in levels of approximately 4m over the length of the site. The land is vacant and only partially enclosed by boundary fencing. The only vegetation of consequence consists of three trees positioned adjacent to the southern boundary towards the rear of the site.

 

Jones Street is characterised by a mixture of older style single dwellings and more recent dual occupancy, villa and town house developments. This variety in built form arises from the transition from low density to medium density development consistent with the prevailing   2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zoning.

 

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

·    A two-storey multi-unit housing development consisting of 4 x 2 bedroom and 8 x 3 bedroom town houses (Blocks B & C), 6 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom apartment-style dwellings (Block A) and associated basement car parking. As a minimum each dwelling contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom and laundry. Each dwelling has also been provided with private open space in the form of either dual private courtyards or a balcony or terrace

·    The proposed development has been designed in a series of three detached buildings across the site. The three buildings are separated by two common courtyards which will provide communal outdoor open space

·    The proposed development will address Jones Street and will have a front (western) setback ranging from 3.5m to 7.775m and side setbacks ranging from 7.4m to 7.9m (southern boundary) and 4m to 6.425m (northern boundary). The proposal will have a rear (eastern) setback of 6m

·    The basement car park will be accessed via a 7m wide driveway with direct access off Jones Street. Provision has been made for a total of 40 basement car parking spaces in a combination of single and stacked parking arrangements. Inclusive of this total are six visitor car spaces and two accessible car spaces. A single car wash bay has also been provided

·    The proposed development will be of brick and metal construction

·    Related landscaping and stormwater drainage works, including the provision of an on-site stormwater detention system

·    Provision of various BASIX (Building Sustainability Index) commitments to the proposed dwellings, including the provision of several rainwater tanks on the site

·    A bin storage area for waste and recycling bins

 

See Appendix No. 2 for copies of the site plan and elevations submitted with the application, also A3 copies are provided under separate cover to Councillors.

 

It should be noted that there are several key design changes which have been incorporated into the plans for the current application to address the grounds for refusal of DA07/0226. The design changes have increased the landscaped area of the site, improved internal amenity, privacy, safety and accessibility and improved the presentation of the development. The design changes are detailed below.

 

·    Reconfiguration of the complex from 4 to 3 separate buildings. Block A, addressing Jones Street, remains unaltered in its orientation. However, all dwellings within Blocks B and C are now set across the site along a north-south alignment

·    Minor redesign of Block A to improve solar access, particularly those units along the southern side of that building

·    Alteration of pedestrian access onto and across the site through the introduction a linear pathway along the northern site boundary

·    Introduction of a second, communal, outdoor area of open space

·    The size of the first floor of Blocks B and C has been reduced through the loss of 1 bedroom in 4 of the units

·    The plan and elevations of the first floor of Blocks B and C have been modified

·    Amendments to the material of construction and design of the western elevation of Block A

·    Various changes to window sizes, design and placement

·    Alterations to the arrangements for the collection and disposal of stormwater run-off

 

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 “multi-unit housing”, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

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 (2,990m2).

Clause 11(4) – Lot Width

18m

Yes (31.63m).

Clause 12(3) – Building Envelope

1.8m from property boundary and 45o height plane.

Yes.

Clause 12(3) – External Wall Height

6.5m

Yes (6.5m).

Development Standards

Requirement

Compliance

Clause 12(3) – Landscaped Area

40%

Yes (41%).

Clause 12(4) – Rear Setback

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

Yes (6m).

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.

 

§ Yes.

 

§ Energy efficiency requirements addressed via BASIX Certificate.

 

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.

 

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.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) aims to provide a framework for the assessment, management and remediation of contaminated land throughout the state. Clause 7 (1) of SEPP 55 prevents Council from consenting to a development unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

Table 1 of the Department of Planning’s “Planning Guidelines for Contaminated Lands” identifies land activities which may cause contamination. The “Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites”, issued in 1992 by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, also contains a table listing examples of land uses that might result in land contamination.

 

It is understood that the subject land has not supported any activities identified in these documents. The information is sufficient to conclude that a Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation report is not required. Accordingly the provisions of SEPP 55 have been satisfied.

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

Section 2.1 Contaminated Land

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

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 proposed development is considered to be of a safe and satisfactory design which promotes crime prevention in its existing environment.

 

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 was not accompanied by an updated landscape plan reflecting the revised development scheme. This report therefore recommends a condition requiring the applicant to provide a revised landscape plan for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for the development.

 

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 26 August and 9 September 2009. A site notice was also placed on the site. Council notified 121 properties in the area and received 7 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

Suitable provision has been made for the storage of waste and garbage and recycling bins on the site. Council’s Waste Services Coordinator has reviewed the proposed development with regard to waste management and is satisfied with this aspect of the proposal.

 

Sections 4.5 and 4.6 Residential – Town House Development and Apartment Development

The proposal has been assessed against Council’s development controls for town houses and apartments, and has been found to generally comply with each control. The following table summarises the key development controls within the DCP and the proposal’s compliance with these controls:

 

Development Controls

Requirement

Compliance

5.2 Urban Form

§ Each building block no longer than 20m.

§ Provide a 4m wide open corridor across the site for separated dwellings.

§ No. Refer to following discussion.

§ Yes.

 

5.3 Front Setback

Match adjoining developments or 5.5m minimum.

Yes. Front setback ranges from 3.5m to 7.775m.

5.4 Car Parking

Apartments:

§ 1 space per 1-2 bed unit.

§ 2 spaces per 3 bed unit.

 

Town Houses:

§ 1 space per 1 bed unit.

§ 1.5 spaces per 2 bed unit.

§ 2 spaces per 3 bed unit.

 

 

 

Visitor Parking:

§ 1 space per 5 units.

§ Block A - 6 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed apartments: x 1 + 2 x 2 = 10

 

§ Block B - 2 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed town houses: x 1.5 + 4 x 2 = 11

§ Block C - 2 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed town houses: x 1.5 + 4 x 2 = 11

 

§ Visitor Parking: 20 ÷ 5 = 4

 

TOTAL: 36 car spaces required; 40 car spaces provided.

5.5 Landscaped Area

§ 40% of site area.

§ Common open space to be 10% of landscaped area.

§ Yes (41%).

§ Yes (370m2 across 2 common courtyards).

5.6 Building Envelope and Side Setbacks

§ Maximum roof pitch 25o.

§ Minimum 2m side setbacks.

§ Yes (41%).

§ Yes. Side setbacks range from 4m to 7.9m.

5.7 Solar Planning

§ 4 hours solar access to living areas.

§ 3 hours solar access to 40% of private open space.

§ Yes.

 

§ Yes.


 

6.5 Private Courtyards

Apartments:

§ Minimum 20m² for ground level.

§ Above ground balconies - minimum 10m²; minimum dimensions 2.5m x 2.5m.

 

§ Yes.

 

§ No. To be conditioned.

 

 

Development Controls

Requirement

Compliance

6.5 Private Courtyards (continued)

Town Houses:

§ Minimum 25m².

§ Minimum dimensions 5m x 4m.

 

§ Yes.

§ Yes.

6.10 Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Outlook

§ Minimum 3m separation between facing windows.

§ Courtyards to have screening measures.

§ Bedrooms designed away from noisy rooms.

§ Active and passive living areas separated.

Each dwelling has adequate separation, dividing fences and landscaping to maintain adequate levels of privacy and acoustic amenity.

6.12 Accessibility and Adaptability

Dwellings must be capable of being accessible and adaptable for seniors and persons with a disability.

§ Yes.

 

Section 5.2 of Part 4.5 of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 provides controls regarding the maximum length of a building (20m) and minimum building separation (4m). The objective of these controls is to break up the massing of a building and seek an articulated building form, allow for landscaped elements to visually soften and scale buildings and maintain amenity both within the site and for adjacent properties.

 

The proposed development scheme does not strictly comply with the above requirements. In response to this matter, the proponent has provided a written submission in support of the proposal, containing the following assertions:

 

·    The siting and form of the proposal mimics that promoted in the DCP.

·    The scale of the buildings is strictly of 2 storeys and complies with the required setback, building envelope and height controls.

·    There are other developments in the locality which exceed the 20m building length control.

·    The proposal is of a scale consistent with the size of the site and the outcomes allowed for under the current zoning.

·    A development that strictly complies with the 20m building control would be of equal impact to this proposal.

·    The design has been modified to improve articulation and reduce perceived scale.

·    The site is of a size that could support up to 5 x 2 storey buildings which, combined, would present a similar bulk and scale to this proposal.

 

These assertions are valid only to the extent that that the buildings have been modified to reduce volume and scale, improve articulation, and that they otherwise comply with the primary development standards relating to setbacks, building envelopes and height. However, the suitability of the proposed building lengths needs to be considered in conjunction with the separation provided between those building blocks. Without adequate separation between the blocks, a linear built form will read as an unbroken mass when viewed from surrounding properties.

 

While the 20m/4m controls represent a preferred outcome, arguably consideration can be given to longer buildings provided that the space separating each element is also adequate. In this proposal, the maximum length of Block A is 21m, while Blocks B and C are 27m each. The separation between Blocks A, B and C vary at both the ground and first floor levels, as follows:

 

Blocks A and B

 

·    Ground floor – 6.5m at the southern boundary; 10.5m through the centre of the site; 10m at the northern boundary.

·    First floor – 7m to 11m at the southern boundary; 9m through the centre of the site; 14m at the northern boundary.

 

Blocks B and C

 

·    Ground floor – 5m at the southern boundary; 3.5m through the centre of the site; 5m at the northern boundary.

·    First floor – 6.5m to 14m at the southern boundary; 4m through the centre of the site; 6.5m to 14m at the northern boundary.

 

It is evident that the separation between Blocks A and B, at both the ground and first floors, comprises distances well in excess of the 4m minimum distance. For Blocks B and C, the separation distances at the ground floor, while an increase beyond the 4m minimum, are less generous. Of more consequence are the separation distances at the first floor, which are well in excess of the 4m minimum. Therefore the objectives of the building length and separation controls have been satisfied in that the massing of the buildings has been broken up through generous separation distances, particularly at the first flor level. This will maintain amenity both within the site and for adjacent properties. It is therefore concluded that the proposed length and separation of the building blocks is acceptable.

 

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

There are no matters prescribed in the regulations which are applicable to the proposed development.

 

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

(i)        Context and Setting

The subject development site is located at the periphery of a number of residential zonings in the immediate area. The land to the immediate south is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) and is characterised by single detached dwelling-houses. The land to the immediate east is zoned 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density) and is characterised by a number of villa-style dwellings, dual occupancies and older-style single detached dwelling-houses. The land to the north and west of the site is zoned 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) and is characterised by a mixture of existing single detached dwelling-houses and newly constructed multi-unit housing developments of villa and townhouse scale.

 

Despite the differing residential zonings in the immediate locality, the proposed development is consistent with the surrounding area in terms of built form, scale and continuity.

 

(ii)        Access, Parking and Traffic

While the proposal will produce a minor increase in local traffic flow, no adverse traffic generation impacts are expected as the local road network has adequate spare capacity to cater for this increase.

 

Council’s Development Services Engineer has provided conditions for the upgrading of Jones Street to create a formal cul-de-sac. Creation of the formal cul-de-sac will aide access for service and garbage vehicles.

 

Provision has been made for the required number of on-site car parking spaces for residents and visitors to the site.

 

(iii)       Stormwater Drainage

The majority of the site falls away from Jones Street and consequently it will not be possible to connect the proposed development to the existing drainage system at the western end of the site (Jones Street). The proposed development must therefore rely upon an alternative means of connection to Council’s stormwater drainage system.

 

Drainage of the proposed development relies on the creation of a stormwater easement over land abutting the site to the east (No. 16 Edward Street, Kingswood). A Deed of Agreement exists between the relevant parties for this purpose. Notwithstanding this Deed, the easement has not yet been created and legally registered against the affected allotments. To ensure that this easement is created, this report recommends a condition requiring the applicant to submit evidence of registration of the easement prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the development.

 

Stormwater collected from roof and hard stand areas is to be directed to 2 on-site stormwater detention (OSD) tanks for collection and controlled discharge to Edward Street, via the proposed easement noted above. Council’s Development Services Engineer has reviewed this arrangement and is satisfied as to the technical aspects of its operation.

 

(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)        Waste Management

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(vi)       Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(vii)     Social and Economic Impacts

The proposed development poses no potential adverse social or economic impacts.

 

(viii)    Site Design

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(ix)      Solar Access

The primary reason for refusal of DA07/0226 was the lack of solar access to various units within the complex.

 

The revised development scheme now incorporates a series of measures (as previously discussed) which will improve solar access during winter and afford better shade protection during summer. These arrangements are consistent with contemporary design principles for solar access and are now sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands).

 

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

The site attributes are 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.

 

6.         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 was advertised in the local newspapers and notified to nearby and adjoining residents. The application was advertised between 26 August and 9 September 2009. A site notice was also placed on the site.

 

Council notified 121 properties in the area and received 7 submissions in response to the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and considered below.

 

 

 

 

·    Traffic impacts.

 

Comment:

While the proposal will produce a minor increase in local traffic flow, no adverse traffic generation impacts are expected as the local road network has adequate spare capacity to cater for this increase.

 

·    Inappropriate site location at the end of a cul-de-sac.

 

Comment:

Consideration and assessment of traffic generation and impact upon the local road network has not identified any unacceptable impacts. Council’s Development Services Engineer has provided conditions for the upgrading of Jones Street to create a formal cul-de-sac. Creation of the formal cul-de-sac will aide access for service and garbage vehicles.

 

·    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.

 

·    Overdevelopment of the site.

 

Comment:

The proposed development is considered to be compatible with the predominant scale of existing multi-unit housing development in the surrounding locality. A key element in the design of the proposed development is the continuation of the scale of the adjoining townhouse developments to the north and west of the site. The 2 storey scale of the proposal provides for a continuation of this character through a sympathetic building height and scale coupled with a modern building design.

 

·    Amenity impacts.

 

Comment:

It is acknowledged that the introduction of 20 new dwellings onto this site will result in a degree of increase in general noise, however this will always be the case with new infill development. No circumstances have been identified to indicate that this proposal would generate specific noise levels which would warrant refusal, or modification, of the proposal.

 

The proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable opportunities for overlooking of adjacent sites. Similarly overshadowing is limited, and will not materially reduce the amenity of affected allotments. Solar access to units and open space within the development is satisfactory.

 

Suitable provision has been made for the storage of waste and garbage and recycling bins on the site.

 

·    Inadequate car parking.

Comment:

Provision has been made for the required number of on-site car parking spaces for residents and visitors to the site.

 

·    Inconsistency with neighbourhood character.

 

Comment:

While the visual presentation of the area will alter as a consequence of the introduction of this development, the degree of change is not considered to adversely erode the presentation, visual amenity and character of the locality.

 

·    Insufficient public notification.

 

Comment:

The application was extensively notified beyond the requirements of Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006.

 

·    Impacts of basement excavation works on adjoining properties.

 

Comment:

Any consent would include conditions to manage construction impacts to minimize inconvenience and disturbance to the locality. The consent would also include conditions addressing the management of excavation and impacts on adjacent properties.

 

·    Impacts of site works on existing boundary fencing.

 

Comment:

This report recommends that boundary fencing details be provided on the revised landscape plan which the applicant will need to submit for approval. The cost of boundary fencing is to be met by the applicant.

 

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.

Waste Services Coordinator

No objection, subject to conditions.

 

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development. Multi-unit housing is 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

The following Section 94 contributions are applicable to the proposed development:

 

Contributions Plan

Contribution

Cultural Facilities

$4,368.00

Penrith City District Open Space Facilities

$53,810.00

Footpath Construction in the Established Residential Areas of the City

$3,108.00

Penrith City Local Open Space

$19,435.00

Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre

$5,250.00

Total Contributions

$85,971.00

 

It should be noted that consideration has been given to the applicant being required to fund or provide footpath construction on the eastern side of Jones Street from the development site, northwards to the intersection with Second Avenue. These works have been costed at a total of $41,760 based on a rate of $96 per lineal metre of 1.2m wide footpath (including tipping, excavation, formwork and concrete). The distance from the site (including the subject land) to Second Avenue is approximately 435m.

 

While the proposed development represents an increase and densification of population within the area, it is considered that the nature and scale of the development does not provide a sufficient nexus to impose on the applicant the abovementioned footpath works. The applicant will however be levied to pay to Council a $3,108 contribution (subject to indexation from 28 October 2009) under Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan for Footpath Construction in the Established Residential Areas of the City. This contribution is commensurate with the anticipated additional population expected from the development.

Conclusion

The revised development scheme for the site has resolved the solar access concerns which underpinned the refusal of DA07/0226. In addition, the following additional improvements have also been achieved:

 

·    Reconfiguration of the complex from 4 to 3 separate buildings. Block A, addressing Jones Street, remains unaltered in its orientation. However, all dwellings within Blocks B and C are now set across the site along a north-south alignment

·    Minor redesign of Block A to improve solar access, particularly those units along the southern side of that building

·    Alteration of pedestrian access onto and across the site through the introduction a linear pathway along the northern site boundary

·    Introduction of a second, communal, outdoor area of open space

·    The size of the first floor of Blocks B and C has been reduced through the loss of 1 bedroom in 4 of the units

·    The plan and elevations of the first floor of Blocks B and C have been modified

·    Amendments to the material of construction and design of the western elevation of Block A

·    Various changes to window sizes, design and placement

·    Alterations to the arrangements for the collection and disposal of stormwater run-off

 

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 DA09/0789 for a Multi-Unit Housing Development at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood be received.

2.     Development Application DA09/0789 for a Multi-Unit Housing Development at Lots 16 & 17 DP 38919 (No. 76 - 78) Jones Street, Kingswood be approved subject to the following conditions:

          Standard Conditions

2.1     A001          Approved plans

A008           Works to BCA requirements

A009           Residential works DCP

A011                    Engineering works DCP

A014                    Lot consolidation

A019                    Occupation Certificate

A038                    Lighting locations

A039                    Graffiti

A043                    Air conditioner

A046                    Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of                  works

C003                    Uncovering relics

D001          Implement approved sediment and erosion control          measures

D002          Spray grass

D005                    No filling without prior approval

D006                    Validation of fill material

D007                    Filling of land

D009                    Covering of waste storage area

D010                    Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D014                    Plant and equipment noise

E01A                    BCA compliance (Class 2-9)

E002                     BCA issues to be addressed

E006                     Disabled access and facilities

E009                     Annual fire safety

F006                     Water tank and nuisance

G002                    Section 73

G004                    Integral Energy

G005                    Rainwater tank plumbing

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

H011                    Engineering plans and specifications

H025                    Construction of garbage rooms

H033                    Clothes drying facilities

H036                    Rainwater tank

H037                    Safe supply of water from catchment

H038                    Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039                    Rainwater tank pumps

H041                    Hours of construction work

I003                      Roads Act approval

K001                    Engineering Construction Certificate

K002                    WAE drawings and certificates

K004                    Easement creation

K009                    On-site detention

K019                    Connection to Council’s system

K025                    Pavement seal

K027                    Car parking

K036                    Performance bond

K037                    Maintenance bond

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

N001                    Section 94 contributions (Cultural Facilities) - $4,638

N003                    Section 94 contributions (District Open Space) - $53,810

N004                    Section 94 contributions (Footpath Construction) - $3,108

N005                    Section 94 contributions (Local Open Space) - $19,435

N006                    Section 94 contributions (Neighbourhood Centre) -                           $5,250

P001                     Costs

P002                     Fees associated with Council land

Q001                    Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q006                    Occupation Certificate

Q010                    BASIX Certificate

Special Conditions

2.2     Under the Roads Act 1993 the following works are to be approved by Penrith City Council before the Construction Certificate for the development is issued. Plans and inspection fees are to be lodged with Penrith City Council for the following works in the road:

(a)       Provision of kerb and gutter, drainage, road pavement, vehicle crossover and layback along with any ancillary works for the provision of a cul-de-sac head in Jones Street. All utility services affected by the proposed works are to be relocated to the satisfaction of the relevant utility provider. Any additional driveway works required to provide access to existing properties in Jones Street shall be shown on the engineering plans. New driveway works shall match with existing. All works are to be undertaken at no cost to Council

Contact Penrith City Council’s Development Engineering Unit on (02) 4732 7777 to ascertain applicable fees

All works are to be designed and constructed in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, Part 2.3 Engineering Works, and the Guidelines for Engineering Works for Subdivisions and Developments, Part 1 – Design and Part 2 – Construction. The works are to be completed before an Occupation Certificate is issued for the development

2.3     A Construction Certificate for the provision of engineering works (on-site detention system) is to be approved by the certifying authority. Engineering design drawings are to be prepared strictly in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, Part 2.3 Engineering Works and the Guidelines for Engineering Works for Subdivisions and Developments, Part 1 – Design

2.4     Land at the end of Jones Street is to be dedicated to Council, at no cost to Council, to accommodate the cul-de-sac head and verge/footway area

2.5     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 a disability, aisle widths, parking bay grades and parking bay dimensions (allowing for full door opening) shall be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004 and Council’s requirements. Full details demonstrating compliance must be submitted with the Construction Certificate

2.6     Submission of evidence of registration of a drainage easement over adjacent Lot 72 DP 241989 is to be provided prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate

2.7     Submission of a revised landscape plan is to be provided, consistent with Part 2, Section 2.6 of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, and to the satisfaction of Council. The plan must also include notations identifying arrangements for the fencing of all boundaries of the site. This revised plan is to be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

2.8     Submission of an amended site design is to be provided which provides for an improved connection between the area of rear open space and the balance of the development. This may comprise alterations to Townhouse 12 to improve the visual and/or physical connection to this area, or otherwise improve communal access to this area. These plans are to be approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

2.9     All costs associated with construction of boundary fencing, as nominated on the approved landscape plan, shall be borne by the applicant

2.10   The bin storage enclosure shall have minimum internal dimensions of 6m wide x 2.8m deep. This modification shall be incorporated into the Construction Certificate plans for the development

2.11   The balconies of each first floor apartment in Block A shall have minimum areas of 10m2. This modification shall be incorporated into the Construction Certificate plans for the development

3.     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

2. View

Site Plan & Elevations

3 Pages

Appendix


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

Appendix 2 - Site Plan & Elevations

 

 

 



  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

11      Bus Network Review - Approval of New Roads for Bus Routes

 

12      Expressions of Interest Reference 03-09/10 for Construction of Penrith Commuter Carpark 

 

13      Floodplain Management Authorities 50th Anniversary Annual Conference - 23 February 2010 to 26 February 2010

 

URGENT

 

16      Bus Network Review - Approval of New Roads for Bus Routes (Item 9 - Report to Local Traffic Committee, 12/10/2009)

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

11

Bus Network Review - Approval of New Roads for Bus Routes   

 

Compiled by:                Michael Alderton, Road Network Services 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

Council has received advice from Comfort Delgro Cabcharge (Westbus) that following the Region 1 Bus Network Review they are proposing new bus routes on several streets in the Penrith Local Government Area that have previously not had a regular bus service, together with proposed new bus stop and bus zone locations. The report recommends that the proposed streets be endorsed for bus use and the new bus stops and bus zones be approved.

Background

In December 2008 NSW Transport and Infrastructure completed a preliminary review of the Region 1 proposed bus network that covers Penrith LGA.  This review was undertaken as a requirement of a new contract that NSW Transport and Infrastructure entered into with the NSW Government.  The review came out of the recommendations of the NSW Government’s Review of Bus Services, known as the Unsworth Review or Bus Reform.  Consultation was undertaken with the public and major stakeholders regarding the review and submissions closed on 8 December 2008.

 

Following the consultation period, NSW Transport and Infrastructure and Westbus considered all submissions and commenced further investigations into the locations of new bus stops and bus zones along the amended routes. Westbus representative has advised that the new bus network is proposed to commence on Sunday, 11 October 2009 to line up with the implementation of a new train timetable.

 

This report will be considered by the Local Traffic Committee at its Meeting on 12 October 2009. Due to the timing of Local Traffic Committee Meetings and Council’s Ordinary Meetings the report has also been included in Council’s Ordinary Meeting for consideration. Westbus has been advised that the first available meeting for Council to consider its request is 12 October 2009, one day after the proposed commencement date. It is understood that the NSW Transport and Infrastructure advised Westbus to commence the new services one day early without Council endorsement.

 

It should be noted that Council does not approve roads to be used as bus routes and only provides advice on the suitability of roads for buses.

 

 

 

 

Current Situation

 

Westbus has formally requested Council consider and endorse several streets in the Penrith Local Government Area for bus access. In addition Council has also been requested to approve new ‘bus stop’ and ‘bus zone’ locations. A site inspection was conducted on each street and new bus stop location to determine if the road widths, alignment and pavement were suitable for buses and if bus stops could be located in the positions proposed considering sight distance and road safety. A description of the proposed routes is set out in Table 1 and the proposed bus stops/zones in Table 2 

.

 

TABLE 1

Roads Proposed for New Bus Routes

 

Location

Westbus comment

Council Comment

Ridgetop Drive, Glenmore Park, between Kingsfield Avenue and Shearwater Drive.

 

Westbus already operates along part of Ridgetop Drive, and wish to now utilize this new section. Relocate route 798 to here from Glenmore Parkway.

Suitable for use. Subject to additional linemarking being provided at the 90 degree bend near house number 29

Thurwood Avenue, Jamisontown, full length.

 

Westbus has used this street some years ago, and wish to return service (anti-clockwise direction). Amend route 791.

Suitable for use

Glenbrook Street, Jamisontown, between Thurwood Avenue and Ikin Street. (southbound)

Amend route 791.

Suitable for use

Batt Street, South Penrith, eastbound between York Road and Racecourse Road.

Amend Route 794.

Suitable for use

Smith Street, South Penrith, eastbound between Racecourse Road and Evan Street.

Amend Route 794.

 

Suitable for use

York Road, South Penrith, between Ikin Street and Tukara Road.

 

Westbus currently operates in a westerly direction for route service and in both directions for school services, and wishes to apply for route services to operate in both directions through this section. Amend route 791.

Suitable for use

Tukara Road, South Penrith, between York Road and Fragar Road.

 

Westbus currently operates in a westerly direction for route service and in both directions for school services, and wishes to apply for route services to operate in both directions through this section. Amend route 791.

Suitable for use

Castle Road, Orchard Hills, between Kingswood Road and Ulm Road.

(limited service). Amend Route 781.

Three east bound and 1 westbound per day (effectively school buses)

Rural Road with narrow pavement width and steep crests. Westbus advised that “compared to some of the roads that we currently operate on, these two are not the worst.

Ulm Road, Orchard Hills, between Castle Road and Caddens Road.

(limited service). Amend route 781.

Rural Road with narrow pavement width and steep crests. Suggest another route.

Caddens Road, Claremont Meadows, between Ulm Road and Gipps Street.

Amend route 781.

Suitable for use

Caddens Road, Claremont Meadows, east of Gipps Street.

New service (limited).

 

Suitable for use

Greygums Road, Cranebrook, between McHenry Road and Laycock Street.

Westbus has operated along this section of road previously, and currently operate school services through here. Amend route 678.

Suitable for use

Laycock Street, Cranebrook, between Camelot Drive and Borrowdale Way.

 

Westbus has operated along this section of road previously, and currently operate school services through here. Amend route 673 and 678.

Suitable for use

Nepean Street, Cranebrook.

Amend route 673.

Suitable for use

Borrowdale Way, between The Northern Road and Pendock Road

School services currently and wish to return service.

Amend route 673.

Suitable for use

College Street, Cambridge Park, between Richmond Road and Cambridge Street.

Amend route 785.

Suitable for use

William Street, Cambridge Park, between Wrench Street and Francis Street.

Westbus operated through this section many years ago, and wish to return service. Amend route 785. 

Suitable for use

Victoria Street, (Kingswood to Werrington), between Heath Street and Burton Street.

Amend route 785.

 

Suitable for use

Burton Street, Werrington, between Heavey Street and Victoria Street.

Westbus operated through this section some years ago, and wish to return service. Amend route 785.

Suitable for use

John Oxley Avenue, Werrington, between Heavey Street and Charles Sturt Drive.

Westbus operated through this section some years ago, and wish to return service. Amend route 782.

Suitable for use

Dunheved Road, Werrington County, between John Oxley Avenue and Werrington Road.

Amend route 782.

Suitable for use

Brisbane Street, Oxley Park, between Perth Street and Melbourne Street.

Westbus operated through this section some years ago, and wish to return service. Amend route 770.

Suitable for use

Desborough Road, Colyton, between Bennett Road and Barr Street.

 

Westbus operates one way through this section, and wish to return two way service as existed a few years ago. Amend route 771.

Suitable for use

Barr Street, Colyton.

 

Westbus operates one way, and wishes to return two way service as existed a few years ago. Amend route 771.

Suitable for use

Shepherd Street, Colyton, between Barr Street and Hewitt Street .

Amend route 771.

 

Suitable for use

Hewitt St, Colyton, between Shepherd Street and Carpenter Street.

As per no. 24 above. Amend route 771.

 

Suitable for use

Hewitt Street, Colyton, between Carpenter Street and Roper Road.

Amend route 771.

 

Suitable for use

Solander Drive, St Clair.

 

Currently westbound only (apart from school services), Westbus wishes to operate a new route in both directions.

Amend route 773

Suitable for use

Cook Parade, St Clair, between Solander Drive and Blackwell Avenue.

 

Currently eastbound only (apart from schools), Westbus wishes to operate a new route in both directions. Amend route 773.

Suitable for use

Blackwell Avenue, St Clair.

 

Currently northbound only (apart from schools), Westbus wishes to operate a new route in both directions. Amend route 773.

Suitable for use

Endeavour Avenue, St Clair.

 

Currently westbound only (apart from schools), Westbus wishes to operate a new route in both directions.

Amend route 773.

Suitable for use

Coonawarra Drive, St Clair, between Bennett Road and Colorado Drive.

Amend route 773.

 

Suitable for use

Lenore Drive, Erskine Park, between Erskine Park Road and John Morphett Road

New route (industrial area).

Suitable for use

James Erskine Drive, Erskine Park

(Industrial Area). New route

Suitable for use

 

 

TABLE 2

Proposed New Bus Stop & Bus Zone Locations

 

Location

Resident Comment

Council Comment

Ridgetop Drive, Glenmore Park

Opposite 27 (reserve area).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Outside 25 (next to walkway).

Resident objects citing loss of parking, however no alternative due to road geometry.

Suitable for use. Confirmed no other suitable location.

Opposite 66/68 (reserve area).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

On vacant land at 58.

No Comments

Suitable for use

At the side boundary of 2 Coronet Terrace and 1 Parakeet Drive.

1 Parakeet Drive has no objection except does not want a bus shelter.

Suitable for use. Bus shelters not being considered at this stage.

Opposite side of 2 Coronet Terrace.

Owner of building lots has not responded.

Suitable for use

Opposite side of 70 Waterford Way. (Reserve area).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Opposite Sandstone Avenue (walkway and reserve area).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Opposite 136 (reserve area).

No objections or submissions received

Relocated from 146 due to road alignment and bend constraints

Suitable for use

Thurston Street, Jamisontown

Outside 15.

Resident has no objection and there is an old bus stop sign on the ELP already.

Suitable for use

Jamison Town Public School

Convert part time Bus Zone at school into full time Bus Zone. No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Glenbrook Street, Jamisontown

Outside the Children’s Centre (near the Centre’s signboard, south of Ransley Street.

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

York Road, South Penrith

The border of 96 and 98.

The residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

Outside 122.

The resident has objected (directly to Council) on grounds of traffic safety.

Do not install due to residents objections and proximity to other bus stops

At the side of 34 Price Street.

The resident has no objection apart from not wanting a bus shelter.

Suitable for use. Bus shelters not being considered at this stage.

At the border of 168/170.

The resident has no objection.

Suitable for use

At the border of 174/176.

Both residents have objected, citing loss of parking and security issues.

Do not install due to residents objections and proximity to other bus stops

Tukara Road, South Penrith

At the border of 91/89.

89 has not responded, and 91 has objected citing traffic safety and security issues.

Suitable for use. Move proposed bus stop closer to 89 to minimise impact on 91

Outside 73.

No response received

Suitable for use

At the border of 53/51.

No responses received from these residents.

Suitable for use

At the side of 47 Bayley Road.

No response received.

Suitable for use

Fragar Road, South Penrith

In vacant land at 181.

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

15m south of Samuel Foster Drive (reserve area opposite Caroline Chisholm school).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Evan Street, South Penrith

Outside 192.

Residents of 190 to 194 have not responded.

Suitable for use

Opposite155 in reserve area.

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Smith Street, South Penrith

Opposite Greenhills Avenue (reserve area).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Batt Street, South Penrith

Opposite Parsons Avenue and also opposite Loombah Avenue (both are reserve areas).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Racecourse Road.

Opposite 66 (reserve area).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Greygums Road, Cranebrook

Reinstate at 24b.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Reinstate at 23.

Resident has no objection.

Suitable for use

Reinstate at side of 1 Antonia Crescent.

Resident has no objection to proposal.

Suitable for use

At border of 6/8.

Residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

Nepean Street, Cranebrook

Both sides at 20.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Camelot Crescent, Cranebrook

Beside 34 Cascade Road, reinstate beside no. 97 Laycock Street.

Residents have not responded.

 

Suitable for use

Laycock Street, Cranebrook

Reinstate in front of 71.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Braddock Public School

Convert part time bus zone in front of Braddock Public School to a full time bus zone.

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

New bus zone beside Community Health Centre (south of Borrowdale Way).

No objections or submissions received

Suitable for use

Reinstate in vacant land opposite Borrowdale Way.

Doctor to the north complained previously in regards to sight issues with his customers exiting the property.

Suitable for use. Buses will stop for a short time and have a minor impact.

Reinstate at side of 12 Islington Street.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Reinstate at border of 10/12.

12 has not responded. Husband at 10 has no objection but wife thinks traffic safety is an issue).

Suitable for use

Borrowdale Rd, Cranebrook

Reinstate in front of 5, and at side of 2 Seaton Crescent.

Residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

Copeland St, Kingswood

Domenic’s College.

Both sides.

Convert part time bus zones to full time bus zones on both sides at St Domenic’s College.

Suitable for use

North side and just west of Phillip Street, in reserve (no parking area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

South side and opposite 19 (beside cemetery).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Cambridge Street, Cambridge Park

Beside 78 College Street.

Resident has not responded.

This location has been deferred subject to further investigation.

The resident contacted Council by phone on 1/10/09 and objected on the grounds of loss of parking, anti social behaviour and their dogs will bark and others will make complaints about that.

Beside 76 College Street.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

William Street, Cambridge Park

Outside 24/26.

All residents from 32 to 20 have objected on various grounds including loss of parking and added noise.

Suitable for use. Westbus have looked for alternate positions however all residents have objected. This stop is needed due to proximity of other stops.

Opposite 26 in the reserve area.

Residents have confirmed a bus stop here previously.

Suitable for use

At the side of 53 Francis Street.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Outside 52.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Victoria Street, Cambridge Park

Reinstate at the border of 115/113.

115 has not responded, however 113 objects to loss of parking (one space would be retained).

Suitable for use. One space retained.

Reinstate at the border of 100/102

Residents are elderlie and have requested the stop here.

Suitable for use

Opposite 81 (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Opposite 74/76 (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Opposite Park Avenue (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

South side and east of Park Avenue (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Opposite William Street (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

North side and west of William Street.

No Comments

Suitable for use

Burton Street, Werrington

Reinstate at border of 73 & side of 31 Impala Avenue.

Residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

Reinstate at 70.

Resident has no objection.

Suitable for use

Reinstate at side of 60 Heavey Street.

Residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

John Oxley Avenue, Werrington

Reinstate opposite 57 (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Reinstate at border of 55/53.

Residents have no objection.

Suitable for use

Reinstate at 58

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Reinstate opposite Prince Street (reserve area). 

No Comments

Suitable for use

Reinstate opposite 57 (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Reinstate at border of 55/53.

Residents have no objection.

Suitable for use

Dunheved Road, Werrington County

Both sides near Henry Lawson Dr (east end).

No Comments

Do not install due to safety issues with pedestrians crossing Dunheved Road

Brisbane Street, Oxley Park

At the border of 7/9.

Residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

Outside 8.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Barr Street, Colyton

At side of 6 Shields Road.

Previously beside 5, however resident has objected citing graffiti on fence.

Suitable for use

Shepherd Street, Colyton

Reinstate at 71.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Hewitt Street, Colyton

Reinstate at 41.

No Comments

Suitable for use

Opposite 15

No Comments

Suitable for use

Roper Road, Colyton

West side & 30m north of Francis Street (outside hotel carpark).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Coonawarra Drive, St Clair

At the border of 36/38.

Residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

Outside 27.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Endeavour Avenue, St Clair

At the side of no. 1 Moore Street.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

St Clair High School

Bus Zone opposite St Clair High School (reserve area).

Suitable for use

Reinstate at the border of 43.

No Comments

Suitable for use

Blackwell Avenue, St Clair

Outside 38.

Resident has no objection but no bus shelter.

Suitable for use. Bus shelters not being considered at this time.

Convert part time bus zone at school into full time bus zone.

No Comments

Suitable for use

Cook Parade, St Clair

Opposite 114 (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

At the side of 1 Pine Creek Circuit.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Outside 60.

Resident at 60 has no objection (no bus shelter).Resident of 62 cites noise & loss of parking, however 8mts of parking would remain, and a bus stop location are restricted near here due to road geometry (curve).

Westbus investigated relocation to beside1 Eucumbene Place and resident objected due to anti social behaviour. Westbus preference is outside 60.  Suitable for use.

Opposite 48 (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

Opposite 24 (Reserve area (Community Centre).

No Comments

Suitable for use

At the side of 34 Aldan Place.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use. Tree trimming required

Solander Drive, St Clair

At the side of 20 Avon Place.

Resident has not responded.

Suitable for use

Opposite 36 (reserve area).

No Comments

Suitable for use

At the border of 71/69.

Residents have not responded.

Suitable for use

Mamre Road,  St Clair

Both sides 80m south of Banks Drive.

No Comments

Suitable for use

 

Conclusion

 

NSW Transport and Infrastructure have advised that the new bus network will provide a fast, frequent and direct service to major centres whilst maintaining links to employment, educational and recreational facilities. It is recommended that the new roads to be used as bus routes as listed in Table 1 be endorsed and the new bus stops and bus zones listed in Table 2 be approved.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Bus Network Review - Approval of New Roads for Bus Routes be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

12

Expressions of Interest Reference 03-09/10 for Construction of Penrith Commuter Carpark    

 

Compiled by:                Craig Ross, Major Projects Manager

Mal Ackerman, Supply Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Craig Ross, Major Projects 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

This report seeks approval from an Expressions of Interest tender of a short list of preferred contactors to submit further proposals for a Selective Tender for the construction of a decked carpark on the north side of Penrith Station.

 

Twenty six submissions were received from the call for Expressions of Interest.  Following the initial review of the submissions a large number of respondents did not progress in the evaluation as they did not meet the mandatory criteria.  The remaining submissions have been assessed and the following contractors are recommended for approval for the second round of tendering.

 

·    ADCO Constructions Pty Limited

·    Arenco (NSW) Pty Limited

·    Baulderstone Pty Ltd

·    Buildcorp Pty Limited

·    Hindmarsh Constructions Australia Pty Ltd

·    Lipman Pty Ltd

·    Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Limited

·    St Hilliers Contracting Pty Ltd

 

All of the recommended contractors demonstrated a superior level of compliance and have been assessed as having the capability and necessary experience and qualifications to carry out the proposed works.

Background

Council has received a grant of $5m from the Federal government through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (part of the Federal Stimulus Package) towards the construction of a 1,000 space decked commuter carpark on the north side of Penrith Station.  The State government has also committed $5m towards the project as matching funds. 

 

The carpark site is on Department of Defence land, which is surplus to their requirements, and is in the process of being sold to Landcom to develop the site for mixed uses.  Conditions on the sale of the land will provide the remainder of the funds for the carpark. 

 

The Federal grant has a condition that the construction of the carpark must commence by 15 December 2009, which is a very tight timeframe.  To achieve the deadline, the designs and approval for the carpark have been expedited.

 

The awarding of a tender for the construction cannot occur until the balance of the funding for the carpark is secured and this is dependent on the sale of the site to Landcom.  At the time of writing this report, the sale is still being negotiated.

 

To expedite the tender process, the tendering has been arranged as two stages.  Expressions of Interest have been called to select a shortlist of suitably qualified and experienced contractors.  This is the subject of this report.

 

From the shortlisted contractors, submissions on pricing and workforce makeup will be called for a Selective Tender, once the funding is resolved.  By having a two stage process, the time for the quality, experience and financial checks can occur ahead of the Selective Tender process.

Current Situation

Expressions of Interest was advertised in the Penrith Press, Sydney Morning Herald and placed on the e tendering web site on 11th August 2009 and closed on 1st September 2009.

 

Prospective Contractors were required to submit their tender on a standard pro-forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria.

 

A condition of the funding for the proposed project requires the appointed contractor to satisfy the Australian Government Building and Construction OH&S Accreditation Scheme and have the relevant certification.

 

Due to the tender process being conducted in two stages (Expressions of Interest then a Selective Tender) the following mandatory requirement was specified in the EOI documents:

 

Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme is a mandatory requirement respondents should demonstrate compliance to this requirement or provide written evidence that their application for accreditation has been lodged and is currently under review and will in all possibility become accredited during the tender process and prior to commencement of Construction.

Tender Evaluation

A Tender Evaluation Panel has been formed to evaluate the submissions and a Tender Advisory Group established to audit and review the selection process.

 

The Advisory Group has the Group Manager ~Infrastructure, Group Manager ~Legal and Governance and the Acting Executive Officer.

 

The Evaluation Panel involved Craig Ross (Major Projects Manager), Brett Richardson (Financial Accountant) and Robert Paluzzano (Capital Projects Coordinator).  Mal Ackerman (Supply Coordinator) provided administrative assistance as well as overseeing the evaluation process.

Evaluation Process

The process of evaluating all valid responses included the following;

·    Compliance with the Mandatory requirements

·    Capability assessment based on the tender evaluation criteria

·    Risk assessment including referee checks & financial assessment

Evaluation Criteria

Prior to the advertising of the tender, evaluation criteria and weightings were established by the Evaluation Panel.  Criteria considered relevant to the selection process and specified in the Expressions of Interest document included:

 

Mandatory Criteria

·    OH&S Accreditation

·    Conflict of Interest statement

·    Insurance

·    Compliance to the EOI conditions and Contract conditions

 

Demonstrated Capability

·    Experience

·    Capability & Capacity 

·    Qualifications & Resources

·    Sub-Contractor Selection Process

 

Management and Administration Criteria

·    Occupational Health & Safety and Public Liability Management

·    Company Resources and Personnel

·    Industrial Relations

·    Quality Assurance System

·    Environmental Management System

Summary of Responses Received

A total of twenty six submissions were received from the following contractors:

·    ADCO Constructions P/L

·    Hindmarsh Construction Australia P/L

·    Arenco (NSW) P/L

·    Hooker Cockram Projects NSW P/L

·    Austruc Constructions Ltd

·    Lipman P/L

·    Bauen Constructions P/L

·    Mainbrace Constructions P/L

·    Baulderstone P/L

·    Nace Civil Engineering P/L

·    Billbergia P/L

·    National Buildplan Group P/L

·    Brisland P/L

·    Rapid Construction P/L

·    Broad Construction Services (NSW/VIC) P/L

·    Richard Crookes Constructions P/L

·    Buildcorp P/L

·    St Hilliers Contracting P/L

·    Built NSW P/L

·    Taylor Construction Group P/L

·    C&M Construction Group

·    The Reed Group P/L

·    Denham Constructions P/L

·    Watpac Construction NSW P/L

·    FAL Developments

·    Zadro Constructions P/L

Mandatory OH&S Accreditation

Although all other mandatory criteria were met, the following respondents did not have the mandatory Federal accreditation and were therefore excluded from the capability evaluation.

 

·    Austruc Constructions Ltd

·    Bauen Constructions Pty Ltd

·    Billbergia Pty Ltd.

·    Built NSW Pty Ltd

·    C&M Construction Group

·    Denham Constructions Pty Ltd

·    FAL Developments

·    Mainbrace Constructions Pty Ltd

·    National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd

·    Rapid Construction Pty Ltd

·    Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd

 

Taylor Construction Group Pty Ltd indicated in their submission that their application for accreditation was in process and provided the necessary evidence in support of this.  As a result they were included in the capability assessment along with all other remaining companies, subject to confirmation of accreditation prior to any final tender awarding (if successful).

 

Denham Constructions, in their submission, indicated that they were in the process of obtaining their accreditation, however, subsequently withdrew their proposal as they felt that the accreditation approval would not be received in the necessary timeframe.

 

FAL Developments indicated they were in the process of attaining accreditation, however, upon further checks it was determined that the accreditation only related to Quality Assurance not OH&S.

Initial Capability Assessment

The response received from Nace Civil Engineering Pty Ltd contained a limited amount of information.  An initial review of their submission was undertaken however, their project experience in this type of construction was limited and they could not demonstrate their capability in similar projects.  On this basis the Evaluation Panel determined that they would not consider their submission beyond this point.

 

The remaining fourteen submissions were assessed against the evaluation criteria based on their written submissions.

 

Respondents were then ranked according to their overall capability, each of the evaluation criteria were scored against the submissions and the weightings applied to the final scores.

 

There were a large number of quality submissions and this was reflected in the overall scores.  The Evaluation Panel considered that only those respondents who achieved a capability score greater than 95 should be selected for further evaluation including financial checks and reference checks.

 

This resulted in the following eleven companies being further considered in the evaluation process:

 

·    ADCO Constructions P/L

·    Arenco (NSW) P/L

·    Baulderstone P/L

·    Brisland P/L

·    Broad Construction Services (NSW/VIC) P/L

·    Buildcorp P/l

·    Hindmarsh Constructions Australia P/L

·    Hooker Cockram Projects NSW P/L

·    Lipman P/L

·    Richard Crookes Constructions P/L

·    St Hilliers Contracting P/L

Financial and Referee Checks

A separate report to the Committee of the Whole contains information on the financial and referee checks.

Recommended Shortlist

Following this analysis it was determined by the Evaluation Panel that the following respondents offered the best potential outcome for the Selective Tender process.

 

·    ADCO Constructions Pty Limited

·    Arenco (NSW) Pty Limited

·    Baulderstone Pty Ltd

·    Buildcorp Pty Limited

·    Hindmarsh Constructions Australia Pty Ltd

·    Lipman Pty Ltd

·    Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Limited

·    St Hilliers Contracting Pty Ltd

Tender Advisory Group

The Tender Advisory Group has reviewed the Tender Report and is of the opinion that the methodologies, assessment and recommendations made were sound.

Profile of Preferred Respondents

ADCO Constructions Pty Limited

 

They are based in North Sydney NSW and have been established since 1972, as well as a number of major private clients they have performed similar projects for NSW State Government.  The Company expanded into Victoria and Queensland during the 1980’s.  They have completed a number of major projects in excess of $50m  Recent projects include Bond University Library, Windsor Police Station and Knox Grammar School.  They are currently a best practice contractor with the NSW Department of Commerce.

 

 

 

Arenco (NSW) Pty Limited

 

They are based in Silverwater NSW and have been operating since 1998.  They operate primarily as an infrastructure, building and construction company, projects range through bridge construction, railway station upgrades, cycle ways, and commercial and community buildings.  They are part of the Daracon Group of Companies current projects include a $26m upgrade for Southern Sydney Freight Line and a $9m upgrade of Lindfield Railway Station.

 

Baulderstone Pty Ltd

 

They are based in North Ryde NSW and are a long established Construction Company and a leader in the major development of major bridge works.  In 1985 Baulderstone Pty Ltd merged with MR Hornibrook Ltd and project operations were expanded overseas.  They have completed a number of major projects including correctional facilities, galleries, museums, hospitals and healthcare facilities.  Current projects include the new Digital Media Grad School for University of Wollongong ($14m) and Macquarie Uni Private Hospital ($145m).

 

Buildcorp Pty Limited

 

They are based in Camperdown NSW and were established in 1990.  They have built a reputation as an outstanding supplier of construction services.  Their capability extends to a wide range of projects between $5m and $30m and has performed major works for client such as DHL, Macquarie Goodman and Hornsby Council.  Current projects include a Master Clinic for St Vincent’s and Mater Health ($18m) and a new Brain and Mind Institute for the University of Sydney ($13m).

 

Hindmarsh Constructions Australia Pty Ltd

They are based in ACT and although only recently incorporated in August 2007 they have been established since 1979.  A major portion of their work to date has been performed in ACT and NSW undertaking projects in a number of sectors including commercial, government, education and leisure.  Current projects include Canberra Hospital Carpark for ACT Health ($43m) and John Curtin School of medical research ($60m).

 

Lipman Pty Ltd

They are based in North Sydney and were established in 1978.  They operate as a building/construction contractor undertaking new construction, refurbishment and fit outs in commercial, and industrial, education, health and high density residential projects.  Current projects include University of Western Sydney student accommodation ($23m) and Upgrade works for Queenwood School for girls ($15m).

 

Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Limited

 

They are based in Naremburn NSW and were established in June 1976.  In June 2006 Newcastle based Stronach Constructions was acquired by the Richard Crookes Group.  They operate as a building contractor undertaking projects in commercial, industrial, retail, residential, education, health, community justice and aged care sectors.  Current projects include new defence facilities for Australian Department of Defence ($60m) and new hospital construction for Balranald Area Health ($12m).

 

 

St Hilliers Contracting Pty Ltd

 

They are based in Sydney NSW and were established in 1999.  They operate as a building contractor undertaking projects in commercial, industrial, retail, residential, education, and health, retirement and heritage sectors.  They have significant experience in new construction, fit out, refurbishment and heritage restoration works.  Current Projects include Merrylands Shopping Centre including car park($92m) and Artarmon Shopping Centre ($71m).

Selective Tender Process

Following Council’s endorsement of a shortlist of contractors and the resolution of the balance of funding (land sale), the listed contactors will be engaged to submit proposals for the Selective Tender process.  The selection criteria for this process will include price, local content of sub-contractors, trainees and indigenous workers.  Referee checks will be conducted and depending on the timing, further financial checks might also be required.

 

A report will then be submitted to Council seeking approval to appoint the preferred contractor for the project.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     the information contained in the report on Expressions of Interest Reference 03-09/10 for Construction of Penrith Commuter Carpark be received.

2.     The following contractors be invited to submit proposals for the Selective Tender for the Penrith Commuter Carpark construction:  ADCO Constructions Pty Limited, Arenco (NSW) Pty Limited, Baulderstone Pty Ltd, Buildcorp Pty Limited, Hindmarsh Constructions Australia Pty Ltd, Lipman Pty Ltd, Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Limited & St Hilliers Contracting Pty Ltd.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

12 October 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

13

Floodplain Management Authorities 50th Anniversary Annual Conference - 23 February 2010 to 26 February 2010   

 

Compiled by:                Craig Ross, Major Projects Manager

Authorised by:             Craig Ross, Major Projects 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 50th Anniversary NSW Floodplain Management Authorities (FMA) Conference, to be held in Gosford from 23 February 2010 to 26 February 2010, and to authorise the attendance of Council’s delegates.  The report recommends that Council nominate delegates to attend the 2010 FMA Conference.

 

(Generated from “Floodplain & Drainage Engineering” Service in the 2009-2010 Operating Plan.)

Background

The NSW Floodplain Management Authorities has as its objectives:

·     Support the primary objective of the State Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy, namely to reduce the impact of flooding and flood liability on individual owners and occupiers and to reduce private and public losses from flooding;

·     Press for optimum financial assistance by State and Federal Government to Flood Mitigation Authorities to implement the Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy;

·     Provide a forum for exchange of information and ideas related to flood mitigation;

·     Foster good relationships and effective liaison between the Authorities and Government departments.

 

To support these objectives, the authorities hold a conference annually.

Current Situation

The 50th Anniversary Annual Floodplain Management Authorities Conference (NSW) is to be held in Gosford from Tuesday 23 February 2010 to Friday 26 February 2010.

 

The theme of this conference is “2060 – what will your flood legacy be?”.  Council’s voting delegates are Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM (Mayor), and Councillor Jackie Greenow, however at past conferences other available Councillors have attended.

 

There is a pre-conference workshop planned to precede the Conference, however full details are not yet available from the Conference organisers.  (These workshops are usually held on the day before the Conference.)

 

The pre-conference workshops are a recent innovation which have been offered for the past four years, and have proved to be very informative.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Floodplain Management Authorities 50th Anniversary Annual Conference - 23 February 2010 to 26 February 2010 be received.

2.     Council nominate delegates to the 2010 Floodplain Management Authorities Conference and Workshop, to be held at Gosford from 23 February 2010 to 26 February 2010.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

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

 

14      Penrith Recycled Water Project Stage 2

 

15      Development Application DA 09/746 Proposed Alteration and DA 09/0746 Additions to Existing Bulky Goods Retail Centre at Lot 10 & 11 DP 1046110 (No.13 -25) Pattys Place, Jamisontown - Supacentre Applicant: Pipven Pty Ltd: Owner: Pipven Pty Ltd.

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

 

16      Bus Network Review - Approval of New Roads for Bus Routes (Item 9 - Report to Local Traffic Committee, 12/10/2009)

 

 



Ordinary Meeting - Urgent Report

12 October 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

14

Penrith Recycled Water Project Stage 2   

 

Compiled by:                Anthony Price, Environmental Health Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Graham Liehr, Environmental Health Manager   

Strategic Objective: Our natural habitats are healthy

Strategic Direction: The City’s catchments are healthy

     

 

Executive Summary

Council has been actively lobbying the State Government and working with Sydney Water to deliver a recycled water scheme in Penrith for some years. Alternative and more sustainable water supplies are needed, particularly when potable water supplies are limited during times of drought, and the cost of water is increasing. Recycled water has been identified as a feasible alternative source for irrigation, toilet flushing and some industrial applications.

 

Council has already implemented Stage 1 of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme with the implementation of the Hickeys Lane irrigation system in 1995 and its extension in 2006. Potential customers were also identified at this time flagging a possible expanded scheme (i.e. Stage 2, see Appendix No. 1 – coloured copies will be provided to Councillors under separate cover).

 

In August last year Senator, The Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water advised Council regarding the Australian Government’s commitment to provide funding of up to $2.7 million for the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme under the “Water for the Future – National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns”. To secure the funding Council is required to prepare and submit a business case for the proposal. The Federal Government has also requested that a formal resolution of Council, indicating support for the project, be provided with Penrith’s submission for the funding.

 

GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) was engaged in May this year to prepare an updated feasibility study and preliminary design documentation for Stage 2 of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme. Stage 2 of the scheme primarily involves sites south of the Penrith Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) branching off Castlereagh Road and down as far as Jamison Park. GHD has significant experience with these types of schemes and understands Sydney Water’s requirements. The GHD study and preliminary design documentation indicates that the scheme is feasible and will present a number of environmental and economic benefits over the long term.

 

The proposed Stage 2 expansion of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme offers an opportunity for cost effective water recycling in a local context. For a capital investment in the order of $2,450,000 the scheme could offer up to 135 million litres per annum of potable water savings; and up to 200 million litres per annum reduction in extractions from the Nepean River and effluent discharges from Penrith STP to the Nepean River.

 

The report recommends Council support the Grant submission to the Federal Government to secure the funding.


 

Background

Council has been actively lobbying the State Government and working with Sydney Water to deliver a recycled water scheme in Penrith for some years. Alternative and more sustainable water supplies are needed, particularly when potable water supplies are limited during times of drought, and the cost of water is increasing. Recycled water has been identified as a feasible alternative source for irrigation, toilet flushing and some industrial applications.

 

Extensive investigation and planning work has already occurred for the development of a local recycled water scheme (Stage 1). This work lead to the implementation of the Hickeys Lane irrigation system and the identification of potential customers for a possible expanded scheme (i.e. Stage 2).

 

The Hickey’s Lane irrigation system was implemented in 1995 and provides recycled water sourced from Penrith Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) to adjacent rugby league playing fields. This part of the scheme was extended in 2006 to provide irrigation water to three additional Council facilities, Nepean Rugby Park, Andrews Road baseball complex and the Greygums Oval AFL fields (all to the north of Penrith STP).

 

Council has vigorously lobbied Sydney Water for many years to have the Stage 2 recycled water scheme advanced, unfortunately without success, despite Australia Water Technologies (a Sydney Water Company) preparing the first feasibility study in June 2001 and Sydney Water preparing an updated feasibility study in July 2005.

 

Council adopted in 2005 the Water Conservation and Water Quality Action Plan as a major sustainable Penrith initiative. That plan identified the significant opportunity for waste water to be used as a resource in place of potable water. The plan incorporates specific actions to investigate opportunities for waste water recycling and pursuing Sydney Water’s expansion of the Hickeys Lane scheme through Penrith.

 

In August last year Senator, The Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water advised Council regarding the Australian Government’s commitment to provide funding of up to $2.7 million for the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme under the “Water for the Future – National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns”. To secure the funding Council is required to prepare and submit a business case for the proposal. The proposal needs to be submitted within a 2-3 days of this Ordinary Meeting. The Federal Government has also requested that a formal resolution of Council, indicating support for the project, be provided with Penrith’s submission for the funding.

 

To assist in the submission GHD Pty Ltd was engaged in May this year to prepare an updated feasibility study and preliminary design documentation for Stage 2 of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme. Stage 2 of the project primarily involves sites south of the Penrith STP branching off Castlereagh Road and down as far as Jamison Park. GHD has significant experience with these types of schemes and understands Sydney Water’s requirements. The following provides Council with details from the recent GHD feasibility study, which will form the basis of a submission to the Federal Government.

 

Penrith Recycled Water Scheme (Stage 2) – Feasibility Study

This feasibility study provides an assessment of a potential expansion of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme. It includes comment on regulatory requirements, water quality, guidelines and potential customers, and has been prepared in conjunction with a preliminary design to allow an indicative estimate of costs. This study includes discussion on benefits, future expansion, potential health and environmental impacts and concludes with a statement of measurable outcomes.

 

The information with which this feasibility study has been prepared is preliminary in nature, and therefore the design, cost estimates and discussions provided in this feasibility study are preliminary only. Additional design and costing of the scheme (e.g. a design report) will be developed to confirm the scheme cost if funding is secured.

 

The organisations listed in the table below have been consulted and are potential customers for Stage 2 of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme. The table also lists the intended uses, average demand and the existing source that could be replaced by recycled water.

 

Table 1. Potential Customers

 

 

 

 

Annual Cost

Organisation

Intended Uses

Average Demand(1)

Existing Source

Potable Water @ $1.87/kL

Recycled Water @ $1.496/kL

Owen-Illinois Sydney

Glass batching

Chute wetting

Cooling towers

300 kL/day

Potable water

 

 

Western Suburbs Concrete

Concrete batching

8 kL/ day

Potable water

 

 

Civic Centre

Irrigation (grounds)

41 kL/ day

Potable water

 

 

Woodriff Gardens

Irrigation (gardens)

5 kL/ day

Nil

$3,426

$2,741

Panthers

Irrigation (golf course)

Toilet flushing

Cooling towers

420 kL/ day

River water (irrigation)

Potable water (other)

 

 

Penrith Paceway

Irrigation (track and grounds)

30 kL/ day

River water

 

 

CUA Stadium

Irrigation (playing field)

60 kL/ day

River water

 

 

Penrith Panthers Training Ground

Irrigation (playing field)

10 kL/ day

River water

 

 

Howell Oval

Irrigation (playing field)

25 kL/ day

River water

$17,063

$13,651

Jamison Park

Irrigation (playing fields)

110 kL/ day

River water

$75,080

$60,064

(1) Preliminary estimate

 

Possible Future Demand

The study has identified the likely demand for recycled water in future residential developments at the Penrith Lakes and St Marys Release Area to the northwest and northeast of Penrith STP. Although, it is envisaged that residential growth areas to the north of the STP would be serviced by separate reticulation. In addition to these future demands, there are large areas of existing industrial and commercial developments that contain a number of potential recycled water customers. These could potentially be serviced by the Stage 2 infrastructure described in this report or a future Stage 3 of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme.

 

Recycled Water Quality

Sydney Water has monitored the quality of recycled water supplied to Stage 1 of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme, according to the requirements of a Recycled Water Management Plan prepared in March 2007. Recycled water is sampled from the point of supply at Penrith STP. This water quality data provided by Sydney Water has been reviewed with consideration of the uses proposed by the potential Stage 2 customers.

 

Based on this preliminary assessment, the recycled water quality achieved by Penrith STP should be suitable to be used in the applications proposed by the potential Stage 2 customers in a safe and sustainable manner. However, this will need to be confirmed through a formal risk assessment process. It is likely that any additional treatment requirements will be limited to the provision of Ultra Violet (UV) disinfection. If salinity levels are too high for a particular application, such as concrete batching or cooling tower water replenishment, then that use may need to be withdrawn from the scheme as the additional treatment requirements would likely prove too costly. These issues will be resolved with further review and dialogue with Sydney Water.

 

Preliminary Design - Stage 2

The Stage 2 preliminary design includes the following elements:

 

·    Recycled Water Source: Recycled water is to be sourced from the Penrith STP, which processes an average dry weather flow of approximately 31 ML/d. The treatment processes at Penrith STP include chemical phosphorus removal, tertiary filtration and chlorine disinfection.

·    Penrith STP Works: A dedicated pump set and some pipework would need to be installed for Stage 2.

·    Reticulation Sizing and Future Expansion: The reticulation system has been sized to allow for limited future expansion by including a small amount of spare capacity in the reticulation system.

·    Supply of Average Demand and Decentralised Storage: The recycled water scheme would have capacity to supply the potential customers at the rate of their average demand. Top-up using river, bore or potable water would be required to meet demands during peak periods. Customers would need to utilise their own onsite storage. These storages would be of sufficient size to draw down during use periods and be refilled slowly by a reasonably constant supply of recycled water. Most customers have existing storage tanks that could be used for recycled water.

 

The preliminary design was developed using WaterGEMS hydraulic modelling software. The software allowed the calculation of pump duty for the pressure pump set and confirmation that residual pressure would be sufficient at each customer’s supply point.

The reticulation layout was developed to minimise pipe lengths and the costs and difficulties associated with rail and road crossings. There were no significant social, environmental or sustainability implications identified in this preliminary stage. These aspects would need to be reviewed in future design stages.

 

The adopted layout is shown in that attachment to this report and includes approximately 7km of pipe. This preliminary layout would need to be confirmed in future detail design phases of the project. It is likely that key issues will relate to the rail crossing and the location of other services. If the pedestrian underpass is not suitable, it is likely that at least one lane of Castlereagh Road would need to be closed for the period of construction in the vehicle underpass.

 

The physical distribution to customers resulted in the reticulation system comprising of a rising main along Castlereagh and Mulgoa Roads, between the STP entry and Jamison Road, with separate branches from this rising main to each customer.

 

Cost Estimate

An indicative capital cost estimate has been prepared, based on the preliminary design described above and GHD’s in-house estimating references. The total cost of the project (excluding GST) is estimated at $2,450,000 and includes the following:

 

·    Scope Contingency: This item includes design development (additional costs identified during detailed design) and an allowance for design changes (additional costs relating to departures from the preliminary design described in this feasibility study).

·    Planning and Design: This item includes the preparation of a design report and Review of Environmental Factors.

·    Site Establishment and Disestablishment, Contractors Margin: These items would be included in a contractor’s tendered price for the construction of the scheme.

·    Council Project Management and Administration: This item includes the ongoing work conducted by Council throughout the development and implementation of the scheme.

·    Supply and construct reticulation system and flow controls

·    Supply and install recycled water pumps, electrical, control and instrumentation systems and modifications to pump station pipework

·    Horizontal directional drilling for 6 road crossings

·    Additional costs for rail crossing

·    Civic Centre and Woodriff Gardens storage tanks and irrigation pumps

 

Operating costs should be limited to power and maintenance for the recycled water pumps. Pipeline maintenance costs should be minimal. As part of the final design all of the existing irrigation system will be reviewed and upgraded as required.

 

Recycled Water Cost

Negotiations have commenced with Sydney Water to establish the cost of the recycled water. The final costing of the recycled water will be determined as part of the final design.

 

Financial Services Comment

The implementation of the recycled water scheme and connection of the three proposed Council sites to this scheme will incur an annual cost estimated at $76,456.  Sydney Water charge recycled water at 80% of the potable water charge.  Given Council’s commitment to the project and the grant funding for the infrastructure it is anticipated that this could be further reduced.  By example the current charge for recycled water at Hickeys Lane is 50% of the potable water rate and if this discount rate is achieved for this project the estimated annual cost will be reduced to $47,785.

Currently Council is irrigating these sites through extraction of river water from the Nepean River which does not currently incur a usage charge.

 

Scheme Benefits

The proposed Stage 2 Penrith Recycled Water Scheme offers an opportunity to utilise relatively low cost recycled water in applications that offer benefits in terms of potable water savings and improved social and environmental outcomes. The benefits associated with the scheme and the potential for future expansion are as follows:

 

·    Potable Water Savings: Information provided by potential Stage 2 customers identified that the scheme has a potential to reduce potable water consumption by 135 million litres per annum.

·    Improved River Health: The Nepean River will benefit from reduced effluent discharges from Penrith STP and reduced extractions by local irrigators. This will reduce the contaminant load on the river and help facilitate any future strategy to amend the licensing system for river extractions.

·    Community Awareness: The use of recycled water in prominent facilities and high use public areas will provide a means to educate the community about water conservation and recycling, and demonstrate the commitment by Federal Government and Penrith City Council to reduce potable water consumption and improve environmental health.

·    Improve Public Facilities: The scheme will offer a secure supply of water for irrigating a number of public playing fields, allowing them to be maintained at a level that achieves maximum availability and improved safety for the community users. In addition, the availability of irrigation water for Woodriff Gardens will allow the facility to be restored to a state that will draw visitors and again be used by the community.

·    Cost Effective Recycled Water: The scheme will promote the cost effective use of recycled water. Maximising local reuse will reduce the overall long term costs associated with water and sewage services.

·    Water Security: The Office of the Hawkesbury Nepean have recently indicated that all water extraction licenses will in the future be required to be metered and that the cost of water drawn from the River will rise. The recycled scheme will ensure that groups who are drawing water from the River will have a long-term sustainable water supply, particularly in periods of drought and low River flows where suppliers are likely to be more restricted.

Assessment of Impacts on Public Health and the Environment

A detailed project assessment will be required under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in the form of a Review of Environmental Factors (or possibly an Environmental Impact Statement). However, the following details have been provided as a preliminary assessment of the public health and environmental issues associated with the project.

 

The primary risk to public health from the proposed expansion of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme will relate to human contact with pathogenic organisms. The review of recycled water quality supplied to Stage 1 of the scheme indicates that this risk has been adequately addressed by maintaining the current levels of treatment, potentially including a UV disinfection system and implementing scheme controls to prevent misuse of the recycled water.

 

Industrial customers will be required to conduct formal risk assessments to determine the adequacy of the recycled water for their intended uses, additional treatment requirements, controls required for risk mitigation and any changes to procedures or facilities necessary to enable the utilisation of recycled water. This process would need to occur during the next phase of design, after funding has been approved.

 

There have been no significant environmental impacts identified for the construction or operation of Stage 2 of the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme. Standard construction and spoil management procedures should provide adequate environmental protection during the construction phase of the project. Standard contract management practices should also be employed to ensure that all contractors prepare and apply environmental management systems for the works.

 

Other Issues

Irrigating with recycled water could potentially impact on soil conditions. End users will need to undertake soil capability assessments at the irrigation sites to confirm suitability, and then implement an ongoing monitoring program to identify any deterioration. The experience from the Stage 1 scheme suggests that the recycled water is suited to the local soils.

 

The recycled water could have a negative impact on aquatic systems if discharged directly to surface water bodies, due to the levels of residual chlorine maintained to minimise health impacts. While there is no direct discharge to waterways planned to occur, controls will need to be in place to ensure that the system is well maintained and operated to prevent ongoing leaks and large discharges resulting from overflows and system failures. End users will be responsible for maintenance of their storage tanks to prevent overflows and managing irrigation so that surface runoff is avoided.

 

The carbon footprint of the scheme is likely to be small and will be limited to the small amount of energy required for pumping.

Next Steps

The following are identified as the next key steps to advance the recycled scheme:

 

·    Secure funding grant.

·    Further detailed studies and design finalisation are required prior to commencing the project. The GHD feasibility study including preliminary design documentation has been prepared to meet submission requirements to the Federal Government to secure funding.

·    Continue dialogue with Sydney Water to establish the cost of the recycled water, the long-term management and maintenance arrangements for the system and approval of final detailed design.

·    Finalisation of customer commitments to participate in the recycled scheme.

·    Finalisation of project plan to ensure financial viability and final project feasibility.

·    Finalise documentation and call tenders.

·    Assessment of tenders and award contract.

·    Construction phase.

 

The indicative timeframe for these steps would see the funding commitments, final designs and preparation of tender documentation being completed by the end of April 2010. Tenders would be anticipated to be called in July 2010, with a contract being awarded and construction occurring up to January 2011 when the scheme would be expected to be commissioned.

 

It is relevant to note that whilst the GHD investigations have indicated initial project feasibility sufficient to formalise a submission to the Federal Government to secure grant funding, there remains a number of key steps, as outlined above, which continue to build the project plan. Through this process there are a number of important review points where we will ensure that the project feasibility remains on track, before any significant draw down of federal funding should the grant be secured.

Conclusion

Council has exercised significant leadership in previously endorsing its Water Conservation and Water Quality Action Plan 2005 for the City and its resolve to expand the existing Penrith recycled water scheme. That has seen extensive lobbying of State Government and particularly Sydney Water over many years to have the recycled water scheme established, however, the necessary infrastructure to enable the delivery the scheme has not been advanced to date.

 

The proposed water recycled scheme is a significant sustainability initiative and holds positive benefits in relation to a more efficient use of water resources which will over time be subject to increasing demands and potentially more restrictive to access. Council therefore has the opportunity to lead by example in advancing the expansion of the existing recycled water scheme in Penrith as a demonstration of its commitment to sustainable long-term water resource management.

 

The water recycling scheme will reduce potable water use and provide alternatives to the drawing of irrigation water from the Nepean River, which over time is expected to be the subject of closer agency monitoring and increasing supply costs. Reducing reliance on drawing water from the Nepean River also has substantial environmental benefits for the River system, particularly in ensuring adequate environmental flows during dry periods.

 

The proposed expansion of the Penrith recycled water scheme therefore offers an exciting opportunity for cost effective water recycling in a local context. For a capital investment in the order of $2,700,000 the scheme can yield up to 135 million litres per annum of potable water savings; and up to 200 million litres per annum reduction in extractions from the Nepean River and effluent discharges from Penrith STP to the Nepean River.

 

It is regrettable that Sydney Water has not provided final costing for the supply of the recycled water prior to Council’s need to submit the grant proposal in the deadline required to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.   Negotiations are continuing with Sydney Water for these costs and also for the ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure.

 

For these reasons, it is recommended that Council support the submission of the Penrith Recycled Water Project – Stage 2 proposal to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to secure the opportunity for grant funding of up to $2.7M.

 

Should Council be successful in securing this funding opportunity, a further report will be brought back to Council following the completion of the investigation phase and prior to the calling of tenders to advise on the final project feasibility and the process for implementing the scheme.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Recycled Water Project Stage 2 be received.

2.     Council support the submission of the Penrith Recycled Water Project – Stage 2 proposal to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to secure funding of up to $2.7M.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Recycled Water Scheme Stage 2 Layout

1 Page

Appendix