7 May 2010

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 10 May 2010 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.?????????? LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.?????????? APOLOGIES

 

3.?????????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 29 March 2010.

 

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.?????????? DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

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

 

10.???????? CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 10 May 2010

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


2010 MEETING CALENDAR

February 2010 - December 2010

(adopted by Council on 9/11/09 and amended by Council on 19/4/10)

 

 

 

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 Meeting

7.30pm

1

 

 

3v

 

19

16#

6?

11?

8#

13

(7.00pm)

22#

22

19

24#

21*

 

 

27^

(7.00pm)

 

29

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

15

8

 

10

 

 

9

13@

 

15

 

 

29@

 

 

28

12

30

 

18

 

 

Operational Plan Public Forum

 

6.00pm

 

 

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

Meeting at which the Draft Operational Plan for 2010/2011 is adopted for exhibition

*

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2010/2011 is adopted

#

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

@

Delivery Program progress reports

^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

?

Meeting at which the 2009/2010 Annual Statements are presented

?

Meeting at which any comments on the 2009/2010 Annual Statements are presented

-                 Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-                 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 Acting Executive Officer, Glenn Schuil.

 

 

?



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON MONDAY 29 MARCH 2010 AT 7:30PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Greg Davies (at 7.32 pm), Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

?

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

?

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 8 March 2010

PRC 10? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 8 March 2010 be confirmed.

?

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

?

There were no declarations of interests.

 

Councillor Greg Davies arrived at the meeting, the time being 7.32 pm.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A VIBRANT CITY

 

8               Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report and Board of? ???????? Directors

The Chairperson of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd (PPVA), Peter Anderson AM gave a brief overview of the performance of PPVA during the financial year and introduced the CEO of the PPVA John Kirkman who gave a presentation that highlighted the performances of the various divisions of the PPVA. The Chief Financial Officer of the PPVA, John Reed gave a presentation about the financial position of the PPVA.

?????????

PRC 11 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded? Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.??? The information contained in the report on Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

 

 

2.?? Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd Annual Report for 2009/2010.

 

 

a liveable city

 

7               City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - ???????? Annual Report and Board of Directors

Councillor Greg Davies introduced the report and introduced Erik Henricksen, General Manager of the Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd who gave a presentation.

PRC 12? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2.???? Council agree to underwrite the operations of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd until the presentation to the Council of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd Annual Report for 2009/2010.

3.???? A report be brought to a Policy Review Meeting that reviews the cash handling and security arrangements at all of the Council?s entities.

 

 

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8.50 pm.

 

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8.51 pm.

 

A Leading City

 

4               National Growth Areas Alliance - Status Report

The Council?s Director Craig Butler gave a presentation to the report.

PRC 13? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Robert Ardill

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on National Growth Areas Alliance - Status Report be received.

2.???? Council write to and brief local Members of Parliament about the outcomes NGAA is seeking and request their support.

 

 

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 9.05 pm.

 

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9.08 pm.

 

1??????? Proposed Amendments to Infrastructure Restoration Fees????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 14? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded by Councillor Kaylene Allison

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Proposed Amendments to Infrastructure Restoration Fees be received.

2.???? The proposed changes to the Infrastructure Restoration Fees be included in the Draft 2010-11 Fees and Charges for consideration.

 

 

2??????? Delivery Program 2009-2013 - Progress Report to December 2009???????????????????????????????

A MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Greg Davies seconded John Thain

????????? That:

????????? 1.?????? That the information contained in the report on Delivery Program 2009-??????????????? 2013 - Progress Report to December 2009 be received.

????????? 2.?????? An urgent report be brought to the next full meeting of Council addressing ?? ????????? the following questions arising from the front page article that appeared in ????????????? the Penrith Press on 26 March 2010:

 

i)                    Who arranged the interview for the article and why?

ii)                   Was there any liaison with Council media officers prior to the interview?

iii)                 Are the statements attributed to the Mayor correct?

iv)                 Has the Mayor been privy to private briefings re the budget that other Councillors have not?

v)                  Are the comments ?Pools are at great risk? and ?We have to start opening later and closing earlier? correct?

vi)                 If so why, was that not raised at the recent budget briefing?

vii)               Has the confidentiality of the Councillor budget briefing been compromised?

viii)              What action is to be taken to rectify the situation and to alleviate the fears generated in the eyes of the staff and the community?

PRC? 15? An AMENDMENT was MOVED by Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Robert Ardill that the information contained in the report on Delivery Program 2009-2013 ? Progress Report to December 2009 be received.

 

The Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM then PUT the AMENDMENT.

The AMENDMENT was CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was also CARRIED.

Councillor John Thain called for a DIVISION.

 

For

Against

 

Councillor Mark Davies????????????????????

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

Councillor John Thain

Councillor Jackie Greenow

Councillor Prue Guillaume

Councillor Robert Ardill????????????????????

Councillor Kaylene Allison

Councillor Marko Malkoc

Councillor Kath Presdee

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

Councillor Karen McKeown

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

??????????????????

 

3??????? Revised Code of Meeting Practice???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 16? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Robert Ardill seconded Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Revised Code of Meeting Practice be received.

2.???? The Draft Code of Meeting Practice be placed on Public Exhibition for a period of 28 days.

 

 

5               2010 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions

Councillor Greg Davies advised that the Council had previously raised a matter that was to be included as a Motion to the ALGA and this matter should be included within the Motions forwarded by the Council. Councillor Greg Davies also suggested that a Motion be included about exploring the Very Fast Train to Canberra.

PRC 17?? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Tanya Davies that the information contained in the report on 2010 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions be received.

 

 

6??????? International Links Program 2010?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 18? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Tanya Davies

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on International Links Program 2010 be received.

 

2.???? The offer for the Mayor, a nominated Council officer and an interpreter to attend the International Sister City Community Construction Seminar in June 2010 in Xicheng District be accepted and that Council meet the difference of $2,098 between economy and premium economy airfares.

 

3.      A delegation comprising the Mayor, a Councillor nominated by the Council and two Council officers nominated by the General Manager visit the City?s international partners in Asia during October / November 2010 to participate in a range of initiatives occurring at that time.

 

4.      A? further report be presented? to the next Council Meeting regarding the composition of the delegation referred to in Recommendation 3 taking into account the business and cultural components of the visit.

 

?

A Green City

 

9??????? Nomination for the Office of Hawkesbury Nepean??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 19? A MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Nomination for the Office of Hawkesbury Nepean be received.

2.???? Councillor John Thain be nominated for the Stakeholder Committee and recommended to Council.

 

An AMENDMENT was MOVED by Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM be nominated for the Stakeholder Committee and recommended to Council.

The AMENDMENT was PUT.

 

The AMENDMENT was LOST.

 

The MOTION was PUT.

 

The MOTION was CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was also CARRIED.

?

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9.34 pm.

????


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? Waterside Estate - Acoustic Buffer

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

?

A City of Opportunities

 

2??????? Penrith Valley Community Fund

 

3??????? Paid Maternity Leave

?

A Green City

 

4??????? Accreditation of Council's Building Surveyors with the Building Professionals Board

?

URGENT

 

7??????? Part 3a Major Project Proposed Orchard Hills Waste and Resource Facility at Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane Orchard Hills. Applicant and Owner Dellara Pty Ltd

?

A Liveable City

 

5??????? Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy

 

6??????? Managing Requests to Waive or Subsidise Hire Fees for Council Managed Neighourhood Facilities

??

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? Waterside Estate - Acoustic Buffer

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

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Waterside Estate - Acoustic Buffer???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:???????????? Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager ??

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

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 8 March 2010, Council:

1.?? Considered and endorsed the construction of ?acoustic terrace housing? along the southern boundary of the Waterside residential estate as an acoustic buffer alternative to development within the employment zone; and

2.?? Resolved to amend the Waterside section of Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2008 to include ?acoustic terrace housing? as an alternative acoustic buffer to development within the employment zone.

Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2008 deals with the employment component of the estate only.

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 deals with the residential component of the estate and also needs to be amended to include this acoustic option.?

The report recommends that Council simultaneously amend Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 and Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2008 to include this acoustic option.

Background

Waterside is a new urban area located between Penrith Lakes and Cranebrook, currently being developed by Stockland. The estate comprises a residential area on the northern part of the site and an employment area (Waterside Corporate) fronting the northern side of Andrews Road.? Residential development commenced at Waterside in 2006 and has accelerated over recent months.

Development within the employment zone fronting Andrews Road was originally envisaged to provide the required acoustic buffer for housing on the southern part of the residential estate from noise generated by industrial development on the southern side of Andrews Road. For a number of reasons, employment development of the required height and scale has not and is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

Development of the residential estate has reached the stage that a delay in constructing the necessary acoustic buffer will impact the timely and continued delivery of housing within the estate. An alternative mechanism, referred to as ?acoustic terrace housing? has been developed by Stockland in consultation with industry representatives (O-I Australia & Crane Metals) and Council staff.? Development within the employment zone will not be necessary to buffer industrial noise and provide the required acoustic environment within the residential estate.? Nonetheless, it will make a positive contribution to the aural and visual amenity of the locality.

At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 8 March 2010, Council considered and endorsed the construction of ?acoustic terrace housing? along the southern boundary of the residential estate as an acoustic buffer alternative to development within the employment zone. Council resolved to amend the Waterside section of Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2008 to include the ?acoustic terrace housing? option.

Implementation

Council is preparing a single Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan for City. This initiative is being undertaken in a 2 stage process. Stage 1 deals with rural and employment lands, St Marys Town Centre and heritage matters. Stage 2 deals with residential land, local centres, special precincts such as Riverlink and the new urban areas in the City.

It was recommended and Council resolved at its meeting of 8 March 2010 to amend the Waterside section of Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2008 (Stage 1) to include this acoustic option. This DCP deals with the employment component of the estate only. The residential component of the estate is controlled by Penrith DCP 2006 which also needs to be amended to incorporate this acoustic option.?

 

Stockland advise that two key areas of review are required;

1.)? Master Plan:

The agreed acoustic strategy implies a departure from the current masterplan as illustrated in the DCP.? This results from the need to amend street alignment and lot layout in stages 5 to 9 to reflect the delivery strategy endorsed by the Acoustic report.? The amendments follow the same planning principles to ensure the legibility, connectivity and community structure of the plan is retained.

2.)? Dwelling Mix and Yield:

In stages 1 to 4 Stockland has marginally increased the dwelling yield (+21 lots) and broadened the housing mix by adjusting the distribution of lot types throughout the estate.? Stockland has demonstrated that diversity in dwelling type and choice are equally important to community building and maintaining sales in a shallow and weak real estate market.?

Notwithstanding improvements to lot mix, Stockland contend that time and market conditions have proven that delivery of multi-level apartment units over basement parking is not feasible on this site in today?s market conditions.? Although they do not wish to preclude this outcome indefinitely, Stockland cannot see a future for this development type in the short or medium term.? Consequently, the Masterplan in the DCP needs to be amended to allow for the ?acoustic terrace? housing and reflect the resultant adjustment to the dwelling yield that is envisaged in the endorsed acoustic strategy.

The ?acoustic terrace housing?, essentially noise attenuated terraces or townhouses, will be constructed in lieu of the 2 and 3 storey residential flat buildings originally envisaged for this part of the estate. Their construction will reduce the total number of dwellings in the estate from 684 to 584.

Conclusion

At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 8 March 2010, Council considered and endorsed the construction of ?acoustic terrace housing? along the southern boundary of the residential estate as an alternative acoustic buffer to development within the employment zone.

Construction of the ?acoustic terrace housing? will reduce the total number of dwellings within the estate, however it will not detract from the diversity of housing and is required for the continued delivery of the estate.

Whilst Council has already resolved to amend the Waterside section of Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2008 to include acoustic terrace housing as an option for providing the required acoustic buffer to industrial noise, it is also necessary to amend Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 to reflect this endorsed acoustic mechanism and the resultant adjustment to dwelling yield.

 

It is appropriate that Council pass a resolution to simultaneously amend both of these Plans.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Waterside Estate - Acoustic Buffer be received

2.???? Council simultaneously amend the Waterside section of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 and Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2008 to include acoustic terrace housing as an option for providing the required acoustic buffer to industrial noise.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

2??????? Penrith Valley Community Fund

 

3??????? Paid Maternity Leave

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

2

Penrith Valley Community Fund???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Vesna Kapetanovic, Community Projects Officer?

Authorised by:???????????? Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager ?

Requested By:???????????? Councillor Greg Davies

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

?

Presenters:?????????????????? Douglas Taylor - United Way - Richard Eastmead - Penrith Valley Community Fund??????

 

Executive Summary

United Way is an international community based organisation that coordinates and supports collaborative and inclusive community efforts to build capacity and mobilise resources to support positive, long term social change in local communities.

In 2008, United Way Sydney established the Penrith Valley Fund to distribute community funding that is being raised through local donations for community projects and organisations.

The Penrith Valley Fund is supported by various partners, including United Way Sydney, the Penrith Press, Richard Eastmead Penrith Good Guys Proprietor and the Penrith Chamber of Commerce. Penrith City Council was also invited to participate and the Community and Cultural Development Department Manager or his nominee sits on the Fund Steering Committee. Since 2009 there has also been a community services representative from a local community organisation on the committee. These representatives form the Steering Committee that provides local advice and input to decision making processes to distribute funds.

The Penrith Valley Fund was officially launched in October 2008. The Fund was successful in raising over $10,000 locally and the Committee is currently aiming to increase donations and raise the profile of the Penrith Valley Fund.

Doug Taylor and Richard Eastmead will be giving a presentation on the Penrith Valley Fund to this Policy Review Committee Meeting. Doug Taylor will provide some background and history on United Way, particularly in relation to the Penrith Valley Fund. Richard Eastmead will briefly present on the importance of local business involvement in the Penrith Valley Fund.

The report recommends that the information be received.

Background

United Way is a not for profit community organisation that was established in the US over 120 years ago and through significant growth, is now present in 47 countries across a global network. United Way has been operational in Australia for over 50 years and during this period, 10 United Way organisations have been established, one in each capital city and in various regional communities.? United Way Australia is the peak body for the United Way network in Australia.

United Way is a non-denominational organisation with no political affiliations. United Way is accredited by the Australian Taxation Office as a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) organisation.

A Board of Directors guide and oversee the direction of United Way Sydney. The Directors are volunteers from a diverse range of backgrounds, particularly from the commercial and management sectors.

The Role of United Way

United Way has significant expertise in linking corporate, philanthropic and the community sectors to work together to contribute to positive social outcomes. The organisation raises funding for community projects and gathers resources by means of various programs and strategies through their Corporate Community Involvement Programs. This includes the ?Workplace Giving? program which is based on organising pre-tax staff donations (or staff payroll deductions) to a fund. The ?Corporate Connect Volunteering? program focuses on managing groups of volunteers who are supporting community projects and the ?Seeing is Believing? program coordinates educational visits to and from community organisations to raise social awareness.

The Penrith Valley Fund

The Penrith Valley Fund was initiated by United Way in 2008 and has provided valuable financial support to local community organisations. The fund represents a partnership between United Way and local stakeholders including the Penrith Press, the community and local business, particularly the key involvement of Richard Eastmead from Penrith Good Guys

The fund is locally managed by a steering committee of representatives from the Penrith Press, local business including the Penrith Chamber of Commerce and the community. The existing 3 community representatives are from the United Way, the local community sector and Council (currently Council?s Community and Cultural Development Department Manager or his nominee attend committee meetings).

In addition to providing local input into decision making processes regarding the allocation of funding, the role of the committee also includes raising the profile of the Penrith Valley Fund, organising community events and raising funds where possible.

Council?s principal involvement in the Penrith Valley Fund to date has been to provide advice to decision making processes regarding the allocation of funding, as well as links to key local community organisations.

United Way provides the governance framework and the auspice for the Penrith Valley Fund. The United Way Sydney Board of Directors is responsible for approving and ratifying the recommendations made by the Penrith Valley Fund Committee for funding. Administration support is provided by the United Way to the Penrith Valley Fund and in the foreseeable future, a 10% service fee will be charged from all funds raised unless costs are covered by alternative means. Currently administrative costs are met by United Way.

Penrith Valley Fund Outcomes for 2009

The Penrith Valley Fund was formally launched on 28th October 2009 at the Penrith RSL. The two successful recipients of the 2009 funding round were presented with cheques at the launch. Fusion St Marys and the Penrith Community Kitchen were each presented with $5000 to support their services in the assistance they provide to local people experiencing disadvantage.

Conclusion

United Way Sydney is a non-denominational community based organisation without political affiliations that is experienced in linking corporate, philanthropic and the community sectors to work together to contribute to positive social outcomes.? United Way Sydney in partnership with the Penrith Press, the Penrith Good Guys and Penrith Chamber of Commerce has established the Penrith Valley Fund. This Fund is locally managed by a steering committee comprised of the above organisations. Council was also invited to participate and the Community and Cultural Development Department Manager or his nominee sits on the Fund Steering Committee. Since 2009 there has also been a community services representative from a local community organisation on the committee.

The Penrith Valley Fund was successfully launched on 28th October 2009. $10,000 was distributed to successful recipients of the fund.

The Fund Steering Committee is currently aiming to raise the profile of the Penrith Valley Fund and working to secure further donors and donations to the Fund.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Community Fund be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

3

Paid Maternity Leave???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Marnie Mitchell, Human Resources Co-ordinator

Authorised by:???????????? Linden Barnett, Group Manager - Workforce & Workplace??

Strategic Objective: We have access to what we need

Strategic Direction: Our workforce culture embraces safety, equity, diversity, flexibility, learning and innovation

???????

 

Executive Summary

Council currently provides 9 weeks paid maternity leave and 1 week paid supporting parent leave from the employees sick leave balance, for eligible employees. Employees may also be eligible for 3 days short leave under Council?s Leave and Entitlements Policy.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown has requested that Council provide a report in consideration of providing 18 weeks paid maternity leave and 2 weeks paid parental leave for Council staff.

 

This matter was brought forward as part of Council?s budget considerations for 2010-2011 at the Councillor Briefing meeting 12 April 2010.

 

The research undertaken indicates that across the Local Government industry the majority of NSW Councils and Shires provide for the Award standard of 9 weeks paid maternity leave and 1 week paid supporting parent leave from the employees sick leave balance.

?

This paper summarises research undertaken with regard to paid maternity leave and provides recommendations for the provision of paid maternity leave.

 

Background

 

At its Ordinary Meeting in December 2000 Council endorsed a proposal by Councillor Greg Davies that paid maternity leave for staff be adopted. Following a period of research and consultation, Council adopted the Pregnancy and Parental Leave Policy effective 1 October 2001. This policy addressed contemporary issues and provided benefits for staff comparable with similar policies in other state public sector organisations. Significantly, staff were provided with 9 weeks paid maternity leave.

 

Penrith Council were proud to be the first Council to provide this benefit to staff. In November 2001 the new Local Government State Award adopted the payment of 9 weeks maternity leave as a standard provision for local government employees. These provisions currently still apply to Council staff.

 

Paid Maternity Leave Forums

 

There have been a number of forums over the preceding 18 months that have raised the prospect of increasing paid maternity and paternity leave provisions for local government employees.

???? Local Government Delegates at the Local Government Association Annual Conference held in Broken Hill on the 25 October 2008, resolved to support the provision of 18 weeks paid maternity leave and 2 weeks paid paternity leave, as a standard condition for all NSW Local Government employees.

 

???? Local Government Delegates at the Australian Local Government Women?s Association (ALGWA) NSW also resolved to support the provision of 18 weeks paid maternity leave and 2 weeks paid paternity leave, as a standard condition for all NSW Local Government employees.

 

???? Delegates at the Shires Association of NSW Conference held 1-3 June 2009 did not support an increase to the existing provisions.

 

Local Government Industry Paid Maternity Leave Standard

 

The Local Government and Shires Association held a HR Group Meeting on 17 June 2009. The meeting was attended by HR professionals from 48 Councils. A short informal discussion was held regarding the Councils? current practice or intent to provide maternity and/or paternity leave provisions in excess of those currently provided for within the Local Government State Award 2007.

 

Seven Councils indicated that they were providing, or were intending to provide, provisions greater than the Award. The remaining 41 Councils indicated that they did not intend to provide entitlements greater than current Award provisions. There was no discussion as to whether or not they would support an increase to provisions within the 2010 Award, which is yet to be negotiated.

 

Parental Leave Research????

 

Table A, at the end of this document, provides details on nominated Councils and other State/Federal Public Service Organisations, which have been researched with regard to parental leave provisions.

 

Summary of Organisation Research (Table A)

 

Councils

Ryde City Council

Leichhardt Municipal Council

Gosford City Council

Wyong City Council

Marrickville Council

Port Stephens Council

City of Sydney

Burwood Council

Hawkesbury Shire Council

Lake Macquarie Council

Blacktown City Council

Mosman Municipal Council

Newcastle City Council

Hills Shire Council

Orange Council

 

 

State/Federal organisations

Macquarie University

University of Western Sydney

NSW State Public Service

Commonwealth Public Service

Department of Education

 

 

Maternity Leave

 

It has been confirmed that at the time the research was undertaken, 10 Councils provided paid maternity leave entitlements above the Award standard.

 

Parental Leave

 

It has been confirmed that at the time the research was undertaken, 7 Councils provided paid supporting parent leave entitlements above the Award standard.

 

Federal and State Public Sector Policies

 

Federal

The standard paid maternity leave provision for Commonwealth Public Servants is 12 weeks.

 

State

The State Public Sector provides for 14 weeks paid maternity leave and 1 week paid other parent leave.

 

Penrith City Council statistics relating to maternity leave

 

???? Average of 20 women per year take maternity leave

???? 60% of women taking maternity leave are from child care

???? Average weekly wage of women taking maternity leave is $800

???? 70% of women who have taken maternity leave over the last 5 years are still with Council

???? Women work on average 6.7 years before taking maternity leave

???? Of the 80 women who took maternity leave over the last 4 years, 17 didn?t return to work. Fifteen (15) of these women that did not return were from Children?s Services.

 

Federal Government Paid Parental Leave Scheme (PPL)

 

The Productivity Commission Inquiry Report - Paid Parental Leave: Support for Parents with Newborn Children, makes a recommendation for the introduction of a national paid maternity leave scheme of 18 weeks at the adult federal minimum wage of $543.78. This document is some five hundred pages in length, however, the key objectives of this initiative include:

 

???? Generating child and maternal health and welfare benefits by increasing the time parents take away from work. This is estimated to increase the capacity of more families to provide exclusive parental care to between 6 and 9 months (an overall increase of 10 weeks leave).

 

???? Promote social goals that having a child and taking time out for family reasons, is viewed by the community as part of the usual course of work and life for parents in the paid workforce.

 

???? Counter some of the incentives against working posed by the tax and welfare system ? potentially contributing around six months of net additional employment for the average woman over her lifetime.

 

???? Increase retention rates for business, with reduced training and recruitment costs

 

The report focuses on workforce participation rather than workplace participation. Therefore, information regarding workplace retention is not addressed with detail in the report although it is recognised that this may be an incidental beneficial effect.

 

In reviewing the reports trends in parental leave, it was noted that of mothers in paid work prior to child birth, 57 percent had returned to paid work within 12 months. As previously stated the focus of the report is on workforce participation and does not define whether these women returned to their previous employer.

 

However, if we compare the reports data that 57 % of women returned to the workforce within 12 months, with Council?s retention figures of around 70% returning within 12 months, it could be concluded that paid maternity leave was a contributing factor to retention rates within our organisation.

 

Further information analysing whether or not retention rates would increase with a higher level of employer funded paid maternity leave is not available.

 

In addition, other features of the Federal Governments Paid Parental Leave Scheme include:

 

???? Income tested at $150,000 pa for the primary care giver

???? Persons may elect to receive the Baby Bonus or PPL

???? Persons who receive PPL will not receive the Baby Bonus or Family Payment Part A

???? A person may be financially better off to receive the Baby Bonus instead of PPL

???? The estimated net benefit of receiving PPL instead of the Baby Bonus and Family Payment Part A will be a maximum of $2000.00.

 

It should also be noted that recent media reports indicate that the Federal Government and Federal Opposition have differing views regarding the benefits and application of a national paid parental leave scheme. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the scheme will be implemented with the benefits that are currently proposed.

 

Obligations to provide flexible return to work provisions

 

The Local Government State Award was varied in 2007 to provide significant changes with regard to maternity and parental leave. The key provisions are summarised as follows:

 

???? An eligible employee may request in writing an extension of the period of unpaid parental leave by a further 12 months giving the employee a total period of 104 weeks (2 years).? This provision was previously 52 weeks.?

 

???? Eligible employees may also take periods of annual leave and long service leave during unpaid maternity leave at half pay, provided that the total period of all leave does not exceed 104 weeks.? This represents an extension of time from 12 months to 2 years.

 

???? An employee, other than a casual, may request to return from a period of parental leave, on a part-time basis, until the child reaches school age, to assist the employee in reconciling work and family responsibilities.

 

With regard to the employee?s right to request an extension of parental leave or part-time work arrangements, Council must take into account the employee?s circumstances and provided that they believe the request is based on the employees parental responsibilities, Council may only deny the request based on:

 

???????????? Cost

???????????? Lack of adequate replacement staff

???????????? Loss of efficiency or impact on customer service

 

The reasons for denying the request must be reasonable in all circumstances and must be conveyed to the employee in writing.

 

???? An employee may request the council to extend the period of unpaid simultaneous parental leave up to eight weeks.

 

???? Council must take reasonable steps to communicate with employees who are on parental leave that a definite decision has been made to introduce significant change at the workplace that will affect the employee?s position and allow the employee the opportunity to discuss the matter. The employee is required to inform the council of any change to the parental leave or whether the employee wishes to return on a part time basis.

 

???? Council must not fail to re-engage a casual employee (who has been engaged on a regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months) because the employee or employee?s spouse is pregnant or because the employee is or has been on parental leave.

 

???? An employee who is a supporting parent shall be entitled to up to five days paid leave taken from their accrued sick leave balance at the time their partner gives birth to a child or at the time the employee adopts a child provided that the employee has had 12 months continuous service with council immediately prior to the commencement of their supporting parent leave.

 

Council Flexible Working Options

 

Council is able to demonstrate the application of a range of flexible working options that have been provided to women returning from maternity leave. These have included various combinations of permanent part-time work, working from home, fulltime hours condensed over reduced days, and phasing in return to work with hours gradually increasing from part-time to fulltime. Council is taking steps to formalise a consistent return to work from maternity leave approach that provides equitable access to flexible working opportunities and support for breastfeeding in the workplace for all staff across the organisation.

 

In this regard, the Crown Employees (Public Service Conditions of Employment) Award 2009, was varied on 28 April 2010, to provide paid lactation breaks for staff members that are lactating mothers. This new provision is to be included in Council?s Breastfeeding in the Workplace Statement of Support, in recognition of Council?s commitment to providing flexible working options for women returning from maternity leave. The key provisions are as follows:

 

 

???? Breastfeeding breaks will apply to staff members who are lactating mothers. A break will be provided for breastfeeding, expressing milk or other activity necessary to the act of breastfeeding or expressing milk and is in addition to any other rest period or meal break provided for under the terms and conditions of employment.

 

???? A full-time or part-time staff member working more than 4 hours per day is entitled to a maximum of two paid breastfeeding breaks of up to 30 minutes each per day.

 

???? A part-time staff member working less than 4 hours per day is entitled to only one paid breastfeeding break of up to 30 minutes on any day so worked.

 

???? A flexible approach to breastfeeding breaks can be taken by mutual agreement between a staff member and their manager provided the total breastfeeding break time is not exceeded. When giving consideration to any such requests for flexibility, a manager needs to balance the operational requirements of the organisation with the breastfeeding needs of the staff member. It may be necessary for a staff member, with agreement from their manager, to access Council?s Flexible Working Hours Policy in order to supplement the paid breastfeeding breaks if required.

 

???? Many of Council?s employees work in work locations other than the Civic Centre and there will be circumstances where some staff requests cannot be accommodated. This will be because of day-to-day operational constraints or the lack of availability of a suitable room. There may also be issues of Occupational Health and Safety or other relevant legislation if a baby is brought into the workplace. Again, this will be a matter for negotiation between each staff member and their manager.

 

The Cost of Staff Attrition

 

The availability and flexibility of leave provisions is an important part of Council?s strategy to retain staff. The measurable cost of employing a new staff member is approximately $7,500.00 which consists of recruitment and compulsory training components.

 

However, consideration must also be given to the potential loss of corporate knowledge, given that the average length of service for a female employee taking maternity leave is 6.7 years. The value of this knowledge is difficult to measure, but may be significant depending on the role and level of seniority of the position.

 

Next Steps

 

In 2001 Council deferred to the state public sector provisions in determining an appropriate paid maternity leave provision for women, being 9 weeks. Since that time the state public service has increased its provision to 14 weeks. Therefore, as a first step, Council should seek to increase the current provision from 9 weeks to 14 weeks paid maternity leave, to recognise similar benefits to those offered by the larger state public service sector.

 

Financial Services Manager?s Comment

 

Increasing paid maternity leave to 14 weeks has the following financial implications for Council:

 

 

Whole of Council

$85,192

Children?s Services

$47,061

Indoor/Outdoor

$38,131

 

The full additional impact of moving from the current 9 weeks paid maternity leave provision to the proposed 14 weeks paid maternity leave system could be absorbed by the salaries and wages budgets for 2010-11. It is estimated that this cost would be approximately $85,000 for the whole organisation and any decision made to pass on the additional impact of staff employed by the Children Services Co-operative would lessen this impact. If the proposal for maternity leave provision to increase to 14 weeks is successful the additional impact will form part of the base budget from 2011-12 onwards.?

 

Summary

 

It is also expected that Council will need to take a position on paid maternity leave within the Local Government State Award 2010, for which negotiations are currently being undertaken. In accordance with the outcome of the Local Government Association Annual Conference held in Broken Hill on the 25 October 2008, it is recommended that Council support 18 weeks paid maternity leave as a standard condition for all local government employees in the next Award. If this is successful, the variation would apply from 1 November 2010.

 

The Children?s Services Co-operative has considered the financial implications of any variation to the maternity leave provisions in the 2010 Award. They have indicated a willingness to make provisions within their budget for any such Award variation effective from 1 November 2010. Should Council adopt 14 weeks as a policy variation, the Children?s Services Co-operative will be formally requested to meet this obligation within their budget from 1 July 2010.

 

In addition, Council recognises that the availability and flexibility of return to work options is an important part of Council?s strategy to retain staff. In support of flexible workplace arrangements the following is intended to be put in place:

 

???? Council?s Workforce and Workplace department will facilitate all return to work from maternity leave placements, in consultation with the staff member and their manager, in order to ensure that equitable flexible employment practices are applied across the organisation.?

 

???? Workforce and Workplace will also develop and implement a maternity leave information pack, which will provide staff proceeding on maternity leave with all relevant information regarding Council?s policy, and their entitlements and obligations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Paid Maternity Leave be received

2.???? Council?s Parental Leave Policy be varied to provide 14 weeks paid maternity leave and 2 weeks supporting parent leave, inclusive of current Award provisions, effective 1 July 2010.

 

3.???? Council support any proposal to increase paid maternity leave to 18 weeks as a standard condition for all Local Government Employees as part of negotiations in the Local Government (State) Award 2010.

 

4.???? In accordance with Recommendation 2, the Children?s Services Cooperative be requested to make provision within its budget for the increased cost of maternity leave provisions for Children?s Services staff from 1 July 2010. In addition, provision will also need to be made for any further increase in paid maternity leave entitlements within the 2010 Award.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Table A
Maternity Leave provisions provided by other organisations

3 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

Appendix 1 - Table A / Maternity Leave provisions provided by other organisations

 

 

 

Table A

 

 

Maternity Leave provisions provided by other organisations

 

The following information has been confirmed by HR practitioners at the relevant Council or other organisation.

 

Name of Organisation

Maternity Leave provisions provided

1.?? Ryde City Council

18 weeks

2.?? Leichhardt Municipal Council

18 weeks

3.?? Gosford City Council

18 weeks

4.?? Wyong City Council

18 weeks

5.?? Marrickville Council

14 weeks

6.?? Port Stephens Council

14 weeks

7.?? City of Sydney

14 weeks

8.?? Burwood Council

12 weeks

9.?? Hawkesbury City Council

9 weeks leave as per the award

Staff with 4 years or more service receive 12 weeks leave

10. Lake Macquarie Council

9 weeks

An additional 9 weeks from employee?s sick leave

11. Blacktown City Council

14 weeks (local agreement to be ratified)

12. Mosman Municipal Council

9 weeks

13. Newcastle City Council

9 weeks

14. Hills Shire Council

9 weeks

15. Orange Council

9 weeks

16. Macquarie University

14 weeks paid upon commencement

26 weeks paid after 12 months service

17. UWS

20 weeks

18. NSW Government

14 weeks

19. Commonwealth Public Service

12 weeks

20. Department of Education

14 weeks

 


 

Parental Leave provisions provided by other Organisations

 

 

Name of Organisation

Parental Leave provisions provided

1.?? Ryde City Council

2 weeks carer?s leave to be taken from sick leave entitlements

 

2.?? Leichhardt Municipal Council

2 weeks carer?s leave to be taken from sick leave entitlements

 

3.?? Gosford City Council

2 weeks ? 1 carer?s leave from sick leave entitlement and 1 week from Maternity Leave Account

(This 1 week does not affect the employee?s leave entitlements)

4.?? Wyong City Council

2 weeks full-time or 4 weeks part-time Paternity Leave/Supporting Parent Leave

(These provisions do not affect the employee?s leave entitlements)

5.?? Marrickville Council

1 week of Carer?s Leave as per the Award taken from sick leave entitlements

6.?? Port Stephens Council

1 week of Carer?s Leave as per the Award taken from sick leave entitlements

7.?? City of Sydney

1 week leave without pay

(Generally employees takes 1 week annual leave)

8.?? South Sydney

1 week paid Paternity Leave plus 5 weeks additional Paternity Leave (if they are the primary carer and their wife/partner is not getting paid maternity leave)

 

9.?? Burwood Council

1 week of Carer?s Leave as per the Award taken from sick leave entitlements

10. Hawkesbury City Council

1 week of Carer?s Leave as per the Award taken from sick leave entitlements

11. Lake Macquarie Council

Indoor Staff only -12 weeks paternity leave (full-time) or ? pay for 24 weeks taken out of sick leave accrual (employee must have 2 years or more continuous service).

 

Outdoor Staff only ? 1 week taken from sick leave accrual. Did not want to negotiate the same as Indoor Staff.

12. Blacktown City Council

1 week as per the Award taken from sick leave accrual

13. Mosman Municipal Council

1 week as per the Award taken from sick leave accrual

14. Newcastle City Council

9 weeks Paternal Leave (if they are the primary carer and their wife/partner is not getting paid maternity leave)

15. Hills Shire Council

1 week as per the Award taken from sick leave accrual

 

16. Orange Council

1 week of Carer?s Leave as per the Award taken from sick leave entitlements and 1 day on the day of birth (weekday) from Carer?s leave.?

 

17. Macquarie University

Partner?s Leave

Full-time and part-time Academic and General Staff - up to 4 weeks paid leave (pro-rata for part-time staff). Plus, up to 4 weeks unpaid leave.

 

18. University of Western Sydney

An ongoing or fixed-term employee, who has 1 year continuous paid service is entitled to up to 2 weeks partner leave paid at their base rate of pay for the birth or adoption of their child and, if they are the primary carer of their child.? They are not entitled to maternity leave, up to an additional 50 weeks unpaid partner leave. A casual employee shall be entitled to partner leave in accordance with the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard.

 

An employee may apply for an additional 6 weeks unpaid partner leave for the birth or adoption of their child, which the University will not unreasonably refuse, which may be taken at the same time as any leave taken by the primary carer of the child.

 

Following a period of partner leave an employee, giving 4 weeks notice, may apply to return to work on reduced hours for a defined period.

19. NSW Government

(Department of Premier and Cabinet)

Up to 12 months ?Other parent? leave (or equivalent part-time leave) is available.

 

?Other parent? leave is generally unpaid leave. Eligible Public Servants are entitled to one week of paid 'other parent' leave which can be taken at full pay or half pay.

20. Commonwealth Public Service

Unable to obtain details.?

 

 

 

 

?


A Green City

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

4??????? Accreditation of Council's Building Surveyors with the Building Professionals Board

?

URGENT

 

7??????? Part 3a Major Project Proposed Orchard Hills Waste and Resource Facility at Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane Orchard Hills. Applicant and Owner Dellara Pty Ltd

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

A Green City

 

 

 

4

Accreditation of Council's Building Surveyors with the Building Professionals Board???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Colin Wood, Building Approvals Co-ordinator

Steve Barratt, Building Regulatory Coordinator

Authorised by:???????????? Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager??

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

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

???????

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the recent changes in legislation and proposes the adoption of procedures to address the requirements to accredit Council Building Surveyors with the Building Professionals Board.?

 

In preparing this report we have considered responses from other Councils in regards to these changes in legislation.? The proposal contained in this report is similar to those of other Councils.? This is particularly the case in regards to the Blue Mountains City Council.

 

As part of the reforms, Council must undertake a skills and knowledge assessment of its staff and recommend suitable levels of accreditation for each applicant to the Board.? The Board requires each recommendation be endorsed by an authorised delegate of the Council.? The General Manager already has a wide range of delegation.? The report recommends the General Manager use his current delegations to endorse the authorisations to the Building Professionals Board.

Background

In 2002 the Joint Select Committee on the Quality of Buildings chaired by the Hon. David Campbell, MP, (known as the Campbell Enquiry) recommended significant changes in the regulation of the building construction process. One recommendation included the accreditation of Council Building Surveyors.

The NSW Building Professionals Board (the Board) subsequently released details of draft accreditation schemes for Council Building Surveyors in November 2008 and December 2009.

The Building Professionals Act 2008 was amended on 1st March 2010 to require all staff undertaking building certification work on behalf of a Council to be accredited under the Board?s accreditation scheme. The scheme provides for a six (6) month transition period after which all Council Building Surveyors undertaking building certification work will be required to be accredited under the scheme.?

This means that as from 1st September 2010, all Building Surveyors undertaking certification work, including the issue of construction certificates, complying development certificates, the carrying out of critical stage inspections and the issue of occupation certificates, will need to be accredited under the Board?s scheme.

Overview of the Adopted Accreditation Scheme

The key elements of the amended accreditation scheme are:

 

1.?????? Categories of accreditation ? The amended scheme adopts four (4) categories of accreditation being Categories A1, A2, A3 and A4.? These are based on the complexity of the work being performed.? The general breakdown of work is as follows (Note:- the classes of building are attached to this report):

 

A1???? Issue of complying development certificates for building work or change of use, construction certificates and compliance certificates for building work and the issue of occupation certificates for buildings involving all classes and sizes of buildings under the BCA.?

 

A2???? Issue of complying development certificates for building work or change of use, construction certificates and compliance certificates for building work and the issue of occupation certificates for buildings involving the following classes of buildings under the BCA:

(a)???? class 1 and class 10 buildings,

(b)???? class 2 to 9 buildings with a maximum rise in storeys of 3 storeys and a maximum floor area of 2,000m2

(c)???? buildings with a maximum rise in storeys of 4 storeys in the case of a building that comprises only a single storey of class 7a carpark located at the ground floor level or basement level and with 3 storeys of class 2 above and with a maximum floor area of 2000m2.

 

A3???? Issue of complying development certificates for building work or change of use, construction certificates and compliance certificates for building work and the issue of occupation certificates involving:

(a)???? class 1 and class 10 buildings, or

(b)???? class 2?9 buildings with a maximum rise in storeys of 2 storeys and a maximum floor area of 500m2,

that comply with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA.

?                 

A4???? Carrying out of inspections (except for the last critical stage inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued) in relation to:

(a)???? class 1 and class 10 buildings under the BCA, and

(b)???? class 2?9 buildings with a maximum rise of 2 storeys and a maximum floor area of 500m2 under the BCA.

 

All certificates of accreditation for Council Building Surveyors will be issued subject to a standard condition that they undertake certification work only on behalf of a Council.

 

2.?????? Accreditation requirements ? The scheme recognises a range of qualifications and experience relevant to local government work practices.? This range is greater than that recognised for private certifiers and is necessary to cater for the differences between Council and private practice.

 

3.?????? Accreditation process? ? Applications to the Board by individuals cannot be made without the recommendation of the relevant Council. In making a recommendation to the Board, Councils are required to take into account an applicant?s qualifications and experience, the Board?s Accreditation Scheme and Assessment Guidelines, and whether the applicant is a fit and proper person.

 

4.?????? Accreditation fees ? The initial accreditation will be free.? Annual applications for re-accreditation up to March 2013 will be $250.? As there are additional accountabilities and responsibilities for staff being accredited, these fees will be paid by Council.

 

The Board has indicated the fees for 2013 and beyond will be the same as Privately Accredited Building Surveyors.? Currently, Private Certifiers pay $1500.00 each per year but, given the influx of additional Council Accredited Building Surveyors, it is expected the fees will meet somewhere in the middle.? Whilst the fee is unknown at this stage, Council could expect $1000.00 per person per year.?

 

5.?????? Transitional period - There will be a 3 year transitional period, commencing 1 March 2010, for Council staff to become accredited under the scheme. At the end of the transitional period, new applicants must be accredited in the same way as private certifiers. Staff accredited under the transitional arrangements will not require a fresh assessment at the end of the 3 year transition period.

 

6.?????? Council requirements and exemptions -? Councils have 6 months from commencement of the scheme to employ sufficient accredited persons to ensure all ?certification work? in the Council area is undertaken by an accredited certifier (i.e. 1 September 2010). The scheme enables Councils to seek an exemption from the Minister where they cannot comply with the requirement to ensure that accredited persons carry out all certification work on their behalf, however any exemption will only be given in circumstances where the Council can show good cause.

 

7.?????? Transferability between Council areas - Once accredited, Council Officers will be permitted to carry out work on behalf of all other Councils in NSW without further approval from the board.

 

8.?????? Continuing Professional Development - Council Accredited Building Surveyors will be required to undertake a limited continuing professional development (CPD) program during the transition period.? The board proposes the following training for Council Accredited Building Surveyors for the period 2010 to 2012 inclusive:

 

2010????? 4 hours of training each (i.e. approximately $400.00 each)

2011????? 6 hours of training each (i.e. approximately $600.00 each)

2012????? 8 hours of training each (i.e. approximately $800.00 each)

 

Some courses are run for free and others conducted by the Board are mandatory and do not gain any CPD points at all.? At worst, Council could expect $3000.00 per year per person from 2013 and beyond.? This is based on the fact Private Certifiers need to achieve 30 CPD points per year.

 

As there are additional accountabilities and responsibilities for staff being accredited, the cost of additional training will be paid by Council.? It is expected those costs will be met by both a combination of the Departmental and Corporate Training budgets. Given that the Council must provide opportunities for training for staff to continue their accreditation then there is a Corporate responsibility that the training occurs.

 

Up to ten (10) staff will be accredited under the scheme.? This number has been nominated in recognition of existing staff intending to be accredited and the operational needs of the Department.?

 

9.?????? Disciplinary procedures -? It is understood the board proposes to exercise a limited range of disciplinary actions against accredited Council Building Surveyors including cautions, reprimands and conditions on accreditation.? There is also a possibility of fines and penalties being issued directly to staff particularly if Council does not have a disciplinary procedure in place or, they choose not to apply it.?

 

Council is reviewing its disciplinary and work procedures to reduce the likely incidence of penalties being issued.? This review is an important aspect in the process as Council can use this to identify shortcomings in skills and training.

 

In the unlikely event of a penalty being issued to staff, Council?s Risk Manager has advised Westpool is investigating insurance cover for the cost of fines and any representations at Tribunals or Court.? The Risk Management Coordinator proposes that any excess costs are to be met by the Department.

 

10.???? Record keeping requirements -? Councils are required to keep records of all Council Accredited Building Surveyors they employ and to advise the board of the date the certifier commences and ceases employment. Councils must also keep, for a period of 10 years, copies of all documentation related to the certification work undertaken by Council Accredited Building Surveyors employed by them.? This information will be readily available from Council?s computer records.

 

11.???? Conflicts of interest -Council Accredited Building Surveyors will be able to provide advice on how to amend plans and specifications to comply with the deemed to satisfy provisions of the BCA once an application has been made. Council Officers will not be prevented from undertaking certification work on developments where they have been involved in the assessment and determination of a related development application or complying development certificate.?

 

Council Accredited Building Surveyors cannot however, give design advice before a DA is lodged (e.g. pre-lodgement meetings and advice given over the telephone and at the front counter) and then assess the application when it is submitted.? Council will have separate staff to provide separate pre-lodgement and building approvals services.

 

12.???? Additional costs -? There are also other hidden costs associated with people being away from work to attend courses and the time required to accredit and re-accredit staff.? These costs will initially be absorbed but it will have an impact on the overall service delivery.? Council will need to revisit the costs of its services and appropriate adjustments made to the fees and charges for contestable services in the future.

 

Applications for Accreditation

The accreditation scheme requires individual Council Officers undertaking building certification work to make an application to the board for a particular level of accreditation. However, applications from individuals cannot be made without the recommendation of the relevant Council. In making a recommendation, Clause 7A of the Building Professionals Regulation requires a Council to take into account the following:

 

a)?????? The category of accreditation being sought by the applicant;

b)????? Any assessment guideline produced by the Board.

c)?????? The qualifications of the applicant;

d)????? The experience of the applicant; and

e)?????? Whether the Council is of the opinion the applicant is a fit and proper person.

 

Council?s general power to delegate functions is set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993. Under Section 377 a Council may, by resolution, delegate a number of functions to the General Manager.? The General Manager currently has a wide range of delegations and Council officers consider these to be sufficient to endorse applications for accreditation to the Board.?

Officers are presently in the process of familiarising themselves with the details and assessing the implications of the scheme.? This will involve individual officers compiling the necessary documentation to accompany an application.? An Assessment Team to review these applications is currently being established to make the appropriate recommendations to the General Manager.? The Assessment Team will be appointed by the Development Services Manager and will include two (2) experienced Building Surveyors from Penrith Council and an independent Building Surveyor from The Blue Mountains City Council.

Conclusion

The Building Professionals Amendment Act 2008 has now been amended to require Council Building Surveyors undertaking building certification work on behalf of a Council to be accredited under the Building Professionals Board?s accreditation scheme. Under the scheme, applications for accreditation can only be made on the recommendation of the relevant Council where they are employed.

The General Manager currently has a wide range of delegation and this would be sufficient for the endorsement of applications to the Building Professional Board.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Accreditation of Council's Building Surveyors with the Building Professionals Board be received

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Classification of buildings

1 Page

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

Appendix 1 - Classification of buildings

 

 

 

Classes of Building

 

There are 16 classes of building and these are generally as follows

 

Class 1a:?????? Dwellings and dwelling additions.

 

Class 1b:?????? Bed and breakfast or small guest house where the population is no more than 12 and the area of the building is less than 300 m2

 

Class 2:???????? Residential flat buildings or dwellings above dwellings.? This is a Caretakers Flat or shop top housing.

 

Class 3:???????? Motels, residential portions of hotels, boarding houses, guest houses, residential parts of schools, detention centres and the like.

 

Class 4:???????? Single dwellings attached to a Classes 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

 

Class 5:???????? Office

 

Class 6:???????? Shop

 

Class 7a:?????? Carparking area

 

Class 7b:?????? Storage or warehouse building

 

Class 8:???????? Factory or laboratory.

 

Class 9a:?????? Private or public hospital or nursing home.

 

Class 9b:?????? Assembly buildings including theatres, sports stadia, public halls, churches and clubs.

 

Class 9c:?????? Aged care building.

 

Class 10a:???? Non-habitable buildings including: garages, carports, awnings and sheds

 

Class 10b:???? Structures including: Swimming pools, retaining walls, pergolas

 

 

?


A Liveable City

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

5??????? Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy

 

6??????? Managing Requests to Waive or Subsidise Hire Fees for Council Managed Neighourhood Facilities

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

5

Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Judy Cobb, Neighbourhood Facilities Co-ordinator

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

Strategic Objective: Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Strategic Direction: Our neighbourhood, recreation and leisure facilities and programs meet community needs

???????

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy to Council for consideration and adoption.? The need for this policy was identified in the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review which was undertaken by Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd in 2009.? The process for developing the draft policy was very comprehensive and involved extensive consultation with both internal and external key stakeholders.?

The report recommends that the draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy be adopted to support the management of Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities.

Background

At the Policy Review Committee meeting of 19 October 2009, Council received a report that outlined the findings of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review (Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd 2009).? The report identified a number of key areas where Council is exposed to various levels of risk. These areas included for example, a lack of clear policy direction, a lack of compliance to guidelines and regulations, a lack of standard operating procedures and minimal performance measures and monitoring systems.? A number of recommendations and an Implementation Plan to address the identified key risk areas were also outlined in the report and adopted by Council at the Ordinary meeting on 9 November, 2009.

 

In November 2009 Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd commenced working with Council staff to develop the draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy.? The aim of this policy is to guide the development of enhanced processes and systems required to support the ongoing management of neighbourhood facilities by Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities Team, Volunteer Management Committees and Community Development Organisations.? The draft policy is attached to this report.

 

Development of Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy

 

A comprehensive process was undertaken to develop the Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy.? This process involved extensive consultation with a range of identified key stakeholders.? The development process included the following steps:

 

 

 

 

Research and Internal Interviews

 

During the months of November and December 2009 Morrison Low conducted best practice research of effective facilities management strategies.? They also conducted internal stakeholder interviews with senior Council staff from a number of departments to ascertain key policy themes for the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy. The internal stakeholders included representatives from Community and Cultural Development, Financial Services, Legal and Governance, City Works (Building Projects and Maintenance), and Public Domain Amenity & Safety (Neighbourhood Facilities).

 

Six (6) key themes were identified through the research to form the foundation of the Neighbourhood Facilities Policy.? They included:?

 

1.?? establishing good management practices

2.?? determining access priorities

3.?? developing management skills

4.?? clarifying asset maintenance and planning responsibilities

5.?? collecting accurate and consistent information and statistics

6.?? planning for the future

 

During this period Council also wrote to identified key stakeholders including management committees, community development organisations, and interested user groups to advise them of the steps that would be taken to develop the draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy.

 

Development of Discussion Paper

 

A Discussion Paper (attached to this report) was developed for community stakeholders and sent out in January 2010. ?The purpose of the discussion paper was to invite community stakeholders to consider what information they thought should be included in the Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy.? The paper also briefly identified the six key themes for the policy and addressed specific questions including:

 

1.?? Why a policy is necessary?

2.?? What is a policy?

3.?? How does the policy fit into the bigger picture?

4.?? What are the identified key themes for the policy?

 

Community Workshop

 

On the 17 February 2010 Morrison Low Consulting facilitated a community workshop with identified key community stakeholders.? The workshop was well attended with 42 community representatives present. These stakeholders represented users groups, community development organisations, and volunteer management committees.?

 

The purpose of this workshop was to further explore the six (6) key themes identified for the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy, to respond to any questions or concerns that the community stakeholders had about the themes, and to identify any additional information they felt should be included in the policy.??

?

The feedback received from the community workshop was extremely positive with most stakeholders expressing support of the key themes and the development of the policy.? A few concerns were raised by the stakeholders.? The main concerns included:

 

???? The difficulties they had in recruiting new volunteers and concerns about their ageing volunteer pool

???? Lack of time they had available to participate in training

???? Concerns about increased responsibilities that would result from the implementation of the draft policy

???? The need for assistance and support from Council to carry out new management responsibilities

???? The importance of a fair and equitable fee structure that recognised existing arrangements in a new Pricing Policy.

 

Internal Stakeholders Meeting

 

An internal stakeholder?s meeting was held immediately after the completion of the community workshop.? The purpose of this meeting was to provide internal stakeholders with a summary of the outcome of the community workshop and to establish a format for the Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy.

 

Feedback Period from Community and Internal Stakeholders ????

 

The draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy was completed in March 2010 and sent out to all identified key stakeholders for comment.? The timeframe for this feedback period ran from 22 March to 16 April 2010.? Stakeholders were invited to put their comments in writing (by letter or email) or to simply discuss their views over the telephone to either the consultant or Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities Coordinator.?

 

Follow up emails and phone calls were made at the end of the feedback period to the key stakeholders who did not respond during the given timeframe.? The feedback period was extended by one week for these stakeholders.

 

Summary of Feedback from Community Stakeholders

 

Overall the feedback that was received regarding the Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy was very positive and very supportive regarding the direction in which the policy was taking the future management of Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities.

 

The following table summarises the key issues and comments received from the community stakeholders:

 

 

Name of Stakeholder

Issues/Comments

Response

Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre Management Committee

It is extremely difficult to recruit new committee members and the existing members are ageing.

Council is aware of this and will be supporting committees to recruit new volunteers though enhanced recruitment strategies to be developed once the policy is adopted.

 

Committee members are concerned about having to participate in training and the increase in responsibility.

Council will be providing a range of templates to reduce the workload on committees and make it easier to carry out their responsibilities.? Council will also offer a range of both formal and informal training opportunities to ensure that individual needs are met.

SPNYS Inc

There is no comment that facilities are ?affordable?.? This should be stated as a principle of access.

The development of the new pricing model will explore this issue in consultation with key community stakeholders.

 

SPYNS has its own policies.? These policies may conflict with Council?s policy (e.g. purchasing policy).

One of the tasks in the Implementation Plan will be to renew the Licence Agreements with community development organisations.? The process of developing this agreement will involve discussions and agreement regarding this issue.

Nth Penrith Community Centre Management Committee

Council needs to clarify what the legislative, regulatory and related documents are rather than just list them so that the committee can understand the implications of the policy better.

This detail will be provided in the next layer of documentation that will sit under the policy including training information for management committees.?

 

It is extremely difficult to recruit new committee members and the existing members are ageing.

Council is aware of this and will be supporting committees to recruit new volunteers though enhanced recruitment strategies to be developed once the policy is adopted.

Nth St Marys Neighbourhood Centre Management Committee

The policy is extremely easy to read and fair on all levels.? The policy was shorter than expected.

The policy provides a strategic framework for the development of detailed procedures, systems and templates that will guide the day to day operation of Council?s neighbourhood facilities.

Victoria Street Community Cottage Management Committee

The definition of licence agreement is not clear.? Is this an option for committees appointed by Council?

 

The definition has been further developed in the final draft presented to council for consideration.

 

The draft policy does not provide protection for long term user groups.

The principle of access and equity outlined in the policy states that priority of access is given to identified target groups having regard to building usage, availability and other user needs. The requirements of all users including long term users will be assessed during the annual booking process.

Werrington Community Development Project Inc

The definition of Neighbourhood Facilities Management Bodies needs to be further clarified.

The definition has been further developed in the final draft policy which is presented tonight to Council for consideration.

 

Will community organisations that operate from a neighbourhood facility (but not manage the facility) have input into the development of the three year business plan of that specific facility?

Yes, community organisations will have input into the development of a facility?s three year business plan where appropriate.

 

The new Pricing Model (Fees and Charges) should separate Community Development Users from general community hirers.

There will be an extensive consultation process undertaken in the development of the new pricing model.? This matter will be explored during this process.

 

Where to from here

 

The Implementation Plan for the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review identified a number of tasks to be undertaken to address or minimise Council?s exposure to risk.? Following adoption of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy the next step will be to complete the other tasks outlined in the adopted Implementation Plan. These include:

 

???? Establishing a new Pricing Model (Fees and Charges) in consultation with identified key stakeholders

???? Realigning the Neighbourhood Facilities Service within existing resources to deliver the agreed policy direction, and support Neighbourhood Facilities Management Bodies to achieve agreed outcomes

???? Establishing internal service level agreements

???? Establishing new guidelines and procedures in line with policy direction

???? Re-establishing the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Group Meetings

???? Developing Management and Occupancy Agreements in consultation with key stakeholders

???? Establishing a Neighbourhood Facilities Newsletter

???? Establishing data collection processes for the measurement of key performance indicators

???? Supporting Neighbourhood Facilities Management Bodies to implement new procedures

???? Commence revised performance reporting.

 

Conclusion

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of 9 November 2009 Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review and an Implementation Plan which was developed to minimise Council?s exposure to identified risks.? The most significant findings of the review identified the need for Council to establish, in consultation with key stakeholders, a clear policy direction for the management of neighbourhood facilities.?

 

In November 2009 Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd commenced a process of developing a Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy. This process involved extensive consultation with both internal and external community stakeholders and included an interview process with internal stakeholders to identify key themes for the policy, development of a discussion paper for community stakeholders, a community workshop, development of a draft policy for comment by both internal and external stakeholders, and the finalisation of a draft policy.

 

The draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy is attached to this report and presented to Council for consideration. It is recommended that this draft policy be adopted to support the management of Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities.? This policy will guide the development of enhanced processes and systems required to support the ongoing management of neighbourhood facilities by Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities Team, volunteer management committees and community development organisations in accordance with Council?s strategic and operational expectations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on the Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy be received

2.???? The draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy be adopted to support the management of Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ?

Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Policy

10 Pages

Attachment

2. ?

Morrison Low Discussion Paper for Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy

13 Pages

Attachment

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

6

Managing Requests to Waive or Subsidise Hire Fees for Council Managed Neighourhood Facilities???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Judy Cobb, Neighbourhood Facilities Co-ordinator

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

Strategic Objective: Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Strategic Direction: Our neighbourhood, recreation and leisure facilities and programs meet community needs

???????

 

Executive Summary

The number of requests to Council to waive or subsidise hire fees of Council managed neighbourhood facilities (includes neighbourhood centres and/or halls) is relatively low, however, there has been an increase in the number of requests this financial year.? To date, these requests have been addressed through Councillor Voted Works.? Council, at its meeting of 22 March 2010, requested that a report be presented to this meeting outlining a proposed procedure to address future requests for the waiving or subsidisation of neighbourhood facility hire fees.?

 

The issue of managing requests to waive or subsidise hire fees was identified in the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review (Morrison Low Consulting 2009) along with a number of other interrelated issues regarding the hire and use of neighbourhood facilities.? The Implementation Plan resulting from the review, adopted by Council at its meeting on 9 November 2009, includes the development of a Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy and new Pricing Model (Fees and Charges).? A draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy is the subject of a separate report in tonight?s business paper.? Research for the new Pricing Model has commenced and will involve extensive community consultation.? It is anticipated that a draft Pricing Model will be presented to Council for its consideration in February 2011.?

 

This report recommends that the proposed interim procedure for assessing requests to waive or subsidise hire fees for Council managed neighbourhood facilities as detailed in this report be adopted.

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting of 22 March 2010 Council received a report on a request from the Nepalese Community of Western Sydney Inc. (NCOWS) to waive the hire fees to celebrate Nepali New Years 2067 on 17 April 2010 at Harold Corr Hall and the Nepali Dasain Festival on 23 October 2010 at Arthur Neave Memorial Hall.? NCOWS also requested that the waiving of these facility hire fees be approved for two functions per year on an ongoing basis.

 

The report of 22 March 2010 provided Council with details regarding NCOWS previous use of Council?s neighbourhood facilities and advised that another report outlining a procedure to address future requests to waive or subsidise hall hire fees would be presented to Council at tonight?s Policy Review Committee meeting.

 

At the Ordinary meeting on 22 March 2010, Council adopted the following recommendations

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Request for Hall Hire Fee reduction from Nepalese Community be received.

 2.     Council allocate $400, in equal amounts from each Ward?s voted works, to the cost of hiring Harold Corr Hall, to enable celebrations for Nepali New Year.

 3.      The report to be presented to the Policy Review Committee meeting of 10 May 2010 include guidelines and details on what other funding opportunities  may be available in order to address similar requests for funding.

 

Current Situation

 

Currently there are no adopted procedures or guidelines for the assessment of requests to waive or subsidise the hire fees for Council?s neighbourhood facilities. To date these requests have been addressed through Councillor Voted Works.??

 

Since the 2007/2008 financial year Council has approved nine (9) requests to waive the facility hire fee for specific community events or activities.? Six (6) of these requests were approved in the current financial year.? In each instance the requesting group or organisation also nominated the facility that they wanted to use. A summary of these requests is outlined in the following table:

 

Name of Organisation / Group

Requested

Venue

Voted Works Allocation

2007/2008

 

 

Nepalese Community  of Western Sydney      

                  

Harold Corr Hall

$400

2008/2009

 

 

Leukaemia Foundation Charity Event

Harold Corr Hall

$364

Leukaemia Foundation Fundraising            

Harold Corr Hall

$364

2009/2010

 

 

Breast Cancer Foundation                              

Floribunda Community Centre

$250

Family Charity Trivia Night                                       

Harold Corr Hall

$400

Castlereagh P & C Fundraising

Castlereagh Hall

$400

People Dealing with Depression Charity Event 

Harold Corr Hall

$400

Nepalese New Year                                        

Harold Corr Hall

$400

Leukaemia Foundation Charity Ball           

St Marys Memorial Hall

$550

 

The number of requests to Council to waive or subsidise facility hire fees is relatively low, however, there has been an increase in the current financial year.? In the current financial year, Council has approved the waiving of a total of $2400 worth of hire fees for events held in Council managed neighbourhood facilities.???

 

In addition to the formal requests to waive or subsidise hire fees for one-off events, Council also subsidises hire fees on an annual basis through the provision of free use of meeting room space and office space for government funded Community Development and Youth Development Organisations/projects.?

 

Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review Implementation Plan

 

A number of issues relating to the hire and use of Council?s neighbourhood facilities were identified in the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review (Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd 2009).? These issues are summarised below.? Morrison Low advised in the review that these issues are interrelated and should not be looked at in isolation of each other.

 

??????? A consistent fees and charges structure based on equity/ accessibility criteria is not in place

??????? There is no formal process to consider requests for the waiving of fees

??????? The current fees and charges schedule in the Operational Plan is very complex with rates and access varying by facility, space and user.

 

The Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review also identified that without clear policy directions for the management of Council?s Neighbourhood Facilities it would be difficult to address these issues in a consistent and equitable manner.

 

Given the complexity and inter-relationship of these issues and other identified issues, Council adopted an Implementation Plan as a result of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review on 9 November 2009.? Two key tasks in the Implementation Plan that relate to the request to waive or subsidise facility hire fees include:

 

1.?????? To establish Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy directions in ?????? consultation with identified key stakeholders

 

2.?????? To develop a new Pricing Model (fees and charges) in consultation with identified key stakeholders.

 

Update on Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy

 

A draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy is also being presented to Council at tonight?s Policy Review Committee meeting.?? This draft policy was developed in consultation with both internal and external stakeholders and provides broad direction to guide daily decisions and activities.? In particular the policy:

 

??????? sets out Council?s objectives for the management of neighbourhood facilities

??????? provides clear direction for decision making

??????? reduces exposure to risk for Council, Council staff, management committees and facility users

??????? sets management expectations, and

??????? provides a foundation for the development of guidelines, procedures, management agreements, etc.

 

 

 

Update on New Pricing Model (Fees and Charges)

 

In April 2010 Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd commenced their research of the pricing policies of 42 other councils in Western Sydney, Inner Sydney and Sydney surrounds to identify fee pricing policies as well as fee waiving/ fee subsidisation procedures and selection criteria.

 

Developing a new Pricing Model (Fees and Charges) for the use of Council?s neighbourhood facilities is a complex task and will require considerable input and consultation with a number of existing community user groups and management committees.? The new pricing model will need to ensure that Council continues to balance community obligations with financial responsibilities.? Historically a number of user groups have been given subsidised hire fees for a number of years.? Most of these groups provide a range of services to the community and support Council in meeting the social justice agenda.

 

Given the complexity of this task, Council Officers have developed a Project Plan for the development of a Pricing Model (Fees and Charges).? This project plan is outlined in the following table:

 

Task

Proposed Timeline

Research and analyse Pricing Models of other councils

April / May 2010

Identify parameters for? a new Pricing Policy

June 2010

Develop Discussion Paper for community stakeholders

July 2010

Conduct series of stakeholders consultations & workshops with community stakeholders

August / September 2010

Draft Pricing Policy developed

September 2010

Obtain feedback from stakeholders

October 2010 (28 days)

Finalise draft Pricing Policy

November 2010

Present draft Pricing Policy to Council for consideration and adoption

February 2011

 

Once the new Pricing Model is adopted by Council a number of administrative procedures and a training program will need to be put into place to ensure that the new Pricing Model is implemented.

 

Managing requests to Waive or Subsidise Hire Fees for Neighbourhood Facilities

 

The new Pricing Model will outline guidelines and procedures for the ongoing management of requests to waive or subsidise hire fees of Council?s neighbourhood facilities.? These guidelines and procedures will ensure that decisions regarding these requests meet Council?s legislative responsibilities and align with Council?s adopted policies.

 

As outlined in the project plan the process for developing the new Pricing Model will require extensive consultation with community stakeholders.? The consultative process will be critical to the success of the model given that the issues of affordability and priority of access were consistently raised by a majority of stakeholders throughout the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review process.

?????????????????????????

Given the timeframe that it will take to develop the new Pricing Model, an interim procedure has been developed to assist in managing requests for the waiving or subsidisation of hire fees.? The establishment of the interim procedure has included consideration of the following material:

 

???? the finding of the research (to date) on pricing models and subsidisation procedures utilised by other councils

???? the history and number of requests to Council to waive facility hire fees since 2007

???? the process used for determining other Council funding programs (eg. Rolling Component of the Community Assistance Program).

 

Proposed Interim Procedure for Requests to Waive or Subsidise Hire Fees

 

l.??? It is recommended that an annual budget of $3,000 be made available for the waiving or subsidisation of hire fees.? These funds are not available from existing Neighbourhood Facilities budgets.

 

2.?? A group of internal Council officers be established to assess future requests for facility fee waiving including the current request from the Nepalese Community of Western Sydney (NCOWS) for October 2010.?

 

3.?? The internal group will convene on an ?as required? basis and assess each request against the list of criteria which is outlined below.? This list has been established to ensure that approved requests are in line with key outcomes identified in the draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy.

 

4.?? Councillors will be regularly advised by memorandum of requests received and the internal group?s decisions on the assessment of the request. This will include the rationale for the decisions made against the set criteria.

 

Interim Guidelines for Assessing Requests to Waive or Subsidise Hire Fees

 

Each request received by Council to waive or subsidise hire fees will be assessed individually on the following common criteria:

 

???? Is the hirer/applicant a non profit or registered charitable organisation?

???? Is the hirer/applicant providing an activity/event/function for a one-off event?

???? Is the activity/event/function of benefit to the community of Penrith City?

???? Does the activity/event/function meet or align with Council?s Social Planning Framework and Operational Plan?

???? Can the hirer/applicant receive funding from other levels of Government or other sources to hold the activity/event/function?

???? Can the hirer/applicant demonstrate that the cost of usage cannot be recovered from participants?

???? Does the hirer/applicant demonstrate that the organisation/group is unable to meet the full costs?

???? Does the hirer/applicant demonstrate that the activity/event/function will not be viable without a subsidy?

???? Is the activity/event/function held to support a charity organisation to raise money for a charitable cause?

???? Is the activity/event/function being held to support raising funds for an individual or family in crisis?

???? Is the venue requested suitable for the activity/event/function?

???? Has the hirer/applicant been successful in a request for the waiving or subsidisation of hire fees in the current financial year?

 

Conditions for Subsidisation of Hire Fees

 

1.?????? The hirer/applicant who is successful in their application for the waived or subsidised hire fees must acknowledge Council in any advertising or promotional material for the activity/event/function.

2.?????? A condition of receipt of the waived or subsidised hire fees is that the hirer/applicant must state the source of that assistance in any subsequent request for support from Council.

3.?????? The hirer/applicant who is successful in their request must comply with the Conditions of Hire Agreement.

4.?????? The hirer/applicant will be required to pay the bond for the activity/event/function.

5.?????? The hirer/applicant must provide Council with a brief evaluation of the event (numbers in attendance, dollars raised, details of what they might do differently if the event was held again, etc).

6.?????? The hirer/applicant who meet the criteria for the waiving or subsidisation of hire fees of Council managed neighbourhood facilities will only be eligible for one waived or subsidised activity/event/function per financial year.

 

Venues Suitable for Subsidised Activities/Events/Functions

 

As noted previously in this report, every request that Council has received to waive or subsidise the hire fees of neighbourhood facilities has also included a request for a specific venue.?? In many instances the activity/event/function could be held in a number of different venues.? Hirers or applicants, however, often request to use a facility that is more costly to operate such as Harold Corr Hall and St Marys Memorial Hall.? They also request, on some occasions, to hold their event in venues that are too large or unsuitable for their function.?

 

It is proposed with this interim procedure that the group responsible for assessing requests to waive or subsidise hire fees also assess the suitability of the venue requested with the aim of determining whether there is an alternative facility that could also be considered as suitable for the function.? This assessment would ensure that Council?s more costly venues are not the only venues where subsidisation of hire fees occurs. This would ensure that the proposed allocation of $3,000 is shared more equitably and supports a larger number of activities/events/functions in the community.

 

Financial Services Manager?s comments

 

Current requests to waive or subsidise hall hire fees, if approved by Council, are funded through the appropriate voted works allocations.? These requests cover both Council managed facilities and Committee managed Council facilities.? This report proposes an interim procedure that covers only the Council managed facilities and all requests to waive or subsidise hall hire fees for those facilities managed by committees will still be required to be dealt with through the current process.? The interim procedure will require the establishment of a $3,000 budget.? Council considered the draft 2010-11 Operational Plan at the recent Ordinary meeting and this document is currently on exhibition.? The 2010-11 budget is in a deficit position and limited capacity exists for this to be accommodated within operational budgets. The establishment of this budget will increase the projected deficit for 2010-11.

 

Conclusion

 

The number of requests to Council to waive or subsidise hire fees of Council managed neighbourhood facilities (includes neighbourhood centres and/or halls) is relatively low, however, there has been an increase in the number of requests this financial year.? To date, these requests have been addressed through Councillor Voted Works.?

 

The lack of procedure or guidelines to manage requests to waive hire fees was identified in the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review (Morrison Low Consulting 2009).?? The review also identified a number of other interrelated issues regarding the hire and use of Council?s neighbourhood facilities.?

 

The Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review Implementation Plan identifies two tasks to address this issue.? These tasks include the development of a Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy and the development of a new Pricing Model (Fees and Charges).? The draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy is the subject of a separate report in tonight?s business paper.?

 

Research for the new Pricing Model has commenced.? Development of the model will require extensive consultation with key stakeholders and current user groups.? This model is programmed to be presented to Council?s Policy Review Committee meeting in February 2011.?

 

It is recommended that an interim procedure as outlined in this report be implemented while the new Pricing Model is being developed.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Managing Requests to Waive or Subsidise Hire Fees for Council Managed Neighourhood Facilities be received.

2.???? The interim procedure for assessing requests to waive or subsidise hire fees for Council managed neighbourhood facilities as detailed in the report be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES ?


 

 

 

 

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

 

7??????? Part 3a Major Project Proposed Orchard Hills Waste and Resource Facility at Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane Orchard Hills. Applicant and Owner Dellara Pty Ltd

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting - Urgent Report

10 May 2010

A Green City

 

 

 

7

Part 3a Major Project Proposed Orchard Hills Waste and Resource Facility at Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane Orchard Hills. Applicant and Owner Dellara Pty Ltd ???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

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 on Council?s assets and workplaces

???????

 

Executive Summary

Councillors have been made aware of the above development by way of memorandum dated 28 April 2010 which included an ?executive summary? of the proposed development. The application has generated substantial public interest and the applicant has convened a number of information sessions at Mamre House in an effort to provide information about the proposal. The application has been placed on public exhibition by the Department of Planning (DoP) from the 30 April to 31 May 2010 with The Minister for Planning being the consent authority for the development application.

 

A resident meeting occurred on the 4 May 2010 in the St Marys Cultural Precinct which canvassed concerns about potential impacts of this proposed development to the surrounding locality. The meeting was well attended with a number of Councillors, Local Members of Parliament, DoP staff and Council officers attending. The overwhelming view expressed by the residents was that the proposed development is inappropriate for the site and the DoP must be made aware of these concerns. One of the objectives of the meeting was to identify the most suitable means in which to have their collective concerns raised in the assessment process. This report provides an overview of the key issues discussed and commitments made at the meeting.

 

Key Issues from the Resident meeting

The meeting was attended by approximately 200 people from the local area and Councillors Marko Malkoc, Mark Davies, Greg Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Prue Guillaume and John Thain. The Local Member for Mulgoa Diane Beamer and Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability the Hon Catherine Cusack were in attendance. Representatives from the DoP?s Major Assessment Unit attended the meeting along with Council officers. The meeting was chaired by representatives of the resident action group.

 

There was much debate about the size, scale and suitability of the proposal for the site; the key issues being public health, dust emissions, noise impacts, visual impacts, traffic generation, impact on the rural character and the like. A key concern was the very narrow time frame in which to grasp the complexity of the proposal and provide comments back to the DoP. The DoP representatives were going to confirm whether an extension of time for the exhibition period could be provided. The DoP have now confirmed that the exhibition period has been extended to the 30 June 2010.

 

The development application was notified in the local paper and to properties as identified in Appendix No. 1. Concerns were raised about properties not receiving the local newspaper and that the property notification area needed to be extended. Commitments were given at the meeting, that should the DoP not extend the property notification area to a 5 kilometre radius around the site, Council would undertake this on behalf of the residents. The DoP has since confirmed that they will renotify the same properties and place advertisements in the local press confirming the change to the exhibition period and the property notification area will not be increased from those previously notified.

 

If Council were to undertake the notification process for the 5 kilometre radius from the site it would have to send a letter to 11,000 households. This in effect draws Council into a component of the assessment process with some properties receiving two notices (one from the DoP and one from Council) and others receiving one notice from Council only. It would cost Council approximately $10K to undertake. With the Minister as the consent authority, the DoP is responsible for deciding who to notify in the management of this development application not Council. The DoP have made their decision in regard to this aspect of the proposal. In the fullness of time that decision will be deemed right or wrong. For that reason it is considered that Council should be cautious about taking responsibility for this aspect of the development process. Appendix No. 2 outlines the extent of properties to be notified within the 5km radius of the site.

 

A focus of the discussions centred on the extent of the unauthorised fill that has been placed on the site and what course of action Council has undertaken to remedy this situation. Although full details of the compliance processes were not fully canvassed it was communicated that Council has been pursuing the previous owner of the site. There was a view that because the current application identifies the presence of asbestos in the fill material, that the need to bring the site into environmental compliance is now critical. In relation to this matter it is intended to provide Council with a report outlining details of what compliance action has been taken to date and what options are available to Council should this application not be approved by the Minister for Planning and what options are available to Council now.

 

With asbestos having been deposited on site, it is recognised that the site needs to be rehabilitated. There are specific controls on the disposal of asbestos and it would appear that they have not been effective in safeguarding the type of fill being brought to this site. We will also canvass this aspect in the further report to Council.

 

It was acknowledged that Council would be receiving a report from Council officers about the technical suitability of the information supporting the application and whether the development application was deemed appropriate.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of the 3 May 2010 Councillors made requests about the type of information that needed to be incorporated into this report. The matter was to be reported to the Ordinary Council meeting 24 May 2010. However given that the DoP has extended the time period for submissions it is recommended that the matter be reported to the 21 June 2010 Ordinary Council meeting.

 

Council Officers will contact the Resident Action Group to advise them of the change in the date that the matter will be reported to Council and advise them to nominate two or three persons who can address Council on behalf of the residents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Part 3a Major Project Proposed Orchard Hills Waste and Resource Facility at Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane Orchard Hills be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Notification Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Notification Plan May 2010 5k radius

1 Page

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

Appendix 1 - Notification Plan

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

Appendix 2 - Notification Plan May 2010 5k radius

 

 

 

?



 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:????????? Monday 10 May 2010

Delivery Program:?????? A Liveable City

Issue:??????????????????????????? Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Report Title:??????????????? Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy

Attachments:??????????????? Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Policy

????????????????????????????????????? Morrison Low Discussion Paper for Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy



Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

Attachment 1 - Draft Neighbourhood Facilities Policy

 

 

 











Policy Review Committee Meeting

10 May 2010

Attachment 2 - Morrison Low Discussion Paper for Neighbourhood Facilities Management Policy

 

 

 













?