16 July 2010

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 19 July 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

Ordinary Meeting - 21 June 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 COUNCIL

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Access Committee Meeting - 2 June 2010.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 28 June 2010.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 5 July 2010.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 12 July 2010.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 19 July 2010

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION OF PENRITH CITY’S ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CULTURAL HERITAGE

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

COUNCIL CHAMBER seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross

We’ll toil with hearts and hands;

To make this Commonwealth of ours

Renowned of all the lands;

For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 



Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


For members of the public addressing the meeting

 
Council Chambers

Text Box: Lectern

Group Managers                          

                
          

 
Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

Director
Craig Butler

 

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

 

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Kevin Crameri OAM
North Ward

 

Acting Executive Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                          

                
          

 
   


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#

6ü

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

ü

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 ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 21 JUNE 2010 AT 7:34PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM read a statement of recognition of Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage.

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

 

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM for the period 21 June 2010 to 25 June 2010 inclusive.

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 24 May 2010

188  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 24 May 2010 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil. 

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

189  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:37 pm.

 

 

 

Ms Christine Borg

 

Item 11 - Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills . Applicant: Dellara Pty Ltd;  Owner: Dellara Pty Ltd

 

Ms Borg, an affected neighbour, spoke against the proposal on the grounds of safety and health.  Ms Borg stated that she lives only 600 m from the site of the proposed development and has safety concerns regarding air quality resulting from dust emanating from the site, in particular affecting children in her care.  Ms Borg also expressed her concern that the dust from concrete crushing may also contain asbestos.

 

 

Mr Tom Thornton

 

Item 11 - Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills . Applicant: Dellara Pty Ltd;  Owner: Dellara Pty Ltd

 

Mr Thornton, an affected person, representing affected residents, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating his concerns for the environment of Blaxland Creek and the endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland.  Mr Thornton stated that he was particularly concerned that alternative proposals to regenerate the site had not been considered by the proponent.  Mr Thornton also stated that he did not believe there was a demand for this type of facility in the Western Sydney area.

 

 

Procedural Motion

190  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Greg Davies that Mr Thornton be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 7:49 pm.

 

Mr Thornton outlined other alternative uses for the site, after its rehabilitation, including a heritage or tourist area.  Mr Thornton also thanked Councillors Tanya Davies and Prue Guillaume for their ongoing support of residents and the Residents Against Industrial Dump in the affected area.

 

Ms Lisa Harrold

 

Item 11 - Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills . Applicant: Dellara Pty Ltd;  Owner: Dellara Pty Ltd

 

Ms Harrold, speaking on behalf of the Mulgoa Landcare Group, spoke in opposition to the proposal, particularly noting the threat from pollutants to endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland and the need to preserve this significant vegetation corridor.

 

 

 

 

Mr Rick Miller

 

Item 11 - Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills   . Applicant: Dellara Pty Ltd;  Owner: Dellara Pty Ltd

 

Mr Miller, the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal and stated that the development would contain no toxic waste or asbestos.  Mr Miller stated that no leachate would be disposed of onsite and that all water would be tested before being discharged into Blaxland Creek. Mr Miller also addressed residents’ concerns regarding traffic issues, air quality and the recycling facility.

 

Mr Miller then answered questions from several Councillors about the proposed development.

 

 

Mr Rob Corkery

 

Item 11 - Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills   . Applicant: Dellara Pty Ltd;  Owner: Dellara Pty Ltd

 

Mr Corkery, representing the proponent, spoke in support of the proposal.  Mr Corkery stated that he believed the community’s concerns regarding asbestos and other pollution were unfounded and that the project contains best practice techniques to minimise dust and noise emanating from the site.  Mr Corkery also stated that the proposal was focussed on the level of recycling in the Penrith City Council area, and encouraged residents to visit the site. 

 

Mr Corkery then answered questions from several Councillors about the proposed development. 

 

 

Mr Jason Kozlovsky

 

Item 12 – Proposal to Fence one of the City's Dog Off Leash Exercise Areas

 

Mr Kozlovsky, an interested citizen, spoke in support of a fenced dog off leash exercise area at Jamison Park.  Mr Kozlovsky outlined the advantages of fencing dog off leash exercise areas, including socialisation of dogs, resulting in less aggressive and noisy dogs, as well as providing a safe play environment for families and their dogs using the park.  Mr Kozlovsky cited examples of other, popular fenced dog off leash areas in other Local Government Areas and noted that residents of Penrith travel to those areas in order to have access to a fenced area in which to exercise their dogs.  Mr Kozlovsky advised that over 600 people had signed a petition to have a fenced dog off leash exercise area.

 

 

Procedural Motion 

191  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that Mr Kozlovsky be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 9:00 pm.

 

Mr Kozlovsky concluded by noting that fencing the Park would make it safer for all users, having regard to the busy roads that bound the Park, in particular Racecourse Road.

 

 

Mr Creese Syred

 

Item 12 – Proposal to Fence one of the City's Dog Off Leash Exercise Areas

 

Mr Syred, an interested citizen, spoke in support of a fenced dog off leash exercise area at Jamison Park.  Mr Syred noted the popularity and high usage of fenced dog off leash exercise areas in other Local Government Areas, and stated that the boundary of a fenced park results in less aggressive dogs and less anxious owners as it provides for the migration and socialisation of dogs.  Mr Syred stated that a fenced dog off leash facility is needed in the Penrith local government area so that dog owners no longer have to travel to other Local Government Areas to exercise their dogs in a safe environment.

 

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

192  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 9:08 pm.

 

 

Procedural Motion

193  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that consideration of Item 11 - Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills   . Applicant: Dellara Pty Ltd;  Owner: Dellara Pty Ltd and Item 12 – Proposal to Fence one of the City's Dog Off Leash Exercise Areas be brought forward to be considered before other Delivery Program items.

 

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Waste Services Committee Meeting held on 13 May 2010                                                                                                                                     

194  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Waste Services Committee meeting held on 13 May, 2010 be adopted, with an amendment that the next meeting now take place on 15 July 2010 instead of 8 July 2010.

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 June 2010                                                                                                                                             

195  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 June, 2010 be adopted.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A GREEN CITY

 

11      Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills.   Applicant: Dellara Pty Ltd;  Owner: Dellara Pty Ltd

 

A number of Councillors took the opportunity to express their concern about the proposed development and the concerns of the community with the proposed development.

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM noted that on page 109 of the report, dot point 4 should read “Penrith should not be seen as Sydney’s dumping ground for waste.”

         

196  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Major Project  - Proposal for Waste and Resource Management Facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 (No. 123-179) Patons Lane, Orchard Hills   be received.

2.     Council forward to the Department of Planning and the Minister for Planning the submission outlining concerns in relation to the proposed Waste resource Management facility on Lot 40 DP 738126 Patons Lane, Orchard Hills and express its strong opposition to the proposed development and request the Development Application be refused due to the overwhelming and compelling issues identified.

3.     Council write to the Members for Mulgoa and Penrith seeking their support for the position being put by Council that the Waste Management Facility not be approved by the Minister for Planning.

4.     Council write to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment outlining our concerns with the current regulatory regime governing the waste industry and in particular the disposal of asbestos.

5.     Council prepare a motion to the next Local Government and Shires Association conference in relation to the inadequacies of the self regulatory nature of the waste industry as it relates to the disposal of construction and demolition waste material.

6.     The cost associated with convening the two Residents Against Industrial Dump community meetings at the St Marys Memorial Hall be paid for from the Corporate budget.

7.     A copy of the submission be made available to the Committee members of the Residents Against Industrial Dump action group.

 

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

 

For

Against

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

 

 

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM adjourned the meeting, the time being 9:38 pm, with the following Councillors being present: 

 

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

 

 

Councillors Tanya Davies, Prue Guillaume, Karen McKeown, Marko Malkoc, Mark Davies, Jim Aitken OAM and Ben Goldfinch left the meeting, the time being 9:38 pm.

 

Councillors Ben Goldfinch and Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 9:41 pm.

 

The meeting resumed at 9.41 pm, with the following Councillors being present:

 

Councillors Kaylene Allison, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee, Greg Davies, John Thain, Jackie Greenow, Robert Ardill, Ben Goldfinch and Ross Fowler OAM.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 9:42 pm.

 

Councillors Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc and Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9:43 pm.

 

 

 

 

A LIVEABLE CITY

 

12      Proposal to Fence one of the City's Dog Off Leash Exercise Areas

Councillor Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9:45 pm.                                         

197  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposal to Fence one of the City's Dog Off Leash Exercise Areas be received.

2.     An urgent report be presented to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council, investigating the establishment of a dog off-leash area at Jamison Park, with the possibility of funding from the recently announced Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program.

3.     The report to Council contain an analysis of the use of the existing St Clair fenced dog off leash area and contain the current costs with respect to maintaining the area.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume left the meeting, the time being 9:55 pm.

 

 

A Leading City

 

3        Workers Compensation                                                                                                     

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Workers Compensation be received.

2.     Council endorse the acceptance into WorkCover’s Burning Cost Scheme from 2010-11 for a period of 3 years.                  

3.     The expected savings in premium costs of approximately $700,000 be transferred to reserve.

 

 

5        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 May to 31 May 2010                 

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 May to 31 May 2010 be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 May 2010 to 31 May 2010 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 31 May 2010 be noted.

 

 

21      Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Additional $721,000 Council Allocation                                                                                                                            

200  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the information contained in the report on Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Additional $721,000 Council Allocation be received.

 

1        Adoption of the Community Strategic Plan 2031, the Delivery Program 2009-2013, the Operational Plan 2010-2011, the Resource Strategy and the Community Engagement Strategy

Councillor Prue Guillaume returned to the meeting, the time being 9:57 pm.

         

201  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Adoption of the Community Strategic Plan 2031, the Delivery Program 2009-2013, the Operational Plan 2010-2011, the Resource Strategy and the Community Engagement Strategy be received

2.     The proposed changes to the exhibited draft documents detailed in the report, including variations to the draft budget, Fees and Charges, staff establishment and tasks, be endorsed

3.     In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009, Council adopt the Community Strategic Plan 2031, Delivery Program 2009-2013, Operational Plan 2010-2011 (including the Fees and Charges), Resource Strategy and Community Engagement Strategy, incorporating amendments detailed in this report

4.     Council approve for expenditure the budget as detailed in the Operational Plan 2010-2011, and on that basis formally vote these funds for the 2010-2011 financial year

5.     Individuals and organisations who made submissions on Council’s draft Community Strategic Plan 2031, Delivery Program 2009-2013, Operational Plan 2010-2011, Resource Strategy and Community Engagement Strategy be thanked for their comments, provided with a response, and advised of Council’s decision.

6.     Those projects in the Operational Plan 2009-2010, which were approved by Council in the March Quarter Review 2010 to be carried forward, are included in the adopted Operational Plan 2010-2011.

 

 

2        Making of the Rates & Charges 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011                                        

202  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Making of the Rates & Charges 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 be received.

2.       Ordinary Rate

       In accordance with Section 535 of the Local Government Act 1993, an ordinary rate named Residential ordinary in accordance with Section 543(1) of point three seven seven nine two (.37792) cents in the dollar being ad valorem amount on the land value of all rateable land in the City categorised as residential under Section 493 and that an ordinary rate named Farmland ordinary of point one eight eight nine six (.18896) cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land in the City categorised as farmland and that an ordinary rate named Business ordinary of point six five seven three eight (.65738) cents in the dollar on all rateable land in the City categorised as business and that an ordinary rate being a subcategory of Business rate named Penrith CBD Rate of point seven five two three (.7523) cents in the dollar and that an ordinary rate being a subcategory of Business rate named St Marys Town Centre Rate of one point zero one four five eight (1.01458) cents in the dollar be now made for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 subject to a minimum rate under Section 548(5) of seven hundred and fourteen dollars and twenty cents ($714.20) in respect of each separate parcel of land categorised as Residential and Farmland and that each separate parcel of land categorised as Business or as a subcategory of Business be subject to a minimum rate under Section 548(5) of the Local Government Act, 1993 of nine hundred and thirteen dollars and eighty cents ($913.80).

 

        3.       Service of Rate Notices

       The rate or charge for the 2010-11 rate year be levied on the land specified in a rates and charges notice by the service of that notice, and the General Manager be and is hereby authorised, to prepare and serve such notice for and on behalf of Council.

 

       4.       Charges

       The charges attached to the report to the Ordinary meeting on 21 June 2010, titled Making of Rates and Charges for 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011, be made (see attachment).

 

       5.       Interest

       For the purpose of calculating the interest on overdue rates and charges in accordance with Section 566(3) of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council make the interest charge for 2010-11 nine (9.0) percent per annum.

 

       6.       Pension Rebate

All eligible pensioners under Section 575 of the Local Government Act, 1993 be granted a rebate of 50% of the ordinary rate and domestic waste management service up to a maximum of $250.00 under Section 575(3) of the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

 

4        Changes by the State Government to Development Contributions

 

203  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that Councillor Mark Davies be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 10:07 pm.

 

204  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Changes by the State Government to Development Contributions be received.

2.     Council endorse participation in a media campaign to ensure that the NSW Government, media, the property and development industries, and residents understand the full implications of the introduced changes.

3.     Council meet with local State members to advise them of the serious financial implications that would impact on Council and its community as a consequence of these initiatives.

4.     Council endorse deferring the issue of development consents for development applications where Development Contributions in excess of $20,000 would otherwise be charged, until such time as satisfactory arrangements are made for the funding and delivery of all infrastructure identified in the relevant Development Contributions Plan, through a legally binding commitment with the applicant, or through other appropriate means.

5.     Council write to the Local Government Association asking whether there was any discussion between the Department of Planning, the Minister for Planning and the Local Government Association prior to changes being made to the Development Contribution planning process.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

7        Grant Application - St Marys Seniors Centre Kitchen upgrade                                      

205  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Grant Application - St Marys Seniors Centre Kitchen upgrade be received.

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

3.   Correspondence be forwarded to the Minister for Ageing, Disability Services, Volunteering and Youth thanking the NSW Government for the grant to complete the work as outlined in this report.

 

 

6        Request for a Councillor Nomination for the Community Relations Commission of NSW Nepean Blacktown Regional Advisory Council                                                                

206  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Request for a Councillor Nomination for the Community Relations Commission of NSW Nepean Blacktown Regional Advisory Council be received.

2.     Councillor Karen McKeown continue her role as Councillor representative to the Nepean Blacktown Regional Advisory Council for a term expiring in June 2012.

 

 

8        Youth Week 2010 Activities Evaluation

Councillor Ben Goldfinch congratulated staff on the preparation of the report.                                   

207  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the information contained in the report on Youth Week 2010 Activities Evaluation be received.

 

 

A Green City

 

19      Grant Funding for Environmental work along the Nepean River                                    

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Grant Funding for Environmental work along the Nepean River be received.

2.     The grant funding of $10,500 (pre GST) offered to Penrith City Council by the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority be accepted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9        Development Application DA 10/0039, Proposed Split Level Dwelling, Indoor Swimming Pool and Tennis Court at Lot 806, DP 1068323 (No. 27-29) Belleview Avenue,  Mt Vernon. Applicant: Design Corp Australia Pty Ltd;  Owner: Joumana Kalach-Warda                

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

That:

 

1.      The information contained in the report on Development Application DA 10/0039, Proposed Split Level Dwelling, Indoor Swimming Pool and Tennis Court at Lot 806, DP 1068323 (No. 27-29) Belleview Avenue,  Mt Vernon be received.

 

2.      The terms of clause (b) of Restrictive Covenant fourthly referred to in the 88B Instrument attached to Lot 806, DP 1068323, be varied as follows as it applies to Lot 806 only:

(b)       All development erected on the subject lot will be in accordance with the proposed building envelope indicated on the Site Plan, Drawing No J06 for Reference Number 2009-143, prepared by Design Corp. This clause does not preclude the construction of a tennis court outside the nominated building envelope.

 

3.      The Common Seal of Penrith City Council be affixed to the necessary documentation.

 

4.      Development Application No DA10/0039 for the construction of a Split Level Dwelling, Swimming Pool and Tennis Court be approved subject to the proposed conditions of Development Consent as follows:

Standard Conditions

4.1     A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A009 – Residential Works DCP

A019 – Occupation Certificate

A046 – Issue of Construction Certificate

D001 – Sedimentation and Erosion Controls

D009 – Covering Waste Storage area

E001 – BCA compliance

E005 – Smoke Alarms

F010 – Septic distance from house

H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H011 – Engineering plans and specifications

H013 – Further details of building components

H014 – Slab design

H015 – Termite protection

H036 – Rainwater tank

H037 – Safe supply from catchment

H038 – Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 – Rainwater tank pumps

H041 – Hours of work

H034 – Bushfire roof sarking

I003 – Roads Act approval

J009 – Backyard Pool Safety

J010 -  Pool Board/Sign

K017 – Stormwater and sewerage plan

L001 – General landscaping

L008 – Tree preservation order

Q001 – Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Special Conditions

 

4.2     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Design Corp, reference No 2009-143, Drawings No J01 – J07, the application form, the BASIX Certificate, and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions

 

4.3     All boundary fences are to be low profile, open style and rural in character. The front fence is not to exceed 1.5m in height. The brick dwarf wall is not to exceed 350mm above natural ground level at any point.

 

4.4              Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the development, the variation of the Restriction on the Use of land numbered 4(b) in DP 1068323, shall be registered with the Land and Property Information division of the Department of Lands

 

          The variation to the covenant shall be in the terms approved by resolution of Penrith City Council as follows;

 

           All development erected on the subject lot will be in accordance with the proposed building envelope indicated on the Site Plan, Drawing No J06 for Reference Number 2009-143.. This clause does not preclude the construction of a tennis court outside the nominated building envelope.

 

 

  4.5    The dwelling is not to be used or converted for use as a dual occupancy.

          

4.6     Cut and fill operations on the property are only permitted in conjunction with the building works and shall be strictly limited in depth and extent to that detailed on the approved plans and specifications

 

          Before any fill material is imported to site, a validation certificate issued by an appropriately qualified person is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority. The validation certificate must demonstrate that the fill material is free from contaminants and weeds, that it is suitable for its intended purpose and land use, and that it will not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment

 

          If Penrith City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the validation certificate is to be submitted to Council for their reference.

 

          {Note: Penrith Contaminated Land Development Control Plan defines an appropriately qualified person as “a person who, in the opinion of Council, has a demonstrated experience, or access to experience in hydrology, environmental chemistry, soil science, eco-toxicology, sampling and analytical procedures, risk evaluation and remediation technologies. In addition, the person will be required to have appropriate professional indemnity and public risk insurance.”}

 

4.7     All house sewer and plumbing work shall be carried out in accordance with Sydney Water's requirements or the Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation 1993

a)       Penrith City Council is both the consent authority and certifying authority for the installation of the On Site Sewage Management System (OSSM), otherwise known as a septic tank system. It is your responsibility to contact Council's Building Approvals and Environment Protection Department to organise all inspections required for the installation of the system. In this regard, the following will require inspection:

·           All internal and external drainage lines and septic tanks before they are backfilled/covered

·           On completion of the system's installation and prior to its commissioning, ensuring compliance with those conditions specific to the installation of the system

 

          A copy of the satisfactory inspection reports carried out by Council shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority

 

i.        The septic tank, drainage lines and effluent disposal area shall not be altered without the prior approval of Council. In addition, the septic tank shall not be buried or covered

ii.       There shall be no effluent runoff from the subject property to adjoining premises, public places or reserves

iii.      There shall be available all year round, adequate water supply that is available to the property

 

4.8     The Effluent Management Area shall have a minimum area of 1660m², containing an Effluent Disposal Area of  840m2 and shall be prepared in accordance with the “Environmental and Health Protection Guidelines On Site Sewage Management for Single Households” and AS1547:2000

         

          The effluent shall be disposed of via subsurface drip irrigation.

 

          Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate and the issue of an operational licence for the OSSM system by Penrith City Council, the effluent disposal area shall be:

·    Prepared/ landscaped in accordance with the stamped - approved plans

 

          All stormwater and seepage shall be diverted away from the disposal area by using an agricultural drain or earthen bund and dish drain

 

4.9     Prior to the commencement of construction works:

(a)     Toilet facilities at or in the vicinity of the work site shall be provided at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be:

·    A standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer, or

·    If that is not practicable, an accredited sewage management facility approved by the council, or

·    Alternatively, any other sewage management facility approved by council

 

4.10   Prior to the issue of a construction certificate a positive covenant shall be registered over the land to which the development relates. The positive covenant shall be in terms approved Penrith City Council and specify that in the event that the airport at Badgery’s Creek becomes operational, the works identified in the report by RSA Acoustics, Report No 4597, dated December 2009 will be required to be installed in the development.

 

          Alternatively, the recommended construction details to reduce aircraft noise intrusion to meet indoor design sound levels, as detailed in the report prepared by RSA Acoustics, report No 4597, and dated December 2009 are to be undertaken during construction. As the recommended construction details are carried out and on completion of the development, a qualified acoustic consultant shall certify that the development has been constructed to meet the indoor design sound levels in accordance with the approved acoustic report.

 

4.11   Any lighting to the tennis court area shall be located and directed so as not to create a nuisance to surrounding land uses. The lighting shall be the minimum level of illumination necessary for safe operation. The lighting shall be in accordance with AS 4282 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

4.12   The swimming pool is required to be provided with a child resistant barrier in accordance with AS1926 “Swimming Pool Safety”. Restriction of access to the pool area shall also comply with the Swimming Pools Act, 1992. A plan detailing how compliance with the Act and the Standard will be achieved is to be submitted for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

4.13   The swimming pool is to be provided with filtration equipment that does not require a backwash facility e.g. a cartridge filtration system.

 

4:14   The proposed pond is to be less than 300mm in depth, or alternatively is to be provided with a safety barrier which meets the requirements of  AS1926 “Swimming Pool Safety”.

 

4.15   Roof and surface water shall be disposed of in accordance with the    approved drainage design. Overflow from the existing in-ground rainwater tank is to be disposed of via a level spreader system.

 

4.16   The existing trees to the perimeter of the property shall be retained and duly protected during the construction of the development. Tree protection measures shall be installed before any works can commence on site including the clearing of site vegetation

 

4.17   Landscape plan is to be completed in accordance with drawing No LS001, prepared by Green Tree Design and dated 25.03.10. Additional landscaping to the area between the tennis court and the side boundary is to be provided.

 

4.18   An Occupation Certificate is to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority on completion of all works and prior to the occupation of the dwelling. The commitments listed in the BASIX Certificate are to be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

          The Certificate shall not be issued if any conditions of this consent, but not the        conditions relating to the operation of the development, are outstanding. This includes submitting the following documentation to the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

(a)     Written documentation or Compliance Certificate from Penrith City Council certifying to the satisfactory completion of works approved under the Roads Act 1993

(b)     Written documentation or certification attesting to the      satisfactory installation of, and the Licence to Operate the on site sewage management system issued by Penrith City Council

(c)     Certification from a qualified acoustic consultant certifying that the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved acoustic report/to meet the indoor design sound levels in accordance with the approved acoustic report, unless evidence of registration of Positive Covenant has been previously provided.

 

4.19   A copy of the Occupation Certificate and all necessary documentation supporting the issue of the Certificate is to be submitted to Penrith City Council, if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.  In the event that a Compliance Certificate was issued by the Principal Certifying Authority certifying compliance that all conditions of the development consent required to be met has in fact been met as well as any documentation stated above, shall be submitted to Penrith City Council if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

For

Against

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

 

 

10      Proposed Department of Planning initiative to delegate certain Joint Regional Planning Panel powers to Council Staff                                                                                                      

210  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Proposed Department of Planning initiative to delegate certain Joint Regional Planning Panel powers to Council Staff be received.

2.     Council does not support the proposal to delegate certain applications back to Council, which are currently determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel, in its current form.

3.     Council write to the Department of Planning requesting that the process for the assessment and determination of Regional Planning Panel applications revert back to Council and the process followed prior to the inception of the JRPP.

4.     Councillor Representatives on the Joint Regional Planning Panel be paid a fee of up to $600 (if claimed by a particular Councillor) in recognition of the additional responsibilities for the Councillor.

 

 

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

 

For

Against

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

 

A Liveable City

 

15      Assessments for proposed physical closure of selected Pedestrian Laneways              

211  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Assessments for proposed physical closure of selected Pedestrian Laneways  be received.

2.     Council approve the physical closure of Morningbird Lane, St Clair; McCartney Lane, St Clair and Vista Lane, Penrith through the installation of suitable security gates to prevent public access at each laneway.

3.     Letters be sent to local residents at each location to advise them of the laneway closures.

4.     A public notice be placed in the local media to inform the wider community of the laneway closures.

 

5.     Rodley Lane, Penrith and Ball Lane, Colyton remain open and be subject to further investigations for possible community safety strategies to minimise negative impacts on adjoining properties.

 

 

17      Tender Reference 36-09/10 for the provision of Arborist & Tree Maintenance Services       

212  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 36-09/10 for the provision of Arborist & Tree Maintenance Services be received.

2.     The tenders received from Bolans Tree Services Pty Ltd, Advanced Arbor Services Pty Ltd, Plateau Tree Service, Citywide Solutions Pty Ltd, Friendly Fred’s Tree Services, Sydney Metro Tree Services Pty Ltd, Utility Services Corporation and JL Trees for the provision of arborist and tree maintenance services be accepted as the panel of approved contractors for a period of 3 years with an option to extend the arrangements for a further 12 months subject to satisfactory performance.

 

 

20      Tender Reference 38-09/10 Supply & Installation of Public Domain Lighting               

213  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 38-09/10 Supply & Installation of Public Domain Lighting be received.

2.     Council accept the tender from Connect Infrastructure Construction Pty Ltd for the supply and installation of public domain lighting at various locations throughout Cranebrook for a lump sum cost of $349,000 (excluding GST.)

 

13      Pole Posters                                                                                                                        

214  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Pole Posters be received.

2.     Council makes representations to the State Government (through the Local Government Association Conference Motions) to amend the Protection of the Environment Operations Act to include an offence for attaching advertising posters/signs on roadside power poles.

 

14      Feasibility of Community Gardens in the Penrith Local Government Area

Councillor Kath Presdee thanked staff for their efforts in preparing the report.

215  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Feasibility of Community Gardens in the Penrith Local Government Area be received.

2.     An internal working party, with representatives from Council’s Community and Cultural Development, Sustainability and Parks Departments be established to conduct further detailed investigations into the feasibility of establishing a new community garden within the City and the outcomes of these investigations be reported to Council.

 

16      Federal Government 2010/2011 "Nation Building Black Spot Program" Funding Offer        

216  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Federal Government 2010/2011 "Nation Building Black Spot Program" Funding Offer be received.

2.     Council accept the grant funding of $360,000 offered for the three successful Black Spot projects under the 100% Federally Funded “Nation Building Black Spot Program” for the 2010/2011 financial year.

3.     Council note the Roads and Traffic Authority will undertake upgrade works to the value of $1,130,000 across three RTA intersections in the Penrith LGA.

 

18      Reconstruction of Peppertree Oval                                                                                   

217  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Reconstruction of Peppertree Oval be received.

2.     The senior fields at Peppertree Oval be reconstructed in 2010/11 with funds from WASIP and a contribution from St Clair Rugby League Club.

3.     The St Clair Rugby League Club be thanked for its generous contribution towards this important work.

 

 

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Removal of Pedestrian Crossings - Desborough Road, St Marys                         

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply to all East Ward Councillors concerning the decision by Council to remove all pedestrian crossings along Desborough Road, St Marys, with the memo to include:

a)       research and rationale to remove, when Bennett Road has crossings on all sides;

b)      consultation undertaken with community and St Marys South Public School and Lutheran pre-school;

c)       cost to install and maintain a standard, basic pedestrian crossing.

 

RR 2          Storage facilities - Surveyors Creek Community Centre                                       

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply providing results of an investigation into ways that Council can assist in providing greater storage facilities for the Glenmore Park Girl Guides, based at Surveyors Creek Community Centre.

 

RR 3          Process for Committing Council Funds                                                                    

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to all Councillors outlining the process to be followed when requesting allocation of Council funds.

 

RR 4          CUA Stadium Upgrade                                                                                             

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report to Council outlining options for the  preservation of the historic scoreboard at CUA Stadium, during the proposed upgrades of the Stadium.

 

 

URGENT BUSINESS

 

UB 1           Election of New Member for Penrith                                                                       

Councillor John Thain  requested that Stuart Ayres, the new Member for Penrith, be congratulated on his recent election.

 

UB 2           'Pink Panther' Game - Friday 25 June 2010                                                            

Councillor Tanya Davies requested that the local community be informed of the second year of the ‘Pink Panther’ game, which is to be held on Friday night, 25 June 2010, to raise awareness and funds in the Harvey Norman Women in League round, which is combining its fundraising efforts with the McGrath Foundation.

 

UB 3           Election of New Member for Penrith                                                                       

Councillor Mark Davies requested that the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, write to the new Member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, congratulating him on his election and also inviting him to Council for a meeting with the Mayor and General Manager, to be briefed about important issues facing Penrith City Council.

 

UB 4           The Late Bruce Oliver, Glenmore Park                                                                  

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested that Council write to the family of the Late Bruce Oliver, of Glenmore Park, who recently passed away, recognising his work in the community, especially in the establishment of the Glenmore Park Action Group.

 

UB 5           Leave of Absence                                                                                                     

Councillor Robert Ardill requested Leave of Absence from 26 July 2010 to 20 August 2010 inclusive.

218  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

219  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Robert Ardill from 26 July 2010 to 20 August 2010 inclusive.

 

 

UB 6           Great Walk Fundraising Event                                                                                

Councillor Greg Davies requested that $500 from each Ward’s voted works (totalling $1,500) be allocated towards the Great Walk Fundraising event, which was attended by members of the Penrith community, walking from Bathurst to Penrith.

 

220  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

221  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM $500 from each Ward’s voted works (totalling $1,500) be allocated towards the Great Walk Fundraising event, which was attended by members of the Penrith community, walking from Bathurst to Penrith.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

222  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor John Thain that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 10:45 pm.

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc left the meeting, the time being 10:47 pm and did not return.

 

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 10:47 pm.

 

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 10:49 pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

 

A Green City

 

2        Legal Matter - Compliance Issues at 123-179 Patons Lane, Orchard Hills                   

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 

The meeting resumed at 11:04 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 10:45 pm on 21 June 2010, the following being present

 

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain

 

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

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Legal Matter - Compliance Issues at 123-179 Patons Lane, Orchard Hills                   

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

CW2 That the information contained in the report on Legal Matter - Compliance Issues at 123-179 Patons Lane, Orchard Hills be received.

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

223  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1 and CW2 be adopted.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 11:05 pm.

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It should be noted that persons who wish to address the Council are addressing a formal part of the Council Meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting should give consideration to their dress attire. Smart casual is a minimum that is thought to be appropriate when addressing such a forum.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                        


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Local recognised in 2010 Queens Birthday Honours

 

2        Council's trainees shine once again in NSW Training Awards

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Local recognised in 2010 Queens Birthday Honours

 

Objective

We demonstrate leadership, foster resilience and tenacity, and encourage innovation

Community Outcome

A Regional City that provides our jobs, education, services and entertainment (1)

Strategic Response

Share aspirations and work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City (1.2)

            

 

I would like to congratulate long term Penrith resident Major John Straskye OAM, who was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the community in the 2010 Queen’s Birthday Honours List.

 

He joins 102 citizens from Penrith City who have previously received the nation’s highest honour which recognises outstanding “achievement or meritorious service”.

 

Major Straskye was particularly recognised for his dedicated service to the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps Association (RAAMCA), an association for members and former members of the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps. Major Straskye is the National President and Public Officer of RAAMCA and his 43 years of unbroken service make him its longest serving member.

 

Born in Penrith, Major Straskye attended Penrith High School, played junior rugby league for Penrith and lived here for over 60 years, although his distinguished career in the Australian Army and Australian Federal Police took him far and wide. He recently moved from Emu Plains to Walsh Bay but still considers Penrith ‘home’ and has business interests here.

 

Major Straskye saw active service in Vietnam as a Rifle Company Medical Assistant where he was one of many who saved the lives of injured Australian soldiers. After serving 21 years in the regular army he transferred to the Active Reserve in 1988. He later served with the Australian Federal Police.

 

Congratulations to Major Straskye on this well-deserved recognition for his outstanding contributions to the community.

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Local recognised in 2010 Queens Birthday Honours be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Council's trainees shine once again in NSW Training Awards

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)

Strategic Response

Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

            

 

 

I would like to congratulate two of Council’s 2009 trainees, Harold Dulay and Jennifer Shepherd, who were announced as regional winners in the 2010 NSW Training awards at a ceremony in Parramatta on 9 July. Our trainees won two of the eight categories in the Trainee of the Year Award, despite a competitive field of over 160 entrants.

 

Harold won the Business Administration category and was one of three finalists for the overall Western Sydney Trainee of the Year Award. He was a business administration trainee in the Legal and Governance Department last year, and currently works as Asset Management Administration Officer.

 

Jennifer won the Childcare category. She completed her childcare traineeship at Ridge-ee-Didge Children’s Centre before working as a childcare assistant at Blue Emu Children’s Centre until recently.

 

These prestigious annual awards are run by the NSW Department of Education and Training (DET) to recognise outstanding achievements in the vocational education and training sector. Candidates for the Trainee awards must have shown outstanding communication, team and leadership skills.

 

This is further proof of the success of Council’s leading traineeship programs, which have employed over 300 trainees since 2000. Council now offers almost 50 entry level traineeship opportunities each year in the fields of Horticulture, Construction, Sport and Recreation, Information Technology, Business Administration, Hospitality and Child Care.

 

Council has a proud history of success in these awards and I congratulate Harold and Jennifer on this outstanding achievement.

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Council's trainees shine once again in NSW Training Awards be received.

 

  


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 2 June 2010

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 28 June 2010

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 5 July 2010

 

4        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 12 July 2010

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 2 June, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Jackie Greenow (Chair), Ronda Hopkins, Michael Morris, Tricia Hitchen, Councillor Robert Ardill (5.19), Councillor Prue Guillaume (5.20), Denise Heath (5.30)

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Graham Howe, Building Projects Co-ordinator; Hans Meijer, City Works Manager; Joe Ibbitson, Community Programs Coordinator; Robyn Brookes, Disability Services Officer; Vanessa Muscat, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor; Peter Wood, Development Assessment Coordinator; Steve Barratt, Building Compliance Coordinator.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Ben Felten, John Farragher, Sherille Stephens and Erich Weller.

 

Councillor Ardill arrived at the meeting at 5.19pm.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 7 April 2010

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 7 April 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Green City

 

5        Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee  

 

DA10/0371     Proposed Builders Display Village and Temporary Carpark, Jordan Springs, The Northern Road, Llandilo

 

Peter Wood advised that the application is for the set up of land to accommodate a builder’s display village, temporary carpark and associated landscaping, footpath and signage.  The application does not include any of the buildings.  An access report has been provided with the application.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume arrived at the meeting at 5.20pm.

 

Peter Wood spoke about the DA tracker system on Council’s website.  He advised that all documents are now viewable online.

 

The Sales Information Centre is a separate development application.  The access report includes a number of plans which are helpful in terms of operations and descriptions.

 

Accessible spaces proposed for the western end of the site join onto the pedestrian path.  The site is a pedestrian zone throughout.

 

There are issues relating to road closure – conditional requirements for accessible paths of travel from the carpark are detailed in the access report, a copy of which is included as an attachment to the business paper.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

 

·    access footpaths to the display houses

·    possible parking spaces for people with disabilities in the centre of the site

·    question of whether the display homes and gardens will be accessible

·    the difficulty manoeuvring a wheelchair over roll kerbs.

 

Peter Wood advised that the current application covered what will be future road.  Further applications will be submitted for the buildings at which stage accessibility within the display homes will be addressed.  Wheelchair access to footpaths across the kerb can be conditioned.

 

Denise Heath arrived at the meeting at 5.30pm.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee be received.

 

4        Referrals to the Access Committee       

 

Peter Wood introduced the report advising that it followed on from a report to the Access Committee on 3 February 2010 which canvassed changes to the range of development applications to be referred to the Committee.

 

Peter Wood advised that this report focuses on issues discussed at the February meeting and provides more information on the changing legislative framework for assessment of applications, policy development, consideration of monthly meetings, pre-lodgement processes and enhanced building descriptions. It also presents a revised table of building types recommended to be referred.

 

Peter Wood advised that monthly meetings would be difficult and fairly demanding in terms of reporting to the Committee.  With applications of a major scale the two month time period is not a problem.  It was felt that monthly meetings to provide for development applications should not be the focus of the Committee.

 

It was concluded that all Class 9 public buildings would be reported to the Committee. 

 

Other issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    changes to reporting in terms of Class 3 buildings – accommodation for the aged, children or people with a disability

·    controls in terms of seniors living being fairly stringent

·    Class 6 buildings are not to be reported – restaurants, cafes and bars – some of these can be a seven day timeframe

·    Class 10 buildings will be reported – public swimming pools and public use developments.

 

Peter Wood advised that detail and specification has to be included with a development application to comply with the Building Code of Australia.  The BCA is being upgraded in terms of accessibility requirements.

 

Steve Barratt advised of new building standards coming on line next year.  It is hoped to get the buildings Council deals with Disability Discrimination Act compliant.  A report will be presented to a future Access Committee meeting detailing these new disability standards.

 

Vanessa Muscat advised that the biggest change to the standard is that access to the new area of a building will need to comply, e.g. if a fifth floor is being put on a four storey building.  Steve Barratt added that similarly if additions are made to the rear of a shop access all the way through will be looked at.

 

Peter Wood advised that the Development Services Department is always open to informal comment.  If Committee members have concerns please contact him and these can be considered as part of the assessment.

 

Steve Barratt reminded Committee members that an email is sent out weekly detailing new development applications.  Committee members can contact Development Services to be provided with more information on these applications.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Referrals to the Access Committee be received.

2.     The Access Committee adopt the revised list of building types to be referred for comment as outlined in Table A in this report.

 

A City of Opportunities

 

1        Recruitment and Appointment of Community Representatives to the Access Committee      

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that it is nearly two years since the current term of the community representatives on the Access Committee commenced and that the current Access Committee will formally expire later this year.  To get through the process and to the point where recommendations can be made about the new community representatives it is necessary to start the process now.  It was suggested that the recruitment process provide a forum for community awareness about the committee.

 

The Expression of Interest process and selection of community representatives will be completed in time to be reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 11 October 2010.  The new Access Committee will have its first meeting on 1 December 2010.  All current members will need to reapply.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    the current two year term of the Access Committee being not long enough

·    a possible four year term for the Committee

·    the difficulty of having new Councillors on the Committee as well as new community representatives

·    the suggestion of community representatives being replaced mid term

·    the rationale for changing the community representatives after two years

·    changing half the committee every second year, which could aid with continuity.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that a report on the highlights of the current committee would be presented to next Access Committee meeting.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Recruitment and Appointment of Community Representatives to the Access Committee be received.

2.     The recruitment process be used to promote the Access Committee in the community and highlight the important role of the community representatives on the committee.

 

2        Access Committee - Promotion and Marketing       

 

Joe Ibbitson spoke to the report which follows on from discussions at the 7 April 2010 Access Committee meeting.  The report presents proposals to enhance the promotion of the Access Committee and the role of the community representatives.

 

Councillor Greenow requested that John Farragher be phoned after the meeting regarding this report because he initiated the idea.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that the report includes the vision, aim and objectives of the Access Committee.  There is table summarising the key strategies and looking at ways to enhance promotion of the Committee and raise awareness in the community.

 

Discussion was held regarding Council’s current website and how to make contact with community representatives.  The contact email is redirected to Joe Ibbitson and Robyn Brookes and they can then pass on information.  There is a need to provide enhanced links to the Access Committee pages through other sites and provide a button on Council’s home page.  Council is currently investigating upgrading its website and improving accessibility. The Committee also discussed investigating a blog page.

 

The Committee also discussed the following:

 

·    a possible article about the Access Committee for the October edition of the community newsletter

·    a media release regarding the upgrades completed at the hospital

·    a profile of an Access Committee member, e.g. John Farragher as he has a high profile in the community.

 

RECOMMENDED  that the information contained in the report on Access Committee - Promotion and Marketing be received.

 

3        Progress Report - 2009-10 Disability Access Improvement Program 

 

Joe Ibbitson spoke to the 2009/10 Disability Access Improvement Program Progress report and summarised the status of the projects identified in the program.

 

Joe Ibbitson asked the Committee to support a revote of the balance of any unexpended funds to the 2010/11 budget to complete facilities on the first floor of the Council Civic Centre.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Progress Report - 2009-10 Disability Access Improvement Program be received.

2.     The Access Committee support the revote of the balance of any unexpended funds in the 2009-10 DAIP budget to the 2010-11 DAIP to complete the accessible toilet facilities on the first floor of the Civic Centre.

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1       Media Release – Government welcomes Productivity Commission Issues Paper on Disability Care and Support

 

A media release titled Government welcomes Productivity Commission Issues Paper on Disability Care and Support was handed out to the meeting.  Information about the Inquiry was also handed out.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that a report regarding this Issues Paper will be presented to the next Access Committee meeting.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that he had a few copies of the Issues Paper if Committee members wished to take one.  Robyn Brookes advised that the submission date has been extended to 16 August 2010.

  

GB 2          Memo from Parks Manager regarding Glenmore Park Public Toilets                 

A memo from the Parks Manager which referred to issues discussed at the April meeting was handed out.  The memo provided further information regarding public toilets in Glenmore Park

 

GB 3          Site Tour of Facilities

 

The Committee discussed the bus tour of facilities at St Marys Corner, Penrith Pool and Glenmore Child and Family Centre.  Some issues mentioned were:

 

·    training of volunteer drivers, especially with regard to securing a motorised wheelchair

·    the hand held shower at the pool being taken off and moved to the office

·    the new change room facility at the Penrith Pool being impressive

·    the stage lift at Memorial Hall didn’t lift the wheelchair as it was over 145kg

·    the hoist at the pool will be replaced with a permanent hoist as it could not lower down far enough

·    a more substantial and robust hoist will be purchased from next year’s Disability Improvement Program budget – a full refund will be received for the original hoist

·    Penrith Pool will be included in the next version of the Penrith access map.

 

GB 4          NSW State Government Cycling Plan                                                                     

Hans Meijer advised that the State Government has announced a Cycling Program and the Penrith St Marys link has been listed as a high priority.

 

$78 million has been allocated for cycle networks in Parramatta, Liverpool and Penrith. This will enable the cycleways in the Penrith area to be linked.  When further information is received it will be reported to the Committee.

 

GB 5          Shopping Centre, Peppertree Drive, Erskine Park                                                 

Ronda Hopkins advised that there are no public toilet facilities at the Franklins Shopping Centre on Peppertree Drive, Erskine Park .  There are 16 shops in the centre and no toilet facilities for the public.

 

Steve Barratt agreed to check into this situation and report back to Ronda Hopkins.

 

GB 6          Centrelink Jobs Expo                                                                                               

Councillor Greenow advised that Centrelink is hosting a Jobs Expo at Penrith Panthers on Thursday 10 June.  Council is also participating in the Expo.

 

GB 7          Footpath at Kingswood

 

Ronda Hopkins reported that there is a newly constructed footpath along the northern side of The Kingsway which terminates at Werrington Road at the roundabout without a pram ramp for pedestrians to cross the road.

 

Councillor Greenow asked Hans Meijer to look into this issue and get back to Ronda Hopkins.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7.02pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 2 June, 2010 be adopted.

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 28 June, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

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

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Tanya Davies, Ben Goldfinch and John Thain.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 10 May 2010

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 10 May 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 3 – Placement of Council’s news page as he is a Director of one of the news papers discussed in the report.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) - Future Directions

Group Manager – Leadership, Ruth Goldsmith introduced Executive Director of WSROC, Mr Jeremy Goff who gave a presentation on the future directions and recent achievements and initiatives of WSROC.

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:08pm.

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:10pm.                                          

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) - Future Directions be received.

 

2        One Association for Local Government in NSW

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on One Association for Local Government in NSW be received.

2.     Council nominate His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM and Deputy Mayor, Ross Fowler OAM or their representatives to attend the One Association Convention to be held in Sydney on 16 & 17 August 2010.

3.     A Position Paper be prepared for Council’s consideration and endorsement once the Discussion Paper is received.

 

3        Placement of Council's news page

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest Councillor Ross Fowler OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:11pm.                                                                                                                                 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Placement of Council's news page be received.

2.     The weekly Council news page be placed in the Western Weekender for a trial period of 12 months in the Early General News section of the paper.

3.     A further report be brought to a future Advertising Working Party discussing recruitment advertising.

4.     Council introduce its own internal monitoring program to ensure the Western Weekender is being delivered on time to all residents.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:15pm.

 

URGENT BUSINESS

 

UB 1           Leave of Absence                                                                                                     

Councillor Kath Presdee requested leave of absence from 11 July 2010 to 15 July 2010 inclusive.

RECOMMENDED that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDED that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Kath Presdee from 11 July 2010 to 15 July 2010 inclusive.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:16pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 28 June, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Liveable City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 5 July, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton - Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, Councillor Karen McKeown – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Pat Sheehy AM – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, Constable Bill Pearson – Penrith Police, David Lance - Roads and Traffic Authority, Rod Parbery – Roads and Traffic Authority, The Mayor – Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co‑ordinator, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager City Infrastructure, Alyce Kliese – Trainee Engineer.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Ron Watson – Westbus, Jodie Edmunds – Westbus, Steven Purvis – Ranger

 

APOLOGIES

Councillor Jackie Greenow, Sergeant Natasha Crawford – Penrith Police, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 June 2010

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 7 June 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Vivaldi Crescent, Claremont Meadows - Proposed Provision of 'No Stopping' Zone    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Vivaldi Crescent, Claremont Meadows - Proposed Provision of 'No Stopping' Zone be received.

2.     Full time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be installed along the eastern and western sides of Vivaldi Crescent, between Sunflower Drive and Paganini Crescent, Claremont Meadows.

3.     Affected residents be advised prior to installation of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions.

4.     Council Rangers and the resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

5.     Claremont Meadows Public School be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

2        Maxwell Street, South Penrith - Proposed Removal of 'Bus Zones'                               

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Maxwell Street, South Penrith - Proposed Removal of 'Bus Zones' be received.

2.     The ‘Bus Zone’ located approximately 40m east of Racecourse Road, in front of 153 Maxwell Street be removed.

3.     The ‘Bus Zone’ located approximately 20m west of Grandview Street in front of 123 Maxwell Street be removed.

4.     The affected residents and Westbus be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

3        Botany Lane, St Clair - Proposed Installation of 'No Stopping' Restrictions                 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Botany Lane, St Clair - Proposed Installation of 'No Stopping' Restrictions be received.

2.     Full-time ‘No Stopping’ signage be installed along the southern and western side of Botany Lane, St Clair from Bennett Road to the commencement of the bus bay/drop off zone at St Clair High School.

3.     The existing ‘No Parking’ signage along the southern and western side of Botany Lane, St Clair be removed.

4.     Timed ‘No Parking’ zone signage (8.00-9.30am & 2.30-4.00pm Monday to Friday) be installed at the ‘Kiss & Ride’ bay adjacent to St Clair High School in Botany Lane, St Clair.

5.     St Clair High School be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

4        High Street, Penrith - Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Penrith Public School          

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on High Street, Penrith - Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Penrith Public School be received.

2.     The information be noted.

3.     The Roads and Traffic Authority and Penrith Public School be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          DefQon.1 Music Festival, Sydney International Regatta Centre - Saturday 18 September 2010  (Raised Council)                                                                                             

Council has received a request from Event and Sports Projects Australia Pty Ltd (ESPA) for approval to hold the DefQon.1 Music Festival event on Saturday, 18 September 2010 at the Sydney International Regatta Centre (SIRC).  The event is proposed to commence at 11:00am and conclude at 10:00pm (egress 8:00pm to 12 midnight).

 

DefQon.1 is a dance festival which originates from the Netherlands.  The event has been held there since 2003 and attracts crowds of over 40,000 people.  It is proposed to hold DefQon.1

in Australia for the second time at the SIRC.  This event is expected to attract an attendance of 20,000–25,000 people, an increase of up to 65% from the 2009 event.

 

The applicant has applied for a new Development Application (DA) consent for the event, and any changes affecting traffic operations required as a result of the DA will require referral back to the Local Traffic Committee.  The applicant has proposed that the Local Traffic Committee consider the submitted Traffic Management Plan for the event and endorse it subject to the necessary approvals being in place for the event.

 

The majority of the patrons attending the event are expected to travel by train, as a train and bus ticket is included in the event ticket price, with a small number (approximately 1,500 cars) expected to drive and park at the venue.  Patrons who wish to drive will have the option of pre-purchasing the parking at a discounted rate before the event or at a higher price at the gate.

 

Patrons who have driven to the event will park in the SIRC carparks P3-P6.  At the conclusion of the event, vehicles will be asked to leave SIRC via gate E and exit via McCarthys Lane onto Castlereagh Road and left into Andrews Road.  Vehicles heading to Richmond/Windsor can turn left at the Castlereagh Road/McCarthys Lane intersection.

 

Those who travel by train will be able to utilise a shuttle bus service between Penrith Railway Station and the venue.  It is expected that 25 buses will be required for ingress from Penrith Railway Station to the venue, and 50 buses will be required for the egress of the event in order to move some 20,000 patrons back to Penrith Railway Station.  Additionally, the event shuttle bus will continue to operate throughout the day and into the evening to cater for patrons who leave the event early.  Buses will take approximately two minutes to load and one minute to unload.  It is expected that each bus will be able to make three trips an hour between SIRC and Penrith Railway Station.

 

The route from Penrith Railway Station to SIRC is proposed as:  exit Penrith Railway Station north side commuter carpark, left onto Coreen Avenue , turn right onto Castlereagh Road at roundabout, left into Lugard Street at traffic signals, right into Leland Street, left into Old Castlereagh Road and right into Gate A at SIRC.

 

Egress from the site is proposed to exit from Gate C, left onto Old Castlereagh Road, right onto Castlereagh Road at roundabout (this movement will have priority over vehicles exiting the site as they will be exiting at McCarthys Lane), left into Coreen Avenue at roundabout, right into Penrith Railway Station north side commuter carpark.

 

At 8:30pm event management will commence setup of managed traffic conditions on Castlereagh Road and McCarthys Lane, Castlereagh Road/Andrews Road/Old Castlereagh Road roundabout, Gate E and McCarthys Lane, and Old Castlereagh Road between Castlereagh Road and Leland Street.

 

Variable Message Signs (VMS) will be utilised in the following locations to assist with traffic

management before, during and after the event:

 

·    VMS No.1: Castlereagh Road (100m south of roundabout at Andrews Road)

·    VMS No.2: Castlereagh Road (150m north of roundabout at Andrews Road)

·    VMS No.3: Andrews Road (150m east of roundabout at Castlereagh Road)

·    VMS No.4: Old Castlereagh Road (at Gate C directing patrons to parking)

·    VMS No.5: Castlereagh Road/Old Castlereagh Road roundabout (west side of roundabout on Old Castlereagh Road)

·    VMS No.6: Castlereagh Road (20m from McCarthy’s Lane intersection)

 

If emergency access is required during the event, emergency vehicles will be directed to McCarthys Lane and through Gate E.  This access will be marshalled during the event to ensure access is maintained.

 

The event organisers have advised that there are a number of key agencies that have been involved in the planning of this event, including Q Dance Australia, SIRC, NSW Police, RailCorp, Roads and Traffic Authority, Bus NSW, E-Group Security, Ministry of Transport, and Ticketek.

 

LTC Comment

 

Anna Christie from Q-Dance Australia was invited to address the Committee to provide a brief overview of the event.

 

The Committee was also advised that Council staff are currently assessing a DA for the event and that traffic and parking would be assessed in detail as part of the application.

 

The Mayor raised concerns about the potential for accidents at the intersection of McCarthys Lane and Castlereagh Road as vehicles exit the event, and was advised that this would be investigated as part of the DA assessment.

 

The representative for the Member for Londonderry questioned the need to detour buses through Lambridge Estate and was advised that this route was used last year and was successful in maintaining return trip times to Penrith Railway Station, as bus turnaround times are critical to pedestrian movements to and from the event.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That:

 

1.     The Transport Management Plan for the event be endorsed subject to the event obtaining appropriate Roads and Traffic Authority, Police and Council Development Approval, with any Development Approval conditions altering traffic arrangements to be resubmitted to the Local Traffic Committee.

2.     Sydney International Regatta Centre submit the Transport Management Plan for the event to the Roads and Traffic Authority for approval prior to the event.

3.     The organisers submit a final Traffic Management Plan to Council, Roads and Traffic Authority and Police for information a minimum of six weeks prior to the event being held.

4.     The organisers obtain separate Roads and Traffic Authority approval.

5.     The organisers obtain separate Police approval.

6.     The organisers follow Police directions.

7.     The event organisers be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

GB 2          Russell Street, Emu Plains – Request for Provision of Parking Restrictions  (Raised Councillor McKeown)                                                                                                                 

Councillor McKeown requested an update on the status of investigations by the Roads and Traffic Authority regarding provision of parking restrictions in Russell Street, Emu Plains, between the Great Western Highway and the M4.

 

RECOMMENDED that the matter be investigated.

 

 

GB 3          Peppertree Drive, Erskine Park – Request to Lengthen ‘School Zone’  (Raised St Marys Police)                                                                                                                                

The St Marys Police representative raised concerns about the length of the ‘School Zone’ on the south side of James Erskine Public School in Peppertree Drive, Erskine Park.  The School Crossing Supervisor at the school has advised Police that the ‘School Zone’ sign and pavement markings are too close to the school and crossing.  As a result, vehicles are slowing too late and arriving at the raised crossing above the 40km/h speed limit.

 

The Police requested that the ‘School Zone’ on the south side of the school be lengthened to allow motorists more time to slow to the 40km/h speed limit, and to allow enforcement of the ‘School Zone’ speed limit.

 

RECOMMENDED that the matter be referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority for investigation.

 

 

 

GB 4          Jamison Road, Jamisontown, between Mulgoa Road & Tench Reserve – Request for Provision of Speed Limit Signs  (Raised Penrith Police)                                                           

The Penrith Police representative requested the provision of additional speed limit signs on Jamison Road, Jamisontown, between Mulgoa Road and Tench Reserve, in both directions.

RECOMMENDED that the matter be investigated.

 

GB 5          Barnes Road/Galvin Road, Llandilo – Pavement Markings  (Raised Mayor Crameri)  

Mayor Crameri requested an update from the Roads and Traffic Authority regarding the installation of painted speed limit markings on the road at Barnes Road/Galvin Road, Llandilo.

RECOMMENDED that Council write to the Roads and Traffic Authority and request an update.

 

 

GB 6          The Northern Road, Cranebrook – Request for Flashing Lights  (Raised Mayor Crameri)   

Mayor Crameri advised that roadside barriers have been installed too close to the travel lanes on The Northern Road near the new Jordan Springs Estate.  The Mayor suggested that flashing lights should be installed to warn motorists of the barriers.

 

RECOMMENDED that the matter be investigated.

 

 

GB 7          Parker Street/Great Western Highway, Penrith – Traffic Congestion  (Raised Mayor Crameri)   

Mayor Crameri requested investigation into the locations of the detectors at the traffic signals at Parker Street/Great Western Highway, Penrith for southbound vehicles turning right into High Street.  Currently if a vehicle is stopped partly over the white line, the detectors are not triggered.  Mayor Crameri also requested that the RTA investigate increasing the phasing associated with the right-turn from Parker Street heading west into the Great Western Highway, as vehicles are queuing back to the school.

 

RECOMMENDED that Council request the Roads and Traffic Authority to investigate these matters.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 10:20am

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 5 July, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 12 July, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Greg Davies (arrived 7:36pm), Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown and John Thain.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Kath Presdee for the period 11 July 2010 to 15 July 2010 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 28 June 2010

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 28 June 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Vibrant City

 

3        Draft Health Strategy and Action Plan

Group Manager, People & Places – Roger Nethercote introduced the report and invited Healthy People & Partnership Officer, Monique Desmarchelier who gave a presentation.

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:10pm.                                                      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Health Strategy and Action Plan be received.

2.     The draft Health Strategy and Action Plan be placed on public exhibition.

3.     A further report be brought back to Council following assessment of public submission for consideration of adoption of the Health Strategy and Action Plan.

4.     Council Officers involved in the preparation of the Draft Health Strategy and Action Plan be thanked for their efforts in developing the Strategy and Plan.

 

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:12pm.

 

A Leading City

 

1        NSW 2010 Community Building Partnership Program                                                     

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on NSW 2010 Community Building Partnership Program be received.

2.     Council endorse the four nominated projects to be developed into submissions to meet the 23 July 2010 application deadline, with matching funding confirmed from the identified sources.

Penrith Electoral District:

·    Cranebrook Neighbourhood Centre refurbishment of kitchen and toilets.

·    Grant request $45,000.

·    Source of matching funds: 2010-11 Building Asset Renewal Program.

Mulgoa Electoral District:

·    St Marys Senior Citizens common area and toilet refurbishment.

·    Grant request $45,000.

·    Source of matching funds: 2010-11 Building Asset Renewal Program.

Londonderry Electoral District:

·    Werrington Walking Trail missing links section through Werrington Park.

·    Grant request $30,000.

·    Source of matching funds: 2010-11 City Works Operational Budget

Smithfield Electoral District:

·    Erskine Park Childcare Centre kitchen and bathroom upgrade.

·    Grant request $35,000.

·    Source of matching funds: Children’s Services Pooled funds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2        Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3                                  

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 be received.

2.     Council endorse the recommended projects and their prioritisation for applications to be submitted to the RLCIP Round Three program to permit staff to prepare applications for the 30 July 2010 deadline.

3.     That Council thank the Minister for Infrastructure for the provision of funding under RLCIP Round 3 and encourage the Minister and the Federal Government to continue the funding of community infrastructure replacement and renewal by establishing the RLCIP as a permanent program of assistance for Local Government.

4.     That Council support the efforts of ALGA and the National Growth Areas Alliance in lobbying for the establishment of a permanent Federal fund to assist Local Government in resourcing the replacement and renewal of ageing community facilities.

5.     An urgent report be prepared for the next Council Meeting providing a list of alternative projects for consideration.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:44pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 12 July, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

  



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Audit Committee

 

2        Community Management and Development Seminar - Xicheng District Beijing

 

3        Loan Borrowing Program

 

4        Summary of Investments and Banking  for the period 1 June  to 30 June 2010

 

URGENT

 

14      Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) Round 3

  

A Green City

 

5        Increased energy consumption from Energy Saving Action Plan facilities

 

6        Tender for the Supply and Distribution of Biodegradable Bags

 

URGENT

 

15      Penrith Recycled Water Scheme Stage 2

 

A Liveable City

 

7        Proposal to Fence the Dog Off-Leash Exercise Area at Jamison Park, South Penrith

 

8        Establishment of additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas

 

9        Formation of the Penrith Floodplain Advisory Committee

 

URGENT

 

16      Tender - Howell Oval Cricket Pavilion

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

10      Section 96 Application DA06/1014.05 for the Retention of the Existing Southern Access Driveway at Corpus Christi Primary School at Lot 1 DP 1144668 (No. 86 - 94) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Catholic Education Office;  Owner: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church DA06/1014.05

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

 

11      Proposed variation of a restriction on the use of land and Development Application DA10/0128 - Proposed  split level dwelling at Lot 31 DP 1083294 (No. 3)  Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park . Applicant: Hardeep Singh Badhesha;  Owner: Hardeep Singh Badhesha DA10/0128

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

 

12      Development Application DA09/0714 proposed construction of 30 residential apartments over three levels and basement at Lot 3, 10 & 11 DP 38418 (No. 1 - 3) Putland Street and (No. 2) Sainsbury Street, St Marys. Applicant: SCC Holdings Pty Ltd;  Owner: SCC Holdings Pty Ltd & HSC Holdings Pty Ltd DA09/0714

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

 

13      Development Application DA09/0550 for Multi-Unit Housing at Lot 1 DP 91022 & Lot 10 DP 807323 (No. 1 - 9) Lamrock Street, Emu Plains. Applicant: Phoenix Group;  Owner: CSX Property Pty Ltd DA09/0550

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

 

 


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Audit Committee

 

2        Community Management and Development Seminar - Xicheng District Beijing

 

3        Loan Borrowing Program

 

4        Summary of Investments and Banking  for the period 1 June  to 30 June 2010

 

URGENT

 

14      Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) Round 3

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Audit Committee   

 

Compiled by:                Peter Browne, Internal Auditor

Authorised by:             Stephen Britten, Group Manager - Legal & Governance   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides information on the meeting of the Council’s Audit Committee held on
2 June 2010 and recommends a minor amendment to the Audit Committee Charter.

Background

The Audit Committee is comprised of the Mayor (or the Mayor’s representative), three other Councillors and three independent members appointed by Council, to advise on financial reporting, internal controls, corporate risks, business ethics, assurance and other matters as identified in its Charter.  The Audit Committee Charter was created by Council resolution on 13 November 2006 and has been amended by Council three times, the most recent being on 4 May 2009.

 

The NSW Local Government Internal Audit Guidelines (issued 14 October 2008) provide that:

 

An audit committee plays a pivotal role in the governance framework. It provides councils with independent oversight and assistance in the areas of risk, control, compliance and financial reporting.

Current Situation

The Audit Committee met on 2 June 2010 and adopted the draft minutes of the prior meeting (as provided to Council on 3 May 2010) without alteration.  The Committee considered a number of matters including an update on financial reporting in the lead up to the end of the financial year. 

 

In accordance with the Committee’s Charter, the draft minutes of the Audit Committee meeting of 2 June 2010 are appended to this report. 

Audit Committee Charter

The Audit Committee Charter contains details of how the Committee should operate including provisions on the appointment of the Chairperson.  In accordance with the NSW Local Government Guidelines and accepted best practice, the Committee elects one of its independent (non-councillor) members as its chairperson.  The Charter makes no reference as to whether any other position should exist. 

 

Following a recent meeting where the chairperson was unable to attend, the Audit Committee has formed a view that it would be beneficial for the administration of its tasks if the position of deputy chairperson was established.  The Committee therefore resolved to request Council to update the charter to expressly authorise the election of a deputy chairperson.  Currently the Charter adopts the recommendation of the then Department of Local Government, that the Chairperson should be an Independent (a non-Councillor).  It is considered appropriate that the requirement should also apply to the Deputy Chairperson.

 

If Council adopts the recommendation, the following sentence will be inserted into the Audit Committee Charter after the requirement that the Chairperson be independent:

 

“Likewise, if the Committee elects a Deputy Chairperson, that person should also be an independent member.”

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Audit Committee be received.

2.     The Audit Committee Charter be amended by adding provisions concerning the Deputy Chairperson as detailed in the report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Audit Committee Charter

4 Pages

Appendix

2. View

Audit Committee Draft Minutes

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 1 - Audit Committee Charter

 

 

 

Audit Committee Charter

 

    

    

 

 

 

1.         Audit Committee Purpose

 

The Audit Committee is an independent advisory Committee assisting the Council to fulfil its oversight responsibilities. The primary duties and responsibilities of the Audit Committee are to assist the Council discharge its responsibilities relating to:

 

·    Financial reporting practices

·    Business ethics, policies and practices

·    Management and internal controls

·    Monitoring the integrity of the Council’s financial reporting practices and finance and accounting compliance

·    Reviewing internal controls, key corporate risks and all audit related matters

·    Encouraging adherence to Council’s policies and continuous improvement of Council’s systems and practices.

·    Adoption of the Internal Audit Plan.

 

The independence of the Audit Committee is critical to its ability to operate effectively.

 

 

2.         Audit Committee Membership and Meetings

 

The Audit Committee shall be comprised of the Mayor of the day (or a Councillor being the Mayor’s representative), three other Councillors broadly representative of the composition of the Council, and up to three Independent external members.  All appointments shall be made by the Council.

 

Independent members shall be appointed for a period of two years or such other term as the Council may resolve.  Members will be encouraged to serve multiple terms and to plan for an orderly rotation of members so that experienced members will always be serving. The Audit Committee should make recommendations to Council on membership.

 

In considering new independent members for the Audit Committee, advice will be sought and regard will be given to:

 

·    Recommendations from an accounting industry body, either CPA Australia or the Institute of Chartered Accountants;

·    Recommendations from the University of Western Sydney (endeavouring to maintain one member of the committee as a UWS nominee); and

·    The existence of a nexus between the candidate and the Penrith LGA or the Western Sydney region.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 1 - Audit Committee Charter

 

 

 

The independent members on the Committee should be remunerated for attending Audit Committee Meetings. The remuneration level shall be adopted by the Council.

 

In order to maintain independence, and to comply with the recommendations of the Department of Local Government, the Committee should elect one of the independent members as its chairperson.  Likewise, if the Committee appoints a Deputy Chairperson, that person should also be an independent member.  The chairperson shall endeavour to conduct meetings on a “consensus basis” but formal voting on recommendations shall be required.  Each member shall have one vote and a majority of those present shall be required to pass a recommendation. The meetings should operate as far as is practical in accordance with the Council’s Code of Meeting Practice. 

 

The Chairperson shall determine the agenda for the Committee in conjunction with Council staff, circulating it to the members prior to each meeting. 

 

The Committee shall meet at least four times a year. Additional meetings may be held as directed by the Chairperson. 

 

A quorum shall not exist unless the following are present in person:

- at least half of all the members; and

- at least half of the members who are Councillors; and

- at least one independent member.

 

Meetings are to be rescheduled if there is not a quorum.  The Council’s Internal Auditor (or if unavailable, another Council officer) will minute proceedings of all meetings. 

 

The Audit Committee shall, after every meeting, forward the minutes of that meeting to the next Ordinary meeting of the Council, including a report explaining any specific recommendations and key outcomes, if appropriate.

 

The Committee will ensure that Committee members comply with Council’s policies regarding confidentiality, privacy and reporting. Committee members shall treat all information received as part of the Committee as confidential and only disclose the content to third parties with the consent of the other members of the Committee.

 

The General Manager, Chief Financial Officer and the Internal Auditor will be advisers to the Committee. Other staff members may be requested to attend these meetings from time to time, including the Financial Services Manager and the Legal and Governance Manager. 

 

The Committee may seek advice from management or professional advisers, request their attendance at Committee meetings, and consult with the external auditors as deemed necessary in the performance of its duties.

 

The Committee will report annually to the Council summarising the activities of the Committee during the previous year.

 


3.         Audit Committee Responsibilities and Duties

 

Review Function

 

The Audit Committee will:

 

1.         In consultation with the management, the external auditors, and the internal auditor, consider the integrity of the Council’s financial reporting processes and organisational controls.

2.         Discuss significant financial and other key corporate risks and the steps management has taken to monitor, control and report such exposures.

3.         Review significant findings reported by the external auditors and the internal auditor, together with management’s responses including the status of previous recommendations.

4.         Review the effectiveness of the annual financial audit to determine whether emphasis is being placed on areas where the Committee, management or the Auditors believe special attention is necessary.

5.         Review the Council’s annual financial statements with the General Manager, Chief Financial Officer and the external auditor prior to tabling at Council. The review should include discussion with management and external auditors of significant issues regarding accounting principles, practices and judgments.

6.         Review and re-assess the adequacy of this Audit Committee Charter at least once per Council term.

 

 

Internal Audit

 

In regard to Internal Audit, the Audit Committee will:

 

1.         Review and approve the Internal Audit Charter and any subsequent changes, to ensure that internal audit activities are in accordance with the Internal Audit Charter.

2.         Review the Internal Audit Plan and approve any changes.

3.         Discuss with the external auditor significant issues arising from the annual audit.

4.         The Internal Audit function shall be responsible to the General Manager, but have a reporting responsibility to the Audit Committee.

 

 

External Auditors

 

In regard to the External Auditors, the Audit Committee will:

 

1.         Oversee Council’s compliance with the Local Government Act requirements for financial reporting and auditing.

2.         Review the External Auditor’s management letter and management’s response to the recommendations.

3.         Support the General Manager and Council in the appointment and evaluation of the external auditor in accordance with S 422 to 427 of the Local Government Act.

4.         The Chairperson of the Committee is to liaise with the External Auditor of the Council to foster a co-operative and professional working relationship.


Other Audit Committee Responsibilities

 

The Audit Committee will:

 

1.         Report annually to the Council.

2.         Maintain minutes of meetings and periodically report to the Council on significant results of the Council’s audit activities.

3.         Periodically review corporate risk issues reported by either the Council’s Internal Auditor and / or the Risk Management Co-ordinator.

4.         Periodically review, discuss and assess Audit Committee performance as well as the Committee’s role and responsibilities, seeking input from senior management, the Council and others if needed.

 

 

Support for the Committee

 

The General Manager shall ensure that reasonable resources are allocated to providing the Audit Committee with the information it needs to discharge its responsibilities.  The Internal Auditor shall report to each meeting on achievements and plans related to matters of interest to the Audit Committee.

 

The General Manager shall ensure that no restriction is placed on the ability of Council’s Internal Auditor to inform the Audit Committee members of any matter or detail the Internal Auditor considers appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: Charter History / Notes
•	This document includes a proposed change which is underlined
•	Original Charter adopted by Council 13 Nov 2006
•	Section 2 – “Audit Committee Membership and Meetings” revised by Council 25 June 2007.
•	Committee membership amended by Council Resolution 25 June 2007 –  text added “(or a Councillor being the Mayor’s representative)” to reflect the resolution.
•	Committee Purpose amended by Council 25 Feb 2008
•	Various minor amendments to strengthen independence plus 
(codifying existing practice) Chair to be an Independent  4 May 2009
•	Remuneration of the Independent Committee members last set 5 Nov 2007 at $200 per meeting plus additional $200 for Chairperson.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 2 - Audit Committee Draft Minutes

 

 

 

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON WEDNESDAY 2 JUNE 2010 AT 8:00AM

PRESENT

Robert Coombes (Chair), His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Frank Gelonesi, Jayant Gulwadi and Councillor Kath Presdee.

 

Alan Stoneham (General Manager), Peter Browne (Internal Auditor),

Barry Husking (Director), Stephen Britten (Group Manager Legal and Governance), Vicki

O’Kelly (Group Manager Finance), Andrew Moore (Financial Services Manager) and Dennis

Banicevic (External Auditor – PricewaterhouseCoopers)..

 

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Audit Committee Meeting - 31 March 2010

AUC 7  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting of 31 March 2010 be confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil

 

 

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        2009-10 Financial Statements                                                                                            

Andrew Moore advised the Committee of changes to accounting policy coming from the Division of Local Government.  The accounting code was released in draft form a week ago.  It was noted that revaluations are being required and questions were asked regarding the cost and benefit.  It was advised that Council re-valued its Buildings in 2008-09 and did not face significant cost because these buildings valuation were conducted in conjunction with the scheduled re-valuation for insurance purposes. Council’s operational land and civil assets are valued in-house.  Some Councils are believed to be facing costs of around $200,000 for the process.  Dennis Banicevic talked about the different views of how land under roads should be valued

 

AUC 8  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Frank Gelonesi, seconded  Jayant Gulwadi that the information contained in the report on 2009-10 Financial Statements be received.

 

 

2        Audit Committee Standing Items                                                                                       

Peter Browne updated the Committee on various matters.  The possible creation of the position of Deputy Chairperson was discussed.

AUC 9  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Frank Gelonesi, seconded  Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, that the Committee request Council to amend the Audit Committee Charter to add (after the requirement for the chairperson to be independent):

“Likewise, if the Committee appoints a Deputy Chairperson, that person should also be

an independent member.”

Andrew Moore updated the Committee on the Council’s financial position.  Council has applied to WorkCover to move to the new “Burning Cost” Workers Compensation system.  The scheme sits between the traditional premium based and self insurance models.  If Council succeeds in managing its cost of claims to similar levels as in recent years, substantial savings will be made.  Initial savings will be quarantined in the insurance reserve to provide funding if claims are greater than expected.

 

The Information Technology Security Audit was discussed.  Some gaps in security were found and these are being addressed.  The contracted audit firm (BDO) did not provide any comment in the report on what was done well or how performance compared to other organisations.  Future Audit Scopes will be more explicit in requesting comment on such matters.  Committee members noted that we seem to be using older versions of Microsoft Systems.  The Information Management and Technology Manager will be asked to comment on this matter.  

 

The progress of the Audit Program was discussed.  It was noted that substantial benefits had flowed from the Program and that Internal Audit was responsive to risks that become apparent during the year.  The Program is however behind schedule.  The Committee requested a more detailed report be provided to the next meeting.

 

AUC 10  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Jayant Gulwadi, seconded Frank Gelonesi,  that the information contained in the report on Audit Committee Standing Items be received.

 

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 9:15am.

 

3        Progress on implementing Audit Recommendations                                                        

The Committee had extensively discussed progress on implementing audit recommendations at the last Audit Committee meeting.  Peter Browne advised that the General Manager had initiated a process of conferring with the Group Managers on progress on implementing Audit Recommendations and that attention by Managers to the issues has increased since the last meeting.  The Internal Auditor indicated that there are no matters which cause concern at this point.  The Internal Auditor was requested to consider if the report could be modified to better highlight progress and problems.

AUC 11  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Jayant Gulwadi, seconded Frank Gelonesi, that the information contained in the report on implementing Audit Recommendations be received.

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

 

Governance Training                                                                                                                    

Stephen Britten updated the Committee on Governance Training which has commenced for all staff.

 

Westpool                                                                                                                                       

 Councillor Ross Fowler OAM advised the Committee that Wollongong City Council is being admitted into Westpool effective 1 November 2010.  There was an extensive due diligence review before the decision was made to accept the Council.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:25am.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Community Management and Development Seminar - Xicheng District Beijing   

 

Compiled by:                Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager

Authorised by:             Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager   

 

Objective

We demonstrate leadership, foster resilience and tenacity, and encourage innovation

Community Outcome

A Regional City that provides our jobs, education, services and entertainment (1)

Strategic Response

Share aspirations and work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City (1.2)

        

 

Executive Summary

The People’s Government of Xicheng District Beijing invited Penrith City Council to attend the Xicheng District’s Sister Cities Community Management and Development Seminar.  The Seminar was held on 23 and 24 June 2010 at the Xicheng District Cultural Centre.

 

The Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM and Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager, represented Council at the seminar.  The costs of the visit were met by the People’s Government of Xicheng District. Other Xicheng District sister cities in attendance included the City of Pasadena, California and Shibuya District, Tokyo.

 

The purpose of the Community Management and Development Seminar was to provide an opportunity for the People’s Government and its officers to become familiar with and learn from the community development practice of its sister cities.  Each of the participating sister cities made a presentation to approximately 400 Xicheng District government officials and staff.

 

In Penrith City’s case this presentation included a speech from the Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM, on Penrith City Council and the role of local government in the context of the Australian government system.  Mr Weller gave a presentation after the Mayor’s speech on a number of Penrith City Council’s community development projects that highlighted Council’s strategic approach to supporting the wellbeing of our communities.  The presentations were well received.

 

Sister City representatives also attended a number of formal events as well as visiting a community service centre and city libraries.

 

The report recommends that the information be received.

Background

The Xicheng (or western) District in Beijing is 31.66 square kilometres with a population of 912,000 and a population density of 29,000 people per square kilometre.  This district is divided into seven sub-districts for the purposes of service delivery.  The People’s Government of Xicheng District is headed by Governor Zhang Jiandong.  The Xicheng District in Beijing includes the main centres of national political administration as well as being the financial centre of China.  Major tourist attractions in the district include the Forbidden City, Tianiaman Square and the Memorial Hall of Chairman Mao Tse-Tung.

 

The People’s Government of Xicheng District has a greater range of responsibilities than local government in NSW.  These additional responsibilities include schools, hospitals and city police.  For example there are 122 schools and 31 general and special hospitals in the Xicheng District.  In 2009 Xicheng District received over 62 million visitors, about 800,000 of whom were foreigners.

 

In recent years the People’s Government of Xicheng District has embarked upon an ambitious expansion from providing services to undertaking more complex community development fostering neighbourhood resilience, increased autonomy, mutual support, as well as the expansion of cultural and social facilities such as cultural centres, libraries and community centres.  Major challenges include the ageing of the population, population pressure, public health, labour rights and cultural integration.

 

Community Management and Development Seminar

 

The Mayor and Council’s Community and Cultural Development Manager made the Penrith City Council’s presentation to senior officials of the People’s Government of Xicheng District Beijing as well as approximately 400 staff involved in community development and direct social and related service delivery on the afternoon of Wednesday 23 June.

 

The Mayor in his speech provided an overview of the three levels of government in Australia and their different responsibilities.  The Mayor also provided additional information on Penrith City Council including its location and population as well as a more detailed overview of Council’s service delivery. The speech also provided an overview of Council’s budget, sources of revenue and expenditure.  The speech was also accompanied by a series of Powerpoint slides.

 

The Mayor’s speech was followed by a presentation by Council’s Community and Cultural Development Manager on Penrith City Council’s approach to contributing to the social wellbeing and health of local residents.  This includes:

 

·    Identifying gaps in services, supporting service planning, and advocating for additional funding

·    Providing infrastructure that enables local residents to participate in programs and activities

·    Leading or coordinating specific projects across the City or in local neighbourhoods to enhance social capital

·    Coordinating and supporting social service networks to respond to priority needs.

 

Council’s approach to community and cultural development was illustrated by a summary of a number of examples.  These were NAIDOC Week, the Glenmore Park Child and Family Centre, the St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct, the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy and the Neighbourhood Renewal Program.

 

 

Other Engagements

 

The Penrith City Council delegation was formally received by the Governor Zhang Jiandong on the afternoon of 22 June with a formal banquet held later that evening.  The banquet also provided an opportunity to meet the Pasadena and Shibuya District delegations.  The Mayor also gave a short speech at this banquet which highlighted the richness and strength of the Penrith/Xicheng sister city relationship. City gifts were also exchanged.

 

Penrith City Council’s delegations also visited a Community Service Centre and City Library which provided an opportunity to see a number of seniors cultural activities including a choir, calligraphy class, Peking Opera rehearsal and dance class.  Given that in China men are required to retire at 60 and women at 55, these organised activities are critical for older people to support their wellbeing.

 

Summary

 

Penrith City Council’s participation in the Community Development and Management Seminar hosted by the People’s Government of Xicheng District provided a further opportunity to demonstrate the value and benefits of Council’s sister city relationships.

 

The senior officials of the People’s Government expressed their appreciation of Council’s presentations and the opportunity to learn from the experience of other cities.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Community Management and Development Seminar - Xicheng District Beijing be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

3

Loan Borrowing Program   

 

Compiled by:                Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)

Strategic Response

Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

        

 

Executive Summary

Council at its meeting on 22 March 2010 gave approval to commence the 2009-10 borrowing program of $4,113,000 for general infrastructure and AREAS. On 24 May 2010 Council approved a further loan of $3,110,000 to fund the purchase of land for drainage and improvement works at Caddens Park.  Council delegated the General Manager authority to negotiate and accept the terms of the borrowings and resolved that the final terms and conditions of the borrowings be reported back to Council upon completion of the contracts.

 

This report provides a summary of the evaluation process and quotations received.  It informs Council that the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac were the successful lenders and recommends that the information be received.

Background

Council at its meeting of 22 March 2010 resolved to borrow $4,113,000 for infrastructure works and AREAS for a term of 10 years. Council also resolved on 24 May 2010 to borrow $3,110,000 on a 10 or 15 year repayment term to purchase land for drainage and improvement works at Caddens Park.

 

During June requests for quotations were sent to ANZ, Bank of Cyprus, Bankwest, Citibank, The Commonwealth Bank (CBA), Denison Financial Advisory Pty Ltd, Illawarra Mutual Building Society (IMB), Macquarie Bank, Members Equity Bank (ME), National Australia Bank (NAB), St George Bank and Westpac Banking Corporation (WBC).

Current Situation

Four banks, ANZ, CBA, NAB and WBC provided quotations in accordance with Council’s request. However the submission from NAB reached Council later than the deadline so it was unable to be considered. The other banks declined to quote on this occasion.

 

ANZ provided quotations for a 5 year fixed term with semi-annual repayments of interest only for each loan.

 

The CBA provided rates for quarterly and semi-annual repayments amortised over 10 or 15 years with an initial term fixed for 5 or 10 years after which loans would be renegotiated. They also offered a 10 year fixed rate.

 

Westpac (WBC) provided quotations for quarterly repayments with a maximum fixed period of 5 years, amortised over 10 or 15 years.

 

Whilst CBA and WBC waived all fees, ANZ proposed to charge establishment and administration fees which significantly increased the overall cost of each loan.

 

Details of these quotations were as follows:

 

New borrowings of $4,113,000 for 10 years

 

Institution

Semi-annual

Quarterly

ANZ (interest only) 5 years fixed

7.69%

 

CBA  10 Years fixed

7.94%

7.90%

CBA  10 years renewed after 5

7.32%

7.29%

WBC 10 years renewed after 5

 

7.30%

 

After consideration of net the present value (NPV) of the cashflows associated with each proposal, the CBA fixed 10 year loan (renewed after 5 years), with quarterly repayments, was determined to provide the optimum outcome and was selected for this loan.

 

Special purpose loan of $3,110,000 for 10 or 15 years

 

Institution

Semi-annual

Quarterly

ANZ  (interest only) 5 years fixed

7.69%

 

CBA  15 years renewed after 10

8.04%

8.01%

CBA  fixed for 10 years

7.94%

7.91%

CBA  10 years renewed after 5

7.32%

7.29%

CBA  15 years renewed after 5

7.35%

7.32%

WBC 15 years renewed after 5

 

7.30%

WBC 10 years renewed after 5

 

7.30%

 

After consideration of the net present value (NPV) of the cashflows associated with each proposal, WBC 10 year loan (renewed after 5 years), with quarterly repayments, was determined to provide the optimum outcome and was selected for this loan.

Conclusion

The 2009-2010 borrowing program has now been completed. Funds were drawn down on 24 and 28 June 2010. All institutions who submitted proposals have been informed of the outcome of their submissions.

 

As has been the case in recent years, short term rates have provided a considerable advantage as long term credit is currently costly and more difficult to obtain. Both loans have been fixed for the next 5 years and will be required to be renegotiated for the balance of their terms.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Loan Borrowing Program be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

4

Summary of Investments and Banking  for the period 1 June  to 30 June 2010   

 

Compiled by:                Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)

Strategic Response

Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

        

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 June 2010 to 30 June 2010, a reconciliation of invested funds at 30 June 2010 and Agency Collection Methods as at 30 June. The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Background

CERTIFICATE OF RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I hereby certify the following:

 

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

2.   Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled as at 30 June 2010.

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments and Banking  for the period 1 June  to 30 June 2010 be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 June 2010 to 30 June 2010 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 30 June 2010 be noted.

4.     The Agency Collection Methods as at 30 June 2010 be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Summary of Investments June 2010

4 Pages

Appendix

2. View

Agency Collection Methods

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments June 2010

 

 

 





Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 2 - Agency Collection Methods

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following is an update of the methods to make payments to Council through various agencies.

 

 

 


 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

5        Increased energy consumption from Energy Saving Action Plan facilities

 

6        Tender for the Supply and Distribution of Biodegradable Bags

 

URGENT

 

15      Penrith Recycled Water Scheme Stage 2

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Green City

 

 

 

5

Increased energy consumption from Energy Saving Action Plan facilities   

 

Compiled by:                Krystie Race, Sustainability Research Planner

Bernadette Riad, Acting Sustainability Coordinator 

Authorised by:             Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager

Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Objective

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

Community Outcome

A Council with a smaller ecological footprint (13)

Strategic Response

Work to reduce the organisation’s ecological footprint (13.1)

        

 

Executive Summary

Penrith City Council actively manages its energy consumption through the implementation of action plans such as Carbon Neutral and the more specific Energy Savings Action Plan (ESAP). Together, these plans provide a coordinated framework to target our highest consuming facilities, and identify areas to improve our overall resource management. 

 

This report details the status of Council’s energy consumption for the 2008-09 reporting period, and provides explanation for the increases in energy consumption recorded at three of Council’s highest energy using facilities.

 

As outlined in the report provided to Council on 22 February 2010, consumption data for the 2008-09 financial year demonstrated that although energy use for Council as a whole has decreased since 2007-2008, three of the facilities contained in Council’s Energy Savings Action Plan (ESAP) have shown an increase in energy consumption since 2005-06 (the baseline).

 

Investigations into these sites have since highlighted a range of factors contributing to these increases, ranging from aging and inefficient plant through to the increased usage of, or expansion of particular assets.  In moving forward, Council has identified, and in some instances, commenced actions to address these increases.

 

Background

Developed in response to legislation gazetted by the NSW State Government in 2006, Council’s ESAP provides detailed consumption profiles and recommendations for efficiency improvements for Council’s ten highest energy using facilities.  Progress against this plan is reported annually to Council and the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW). The report detailing the consumption data and energy saving initiatives implemented for 2008-09 was presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 22 February 2010.

 

As outlined in that report, a number of facilities contained in the ESAP, (namely Street Lighting, the Queen Street Centre, Ripples, and Community Connections), recorded significant increases in energy consumption in the 2008-09 financial year. Investigations with individual facility managers and the Building Services team have identified the factors contributing these increases and the actions required to reduce consumption. The outcomes of these investigations are detailed in the following sections of this report.

                                                        

Council Energy Consumption (2008-09)

During 2008-09, Council consumed a total of 80,545 gigajoules (GJ) of energy, which is a 10% decrease from 2007-08 (89,667GJ). The majority of Council’s energy use is attributed to Council’s ten most energy intensive facilities, which are those contained in the ESAP. In 2008-2009, these facilities combined recorded a total consumption of 73,492 GJ.

 

As demonstrated in Table 1 below, despite the majority of facilities contained in the ESAP demonstrating a reduction in energy consumption, three have recorded an increase in energy consumption over the 2008-09 financial year (Street Lighting, the Queen Street Centre, and Community Connections).

 

Table 1:  Consumption of Council’s ESAP energy intensive facilities

 

Facility

2005-06 (Baseline) Energy Consumption (GJ)

2006-07

Energy Consumption (GJ)

2007-08

Energy Consumption (GJ)

2008-09 Energy Consumption (GJ)

% Change 2005-06

to

2008-09

1. Street Lighting

30,567

30,781*

32,745

32,779*

+7.2%

2. Penrith Whitewater Stadium

11,495

10,592

10,991

9,267*

-19.4%

3. Ripples Leisure Centre

14,256

12,475*

14,731*

12,838

-9.95%

4. Civic Centre

10,217

10,289*

10,154

10,156

-0.6%

5. Penrith Memorial Swimming Pool

2,988

2,972

2,712

2,913

-2.5%

6. Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

1,829

1,823*

1,757*

1,678*

-8.2%

7. Queen Street Centre

1,540

1,498

1,059

1,867

+21.2%

8. Works Depot

900

561

586*

587

-34.7%

9. Community Connections

834

885

917

995

+19.3%

10.St Clair Recreation Centre

461

443

428

412

-10.6%

 

75,087

72,319

76,080

73,492

-2%

 

*Figure extracted from Planet Footprint Data and Webgraphs

 

In viewing this data, it should be noted that the variation in the total consumption figures is attributed primarily to fluctuations in energy consumption at Ripples Leisure Centre. This site has experienced considerable fluctuations in annual energy use over the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09, with investigations indicating that these fluctuations are largely related to pool water heating, sporadic malfunction of the pool water heating system, and variations in average ambient temperatures.  The replacement of the heating system in April 2010 should see more consistent consumption patterns at this site.

 

It should also be noted that the report provided to Council on 22 February 2010 had erroneously listed the baseline consumption data for Ripples Leisure Centre as 11,256GJ where it should have read 14,256GJ. The adjustment of this figure confirms that consumption at Ripples has in fact decreased in 2008-09.   

 

Further details of the results of investigations into increases in consumption at individual sites and the cost implications of those increases are detailed in the sections below.

 

Street Lighting

Council’s street lighting account is made up of a complex network of lighting types and technologies which vary in energy efficiency based on age and application. Energy consumption attributed to street lighting has continued to increase over recent years as the City has expanded and demands for service have increased. Since 2005-06, the street lighting network has grown from a network of 15,757 light fittings with a total annual consumption of 30,567GJ to over 16,556 fittings and a total annual consumption of 32,779GJ in 2008-09.

 

Due to the dispersed nature of street lighting, energy use for this asset is estimated by the energy provider by calculating the hours of darkness each month multiplied by the number and type of light fittings installed. Unfortunately, the majority of the fittings installed within the Penrith LGA are older, less efficient fittings.

 

The replacement of existing fittings with energy efficient models has been a goal of Council for several years, and has been a regular point of discussion between Council and Integral Energy who are responsible for the installation and maintenance of the physical infrastructure.

 

To this end, Council has identified the opportunity to seek the replacement of older, inefficient lamps with more efficient fittings as part of Integral’s scheduled maintenance, which is a three year rolling program. These replacements however will likely result in additional costs relating to either the replacement of supporting infrastructure (poles, fixtures etc which are not suited to the new light fittings), or residual life costs of existing assets (ie. lighting may still have a ‘residual’ component that would have to be paid out to Integral if they were replaced before their ‘life’ has been reached).

 

Council’s Public Domain Amenity & Safety Department will commence negotiations with Integral Energy regarding the use of the most energy efficient luminaries in its rolling bulk lamp replacement program in the coming months. The results of these negotiations will be the subject of a further report to Council.

 

Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy aims to provide ‘a lighted environment that acknowledges Council’s commitment to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles’, with the aim of  ‘minimising adverse environmental impact’. Thus, this policy ensures that all new installations, including new release areas, and lighting upgrades in existing areas employ energy efficient public lighting.

 

The Public Domain Amenity & Safety Department is also investigating the types of improved solar lighting available and the appropriateness of this type of lighting in locations such as pedestrian laneways, community precincts, and adjacent to bus shelters. Solar lighting will be assessed for its appropriateness for new and/or existing lighting.

 

Discussions have been held with the supplier of a new style of solar light in which the solar panel is incorporated into the light column itself. This new type of light has been installed in the Randwick Council area and an inspection has been scheduled for July to ascertain its effectiveness.  It is anticipated that trials of solar lighting will be undertaken in the first half of 2010/2011. 

 

It is anticipated that the actions detailed above, combined with the re-establishment of the WSROC street lighting working party later this year, will assist in improving the energy efficiency of street lighting across the LGA.

 

The Queen Street Centre

As detailed in the excerpt from Table 1 below, this site recorded a considerable increase in energy consumption in 2008-09. This increase is uncharacteristic for this site, which had demonstrated a steady reduction in energy use from 2005-06 through to 2007-08, and had been the subject of a number of efficiency improvement initiatives including;

·     the connection of toilet exhaust fans to the building time clock

·     the connection of the PABX ventilation fan to a thermostat, and

·     the installation of timers on small hot water services/zip boilers to reduce after hours energy use.

 

 

Facility

2005-06 (Baseline) Energy Consumption (GJ)

2006-07

Energy Consumption (GJ)

2007-08

Energy Consumption (GJ)

2008-09 Energy Consumption (GJ)

% Change 2005-06

to

2008-09

7. Queen Street Centre

1,540

1,498

1,059

1,867

+21.2%

 

 

Based on investigations with City Works, this increase is primarily attributed to the existing air conditioning plant. This plant is approximately 30 years old, and as such is becoming increasingly inefficient, with increasing maintenance costs. 

 

The condition and inefficiency of this plant was noted in the technical audit conducted for the development of the Energy Savings Action Plan in 2007. Unfortunately, the estimated cost ($236,366) and payback period (9 years) has made these works cost prohibitive.

 

In an effort to overcome this issue, Council sought proposals for an Energy Performance Contract in 2009 to cover these and other works at the Queen St Centre, Ripples, and the Whitewater Stadium. Again, funding constraints meant that these proposals were not viable.

 

Replacement of the plant is now scheduled for 2010-11, with $450,000 allocated in the current asset renewal budget for these works.  It is assumed that the replacement of this plant will see energy consumption at this site reduce considerably.

 

Community Connections

The Community Connections account incorporates the energy use for the offices of 15 community based organisations, providing referral and counselling services, job placement, mentoring, tuition and the supply of temporary housing.

 

Consumption data for the Community Connections building indicates a steady increase in consumption over the past two years. With data for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 financial years demonstrating increases of 10% and 9% respectively. In terms of costs, these increases have lead to an additional $14,782 since 2005-06.

 

Investigations conducted with Council’s Property Development Department (PDD) indicate that this consumption is attributed to increased activity in the offices located at this site.  The increase in the utilisation of these services has translated into longer operational hours, and increased energy consumption from the additional use of lighting, air conditioning, computers, hot water, and other electrical equipment.

 

Efficiency improvement works for this facility are scheduled to be conducted over the next month and will include lighting upgrades to the office and corridor areas, as well as power factor correction to ensure that the supplied energy is used more efficiently and with minimal losses. Funding for these works have been sourced from Council’s Sustainability Revolving Fund (SRF) and the Property Development budget, and include; $37,158.60 for the lighting upgrade, and $10,382 for the power factor correction. It is anticipated that these works will result in savings of 44,438 kWh and $7,172 per annum.

 

These works will also build on previous initiatives undertaken at this site, namely the replacement of the air conditioning system with an energy efficient model in February 2006.

 

Conclusion

Council has made significant progress towards improving the efficiency of our assets and services, achieving savings of 19,103 MWh (20,249tonnes of CO2e) since 2002-03. Despite these efforts however, a number of Council facilities have experienced increases in consumption in recent years. Investigations into these increases indicate a range of contributing factors, including; increased patronage, and aging or inefficient plant and equipment.

 

Managing our energy use and greenhouse gas emissions will remain an ongoing challenge for Council as we continue to expand our services and facilities. However, recognising the challenges presented by the growth of the City and the increasing demand on Council services, Council will continue to seek opportunities to improve the efficiency of our facilities and our operations.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Increased energy consumption from Energy Saving Action Plan facilities be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Green City

 

 

 

6

Tender for the Supply and Distribution of Biodegradable Bags   

 

Compiled by:                Geoff Brown, Waste Management Co-ordinator

Peter Browne, Internal Auditor

Authorised by:             David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation   

 

Objective

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

Community Outcome

A City with a smaller ecological footprint (12)

Strategic Response

Respond to the impacts of climate change, by mitigating and adapting what we do (12.1)

  

Previous Items:            Domestic Waste Service - Three Bin System - Ordinary Meeting - 15 February 2010 (Special)     

 

Executive Summary

At the Extraordinary Meeting of 15 February 2010, Council adopted a number of recommendations applicable to the three bin organics collection service with the aim of improving the level of this service.

 

One of the recommendations included the provision of biodegradable bags that conform to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4736 – 2006.  Bags conforming to this Standard will fully compost through industrial composting facilities.  The bags are to be used for the storage of food organics in kitchen tidy bins prior to placement in the organics bin.

 

An initial three month supply of biodegradable bags has already been distributed to households within the City.  This supply is due to run out at the end of August 2010.  An additional 12 months supply is currently being considered through a tender process.

 

Tenders were called on 25 May 2010 for the supply and delivery and/or distribution of biodegradable bags to all households using the three bin system.

 

This report will recommend that:

 

1.   Because We Care Pty Ltd be the preferred tenderer for the supply and delivery of 12 months supply of the biodegradable bags. 

 

2.   PMP Limited be the preferred tenderer for the distribution of biodegradable bags to all households under the three bin organics system.

Background

At the Extraordinary Meeting of 15 February 2010, Council resolved to improve the three bin domestic waste service system through a series of recommendations, including the provision of biodegradable bags to households receiving this service. 

 

The biodegradable bags will assist households in the storage of food organics prior to placement in the organics bin.  These bags will also aid in reducing fly and odour issues and also assist in maintaining a cleaner bin. 

 

In order to ensure that biodegradable bags fully compost through SITA’s organic composting system, it is necessary that these bags be certified as being fully compostable.  It is also important that the inks and dyes used in the manufacture of the bags do not cause any adverse effect on microbiological organisms in the composting process or when the compost is applied to land.  In this regard, an earthworm eco-toxicity test must be conducted and certification be provided as part of the tender.

 

SITA’s composting facility was initially designed for the processing of organic waste without the use of plastic bags.  With the introduction of biodegradable bags, SITA has increased its labour to identify and sort the biodegradable bags as they pass through the facility.  In order to differentiate between the compostable bags and the myriad of other bags presented through the system, it is necessary that the compostable bags be readily identifiable.  These bags are coloured green with Council identification and will be the only bags allowed into the composting process while all other bags will go to landfill.

 

Current Situation

Tenders for the Supply and Delivery of Biodegradable Bags and/or Distribution of Bags No. 03-10/11 were advertised on 25 May 2010 for a period of 23 days, closing on 17 June 2010.  A tender briefing session for prospective tenderers was held on 3 June 2010.  Following the pre-tender briefing session and during the period prior to the close of the tender, six amendments were added to the original tender, all of which were distributed to companies and individuals that downloaded the tender through the electronic tendering system.  Hard copy tenders were not issued.

 

Tenders Received

Tenderers had the option of tendering for the supply and delivery of biodegradable bags and/or the distribution of those bags.  Fifteen tenders were received, eight of which were for supply and distribution, four for supply only and three for distribution only.  There was one tender received after close of tenders, which was for distribution only and did not meet the requirements of the tender.

 

Below is a list of the tenderers:

 

Supply and Distribution

 

1.   Because We Care Pty Ltd

2.   Cardia Bioplastics

3.   E-Bisprint Pty Ltd

4.   PRA Mental Health Recovery

5.   Bio Earth Products

6.   Bio Bag Australia

7.   Source Separation Systems

8.   Maxpak Australasia Pty Ltd


 

Supply Only

 

1.   Ecojute Bags (Australasia) Pty Ltd

2.   Marltag Pty Ltd

3.   Tailored Packaging Pty Ltd

4.   Valpak (Australia) Pty Ltd

 

Distribution Only

 

1.   SULO

2.   Watermans Cleaning

3.   PMP Limited

 

Tender Evaluation Team and Evaluation Process

A tender evaluation team was developed to consider and evaluate the tenders and to ensure high probity levels were maintained throughout the process.  The team comprised the Waste Management Coordinator, Internal Auditor, Supply Officer Contracts and the Waste Education Officer. 

 

The evaluation process comprises:

 

·    evaluation of each tender against the evaluation criteria

·    tenderer interviews

·    financial risk analysis

·    referee checks

 

The evaluation criteria for each of the tenderers is as follows:

 

Supply and Delivery of Bags

Mandatory

·    compliance with AS 4736 – 2006, EN – 13432 Certification and provision of an earthworm toxicity test

 

Tenderer’s Capability

·    demonstrated ability for the supply of bags

·    response times

·    unit rates

 

Management and Administration

·    resources and personnel

·    quality assurance

·    environmental management

·    occupational health and safety


 

Distribution of Bags

·    demonstrated ability for the distribution of bags

·    delivery time

·    unit rates

 

The tender also required that the bags to be provided are to have the following dimensions and characteristics:

 

·    Height – 42cm (including handles)

·    Width – 25cm/30cm

·    Gusset – 8cm

·    Thickness – 18um/20um

·    Colour – green with black print on both sides

·    Bags packaged in flat packs of 65 or 80 bags (delivered quarterly) - the different size packs allow for the use of approximately five or seven bags per week respectively

·    Bags to be enclosed in a plastic sleeve, including an instructional pamphlet.

 

All of the fifteen tenders were considered in the evaluation process.  The tenders comprised eight supply and distribution, four supply only and three distribution only.  Combinations of the three groups were evaluated in order to determine the best possible tender/s for Council in terms of cost and ability to perform the service. 

 

In evaluating these tenders, it was noticed that the companies that were most competitive for supply were not offering the same value in distribution and vice versa.  After further investigating the situation it became clear that the best value for Council would not be achieved by combining supply and delivery into the one contract. 

 

A pricing schedule for each of the tenders is included in Appendix 1.

 

The tender pricing schedule provided four options that included the following variables:

 

Option A

·    Approximately seven bags per week

·    Bag size 25cm wide x 42cm high with an 8cm gusset

·    18um and 20um

 

Option B

·    Approximately five bags per week

·    Bag size 25cm wide x 42cm high with an 8cm gusset

·    18um and 20um

 

Option C

·    Approximately seven bags per week

·    Bag size 30cm wide x 42cm high with an 8cm gusset

·    18um and 20um


 

Option D

·    Approximately five bags per week

·    Bag size 30cm wide x 42cm high with an 8cm gusset

·    18um and 20um

 

The tender also provided for tenderers to submit alternative options.

 

The current bags in use by residents are smaller than the above specification in that they are 25cm wide and 36cm high and 20 microns thick.  Community feedback regarding the use of the current bag include:

 

·    too small for the kitchen tidy bin

·    shrinkage when fitted to the kitchen tidy bin

·    bag collapses in the tidy bin

·    insufficient number of bags (current supply three bags per week)

 

The evaluation team tested the example bags for ease of use and suitability.  The team concluded that the current smaller bag was unsuitable for the average user and that the mid-range size would be more difficult for some members of the community to use than the preferred size (30cm wide x 42cm high) would be. 

 

Bag Size Comparison Table

 

Width

Gusset

Effective Circumference

Height

Suitability

25

81

66

36

Unsatisfactory

25

42

58

42

Unsatisfactory

25

8

66

42

Marginal

30

42

68

42

Marginal

30

8

76

42

Good

 

1  The current bag in use

2  This tender submitted sample bags with a 4cm gussets

 

Taking these points into consideration, the evaluation team (after testing the bags and their suitability to fit the kitchen tidy bin), determined that the larger bag (30cm wide x 42cm high) better suited the kitchen tidy bin.  The team could not notice any discernable difference in thickness between the 18um and 20um bags.  A thinner bag (17um) was suggested by one tenderer but no product example was provided and hence could not be tested.

 

The larger bag also provided greater holding capacity and was easier to tie off when filled, which can assist in reducing fly and odour issues.

 

On this basis, the team considered that the most suitable bag for use by the community would be the 30cm wide bag with an 18um thickness.  Whilst the team could not detect any discernable difference between the 18um and 20um bags, there was however a lower price per unit for the 18um bag. 

 

The evaluation team did not perceive any quality difference between the various suppliers for the preferred size bag.  An evaluation on price was therefore performed.  Based on price, Because We Care Pty Ltd appeared to represent the best value for money on both the 30cm and 25cm bags.  That conclusion also holds regardless of the number of bags per pack.  The team then proceeded to consider if there was any matter that might lead to an alternative conclusion of which company represented best value for money.

 

Because We Care Pty Ltd was requested to attend a meeting with Council officers to discuss this tender.  The result of that meeting was that the officers were satisfied that there was no other issue that needed to be weighed against the apparent price order. 

 

The price difference between the “Because We Care” 30cm and 25cm bags is $0.007 per bag or a total of $112,000, based on an 80 bag pack.  While the team considers the choice of supplier to be clear cut, the choice of size is a judgement issue.  The team spent some time discussing whether the bigger size bag did in fact warrant the higher price before determining to put forward the recommendation to spend the additional funds.

 

All the tenders for the supply of biodegradable bags were assessed against each of the evaluation criteria and it was found that most tenders satisfied the general criteria.  However, the tender submitted by Because We Care Pty Ltd satisfied all the criteria and provided the lowest tender price in the range of pricing schedules as shown in Appendix 1

 

The tender evaluation team considered Because We Care Pty Ltd’s Tender - Option C - to be the most appropriate for the supply of bags, both from a cost and supply perspective.  The bags are to be 30cm wide with a thickness of 18um and be provided in packs of 80.  The pack of bags will be enclosed in a heavy-duty biodegradable sleeve and will include an information pamphlet.

 

The tender submitted by Because We Care Pty Ltd was the lowest price for Tender Option C, being $0.06075 per bag, which equates to $972,000 to supply 80 bag packs quarterly for 50,000 households over 12 months (16 million bags in total). 

 

Because We Care Pty Ltd has advised that if successful with the supply component of this tender they would be able to manufacture and receive delivery of the bags in Australia within 6-8 weeks upon signing an agreement.

 

Distribution of Biodegradable Bags

It is the responsibility of the successful supply tenderer to deliver the biodegradable bags to the distributor as required for distribution quarterly. 

 

There were 11 tenders for the distribution of bags, comprising eight for supply and distribution and three for distribution only.  These tenders were identified in the “Tenders Received” section of this report. 

 

As previously mentioned in this report, there is no financial advantage for Council to select a tender having a combined supply and distribution component. 

 

Some of the combined tenders would allow the splitting of the supply and distribution components while others would not.  Most of the distribution companies were subcontractors to the main supply tenderer. 

 

The tenders for distribution only comprised SULO, PMP Limited and Watermans Cleaning. 

 

PMP Limited and SULO have similar pricing options, but their tenders are conditional.  The conditions include the following:

 

·    PMP’s lowest tender price required distribution to all households including town houses and villas (not part of the three bin service) within the urban area (this means a delivery to each letterbox and not to the addressed properties as required).  This issue requires further negotiation with PMP to obtain a suitable outcome acceptable to Council

 

·    SULO provided a competitive tender, however, it was subject to Council providing warehouse and distribution facilities

 

PMP Limited recently distributed the current supply of bags to residents on the three bin system with reasonable success.  However, PMP indicated that they would only guarantee a 90% delivery rate, which they claim is standard throughout the industry.  Some issues were encountered with this delivery program, which included:

 

·    Bags were thrown onto the footpath from car windows

 

·    A number of bags were thrown into the front yard of properties

 

·    Resident feedback indicated that bags were not delivered to some properties

 

PMP, however, endeavoured to address the above issues when they became aware of the circumstances.  Overall, given the short notice by Council to PMP and the restrictions that they imposed in their delivery program, it is considered that an acceptable service was provided at a reasonable cost.

 

SULO is a reputable supplier and distributor of mobile garbage bins who have expanded their distribution capabilities to include other products.  They have specialist teams experienced in the distribution of mobile garbage bins to specified properties, as required by this tender.

 

Watermans Cleaning, on the other hand, have had no experience in house-to-house distribution and operate from a residential property.  This is not suitable and does not conform to the tender requirements.

 

PMP Limited has the required warehouse and distribution facilities to receive the supply of bags in the quantities proposed in this tender.  They are experienced with the distribution areas of the City and have sufficient staff to deliver the bags within the seven day timeframe specified in the tender.  PMP’s alternative tender price was the cheapest rate (excluding Watermans Cleaning) of $0.45 per package to household letterboxes.  This equates to an annual sum of $90,000 for the quarterly delivery of 50,000 packs of biodegradable bags.

 

It will, therefore, be recommended that PMP Limited be the preferred tenderer for the distribution of the biodegradable bags.


 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

This report proposes that Council award the contract for the supply of biodegradable bags to Because We Care Pty Ltd and the distribution of the bags to PMP Limited.  The tendered price of $972,000 for supply and $90,000 for distribution is in line with the original estimates. 

 

The 2010-11 Operational Plan provides a contribution of $200,000 from the Domestic Waste Reserve with the balance of the funds required being provided from Council 2010-11 Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment (WaSIP).

 

While the final amount of Council’s 2010-11 WaSIP will not be known until late September 2010, it is anticipated that the payment will provide the bulk of the funds for the supply and distribution of the biodegradable bags and the other programs identified in the budget for 2010-11.  In addition, the Department of Environment Climate Change & Water (DECCW) have provided in principle approval for the use of this funding for the purchase and distribution of the biodegradable bags.

 

Tender Assessment Group Comments

 

The Council’s Group Manager Legal and Governance and the Acting Executive Officer met to discuss the proposed tender for the supply and distribution of biodegradable bags. From the information available, Because We Care Pty Ltd is the preferred tenderer for the supply of biodegradable bags and PMP Limited is the preferred tenderer for the delivery. It is believed that there has been a fair treatment of all tenderers and that the tender assessment has been undertaken in an appropriate manner.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Tender for the Supply and Distribution of Biodegradable Bags be received.

2.     Because We Care Pty Ltd be the preferred tenderer for the supply and delivery of biodegradable bags, as outlined in this report.

3.     PMP Limited be the preferred tenderer for the distribution of biodegradable to all households, as outlined in this report.

4.     The Acting Waste & Community Protection Manager and the Group Manager – Legal & Governance be authorised to negotiate a contract with Because We Care Pty Ltd and PMP Limited to be signed by the General Manager.

5.     The purchase and distribution of biodegradable bags, as identified in the report, be funded from Council’s 2010-11 Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment (WaSIP) and the balance from the Domestic Waste Reserve.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Pricing Schedule

8 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 1 - Pricing Schedule

 

 

 








 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

7        Proposal to Fence the Dog Off-Leash Exercise Area at Jamison Park, South Penrith

 

8        Establishment of additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas

 

9        Formation of the Penrith Floodplain Advisory Committee

 

URGENT

 

16      Tender - Howell Oval Cricket Pavilion

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

7

Proposal to Fence the Dog Off-Leash Exercise Area at Jamison Park, South Penrith   

 

Compiled by:                Noel Fuller, Coordinator Ranger and Animal Services

Authorised by:             David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation  

Requested By:             Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)

Strategic Response

Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

  

Previous Items:            Proposal to Fence one of the City's Dog Off Leash Exercise Areas - Ordinary Meeting - 21 June 2010     

 

Executive Summary

The information contained in the report is a result of Council’s resolution at its Ordinary Meeting on 21 June 2010 for an urgent report on the establishment of a fenced dog off-leash area at Jamison Park and consideration of funding from the current Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) 2010/11.  The report recommends that the current off-leash dog exercise area be fenced using 1.2m high black PVC coated chainwire fencing and that the cost for this project in the amount of $22,000 be included in the current round of the RLCIP for 2010/11.

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting on 21 June 2010, Council resolved that an urgent report be presented to the next Ordinary Meeting investigating the establishment of a fenced dog off-leash area at Jamison Park, with the possibility of funding from the recently announced Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program.  Council also resolved that the report contain an analysis of the use of the existing St Clair fenced off-leash area and contain the current costs with respect to maintaining the area.

 

Current Situation

Jamison Park

The off-leash dog exercise area at Jamison Park has a perimeter of approximately 400m and, if fenced, would cover an area of approximately 9,000 square metres. There are a number of options for fencing this area, both in terms of fencing height and fencing materials. The following table summarises various approaches taken to the management and fencing of dog off-leash areas across a number of Council precincts.


 

These as detailed in the table below:

 

Council

Fence Materials

Fence Height  

Area Fenced

Comments

 

Blue Mountains Council

Pool Style

1.2 m 

3200 sqm

Expensive to purchase, costly to maintain Little dogs can escape

Plastic coated chainwire

1.2 m 

1500 sqm

Most effective, easy to maintain

Weld Melsh

1.2 m 

 

Expensive to purchase, costly to maintain

Hawkesbury Council

Sheep netting

1.2 m 

6500 sqm

Rural type fencing with rabbit proofing

Blacktown Council

Plastic coated chainwire

1.2 m 

2500 sqm

Just built, no maintenance required

Wollondilly Council

Chainwire 

1.5 m

various

No comment

Liverpool Council 

Pig wire fencing

1.5 m

1000 sqm 

Little dogs can get through

City of Sydney

No fencing

 

 

 

 

 

Based on an assessment of the site, incorporating the area to be fenced, the aesthetic value of the park and the need to effectively contain dogs of all sizes, it is proposed to install a 1.2 metre high, black, PVC coated chainwire fence. The wire will be attached to black powder coated posts and rails and will incorporate a ‘double entry gate’ that enables dog owners to more effectively manage their dogs when entering or leaving the facility. This type of fencing will contain dogs of all sizes, is relatively cheap to install and maintain, and being black will be less obtrusive and have only a minor impact on the aesthetics of the area. The cost to construct the fence will be approximately $22,000 as indicated in the report to Council on 21 June 2010. It is anticipated that the fence could be installed within four to six weeks of funding being made available.

 

St Clair

The existing fenced dog off-leash area at St Clair located on St Clair Avenue is located within the sign-posted area.  The fence is constructed of weldmesh with two pedestrian gates and has a large locked gate for access by Parks staff for maintenance purposes.  At the time of installation, the cost of fencing this area was $10,000.

 

It is difficult to deliver a true analysis of the use of the fenced area of the St Clair dog off-leash area by dog owners due to the various times in which this exercise area is used, as it is open to the public 24 hours.  However, through observation by staff and feedback to Council from the public, the area appears to be well utilised and popular.

 

It is not possible to advise the cost to maintain this fenced dog off-leash area as separate costs are not recorded or maintained.  The cost is included in the cost to maintain the whole reserve.


 

Funding

There is a separate report in tonight’s Business Paper on the third round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) 2010/11.  As resolved at the meeting of 21 June 2010, this project has been included as a proposed project under this program.  The draft program was also submitted to the Policy Review Meeting on 12 July 2010, where it was stated that it was unclear if this project would meet the program eligibility requirements under the category of Community Recreation Space.

 

Further clarification was sought from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who advised that there was no obvious reason why this project would not be eligible.  It is therefore recommended that this project be included in Council’s submission under the RLCIP 2010/11.  It should be noted that there is currently no other identified funding source.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Proposal to Fence the Dog Off-Leash Exercise Area at Jamison Park, South Penrith be received.

2.     The current dog off-leash exercise area in Jamison Park be fenced, as detailed in the report, subject to available funding.

3.     The project for the fencing of the dog off-leash area in the amount of $22,000 be submitted as one of the projects in the current round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program 2010/11.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

8

Establishment of additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas   

 

Compiled by:                Olivia Kidon, Community Safety Co-ordinator

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

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)

Strategic Response

Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

        

 

Executive Summary

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 3 May 2010, Council approved the progression of the consultation process for the establishment of additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas at a number of identified locations in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

Following Council approval, public consultation was initiated regarding the proposal to establish additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas in May 2010.

 

No objections were received in relation to the establishment of Alcohol Free Zones or Alcohol Free Areas at the designated locations.

 

This report recommends that additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas be implemented at the locations detailed in this report and that these additional locations be added to the current schedule of Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas, to be reviewed after the 4-year period concludes at 30 June 2013.

 

Background

 

Additional Alcohol Free Zones

 

Alcohol Free Zones can be established under Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993. Alcohol Free Zones can only be established in public roads, car parks and footpaths, and once established, must apply twenty-four hours (24 hours) per day.

 

Recent legislative changes to the Local Government Act relating to Alcohol Free Zones have increased the operational period for Alcohol Free Zones to a maximum of four (4) years. (Previously, Alcohol Free Zones had a maximum timeframe of three (3) years before they expired).

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 3 May 2010, Council supported the progression of the consultation process for the establishment of additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas at a number of identified locations in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

Following Council approval, public consultation was initiated regarding the proposal to establish additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free areas in May 2010. Consultation was conducted through public notices in local print media, notification to the Anti-Discrimination Board and letters to residents, local businesses and community groups who may be affected by the enforcement of Alcohol Free Zones and/or Alcohol Free Areas at the designated locations.

 

As stated in Council’s Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy, requests may be made for the suspension or cancellation of an Alcohol Free Zone or Area. Organisations / venues that hold community events within the proposed alcohol free locations were contacted during the consultation phase and made aware of the exemption conditions of the policy.

 

In accordance with the NSW Department of Local Government Ministerial Guidelines, a period of 30 days was given for representations to be made to Council regarding the proposal to prohibit alcohol at the identified locations. The consultation period has now concluded. 

 

No objections were received in relation to the establishment of Alcohol Free Zones or Alcohol Free Areas at the designated locations.

 

Subject to Council approval, additional Alcohol Free Zones will be established at the following locations. These locations will be added to the current schedule of Alcohol Free Zones and will be reviewed after the 4-year period concludes at 30 June 2013.

 

1. Wainwright Lane, Kingswood from Somerset Street to Bringelly Road being a public road.

 

2.  Civic Centre Car Park, 601 High Street, Penrith being a public Car Park.

 

Alcohol Free Areas

 

Alcohol Free Areas can be established by Council in other areas (e.g. parks, reserves and other public spaces) in accordance with Section 632 of the Local Government Act 1993 – Acting Contrary to Notices.

 

Subject to Council approval Alcohol Free Areas will be established at the following locations. These locations will be added to the current schedule of Alcohol Free Areas and will be reviewed after the 4-year period concludes at 30 June 2013.

The Alcohol Free Areas listed below are proposed to be enforced for a 24-hour period, to deter alcohol-related antisocial behaviour at all times of the day.

 

Location

Hours of Operation

7 days per week

1.   The public space and reserve between and surrounding the Werrington County Children’s Centre and the Namatjira Neighbourhood Centre, bounded by Henry Lawson Avenue and John Batman Avenue and the adjoining Werrington County Public School. 

24 hours

2.   Woodriff Gardens, Penrith bounded by the railway line, High Street (Great Western Highway) and Castlereagh Road

24 hours

3.   The Civic Arts Space (also known as the Green Space or by young people as “The Mondo”) bounded by the Civic Centre, Westfield’s Plaza and the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.

24 hours per day for a one year period (see further comments in this report)

4.   Reserve located off Pendock Road next to Progress Way, Cranebrook.

24 hours

 

The existing locations and all the locations proposed are to be installed until 30 June 2013 with the exception of the Civic Arts Space that is proposed to be reviewed after a one (1) year period. Due to longer term plans for the ongoing development of the Civic Arts Space, it is proposed that this location be included as an Alcohol Free Area and reviewed in 12 months time.

 

To support the efficient management of alcohol free locations, a common expiry date has been implemented to June 2013. Any future alcohol free locations will also have the same expiry date. All locations will be evaluated at this time for cessation or reinstatement as per Council’s Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy at this end of the period.

 

Signage and Public Education

 

In accordance with Council’s Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy, signage will clearly denote the times that the Alcohol Free Areas and Alcohol Free Zones will be enforced.

 

Signage for Alcohol Free Zones will include maps to clearly indicate the area covered by the zones. Alcohol Free Zones may also be indicated by kerb stencils, especially in CBD locations. Signage may also include maps depending on the location to be covered.

 

A community education program is being developed to educate the community about the operation and locations of Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas. This information will also be included on Council’s web site.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Establishment of additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas be received.

2.     Council support the establishment of Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas at the locations identified in this report.

3.     Signage be erected to prohibit the consumption of alcohol at each of the identified locations.

4.     Additional requests for Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas be reviewed on a quarterly or six-monthly basis if required.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

9

Formation of the Penrith Floodplain Advisory Committee   

 

Compiled by:                David Yee, Engineering Policy Specialist

Authorised by:             Adam Wilkinson, Engineering Services Manager   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

A City with infrastructure that responds to community needs (17)

Strategic Response

Improve the City’s drainage network (17.2)

        

 

Executive Summary

The flood studies on the Nepean River and South Creek and its tributaries including Ropes Creek have been underway for some time and are now nearing completion.  The next step in the process following completion of the flood studies is to review Council’s mainstream flood policy.  In order for Council to be given a level of indemnity under s733 of the Local Government Act 1993 in regard to the provision of flood advice, it is necessary to follow the processes set out in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005.  This requires the establishment of a Floodplain Advisory Committee following completion of the flood studies.  The Committee consists of a range of community representatives, together with other stakeholders, Councillors and Council Officers to review and make recommendations to Council on any necessary changes to Council's current flood policy.

 

The report recommends that a Floodplain Advisory Committee be formed to review Council’s mainstream flood policy and that expressions of interest be sought for membership of the Committee from state agencies and the community.

Background

Council has undertaken a number of studies into flooding across the City over recent years.  The Penrith Overland Flow Flood “Overview” Study was completed in 2008 and a Flood Advisory Committee was established to develop a policy on overland flow to address the matters arising from the study.  This Committee completed its work and the policy was presented to the Policy Review Committee in March this year. 

 

Council has also engaged the consulting firm Worley Parsons (formerly Patterson Britten) to undertake flood studies on the Nepean River and South/Ropes Creek.  The studies were funded jointly by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) and Council on a 2 to 1 basis.  The flood studies are nearing completion and will be reported to Council when finalised in the coming months and subsequently placed on public exhibition.

 

In order for the outcomes of the latest studies to be incorporated into Council’s flood policy it is necessary to follow the process outlined in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005 and form a Floodplain Advisory Committee.  The role of the Committee will be to review the current interim policy and to incorporate any requirements to address any issues arising from the flood studies.

 

From 1991 until 2006 Council had a flood policy known as the “Interim Policy for the Development of Flood Liable Lands”.  As part of the Department of Planning requirements for a single DCP for each local government area, the policy was incorporated into a chapter in DCP 2006. There were no substantive changes made to the policy at that time other than minor changes to reflect the then current legislation.

 

Flood Advisory Consultative Committee

The NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005 emphasised the involvement of the broader community in the floodplain management process.  The Committee’s principal objective is to assist Council in the development and implementation of a floodplain risk management plan for the LGA.  The Committee is a key link between the local community and Council, and acts as both a focus and forum for the discussion of technical, social, economic, environmental and cultural issues and for the distillation of possibly differing view points on these issues into a management plan.  One of the important roles of the Committee is identifying management options and making recommendations to Council on appropriate development controls.

 

The membership of the Committee needs to be a balanced representation of stakeholders such as agencies, groups and/or individuals.  Membership should be flexible to ensure the right mix of interests is represented.  Typically, membership would include elected members of Council, Council staff from Environmental Planning and Engineering departments, a number of representatives of the local community, environmental groups, officers from the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) and representatives from the State Emergency Service (SES), Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) and adjoining Councils.

 

A Flood Advisory Committee was established to develop the Rural Overland Flow Policy.  This policy has been endorsed by Council at its meeting of 22 March 2010 and as such the Committee has completed the tasks it was established to undertake.  It is envisaged that the community members of this previous Committee be invited to form the core of the new Committee.  However, as the rural overland flow policy was predominately focused on the rural areas it is intended to advertise to the broader community for expressions of interest for membership of the Committee to ensure other stakeholders affected by mainstream flooding are also represented.  The community members will be selected on the basis of their knowledge and experience in regard to flooding and floodplain issues as well as having a prior involvement in their local community.

 

As with the development of the previous Committee, the new Committee will operate under a defined Terms of Reference and framework consistent with the previous governance model.

 

A further report will be brought back to Council to formally establish the Committee and endorse the Committee representatives following the call for expressions of interest from adjoining Councils, state agencies and the community.

 

Conclusion

It is proposed to commence the establishment of the Penrith Floodplain Advisory Committee. The Committee will comprise representatives from the local community, Councillors, Council officers, representatives from the Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney Catchment Authority, State Emergency Services, Blacktown City Council, Liverpool City Council, Hawkesbury City Council and Fairfield City Council. 

 

The Committee will provide Council with community input and expertise in a range of areas in the development of a flood policy for mainstream flooding in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Formation of the Penrith Floodplain Advisory Committee be received.

2.     The members of the existing Rural Lands Floodplain Advisory Committee be invited to participate in the new Penrith Floodplain Advisory Committee.

3.     Council also undertake advertising seeking expressions of interest from the community and other stakeholders to fill any vacancies on the new Penrith Floodplain Advisory Committee.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

10      Section 96 Application DA06/1014.05 for the Retention of the Existing Southern Access Driveway at Corpus Christi Primary School at Lot 1 DP 1144668 (No. 86 - 94) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Catholic Education Office;  Owner: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church DA06/1014.05

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

 

11      Proposed variation of a restriction on the use of land and Development Application DA10/0128 - Proposed  split level dwelling at Lot 31 DP 1083294 (No. 3)  Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park . Applicant: Hardeep Singh Badhesha;  Owner: Hardeep Singh Badhesha DA10/0128

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

 

12      Development Application DA09/0714 proposed construction of 30 residential apartments over three levels and basement at Lot 3, 10 & 11 DP 38418 (No. 1 - 3) Putland Street and (No. 2) Sainsbury Street, St Marys. Applicant: SCC Holdings Pty Ltd;  Owner: SCC Holdings Pty Ltd & HSC Holdings Pty Ltd DA09/0714

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

 

13      Development Application DA09/0550 for Multi-Unit Housing at Lot 1 DP 91022 & Lot 10 DP 807323 (No. 1 - 9) Lamrock Street, Emu Plains. Applicant: Phoenix Group;  Owner: CSX Property Pty Ltd DA09/0550

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Vibrant City

 

 

 

10

Section 96 Application DA06/1014.05 for the Retention of the Existing Southern Access Driveway at Corpus Christi Primary School at Lot 1 DP 1144668 (No. 86 - 94) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook  Applicant:  Catholic Education Office;  Owner:  Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church    

DA06/1014.05

Compiled by:                Robert Craig, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We build on our strengths, value our heritage, celebrate our cultural diversity, and foster creativity

Community Outcome

A City with design excellence that respects our local identity (22)

Strategic Response

Promote good design, sustainable buildings, and development that enhances our City (22.1)

  

Previous Items:            Section 96 Application DA06/1014.05 for the Retention of the Existing Southern Access Driveway at Corpus Christi Primary School at Lot 1 DP 1144668 (No. 86 - 94) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook - Ordinary Meeting - 19 April 2010   

 

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a Section 96 Application from the Catholic Education Office which seeks to modify Condition 13 of Development Application No. DA06/1014 to enable the retention of the existing access driveway located along the southern property boundary of the Corpus Christi Primary School at Lot 1 DP 1144668, (No. 86 - 94) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. This driveway was previously used to access the discontinued Xavier College which is now located in Ninth Avenue, Llandilo.

 

The subject land is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). The proposed modification to the development relates to previously approved alterations and additions to an existing educational establishment which is a permissible form of development in this zone with the consent of Council. The subject application was notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties located along the southern property boundary of the school. The exhibition period for the proposal was from 20 November to 4 December 2009. Council notified 29 property owners and occupiers and received no public submissions in relation to the proposal.

 

An assessment of the proposed modification to the development under Section 96 and Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken and it has been found to be satisfactory. The following key issues have emerged as a result of this assessment process:

 

·    Noise impacts

·    Privacy

·    Sunlight access

·    Safety, security and crime prevention

 

These matters are discussed in detail in this report.

 

The subject application was reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 19 April 2010. The report to Council recommended that the application be approved subject to amended and new conditions of consent. Council resolved at the meeting to defer consideration of the matter pending an on-site public meeting. An on-site public meeting was subsequently held on 10 May 2010 and was attended by Councillors, Council officers, adjoining and nearby residents from Barrett Place and Andromeda Drive and representatives of the Catholic Education Office, Corpus Christi Primary School and Corpus Christi Parish. The key issues raised during this meeting are discussed in detail in this report and do not necessitate a change to the previous recommendation for approval.

 

The subject application provides an opportunity for a considerable upgrade to the existing southern boundary fencing in the form of a 2m high acoustically treated fence. The existing boundary fences and privacy screens in this location are currently in a state of disrepair and are not acoustically treated. The proposed fencing, landscaping and new operational conditions recommended in this report will suitably safeguard the residential amenity of the neighbourhood. The development as modified would achieve minimal environmental impact and be substantially the same development as originally approved. The proposed modification to the development is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

 

This report recommends that the application be approved subject to recommended amended and new conditions of consent.

Background

Construction of the Corpus Christi Primary School commenced in November 1986 with the school officially opening in June 1987. Since that time the school has been progressively developed in stages and a number of development consents have been issued by Council in relation to building alterations and additions.

 

Development Application No. DA06/1014 for major building additions and internal refurbishment works was approved by Council under delegated authority on 9 February 2007. A subsequent Section 96 Application modifying these works was approved by Council under delegated authority on 25 November 2008. The approved works included the following components:

 

Stage 1

·    Construction of administrative and staff facilities and six classroom buildings

·    Construction of amphitheatre and shade sail structures

·    Internal refurbishment of existing library and classrooms

·    New paved entry, covered walkways and new external landscaped areas

 

 

 

Stage 2

·    Construction of new storerooms at the eastern end of the existing classroom building

·    New external landscaped areas

·    Internal refurbishment and alterations to existing classroom building

 

To date the Stage 1 works have been completed and the Stage 2 works are substantially completed.

 

Condition 13 of DA06/1014 required the removal of the existing access driveway located along the southern property boundary after completion of Stage 2 of the approved works. This driveway was previously used to access the discontinued Xavier College which is now located in Ninth Avenue, Llandilo. Condition 13 also required that the driveway area be reinstated with appropriate landscaping.

 

On 14 March 2008, Council received a Section 96 Application seeking to modify Condition 13 of DA06/1014 to enable the retention of the southern access driveway. Council subsequently refused the Section 96 Application under delegated authority on 8 September 2008 based on concerns that retention of the access driveway would fail to safeguard the residential amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

On 18 June 2009, Council received a Section 82A Application seeking a review of Council’s determination of the refused Section 96 Application. However, advice from Council’s Legal Officer revealed that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not include provisions to enable Council to undertake a Section 82A review of a previously refused Section 96 Application. The applicant therefore withdrew the Section 82A Application on 2 November 2009 and lodged the subject Section 96 Application in its place on 13 November 2009.

 

It should be noted that Complying Development Certificate No. CD09/0017 for a multi‑purpose hall and associated covered outdoor learning area on the site was approved by Council under delegated authority on 13 October 2009. These building works are substantially completed and are being funded through the Federal Government’s Building the Education Revolution program. Multi‑purpose halls with associated covered outdoor learning areas for existing schools are complying development under Clause 31A of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Complying development is routine development which generally has minimal environmental impact. A complying development certificate is essentially an amalgamated development consent and Construction Certificate.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is 4.782 hectares in area and is an irregular T-shaped parcel of land stretching between the Northern Road to the east and Andromeda Drive to the west. Refer to the Locality Plan at Appendix No. 1 for further details.

 

The northern and southern boundaries of the site are bounded by low density residential development, including housing fronting Cassar Crescent to the north and housing fronting Barrett Place and Goldmark Crescent to the south. Land opposite the site to the west supports various land uses including a community centre, public open space, low density housing and a child care centre. Land opposite the site to the east beyond The Northern Road is primarily used for rural-residential purposes and is part of the suburb of Llandilo.

The school campus addresses Andromeda Drive from which vehicles and pedestrians access the site. A substantial car parking area with associated driveways is located adjacent to this street frontage. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site from The Northern Road is denied.

 

The school complex consists of two groups of buildings within the front third of the site. The parish centre building is located adjacent to the larger of these buildings. The multi‑purpose hall and associated covered outdoor learning area currently under construction are located adjacent to Cassar Crescent. The subject access driveway is located along the southern property boundary of the site. Refer to the Site Plan at Appendix No. 2 for further details.

Proposed Modification to the Development

The subject Section 96 Application seeks to modify Condition 13 of Development Application No. DA06/1014 to enable the retention of the existing access driveway located along the southern property boundary of the Corpus Christi Primary School. Condition 13 of the development consent reads as follows:

 

The access road on the southern side of the site shall be removed and replaced with landscaping after completion of Stage 2 of the development. Details shall be submitted prior to the issue of Construction Certificate.

 

The applicant seeks to retain the access driveway on the basis that the intended use of the driveway will be minor and infrequent, primarily for the purpose of providing access for emergency vehicles to the rear school playground in the event of accident or injury. The driveway may also be infrequently used by vehicles associated with site and building maintenance. It is expected that such access would be limited to less than five occasions per week and would include access by trades people (e.g. plumbers), gardeners (e.g. transportation of a ride-on lawn mower to the rear of the school property) and occasional delivery vehicles. There would be no use of the driveway on weekends or at night.

 

The applicant proposes to construct a related vehicle turning head at the end of the driveway and noise attenuating fencing along the southern property boundary to mitigate any potential noise impacts on adjoining residents associated with the retention of the access driveway. Landscaping in the form of mixed planting along this boundary is also proposed. The new boundary fencing is proposed to be 2.4m high, double lapped and capped timber and polystyrene insulated. The proposed fence will run west to east from No. 4 Barrett Place to No. 124 Goldmark Crescent, with the exception of the land between No. 9 Barrett Place and No. 122 Goldmark Crescent which contains an overland stormwater flow path. This location requires open-style fencing which is currently in place to ensure the overland flow path is not impeded in times of heavy rainfall. Refer to the Site Works Plan at Appendix No. 3 for further details.

Planning Assessment

The proposed modification to the development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 96 and Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and based on this assessment, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

 

1.   Section 96 – Modification of Consents

Pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), Council may modify a development consent provided several parameters are satisfied. These parameters are briefly discussed below.

 

(a)  The proposed modification must be of minimal environmental impact.

 

The key consideration in terms of environmental impact is the potential amenity impacts the modification could pose for residents adjoining the subject access driveway. Based on Council’s assessment of this consideration, the modification is of minimal environmental impact. This matter is discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report.

 

(b)  The modified development must be substantially the same development as was previously approved.

 

The modified development meets the test of being substantially the same development as was previously approved.

 

(c)  The application must be publicly notified where required.

 

In accordance with Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the subject application was notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties located along the southern property boundary of the school. The exhibition period for the proposal was from 20 November to 4 December 2009.

 

(d)  Any submissions received from the notification process must be considered.

 

Council notified 29 property owners and occupiers and received no public submissions in relation to the proposal.

 

Each of the relevant criteria under Section 96(1A) of the Act has therefore been satisfied. The development as modified would achieve minimal environmental impact and be substantially the same development as originally approved.

 

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

The subject site is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land). The proposed modification to the development relates to previously approved alterations and additions to an existing educational establishment which is a permissible form of development in this zone with the consent of Council.

 

The proposed modification to the development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the 2(b) Residential (Low Density) zone. In particular, the proposed modification will continue to provide suitable levels of residential amenity as a result of the intended fencing and landscaping works and the new operational conditions recommended in this report.

 

 

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

The proposed modification to the development does not affect the development proposal’s compliance with the various provisions of Penrith Development Control Pan 2006.

 

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

The proposed modification to the development does not affect the development proposal’s compliance with any fire safety considerations as prescribed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

Noise Impacts

The application has been accompanied by a Noise Statement prepared by Heggies which provides a review of the potential noise impacts associated with the retention of the southern access driveway. The key extracts from the submitted Noise Assessment are provided below.

 

Using our database of noise levels, we have undertaken calculations based on a slow moving car passing along the road (sound power level of 83 dBA). The noise source to receiver distance has been taken as 6 metres and our calculations have assumed the provision of an acoustic barrier 2 metres high along the boundary of the “southern” driveway. The receiver height has been taken as 1.5 metres. The resultant noise level in this scenario would be 46 dBA at the point when the vehicle is closest to the receiver position outside the rear garden areas of the adjacent residential premises…

 

The common way to define the existing ambient noise levels at a location is by referring to the measured LAeq noise level in decibels. The LAeq noise parameter is the equivalent continuous noise level measured over a defined time period.

 

We have predicted that vehicular movements along the “southern” driveway would produce a worse case noise level of 46 dBA in the rear gardens of the nearby residential premises. In the event that one vehicle movement occurred every 15 minutes, the LAeq from the vehicle would be in the order of 23 dBA, which would result in no measurable increase in the ambient noise level in the rear gardens of the adjacent residential premises. It is our opinion, due to the proposed infrequent use of the driveway, the existing ambient noise levels in the rear gardens of the adjacent premises will not be increased by a result of such vehicular movements.

 

Notwithstanding the above assessment, we recommend it would be prudent to limit the use of the “southern” driveway for the purposes of emergency vehicles and service vehicles only. Use of the driveway for waste/recycled collection vehicles would not be recommended.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the proposed modification to the development with regard to noise impacts and is satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the Noise Statement. Suitable conditions of consent have been provided in this regard to satisfactorily control noise impacts from the southern access driveway, including:

 

·    The southern access driveway shall only be used between the hours of 7am and 6pm on weekdays, with no use on weekends permitted. Emergency vehicles are permitted to use the driveway outside these hours in emergency situations;

·    The southern access driveway shall only be used by emergency and service vehicles. Service vehicles are vehicles that are associated with the servicing or maintenance of school property;

·    The use of the southern access driveway by waste or recycling collection vehicles is not permitted;

·    The 2m high sound barrier is to be installed within 30 days from the date of consent. Certification is to be provided to Council on the construction of this sound barrier within 14 days after completion.

 

These matters are recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Conditions 2.2 to 2.5).

 

Resident submissions have previously raised concerns regarding noise from students using the southern access driveway, particularly during the afternoon period when children are leaving the school. A recent inspection of the school revealed that there was limited (if any) pedestrian activity along the driveway at this time as the driveway was gated. In order to discourage the use of the driveway by school students as a means of exiting the school grounds, it will be necessary for the driveway to be gated during the afternoon period when children are leaving the school. It is recommended that this matter be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.6). At other times during the day there will undoubtedly be some pedestrian activity adjacent to the driveway, however this is not expected to be untypical of normal school activities.

 

Privacy

The proposed fencing and landscaping treatment along the southern property boundary will afford adjoining residents a suitable level of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Sunlight Access

The southern boundary fencing is proposed to be 2.4m high, double lapped and capped timber and polystyrene insulated. In order to limit the level of overshadowing from the fence line on the adjoining rear yards, it will be necessary to reduce the fence height to 2m. This fence height is more commensurate with the existing fencing along this boundary and is still in accordance with the Heggies’ Noise Statement findings and recommendations. This matter is recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.7).

 

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

In order to maintain appropriate levels of safety, security and crime prevention to the properties adjoining the southern access driveway, it will be necessary for the driveway access to be gated outside of normal school hours. This matter is recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.8).

 

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

The proposed modification to the development will not alter the suitability of the site for the development.

 

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

Public Submissions

In accordance with Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the subject application was notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties located along the southern property boundary of the school. The exhibition period for the proposal was from 20 November to 4 December 2009. Council notified 29 property owners and occupiers and received no public submissions in relation to the proposal.

 

It should be noted that the withdrawn Section 82A Application which was identical in content to the subject Section 96 Application was similarly notified. The exhibition period for this proposal was from 23 July to 6 August 2009. Council received three submissions and a petition containing eight signatures objecting to the proposal. The key issues raised in the submissions and petition related to concerns regarding noise, privacy, security and overshadowing from the proposed fence. These matters have been duly considered as part of this report.

 

It is also important to note that the school Principal sent letters to affected residents offering to undertake separate on-site consultation regarding the proposal on 26 August 2009. It is understood that residents from one adjoining property attended this session culminating in an agreement that no grevillea or wattle species would be planted to the rear or either side of No. 7 Barrett Place. It is recommended that this matter be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.9).

 

A final letter was sent by Council on 17 March 2010 to the previously notified property owners and occupiers advising that the subject Section 96 Application would be reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 19 April 2010. The letter advised that the recommendation of the Council report would be that the Section 96 Application be approved on the basis that the proposed noise attenuating fencing and landscaping along the southern property boundary together with the imposition of stringent operational conditions will suitably safeguard the residential amenity of the neighbourhood. Residents were provided with the opportunity to make comment by 31 March 2010 on the proposed Council report recommendation. No submissions were received in response to Council’s letter.

 

Internal Referral Comments

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

 

Referrals

Comments

Development Engineer

No objection, subject to conditions (see Special Conditions 2.10 to 2.12).

Environmental Health

No objection, subject to conditions (see Special Conditions 2.2 to 2.5).

 

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

The owners and occupiers of adjoining properties located along the southern property boundary of the school were notified of the proposed modification to the development. The proposed fencing, landscaping and new operational conditions recommended in this report will suitably safeguard the residential amenity of the neighbourhood. The proposed modification is therefore in the public interest.

On-Site Public Meeting

The subject application was reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 19 April 2010. The report to Council recommended that the application be approved subject to amended and new conditions of consent. Council resolved at the meeting to defer consideration of the matter pending an on-site public meeting.

 

An on-site public meeting was held on 10 May 2010. The following stakeholders were present at the meeting:

 

·    Councillors (6)

·    Council officers (3)

·    Representatives of the Catholic Education Office (4)

·    Representatives of the Corpus Christi Primary School (25)

·    Representatives of the Corpus Christi Parish (3)

·    Adjoining and nearby residents from Barrett Place (2) and Andromeda Drive (4).

 

The key issues raised during the on-site meeting are summarised and considered below and do not necessitate a change to the previous recommendation for approval.

 

(a)  Necessity of maintaining the southern access driveway.

This matter has been outlined earlier in this report as part of the application details, however the following response from the applicant is provided for clarification:

 

The existing driveway within the Corpus Christi site has been in existence for a number of years. While the driveway was initially constructed to provide access to the temporary site of the St Francis Xavier College (which has now moved to its permanent site at Llandilo), it also provides access to the rear of the Corpus Christ site, adjacent to the established multi‑sport court.

 

While use of the driveway associated with ongoing operation of the primary school is relatively minor and infrequent, the retention of this driveway is important for the continued safe and efficient operation of the school. Principally, the driveway is required for the purpose of providing access for emergency vehicles to the rear school playground in the case of accident or injury. The driveway is also required (on infrequent occasions) to provide access for vehicles associated with the site and building maintenance. There is no requirement for the driveway to be used on the weekends or at night.

 

(b)  Availability of alternative access via the new driveway off Cassar Crescent.

The driveway access off Cassar Crescent serves the new multi-purpose hall on the site. The driveway only provides access in the vicinity of the hall for service and emergency vehicles. This driveway access does not provide vehicular access to other parts of the site, including the rear playground area. In addition, an overland stormwater flow path traverses the mid-section of the site and becomes particularly boggy in wet conditions thereby reducing the opportunity for safe vehicular access to the rear playground area from Cassar Crescent.

 

(c)  Difference between the current proposal and the previous proposal to retain the southern access driveway.

The current Section 96 Application has addressed the previous concerns regarding visual and acoustic privacy impacts on adjoining properties. The applicant now proposes to construct noise attenuating fencing along the southern property boundary to mitigate any potential noise impacts on adjoining residents associated with the retention of the access driveway. Landscaping in the form of mixed planting along this boundary is also proposed. The application has also been supported this time with a noise statement and a clearer description of the intended limited use of the driveway.

 

(d)  Previous consent requirements for a landscape buffer to the southern property boundary.

The landscape rehabilitation plan previously approved by Council for the site following the re‑location of Xavier College did not make provision for a landscaped buffer in place of the southern access driveway. The rehabilitation plan primarily related to the location of the demountable buildings and the temporary car parking area. Removal of the southern access driveway and its reinstalment with a landscaped buffer was conditioned as part of Development Application No. DA06/1014, which is the subject of the current Section 96 Application.

 

(e)  Retention of the large existing tree adjacent to the proposed vehicle turning head.

The subject tree is located in line with the rear boundary of No. 122 Goldmark Crescent in the existing landscape strip between the southern access driveway and the southern property boundary. The tree has not been plotted on the submitted site plan however the tree can be retained and this matter is recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.13).

 

(f)  Previous consent requirements for fencing to the southern property boundary and along the southern access driveway.

The existing boundary fences and privacy screens to the southern property boundary are in accordance with the previous building and development approvals relating to the site. In relation to previous consent requirements for fencing along the southern access driveway to limit use of the driveway by school children, while this was previously required via prior site approvals it was not required as part of the most recent approval (Development Application No. DA06/1014). However, in order to limit use of the driveway by school children it is recommended that this matter be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.14).

 

(g)  Pedestrian and vehicle access links from the southern access driveway to the new multi-purpose hall.

The approved plans for Complying Development Certificate No. CD09/0017 indicates that there are no new pedestrian and/or vehicle access links proposed from the southern access driveway to the new multi-purpose hall.

 

 

 

 

 

(h)  Provision of lighting to the southern access driveway.

Lighting of the southern access driveway is not proposed as there will be no night time use of the driveway. This matter is recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.15).

 

(i)   Provision of “no right turn” signage from the car park exit to Andromeda Drive and traffic congestion due to the two-way vehicle movements from this driveway.

The southern access driveway connects to the school car park which includes a vehicle entry and exit point to Andromeda Drive approximately 60m to the west of the southern access driveway. Existing signage is currently in place advising motorists that no right turn is permitted when exiting the driveway. In order to reinforce this arrangement, it is recommended that this matter be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.16). In relation to the two-way vehicle movements from this driveway, this configuration has previously been approved by Council and cannot be reconsidered as part of the subject Section 96 Application. Retention of the southern access driveway will not worsen traffic congestion in Andromeda Drive given its intended limited use.

 

(j)  Conformity with the approved plans of the shade sail/canopy between Block CC and Block E (classroom buildings) adjacent to the southern access driveway.

The subject shade sail/canopy was constructed as exempt development not requiring Council approval pursuant to Clause 31(1)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

(k)  Enforceability of Council’s proposed operational conditions regarding use of the southern access driveway outside normal working hours.

The school Principal and the applicant undertook to comply with Council’s proposed operational conditions regarding use of the driveway during the course of the on-site meeting. Any reported non-compliances will be duly investigated by Council and appropriate action will be taken to ensure any unauthorised use of the driveway ceases.

Conclusion

The proposed modification to the development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 96 and Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and has been found to be satisfactory. Each of the relevant criteria under Section 96(1A) of the Act have been satisfied. The development as modified would achieve minimal environmental impact and be substantially the same development as originally approved.

 

The subject application provides an opportunity for a considerable upgrade to the existing southern boundary fencing in the form of a 2m high acoustically treated fence. The existing boundary fences and privacy screens in this location are currently in a state of disrepair and are not acoustically treated. The proposed fencing, landscaping and new operational conditions recommended in this report will suitably safeguard the residential amenity of the neighbourhood. The proposed modification to the development is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Section 96 Application DA06/1014.05 for the Retention of the Existing Southern Access Driveway at Corpus Christi Primary School at Lot 1 DP 1144668 (No. 86 - 94) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook be received.

2.     The Section 96 Application DA06/1014.05 for the Retention of the Existing Southern Access Driveway at Corpus Christi Primary School at Lot 1 DP 1144668 (No. 86 - 94) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook be approved subject to the following amended and additional conditions:

Amend Condition 13 to read:

2.1     The portion of the access driveway on the southern side of the site, beyond the eastern extremity of the existing multi-sport court, shall be removed and reinstated with landscaping after completion of Stage 2 of the development. Details in accordance with Section 2.6 (Landscape) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 shall be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the proposed vehicle turning head at the new end point of the driveway.

                   Acoustic boundary fencing in lieu of the existing boundary fencing                and related landscaping shall be provided to the southern property              boundary in accordance Drawing Number S9601 (Issue C, dated                   2 June 2009) prepared by Quinn O’Hanlon Architects & Planners, as                    amended by the following conditions. The overland stormwater flow             path shall be fenced with open-style fencing only to ensure the                     overland flow path is not impeded in times of heavy rainfall.

                   The required fencing and landscaping works shall be satisfactorily                completed prior to the issue of the final Occupation Certificate for the                  development

Add the following new conditions:

2.2     The southern access driveway shall only be used between the hours of 7am and 6pm on weekdays, with no use on weekends permitted. Emergency vehicles are permitted to use the driveway outside these hours in emergency situations

2.3     The southern access driveway shall only be used by emergency and service vehicles. Service vehicles are vehicles that are associated with the servicing or maintenance of school property

2.4     The use of the southern access driveway by waste or recycling collection vehicles is not permitted

2.5     The 2m high sound barrier is to be installed within 30 days from the date of consent. Certification is to be provided to Council on the construction of this sound barrier within 14 days after completion

2.6     The southern access driveway shall be gated during the afternoon period when children are leaving the school to discourage pedestrian use of the driveway as a means of exiting the school grounds

2.7     In order to limit the level of overshadowing from the fence line on the adjoining rear yards, the proposed southern boundary fencing shall be reduced in height to 2m

2.8     In order to maintain appropriate levels of safety, security and crime prevention to the properties adjoining the southern access driveway, it will be necessary for the southern driveway access to be gated outside of normal school hours

2.9     No grevillea or wattle species shall be planted to the rear or either side of No. 7 Barrett Place. Alternative plant species shall be planted in this location

2.10   All civil works shall be designed and constructed in accordance with   Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and                Construction Specification for Civil Works and applicable Australian          Standards

2.11   A Construction Certificate shall be issued by the Certifying Authority to include the following civil works:

(a)  Access road and sealed pavement for all areas of vehicular access

Civil design drawings shall be prepared strictly in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works and applicable Australian Standards

2.12   Prior to the issue of the final Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all civil works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the Construction Certificate, Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works and relevant conditions of the development consent

2.13   The existing tree marked in red on Drawing Number S9601 (Issue C, dated 2 June 2009) prepared by Quinn O’Hanlon Architects & Planners shall be retained on the site and protected in accordance with the minimum tree protection standards prescribed in Section 2.6 (Landscape) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

2.14   The northern side of the southern access driveway shall be fenced with open-style fencing to limit the use of the driveway by school children. Details shall be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the proposed vehicle turning head at the new end point of the driveway

2.15   Artificial lighting of the southern access driveway shall not be permitted at any time

2.16   Right turn movements from the southern car park access point shall not be permitted for vehicles exiting the site. Suitable signage advising motorists accordingly shall remain in place at all times

3.     The individuals and petitioners who made a submission in relation to the subject Section 96 Application and the previous Section 82A Application be advised of Council’s decision and of the consideration given to their concerns.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Site Works Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 3 - Site Works Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Vibrant City

 

 

 

11

Proposed variation of a restriction on the use of land and Development Application DA10/0128 - Proposed  split level dwelling at Lot 31 DP 1083294 (No. 3)  Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park   Applicant:  Hardeep Singh Badhesha;  Owner:  Hardeep Singh Badhesha    

DA10/0128

Compiled by:                Colin Wood, Building Approvals Co-ordinator

Wendy Butler, Graduate Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with lifestyle and housing choice in our neighbourhoods (8)

Strategic Response

Encourage housing that provides choice, achieves design excellence, and meets community needs (8.1)

      

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of a split level dwelling. The application seeks to vary the Section 88B restriction imposed in accordance with the Conveyancing Act, 1919 in notation to DP 1083294 which only allows single storey construction.

 

The proposed development comprises a split level dwelling which is two storey at the front and single storey at the rear. The building has a garage and storage room on the ground floor and four bedrooms, four bathrooms, kitchen, family room and living room on the first floor. The floor to ceiling level on both storeys is 2.4 metres.

 

Council has received five (5) objections to the proposed dwelling and the concerns for setting a precedent, impacting on an area that is predominantly single storey, privacy and overshadowing issues and excessive cut are all considered valid.

 

Council Officers do not support this application and it is recommended for refusal. Ordinarily this application could be considered under delegated authority. This report is referred to Council for consideration on the request of Councillor Crameri.

 

Background

Council granted consent to create a subdivision of 37 lots at Knox Street and Harwood Circuit, Glenmore Park DP239713 on the17 March 2000 (DA990677) (See Location Plan Appendix 1).

 

The 88B restriction on the use of land seventhly referred to in the subject Deposited Plan No.1083294 burdens all allotments and states:

 

“No building to be erected on the land other than single storey construction”.

 

A search of Council records relating to the original subdivision of the land indicates the Section 88B restriction was applied to address visual and acoustic impacts from the M4 Motorway. Penrith City Council is nominated as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary, or modify the terms of the restriction.

 

A development application for the construction of a two storey dwelling was originally submitted on 14 February, 2010. The applicant was advised the design was not acceptable due to the Section 88B restriction on the lot which required single storey construction only.

 

An amended plan for a split level dwelling was subsequently lodged on 28 April 2010 for assessment. The amended plan shows the garage and storage area underneath at the front portion of the dwelling to a distance of 9.485 metres. The applicant indicates the slope constraint of the site required the garage to be excavated in order to achieve an acceptable driveway gradient (See Site plan and Elevation plan at Appendix 2).

 

The applicant has requested to have the restriction on the Section 88B Instrument varied in this instance to allow the construction of the split level dwelling on the site.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development comprises a split level dwelling which is 2 storey at the front and single storey at the rear. The building has a garage and storage room on the ground floor and four bedrooms, four bathrooms, kitchen, family room and living room on the first floor.

 

The development application was accompanied by:

 

·    An objection under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Land.  This objection relates to the minimum landscape requirements;

·    Statement of Environmental Effects;

·    Site and Building Plans;

·    BASIX certificate;

·    Waste Management Plan;

·    A request to vary the Section 88B instrument relating to single storey construction.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Manifold Crescent. The site is rectangular in shape with the street frontage of 15.0 metres and a depth of 41.35 metres. The site has an area of 620.3 m2.

 

The site contains a slight down slope from the north-east towards the front of the site (i.e. west). Under the proposed building footprint, there is a 1.15 metre and 1.25 metre fall from the rear to the front of the proposed dwelling for the northern and southern elevations respectively.

 

The allotment is steeper at the front of the site. The current contour to the proposed garage is 54.25 metres and the vehicular access point is 52.75 metres at the front boundary. This is a fall of 1.5 metres over 10 metres and represents a slope of 1 in 6.7. Council Engineers require a maximum of 4% grade to the vehicular cross over at the Council verge. Vehicular access from the front boundary line to the finished floor level of the garage for a high level driveway can be at a maximum grade 1 in 5 (20%). This demonstrates that the site is capable of development of a single storey dwelling without the need for the excessive excavation for building platforms.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by single storey dwellings of varying scale (Refer Appendix 4). This proposed dwelling is not in keeping with the character of the area.  Of the 37 allotments in DP1083294, a total of 11 have single dwellings erected or are presently under construction. There are no 2 storey dwellings in the subdivision at the present time nor have any applications been approved for 2 storey dwellings.

Planning Assessment

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards

An objection to development standards within Penrith LEP 1998 has been lodged. The variation relates to the minimum landscape requirements. The 2(b) zoning requires a minimum landscaping area of at least 50% of the site area. The site has an area of 620.3m² and therefore 310.15 m² should be set aside for landscaping.

 

The applicant has provided landscape details and calculations however they were not in accordance with the definition of landscaped area as outlined in the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Land.  The applicant has indicated the proposed landscape area will be 48.1%. Council’s calculation below indicates the landscaped area will be 40.2% as follows:

 

Dwelling footprint                     =       298.78 (i.e. the dwelling footprint of 313.78 less 15 m² for the patio which is allowable landscaping)

Driveway                                 =         27.26

South setback                          =         36.74

North setback (at stairs) =           7.85

                                                         370.63

 

(370.63/620.3)X100      = 40.2 %

 

This represents a shortfall of 60.48 m² in landscaping and there is no justification for this variation. Whilst the cut and fill and extensive retaining walls are having an impact on the usable space for landscaping, the current design should be reduced in overall size. The SEPP 1 request for variation to the landscape area is not supported.

 

Council Officers are of the opinion this proposal is an over development of the site and the building footprint needs to be reduced.

 

 

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20—Hawkesbury-Nepean River

The provisions of SREP 20 apply to the property as it falls within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment. SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, by ensuring the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the potential impact on residential development and water quality.

 

The proposed development will have minimal impacts on the total catchment management, water quality and water quantity. No heritage items are located on the site. The dwelling will not be visible from the riverine corridor. Stormwater will be controlled and directed to a rain water tank.

 

The proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the SREP.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Land

 

Under the terms of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban the land is zoned as Zone No 2(b) residential (low density). The proposed development is defined as a dwelling, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone.

 

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

Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 – “Residential Single Dwellings” is applicable to the site and the following sections are relevant to the assessment of the proposal.

 

Clause 4.4 - Preferred Configurations for New Dwellings

The objective is to ensure new dwellings adopt key features of established suburban design. These include entrances, windows to main living rooms, private courtyards facing the street or the rear boundary, and garages architecturally integrated within building forms. The development is considered to comply with these objectives and will also maintain a green corridor along the rear boundary. Whist the proposal may comply with the objective of the configuration for new dwellings and provide a green corridor along the rear boundary, the amount of landscaping that is proposed for the site is not sufficient as previously noted in the SEPP1.

 

Clause 5.2 - Urban Form

The objective is to ensure new buildings show characteristics of established suburban neighbourhoods. Dwellings should be oriented to face the street, building forms should be stepped or articulated and relate to the shape of their surrounding garden areas.

 

The proposed design measures include articulated building forms and facades. Whilst the stepping back of the dwelling and the hipped roof creates an interesting design, the 2 storey component at the front of the building is not in keeping with the character of the streetscape, as all other buildings in the vicinity comply with the single storey requirement.

 

 

Clause 5.4 - Landscaped Area and Parking

The objective is to retain a reasonable proportion of each site for landscaped garden areas, conserve significant existing vegetation, and provide reasonable separation between neighbouring dwellings. The 2(b) zone requires 40% landscaping under the DCP, however, 50% is required under the LEP.

 

Whilst the site achieves 40.2% landscaping and would comply with the DCP, the LEP takes precedence in this case and the proposal demonstrates a non compliance. As previously identified in this report, the variation is not supported.

 

Clause 5.5 - Solar Planning

The objective is to improve the energy efficiency of dwellings and achieve a high standard of residential amenity. Due to the orientation of the lot, the dwelling will cast shadow to the allotment to the south.

 

The applicant has demonstrated the dwelling ensures a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the 21st June, to living zones and that the neighbouring and proposed private open spaces receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm.

 

Whilst the lowering of the overall height of the dwelling will significantly reduce the shadow cast on 21 June, it is not a determining factor in the refusal of this application. In any event, the dwelling to the south does not have any habitable room windows facing the proposed development that is within the shadow cast by the proposed building.

 

A satisfactory BASIX certificate has also been submitted to demonstrate adequate energy and water efficiency measures are incorporated into the dwelling.

 

Clause 6.1 Significant Landscapes

The objective is that in areas of particular significance to natural conservation or high environmental character, new development should demonstrate detailed design measures to protect that conservation significance or character. There are no significant landscapes needing particular conservation in this application.

 

Clause 6.3 Building Design

The objective is that dwellings be surrounded by private gardens, their facades should display a variety of materials and shading structures and garages should be integrated within the overall architectural form and design.

 

The clause outlines controls to reduce the visual impacts of the dwelling and garages to the surrounding amenity of the area. A clause 6.3(B)(f) refers to the requirement of a maximum 1 metre cut and fill.

 

The proposal has a maximum excavation of approximately 1.950m which is located to the rear wall of the proposed garage. This is a variation of 950mm from the control and is almost twice the allowable level. As a consequence the excavation necessitates retaining walls located within close proximity of the boundary.

 

The excessive excavation does not benefit the site as it increases the bulk and scale of the front and side elevations of the proposed dwelling. If a single storey dwelling was proposed, these excessive site works would not be required.

 

Clause 6.4 Energy Efficiency

The development proposal is compliant with the requirements of the BASIX legislation.

 

 

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

The main issue for this development is its significant visual impact to the street and surrounding areas. All dwellings in the area are single storey and comply with the covenant. The proposal would have a negative impact to the streetscape and appear as a two storey dwelling when the direct surrounding and adjacent development is single storey and site responsive.

 

The proposal would compromise the character within the established subdivision locality with the dominance in appearance and the bulk and scale. The proposal is unnecessarily excavating the site to accommodate the garage, which in turn creates additional development issues of retaining walls and site drainage for the subject lot and the adjoining boundaries. The dwelling will dominate the ridge height of the adjoining and would not compliment the natural contours of the site.

 

The proposal requires an excessive excavation for the basement level. The proposal is not demonstrating a site responsive design which could be achieved on such a lot. The excavation for the garage requires retaining walls to be constructed to support the cut. The site does demonstrate a fall from the rear boundary to the kerb, however, the natural contours of the land are undulating to the front boundary and a single storey dwelling would be achievable within the lot boundaries without the need for the excessive excavation and retaining.

 

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

Using the proposed finished floor levels of the garage (52.765 AHD) and the existing level at the front of the site nearest the proposed driveway (52.750 AHD), there will only be a difference of 15 mm over the 10.0 metre setback of the dwelling. This is a very slight fall and one which will probably cause problems for water removal in the event of heavy downpours. The BCA requires 50 mm fall over the first 1.0 metre to prevent water entering the building and this cannot be achieved with the current design.

 

The site is vacant with dwellings under construction to both the north and south. The dwelling on the allotment immediately north of the proposed site is up to lock up stage and the dwelling to the allotment immediately south is up to slab stage. Both dwellings are single storey (Refer Photographs at Appendix 3).

 

The ridge heights of the dwellings located on the allotments immediately north and south of 3 Manifold Crescent will be 57.8 AHD and 57.75 AHD respectively. The height of the proposed dwelling at 3 Manifold Crescent will be 59.9 AHD. This represents an increased height of 2.1metres and 2.15 metres above the buildings to the immediate north and south of the subject allotment.

 

The site is suitable for the construction of a new residential dwelling. The design is not site responsive and alternative single storey designs incorporating cut and fill and drop edge beams similar to the adjoining site should be explored.

 

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

In accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan 2006 – “Notification and Advertising”, the proposed development was notified to nearby and adjoining residents from 22 February to 8 March 2010. Five (5) submissions have been received and are addressed below:

 

(i).     Residents were attracted to area as only single storey dwellings were allowed

Comment:  A covenant restricting development to only single storey was placed on the site by way of a Section 88B Instrument at subdivision stage. The main reason for this was visual and acoustic impacts from the M4.

 

It is clear from the submissions received, that people favour single storey development and it has its benefits by promoting privacy and reducing the bulk of the built form.  If the development is approved, it will reduce some residents’ enjoyment of the land and the attraction of existing and proposed people to the area. This may also have an impact on resale value.

 

(ii).     The approval of this dwelling will set a precedent for further development in the area to be 2 storeys.

Comment:  People are genuinely concerned that if Council approves this building, it will set a precedent for future development in the area. Even though future development will also require a Council report to vary the Section 88B instrument, approval of this application will certainly be used to support future applications for 2 storey development.

 

From the submissions received, many people oppose 2 storey developments and this was one aspect that attracted them to the subdivision in the first place.

 

(iii).    The excessive elevation of the dwelling to allow the garage beneath creates privacy & overshadowing problems

Comment:  The proposed height of the building can be significantly reduced by constructing a single storey dwelling using cut and fill techniques and incorporating drop edge beams in the design. This can clearly be seen from the design of the adjoining dwellings to the north and south of the site.

 

Lowering the overall height of the proposed dwelling by 1.0 to 1.5 metres will improve privacy issues from Bedrooms 2 and 3 which overlook the southern boundary.

 

The applicant has demonstrated that the solar access to the building is acceptable for 3 hours during the period of 9.00 am to 3.00 pm.  The lowering of the dwelling would serve to further improve this result by casting less shadow on the property to the south.  Despite the fact this has a benefit for the adjoining property owner, it is not a consideration for refusal of this application.

 

 

 

(iv).    Design not in character with other development in area

Comment:  All other development in DP1083294 is single storey. The nearest 2 storey dwelling is located at 10 Knox Street, Glenmore Park and this is approximately 60 metres from the site.

 

(v).    The front balcony is dominant and out of character with surrounding development.

Comment:  The balcony at the front of the building is imposing, extending along the full frontage of the dwelling. People are concerned it will be used for social activities into the night and create disturbances to the area. Additionally, there are no other buildings in that vicinity incorporating such a design.

 

(vi).    Excessive cut and fill

Comment:  The excessive cut at the front of the site is not site responsive and exceeds Council DCP maximum of 1.0 metre. People have bought and built their properties within the controls of the DCP and do not see why the owners of this property cannot do the same.

 

From the plans, the proposed cut is approximately 1.7 to 1.95 metres. The amount of soil to be removed from the site cannot be justified. It is possible to construct a single storey dwelling that is more site responsive.

 

(vii).   There is a single storey dwelling under construction to the north.

Comment:  People are concerned that the dwelling under construction to the north of this site has similar slopes and they believe a single storey dwelling can also be completed on the subject site.

 

Council Officers agree the proposed design is not site responsive and an alternative should be explored.

Conclusion

Assessment of the application for the proposed dwelling demonstrates that it is generally in accordance with the LEP and DCP requirements except that the minimum 50% landscaping area requirements and the maximum cut of 1.0 metre have not been satisfied. Both of these requirements could be satisfied if the applicant created additional landscape area to the rear of the site by reducing the overall footprint of the building and explored alternative designs incorporating cut and fill and drop edge beams.

 

The Section 88B Instrument provision restricts the building to single storey and it would be possible to comply with this requirement. This is evident from the dwellings under construction to the immediate north and south of the subject site.

 

Council has received a number of submissions against the proposal and these are generally supported by Council Officers. It is therefore not in the public interest to support this application.

 

It is recommended that Council refuse the variation of the Section 88B instrument to permit a 2 storey dwelling. Council should also refuse the development application for a 2 storey dwelling on the basis it does not comply with the minimum landscape requirements of Council’s LEP 1998, it does not comply with the maximum cut requirements of the DCP and it is not in the public interest.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed variation of a restriction on the use of land and Development Application DA10/0128 - Proposed  split level dwelling at Lot 31 DP 1083294 (No. 3)  Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park be received.

2.     The application to vary the restriction seventhly referred to in 88B Instrument DP 1083294 be refused.

3.     The State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP1) request for variation of this requirement is not supported as the extent of variation to the development standard is inappropriate in these circumstances.

4.     Development Application 10/0128 seeking consent for the construction of a split level dwelling at 3 Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park be refused for the following reasons:

4.1         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998-Urban Land.

                Clause 7(1)(e) residential character

          The proposed dwelling would result in a development that it inconsistent with the predominant character of the area.

     Clause 7(1)(f) residential amenity

The proposed dwelling would result in adverse impacts to the immediate area due to its bulk and the extent of site modifications.

     Clause 12(3)

     The proposed dwelling exceeds the minimum landscaped          requirement of 50% and represents an overdevelopment of the     site.

4.2         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions of the Penrith Development Control Plan 2006.

     Part 4 Section 4.2 Residential – Single Dwellings

The proposal exceeds the 1 metre cut and fill requirement.

The proposal is two storeys in appearance which is inconsistent with the predominant character in the area and would result in a decline in overall amenity.

4.3         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act because it is of two storey appearance, exceeds the open space requirement and would be inconsistent with the predominant character in the immediate locality.

4.4         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the proposal is considered unsightly with respect to its bulk and scale and its proposed presence would not be in keeping with the surrounding area.

4.5         The proposal is considered to set an undesirable precedent for residential development which does not accord with the Section 88b restriction imposed on lots in the deposited plan for the location and as such would not be in the public interest in accordance with Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5.     All those who made objections to the proposal be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Map

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site plan and Elevation plan

7 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Map

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 2 - Site plan and Elevation plan

 

 

 








Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Vibrant City

 

 

 

12

Development Application DA09/0714 proposed construction of 30 residential apartments over three levels and basement at Lot 3, 10 & 11 DP 38418 (No. 1 - 3) Putland Street and (No. 2) Sainsbury Street, St Marys  Applicant:  SCC Holdings Pty Ltd;  Owner:  SCC Holdings Pty Ltd & HSC Holdings Pty Ltd    

DA09/0714

Compiled by:                Gurvinder Singh, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with lifestyle and housing choice in our neighbourhoods (8)

Strategic Response

Encourage housing that provides choice, achieves design excellence, and meets community needs (8.1)

       

 

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

Executive Summary

Council received a development application on 28 July 2009 from ‘SCC Holdings Pty Ltd’ for the construction of 30 residential apartments over 2 to 3 levels and basement car parking at the above site. The apartment building is proposed to comprise 25 x 2 bedroom units, 5 x 3 bedroom units with 41 on-site car parking spaces including 6 spaces for visitors.

 

The site is zoned 2(e) Residential (Medium High Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 - Urban Land. The proposal to construct residential apartments is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The development application was placed on public exhibition and during the exhibition period 2 submissions were received. The concerns raised in those submissions have formed part of the assessment of the development application and they are addressed in a later section of this report.

 

An assessment under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken. The proposal does not comply with a development standard under Penrith LEP 1998-Urban Land that requires a lot width of 20m. The applicant has submitted an objection under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards seeking variation to the above development standard. The application is reported to Council for determination as the proposed development involves a variation to the standard exceeding 10% in accordance with the Department of Planning Circular ‘Reporting Variations to Development Standards’.

 

 The assessment of the development application concludes that the proposed development is satisfactory. The development application is therefore recommended for approval.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the northern side of Putland Street around 40m west of the intersection of Mamre Road and Putland Street, St Marys. The site comprises 3 allotments including 2 regular shaped allotments having a total area of 1,529m2 at No.1-3 Putland Street, St Marys and an irregular shaped allotment having an area of 866m2 at No. 2 Sainsbury Street, St Marys. Two cottages exist on the above allotments at Putland Street and a cottage also exists on the allotment at Sainsbury Street. (A Locality Plan is included as Appendix 1).

 

The site is surrounded by detached dwellings on the east, west and south of the subject allotments on Putland Street, St Marys. Detached dwellings are located to the east and multi- unit housing to the west of the subject allotment at Sainsbury Street, St Marys. A heritage item (Moore Cottage) is located in the vicinity of the site at No.8 Sainsbury Street, St Marys.

 

Shops are located to the north of the site across Sainsbury Street and St Marys town centre is located around 250m north of the site.

The Proposal

The proposal is to construct 30 residential apartments having 2 to 3 levels over basement car parking. The apartments facing Sainsbury Street are proposed to have 2 levels over basement whereas the apartments facing Putland Street will have 3 levels over basement. The change from 2 to 3 levels over basement occurs at approximately the middle of the site. The apartment building will have:

 

a)         25 x 2 bedroom units

b)         5 x 3 bedroom units

c)         41 on-site basement car parking spaces including 6 spaces for visitors.

 

The apartments on the ground floor have individual courtyard areas and the apartments above ground floor have balconies.

 

Access to basement car parking is proposed from Putland Street St Marys. Stormwater drainage will be discharged to Putland and Sainsbury Streets existing stormwater systems. The construction of the building will involve face and bagged brickwork, concrete floors, aluminium windows and metal roof. Waste collection is proposed to be carried out from a garbage storage area located near the Putland Street frontage. Landscaped areas comprising trees, shrubs and groundcovers are proposed along the street frontages and side boundaries.

 

All the existing cottages on the site are proposed to be demolished to make way for the new apartment building.

 

The following reports and plans form part of the development application:

 

·    Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Rudder Littlemore & Rudder Pty Ltd

·    Site plan, basement, ground, first and second floor plans, roof plan, elevations, sections and shadow diagrams prepared by Rudder Littlemore & Rudder Pty Ltd

·    Stormwater drainage plans and erosion and sediment control plan prepared by Australian Consulting Engineers

·    Landscape plan prepared by Ray Fuggle Associates Landscape Architects

·    BASIX Certificates prepared by Rudder Littlemore & Rudder Pty Ltd

·    Waste Management Plan prepared by Rudder Littlemore & Rudder Pty Ltd

·    Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Rudder Littlemore & Rudder Pty Ltd

 

(A Site plan, Elevation & Section plan are included as Appendix No. 2).

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1)

The aim of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards is to provide:

 

‘flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Act’.

 

A development standard under Clause 11 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) requires a minimum lot width of 20m for multi-unit housing in the zone. The intent of the above development standard is to achieve an appropriate separation between buildings and site boundaries. It is there also to allow enough width to enable multi-unit housing to occur with suitable space for driveways, setbacks and landscaping. The width of the subject site on the Putland Street frontage is 31.6m which complies with the above development standard. However, the width of the subject site on the Sainsbury Street frontage is 15.24m which does not comply with the above development standard.

 

The applicant has submitted a written objection in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards that compliance with the above development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The applicant argues that the site is landlocked and efforts to acquire the adjacent site have failed. The proposed development on the Sainsbury Street lot is only 2 storeys even though three storeys are permissible in the zone. The proposed design of the building is sympathetic to the adjacent existing development in height and form. An access driveway to the development is not proposed from Sainsbury Street.

 

A landscaped area is available to the front and sides of the subject site on Sainsbury Street that will provide adequate separation and buffer between the neighbouring and proposed dwellings. The non-compliance does not compromise the intent of the development standard in terms of achieving a site responsive development which is compatible with existing housing in the locality. The proposed development is consistent with the bulk and scale of the adjoining development and is not likely to cause any detrimental impacts. The lot fronting Sainsbury Street also meets the 800m2 minimum site area requirement for multi unit housing under the LEP at 866m2. The 15.24m width of the allotment on Sainsbury Street is therefore considered to be acceptable.


 

The SEPP 1 objection has demonstrated that compliance with the prescribed minimum lot width would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. A condition of consent is recommended to be imposed requiring the subject 3 lots to be consolidated prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 2004 - BASIX

This Policy ensures the implementation of the BASIX scheme that encourages sustainable residential development. It requires certain kinds of residential development to be accompanied by a list of commitments to be carried out by the applicants.

 

BASIX certificates are submitted with the development application. A standard condition is recommended to be imposed in the consent to ensure the commitments shown on the Certificate are maintained for the life time of the apartments.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65)

This policy aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development. It promotes sustainability, a better built form and improved amenity and safety for the occupants. The policy stipulates 10 design quality principles and requires that the proposal achieves a satisfactory outcome in respect of these principles. The policy refers to the Residential Flat Design Code, which provides guidance for applying the design quality principles.

 

Council engaged an independent architect to carry out an assessment of the proposed development under this SEPP. Comments were forwarded to the applicant following the independent assessment and the applicant redesigned some aspects of the proposed development. Amended plans were submitted to Council on 24 November 2009. The changes made by the applicant were:

 

·    The façade of the building incorporated an improved entry statement including fin walls and pergolas over front courtyards. The revised design produced a better presentation to Putland Street where the entrance became more pronounced and a visual feature of the building;

·    The roof form was changed from gable to skillion roof. This resulted in reducing the bulk and scale of the proposed building;

·    Layouts of some apartments were changed to facilitate internal circulation; Improvements also included widening of halls and passageways;

·    One car wash bay was incorporated in the basement;

·    A chair lift was proposed for people with disabilities;

·    Three adaptable units were included in the proposed development;

·    Balconies on the eastern elevation were deleted;

·    The garbage room was relocated with a dedicated pathway for the movement of garbage bins to Putland Street. This resulted in more usable common open space within the central courtyard.

 

The amended plans were forwarded to the independent architect for assessment against the principles of SEPP 65. In summary, the independent architect provided the following advice:

 

·    The development seems to generally comply with most of the aims and principles of SEPP 65;

·    The façade treatment is improved from the previous scheme. There is more expression of the building’s interior with the outside façade treatment;

·    The form and style is a better representation of a multi dwelling apartment building;

·    The development provides single glazing and should be aiming at providing better performing glass;

·    Inappropriate horizontal sun shading devices have been retained on the east and west elevations;

·    The apartment layouts are improved from the previous scheme;

·    The windows with colonial glazing bars do not fit in with the contemporary nature of the façade;

·    The access to the individual units and their layouts work reasonably well.

 

The matters raised by the independent architect relate to minor design matters. These matters can be resolved by conditions of consent that are contained in the recommendations. An assessment of the revised design against the design principles of the SEPP 65 is included as Appendix 3. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the above policy.

 

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

The aim of SREP 20 is to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system, by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context.

 

The requirement of the above SREP to assess potential impacts on water quality is considered relevant to the proposal particularly relating to the stormwater quality and quantity. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the drainage plans submitted with the development application to be satisfactory and recommended that a condition of consent be imposed that requires sedimentation and erosion controls to be in place prior to the commencement of any site works and the water quality to be maintained by incorporating stormwater pre-treatment devices to remove litter, sediment and oil. This will ensure that quality of water from the site has no adverse impact on the existing environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system.

 

The objectives of SREP 20 are considered to be satisfied.

 

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

Permissibility

The land is zoned as 2(e) Residential (Medium High Density) under the above LEP. The proposed development is defined as multi-unit housing, which is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

 

Objectives of the Zone

The objectives of the zone are:

 

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

(ii)        conservation value;

(iii)       to provide a wider range of housing choices in proximity to the established  town centres and railway station;

(iv)       to reinforce established flat zones;

(v)        to allow multi-unit housing up to a three storey appearance; and

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

 

The proposed development comprises residential use which is consistent with the above objectives of the zone.

 

Development Standards

Clause 11 - Site controls for dual occupancy and multi-unit housing development

A development standard under the above clause requires a minimum lot width of 20m for multi-unit housing in the zone. This matter has been addressed in a previous section of this report. The Sainsbury Street lot alone complies with the minimum site area requirement of 800m2.

 

Clause 12 – Building Envelopes, Heights, Landscaped Areas and Rear Boundary Setback

The following table shows compliance with this clause:

 

Requirement

 

Provision

Compliance

Building envelope – 45 degrees at 6.5m height at side boundary

 

The proposed building is not within the envelope

No –  See comment below

External wall height - 10.5m

 

11m

No –  See comment below

Landscaped area - 35% min

 

40.81%

Yes

Rear setback - 6m

 

6m

Yes

 

The western external wall and roof of the proposed building on the Putland Street lot encroaches onto the building envelope by 1.3m. The external wall height of the attic of the proposed building on the Putland Street lot is 0.5m more than the required height of 10.5m.

 

Clause12 (6) of the LEP provides that:

 

Despite any other provisions of this clause, the council may consent to a building which is not wholly within the relevant building envelope or contravenes the maximum wall height control if, in the opinion of the council, the application demonstrates that a variation to those controls is necessary to improve the design, external appearance or utility of the proposed building’.

 

The applicant has argued that:

 

‘The LEP 1998 excludes dormer windows from the maximum height calculations. Council officers requested a variation to the pitched roof and dormer roof configuration to achieve a more modern and contemporary solution to the building design. The revised design means that for a small portion of the gable roof, the minimum height is breached. We therefore ask that under Clause 12 (6) council give permission to vary this requirement to improve the design and external appearance of the building.’

 

The above justification is considered acceptable as 1.3m encroachment onto the building envelope and 0.5m additional height does not significantly increase the bulk and scale of the building. These encroachments will have negligible impact of overshadowing on the neighbouring properties. The additional height will improve the utility of the proposed building by providing an accessible attic space.

 

Clause 13(3) - Environmental Performance

This clause requires that consent to development must not be granted unless the consent authority is of the opinion that the proposed development has taken into account the following:

 

(a)     The provisions of any development control plan relating to environmental noise,   including impacts on both generators and receivers of noise; and

(b)     The reduction of contaminated stormwater discharge from the site.

 

Noise generated by the proposed development is limited to noise associated with construction only. Standard conditions of consent are recommended to be imposed to mitigate any adverse noise impact on the adjoining properties.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the proposed drainage plans and are satisfied that water quality can be maintained by requiring the applicant to use stormwater pre-treatment devices to remove litter, sediment and oil. This has been imposed as a condition of consent.

 

Clause 14 – Design Principles

This clause requires that consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is of the opinion that the proposed development has taken into account the following:

 

(a)     Reinforcement and protection of local topography and setting;

(b)     Reflection of the forms, features or qualities of traditional residential neighbourhoods     across Penrith local government area;

(c)     Consistency or compatibility with the scale, design and amenity of neighbouring development;

(d)     Contribution to attractive streetscapes through the diversity of building forms and landscaped areas that can be seen from any public place nearby;

(e)     Provision for contemporary standards of amenity within each dwelling and the associated private open space;

(f)      Preservation and enhancement of any significant vista that currently might be available from a public place nearby.

 

The above principles have also been addressed under SEPP 65 assessment carried out in a previous section of this report. The proposed design of development will fit into the local topography among the existing dwellings surrounding the site. It will reflect the forms and features of residential neighbourhoods such as building form and traditional residential streetscape including landscaped areas. The design of the building is compatible with the neighbouring residential development.

 

The proposed development complies with the requirements of Clause 14 of the LEP

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) (LEP 1991)

The general aim of this plan is to assist in the conservation and enhancement of the heritage items and heritage conservation areas of the city of Penrith.

 

The development site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item at No.8 Sainsbury Street (Moore Cottage) listed under LEP 1991.

 

Clause 9 of the LEP states;

 

Development in the vicinity of heritage items of LEP 1991 states that ‘the Council must not grant consent to an application to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item unless it has made an assessment of the effect the carrying out of that development will have on the heritage significance of the item and its setting’.

 

A heritage impact statement prepared by David Collett has been submitted with the application. This statement cites that the above item was restored and reconstructed. It is a rare and intact example of an early village settlement in the area and the mid-nineteenth century colonial vernacular style architecture.

 

Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed the above heritage impact statement and advised that the historic Moore Cottage is rendered and painted. The new development to the west of Moore Cottage is painted brickwork and the cottage to the east of the site is painted weatherboard building. Consequently it is recommended that painted brickwork be used in lieu of natural brickwork and a new colour scheme be submitted to Council for approval. The applicant shall also provide more details of windows, doors, pergola and balustrade. This detail has been included as a condition contained in the recommendation. 

 

Clause 9 of LEP 1991 is therefore satisfied.

 

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

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

No provisions of the above draft LEP are relevant to the proposed development.

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006

This plan applies to the proposed development. Section 4.6-Residential Apartment Development is relevant to the proposal. This section applies to the land covered by Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) and other residentially zoned land in the City where multi-unit housing is permissible.

 

A summary of the relevant provisions of this plan and its compliance by the proposed development is provided at Appendix 4 of this report. However, the following matters have been considered in detail in the assessment:

 

 

 

Setbacks

The above DCP requires a front setback that matches the neighbourhood character – a 5.5m minimum or average the setbacks of the immediate neighbours, whichever is greater. The DCP also requires a 6m rear setback.

 

The applicant has proposed a 5.2m front setback to Putland Street. This setback is encroached by basement parking by 1.9 to 2.9m. The applicant has submitted a justification to vary this requirement and argued that the proposal provides the required landscaping and deep soil requirement without the need for more soil within the front setback. A 6m rear setback has been proposed which complies with the above requirement.

 

The variation to the front setback is considered to be acceptable as the above encroachment will not be visible from Putland Street due to the landscaped courtyard areas located over the basement.

 

Solar Planning 

The DCP requires that the proposed development provides a minimum of 4 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, to living zones (i.e. areas other than bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen and laundry) of each dwelling and maintains this to the living zones of any adjoining dwellings. It also requires a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, to 40% of the main private open spaces of the dwelling and main private open spaces of any adjoining dwellings.

 

In comparison, the “rule of thumb” under the Residential Flat Design Code is that 70% of apartments in a development should receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm.

 

The mid winter shadow diagrams provided by the applicant demonstrate that sunlight is available to the living rooms and private open spaces of the apartments facing the north, east and west. One ground floor apartment facing south will not receive direct sunlight to its living room. Some apartments facing the north, east and west may not have access to full 4 hours of sunlight as required by the DCP; however these apartments will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight to the living areas and private open spaces as required by the Residential Flat Design Code which overrides the DCP in the event of an inconsistency. It is considered that sunlight access to the apartments is satisfactory as well over the 70% Residential Flat Design Code requirement is achieved.

 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

The principles of this section of the DCP require a safe and secure development and public domain with adequate lighting, visual access and passive surveillance to all areas of the site.

 

It is considered that with appropriate safety and security management, the proposed development can provide activation and passive surveillance within the building to reduce the risk of crime in the building and the immediate vicinity.

 

Council’s Community Safety Officer has assessed the proposed plans and has recommended a number of conditions reflecting CPTED principles for maintaining safety and security within and around the property. These conditions include aspects regarding lighting, basement security, landscaping, walkways, graffiti, and building/site identification. It is acknowledged that safety will be increased through good design and management, however there is no guarantee that all risks have been identified or that the areas will be free of criminal activity.

 

Waste Planning

A Waste Management Plan is submitted with the development application which specifies strategies for waste management during demolition of the existing buildings, construction of the new building and the operation of the development.

 

Waste from the apartments will be stored in the bins in a designated area on the ground floor around 14m from the Putland Street frontage. The waste management system complies with Council’s requirements subject to relevant conditions of consent which are recommended to be imposed for the operation of this system.

 

Parking

Forty one on-site car parking spaces including 6 spaces for visitors are proposed. The breakdown of these spaces is shown in the following table:

 

Parking Spaces required under DCP

Number of Apartments

Required/Proposed Parking Spaces

1 space per 2 bedroom apartment

25x2 bedroom

25

2 spaces per 3 bedroom apartment

5x3bedroom

10

Visitor spaces @ 1 space per 5 apartments

30 apartments

6

 

Total = 41 Spaces

 

The number of parking spaces meets the provisions of DCP 2006 and the proposed development is therefore satisfactory based on car parking requirements.

 

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Clause 50 of the above Regulation provides that a development application for a residential flat development lodged on or after 1 December, 2003 must be accompanied by a design verification statement from a qualified designer that confirms that:

 

(a)     he or she has designed, or directed the design, of the residential flat development, and

(b)     the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design quality of Residential Flat Development are achieved for the residential flat development.

 

This statement has been received from David Collett, Architect, which satisfies the above clause.

 

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

Noise and Privacy

Noise impacts can emanate during the excavation of the site and construction of the building. This can be controlled through the recommended imposition of conditions restricting the hours of construction and by implementing the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water’s ‘Noise Control Guidelines’.

 

Excavation/construction hours will be limited to:

·          Mondays to Fridays-7am to 6pm

·          Saturdays-7am to 1pm (if inaudible on neighbouring residential premises), otherwise 8am to 1pm

·          No work is permitted on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

The building separation and setbacks will maximise privacy between the apartments and surrounding buildings.

 

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposal is considered to have positive social and economic impacts. Opportunities for employment will be increased during construction of the building and the proposal will provide housing choice and residences in close proximity to the St Marys town centre and public transport.

 

Fire Safety

The proposed plans have been assessed against the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The building is classified as Class 2-Apartments and Class 7a-Car Park under the terms of the BCA. Standard conditions of consent are recommended to be imposed, which include compliance requirements for disabled access and facilities, essential services and fire safety certification.

 

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

The site is suitable for the proposed development due to its location in the high density residential area. The site is located within short distance to the retail and commercial hub of the St Marys town centre as well as the public transport. The site is not bushfire prone and all infrastructure services are available. The shape and size of the land is suitable for the development of this scale.

 

The proposed building is responsive to the desired character of the area as outlined under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998.

 

Due to all of the reasons cited above the site is suitable for the development.

 

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

Referrals

The application was referred to the following Council officers and their comments and conditions have formed part of the assessment and report:

 

Council Officer

Comments/Conditions                       

 

Senior Building Surveyor

No objections subject to recommended conditions

 

Community Safety Co-ordinator

No objections subject to recommended conditions

 

Senior Development Engineer

No objections subject to recommended conditions

 

Waste Services Coordinator

No objections subject to recommended conditions

 

 

Community Consultation

In accordance with Part 2.7-Notification and Advertising of DCP 2006, the development application was placed on public advertisement and notification from 12 to 26 August 2009. Two submissions were received that raised issues on obstruction of views, privacy, overshadowing, odour from the garbage area, noise and security. These issues were relayed to the applicant who addressed the issues in the revised design of the proposed development.

 

The revised plans were notified to the adjoining neighbours from 18 December to 8 January 2010. No submissions were received during this period.

 

The issues raised in the initial submissions are addressed below:

 

·    Obstruction of views – Views to the Blue Mountains will be obstructed.

 

Comment: These proposed buildings will have 2 to 3 storeys. The site is zoned for high density residential and 2 to 3 storey apartment buildings are appropriate for the site. However the proposed building will obstruct existing views of the concerned resident. These views will be available from the public domain.

 

·    Privacy and noise: Residents of the proposed building will overlook backyard and may create noise.

 

Comment: The balconies on the eastern side of the building have now been deleted. Hence privacy and noise concerns of the resident have been addressed.

 

·    Overshadowing: The backyard of the concerned resident will be overshadowed.

 

Comment: The DCP requires that the proposed development provides a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June to 40% of the main private open spaces of any adjoining dwellings. The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application show that sunlight access to the backyard of the property of the concerned resident will be available for 3 hours between 9:00am and 3pm which meets the above requirement of the DCP.

 

·    Odour from garbage area: The garbage area will be located near the rear fence and it will emit odours.

 

Comment: The garbage area has been relocated towards the middle of the site. The above issue has been addressed.

 

·    Security: The backyard will be visible from the balconies and this will affect security of the concerned resident.

 

Comment: The balconies on the eastern side of the building have now been deleted. Hence security concerns of the resident have been addressed.

 

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

The proposed development will provide social and economic impetus to the area for the benefit of the public. The retail/commercial uses in the St Marys town centre will have positive impacts as a result of this development as people residing in the apartments are more likely to work and shop in the town centre. It will provide housing choice for future residents having a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. It is considered that the proposal will serve a wider public interest.

Section 94 Contributions  

The Penrith City Wide Section 94 plans apply to this development and Section 94 contributions are summarised below:

 

Plan

CW = City Wide

 

 

Amount $

CW-Cultural Facilities

6867

CW-District Open Space

82489

CW-Footpaths

4788

CW-Local Open Space

29862

TOTAL

$124,006

 

The above contributions are indexed every quarter and the adjustments to the contributions are made at time of payment. Contributions will be required to be paid prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Conclusion

The proposed construction of the new residential building will improve the streetscape. The building will provide a mix of housing that will suit buyers of varying socio-economic backgrounds. People working in the St Marys town centre will be able to reside near their place of employment. The building is located close to many community facilities, shops, schools and public transport. Employment opportunities will be increased during construction of the building. This will result in positive social and economic outcomes.

 

Although the proposal is not fully compliant with all relevant development standards and controls, the justification of the departures is satisfactory. It is considered that the proposal achieves a balance in the provision of amenity to the future residents of the proposed building and compliance with the applicable controls.

 

After detailed consideration of all matters under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the report recommends that Council grants development consent to the proposal subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0714 proposed construction of 30 residential apartments over three levels and basement at Lot 3, 10 & 11 DP 38418 (No. 1 - 3) Putland Street and (No. 2) Sainsbury Street, St Marys be received.

2.     The objection to the development standard in Clause 11(4) of Penrith Urban Lands Local Environmental Plan 1998 in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy 1 be supported.

3.     Development Application DA09/0714 proposed construction of 30 residential apartments over three levels and basement at Lot 3, 10 & 11 DP 38418 (No. 1 - 3) Putland Street and (No. 2) Sainsbury Street, St Marys be granted development consent subject to the following standard and special conditions:

 

 SCHEDULE – 1

 

                   3.1   Standard Conditions

 

A001 Approved plans

A014 Lot consolidation

A039 Graffiti

A046 Obtain Construction Certificate

B001 Demolition of existing structures

B002 Demolition and disposal to landfill site

B003 Asbestos

B004 Dust (referring to excavation and basement construction)

B005 Mud/soil

D001 Sediment and erosion control measures

D009 Covered waste storage area

D010 Disposal of excavated waste

D014 Plant and equipment noise

E01A BCA compliance for Class 2-9

E002  BCA issues to be addressed

E009  Annual fire safety statement

F006  Water tank and nuisance

G001 Services

G002 Section 73

G004 Integral Energy

H001 Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002 Site requirements for construction

H022 Survey certificate

H024 Glass installations

H025 Construction of garbage rooms

H033 Clothes lines

H036 Rainwater tank

H037 Safe supply of water

H038 Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 Rainwater tank pumps

H041 Hours of work

L001  General landscaping

L002  Landscape construction

L003  Report requirement

N001 S94 Penrith City Wide Plan

P001  Applicants cost

P002  Council Fees - Amended

Q001F        Notice of commencement

Q006 Occupation Certificate for Class 2-9

Q010 BASIX Certificate

 

Special Conditions

 

Lighting and Surveillance

 

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

 

a)      Entrances and exits to all units , communal space, walkways and the basement car park including driveways shall be well lit to clearly illuminate these areas

b)      Lighting shall be consistent in order to reduce the contrast between shadows and illuminated areas.

c)      Lighting shall be contained within the property boundary and no light shall be projected upwards

d)      All lighting shall be vandal resistant

e)      Cameras shall be installed in and around the property including car park. Digital or video technology shall be used to record images from the cameras. Recording equipment shall be installed in a secure area to avoid tampering.

Car Parking

 

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

 

a)   Vehicle access to the basement car park shall be accessible by tenants/residents/business operators of the building and their authorised guests only. Access to the car parking area shall be controlled by an automatic roller shutter with residents and patrons having access control devices.

 

b)   The car park shall be well lit and all surfaces shall be painted in light colour to reflect as much light as possible

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

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

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

 

Internal courtyard

 

3.4     Access to the communal space shall be restricted to residents and      their authorised guests only and access control measures shall be in        place to restrict public access.

 

Waste Management

 

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

 

a)   The garbage room shall be provided with a separate double door other than the roller door to the car park for access by Council’s waste collection contractors. This access door shall be provided with an ABLOY locking system to be installed by Council at the developer’s expense. Council and/or collection contractors will hold the master key. Details shall be provided with the application for a construction certificate.

 

b)   Automatic lighting and appropriate mechanical ventilation system shall be installed in the garbage room.

 

c)   The floor of the garbage room shall be graded and drained to a floor waste and connected to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

Street Numbering

 

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

 

Encroachment

 

3.7     The building shall not encroach on any land beyond the boundaries of          the site.

 

Site Facilities

 

3.8     Facilities such as letterboxes and telecommunication infrastructure      shall be provided for individual apartments. Details shall be provided      with the application for a construction certificate.

 

Air Conditioning Units

 

3.9     No air conditioning units shall be visible from street frontages and       lanes.

 

Miscellaneous

 

3.10    All civil works shall be designed and constructed in accordance with            Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and                     Construction Specification for Civil Works and applicable Australian                  Standards.

 

3.11    Any Construction Certificate issued by the Principal Certifying                     Authority or Certifying Authority shall incorporate plans and details                for erosion and sediment control in accordance with the Department                   of Housing’s “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction”                  2004.

 

3.12    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Roads Act                         application, including payment of appropriate application and                            inspection fees shall be lodged with Penrith City Council, as the                             Roads Authority, for the following works:

 

(a)     Provision of a heavy-duty vehicular and gutter crossing in Putland Street.

(b)     Provision of path paving for the full property frontage in Putland Street.

(c)     Removal of redundant vehicular crossings and reinstatement of kerb and gutter in both Putland Street and Sainsbury Street.

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

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

(f)      Replacement of damaged kerb and gutter for the full property frontage.

 

All works within the road reserve shall be carried out in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

 

Penrith City Council (being the Roads Authority under the Roads Act) shall approve the works completed on or over the road reserve. Contact Council’s City Works Department on (02) 4732 7777 to arrange an inspection of the works (and payment of inspection fees, if required).

 

3.13 A Construction Certificate shall be issued by a Certifying Authority to             include the following civil works.

 

(a)                 Stormwater drainage

(b)                 Car park

(c)                 Linemarking and signage

 

Civil design drawings shall be prepared strictly in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works and applicable Australian Standards.

 

3.14  Stormwater drainage from the site shall be discharged to the:

 

(a)  Street drainage system

 

The proposed stormwater drainage system shall be designed to ensure no adverse impact on adjoining properties by the diversion or concentration of stormwater flows.

 

The proposed method of stormwater discharge shall be detailed in the Construction Certificate issued by the Certifying Authority.

 

3.15    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying                        Authority shall sure that:

 

(a)       The proposed development will not concentrate or divert overland flows onto adjoining properties.

 

(b)       The crest in the access ramp to the basement car park shall be 250mm above the top of kerb and be protected against the ingress of new overland flows.

 

          Details prepared by a qualified person, demonstrating compliance with these conditions, shall form part of any Construction Certificate issued.

 

3.16   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying     Authority shall ensure that  vehicular access, pedestrian access, car       parking and manoeuvring areas associated with the subject           development including driveways, access ramp grades & widths, turn          paths, sight distance requirements, overhead clearances for people        with a disability, pier locations with respect to parking bays, aisle           widths, parking bay grades and parking bay dimensions (allowing for full door opening) are in accordance with AS 2890.1 and Penrith City    Council’s Development Control Plan.

 

3.17   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying     Authority shall ensure that the foundations of proposed structures     adjoining the drainage easement have been designed clear of the zone   of influence.

 

3.18    No buildings (including but not limited to porches, verandas, roofs,              eaves and gutters) are to encroach upon the existing drainage                       easement in Lot 3 DP 38418.

 

3.19    Prior to the commencement of works on site, including approved                 clearing of site vegetation, erosion and sediment control measures           shall be installed. The erosion and sediment control measures are to             be installed in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment     control plan(s) for the development and the Department of Housing’s                    “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” 2004.

 

3.20    Prior to the Commencement of Works a dilapidation report of all                 Council owned infrastructure fronting the development in Putland             Street and Sainsbury Street is to be submitted to Penrith City Council.             The report is to include, but not limited to, footpaths, kerb and gutter,            pavement and street trees and is to extend 10m either side of the                           development.

 

3.21    Erosion and sediment control measures shall remain in place and be             maintained until all disturbed areas have been rehabilitated and                      stabilised.

 

3.22    Prior to the connection of private drainage to Council’s drainage                  system (i.e. the existing pipeline that is located within the drainage            easement of Lot 3 DP 38418), an inspection is to be carried out by                Penrith City Council’s Development Engineering Unit. A fee will be    charged in accordance with Council’s adopted Fees and Charges, and                  is to be paid prior to the inspection.

 

3.23    A Survey Certificate shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying                 Authority when the building is constructed to floor level verifying                    that the building (including but not limited to porches, verandas,                    roofs, eaves and gutters) do not encroach upon the drainage easement            in Lot 3 DP 38418.

 

3.24    Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the following service             authority clearances, stating that services are available to all                              development lots, shall be obtained and submitted to Penrith City           Council:

 

·      Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 ; and

·       Notification of Arrangement from Integral Energy; and

·      Provisioning Certificate from the telecommunications service provider.

 

3.25   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal      Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works within the road    reserve have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

 

3.26    Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate any damage to Council                   infrastructure not identified in the dilapidation report, as a result of                  the development shall be restored under the supervision of Penrith                    City Council. Any rectification works within Putland Street and                     Sainsbury Street will require a Roads Act application. The application                   is to be submitted and approved by Penrith City Council prior to such             works commencing.

 

3.27    Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a checklist and                      supporting documentation shall be submitted to the Principal                       Certifying Authority demonstrating that each condition of the                           development consent has been satisfactorily addressed.

 

3.28    The Occupation Certificate shall not be issued until all conditions of              consent except those relating to ongoing operational matters, have                    been completed.

 

3.29    That painted brickwork shall be used in lieu of natural brickwork and                    a new colour scheme shall be submitted to Council for approval prior             to the issue of a construction certificate. Details of: windows, doors,                 pergola and balustrade shall also be submitted along with the above                    information.

3.30    The horizontal sun shading devices on the east and west elevations               are to be removed or redesigned to better integrate with the building.
           Details to be submitted to Council for approval.

 

3.31    The windows with colonial glazing bars are to be removed and                              replaced with a window design that is better integrated with the                       façade design. 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site, Elevation and Section Plan

9 Pages

Appendix

3. View

Assessment Against SEPP 65

5 Pages

Appendix

4. View

Assessment Against Provisions of DCP 2006

5 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 2 - Site, Elevation and Section Plan

 

 

 










Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 3 - Assessment Against SEPP 65

 

 

 






Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

Appendix 4 - Assessment Against Provisions of DCP 2006

 

 

 






Ordinary Meeting

19 July 2010

A Vibrant City

 

 

 

13

Development Application DA09/0550 for Multi-Unit Housing at Lot 1 DP 91022 & Lot 10 DP 807323 (No. 1 - 9) Lamrock Street, Emu Plains  Applicant:  Phoenix Group;  Owner:  CSX Property Pty Ltd    

DA09/0550

Compiled by:                Deepa Randhawa, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with lifestyle and housing choice in our neighbourhoods (8)

Strategic Response

Encourage housing that provides choice, achieves design excellence, and meets community needs (8.1)

       

 

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application from Phoenix Group for demolition of the existing dwelling on site and construction of a Multi Unit Housing Development with basement car parking, comprising of ninety two (92) units at No. 1-9 Lamrock Street, Emu Plains. The development is proposed to present three to four storey built form within five separate buildings in two stages.

 

The site is zoned 3(d) Special Business Zone- Service Area pursuant to Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.150. The proposed development is a permissible land use in the zone.

 

The site is identified as part of a Low Flood Island. Whilst the site is approximately at the 1% AEP flood level, larger events will inundate the site and potentially place people and property at risk due to early cut off of evacuation routes.

 

The New South Wales Land and Environment Court recently supported Council’s decision in the case of Morphett v Penrith City Council to refuse a development application involving the subdivision of land in Forbes Street, Emu Plains based on potential risk to life and property resulting from flooding.

 

Whilst the flooding issues are paramount in the refusal of the proposed development, an assessment under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 has further established inconsistencies with regard to height, building separation, rear setback requirements and overshadowing impacts under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.65 – Design of Residential Flat Buildings and Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006 -Apartment Buildings.

 

The following key issues have emerged as a result of this assessment process:

 

 

·     Flood free access

·     Statutory Non-Compliances

·     Privacy impacts

·     Overlooking impacts

·     Solar access and overshadowing impacts

·     Character/ visual appearance

·     Site suitability

 

As a result of the above matters the application is recommended to be refused.

Background

Council officers have held a number of pre-lodgement meetings and discussions with the applicant to discuss the permissibility of the development, applicable planning instruments, the design, traffic generation and flooding issues.

 

A summary of the minutes and advice provided to the applicant is provided below:-

 

1.    The site is affected by overland flooding in major storm events. Accordingly, a local flood study would need to be submitted with any application for the development of the subject site. The flood study would need to address minimum floor levels, blockage and passage of overland flow, and risk to residents/occupiers of the site.

 

2.    A concept drainage plan needs to be provided for the assessment, and this should include details on water quality devices proposed to be used.

 

3.    Whilst there are few planning controls that apply to the site, Council would be satisfied with a development that had bulk and scale similar to that of existing development in the locality.

 

4.    The design would have to be sympathetic to existing development at the interface of the site. The principles applied in relevant sections of both Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, and State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 would be applied to the proposal as submitted.

 

5.    An Acoustic Report is to accompany any application, and is to assess the impact of the adjacent railway line.

 

6.    A Contamination Report is to accompany any application to Council.

 

7.    General improvements to the amenity of the area through the construction of footpaths and the planting of appropriate street trees would be required by Council.

 

In summary, the applicant was informed that whilst the proposed development is a permissible form of development on the site, the site is significantly constrained in relation to any residential development potential.

 

A development application was submitted to Council on 16 January 2009. The assessment of the application and the related documents undertaken by Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator concluded that the proposed development should not be supported taking into account the mainstream flooding issues. The flooding issues are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report.

 

The applicant had requested to see Council’s Flood Model Imaging. A meeting was held with the applicant and his team of experts to demonstrate Council’s flood modelling, where Council officers explained the implications of the flood levels for this site and identified the evacuation routes which will be severed in major flooding events.  The applicant has been given an opportunity to engage flood specialists to make a further submission responding to these concerns. The applicant has not submitted any documentation is response to the issues raised in the meeting.

 

Whilst the flooding issues are the paramount concern and reason for refusal of the application, the assessment of the proposed development has found inconsistencies with height requirements, building separation, rear setbacks and overshadowing requirements under SEPP 65 – Design of Residential Flat Buildings and Penrith DCP 2006 -Apartment Buildings.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is a large and trapezoidal shaped parcel of land parcel located on the western side of Lamrock Street, approximately 100 metres north of its intersection with the Great Western Highway. The northern boundary of the site is bounded by the Western Rail line. The site comprises of two allotments with a total area of 7218m2. It has a frontage to Lamrock Street of 88.275 metres and a depth of 110.44 metres along its southern boundary. (See Locality Plan -Appendix No.1)

 

The surrounding area is characterised by low density residential development comprising a mix of new and older single dwellings to the east of the site, two storey dual occupancy development to the south, the Billington Place carpark and shops to the west and the western rail line to its immediate north.

The Proposed Development

The Development Application seeks approval for demolition of an existing dwelling and structures on site and construction of apartment buildings within five (5) separate built forms consisting of:

 

·     Eighty (80) two bedroom units;

·     Ten (10) one bedroom units;

·     Two (2) three bedroom units;

·     Provision of 118 car parking spaces in basement parking; and

·     Provision of a lift from basement car parking in Building B.

 

The apartments are proposed to present as 3-4 storey built forms with a total height of 14m and be constructed of a blend of materials and finishes. The development is also accompanied by integrated landscaping and stormwater management plans.

 

The applicant seeks approval for a Staged Development. Stage 1 provides for two buildings (A & B) and a total of 31 apartments, whilst Stage 2 will provide 61 apartments across three buildings.

 

(See Site Plan and Elevation Plans -Appendix No.2)

 

The following plans and documents are submitted in support of the development application:

·    Architectural Plans – Series No. A-010- A-060 ( Architecture and Building works)

·    Landscape Plan – Series No.S0080 DA1-7 ( Isthmus Landscape Design)

·    Waste and Recycling Management Plan (Pheonix Developments)

·    Traffic and Parking Assessment Report (Varga Traffic Planning)

·    Contaminated Report (Aargus Australia)

·    Flood Assessment (United Consulting Engineers)

·    Acoustic Report (Acoustic Solutions)

·    BASIX certificates (Basimax)

Statutory Assessment

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

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

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Clause 50 (1A) of the Regulation provides that a development application for a residential flat development, lodged on or after 1 December 2003, must be accompanied by a design verification statement from a qualified designer that confirms:

 

(a) that he or she designed, or directed the design, of the residential flat development; and

 

(b) that the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development are achieved for the residential flat development.

 

The application as lodged did not include a design verification statement.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

This Policy aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development, being buildings of 3 or more storeys and comprising 4 or more self contained dwellings. This outcome is to be achieved by assessing such proposals against a series of design principles relating to scale, built form, density, energy efficiency, landscape, amenity, safety and security, social dimensions and aesthetics.

 

An assessment of the proposal against the Design Principles of the SEPP identifies that the proposal failed to satisfy most of the design principles.

 

Design Principle 1: Context

 

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

 

The proposed development consisting of ninety two (92) units with basement car parking is inconsistent with the context of the site, with particular regard to the character and identity of the surrounding low density residential area. The proposed bulk and scale is considered to adversely affect the adjoining properties and the streetscape.

 

The adjoining rail corridor is a significant influence on the character of the area and types of land uses that adjoin it. A majority of the adjoining land uses are low scale in character such as the buffer corridors, car parking areas, the Boral Quarry and light industries area.

 

The proposed development when viewed from the railway line would present at odds with this existing character in relation to building height, view corridors, buffer distances and composition of buildings relative to other building heights and land uses along the rail corridor.

 

Design Principle 2: Scale

 

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.

Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

 

The established scale or height of the neighbouring development consists of a mix of single storey detached dwellings to the east of Lamrock Street and two storey town houses to the south of the subject site.

 

There is no established high rise development in the surrounds of the site or in the entire suburb of Emu Plains. The proposed built form with a maximum height up to 14 metres is inconsistent with the existing character and the objectives of Development Control Plan -Part 6.9 Emu Plains-Commercial Area which allows for buildings of maximum two storeys in height and designed to complement the existing one and two storey residential mix in the surrounding area.

 

The proposed building depths of 15-18 metres, a reduced 3 metre rear setback which is further encroached by the terraces on the ground floor resulting in zero lot rear setbacks and the similar large expanse of front setback terrace encroachment, all add to the excessive bulk and scale of the development.

 

The proposed development fails to complement the surrounding area interface, the aim of which is to provide a transition in the scale of buildings between zones.

 

 

 

 

Design Principle 3: Built form

Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements.

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

The proposed built form has design deficiencies with contribute to its visual bulk and poor internal amenity, introduce privacy and overshadowing impacts within the development as well as the adjoining dwellings.

 

It is considered that the proposed built form is inconsistent with this principle for the following reasons:

 

(a)        The three to four storeys built form is inappropriate for the site;

(b)       The proposed 14m building height is excessive and inappropriate in the zone;

(c)        The proposal is non compliant with Council’s rear setback and landscape provisions;

(d)       The layout of the units, orientation of the buildings, reduced building separation and the 18 metre building depth result in poor solar access and cross ventilation which will impact upon the amenity of the occupants of the buildings;

(e)        The front setbacks provides for paved terraces devoid of landscaped front gardens which is uncharacteristic of the surrounding area; and

(f)        The reduced building separation will further result in adverse amenity impacts including lack of visual and acoustic privacy to the future residents in this development

Design Principle 4: Density

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents).

Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

Although there are no density or floor space ratio controls applicable under the current zoning provisions, the proposed density of 127units/ha, is excessive, inappropriate and unprecedented in the context of the surrounding low density residential neighbourhood.

 

The issues of visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, bulk and height of buildings, lack of appropriate building separation, potential overshadowing of open space and other buildings nearby, inappropriate building depths, configurations and orientation issues, lack of communal open space and increase in opportunities for anti-social behaviour are all resultant impacts of the proposed dwelling density.

 

Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be inappropriate and unsustainable development as site is identified as part of a Low Flood Island which in the event of major flood event will inundate and potentially place people and property at risk due to early severing of evacuation routes.

 

The resulting development will not only introduce additional residents to a high-risk area and place their lives at risk but will also create additional demand on the State Emergency Services including NSW Wales Fire Brigade, Ambulance and Police and volunteer rescue organizations such as the Red Cross and Council's own resources.

 

Design Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction.

Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

It is considered that the proposed built form is inconsistent with this principle for the following reasons:

 

(a)     The proposed layout fails to optimise the number of north-facing units so as to maximise solar access;

(b)     Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments in a development should receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid winter. The applicant has submitted Shadow Diagrams and Solar Access Performance tabulation which demonstrates that only 62.7% of the units receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid winter;

(c)     The excessive height results in adverse overshadowing impacts upon the private open space of the adjoining residential development to the south;

(c)     The western rail line lies immediate north of the site. An acoustic report submitted by the applicant, requires all windows to all habitable rooms (bedrooms, living and dinning areas) for twenty (20) units facing the railway line be acoustically sealed and mechanical ventilated therefore impacting upon the energy efficiency of these units;

(d)     The development provides for minimal deep soil planting therefore impedes upon infiltration of rain water to the water table and reduction of stormwater runoff;

 

The proposal fails to result in a sustainable and a site responsive development to make efficient use of natural resources and energy throughout the full life cycle of the development.

Design Principle 6: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.

Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

The proposed development is not consistent with the landscape quantity and quality as the proposal incorporates only 30% area under landscaping and 18% of deep soil landscaping against the required 35% of landscaping and 25% of deep soil landscaping.

 

A basement car park is provided below the site to meet the car parking requirements for the proposed development which prevents the provision of the required deep soil landscaping.

 

Furthermore, the landscape design fails to achieve the development’s natural environmental performance based on solar access to the private open spaces and the communal open space due to the excessive height of the buildings.

Design Principle 7: Amenity

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.

Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

The amenity the future occupants of the development is compromised for the following reasons:

 

(a)     The proposed development fails to provide for the minimum 3 hours of solar access to living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments and cross-ventilation to a minimum of 60% apartments required under the SEPP 65 Residential Flat Code;

(b)     The application is accompanied by an acoustic report, which recommends windows facing the railway line be acoustically sealed and further recommends mechanical ventilation for all habitable areas in these units, therefore limiting the operable windows and natural ventilation to these units;

(c)     Reduced separation distances between the habitable rooms and balconies result in adverse overlooking and overshadowing impacts;

(d)    Storage space at the rate of 8m3 is required for a two-bedroom apartment. No dedicated storage space is provided in the bedrooms or in the basement car park;

(e)    To development provides for a single lift from the basement car park in Block B. 

There’s no provision of a lifts in the other four blacks;

(f)      Parking spaces for the people with a disability has been provided in the basement  car park for Block A,C,D and E however no provision has been made for a stair lifts to these buildings to improve accessibility;

(g)     No adaptable units have nominated to meet the needs of different age groups and degree of mobility.

 

 

Design Principle 8: Safety and security

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

Two unregulated pedestrian entries from Lamrock Street and one from the Billington car park provide a publicly accessible circulation throughout the site minimising the safety of the occupants and visitors to the buildings;

 

The entrances to the buildings are from the lengthy common pedestrian pathway providing potential places of concealment, ambiguous entries to buildings and lack clear lines of  sight between entrances and foyers;

 

The proposed excessive high density development increases the opportunity for anti-social behaviour and crime due to increased anonymity.

Design Principle 9: Social dimensions and housing affordability

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

New developments should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.

The proposal includes 80 two bedroom units, 10 one bedroom units and 2 three bedroom units. The proposal fails to cater for balanced housing mix to suit the social mix and needs of the future occupants.

 

The development also fails to provide for a good mix of housing types for different housing affordability.

 

Design Principle 10: Aesthetics

 

Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

The development proposes five high rise buildings that are out of character in the local context. The contemporary design, flat roof form and the bulk and scale are undesirable elements which not only are unsympathetic to the existing built environment and streetscape but also detract from the adjoining rail corridor.

 

Residential Flat Design Code

SEPP 65 also requires Council to take into consideration the Residential Flat Design Code, September 2002 (Code) in determining a development application. The Code has been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application and the following relevant issues are noted having regard to the ‘Primary Development Control’ section of the Code:

Building Depth

 

A building depth of 10 to 18 metres is considered appropriate provided that the depth of a building will not have a significant impact on residential amenity in terms of natural ventilation and optimal daylight access to internal spaces.

 

The proposed buildings have a maximum building depth of 15-18 metres. The 18 metre depth is excessive for buildings with dual orientation particularly in Block E for apartments facing south which results in no daylight access to vital internal spaces such as the livings areas.

 

Building Separation

 

The Code recommends for development up to four storey a 12 m separation between habitable rooms/balconies, a 9m separation between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms and a 6m separation between non-habitable rooms.

The proposed development consists of five (5) separate buildings, A, B, C, D and E. The most impacted buildings in terms of solar access are Block A, B, C, D and the south facing apartments in Block E. The building separation achieved between the habitable rooms and balconies of the development is as follows:-

Buildings

Required Distance

Proposed Distance

Building - A-B

12m

8m-9m separation distance achieved

Building - B-C

12m

7m-9m separation distance achieved

Building - C-D

12m

9m-10m separation distance achieved

Building - C-E

12m

5m-8m separation distance achieved

 

The intention of this control is to create a spatial relationship of the buildings and to avoid amenity problems in terms of visual and acoustic privacy and day light access. 

The proposed distances between habitable rooms and balconies of the corresponding apartments in these buildings not only results in visual and acoustic privacy issues but also impacts upon access to sunlight and natural ventilation to these units as discussed earlier in the report.

 

 

Street Setbacks

 

The Code recommends a street setback range of 5m to 9m in order to enhance the streetscape character, the continuity of street facades, and to accommodate street tree planting. In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone with the exceptions of awnings, balconies and bay windows.

The proposed development maintains a street setback of 5-9 metres to Lamrock Street, however the large expanse of terraces encroach the entire front setback and in some case provide a minimal 2 metre setback. The encroachments are staggered to contribute to an articulated façade treatment; however the bulk detracts from to the streetscape and character of the area.

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

SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context.

 

Of most relevance to this proposal is the requirement to assess the development in terms of impact on water quality. Additional information in the form of an analysis of the capacity of the existing street drainage system is required to demonstrate that the system is able to accept the 5 year ARI stormwater runoff for the development. Furthermore, a full description and analysis of all flowpaths affecting the site and description of the discharge location of the overland flowpath to the north of the railway corridor remains unresolved.

 

The application has not therefore demonstrated that the water quantity and quality requirements of the SREP 20 will be achieved.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) No. 150

The site is zoned 3(d) Special Business Zone- Service Area pursuant to Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.150. (See Zoning Plan -Appendix No.3)

 

The Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) No.150 was gazetted on 16 April 1987. The subject land was zoned 3 (d) Special Business Zone – Service Area to allow a range of activities associated with special business centres along major roads.

 

The zoning prohibits “commercial premises, industries (other than light industry) and shops (other than convenience stores, general stores, and shops trading principally in bulky goods), stock and sale yards.”

 

“Multi Unit Housing” and/or “Residential Flat Building is a permissible use in the zone by virtue of not being a prohibited land use.

 

At the time of the creation of LEP 150, the prime objective of the zone envisaged any future development on site to be businesses such as Bulky Goods or/and as service area providing specialised services.

 

There are no other provisions of this planning instrument that are relevant to the proposed development.

 

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

There is no draft Environmental Planning Instrument applicable to the site or this development application.

 

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

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Part 2.10 (Flood Liable Land)

The site is affected by two flooding sources - local catchment and regional flooding.  The local catchment flooding has been addressed in the commentary under SREP20 above.  This section relates to the regional flooding sourced from the Nepean River.

 

In accordance with Clause 2, the following aims and objectives are of relevance to the subject development application:

 

“a   to reduce the impact of flooding and flood liability on individual owners and occupiers;

b.   to limit the potential risk to life and property resulting from flooding.”

 

The proposed development site is identified as part of a Low Flood Island in accordance with Appendix G9.5 of the New South Wales Floodplain Development Manual. Whilst the site is approximately at the 1% AEP flood level, larger events will inundate the site and potentially place people and property at risk due to early severing of evacuation routes. There are no parts of the island that are above higher order flood events. That is, there is no safe refuge on the island.

 

Council has also received advice from the State Emergency Service that they do not have the ability to evacuate the current population contained within areas identified as low flood islands within the effective warning time issued by the Bureau of Meteorology. In this respect both the Council and the State Emergency Service are not supportive of further developments that will compromise the evacuation of the area.

 

Safe flood free access is further discussed in detail later in Section 79C (1) (b) –Likely Impacts of the Development.

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Part 2.11 (Car Parking)

Clause 2.11 Car Parking in Penrith DCP 2006 requires onsite parking provision at the following rates:

 

·    1 space per 1 bedroom unit

·    1 space per 2 bedroom unit

·    2 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

·    1 space per 5 dwellings for visitor parking

 

The following table shows parking provision in accordance with the applicant’s staging strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

Stage

Bld

1 bed

2

bed

3 bed

Total

units

Parking required

res/vis

Parking provided

 

Compliance

1

A

0

17

2

19

21

15

 

 

B

0

12

0

12

12

20

 

Sub total

 

 

 

 

31

33/7

40

 

35

 

No

2

C

1

21

0

22

22

26

 

 

D

6

13

0

19

19

28

 

 

E

3

17

0

20

20

29

 

Sub total

 

 

 

 

61

61/12

73

 

83

 

Yes

Total

 

 

 

 

92

94/19

113

 

118

 

Yes

 

Although the total development provides 5 car spaces in excess of the requirement, in considering Stage 1 independently, buildings A and B are 5 car spaces short of the requirement.  

 

Parking for people with a disability is not located close to access points (lift in Building B only). Part 2- Site Design/Site Access of Residential Flat Design Code (SEPP 65) recommends that bicycle parking be provided which is easily accessible from ground level and from apartments. There is no provision for bicycle parking in the basement car park or at the ground floor level.

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 – Part 4.6 (Apartment Development)

This part of the DCP applies to Multi-unit housing greater than two storeys in height, commonly known as "apartments".

 

The SEPP 65 prevails over the provisions of the DCP. The SEPP 65 assessment demonstrates that the proposed development is an uncharacteristic and undesirable development for the site. An assessment against the DCP further identifies that the development is noncompliant with the provisions of the Part 4.6 of the DCP.  (See Appendix No.4 - DCP Non Compliances)

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 – Part 6.9 (Emu Plains Commercial Area)

Clause 6.2.1 of Part 6.9 of the DCP refers to land adjacent to the western side of Lamrock Street which has potential for residential development and requires that any development proposals on this land shall incorporate:

 

·    measures to minimise the impact of noise on residents from the Western Railway line and Great Western Highway through appropriate design features, the use of suitable external materials, landscaping and site design;

·    dwellings of a scale and character which complement those existing in the surrounding area;

·    high-quality fencing of a scale, design and materials which does not present long, unbroken expanses to public view (e.g. lapped and-capped paling fence, or masonry construction, with spacing for tree and shrub planting);

 

·    landscaping which complements the character of the area, and enhances both the amenity of the residents and views from public places. Landscaping must be implemented to provide privacy and shade for the residents.

 

The application is accompanied by an Acoustic Noise and Vibration Assessment Report. This report recommends that all windows facing the railway line be acoustically sealed and further recommends mechanical ventilation for all habitable areas in the units facing the railway line, therefore impacting upon the amenity of these units.

 

As detailed earlier in the report the proposed bulk, scale and design fail to complement the buildings in the adjoining and surrounding area and hence it is not consistent with the objectives of the DCP.

 

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

 

In accordance with Clause 50 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the proposed development was not accompanied by a design verification statement from a qualified designer that confirms:

 

(a)      that he or she designed, or directed the design, of the residential flat development; and

(b)      that the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development are achieved for the residential flat development.

 

Based on this issue alone development application cannot be determined by Council by way of approval.

 

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

 

Flooding and flood-free access

Council Officers have undertaken flood assessment of the development based on the most current flood model and provided the following comments:-

 

The dominant development constraint on the site is that it is located on a High Hazard Low Flood Island. This has been identified in the Hawkesbury Nepean Flood Emergency Sub Plan (HNFESP) and confirmed by Council’s flood model.

 

Larger flood events will inundate the site and potentially place people and property at risk as they are cut off early from evacuation routes. This is likely to:

 

·    Affect the safety of the proposed development in time of flood; or

·    Restrict the capacity of the floodway; or

·    Increase the need for the Council, the State Emergency Service or any other Government agency to provide emergency equipment, personnel, welfare facilities, or other resources associated with an evacuation resulting from flooding;

·    Increase the risk to life and personal safety or emergency services and rescue personnel;

·    Hinder safe access to the site should it become flooded.

Flood Island

 

The Floodplain Development Manual (FDM) (Appendix G9.5) makes reference to situations where low flood islands are developed in the floodplain and notes that this situation is potentially dangerous. The Manual also refers to the effects of larger floods than the flood used for the establishment of the Flood Planning Level (1% AEP).

 

The island is created once the river breaks its banks (approximately 0.6m below the 1% event). This creates a flood runner that extends from Lapstone Creek (next to the M4) and runs through Emu Park and thence under the railway line to Old Bathurst Road/Russell Street and reconnects to the river. The flood runner isolates the eastern section of Emu Plains. A similar situation develops on the eastern side of the river with a breakout across Tench Avenue that isolates the Ladbury Avenue precinct.  These islands will be almost completely submerged by a 0.5% event. There is no safe refuge on the islands that is above the PMF event.

 

Flood Hazard Assessment

 

As defined in the FDM, determination of a flood hazard category is the result of the combination of hydraulic hazard classification (Provisional Hazard Category) and a qualitative assessment of risk with respect to the factors outlined in Section L6 of the FDM. These factors are listed below.

 

1.   Size of flood

2.   Effective warning time

3.   Flood readiness

4.   Rate of rise of floodwaters

5.   Depth and velocity of floodwaters

6.   Duration of flooding

7.   Evacuation problems

8.   Effective flood access

9.   Type of development.

 

Following consideration of the above items, the site has been determined to be in a High Hazard category.

 

The following comments are provided in terms of flood hazards in the Penrith Council Area:

 

(i)   The DCP (2006) defines flood hazard as:

“Potential for damage to property or persons due to flooding”; and offers the following hazard categories:

 

High Hazard:    Possible danger to life and limb; evacuation by trucks difficult; potential for structural damage; social disruption and financial losses could be high.

 

Low Hazard:        Should it be necessary, people and their possessions could be evacuated by trucks. Able-bodies adults would have difficulty wading.”

Flood Risk Factors

 

·    Size of flood

 

The hydraulic hazard categories are based on the 1% AEP event. It is noted that the Nepean River has the potential for much higher levels for rarer floods and could be more than 4.5m higher at this site.

 

·    Effective warning time

 

The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) can confidently predict a flood height in the Nepean River system seven hours before it occurs, based on rain that has fallen in the catchment. The State Emergency Service (SES) require approximately 10-16 hours to evacuate the majority of the Emu Plains sector (approximately 4300 houses) when floodwaters would exceed 24-26m Australian Height Datum at the Victoria Bridge flood gauge. This means that the SES would need to develop evacuation orders based on BoM flood warnings developed using forecast rain.

 

·    Flood readiness

 

The residents of Emu Plains have not experienced a direct major flood in this area since 1900 but there have been a number of minor floods that the community would be aware of (e.g. 1978, 1986 and 1990, which were about 1 in 40 year events).  The site does not have any visual exposure to the river and is located in a flood runner to the main river system.

 

Surveys (commissioned by the SES) over the last 2-3 years show that the level of community awareness in the Penrith LGA is lower than in the Hawkesbury LGA.

 

·    Rate of rise of floodwaters

 

For the Nepean River, the adopted rate of rise is for the 72hr Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). This is 0.5m/hr. This is not the maximum rate of rise as the 24hr PMF has a rate of rise of 1m/hr.

 

This average rate of rise over the rising limb of the stage hydrograph for the 72 hour PMF has been adopted by the SES as the “worst case” for evacuation timeline planning, based on previous flood studies for the Nepean-Hawkesbury system. A review of rates of rise on the Nepean and Hawkesbury Rivers has been conducted by Webb McKeown and Associates. This review provides further support for this average rate of rise and highlights that higher rates of rise can occur at various stages in the rising limb. The review also notes higher rates of rise are possible in the 24 hour PMF.

 

·    Depth and velocity of floodwaters

 

For the 1% AEP event at the site, flood depth is approximately 0.6 m and flow velocity is approximately 0.6 m/s based on Council's RMA2 model. Cars would not be able to access the site but large trucks could.

 

 

 

·    Duration of flooding

 

For the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event, the site would be inundated for approximately 18hrs with small vehicle access not possible for approximately 5.75 hours. For the PMF event, site inundation could extend to over 2 days.

 

·    Evacuation Problems

 

The SES is the primary combat agency for flood events and is in the process of developing regional evacuation plans for high risk areas, including Emu Plains.

 

For evacuation planning the SES uses Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) flood warnings as the primary input. The BoM is the legislated authority nationally for the issue of flood warnings. The BoM has access to a network of recorders throughout the catchment and from information of rain that has fallen, can predict flood heights at various locations along the river. Victoria Bridge is one of the selected locations for predictions. The predictions can be made with a level of confidence, seven hours