11 October 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 11 October 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 - 27 September 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

Waste Services Committee Meeting - 9 September 2010.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 11 October 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 27 SEPTEMBER 2010 AT 7:05PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

 

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 6 September 2010

317  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 6 September 2010 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

 

 

Mayoral Minute

 

1        Year in Review                                                                                                                   

318  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Year in Review be received.

 

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

 

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 September 2010                                                                                                                                     

319  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 6 September, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 13 September 2010                                                                                                                  

320  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Tanya Davies that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 13 September, 2010 be adopted, with Item 7 being amended to read as follows:

“That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 50:50 Vision - Councils for Gender Equity be received.

2.     Council endorse a statement of commitment as follows:

We will work towards increasing the representation of women in local government, both as elected members and senior managers and professionals.

 

We will undertake ongoing reviews of policies and practices to remove barriers to women’s participation and to engender safe, supportive working and decision-making environments that welcome and respect a wide range of views.

                  

3.    Council endorse the proposed actions discussed in this report and make

       application for the bronze award.”

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Election of Mayor                                                                                                               

321  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM was nominated by Councillors Ben Goldfinch, Marko Malkoc, Mark Davies and Ross Fowler OAM, and that Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM accepted the nomination for the position of Mayor.

 

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

 

The Returning Officer then conducted the ballot.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM – 8 votes

Councillor Prue Guillaume – 7 votes.

 

The Returning Officer declared Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM duly elected as Mayor for the 2010/2011 Mayoral Term.

 

 

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

 

Councillors Ross Fowler OAM, John Thain, Jim Aitken OAM, Mark Davies, Greg Davies and Prue Guillaume, and the General Manager, Alan Stoneham congratulated Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM on his election as Mayor.

 

 

 


 

 

2        Election of Deputy Mayor                                                                                                 

322  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

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

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

3.     In accordance with Section 231 (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, the term of office of the Deputy Mayor for the 2010/2011 period be the same as the term of office of the Mayor (until the next Mayoral election to be held in September 2011).

 

 

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

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

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

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM was nominated by Councillors Ben Goldfinch, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies and Marko Malkoc, and that Councillor Jim Aitken OAM accepted the nomination for the position of Deputy Mayor.

 

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

 

The Returning Officer then conducted the ballot.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM – 8 votes.

Councillor Kath Presdee – 7 votes.

 

 

The Returning Officer declared Councillor Jim Aitken OAM duly elected as Deputy Mayor for the 2010/2011 Mayoral Term.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM thanked his colleagues for their support.

 

Councillors John Thain, Ross Fowler OAM, Greg Davies, Kath Presdee, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, and the General Manager, Alan Stoneham congratulated Councillor Jim Aitken OAM on his election as Deputy Mayor.

 

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

 

 

3        Councillor Fees                                                                                                                   

323  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the information contained in the report on Councillor Fees be received.

 

 

 

URGENT BUSINESS

 

 

UB 1           Penrith District Netball                                                                                             

Councillor Tanya Davies advised that she had recently represented the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, at the Penrith District Netball Association’s presentation night, and presented a ‘thank you’ plaque from the Association, expressing their appreciation for Council’s support of Netball in the Penrith City area.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:49pm.

 

 



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        Congratulations to Council's Ambassador in the Variety Bash 2010

 

2        Three-bin waste management system highly commended

 

3        NSW Planning Minister refuses Patons Lane waste management facility proposal

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Vibrant City

 

Mayoral Minute

Congratulations to Council's Ambassador in the Variety Bash 2010

Strategic Objective: A City with opportunities to engage, participate and connect (23)

           

 

Congratulations to the Council’s Ambassador in the 2010 Variety Bash and his team, the St Marys Rugby Leagues Club for their wonderful efforts and achievements in the recent event.

 

John Burns, a board member of the club, was Council’s Ambassador in the August 22 to 30 Variety Bash. By day he is a field staff member of Council, a role he’s done for almost 11 years. John’s team came second in amount of funds raised – so they received a Chief Barker’s Trophy for the Highest (non-corporate) Team Fundraising Car. They raised about $75,000 and donated sports apparel to rural and remote schools along the way. The team also finished in the top three for the Spirit of the Bash – voted by the other Variety bash participants.

 

John, and his fellow St Marys Leagues Club board members, Warren Smith, Ron Coskerie and Mick Hilton, did this in a 1966 Dodge Phoenix which lasted the 3,557km journey from Sydney to Byron the long way (via Cobar, Bourke, Moree, Goondiwindi and Toowoomba).

 

Council donated some items which were presented to school children in the Lachlan Shire, with whom Penrith City has a Friendship Agreement.

 

The Variety Bash, the Children’s Charity (NSW), is an annual fundraising road trip, not a rally, that helps ill, special needs and disadvantaged children.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Congratulations to Council's Ambassador in the Variety Bash 2010 be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Green City

 

Mayoral Minute

Three-bin waste management system highly commended

Strategic Objective: A City with a smaller ecological footprint (12)

           

 

I am pleased to announce that Council has received a prestigious Excellence in Sustainability highly commended award from the Local Government Managers Association NSW (LGMA) for our ground-breaking three-bin domestic waste system.

 

This is a fantastic result, and I extend my congratulations to all staff who have played a role in implementing the service, in particular the Waste Services team. Also of course, to the residents of Penrith City whose diligent sorting of their household waste into the correct bins is vital to the system’s success. I also thank the members of the Waste Services Committee, including the community representatives, for their ongoing work to implement and improve the waste management system for our community.

 

The implementation of the three-bin service was one of the greatest challenges we have faced as an organisation and a community. This award is testimony to the fact that despite the challenges we are on the right track together.

 

In just over 12 months, we have increased the amount of the City’s total waste being diverted from landfill from 20% to 61%. This is a phenomenal result that will lead to long-term environmental benefits for current and future generations.

 

Food and organics make up more than 50% of domestic waste and the cost of composting organic material is half the cost of sending waste to landfill. So being able to divert organic waste from ever dwindling landfill sites also saves ratepayers money. The collected organics material is made into quality compost, which is being used on our sporting fields, parks and reserves.

 

Congratulations and thank you again - we should all be very proud of what we have achieved together.

 

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Three-bin waste management system highly commended be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Green City

 

Mayoral Minute

NSW Planning Minister refuses Patons Lane waste management facility proposal

Strategic Objective: A Council with a smaller ecological footprint (13)

           

 

Penrith City Council welcomes the NSW Minister for Planning’s announcement on Friday that the proposed waste management facility in Patons Lane at Orchard Hills has been refused and congratulates residents for their successful opposition to it.

The Patons Lane facility proposal was determined by the Minister under Part 3A, which deals with major projects.

Council voted unanimously to oppose the proposal.

Penrith City Council was in complete agreement with the Residents Against Industrial Dump (RAID): a residents’ committee formed to oppose the development.

Council worked closely with the local community and RAID to support them in their understanding of this proposal and the potential impacts.

We also forwarded our evidence-based and robust submission opposing the proposal, which also encapsulated the residents’ concerns to the NSW Planning Minister. Council believes its submission and those of RAID played a significant role in knocking this proposal on the head.

The development application failed to satisfactorily address a number of issues including; water, noise and air pollution; increases in traffic; the need for the site; what condition the site would be left in and the lifespan of the proposal, among other concerns.

This proposal would have adversely impacted local residents and the environment for the next 20 to 40 years.

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on NSW Planning Minister refuses Patons Lane waste management facility proposal be received.

 

 

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Waste Services Committee Meeting held on 9 September 2010

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Green City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Waste Services Committee MEETING

HELD ON 9 September, 2010

 

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Greg Davies, Tanya Davies and Kath Presdee, and community representatives John Kliese, Trevor Robey and Patricia Ryan.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Alan Stoneham - General Manager, Barry Husking - Director/Chief Financial Officer, Vicki O’Kelly - Group Manager Finance, David Burns - Group Manager - City Presentation, Tracy Chalk - Waste & Community Protection Manager and Geoff Brown - Waste Services Coordinator.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Karen McKeown for the period 17 August 2010 to 20 September 2010 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Ross Fowler OAM for the period 3 September 2010 to 21 September 2010 inclusive.

 

APOLOGIES

Nil.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Waste Services Committee Meeting - 15 July 2010

The minutes of the Waste Services Committee Meeting of 15 July 2010 were confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Green City

 

1        Waste Management Services                                                                                            

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM opened the meeting and introduced and welcomed the new Waste and Community Protection Manager, Tracy Chalk and Brian Jones from the Smith Family, who was to provide a presentation on the Smith Family’s Clothing Recycling Program.

 

Smith Family Clothing Recycling Program

 

Brian Jones provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Smith Family’s Clothing Recycling Program.  Key presentation issues included:

 

·    Recycled clothes have been used to assist disadvantaged children since 1963;

·    Education, learning for life programs;

·    The program is National Association of Charitable Associations (NACRO) certified;

·    The main sorting facility operates from Villawood with daily collections from 16 areas;

·    90% of clothing is recycled;

·    20,000-55,000kg of clothing collected per day;

·    10 million kg of clothing and accessories per year are processed;

·    There are 700 clothing banks state-wide;

·    Over 7,400,000kg of wearable clothing is sold back to the community.

 

Brian Jones provided information on recycling programs currently operating in the Penrith area and gave the following details:

 

·    75% of clothing generated is reused and sold to residents;

·    There are 23 clothing banks serviced daily in the Penrith City Area ;

·    A retail outlet is located in Station Street, Penrith.

 

The material in the clothing banks is sorted into the following categories:

 

·    Retail

·    Export

·    Wiper (cleaning)

·    Non-woven – rag tearing (shoddy cloth)

·    Wasted clothing

 

Brian Jones discussed the Ryde Council experience and their contract with the Smith Family. 

 

Brian Jones also provided details of the Ryde program, which include:

 

·    Clothing banks are colour-coded in the colour of Ryde Council’s logo, which is green;

·    Graffiti-proof paint is used;

·    Bins are identified representing the Smith Family and Ryde Council partnership;

·    Bins are strategically located for use by the community.

 

There was discussion about fees and charges for the supply and location of bins.

 

Councillor Greg Davies said that Smith Family banks should be the only ones on Council land and is in favour of having this endorsed by Council.  David Burns advised there are other charity clothing banks within the Penrith LGA.  

 

John Kliese enquired if shoes can be deposited into the clothing banks.  Barry Jones advised that they can and that even single shoes will be accepted.

 

Alan Stoneham asked what happens to the mattresses that are left near the banks.  Barry Jones commented that unfortunately at present they are landfilled; however, alternative options are being investigated.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM said there is another organisation looking at mattress recycling.  Tracy Chalk advised that the company Dream Safe provide a recycling service for mattresses for a fee.

 

John Kliese asked if many of the banks were burnt out.  Barry Jones responded that if bins are damaged or are deteriorating they are replaced within 24 hours.

 

Barry Jones was thanked for his presentation and he left the meeting at 8.15 pm.

 

Biodegradable bags

 

Councillor Greg Davies asked if the biodegradable bags were supplied for a 12 month period to residents.  Geoff Brown responded by saying that packs of bags will be supplied quarterly for 12 months.

 

Councillor Greg Davies asked if we had approached businesses regarding the supply of the bags that would be accepted by SITA.  David Burns advised that this matter was mentioned at the tender meeting and that the preferred tenderer will be encouraged to approach retailers.  Geoff Brown said that Because We Care Pty Ltd was exploring options to supply retailers with biodegradable bags.  

 

Councillor Kath Presdee raised the issue that Target bags meet the relevant biodegradable standards but are not accepted by SITA and felt we should explore this with SITA and maybe have the bags stamped endorsed biodegradable and acceptable by Council.  Geoff Brown advised that the Target bags are thicker and take a longer period to compost.  SITA only sort the Council brand bags at the facility.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM suggested a biodegradable bag complying with the relevant standards should be stamped with the SITA logo so that the bag could be used in all retail outlets. 

 

There was further discussion on suitable biodegradable bags being available through retail outlets.

 

Contamination Management

 

Councillor Greg Davies commented on the contamination rate coming down and enquired about what process is implemented if residents fail to comply with the request to remove the contamination before the bin is emptied.  Geoff Brown advised that Council or SITA staff would meet and discuss the circumstances for non-compliance with the resident and try and seek an understanding and resolution with the resident.

 

Councillor Greg Davies asked if it was possible to get a graph by email on the contamination of the green waste on a monthly basis and Geoff Brown undertook to provide this.

 

Clothing Banks

 

Councillor Tanya Davies asked if Council was considering a proposal from the Smith Family and other charitable institutions for the supply of clothing banks.  David Burns discussed the Smith Family and the Aboriginal Children’s Advance Society clothing banks.

 

The Ryde Council project is successful and the Committee needs to determine if Council should go ahead with this proposal.  Councillor Greg Davies suggested that there would be an advantage in having only the one charity bin operating in the City. 

 

Patricia Ryan asked if there is a policy or statement in place regarding these banks, are they endorsed by NACRO, is there a penalty for failing to clean up around the bins and if we are going to seek expressions of interest from charitable institutions for the supply of bins.  David Burns advised that Council has a policy and that he would be recommending calling for expressions of interest for the supply of clothing banks to be used in the Penrith area.

 

There was discussion on the advantages of having one charitable organisation supplying clothing bins.

 

There was discussion on the legality of having clothing bins on private property.

 

Councillor Tanya Davies suggested the Committee put forward a recommendation for a report to Council on the Smith Family proposal.

 

Investigate options for the collection of E-Waste

 

Councillor Greg Davies advised that a report has been called for options on E-Waste.

 

Review and consider enhancements to the waste services currently delivered to both the rural and multi-unit developments

 

John Kliese asked about the proposed tender for the processing and treatment of waste generated from the residual bins City-wide.  Geoff Brown advised that tender documentation is being prepared and tenders will be called in the near future.  Alan Stoneham commented that the outcome of the tender should be available early next year.

 

Investigate the option of providing additional collection services at Christmas time

 

Councillor Greg Davies enquired about the progress of investigations into the provision of additional Christmas garbage/recycling collections.  Geoff Brown advised that SITA had submitted a proposal and that a meeting would be held next week with VISY to discuss their proposal.  A report will be submitted to Council in the near future on this matter.  Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested reports be sent to Community Representatives by email when a report is finalised so that they could attend the meeting, if required.

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Waste Management Services be received.

 

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Composted Green Waste                                                                                         

David Burns commented on the green waste collected from Penrith Council residents that is being used by City Parks on Greygums Oval.  He advised that Channel 9 was interested in filming this process and that there was interest by the local media, which would promote positive press for the Penrith City area.

 

John Kliese commented that he had visited the SITA facility and found it very interesting.

 

 

GB 2          Surveys                                                                                                                      

Councillor Kath Presdee asked about the Focus group surveys and when feedback is expected back from these surveys.  David Burns replied that the survey will be conducted at the end of the month and results available at the next meeting.

 

 

Next Meeting

 

The next meeting will be held on 2 December 2010.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:40 pm.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Waste Services Committee meeting held on 9 September, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

  



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Sponsorship of City Marketing Events

 

2        Appointment of Director to the Board of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited

 

3        Absence of Mayor and Deputy Mayor

 

4        Australian Local Government Women's Association 2010 National Conference

 

5        2009-10 Financial Statements

 

6        Summary of Investments & Banking and  Agency Collection Fees as of 1 September to 30 September 2010

 

URGENT

 

29      Amendment to 2010 Meeting Calendar 

 

30      Appointment of local government members to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area Advisory Committee

 

A City of Opportunities

 

7        Progress on the Implementation of the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy Action Plan 2009-2012

 

8        2010 Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme Category 1 Funding Program Outcomes

 

9        Access Committee - Appointment of Community Representatives 2010-12

 

10      Nomination to fill Vacancy on the Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative (PCCSC)

 

11      Promotion of local events

 

12      Mayoral Ball

 

 

 

 

 

 

13      Development Application DA09/0782 Construction of a Service Road from Mulgoa Road and an Access Driveway to an Existing Motor Showroom Lot 100 DP 1058901 (No. 81 - 87) Regentville Road, Jamisontown . Applicant: Penrith Automotive Pty Ltd;  Owner: Penrith Automotive Pty Ltd

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

 

14      Development Application DA10/0602 - 21 Bren Close, St Clair, SEPP 1 Request for Variation to Landscape Area. Applicant: Savio & Fiona Ferreira;  Owner: Savio & Fiona Ferreira

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

 

15      Development Application DA10/0790 for the Stage 1E Residential Subdivision in the Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area at Lot 2 DP 1132380, (No. 1070 - 1274) The Northern Road, Llandilo. Applicant: Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner: St Marys Land Ltd DA10/0790

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

 

16      Development Application DA10/0713 for a NSW Police Weapons and Ordnance Disposal Facility and a two lot subdivision to create one lease lot and a residue lot at Lot 221 DP 752037, (No. 667 - 683) The Northern Road, Londonderry. Applicant: Landcom;  Owner: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales

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

 

17      Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: Lexie and Giovanni Cettolin

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

 

18      Section 96 application for modification to DA10/0289 for a Self Storage Facility on Lot 8 DP 1105133 and Variation to 88b Restriction affecting Lots 1-8 DP 1105133 (No. 142) Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains. Applicant: Trevor Hitchen;  Owner: Ryan Hitchen Pty Ltd & Emumatta Pty Ltd

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

 

19      Section 96 Application DA07/0742.02 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Rev George William Omara;  Owner: Trustees Roman Catholic Church

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

 

 

A Green City

 

20      Additional Garbage and Recycling Collections - Christmas Period

 

21      E-Waste

 

A Liveable City

 

22      Neighbourhood Safer Places

 

23      Assistance Towards Amateur Sportspersons and Representatives in the fields of Art, Music, Culture - Overseas and Interstate Travel

 

24      St Marys Spring Festival & Street Parade - Change of Date for Approval of Traffic Management Plans

 

25      Tender Reference 09-10/11 for the provision of Traffic Control Services

 

26      Western Sydney Car Pool Project

 

27      Floodplain Management Program 2010/2011 - Grant Offer

 

28      Floodplain Management Authorities 51st Annual Conference - 22 February 2011 to 25 February 2011

 

URGENT

 

31      Progress Report and Expressions of Interest Tender Selection for the Penrith Commuter Carpark

  

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Sponsorship of City Marketing Events

 

2        Appointment of Director to the Board of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited

 

3        Absence of Mayor and Deputy Mayor

 

4        Australian Local Government Women's Association 2010 National Conference

 

5        2009-10 Financial Statements

 

6        Summary of Investments & Banking and  Agency Collection Fees as of 1 September to 30 September 2010

 

URGENT

 

29      Amendment to 2010 Meeting Calendar 

 

30      Appointment of local government members to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area Advisory Committee

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Sponsorship of City Marketing Events   

 

Compiled by:                Paul Page, Acting City Marketing Manager

Authorised by:             Brian Steffen, Group Manager - Information & Customer Relations   

 

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

Demonstrate our leadership, and encourage innovation (1.1)

        

 

Executive Summary

Council has received two requests for sponsorship under the City Marketing Events Program. 

 

These are for the Mamre 100 Mile Dinner to be held on Saturday 30 October and for the inaugural International Penrith Jazz Festival to be held over the weekend of 12-14 November at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre. 

 

The report recommends that the events be sponsored with funding to come from the City Marketing and Events Sponsorship budget. 

Background

Council’s event sponsorship policy can be accessed from the Penrith Valley web site at

http://www.penrithvalley.com.au/index.asp?id=107

 

Under the policy, proponents are required to discuss their proposal with Council officers and, if the proposal is valid, submit a written business plan showing how Council’s sponsorship will help to bring the event to Penrith Valley and how the event will be of benefit to Penrith Valley. 

 

These discussions have been undertaken and the relevant business plans are attached.

Mamre Homestead 100 Mile Dinner

This will be the second time that this dinner has been held.  In 2009 and again in 2010, City Marketing staff have provided advice and marketing support to the dinner organising committee. 

 

The dinner is being held as part of the Crave Sydney International Food Festival which is sponsored by the Sydney Morning Herald.  The idea, which has been imported from Canada, is that ideally we should minimise the distance that our food travels to 160 kilometres (ie 100 miles).  It is better to minimise the distance (“food miles”) that our food travels to reduce greenhouse gases generated by long distance transport (especially air transport) and to maintain a viable fresh food industry adjacent to large population centres. 

 

The idea is to showcase the finest produce available in the local area and as such aligns with Council’s support for Hawkesbury Harvest and other initiatives targeted at promoting fresh food for healthy living.  Some of the produce being served on the night will have been grown at Mamre. 

 

Further details about the dinner and its objectives are contained in the attached business plan.

 

While the number attending the dinner is quite modest (about 150) this is worthy of support due to the attendance of people of influence from outside the City who will be exposed to a quality of food preparation and presentation not normally associated with Penrith Valley.  This should have a positive effect on the City’s image and brand. 

 

Diners from outside the area will be sent information about accommodation available in the St Marys and Penrith areas. 

 

A sum of $3,000 is available in the City Marketing budget to support this request and it is recommended that it be approved.

International Penrith Jazz Festival

This festival is being organised by Wolfgang Moeller of Leura who has connections with many high profile jazz musicians in Australia and other parts of the world.  While jazz does not have a big following in Penrith Valley, this is a market where fans will travel a long way to hear their favourite artists.  There are several places around Australia, such as Wangaratta in Victoria, which already have successful jazz festivals attracting big audiences from great distances, based on the profile of the artists on offer.  The event has the potential to improve Penrith Valley’s image as a home of upmarket artistic performance. 

 

Penrith Valley has a further advantage in the form of the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre in which both the Q Theatre and the Richard Bonynge Auditorium are ideal for jazz concerts and could operate concurrently in the future if the event grows larger.  Other venues could also be involved as it grows.  The “Joan” is also ideal in having quality accommodation within walking distance.  Mr Moeller advises that there are no venues of this standard in the Blue Mountains where he lives. 

 

The event for 2010 will use the two theatres at different times.  Concerts will feature the James Morrison Septet, the John Morrison Combo, the John Harkins Trio, the Gary Daly Quartet and the Big Yard Big Band.  John Morrison (older brother of James Morrison) will be the musical director.

 

A sum of $5,000 is available in the City Marketing budget to support the marketing of this event and it is recommended that it be approved. 

Conclusion

Quality events generate direct economic benefits to the City and also improve the image and enhance the City brand.  The modest sums recommended to support these events will assist in developing and growing these quality events.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sponsorship of City Marketing Events be received;

2.     $3,000 be approved to be paid from the City Marketing budget to sponsor the Mamre Homestead 100 mile Dinner on Saturday 30 October 2010;

3.     $5,000 be approved to be paid from the City Marketing budget to sponsor the inaugural International Penrith Jazz Festival 12-14 November 2010.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Mamre 100 Mile Dinner Sponsorship Business Plan

13 Pages

Appendix

2. View

International Penrith Jazz Festival Business Plan

5 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Mamre 100 Mile Dinner Sponsorship Business Plan

 

 

 














Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - International Penrith Jazz Festival Business Plan

 

 

 






Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Appointment of Director to the Board of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited   

 

Compiled by:                Matthew Bullivant, Legal Officer

Authorised by:             David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation   

 

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 recommends the appointment of Amanda Walmsley of Penrith Lakes Development Corporation to the Board of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited. The report recommends that the information be received and that Amanda Walmsley be appointed to the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Board.

Background

The Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited (the Whitewater Stadium) is a controlled entity of the Council. The objectives and operation of the Whitewater Stadium are controlled by a Board of Directors in accordance with the Constitution of the Whitewater Stadium.

 

Clause 16.1 of the Constitution provides that the Board shall consist of no less than 3, but no more than 10 Directors. The Constitution further stipulates in Clause 16.2 that Council shall appoint Directors to the Board in such a manner that the Council deems appropriate.

 

The Constitution also provides that the Board shall comprise 4 Councillors, 1 Council Officer, 1 representative of the Australian Canoe Federation and 4 other members who shall not be Councillors of the Council.

 

The Board of the Whitewater Stadium currently consists of 9 Directors, with an existing vacancy for the appointment of one Director.

 

Current Situation

Up until 24 September 2009, the Board of the Whitewater Stadium consisted of 10 Directors.

At the Annual General Meeting of the Whitewater Stadium held on 24 September 2009, Rebecca Wright resigned from the Board of Directors.

 

As such, a position on the Board of Directors became vacant. The Board commends the appointment of Amanda Walmsley, Rehabilitation Manager at Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, to the Board of Directors.

 

Please see Appendices 1 & 2 to this report for Ms Walmsley’s letter of interest for the vacant Director position, and her current curriculum vitae.

 

Accordingly, it is recommended that Amanda Walmsley of the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation be appointed to the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Board.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Appointment of Director to the Board of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited be received.

2.     Amanda Walmsley of the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation be appointed to the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Board.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Letter of interest from Amanda Walmsley for the position of Director on the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Board dated 7 September 2010

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Curriculum Vitae of Amanda Walmsley

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Letter of interest from Amanda Walmsley for the position of Director on the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Board dated 7 September 2010

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - Curriculum Vitae of Amanda Walmsley

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

3

Absence of Mayor and Deputy Mayor   

 

Compiled by:                Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:             Glenn Schuil, Acting Executive Officer   

 

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

The purpose of this report is to advise on the proposed concurrent absence of the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM and the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM from 14 October to 6 November 2010 inclusive, and to determine whether Council wishes to elect an Acting Deputy Mayor during this period.

 

Cr Kevin Crameri OAM will be absent overseas on official Council business and Cr Jim Aitken OAM will be absent overseas on private business as a representative of Penrith Business Alliance.

 

In the event that Council resolves to proceed with the election of an Acting Deputy Mayor, the report indicates that nominations would have to be called and an election conducted if more than one nomination is received.

 

Current Situation

For the three (3) week period from 14 October to 6 November 2010 inclusive, Council may wish to elect an Acting Deputy Mayor whilst both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are absent, to ensure that the business and governance of the Council continues. 

 

During this period of the Mayor’s and Deputy Mayor’s absences, there will be a Policy Review Committee meeting on 18 October and a Councillor Briefing on 1 November.

 

Section 231 of the Act provides that the Councillors may elect a person from among their number to be the Deputy Mayor and that this person may be elected for the Mayoral term or a shorter term.

 

The Deputy Mayor may exercise any function of the Mayor at the request of the Mayor or if the Mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise from exercising the function or if there is a casual vacancy in the office of Mayor.

 

The Councillors may elect a person from among their number to act as Deputy Mayor if the Deputy Mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise from exercising a function under this section, or if no Deputy Mayor has been elected.

 

The election of an Acting Deputy Mayor is therefore entirely at Council’s discretion (as is the election of a Deputy Mayor).

 

If the Council wishes to elect an Acting Deputy Mayor during the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, then nominations would have to be called. If only one nomination is received, then that person is elected as the Acting Deputy Mayor during that period.

 

If however, two nominations are received, then the General Manager (Returning Officer) would have to conduct an election similar to that of the Deputy Mayor held on 27 September 2010. Nominations can be made before or at the meeting and must be in writing by two or more Councillors, one of whom can be the nominee.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2.     Council elect an Acting Deputy Mayor for the period of the Mayor’s and Deputy Mayor’s absence, namely, from 14 October to 6 November 2010 inclusive.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

4

Australian Local Government Women's Association 2010 National Conference   

 

Compiled by:                Laura Lal, Executive Assistant

Authorised by:             Glenn McCarthy, Public Officer   

 

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

The 2010 Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) National Conference will be hosted by the City of Ryde, New South Wales from 25 – 27 November 2010.

 

The report recommends that Council nominate its delegates to attend this Conference and grant leave of absence as appropriate.

 

Background

The ALGWA was founded in 1951 with the principal objectives being:

·    to assist in furthering women’s knowledge and understanding of the functions of local government;

·    to protect and enhance the interests and rights of women in local government;

·    to take action in relation to any subject or activity of particular interest to women affecting local governing bodies and/or local government legislation;

·    to act in an advisory capacity to intending women candidates for local government elections; and

·    to encourage women into professional careers in local government.

 

Councillor Membership of ALGWA

Penrith City Council has five Councillors who are members of the ALGWA (Councillors Allison, T Davies, Greenow, McKeown & Presdee), two of whom are currently serving on the ALGWA Executive being:

 

Cr Karen McKeown:               NSW Branch President

Cr Jackie Greenow:        NSW Branch Executive Member

ALGWA 2010 National Conference

The ALGWA National Conference will be hosted by the City of Ryde, and is being held in North Ryde from 25 to 27 November 2010. The theme of the Conference is ‘Women Going Places’.

 

This National Conference will conclude the celebrations of 2010 the Year of Women in Local Government. The Conference will include the National Launch of the ALGWA 50:50 Councils for Gender Equity Accreditation and Awards program. This ALGWA initiative to boost women’s participation in local government as both elected representatives and senior managers is a key element of the 50:50 Vision launched by ALGWA in April 2009.

The three day conference will include workshops, forums, speakers and networking opportunities.

 

The Conference program has been prepared with presentations to be given from key people involved in the community, local government and business, namely:

 

·    Anne Summers

Best-selling Author and Journalist

·    Barbara Pocock

University of South Australia

Director - Centre for Work and Life Balance

·    Claire Braund

Executive Director, Women on Boards

·    Adele Horin

Columnist and Reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald

·    Darriea Turley

ALGWA National President

·    Pru Goward MP

Member for Goulburn

Shadow Minister for Community Services

Shadow Minister for Women

·    Eva Cox

Feminist and Social Activist

 

The ALGWA National Conference is open to all Councillors, Council staff and interested citizens. Council usually sends delegates to the Conference, and it would be appropriate for delegates to be nominated at this meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Australian Local Government Women's Association 2010 National Conference be received.

2.     Council nominate its delegates to attend the Australian Local Government Women’s Association 2010 National Conference, to be held in North Ryde from 25 to 27 November 2010, and grant leave of absence as appropriate.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

5

2009-10 Financial Statements   

 

Compiled by:                Brett Richardson, Acting Financial Accountant

Authorised by:             Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

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)

  

Previous Items:            Draft 2009-10 Financial Statements - Ordinary Meeting - 6 September 2010    

 

Executive Summary

Council staff have prepared the Financial Statements, using the accrual method of accounting, and comply with Australian Accounting Standards and the New South Wales Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. The Financial Statements were referred to Council’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 6 September 2010.  In accordance with the Act, a period of public exhibition followed. During this time, no submissions were received. The 2009-2010 Financial Statements are now ready to be presented to Council with the unqualified auditor’s opinion.

Background

The Financial Statements are required to be audited by an independent auditor, and lodged with the Division of Local Government by 6 November 2010.

 

The Local Government Act 1993 has detailed provisions for the completion of the financial statements. The process is:

 

1.            Council staff prepare the statements,

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

3.            Council refers the statements to its auditors,

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

5.            The reports are placed on public exhibition, and

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

 

Council completed steps 1 to 4 at its Ordinary Meeting on 6 September 2010. A copy of the report to the Ordinary Meeting of 6 September 2010 is attached for information.

 

The unaudited 2010 Financial Statements were presented to Council’s Audit Committee on 25 August 2010. This step enabled the endorsement of the Financial Statements by the Audit Committee prior to their presentation to Council. At that meeting, the Audit Committee resolved that:

“1. the information contained in the report on the Draft 2009-10 Financial Statements be received

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

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

4.   the Audit Committee requests management to include statements on liquidity, available cash and contingencies associated with Developer Contributions in the commentary to the Financial Statements”

The Audit Certificates have now been issued, and Council submitted its Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2010 to the Division of Local Government on 8 September 2010. The Division of Local Government has since advised that Penrith City Council was the 4th Council in New South Wales to lodge their 2009-2010 Financial Statements.

 

The audited Financial Statements have been placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Public notice has been given of Council’s intention to present these Statements to this meeting. Written submissions from the public were required to be received by the Council by 5 October 2010.  No submissions have been received.

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on 2009-10 Financial Statements be received

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Draft 2009-10 Financial Statements

8 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Draft 2009-10 Financial Statements

 

 

 









Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

6

Summary of Investments & Banking and  Agency Collection Fees as of 1 September to 30 September 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 behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 September 2010 to 30 September 2010, a reconciliation of invested funds as at 30 September 2010 and Agency Collection Fees as at 30 September 2010. 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 September 2010.

 

 

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking and  Agency Collection Fees as of 1 September to 30 September 2010 be received.

 

 

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

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

4.     Agency Collection Fees to be noted. 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix

2. View

Agency of Collection of Methods

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

 

 





Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - Agency of Collection of Methods

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

7        Progress on the Implementation of the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy Action Plan 2009-2012

 

8        2010 Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme Category 1 Funding Program Outcomes

 

9        Access Committee - Appointment of Community Representatives 2010-12

 

10      Nomination to fill Vacancy on the Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative (PCCSC)

 

11      Promotion of local events

 

12      Mayoral Ball

 

13      Development Application DA09/0782 Construction of a Service Road from Mulgoa Road and an Access Driveway to an Existing Motor Showroom Lot 100 DP 1058901 (No. 81 - 87) Regentville Road, Jamisontown . Applicant: Penrith Automotive Pty Ltd;  Owner: Penrith Automotive Pty Ltd

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

 

14      Development Application DA10/0602 - 21 Bren Close, St Clair, SEPP 1 Request for Variation to Landscape Area. Applicant: Savio & Fiona Ferreira;  Owner: Savio & Fiona Ferreira

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

 

15      Development Application DA10/0790 for the Stage 1E Residential Subdivision in the Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area at Lot 2 DP 1132380, (No. 1070 - 1274) The Northern Road, Llandilo. Applicant: Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner: St Marys Land Ltd DA10/0790

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

 

16      Development Application DA10/0713 for a NSW Police Weapons and Ordnance Disposal Facility and a two lot subdivision to create one lease lot and a residue lot at Lot 221 DP 752037, (No. 667 - 683) The Northern Road, Londonderry. Applicant: Landcom;  Owner: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales

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

 

 

 

17      Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: Lexie and Giovanni Cettolin

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

 

18      Section 96 application for modification to DA10/0289 for a Self Storage Facility on Lot 8 DP 1105133 and Variation to 88b Restriction affecting Lots 1-8 DP 1105133 (No. 142) Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains. Applicant: Trevor Hitchen;  Owner: Ryan Hitchen Pty Ltd & Emumatta Pty Ltd

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

 

19      Section 96 Application DA07/0742.02 for the modification of the existing development consent relating to the Place of Worship at Lot 912 DP 836641 (No. 86 - 90) Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook. Applicant: Rev George William Omara;  Owner: Trustees Roman Catholic Church

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

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

7

Progress on the Implementation of the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy Action Plan 2009-2012   

 

Compiled by:                Vesna Kapetanovic, Community Projects Officer 

Authorised by:             Jeni Pollard, Acting Community & Cultural Development Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides a progress update on the implementation of the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy 2009-2012.

 

The objective of Council’s Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy is to promote a more inclusive community by identifying and advocating responses by Council and other agencies and services to the needs and diversity of local women in a women’s rights framework and in accordance with social justice principles.

 

The Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy was endorsed by Council in February 2009 and was launched by Councillor Karen McKeown in March 2009 at Penrith’s International Women’s Day Event held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.

 

The Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy Action Plan provides the framework and scope to improve women’s access to services and supports the organisations that provide services to women in Penrith.

 

The role of Council is to lead and co-ordinate the implementation of the Action Plan included in this Strategy by supporting partnerships with the organisations that provide services to women.  The Action Plan also contains measures that Council has a responsibility to implement and support.  This includes establishment of the Penrith Services for Women Network, the Domestic Violence Training and Resource Development Project and advocacy to the State and Federal Governments regarding the delivery of a Regional City Community Services Facility in the Penrith City Centre. The implementation of this Action Plan will in many cases involve advocacy on issues and challenges through an integrated approach with some of Council’s community partners.

 

The report also summarises some of the actions in the Strategy that will be a focus over the next 12 months. 

 

This report provides information on progress in the implementation of the Action Plan to date and recommends that the information be received.

Background

The Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy was initiated by Council to enhance community wellbeing by contributing to the quality of life for women, especially those who are experiencing disadvantage. The Advocacy Strategy promotes fairness in the distribution of resources and aims to contribute to women having equal access to services and opportunities that are important to meet women’s social, economic and health needs.

 

The Strategy was endorsed by Council in February 2009 and was launched in March 2009 at the City’s International Women’s Day Event held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre. The innovative nature of this Strategy has attracted significant interest and Council was pleased to receive a National Local Government Award in 2009 for the Strategy in the category of Building Capacity – Women in Local Government.

Councillor Karen McKeown, an Ambassador for the Year of Women in Local Government, gave a presentation on the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy at the National LGMA Conference in May 2010 in Adelaide.

Council has built a dynamic partnership with local women’s services and organisations representing women in preparing this Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy.  Council recognises the strength of the local women’s services sector and is committed to supporting these services in working together towards social justice outcomes.

 

Implementation of the Action Plan

The Action Plan within the Strategy provides an agreed starting point to work with other levels of government, community organisations and the private sector to address issues of equity for women in the Penrith Local Government Area and the region.

 

Council’s Community and Cultural Development Department has overall responsibility to progress this Strategy.  However, it is critical to note the contributions that other Council Departments have made to the Strategy through agreed commitment to items in the Action Plan. The respective Managers in these Departments have all been consulted and agreed to the actions in the Plan that are relevant to their responsibilities. These Departments include Executive Services, Public Domain Amenity and Safety, Environmental Health and Workforce Development.

 

The community service sector has also made significant contributions to the development of this Strategy and is supportive of the implementation of the Action Plan. It is important to note the contribution of The Richmond Fellowship of NSW and Great Community Transport in terms of their contribution to specific actions within the Plan.

 

The full summary of progress on the implementation of the Action Plan is provided as Attachment 1 to this report. The outcomes have been significant and diverse in scope.  The following section provides a summary of some of the more significant outcomes to date.

 

Summary of Key Outcomes to Date

There has been significant progress on a number of strategies in the Action Plan in this 12 month period. Highlights include the establishment of the Penrith Services for Women Network that has bought together representatives from community, government and business agencies to work towards a viable and effective women’s services sector and to advocate on specific issues facing women in our communities. This Network has undertaken planning to coordinate advocacy action on various issues over the next 12 months and has worked on identifying resources and funding possibilities to achieve improved outcomes for local women.

 

The Public Domain Amenity and Safety Department has continued to progress key strategies in the Action Plan addressing Violence against Women. This includes implementing the NSW Government funded DV Training and Resource Development Project to develop targeted training for mainstream services. This training has been designed to assist agencies to identify and better respond to the needs of clients presenting with domestic and family violence issues, and provide effective referral pathways to appropriate local services.

 

Council will recall the grant application that was submitted to the NSW Government Community Builders funding program for the Penrith Women’s Community Capacity Building Project. This application was endorsed by Council in February 2010 and proposed to fund the employment of a designated Women’s Services Community Development Officer. The need for this project was identified and supported by the Penrith Services for Women Network. The application was unfortunately unsuccessful in this round although our intention is to reapply and continue to identify other funding opportunities to progress this item.

 

The first stage planning has advanced for the Regional Community Services Facility in the Penrith City Centre. A consultation was held in September with over 20 participants from government and community agencies to develop a concept plan for the facility. Council has engaged Jackson Teece Architects for this first stage of design.

 

In addition to the information outlined above, local community organisations have continued to create innovative partnerships and have worked collaboratively towards developing a viable and dynamic women’s services sector. Council acknowledges the service that community organisations provide to the local community in terms of addressing current and emerging needs and building community capacity.

 

The community services sector has initiated and led numerous projects over this 12 month period that support women within our community, including the recently funded Penrith Women’s Health Centre ‘Staying Home, Leaving Violence’ project. This 3 year specialised domestic violence program is aimed at preventing women from becoming homeless via the provision of intensive case management that is long-term, needs-based and integrated with key agencies.

 

As part of the implementation of the NSW Government Homelessness Action Plan, Wimlah Women’s Refuge has received funding for a new program designed to support women and children escaping domestic violence. This program led by Wimlah Women’s Refuge and partnered locally by Penrith Women’s Refuge includes Start Safely rental subsidy support packages and support packages in community housing.

 

Council’s 2009 Community Assistance Program (CAP) supported several women’s projects, including art therapy workshops for women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and a consultation project with Aboriginal women to improve access to services, both auspiced by Penrith Women’s Health Centre. The Western Sydney Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service also received CAP funding for the purchase of toys and books for the safe space called the ‘Shine Room’ for children who attend Court with their carers on Apprehended Domestic Violence Order list days.

 

Priorities in 2011

The Penrith Services for Women Network has prioritised issues for coordinated advocacy action for the upcoming year.  These issues are refugee health, domestic violence, transport, young women with dual diagnosis issues, pay equity and childcare. The Network is currently undertaking analysis of these issues and establishing cross-network connections for coordinated advocacy. Council’s role is to continue convening this Network and to support and coordinate the initiatives that arise through the meetings.

 

Another priority for 2011 is to progress the planning for the Regional City Community Services Facility in the Penrith City Centre. The recent consultation held with government and community agencies has provided valuable input for the preparation of the concept plan for the facility. External stakeholders are aware that this proposal can only proceed if other levels of government commit significant funding for the development of this facility.

 

Council will continue to progress the delivery of the NSW Government funded DV Training and Resource Development Project. This project will ensure that targeted training is developed and implemented for mainstream services. Council is currently re-advertising an Expression of Interest (EOI) to engage a consultant to coordinate the delivery of training activities for non-government community service providers in the Penrith LGA relating to domestic and family violence.

 

Conclusion

Council’s Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy promotes a more inclusive and fairer society by addressing the special and diverse needs of women living in Penrith City. The Strategy features an agreed action plan that in some cases involves advocacy on issues and challenges through an integrated response by Council and its community partners.

 

The Strategy and Action Plan has received wide support both from the community sector and within Council who have shown commitment to implementing the actions which fall within their areas of responsibility as outlined in this report.

 

The Community and Cultural Development Department will continue to play a coordinating role in monitoring the implementation of the Strategy and will report to Council on progress with implementation on an annual basis.

 

This report recommends that the information on progress of the implementation of the Action Plan to date be received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Progress on the Implementation of the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy Action Plan 2009-2012 be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Progress of Action Plan

8 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Progress of Action Plan

 

 

 









Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

8

2010 Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme Category 1 Funding Program Outcomes   

 

Compiled by:                Vesna Kapetanovic, Community Projects Officer 

Authorised by:             Jeni Pollard, Acting Community & Cultural Development Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the outcome of the 2010 Penrith Community Development and Support Expenditure Scheme (CDSE) Category 1 funding round.

 

The CDSE Scheme is a state wide initiative that enables registered clubs to make financial contributions towards supporting projects and services that contribute to the wellbeing of local communities. The Scheme only applies to registered clubs that earn over $1 million annually in gaming machine revenue.

 

The CDSE guidelines are authorised by the NSW Minister for Gaming and Racing and are in place to support the requirements of the Gaming Machine Tax Act 2001, and in particular the granting of a rebate of gaming machine tax levied on registered clubs.  These guidelines also outline the operations of local CDSE committees including the role of Councils.

 

The 2010 Penrith CDSE funding round attracted 117 applications and a total of $544,621 has been distributed to a total number of 36 organisations for 40 projects including 2 projects submitted by Council.  The projects funded range from initiatives targeting children, families, older people, people with disability, women and the broader community.

 

A list detailing the organisations and projects which were successful in receiving CDSE funding in 2010 is provided as Appendix 1 to this report.

 

The report recommends the information be received.

 

Background

The Community Development and Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme is a state-wide initiative that enables registered clubs to provide financial support for projects and services that contribute to the wellbeing of their communities.

 

The Scheme applies to registered clubs that earn over $1 million annually in gaming machine revenue. If a registered club provides funding for community projects and services, it in turn receives a dollar-for-dollar gaming tax deduction for the revenue over $1 million.


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

 

The CDSE guidelines are authorised by the NSW Minister for Gaming and Racing and are in place to support the requirements of the Gaming Machine Tax Act 2001, and in particular the granting of a rebate of gaming machine tax levied on registered clubs.  These guidelines also outline the operations of local CDSE committees including the role of Councils.

 

The CDSE Scheme is implemented in partnership with the NSW State Government, local registered clubs, Local Government and the NSW Council of Social Services (NCOSS).

 

CDSE Category 1 expenditure is allocated to projects/services that contribute to the welfare and broader social fabric of the local community, and are aimed at improving the living standards of low income and disadvantaged people. Category 2 allocations are for sporting activities and not part of the process that applies to Category 1 expenditure.

 

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

 

The Penrith LGA Process

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

 

The Penrith Local CDSE Committee has a core membership of:

 

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

 

·    Council’s Social Planning Coordinator

 

·    Local representative of NSW Human Services Department, Community Services

 

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

 

The Penrith Local CDSE Committee is chaired by a club representative that is elected by the Committee on a bi-annual basis.

 

The Penrith Local CDSE Committee meets to:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Council’s Community Projects Officer convenes the Penrith Local CDSE Committee, coordinates and promotes the Scheme to the community and undertakes administration to support the delivery of the Scheme.

 

2010 Penrith CDSE Funding Round

The 2010 CDSE funding round opened on 1 March and closed on 9 April, and was promoted extensively through the media, local networks and interagencies.

 

This year, the Penrith Local CDSE Committee received 117 applications (a total value of $1,422,381.34) with a total of $544,621.00 CDSE funds being distributed to 36 organisations for 40 projects. This compares to 2009 when $1,226,272.60 was requested with $553,549.00 being distributed.

 

Some examples of the type of projects that were funded in the 2010 CDSE round are:

 

·    Penrith Women’s Health Centre received $5,650 towards the MetWest Violence Prevention Network Forum that will focus on the long term effects of early childhood trauma and family violence;

 

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

 

·    North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre received $18,480 to provide the services of a speech therapist to work with families and their children who have identified delayed language skills;

 

·    Sailability Penrith Lakes received $4,000 to support their ‘Sail to Freedom’ project that provides a recreation based service that enables young people with disabilities to sail.

 

·    Council on behalf of the Cranebrook Neighbourhood Advisory Board (NAB) received $7,070 to engage the Cranebrook community in discussing and developing a culture of “Safety, Respect and Resiliency”.

 

A list detailing the organisations and projects which were successful in receiving CDSE funding in 2010 is provided as Appendix1 to this report.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

The CDSE Scheme is a state wide initiative that enables registered clubs to make financial contributions towards supporting projects and services that contribute to the wellbeing of local communities. The Scheme only applies to registered clubs that earn over $1 million annually in gaming machine revenue.

 

The Penrith CDSE Scheme Category 1 funding program operates on an annual basis and provides community organisations with funding for community welfare and social services, community development, community health services and employment assistance activities.

 

The 2010 CDSE funding round attracted 117 applications and a total of $544,621 has been distributed to a total number of 36 organisations for 40 projects.  The projects funded range from initiatives targeting children, families, older people, people with disability, women and the broader community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on 2010 Penrith Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme Category 1 Funding Program Outcomes be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

CDSE Approved Funding 2010

4 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - CDSE Approved Funding 2010

 

 

 





Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

9

Access Committee - Appointment of Community Representatives 2010-12   

 

Compiled by:                Robyn Brookes, Disability Services Officer

Joe Ibbitson, Community Programs Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Jeni Pollard, Acting Community & Cultural Development Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The current two year term of the community representatives on the Access Committee will formally expire at the end of October 2010. Council officers commenced the process for the recruitment and selection of community representatives for the next period in August.

 

A presentation on the achievements and highlights of the Access Committee during the period 2008-10 was made to the Policy Review Committee meeting on 13 September 2010. Certificates of Appreciation for service to the Access Committee were presented to the community representatives by the Mayor at that meeting.

 

This report considers and recommends the appointment of six (6) community representatives to the Access Committee for the two year term 2010-12.

Background

There are six positions for community members on the Access Committee and three Councillor representatives. At the Ordinary Meeting on 10 November 2008 the current Committee members, including the community members, were appointed to the Access Committee.

 

The term of appointment for the community representatives is two years and Councillors are appointed for the full four year term of the Council. Existing members may be reappointed to the committee.

 

Recruitment Process

The recruitment process commenced on 9 August 2010 and in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Access Committee. Support is provided throughout the process to ensure all eligible members of the community have an equal opportunity to submit an Expression of Interest. Public notices were placed in the local press, on Council’s website and distributed through local disability organisations and networks.

 

The criteria for selection of community representatives are:

 

·    An understanding of access issues for people with disabilities;

·    An understanding of the implications for Local Government of the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), the Building Code of Australia, Development Controls and other legislative requirements;

·    Experience in developing policies on issues relevant to people with a disability;

·    A willingness to undertake training and orientation, as well as participate in a planning day.

 

Expressions of Interest - Community Nominations

Council has received ten (10) Expressions of Interest (EOI) from a wide diversity of people with a disability, carers and disability advocates.

 

In keeping with past practice, applicants have been assessed by an in-house staff team from the Community and Cultural Development Department taking into account the extent of expertise and experience of each applicant against the selection criteria.  It is recommended that the following six people be appointed to the Penrith Access Committee for the two-year term 2010-12:

 

Mr John Farragher

          Mrs Denise Heath

          Ms Ronda Hopkins

          Mr Michael Morris

Mrs Farah Madon

Mr David Currie

 

A letter will be forwarded to all applicants to thank them for submitting an Expression of Interest for appointment to the Access Committee.

Orientation/Induction Session

An orientation/induction session will be held for the community representatives on the Access Committee on a date to be finalised in November.

 

The first meeting of the Access Committee is scheduled for Wednesday 1st December 2010.

 

Summary

The current two year term of the community representatives on the Access Committee will formally expire at the end of October 2010. Council officers commenced the process for the recruitment and selection of community representatives for the next period in August.

 

The report considers and recommends the appointment of six (6) community representatives to the Access Committee for the two year term 2010-12.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Access Committee - Appointment of Community Representatives 2010-12 be received.

2.     The following persons be appointed as community representatives on Council’s Access Committee for the two year term 2010-12:

                                      Mr John Farragher

                                       Mrs Denise Heath

                                       Ms Ronda Hopkins

                                       Mr Michael Morris

                                      Mrs Farah Madon

                                      Mr David Currie

 

3.       A letter be forwarded to all applicants to thank them for submitting an          Expression of Interest for appointment to the Access Committee.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

10

Nomination to fill Vacancy on the Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative (PCCSC)   

 

Compiled by:                Janet Keegan, Children's Services Manager Operations

Authorised by:             Janet Keegan, Children's Services Manager Operations  

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report advises Council of the recommendation of the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative (PCCSC) to fill a community representative vacancy on the Board of Directors. The report recommends that Ms Jo Jacobson be endorsed as Council’s nominee as a community representative Board Director on the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative.

Background

In 2002 Council formed the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative to manage children’s services on Council’s behalf. The Cooperative is a non trading entity within the meaning of Section 15 of the Cooperatives Act 1992 (NSW).

 

The Rules of the Cooperative make provision for 15 Board Directors – three Councillors (currently Councillors Fowler OAM, Allison and Tanya Davies), seven parent representatives (elected from the parent body), a staff representative (elected by the children’s services staff), a General Manager’s representative and three community representatives. Rule 43 of the Cooperative states that the community representatives are nominees of Penrith City Council who are businesspersons or a professional or other person of community standing who resides or conducts business in any local government area in which a cooperative children’s centre operates.

 

Current Position 

There is currently a vacancy for a community representative on the Board of Directors of the PCCSC. An expression of interest to fill the vacancy was advertised in the local print media on two separate occasions as well as being distributed to tertiary institutions. In considering this matter, the Board supported a view that filling the vacancy with a community member with a background or qualification in early childhood would be highly regarded.

 

Following the expression of interest process, Board Directors considered nominees to fill the community representative vacancy at its August 2010 meeting. The Board has made a recommendation that Ms Jo Jacobson be endorsed by Council to fill the vacancy. Ms Jacobson previously coordinated a small private long day care service for ten years and now lives and works in Penrith. She was previously a Board Director as a parent representative for just over two years and made a positive contribution. Ms Jacobson has qualifications in early childhood. In her expression of interest, Ms Jacobson indicates her belief that children’s services is an integral element in building the social capital of our city and that the steering of this needs to be approached by Board members that understand the complexities from a holistic perspective.

 

Conclusion

The Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative, which manages Children’s Services on Council’s behalf, is currently filling a vacancy for a community representative on the Board of Directors. The Rules of the Cooperative state that this candidate be a nominee of the Council.  In considering this matter, the Board of Directors has made a recommendation that Ms Jo Jacobson be endorsed by Council to fill the vacancy.  Ms Jacobson meets the criteria for the position. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Nomination to fill Vacancy on the Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative (PCCSC) be received.

2.     Ms Jo Jacobson be endorsed as Council’s nominee as a community representative Board Director on the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

11

Promotion of local events   

 

Compiled by:                Paul Page, Acting City Marketing Manager

Colin Dickson, Marketing & Events Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Brian Steffen, Group Manager - Information & Customer Relations  

Requested By:             Councillor Greg Davies

 

Objective

We have a say in our future

Community Outcome

A Council that involves, informs and responds (10)

Strategic Response

Engage our communities by creating opportunities for participation, listening, provide information and responding (10.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 6 September 2010 Councillor Greg Davies requested a report detailing Council’s current practices in promoting local events, including initiatives to improve awareness of these events in the local community. 

 

This report dissects the range of events in which Council is involved, how each type of event is promoted and looks at what improvements might be made. 

 

The report recommends that the information be received. 

Range of Events

Council organises

·    Civic Events

 

Council organises and promotes

·    A limited number of public events, including Australia Day and St Marys Spring Festival (2010 only). 

 

Council distributes information about and, in some cases promotes, events staged by outside organisations.  Organisers of these events have prime responsibility for promoting their events but in the case of prestigious and high profile events, Council will sometimes augment the organiser’s marketing program.  These third party events include:

 

·    City Marketing Events (i.e. events which are likely to attract visitors to the City).  Examples of these events would include the DefQon Dance Festival or the Penrith Valley Triathlon; 

·    Cultural events such as theatrical productions put on by the various amateur and professional theatre companies and licensed clubs and exhibitions by galleries and the library;

·    Community events such as fetes, car boot sales etc.

 

Council sponsors some City Marketing events.  A part of the City Marketing budget is allocated to event sponsorships.  Event organisers seeking sponsorship are required to submit a business plan demonstrating how Council sponsorship funds are proposed to be used.  The business plan is presented to Council for approval at an Ordinary Meeting.  Such events have recently included the Formula One boats and the Junior Rugby League event.  Sponsorship funds can contribute to either event operations or marketing. 

Event Promotion

Over the years we have developed a number of channels for promoting events which are utilised according to the nature and scale of the event.  The table below sets out which channels are applicable to the various types of events. 

 

In general, the first six channels listed below are part of ongoing promotional activities and do not have a direct budgetary cost.  Others, like advertising and street banners, are quite expensive and can only be funded for major Council run events and very major City Marketing events. 

 

Y=Yes, O=Optional

 

What’s On

Websites

Media Release

Mayoral Column

Ratepayer

Newsletter

Staff Newsletter

Poster

Flyer

Newspaper / Radio Advertising

Newspaper Supplement

Street Banners

Civic Events

By invitation only, including media

Large Council Public Events e.g. Australia Day

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Small Council Public Events e.g. Macquarie Bicentenary

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

O

O

O

Major City Marketing Events

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y*

Y*

Y*

Y*

Sponsored City Marketing Events

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y*

Y*

Y*

Y*

Small City Marketing Events

Y

Y

O

O

O

O

 

 

 

 

Cultural & Community Events

Y

Y

O

Y

O

O

O

 

 

 

* May be funded by event organiser, by Council or shared

 

Our award winning Visitor Information Centre plays a very important role in promoting events through its role in compiling the “What’s On” information mentioned in the first column above.  The staff of the centre have extensive contacts throughout the City who are regularly contacted to supply information about upcoming events. 

 

This information is widely distributed by the following means;

·    On the Penrith Valley and Council websites.  There can be more than 10 events listed on some days;

·    By email and fax weekly to local and metropolitan media and other local organisations such as accommodation and other tourism service providers as well as a number of other subscribers – both individual and organisations;

·    Emailed to all staff and Councillors approx every two weeks;

·    Bi-monthly in printed form to a range of interested subscribers and distribution points such as local members’ offices and tourism businesses;

·    A special school holiday version to schools, child care centres and other subscribers. 

 

Many other Penrith organisations rely on our ‘What’s On’ to keep their customers informed.  Individuals and organisations are encouraged to sign up with the visitor centre to receive the ‘What’s On’ by email. 

 

In addition to the ‘What’s On’, the visitor centre distributes flyers and displays posters for events.  Our staff provide advice to external event organisers on promotion, venues and local suppliers. 

 

Council’s Event Unit also provides advice to external event organisers and distributes flyers and posters through Council’s libraries, childcare centres and other Council facilities such as the pools and recreation centres. 

New Promotional Channels

In addition to this, Council has also established Twitter and Facebook accounts to communicate information directly to people who are interested in Council events and services.

 

The Twitter account was set up about two months ago and is used regularly. The account currently has 140 ‘followers’.  Facebook is best used for specific events and has been used for Australia Day and the St Marys Spring Festival. 

 

The Sustainability Unit and Recreation Department also have blogs that are used for events specific to their areas such as the Walk Against Warming or Active Penrith Month.  City Marketing has a blog to communicate with tourism operators and other business partners. 

 

As the new website comes online, there will also be the opportunity to use RSS feeds and electronic newsletters.

 

The communications unit is also investigating other social media such as Flickr and an organisational blog to ascertain their usefulness and community reach.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Promotion of local events be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

12

Mayoral Ball   

 

Compiled by:                Paul Page, Acting City Marketing Manager

Authorised by:             Brian Steffen, Group Manager - Information & Customer Relations   

 

Objective

We have a say in our future

Community Outcome

A Council that involves, informs and responds (10)

Strategic Response

Engage our communities by creating opportunities for participation, listening, provide information and responding (10.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The Mayoral Ball was held on Friday 17 September.  At a briefing on 13 September, it was foreshadowed that funds would need to be provided from voted works to cover the net deficit on the event after all expenses have been paid and donations made to the nominated charities.  The maximum contribution from voted works was foreshadowed to be $14,000.  The actual figure has come to $11,256.  The report recommends that this figure be covered by a contribution of $3,752 from each ward. 

Income and Expenditure

The financial outcome of the Mayoral Ball is as follows (exclusive of GST):

 

Income                                                                                                $27,813

 

Expenditure

              Direct costs of Ball                                         $19,069

              Donations to Charities                                    $20,000

                                                                                                            $39,069

Surplus (Deficit)                                                                             -($11,256)

                                                                                                                        

Contribution required from voted works for each ward                     $3,752 

                                                                                                                        

Indirect Costs

Officers have been requested to outline the indirect costs of holding the Ball and these include staff time, administration, postage and promotion not included in the direct costs of running the ball. These costs are estimated to be approximately $8,000. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Mayoral Ball be received.

 

 

2.     A contribution of $3,752 be voted from each ward from voted works to cover the net deficit. 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

13

Development Application DA09/0782 Construction of a Service Road from Mulgoa Road and an Access Driveway to an Existing Motor Showroom Lot 100 DP 1058901 (No. 81 - 87) Regentville Road, Jamisontown   Applicant:  Penrith Automotive Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Penrith Automotive Pty Ltd    

 

Compiled by:                Steven Chong, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Greg Davies

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with a strong local economy and access to jobs (6)

Strategic Response

Facilitate a diverse economy, sustainable businesses and secure employment base (6.1)

       

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 which proposes the construction of a service road from Mulgoa Road and an access driveway to an existing motor showroom known as Penrith Mazda. The application is to address the current difficulty experienced by Penrith Mazda with customers accessing the site due to the complex nature of the current vehicular access arrangements via Batt Street and Regentville Road.

 

The assessment of the subject application has been protracted with Council Officers and the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) undertaking extensive discussions involving the long term planning of Mulgoa Road for future road widening. The initial development proposal involved a direct access driveway from Mulgoa Road, however the RTA advised that they would consider vehicular access to the subject site via a service road from Mulgoa Road as their preference, subject to design. The subject application has been amended to reflect a service road arrangement.

 

The subject site is part zoned 5(b) Special Uses 'B' (Roads) under Interim Development Order No. 28 - City of Penrith and 4(b) Special Industry under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Industrial Land). The proposal is satisfactory in respect to the applicable planning instruments.

 

At the time of lodgement of the subject application, the provisions of the draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 applied to the subject site. The draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 has now been gazetted and is known as the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. Pursuant to Clause 1.8A of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010, the subject application is to consider the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 in its draft form only.

 

Accordingly, under the draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008, the subject site is part zoned IN2 Light Industrial and SP2 Infrastructure. The proposed driveway is permissible with consent in the zone.

 

The proposed development is identified as ‘Integrated Development’ pursuant to Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Approval had been sought from the RTA under the Roads Act 1993 and the NSW Office of Water under the Water Management Act 2000. The RTA and the NSW Office of Water have not granted their General Terms of Approval for the proposed development.

 

The subject application was placed on public exhibition for a total of 14 days from 26 August 2009 to 9 September 2009. No submissions were received in response to the proposal.

 

The proposed development is considered to have merit having regard to the context and nature of Mulgoa Road particularly in the Jamisontown locality, which is characterised by commercial/retail development that rely heavily on passing trade and associated ease of vehicular access. The provision of a service road would ensure that the subject site would be provided with vehicular access.

 

Despite the merits of the proposed development, the following matters remain unresolved: -

 

1.   The General Terms of Approval from the NSW Office of Water have not been obtained; and

 

2.   The General Terms of Approval from the RTA have not been obtained.

 

Council cannot grant consent to the application regardless of the merits of the proposal because General Terms of Approval have not been issued by the above approval bodies. It is recommended that the application be refused pursuant to Section 91(A)(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Background                                                                                          

The subject property was previously owned by Council and has had an extensive history in relation to the current approvals at the site. The following outlines the current approvals on the subject site: 

 

DA970453 – Watercourse

§ DA970453 involved the filling of a disused which was lodged by Council in 1997. The application was recommended for approved by Council in 1998 and included consideration of the significance of the trees on the site.

§ As part of this application a Flora and Fauna survey was also conducted to determine the likely impacts on threatened species and their habitats. The report established that 35 of 56 trees on the site were suitable for retention and recommended that building footprints for future development be determined so that additional tree planting could be provided along the site frontage and the drainage reserve.

§ A condition of that approval required future development on the site to be carried out in accordance with a future Draft Development Control Plan to be prepared to guide site development and protect and preserve significant vegetation on the site.

§ A Section 96 application was lodged by Council to modify Condition No.14 of the Development Consent to require a restriction as to user over the land in lieu of a Development Control Plan.

§ Council consolidated the lots under DA01/1268 and placed restrictions over significant trees on the site in accordance with an 88B instrument.

 

DA01/1268 – Two (2) lot subdivision

§ At its Ordinary Meeting dated 3 March 2003, Council resolved to approve DA01/1268 for the consolidation of seven (7) lots and subdivision into two (2) lots. The subdivision created Lot 100 in DP 1058901. Lot 101 in DP 1058901 was dedicated as a drainage reserve.

§ The application considered the protection of the significant trees on the subject site and as such it was deemed appropriate to place a Section 88B restriction identifying a number of ‘no-build’ zones throughout the site.

§ A restrictive covenant, among other covenants in accordance with Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919, was imposed by Council for the subject site at its meeting of 4 September 2006. The relevant term of the restrictive covenant for Lot 100 states: 

 

“1. No building or related development shall be permitted within those parts of Lot 100 designated (R) on the abovementioned plan.”

 

§ Subsequent to the registration of the restrictive covenant, Development Consent was granted for a Motor Showroom and 11 Factory Units on the site by virtue of DA04/2605 which resulted in the removal of two existing trees of which the Section 88B Instrument which applies to the site was consequently amended.

 

DA04/2605 – Motor Showroom

§ At its meeting of 4 July 2005, Council resolved to grant consent to DA04/2605 for the erection of a motor showroom and 11 factory units.

§ Condition No.4 of DA04/2605 required a separate application be lodged for the use of the factory units. DA04/2606 was lodged for use of Unit Nos. 2 to 7 as vehicle service units. That consent was subsequently modified under Section 96 to use Unit Nos. 2 to 8 as service centre and parts store.

§ A Section 96 modification to DA04/2605 was granted consent 20 June 2006 proposing major changes to the approved development including the provision of basement parking and a sales building.

§ A further Section 96 modification application was submitted to Council on 2 November 2007 which consisted of numerous amendments to the approved concept. Council approved the application on 15 January 2008.

 

DA06/0079 – Signage

§ DA06/0079 approved advertising signage to be erected as part of the greater development of the Penrith Mazda Centre. The signage application was approved on 21 February 2006. Modification to the signage was approved in May 2008.

 

DA07/1476 – Café

§ DA07/1476 was received by Council on 15 November 2007 for a café fit out on the subject site. The application was approved on 31 December 2007.

 

 

DA07/1536 – Underground Fuel Tanks

§ DA07/1536 was received by Council on 30 November 2007 for the provision of underground fuel storage tanks. The application was approved on 15 January 2008.

 

The property owner purchased the subject property in March 2004.

 

A chronology of the subject application is outlined in Appendix No. 5.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site contains Penrith Mazda and is bounded to the east with Regentville Road, Mulgoa Road to the west and Surveyors Creek to the south (See Locality Plan Appendix No. 1). The site also contains a stand of trees within the front setback to Mulgoa Road.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by light industrial development to the immediate east of the site. Existing residential development is located approximately 500 metres to the south of the site. An existing bulky good retail development exists to the west of the site on Mulgoa Road.

 

Proposed Development

The subject Development Application involves the following aspects (See Proposed Access Site Plan Appendix No. 2):

 

Component

Description

Estimated Cost

$250,000

 

Consent Authority

Penrith City Council

 

Type of Development

Integrated Development

 

Service Road

§ Construction of a Service Access Road directly from Mulgoa Road with an overall length of approximately 150 metres commencing from the Mobil Service Station at the corner of Batt Street to the southern property boundary of the subject site.

§ A 5.5 metre wide service road to permit passenger vehicles only.

§ A raised 1.2 metre wide separation between the travel lanes of Mulgoa Road and the proposed service road.

§ Relocation of existing pedestrian footpath for safe travel around the proposed service road and Mulgoa Road.

 

Access Driveway

§ A six (6) metre wide, one-way access driveway from the service road into the existing Penrith Mazda dealership. The access driveway would connect with the existing parking area within the subject site. All vehicles from the site would exit via Regentville Road with current vehicular access to the site from the rear being maintained.

 

Modification to the terms of the Restriction as to User (R)

§ A total of six (6) existing trees would be removed as part of the proposal, however, these trees would be replaced with the same species of 45 litre size.

§ Due to the proposed removal of these trees and the current restriction as to user applicable to the site, a modification to the terms of the Section 88B is required. The terms of the restrictive covenant for Lot 100 state: -

 

“1. No building or related development shall be permitted within those parts of Lot 100 designated (R) on the abovementioned plan.”

 

Penrith City Council is nominated as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify, the terms of the restriction.

 

Planning Assessment

The following planning instruments are considered in the assessment of the proposed development:

 

§ State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007;

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

§ Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Industrial Land);

§ Interim Development Order No. 28 - City of Penrith;

§ Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008; and

§ Penrith Development Control Plan 2006.

 

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

1.   Integrated Development – Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

The subject application is identified as ‘Integrated Development’ pursuant to Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(a) Water Management Act 2000

The proposal involves works located within 40 metres of Surveyors Creek which is identified as a watercourse. The proposal is therefore defined as a ‘controlled activity’ pursuant to Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000.

 

The application was referred to the NSW Office of Water in which comment received requested further consideration of an alternative arrangement which would minimise the impact to existing vegetation.

 

The applicant subsequently prepared a revised Landscape Plan to which was referred to the NSW Office of Water. Further comment was made by the NSW Office of Water who raised no objection to the proposal subject to the design of the access driveway ensuring its connection to a flood free section of the site and that it does not impinge on the existing riparian zone.

The NSW Office of Water has not provided their General Terms of Approval for the proposed development.

 

(b) Roads Act 1993

The proposal was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for concurrence under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 having regard to the proposed works to Mulgoa Road.

 

The RTA had advised that they would consider vehicular access to the subject site via a service road arrangement from Mulgoa Road as their preference, subject to design. The subject application has been amended to reflect a service road arrangement.

 

The RTA and Council Officers have had lengthy discussions regarding the long term planning of Mulgoa Road in respect to future road widening. Consequently, the proposal was amended to incorporate a service road directly from Mulgoa Road with an associated access driveway to Penrith Mazda.

 

Written correspondence from the RTA dated 7 October 2009 concluded that the proposed development was not ‘Integrated Development’ as “Council is both the consent authority for the development and road authority for Mulgoa Road.”

 

Having regard to the ambiguity of the initial advice issued from the RTA, Council Officers sent written correspondence to the RTA to clarify their position for Integrated Development in respect of the proposed development. It is noted that no response had been received at the time of writing this report.

 

Council’s Legal Officer has provided advice regarding the statutory responsibilities of the RTA. Mulgoa Road is gazetted as a ‘main road’ and is therefore defined as a ‘classified road’ under the Roads Act 1993. Section 138(2) of the Roads Act 1993 is outlined in part as follows: -

 

“138   Works and structures

………..

 (2)  A consent may not be given with respect to a classified road except with the concurrence of the RTA.”

 

Pursuant to Section 138(2) of the Roads Act 1993, the RTA is considered to be the road authority for Mulgoa Road and accordingly, the General Terms of Approval of the RTA are required.

 

Section 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is outlined in part as follows: -

 

“91A   Development that is integrated development

(1)  This section applies to the determination of a development application for development that is integrated development.

……………

(4)  If the approval body informs the consent authority that it will not grant an approval that is required in order for the development to be lawfully carried out, the consent authority must refuse consent to the application.”

 

It is considered that sufficient time has elapsed for the assessment of the proposed development and therefore the assessment of the subject application has continued with the information already received.

 

Having regard to Section 91(A)(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council is unable to support the proposed development as the General Terms of Approval have not been issued by the RTA and the NSW Office of Water.

 

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

(a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP 2007) provides direction for proposed development and in particular, consideration of traffic generation.

Clause 101 – Development with frontage to classified road of the ISEPP 2007 is applicable to the proposal given the direct address to Mulgoa Road, which is identified as a classified road. The clause is outlined as follows: -

 

“101   Development with frontage to classified road

(1)  The objectives of this clause are:

(a)  to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and

(b)  to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads.

(2)  The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a)  where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b)  the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

(i)  the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii)  the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii)  the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

(c)  the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.”

 

In order to provide a context of the subject site and surrounds, the following points are made in relation to existing development of similar scale and type along Mulgoa Road:

 

§ The subject site accommodates the Penrith Mazda motor dealership and associated service centre. While vehicular access is permitted to the site at the rear via Regentville Road, the applicant has advised that the site is experiencing difficulty in attracting passing trade due to the complex nature of the current vehicular access arrangements via Batt Street and Regentville Road.

 

§ Existing motor showrooms including Sinclair Ford (Nos.78-82 Mulgoa Road), Penrith Ssangyong (No.84 Mulgoa Road) and the Penrith Discount Tyres (No.86 Mulgoa Road) each have direct vehicular access to their site from Mulgoa Road. Each of these dealerships benefit from substantial setbacks from Mulgoa Road with de-facto parking areas for customers within these areas.

 

§ The former Westbus depot (Nos.72-76 Mulgoa Road) had maintained direct vehicular access to Mulgoa Road. Special access lanes had been linemarked on Mulgoa Road to cater for buses to directly enter and exit to Mulgoa Road.

 

§ The existing Mobil Service Station to the north of the subject site (No.92 Mulgoa Road) has direct vehicular access from Mulgoa Road.

 

In respect to Clause 101 of the ISEPP 2007, the following points are in consideration to the proposed development:

 

§ The existing motor showroom would not generate a substantial amount of traffic generation and would not impinge on the traffic capacity of Mulgoa Road having regard to the nature of the existing motor showroom, which experiences a consistent level of traffic generation that is negligible to the existing street network.

 

§ The subject site and adjoining properties to the north of the site (Lot 83 DP 1119 & Lot 2 DP 778772) do not have any certainty in relation to long term vehicular access other than a potential right of carriageway to Batt Street only (See Appendix No. 3).  The proposed service road addresses the ambiguity to these properties with each site being afforded individual access points to Mulgoa Road which would otherwise be reliant only with a right of carriageway to Batt Street.

 

§ The amount of traffic that is likely to drawn into the sites from a shared accessway is unlikely to have undesirable impacts on Mulgoa Road. For these reasons it is considered that an alternative access arrangement for the land between Batt Street and the Mazda site is worthy of consideration.

 

§ The service road would be designed to cater for passenger vehicles only and provide a function for vehicular access only. The proposed service road would incorporate a deceleration lane which would enable safe egress from Mulgoa Road and therefore ensure the safety, efficiency and operation is maintained. ‘No Stopping’ signage would be place along the length of the proposed service road to ensure that any conflicts are eliminated.

 

It is for these reasons that the proposed development is considered to be consistent with Clause 101 of ISEPP 2007.

 

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

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River applies to the subject land and stipulates that the consent authority shall not grant consent to an application unless it is of the opinion that the carrying out of the development is consistent with any relevant, general and specific aim of SREP 20.  The general aims and objectives of the plan are directed towards improving the amenity of the river and protecting the lands within the river valley, including scenic quality.  

The proposal would have minimal impacts and is considered to not compromise the water or scenic qualities of the river environment given the proposed erosion and sediment control measures and appropriate drainage measures which would be incorporated into the proposal by virtue of the requirements outlined by the RTA and Council as stipulated in the conditions of consent.

 

(c) Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Industrial Land)

The subject site is part zoned 4(b) Special Industry under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Industrial Land) (PLEP 1996).

 

In consideration of the proposed development, the objectives of the 4(b) zone and Clause 20 - Development along particular roads has been made in conjunction.

The objectives of the 4(b) zone are outlined as follows: 

 

“ (i)        to encourage a diversity of industrial and other employment generating         activities; and

 (ii)         to promote development which observes responsible, and environmentally sound, management practices; and

(iii)         to promote development which makes efficient use of industrial land; and

(iv)         to permit development which serves the daily convenience needs of persons working within industrial areas; and

(v)          to permit development for the purposes of recreational facilities, child care centres or community facilities to serve the needs of the workforce of the industrial areas and adjacent residential communities; and

(vi)         to promote development of land with frontage to the M4 Motorway and Mulgoa Road which, by its architectural and landscape design, will enhance their gateway entry roles to the City of Penrith; and

(vii)        to prohibit the development of land for any purpose if the development will:

(A) have direct vehicular access between that land and the Great Western Highway or Mulgoa Road, and

(B) significantly affect the function, efficiency and safety of the Great Western Highway or Mulgoa Road.

    (viii)        to prohibit certain industries which are likely to have an adverse effect on     the use and enjoyment of adjoining localities, and

      (ix)       to permit the retailing of bulky goods from shops having a gross floor “area of not more than 1,000m2.”

 

Clause 20 - Development along particular roads is prescribed in part as follows: 


20 Development along particular roads

 

(2) The council must not grant consent to development of land that has direct access onto Mulgoa Road unless adequate provision has been made for vehicular access to that land in accordance with the plan identifying such access depicted in any development control plan applying to that land.

 

(3) ………. the council may consent to a development involving alterations or additions to any existing development with direct vehicular access to Castlereagh Road, the Great Western Highway, Mulgoa Road or Parker Street, if the development after such alterations or additions will not significantly increase the number of vehicles using that access.

 

Clause 20(2) of PLEP 1996 makes reference to Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (PDCP 2006). Figure 8 of the PDCP 2006 depicts proposed vehicular access to the subject site being permitted by virtue of right of carriageway through properties adjoining the northern property boundary (Lot 83 DP 1119 & Lot 2 DP 778772) to Batt Street (See Appendix No. 3).

 

This access arrangement does not currently exist and in this respect, it is considered the proposed development provides an opportunity for Council to consider a definitive solution for vehicular access to the northern properties together with the subject site.

 

The following comments are made in respect to the objectives of the zone and Clause 20 of the PLEP 1996:

 

§ The adjoining lots to the north of the subject site are currently vacant and under the same ownership. In the event that these properties are separately disposed of and the specified right of carriageway is not created, Lot 83 would be effectively landlocked, rendering that site incapable of vehicular access being achieved in accordance with Figure 8 of the adopted PDCP 2006. In this possible scenario, there is a demonstrated need to consider a definitive access solution to provide certainty to all lots from Batt Street to Surveyors Creek.

 

§ A comparable vehicular access arrangement which affords direct vehicular access exists at the Grey Gums Hotel which is situated opposite the signalised intersection of Glenbrook Street and Mulgoa Road. The consideration of existing motor dealerships and the former Westbus depot north of Batt Street should be considered in respect to the proposed development. These sites along Mulgoa Road are identified for future road widening or a service lane arrangement in the future. On this basis, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause a precedent for this section of Mulgoa Road.

 

§ The land between Batt Street and Surveyors Creek has development potential where generally the types of land uses considered desirable for these locations are those that benefit from the visibility of the site from Mulgoa Road and those with suitable access arrangements. The adjoining properties that front Mulgoa Road in this location have no certainty of access to their properties because there is no formal right of carriageway connecting the existing allotments.

 

§ Penrith Mazda has demonstrated that it generates a consistent level of traffic generation that is negligible to the existing street network. The amount of traffic that is likely to be drawn into the sites from a shared accessway is unlikely to have undesirable impacts on Mulgoa Road

 

§ Penrith Mazda as well as future land uses on the adjoining lots are encouraged to realise their full potential with land uses that present positively to Mulgoa Road and make efficient use of the land. For these reasons it is considered that an alternative access arrangement for the land between Batt Street and the Mazda site is worthy of support.

 

The RTA has requested that Council and the applicant consider the long term implications of the proposed service road in respect to the scenario of road widening and re-alignment or revocation of the service road. The applicant has advised that they would construct the service road on the premise of the potential re-alignment or revocation and are willing to consider those options when the matter arises in the future.

 

Having regard to the above points, it is considered that the proposed service road would provide the subject site and adjoining lots with an opportunity to realise their full potential and in turn ensure the efficient use of industrial land. Moreover, in the context of the subject site and surrounds, the proposed service road would be in keeping with the direct vehicular access arrangements already in place along Mulgoa Road and would therefore ensure that the proposal in isolation would not create a precedent or give rise to any undesirable impacts to Mulgoa Road in respect to traffic or parking generation.

 

(d) Interim Development Order No. 28 - City of Penrith

The subject site is part zoned 5(b) Special Uses 'B' (Roads) under Interim Development Order No.28. The proposal permitted in the current zone.

 

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

 

Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008

The draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 (draft PLEP 2008) has now been gazetted is known as the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

Section 1.8A of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 outlines the following: -

 

“1.8A   Savings provision relating to development applications

If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.”

 

With respect to Section 1.8A, the subject application was lodged prior to the gazettal of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and therefore, consideration of draft PLEP 2008 is made for the purposes of this assessment.

 

(i) Permissibility

The subject site is zoned IN2 Light Industrial proposed developed is permitted with consent.

 

(ii)   Objectives of the IN2 zone

The objectives of the IN2 Zone are outlined as follows: 

 

§ To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses;

§ To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres;

§ To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses;

§ To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area;

§ To promote development that makes efficient use of industrial land;

§ To limit the impact of industrial development on adjacent residential areas, in terms of its built form, scale, acoustic and visual privacy and air quality.

 

The objectives of 4(b) zone as prescribed in PLEP 1996 are similar to those prescribed for the IN2 Light Industrial zone outlines in the draft PLEP 2008. The consideration of context of the surrounding area and the efficient use of land has been made and it is therefore considered that the objectives of the IN2 zone would be met by the proposed development.

 

(iv) Development Provisions

The following miscellaneous and local provisions apply to the subject site and are considered as follows:

 

Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

Clause 5.9 applies to the proposed development having regard to the stand of trees which exists at the subject site. The clause is outlined in part as follows:

 

“ (1) The objective of this clause is to preserve the amenity of the area through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

(2) This clause applies to species or kinds of trees or other vegetation that are prescribed for the purposes of this clause by a development control plan made by the Council.

Note. A development control plan may prescribe the trees or other vegetation to which this clause applies by reference to species, size, location or other manner.

(3) A person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by:

(a) development consent, or

(b) a permit granted by the Council.

 

The design and siting of the proposed service road may result in part removal of trees which are administered in the Section 88B instrument which applies to the site. It is considered that the removed of these trees would not cause a significant visual impact given the substantial setback from Mulgoa Road. Moreover, a number of replacement trees would be planted within these areas to maintain the scenic and landscape amenity which characterises the subject site.

 

The proposal would involve the removal of new trees which have recently been planted along the front setback to Mulgoa Road. It is considered that the removal of these trees is acceptable and would provide the subject site with clarity which together with the modern appearance of the motor showroom would further enhance the visual interest of the built environment to Mulgoa Road.

 

Clause 6.5 Protection of scenic character and landscape values

The subject site has been identified with scenic character and landscape values. Clause 6.5 is outlined as follows:

 

“ (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to identify areas that have particular scenic value either from major roads or other public places,

(b) to ensure development in these areas is located and designed to minimise its visual impact.

(2) This clause applies to land shown hatched on the Scenic and Landscape Values Map.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for any development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that measures will be taken, including in relation to the location and design of the proposed development, to minimise the visual impact of the development from major roads and other public places.”

 

The proposed service road is unlikely to cause an adverse impact to the scenic character and landscape value of the subject site. The proposed would involve the removal of some trees which have been recently planted, however the proposal would also involve the planting of replacement trees which would assist in the maintenance of the landscape quality of the site.

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

Section 4.1 – Industrial Land

Part 6 Accessing and Servicing the Site (Including Parking) applies to the proposed development and is outlined in part as follows: 

 

“6.1 Objectives

§ To ensure the safe and efficient movement into and out of the development without adversely affecting the existing and future service and safety levels of the road.

§ To ensure each development provides sufficient parking on-site to accommodate all parking demands generated by the development while ensuring safe and efficient movement of vehicles within the site.

§ To encourage the development of a parking layout which enhances the function and appearance of the development.

§ To ensure that cyclist and pedestrian needs are adequately and safely accommodated in all industrial areas.

 

6.2 Controls

2. Development of land having frontage to Mulgoa Road, between Batt Street and Surveyors Creek, shall only be permitted if access into the development site is via a Right-of-Way (9 metres wide) in accordance with the plan and details provided at Figure 8 of this section.

 

Consideration of vehicular access and the proposed service road has been made in the assessment of ISEPP 2007 and the PLEP 1996 and would be relevant with respect to Part 6 above.

 

On balance, the proposed service road has substantial merit and is worthy of support given the context of the surrounding area and the certainty gained to all properties from Surveyors Creek to Batt Street.

 

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

This section is not applicable for the subject application.

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

The establishment of the proposed service road provides an opportunity for the subject site and adjoining properties with a level of certainty for vehicular access. The proposed service road is consistent with the context of the Jamisontown locality and would not create a precedent for the area given that direct vehicular access is readily available to existing premises along Mulgoa Road.

 

The proposed service road would eliminate the noticeable disadvantage experienced by Penrith Mazda in which the current vehicular access arrangements to that site has impacted on passing trade and associated ease of vehicular access. The proposal encourages the full realisation of potential of the subject site and adjoining properties and ensures that these sites are provided with consistency for vehicular access to existing sites along Mulgoa Road.

 

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and noted the following:

 

“The proposal will produce a consistent increase in traffic flow; however no substantial traffic impacts are anticipated on the immediate road network. Peak hour trips for the development are anticipated to be in the order of 17 vehicles per hour. The proposed access lane will alleviate some of the traffic presently using the Regentville Road and Batt Street intersection.”

 

With respect to the above comments, the proposed service road would assist in easing traffic generation to the immediate street network along Batt Street and Regentville Road. The proposed service road would be designed to function for passenger vehicles only and would incorporate a deceleration lane that would enable safe egress from Mulgoa Road. ‘No Stopping’ signage would be placed along the length of the proposed service road to ensure that any conflicts are eliminated. It is therefore considered that the proposed arrangement ensures the safety, efficiency and operation of Mulgoa Road is maintained.

 

The siting of the proposed service road within the front setback would require the modification to the Section 88B Instrument which applies to the subject site. A restrictive covenant, among other covenants in accordance with Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 was imposed by Council for the subject site at its meeting of 4 September 2006. The terms of the restrictive covenant for Lot 100 state: -

 

“1. No building or related development shall be permitted within those parts of Lot 100 designated (R) on the abovementioned plan.”

 

Penrith City Council is nominated as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify, the terms of the restriction.

 

The Deposited Plan referred to in the restrictive covenant nominates a number of restricted areas throughout the site in which any buildings or related development are prohibited. The restriction was applied to the subdivision to ensure that established trees throughout the site are preserved (See Deposited Plan Appendix No. 4).

 

The proposed access driveway in association with the service access road would necessitate the removal of up to six (6) trees which have been identified within the restricted area. It is considered that the removal of these trees is acceptable given the substantial setback from Mulgoa Road and existing mature trees within the restricted area being retained which would therefore maintain the visual amenity of the site. The applicant has advised that replacement trees would be planted to ensure the maintenance of the established vegetation and associated landscape character of the subject site.

 

In respect to the variation of the terms of Restrictive Covenant, firstly referred to in the 88B Instrument attached to Lot 100 DP 1058901, the modification to this restriction would maintain the prohibition of any buildings or any such development, however the permitting of roads in the restriction would enable the construction of the service road and access driveway. The proposed modification to the terms of the Restrictive Covenant firstly referred to the 88B Instrument is proposed as follows: -

 

“1. No building or related development other than roads shall be permitted within those parts of Lot 100 designated (R) on the abovementioned plan.”

 

It is considered that the modification of the restriction and the associated removal of these trees would not give rise to any significant impacts on the achievement of the outcomes intended by the restriction.

 

The NSW Office of Water has provided recent advice which required consideration for the proposed access driveway be diverted from the existing riparian zone to ensure the retention of existing vegetation in this area. To date, Council is not in receipt of a revised design which incorporates this advice and accordingly, Council is unable to confirm the impact of existing trees if the revised design is carried out.

 

Notwithstanding, it is considered that the proposed access lane component from the service road to the existing hard stand areas of the dealership is considered worthy of support as the applicant has committed to provide replacement trees which are endemic to the surrounding area.

 

In this respect, the variation of the terms of Restrictive Covenant, firstly referred to in the 88B Instrument attached to Lot 100 DP 1058901, the modification to this restriction would maintain the prohibition of any buildings or any such development, however the permitting of roads in the restriction would enable the construction of the service road and access driveway. It is considered that the modification of the restriction and the associated removal of these trees would not give rise to any significant impacts on the achievement of the outcomes intended by the restriction.

 

A number of recent tree plantings exist along the front setback to Mulgoa Road. The Section 88B Instrument does not apply to recent tree plantings. In order to accommodate the proposal, these recent tree plantings would need to be removed. It is considered that the architectural merit and the modern appearance of the existing motor showroom would be afforded visual clarity in respect to presentation and address to Mulgoa Road and would embellish the prevailing retail/commercial streetscape.

 

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

The proposed development addresses the ambiguity of vehicular access to the subject site and adjoining land with an access arrangement that is consistent with existing properties addressing Mulgoa Road.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposal is suitable for the site.

 

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

Internal Referrals

The application was referred to the following department of Council for comment:

 

(i) Traffic Engineering

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineering reviewed the proposal and raised no objection. In particular, the following comments were made: -

 

§ In order for the proposed service lane with deceleration taper lane in Mulgoa Road to be approved, it must meet the minimum requirements of the RTA Road Design Guide Standard. In light of this diverge length (presently 30m) should be extended to a minimum 40m.

 

§ The new access road to Mazda linking to the service road is to be designed to accommodate one way traffic flow for movements in only. As such a more appropriate one way width of 3-4m should be applied.

 

§ The final design of the proposed service lane including access handle to Mazda and associated raised pedestrian crossing to facilitate Cyclists and Pedestrians across the access road must be referred to the RTA for concurrence.

 

§ No Stopping signage must be installed at 30m intervals on both sides of the proposed service lane at no cost to the RTA or Council.

 

(ii) Development Engineering

Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator reviewed the proposal and raised no objection subject to a number of conditions to be recommended for imposition relating to stormwater drainage, road design, erosion and sediment control, linemarkings and signage. It is anticipated that further conditions relating to detail design of the proposal would need to be further conditioned by the RTA.

 

(iii) Community Consultation

The subject application was placed on public exhibition from 26 August 2009 to 9 September 2009. No submissions were received in response to the proposal.

 

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

The proposed development involves the construction of a service road from Mulgoa Road which provides for certainty in respect of direct vehicular access for sites from Batt Street to Surveyors Creek. The concept design of the proposed service road would maintain the safety and efficiency of Mulgoa Road while ensuring that the land would realise its full potential which can actively attract passing trade and ease of access to these sites.

 

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations within Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as outlined in the above report. The application is considered to have substantial merit and is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact upon adjoining lands.

The proposed development addresses the current difficulties experienced by Penrith Mazda in attracting passing trade due to the complex nature of the current vehicular access arrangements via Batt Street and Regentville Road.

 

The proposed development is considered to have substantial merit for a service road arrangement having regard to the context and nature of Mulgoa Road particularly in the Jamisontown locality, which is characterised by commercial/retail development that rely heavily on passing trade and associated ease of vehicular access. The provision of a service road would ensure that the subject site would be provided with equitable vehicular access and positive development outcomes and efficiency of sites along Mulgoa Road.

 

The subject site generates a consistent level of traffic generation in which the proposed development has demonstrated that it would assist in easing traffic generation to the immediate street network along Batt Street and Regentville Road.

 

The proposed development would result in the removal of some trees at the site, however it is considered that the architectural merit and the modern appearance of the existing motor showroom would be afforded visual clarity in ensuring the enhancement of the streetscape along Mulgoa Road.

 

However, Council is not in receipt of the General Terms of Approval from the RTA and NSW Office of Water. Pursuant to Section 91(A)(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council does not have the ability to approve the development, however it can deny consent. Given that the application is Integrated Development, the only course of review for the applicant is via the Land and Environment Court since the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act does not enable the review of determination to be made for this type of development.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0782 Construction of a Service Road from Mulgoa Road and an Access Driveway to an Existing Motor Showroom Lot 100 DP 1058901 (No. 81 - 87) Regentville Road, Jamisontown be received.

2.     The Development Application DA09/0782 Construction of a Service Road from Mulgoa Road and an Access Driveway to an Existing Motor Showroom Lot 100 DP 1058901 (No. 81 - 87) Regentville Road, Jamisontown be refused as follows: 

(a)   The application is inconsistent with Section 91(A)(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the General Terms of Approval have not been issued from the Roads and Traffic Authority pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for works to Mulgoa Road

(b)   The application is inconsistent with Section 91(A)(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the General Terms of Approval have not been issued from the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water – NSW Office of Water for a Controlled Activity Approval pursuant to Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Proposed New Access

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

DCP Access Arrangements

1 Page

Appendix

4. View

Deposited Plan

1 Page

Appendix

5. View

Chronology of the subject application

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - Proposed New Access

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 3 - DCP Access Arrangements

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 4 - Deposited Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 5 - Chronology of the subject application

 

 

 

Chronology of the Application

 

§ 13 August 2009 – Lodgement of the subject application.

 

§ 17 August 2009 – Written correspondence referred to the RTA and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water – NSW Office of Water seeking concurrence to the proposed development.

 

§ 26 August 2009 to 9 September 2009 – Notification period for the proposed development.

 

§ 4 September 2009 – Response from the Office of Water requesting additional information relating to alternative locations which reduce the impact on existing vegetation.

 

§ 8 September 2009 – Written correspondence referred to the applicant addressing Office of Water comments and Council’s Development Engineering Department comments.

 

§ 29 September 2009 – Written correspondence referred to the applicant requesting additional information which confirms the permissibility of the proposed development in respect of the applicable planning instruments and the existing Section 88B Instrument which applies to the site.

 

§ 7 October 2009 – Written correspondence received from the RTA who advised that they would not grant their concurrence to the proposed development on the basis of the applicable planning instruments which apply to the site as well as traffic issues to Mulgoa Road.

 

§ 13 October 2009 – Written correspondence referred to the applicant which advised the position of the RTA in which Council Officers recommended the application be withdrawn.

 

§ 25 November 2009 – Meeting held with Councillor Jim Aitken, the applicant, Council and RTA Officers at the RTA Parramatta Office to discuss the RTA’s position.

 

§ 23 December 2009 – Written correspondence referred to the RTA to re-consider their position having regard to potential amendments to be made to Figure 8 of Section 4.1 – Industrial Land of the Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 in respect of vehicular access arrangements applicable to the subject site.

 

§ 17 February 2010 – Written correspondence received from the RTA responding to Council’s request to reconsider their position of the proposed development. The RTA advised that their position remained unchanged however would consider a service road arrangement that would allow access for Penrith Mazda as well as adjoining properties. Moreover, the RTA advised that the service road would need to consider future road widening of Mulgoa Road.

 

§ 17 February 2010 – Written correspondence referred to the applicant to consider the RTA’s position for a service road arrangement.

 

§ 17 March 2010 – On-site meeting held with applicant and Council Officers to discuss the progress of the application and the outstanding issues relating to the proposal.

 

§ 10 June 2010 – Meeting held with the applicant and Council Officers to discuss the RTA’s position for a service road arrangement and the various issues associated with its overall design.

 

§ 23 June 2010 – Applicant submitted a revised design proposing a service road for vehicular access to Penrith Mazda and adjoining properties.

 

§ 25 June 2010 – Council and RTA Officers met to discuss the final design for the proposal in respect of a temporary or long term solution incorporating the future road widening of Mulgoa Road.

 

§ 23 August 2010 – Councillor Jim Aitken, the applicant and Council Officers met to discuss the final design for the proposal.

 

§ 26 August 2010 – Written correspondence referred to the applicant requesting the submission of additional information which addresses the issues raised by the NSW Office of Water in its initial correspondence dated 8 September 2009.

 

§ 22 September 2010 – Additional information submitted by the applicant in relation to matters raised by the NSW Office of Water.

 

§ 28 September 2010 – Council Officers met with Officers from the NSW Office of Water to discuss the additional information. Subsequently, the NSW Office of Water provided written advise that they raise no in-principle objection to the proposal, subject to a revised design that would not impinge upon the existing riparian zone at the subject site. Their General Terms of Approval were not provided.

 

§ 5 October 2010 – Council Officers met with Councillor Jim Aitken and the applicant to discuss the progress of the subject application.

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

14

Development Application DA10/0602 - 21 Bren Close, St Clair, SEPP 1 Request for Variation to Landscape Area  Applicant:  Savio & Fiona Ferreira;  Owner:  Savio & Fiona Ferreira    

 

Compiled by:                Christopher Hawkins, Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

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 is in receipt of a development application for construction of a dwelling addition. The application seeks to vary the 50% landscape requirement of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands to 41.7%. The application is supported by an objection under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1.

 

The proposed development is comprised of an additional family room and bathroom to the existing dwelling and the removal of some outbuildings. The existing dwelling is a single storey, 3 bedroom brick veneer dwelling with an attached carport.

 

In accordance with the reporting procedures required by the Department of Planning, the matter is forwarded to Council for determination. The report recommends that the SEPP1 objections be supported and the development application be approved.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

 

Construction of a tiled roof, brick veneer addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. The addition has an area of 28.9m with a side setback of 1.5m and a rear setback of 11m. The addition consists of a family room and bathroom. The proposal also includes the removal of an outbuilding to increase the landscaped area. See Appendix No. 1 Locality Plan and Appendix No. 2 – Site Plan.

 

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

·    Statement of Environmental Effects

·    Site and Building Plans

·    Engineers details

·    BASIX certificate

·    Waste Management Plan

 

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

The SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the provisions of Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Lands, and in particular the provisions of Clause 12(3). The relevant clause states:

 

The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building in Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e) unless the building is wholly within the building envelope, and does not contravene the maximum external wall height or minimum landscaped area.

 

An objection to a development standard within LEP 1998 (Urban Lands) has been lodged to vary the minimum landscape area.

 

 

Minimum required under LEP

Proposed

Landscape Area

50%

41.7%

 

SEPP 1 seeks to provide flexibility in the application of planning controls where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives stated in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These objectives relate to the proper management of resources to promote the welfare of the community and environment, and to promote the orderly and economic use of development of the land.

 

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval for the construction of a dwelling addition which proposes a landscaped area 41.7% (265m2). The minimum landscape area required is 50% (317.5m2). This variation proposes a departure of 16.60% (52.5m2) from the development standard.

 

Assessment of SEPP 1 Objections

1) Development Standard

The SEPP 1 objection is required to demonstrate that compliance with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instrument and zone can still be achieved regardless of the variation to the development standard.

 

The objectives for Zone 2(b) Residential (Low Density) are as follows: 

 

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

 

“(ii)   to promote the established urban and landscape character of traditional residential  subdivisions by limiting the range of permissible uses.”

 

“(iii) to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.”

 

The proposed addition is positioned so as to minimise the amount of vegetation required to be removed and to allow for sufficient landscape works to be completed within the rear yard. No trees are required to be removed as part of the work. The site is not identified as being in a Heritage Conservation Area. The natural landscape setting will be kept as the proposal maintains a green corridor within the rear setback.

 

The existing allotment is deeper than the adjoining properties with a smaller average width than other properties in the street. The existing dwelling is setback further than the adjoining properties and is a permissible land use. The proposed development does not include further non-residential uses.

 

The objectives for Section 12 of LEP 1998 Urban Lands which relate to the specific development standard for the landscape area are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The dwelling addition is compatible with the existing house and the overall character of the locality. The proposal is considered to be site responsive and provide minimal impact to the streetscape as the addition is located in the rear yard. The overall height of the dwelling will not increased with the finished dwelling being of a similar size to other developments in the immediate vicinity.    

 

The dwelling allows for adequate side setbacks from the site boundaries and appropriate separation between the neighbouring dwellings. The rear yard will maintain a private open space corridor of greater than 10m to the rear boundary.  As the development maintains a similar rear setback to adjoining dwellings, the environmental characteristics of Bren Close will be maintained.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is considered suitable on the premise that the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the following basis:

 

·    The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act;

·    The proposed dwelling is reasonable development for the site;

·    The extent of the landscaping and proposed rear setback is consistent with the surrounding area;

·    A rear landscape corridor is maintained and minimal loss of privacy is likely to occur.

 

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 that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the potential impact on residential development and water quality. The proposed development will have minimal impacts on the total catchment management, water quality and water quantity. No heritage items are located on the site. The dwelling addition will not be visible from the riverine corridor. Stormwater will be controlled and directed to the existing stormwater system. The proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the SREP.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

Under the terms of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Land the land is zoned as Zone No 2(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 as described in the above SEPP 1 assessment.

 

Development Standards

Section 12 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands) provides requirements for building envelopes, heights of buildings, landscape areas and rear boundary setbacks for development that requires consent.

 

Building Envelope and Maximum External Wall Heights

Under Clause 12(3) of the LEP, a building is required to be constructed within the building envelope and maximum external wall heights being 6.5m.

 

The proposed dwelling complies with the maximum external wall heights.

 

Landscaped Area

The minimum landscape area non-compliance has been addressed above in the assessment of the SEPP 1 objection.

 

Rear Boundary Setback

Under Clause 12(3) of the LEP the building is to be setback 4 meters from the rear boundary. The proposed addition will comply.

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

Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 – “Residential Single Dwellings” is applicable to the current development application and the following sections are relevant to the assessment process. (Refer to Appendix No. 3)

 

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

The development generally complies with the objectives of the planning controls and the impacts of the development are expected to be minimal.

 

Stormwater is to be directed to the existing stormwater system minimising impacts on adjoining properties.

 

Appropriate conditions are to be included relating to site management during construction. An appropriate waste management plan has been provided. Hours of work and construction noise will also be subject to consent conditions.

 

The proposed dwelling is located and designed to make the most economic use of the site and provides minimal adverse impacts to the subject site and adjoining properties.

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

The site is suitable for the construction of a new residential addition. The proposal is considered to address and satisfy the objectives of the relevant planning documents.

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

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan for the City of Penrith 2006 – Notification and Advertising, the proposed development was notified to nearby and adjoining residents. No submissions were received.

Conclusion

Under the objectives of the Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands, development is required to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings, protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value, and allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

 

The subject development application seeks approval to construct a new residential dwelling addition and is supported by SEPP 1 objection which seeks a variation of the minimum landscape area.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is supported as it has been demonstrated that the minimum landscape area requirements are unreasonable in this case and that the attainment of the objectives of Clause 5(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will not be hindered by the proposal.

 

The development is considered satisfactory under the heads of consideration of Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

The minimum landscape area variation and the proposed dwelling addition are unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality.

 

Whilst the proposed development application requires variations to minimum landscape areas it is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning instruments as outlined above.

 

As such, it is recommended the SEPP 1 objections be supported and the development application be approved subject to conditions.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0602 - 21 Bren Close, St Clair, SEPP 1 Request for Variation to Landscape Area be received.

2.     The SEPP 1 objections relating to landscape area be supported.

3.     DA10/0602 for construction of dwelling additions at 21 Bren Close, St Clair be approved subject to the attached conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1       A001 – Approved Plans

A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A019 -  Occupation Certificate 

A046 – Issue a Construction Certificate

D001 – Sediment and Erosion Control

D007 – Filling of Land requiring Validation Certificate

D009 -  Covering Waste Storage Area

D010 – Waste Disposal Area

E001 – BCA Compliance

H001 – Stamped and Erection of Site Notice

H009 – Cut and Fill details

H041 – Hours of Work

K016 – Stormwater

L008 -  Tree Preservation

L012 – Existing landscaping to be retained

P002 - Fees

Q01F – Notice of Commencement and PCA

Q05F – Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

3.2      In accordance with the requirements of clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, you are required to install a hard wired smoke detector in the existing dwelling. This detector is to comply with the requirements of AS3786 and must be located in accordance with.7.2 of the Housing Provisions. A certificate from a Licensed Electrician attesting to the installation of the smoke detector is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

3.3      The external finishes of the dwelling addition are to compliment and blend with the established streetscape and amenity of the area

3.4      The existing garden sheds are to be moved from within the easement for drainage

3.5      No earth works including cut and fill or building works including a retaining wall, garden shed or other structure of the like are permitted within the easement. The easement is to remain at natural ground level at all times.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Development Control Plan Assessment Table

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Locailty Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 3 - Development Control Plan Assessment Table

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

15

Development Application DA10/0790 for the Stage 1E Residential Subdivision in the Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area at Lot 2 DP 1132380, (No. 1070 - 1274) The Northern Road, Llandilo  Applicant:  Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner:  St Marys Land Ltd    

DA10/0790

Compiled by:                Robert Craig, Senior 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 from Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd for the Stage 1E residential subdivision in the Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area at Lot 2 DP 1132380, 1070-1274 The Northern Road, Llandilo. Maryland Development Company is a joint venture company comprising St Marys Land Ltd (the landowner and joint developer) and Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd (joint developer).

 

The land subject to the proposed works is zoned Urban under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys. The proposed subdivision and related works are a permissible form of development with the consent of Council. The proposed development was advertised in the local newspapers and notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties. Council notified 183 property owners and occupiers in the surrounding area and received 97 public submissions in relation to the proposal.

 

An assessment of the proposed development under Section 5A, Section 79C and Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken and the proposal has been found to be satisfactory. The following key issues have emerged as a result of this assessment process:

 

·    Flora and fauna impacts

·    Traffic and amenity impacts

 

These matters are discussed in detail in this report.

 

The proposed development is unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. The site is suitable for the proposed development and the proposal is in the public interest. The proposed development represents a significant contribution towards the establishment of a new greenfield master planned estate in the City of Penrith. The proposed development will not only provide major social and economic benefits to the wider community but also to the future residents of the estate. The proposal is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

 

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

Background

The St Marys Release Area forms part of the former St Marys ADI (Australian Defence Industries) site, with the balance of the site contained in the Blacktown LGA. The site was previously used as a munitions factory by the Commonwealth Government. The majority of the site munitions manufacturing operations ceased by 1994.

 

The St Marys ADI site was endorsed by the NSW Government for inclusion on the Urban Development Program (UDP) in 1993. On 19 January 2001, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys (SREP 30) was gazetted. SREP 30 rezoned 1,535 hectares of land on the site to permit a range of urban uses and a large area of regional parkland and regional open space. The overall site comprises six development precincts, including the Western Precinct, Central Precinct and South Dunheved Precinct in the Penrith LGA and the Eastern Precinct, Ropes Creek Precinct and North Dunheved Precinct in the Blacktown LGA.

 

On 29 September 2006, the Minister for Planning declared the Western Precinct to be a “release area” under the provisions of SREP 30. Since that time a Precinct Plan for the Western Precinct (WPP) and an accompanying Development Control Strategy (DCS) have been prepared to guide the future development of the Western Precinct. The WPP and DCS were adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 23 March 2009. The adopted WPP and DCS together act much like a Development Control Plan (DCP) in the assessment of Development Applications for the precinct.

 

The first series of Western Precinct residential subdivision proposals, being Stage 1A, Stage 1B and Stage 1C including a total of 109 residential lots, were approved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 30 November 2009. The Stage 1D residential subdivision including a further 18 residential lots was approved under delegated authority on 9 March 2010. These subdivisions are currently under construction on the site. Other development approvals issued under delegated authority for the site to date include public domain landscaping works, real estate signage, village centre works (sales and information centre and main street providing public road access through the hub of the future village centre) and use of the Stage 1D lots as an exhibition village.

Site and Surrounds

The Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area is 229 hectares in area inclusive of the Xavier College site located at the north-western corner of the precinct fronting Ninth Avenue (Llandilo). The Western Precinct is bordered by Ninth Avenue and rural-residential development in Llandilo to the north, The Northern Road and residential development in Cranebrook to the west and future regional parkland to the south and east. The Western Precinct is zoned entirely for urban purposes and is intended to accommodate primarily residential uses, with limited non-residential uses in the future village centre such as local retail and commercial uses.

 

The development site is located in the western portion of the Western Precinct, approximately 60m to the east of The Northern Road. The site is approximately 6 hectares in area and is situated immediately to the north of the Stage 1A and Stage 1C residential subdivisions. Refer to the Locality Plan at Appendix No. 1 for further details.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

 

·    A Torrens Title subdivision consisting of 98 residential lots, 5 residue lots for future development and new public roads. The subdivision is intended to be phased across three stages, including Stage 1E(a) (25 residential lots), Stage 1E(b) (43 residential lots) and Stage 1E(c) (30 residential lots).

·    Construction of internal local roads, including the roadway, pedestrian paths and street tree planting.

·    Construction of a temporary stormwater detention and sediment control basin and provision of temporary piping connecting the basin to permanent stormwater infrastructure.

·    Associated earthworks and tree removal.

 

Refer to Appendix No. 2 for copies of the development plans submitted with the application.

 

The Development Application has been accompanied by the following related reports:

 

·    Statements of Environmental Effects – JBA Urban Planning Consultants

·    Traffic Impact Assessment – Halcrow MWT

·    Interim Stormwater Management Strategy Report – J. Wyndham Prince

·    Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment– Cumberland Ecology

·    Bushfire Protection Assessment – Eco Logical Australia

·    Heritage Impact Statement – Casey & Lowe

Planning Assessment

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 5A, Section 79C and Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and based on this assessment, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

 

1.       Section 5A – Threatened Species, Populations or Ecological Communities or their Habitats

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment

Under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), an assessment must be made as to whether a development proposal is likely to have a “significant effect” on any threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats (referred to as an “Assessment of Significance” or “seven-part test”). The application has been accompanied by a Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment prepared by Cumberland Ecology in accordance with Section 5A of the Act. In summary, Cumberland Ecology concludes that the development proposal is not likely to have a “significant effect” on any ecological communities, threatened species or habitats. It should be noted that the Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment also relates to the proposed Stage 1F and Stage 1G subdivision proposals which are subject to separate Development Applications.

 

Council’s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the proposed development with regard to flora and fauna impacts and is satisfied with the methodology, findings and recommendations of the submitted Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment. Council’s Biodiversity Officer has provided conditions that should be applied to the development proposal in relation to flora and fauna matters. These matters are recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Conditions 2.2 to 2.8).

 

NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

On 18 December 2009, Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) was up-listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 from an “endangered ecological community” to a “critically endangered ecological community” (“endangered” means likely to become extinct or in immediate danger of extinction). CPW is dominated by Grey Box Eucalypts (Eucalyptus moluccana) and Forest Red Gums (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and contains a variety of other lesser known eucalypts as well as shrubs, grasses and herbs. CPW is the main native vegetation community occurring within the Western Precinct. The heightened conservation status of CPW was assessed and considered as part of the methodology, findings and recommendations of the submitted Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment.

 

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 focuses on the protection of matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). Development proposals that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of NES (“controlled actions”) must be assessed and approved under the EPBC Act by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. On 9 December 2009, CPW was up-listed under the EPBC Act from an “endangered” ecological community to a “critically endangered” ecological community (i.e. an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future). As previously mentioned, CPW is the main native vegetation community occurring within the Western Precinct. The ecological community was also re-named from CPW to “Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale Gravel Transition Forest”. This change reflects its key location, substrate and vegetation structure and more clearly reflects its relationship with two threatened ecological communities listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (i.e. CPW and Shale Gravel Transition Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion).

 

Assessment of development proposals relating to the St Marys site is not required under the EPBC Act. Assessment and approval under Commonwealth environmental law was granted to the entire St Marys development under the former Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, prior to the gazettal of the EPBC Act. This position was confirmed in writing by the former Commonwealth Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts in a letter dated 31 March 2010 to the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance (WSCA).

 

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

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys (SREP 30) is the main statutory planning framework document for the entirety of the St Marys Release Area. It includes land use zones, zone objectives and special provisions to control development and provides the process for land release and the approval of precinct plans. The overarching aim of SREP 30 is to provide a framework for the sustainable development and management of the entire St Marys site.

 

SREP 30 is accompanied by the St Marys Environmental Planning Strategy 2000 (EPS) which identifies the aims for the future use and management of the St Marys site and sets out specific performance objectives and strategies to address key planning issues, including conservation, cultural heritage, water and soils, transport, urban form, energy and waste, human services, employment and remnant contamination risk. The St Marys EPS identifies actions to be undertaken by local and State governments, as well as the obligations of developers. The Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy (DCS) for the Western Precinct address the requirements of the St Marys EPS and incorporate development objectives and typical planning and design principles and guidelines for the Western Precinct, as discussed later in this report.

 

The land subject to the proposed works is zoned Urban under SREP 30. The proposed subdivision and related works are a permissible form of development with the consent of Council under Clause 40(2) and Clause 45 of SREP 30. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the REP. The particular objectives of the Urban zone are addressed as follows:

 

(a)  to ensure that buildings and works within the zone are primarily used for residential purposes and associated facilities, and

 

The proposed development involves residential subdivision works and related works for associated facilities.

 

(b)  to limit the range and scale of non-residential uses to ensure that they are compatible with residential amenity and primarily serve local residents, and

 

This objective will be addressed through other future stages of development in the estate in accordance with the Council endorsed Precinct Plan.

 

(c)  to provide for local retailing and related services, including supermarkets, which will complement established centres in the Blacktown City and Penrith City local government areas and not have a significant adverse effect on the viability of established retail centres, and

 

This objective will be addressed through other future stages of development in the estate in accordance with the Council endorsed Precinct Plan.

 

(d)  to provide for medium density residential development in locations which provide optimum access to employment, public transport and services, while ensuring residential amenity, and

This objective will be addressed through other future stages of development in the estate in accordance with the Council endorsed Precinct Plan.

 

(e)  to promote home based industries where such activities are unlikely to adversely affect the living environment of neighbours, and

 

This objective will be addressed through other future stages of development in the estate in accordance with the Council endorsed Precinct Plan.

 

 (f)  to ensure that development adjacent to the Regional Park zone does not have a negative impact on biodiversity or conservation within that zone.

 

The proposed development will not have a negative impact on biodiversity or conservation in the future regional parkland.

 

As outlined above, the proposed development satisfies each of the relevant objectives of the Urban zone.

 

There are several special provisions contained in SREP 30 which seek to control development on the St Marys site. These provisions are considered below.

 

·    Clause 20 – Development Consent Restrictions

 

The consent authority must be satisfied that proposed developments are consistent with the applicable zone objectives and performance objectives (relating to conservation, cultural heritage, water and soils, transport, urban form, energy and waste, human services, employment and remnant contamination risk). The consent authority must also consider the development control strategies contained in the EPS, the applicable Precinct Plan and any relevant Development Agreements. The development proposal suitably satisfies each of these matters.

 

·    Clause 44 – Consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service

 

Consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), which incorporates the National Parks and Wildlife Service, is required regarding development proposals adjoining the future regional parkland. The Development Application was not referred to DECCW as there are no works proposed adjacent to the future regional parkland.

 

·    Clause 51 – Salinity and Highly Erodible Soils

 

The Soil and Water Management Plan forming part of the Western Precinct Plan includes recommended strategies to be implemented to address potential soil salinity issues should they occur. Specific measures to prevent the proposed development resulting in increased soil salinity are to be implemented on the site and are detailed on the submitted engineering plans. These measures are consistent with the Precinct Plan recommendations and aim to reduce rainwater infiltration in locations at which recharging of the water table is likely to result in saline minerals rising up through the soil (e.g. minimising excavation works involving cut and use of salt-resistant stormwater pipe materials to prevent leakage into the groundwater system).

 

·    Clause 52 – Tree Preservation

 

This clause requires approval for tree removal. A total of 13 existing trees will be retained on the site. A total of 37 existing trees are intended for removal. The extent of proposed tree removal is considered negligible relative to the extensive tracts of high quality bushland that will be conserved within the future regional parkland. Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposed tree retention and tree removal details and is satisfied with this aspect of the development proposal. Council’s Landscape Architect has requested that an arborist’s report relating to the trees proposed for retention be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The arborist’s report is to include consideration of the proposed extent of cut and fill works to confirm whether the trees can be retained on the site. The report is also to specify tree protection measures to ensure that the trees proposed for retention have the best possible chance of surviving the proposed works. This matter is recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.9).

 

·    Clause 60 – Services

 

Suitable arrangements must be made for the adequate supply of utilities. Consultation with utility service providers was undertaken in the preparation of the Western Precinct Plan and by the applicant in relation to the development proposal. Adequate provision has been made for the supply of water, sewerage, electricity and gas to the estate.

 

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

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

 

The development proposal is in accordance with the general planning considerations set out in Clause 5 of SREP 20 and the relevant specific planning policies and related recommended strategies set out in Clause 6. In particular, provision will be made for adequate erosion and sediment control measures to ensure sediment as a result of the development is not deposited in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River via the stormwater system.

 

Stormwater run-off from the development proposal will ultimately be directed to Council’s stormwater drainage system. On-site detention and erosion and sediment control for Stage 1E will initially be managed via a temporary stormwater detention and sediment control basin. The temporary basin will be maintained by the applicant until implementation of the permanent lake system. The lake system will provide water quantity and quality control for the Western Precinct and will be subject to consideration as part of separate Development Applications.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the development proposal with regard to stormwater drainage and is satisfied with the stormwater quality and quantity aspects of the proposal. Council’s Development Engineer has provided conditions that should be applied to the development proposal in relation to all aspects of the proposed civil engineering works, including stormwater quality and quantity matters. These matters are recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Conditions 2.10 to 2.44).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

 

The St Marys site has been subject to extensive contamination investigations and where necessary remediation works throughout the 1990s. The objectives of the investigation and remediation program were to assess the nature and degree of chemical contamination and/or identify any potentially explosive ordnance to allow the remediation of the site to a level where it was suitable for redevelopment for a variety of uses. The former Environment Protection Authority (EPA), now the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), has been involved throughout this process and an EPA accredited Site Auditor has issued Site Audit Statements for the St Marys site under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. The majority of the site has now been validated for residential and other sensitive land uses through these Site Audit Statements.

 

For the purposes of the remediation and validation, the St Marys site was divided into nine sectors. The Western Precinct includes the following sectors and associated Site Audit Statements (SASs):

 

·    Part Western Sector – SAS CHK001/1.

·    Part Southern West Sector – SAS CHK001/1, SAS CHK001/6 and SAS CHK001/7.

 

The information presented in the remediation and validation reports for these sectors has been used to develop a Contamination Management Plan (CMP) for the Western Precinct. The majority of the Precinct has been assessed by the Site Auditor to pose a negligible risk to the public or the environment with regard to chemical contamination or explosive ordnance. Areas under retained roads and building footprints which have not yet been addressed by the SASs will require future investigation and assessment. There no areas within this category contained within the Stage 1E site.

 

The CMP aims to ensure the appropriate management of any sub-surface contamination that may be encountered during works in the Western Precinct. The CMP was adopted by Council as part of the Western Precinct Plan. The CMP outlines the measures to be undertaken should contamination and/or explosive ordnance material be uncovered during the proposed works. The development proposals will be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the CMP and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Western Precinct. It is recommended that this matter be reaffirmed through a suitable condition (see Special Condition 2.45).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 102 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 includes provisions to ensure that noise sensitive development proposed in or adjacent to certain road corridors is not adversely affected by road noise or vibration. These road corridors include freeways, tollways, transitways or any other roads with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 40,000 vehicles (based on the traffic volume data published on the RTA website) and that the consent authority considers is likely to be affected by road noise or vibration. Before determining noise sensitive development that is likely to be affected by road noise or vibration, consent authorities must take into account the Department of Planning’s guidelines for “Development near rail corridors and busy roads: Interim guideline”.

 

Based on the current traffic volume maps available on the RTA website, The Northern Road in this location has an annual average daily traffic volume of less than 20,000 vehicles. Therefore, assessment of the proposal under the provisions of Clause 102 and the Department’s noise and vibration guidelines is not technically warranted at this stage. However, in recognition of the future road upgrades planned for The Northern Road, the previous Stage 1A, 1B and 1C Development Applications were accompanied by a Traffic Noise Assessment prepared by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM). This assessment report provided an assessment of noise levels from traffic on The Northern Road and resultant impacts to future dwellings in the estate and to sensitive noise receivers, including dwellings, to the west of The Northern Road. The assessment considered existing noise levels and potential future noise levels based on projected increases in traffic volumes to 2021.

 

In order to satisfy the relevant noise control guidelines, the Traffic Noise Assessment recommended the implementation of various technical measures in the construction of future dwellings with frontage to The Northern Road and the provision of acoustic barrier walls to the side boundaries of selected allotments with frontage to The Northern Road. These measures are not applicable to the Stage 1E subdivision as there are no allotments which will abut The Northern Road.

 

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

Western Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy

The Western Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy (DCS), being much like a Development Control Plan (DCP) that is to be used by Council in its assessment of Development Applications, provide the parameters to ensure that future development within the Western Precinct achieves the performance objectives of SREP 30 as well as those contained in the St Marys EPS. The proposed development is in accordance with the relevant development objectives and typical planning and design principles and guidelines for the Western Precinct. The key planning and design principles relevant to the development proposals are considered below.

 

Section 4.3 Future Character Areas

 

The development proposal extends across two different character areas: the Urban Area/Neighbourhood Character Area and the Village Centre Character Area. The vision for each of these character areas is summarised below.

 

·    Urban Area/Neighbourhood Character Area – The Urban Area will have the characteristics of a well designed residential neighbourhood based on the traditional neighbourhood structure of a public space or neighbourhood park at its heart. The quality of the public realm with tree lined streets and a diverse range of housing types will also help define the characteristics of the Urban Area. This character will respond to the natural attributes of the site and in particular, through the layout of streets and parks, will have a strong connection to the future regional parkland. The street structure will be a modified grid form with a clear hierarchy expressed through street and verge widths, landscaping and the level of pedestrian amenity. Indigenous and cultural tree planting will be a key characteristic in streets and parks while links (physical and visual) to riparian corridors and the future regional parkland will ensure the landscape characteristics of the site are drawn into the neighbourhoods.

 

·    Village Centre Character Area – The Village Centre Character Area forms the heart of the Western Precinct and will provide a vibrant mixed-use village centre within easy access of the surrounding residential neighbourhoods. The focus of the village centre will be a main street containing a mix of retail, commercial, community and education facilities serving the local population. The ground floor may accommodate shops, offices, markets, restaurants, cafes and community uses to create a lively pedestrian oriented urban environment, with upper level residential and office uses housed in two to four storey (up to six storeys for apartments) buildings oriented to the street. Education, community and employment uses will also be a key element in the fabric of the village centre. Residential opportunities within the village centre will be varied with apartments, attached houses, warehouse housing, shop-top housing and some semi-detached and detached housing proposed to serve a broad spectrum of the community. The design of the village centre will encourage a high degree of social interaction and activity in the public domain.

 

Based on the various components of the developments proposal as discussed in this report, the development proposal is in accordance with the preceding character area visions. While the proposed mix of lot types does not include provision for apartments, attached houses, warehouse housing, shop-top housing and semi-detached housing as envisaged for the Village Centre Character Area, the proposed detached housing lots vary in size and lot width in a sufficient manner to facilitate the desired mix of housing types and density. The applicant has identified possible locations in the other parts of the Village Centre Character Area where there will be ample opportunities to deliver this housing stock which could range in height from two to four storeys (up to six storeys for apartments).

 

Section 4.4 Subdivision Layout Principles

 

The development proposal is in accordance with the desired subdivision layout principles, including provision of a permeable modified grid street system and a subdivision layout which provides for housing diversity and mix.

 

Section 4.5 Dwelling Density

 

The overall net neighbourhood density target for the St Marys site is 15 dwellings per hectare. The development proposal is in accordance with this density target with a dwelling density of 16.78 dwellings per hectare.

 

Section 5.2 Street Types

 

The proposed road types and cross-sections are in accordance with the minimum provisions of the Development Control Strategy. Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied with this aspect of the development proposal.

 

Section 5.5 Concept Plans

 

The subdivision proposal is substantially in accordance with the Western Precinct Concept Plan which was reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 30 November 2009 as part of the Stage 1A, 1B and 1C residential subdivision proposals. The concept plan is intended for information purposes only to provide the broader context for each Development Application. The concept plan is a “working plan” which is subject to change as the detailed design process for the estate evolves. Refer to Appendix No. 3 for a copy of the Western Precinct Concept Plan.

 

Section 5B Built Form and Housing

 

Each of the allotments in the proposed subdivision is in accordance with the minimum criteria for subdivision under the Development Control Strategy. The following table is provided as a summary of the proposed subdivision.

 

Sub-Stage

Detached Housing Lots 270m2 to 500m2

Detached Housing Lots 501m2 to 999m2

Total

Stage 1E(a)

19

6

25

Stage 1E(b)

34

9

43

Stage 1E(c)

24

6

30

Total

77

21

98

 

The proposed residential allotments range in size from 299m2 to 626m2. The proposed lot depths are typically 30m and the proposed lot widths range in size from 10m to 24m. Future dwellings on narrower allotments will be constructed with a zero side setback on one side boundary.

 

The developer is committed to providing a quality residential environment that will set new standards for community living. A Design Coordinator has been established to assist purchasers and builders in the process of designing their home and obtaining approvals. The vision for the estate is for the housing to reflect modern Australian style. Houses that are of a modern Australian style utilise a mix of building materials and use articulation to break down overall bulk and scale. Examples of articulation include verandahs, porticos, balconies, bay windows, recesses for stairs and roof details such as gable ends. Modern Australian houses also use simplified decorative elements.

 

The above principles are conveyed to purchasers and builders through the estate Building and Siting Guidelines (BSGs). These guidelines are tied to contracts for sale and provide guidance regarding site planning and design, building materials and colours, fencing and landscaping. All dwelling designs must be endorsed by the Design Coordinator prior to lodgement of applications for dwelling construction. This process is intended to ensure that quality housing forms will be achieved throughout the estate.

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

The development proposal is in accordance with the relevant provisions of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006. Not all provisions of this DCP are applicable to the Western Precinct based on overriding provisions contained in the Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy. The relevant provisions have previously been considered in this report in discussions relating to the applicable environmental planning instruments.

 

4.   Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – The Provisions of any Planning Agreement

St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement

The St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement was executed on 19 December 2006 by the co‑signatories Penrith City Council, St Marys Land Limited and Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd. At this time, the Planning Agreement only related to development within the South Dunheved Precinct and required the provision of local transport works, local open space works and water quality basins. A Deed of Variation to the Planning Agreement was subsequently executed on 12 May 2009 to include provisions relating to the development of the Western and Central Precincts, including provision of local open space works, human services works, a central park and related facilities (as part of the regional open space land) and passive recreation elements in the regional park.

 

The Planning Agreement is the principal means for identifying infrastructure requirements, facilities and services which will be delivered for the incoming community. The Planning Agreement identifies proposed work schedules, delivery timing and contributions for the Western and Central Precincts. The works and contributions relevant to the Western Precinct include:

 

·    Delivery of a district park (5.5 hectares), neighbourhood park (2.5 hectares), local park (1 hectare), four pocket parks (3.1 hectares), four open space corridors (3.53 hectares) and a pedestrian and cycle path network.

·    Delivery of a multi-purpose community resource centre, temporary neighbourhood centre, library contribution, community initiatives fund, funding for a community development worker and a community bus.

·    Undertaking of works and payment of a contribution to a combined value of $11,705,850 for the establishment of district open space in accordance with Council’s adopted City-wide District Open Space Development Contributions Plan. This plan identifies the opportunity for the establishment of a multi‑sports facility located adjacent to the Central Precinct for which the applicant will contribute works to the value of $6,834,000 for the establishment of this facility. This will be required within 12 months from the issue of development approval for the 500th residential lot in the Central Precinct. The balance of the funds, which will be in the form of a monetary contribution, can potentially be available for the establishment of district open space facilities elsewhere in the City. The initial component of this contribution ($1,400,000) will be required following development approval of the 1,000th lot in the Central and Western Precincts combined.

·    Payment of a contribution of $486,400 for cultural facilities development in accordance with Council’s adopted City-wide Cultural Facilities Development Contributions Plan. The initial component of this contribution (50%) is due for payment upon the issue of the Occupation Certificate for the 1,000th dwelling in the Western Precinct.

·    Payment of a contribution of $20,000 towards studies to determine characteristics and needs and preferences of the community.

 

The current application includes provision for the relevant parts of the pedestrian and cycle path network in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Agreement. The provision of public roads and stormwater management infrastructure will be conditioned as part of the development consent for the proposal. The remaining works and contributions will be provided as the Western Precinct is progressively developed.

 

The St Marys Development Agreement dated 13 December 2002 is also in place between the applicant and the State Government. This Development Agreement relates to the entire St Marys site and includes provisions for works, dedications and contributions regarding the regional park, regional open space, regional transport and road infrastructure and affordable housing.

 

It is recommended that advisory conditions be imposed reminding the applicant of the obligations under the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement and the St Marys Development Agreement (see Special Conditions 2.46 and 2.47).

 

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

There are no fire safety matters applicable to the development proposal under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

Context and Setting

The development proposal is consistent with the existing character of other development in the surrounding suburbs. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding and adjacent land uses and will have no major impact on the amenity of the area. The proposal will have no adverse impacts on the natural environment.

 

Access and Traffic

Vehicle access to the proposed subdivision will initially be through local roads constructed in Stage 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D and via the intersection of The Northern Road and the southern entry collector road currently under construction as part of Stage 1A. Following construction of the proposed Stage 1G subdivision and the northern entry collector road, additional access points to and from The Northern will be available.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Halcrow MWT. In summary, Halcrow MWT concludes that the proposed vehicle access arrangements are sufficient to ensure the relevant intersections will operate with acceptable delays to vehicles and with spare capacity. It should be noted, however, that in accordance with previous advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) it will be necessary that the ultimate (permanent) treatment of the intersection of The Northern Road and the southern entry collector road is satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. In addition, it will be necessary that the Stage 1G road connection to The Northern Road (left‑in/left-out only) be satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. These matters are recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Conditions 2.48 and 2.49).

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed development with regard to access and traffic considerations and has provided the following comments:

 

The design of the subdivision and road layout appears consistent with the Western Precinct Framework Plan within the Western Precinct Plan and other previous detailed planning as indicated in the report prepared by Halcrow MWT.

 

The road system is designed to discourage high vehicle speeds. Traffic calming thresholds at the intersection of Road No. 8 with Road No. 12 and 13 shall be provided in the form of four-way median islands.

 

The intersection analysis undertaken found that the future operation of the interim intersection of The Northern Road with the Southern Entry Boulevard and Road 10 will be satisfactory with acceptable delays and spare capacity through each stage of development.

 

The proposal does produce an increase in local traffic flow, however, no adverse traffic generation impacts are expected from this Stage 1E development.

 

In summary, Council’s Traffic Engineer is satisfied with the proposed access and traffic related aspects of the proposal.

 

The proposed development was considered by the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) on 6 September 2010. The LTC raised no objections to the proposed development.

 

Public Domain

The proposed street tree planting is comprised of five tree species including snow-in-summer, weeping lily pily, brush box, tuckeroo and red ironbark. Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposed street tree planting and is satisfied with this aspect of the development proposal.

 

Decorative open-style fencing with associated landscaping will be required to the rear of Lots 1162 to 1171 and Lots 1207 to 1212 and to the secondary frontage of Lot 1171 as these allotments will abut the future northern entry collector road. The rear and side fencing to these allotments will also need to ensure an appropriate level of privacy is afforded to future residents of these allotments. Future dwellings on these allotments will also be required to appropriately address the future northern entry collector road to ensure adequate natural surveillance and a suitable aesthetic appearance when viewed from this public area. These matters are recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Conditions 2.50 and 2.51).

 

A detailed landscape plan for the road verges at the four-way intersection of Road No. 8, 12 and 13 will be required to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. In addition, a detailed landscape plan for the proposed public pathway adjacent to Lots 1170 and 1171 will be required to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. This landscape plan will need to include details of suitable landscaping, paving, lighting and fencing adjacent to Lots 1170 and 1171. It will be necessary for the fencing to be decorative, low-rise and open-style. These matters are recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Conditions 2.52 and 2.53).

 

Aboriginal Archaeology

The management of Aboriginal archaeology on the site is to be undertaken in accordance with approvals that have been issued by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) under Section 87 and Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Salvage excavation work is ongoing on the site in accordance with these existing consents, with much of the salvage work having been completed. The potential for future development of the site to result in impacts to Aboriginal archaeological artefacts has been thoroughly addressed and as such no further impacts will result from the proposal.

 

European Heritage

The proposed subdivision encroaches on the curtilage of heritage item “Site 14” (Dumbles new house and outbuildings). The only visible intact evidence associated with this heritage item is a Canary Island palm tree. The site remediation works undertaken in 1994 are thought to have disturbed the limited archaeological remains associated with the heritage item which stood from the 1930s to 1980s.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Casey & Lowe. In summary, Casey & Lowe conclude that the heritage item does not have local or state significance and that there are no remaining relics requiring statutory protection. The Heritage Branch of the Department of Planning has confirmed this position in writing. On this basis, there is no need for an excavation permit to be obtained in relation to this heritage item under Section 139(4) of the Heritage Act 1977.

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser has reviewed the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment and is satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the assessment. Council’s Heritage Adviser has requested that prior to the commencement of works on the site, the remaining Canary Island palm tree associated with heritage item be preserved and translocated to another location in the Western Precinct. Details of the proposed translocation and an Interpretation Strategy relating to the heritage item and remnant palm tree will be required to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. This matter is recommended to be suitably conditioned (see Special Condition 2.54).

 

Bushfire Risk

The land in the Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area is bushfire prone. The application has been accompanied by a Bushfire Protection Assessment prepared by Eco Logical Australia. The Bushfire Protection Assessment provides a review of the subdivision proposal in relation to the measures contained in the Bushfire Protection Assessment adopted by Council as part of the Western Precinct Plan.

 

The proposed bushfire protection measures for the Stage 1E subdivision are as follows:

 

·    There is no requirement for permanent Asset Protection Zones (APZs) to be incorporated into the layout of the proposed subdivision.

·    The proposed road design complies with the acceptable solutions of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (2006).

·    Temporary staging APZs are to be provided to the external boundaries of Stage 1E for a distance of at least 100m where the boundary is not adjoining developed land.

·    The temporary APZs are to be established and maintained in accordance with the fuel management specifications of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (2006).

·    Public roads, reticulated water, fire hydrants, electricity and gas services are to comply with the relevant provisions of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (2006).

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) has assessed the development proposal and has issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority for the proposal pursuant to the Rural Fires Act 1997, subject to General Terms of Approval (GTAs).

 

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposed development represents a significant contribution towards the establishment of a new greenfield master planned estate in the City of Penrith. The proposed development will not only provide major social and economic benefits to the wider community but also to the future residents of the estate.

 

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

The site attributes are conducive to the development proposal. The proposal has been designed in a manner consistent with the character of the locality.

 

8.         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 proposed development was advertised in the local newspapers and notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

The exhibition period for the proposal was from 18 August to 1 September 2010. Council notified 183 property owners and occupiers in the surrounding area and received 97 public submissions in relation to the proposal. The submissions consisted of 27 individual submissions and 70 pro-forma letters. Although not all submissions included personal address details, approximately one quarter of the submissions were from individuals residing outside of the Penrith LGA.

 

The issues raised in the submissions primarily related to potential flora and fauna impacts, although concerns were also raised regarding potential traffic and amenity impacts on the surrounding area. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and considered below. In relation to the flora and fauna matters, the applicant’s ecological consultant (Cumberland Ecology) has provided responses to the matters raised. Where relevant, these responses are reproduced below.

 

Flora and Fauna Impacts

 

(a)  Separate assessment and approval for the development proposal is required by the Federal Environment Minister under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

 

Response from Cumberland Ecology:

 

The ADI site has been validly assessed and approved under the EPIP legislation (Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974), which was the predecessor to the current Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Such approvals mean that there is no requirement for EPBC Act approval and as such the entire development can legally proceed in spite of the need to clear Cumberland Plain Woodland.

Assessment and approval under Commonwealth environmental law was granted to the entire St Marys development under the former Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (EPIP Act) prior to the gazettal of the EPBC Act. Correspondence from the former Environment Australia (now DEWHA) was provided to the applicant in July 2002 advising that despite the repeal of the EPIP Act and gazettal of the EPBC Act, no further Commonwealth approval would be required for the St Marys property. This certification was provided under the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999.

 

Assessment of development proposals relating to the St Marys site is not required under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Assessment and approval under Commonwealth environmental law was granted to the entire St Marys development under the former Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, prior to the gazettal of the EPBC Act. This position was confirmed in writing by the former Commonwealth Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts in a letter dated 31 March 2010 to the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance (WSCA).

 

(b)  The submitted Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment has various technical errors.

 

Council’s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the proposed development with regard to flora and fauna impacts and is satisfied with the methodology, findings and recommendations of the submitted Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment. Refer to Appendix No. 4 for a detailed response from Cumberland Ecology to each of the concerns raised regarding purported technical errors in the Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment.

 

(c)  The applicant should submit a Species Impact Statement as the proposed development is likely to have a “significant effect” on Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) and the Cumberland Land Snail.

 

Response from Cumberland Ecology:

 

The former Australia Defence Industries (ADI) St Marys site development project has obtained valid approvals for the current zoning that permits development in some of the western precinct (DUAP, 2001a, DUAP, 2001b). As part of the original approval, the impact of development upon Cumberland Plain Woodland and grasslands derived from the clearance of such woodland, was adequately considered.

 

Under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), an assessment must be made as to whether a development proposal is likely to have a “significant effect” on any threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats (referred to as an “Assessment of Significance” or “seven-part test”). The application has been accompanied by a Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment prepared by Cumberland Ecology in accordance with Section 5A of the Act. In summary, Cumberland Ecology concludes that the development proposal is not likely to have a “significant effect” on any ecological communities, threatened species or habitats, including Cumberland Plain Woodland and the Cumberland Land Snail. Further assessment is only required via a Species Impact Statement when a significant effect is likely.

 

As part of the Stage 1A, 1B and 1C subdivision proposals, an independent flora and fauna consultant was engaged by Council to undertake a peer review of the Flora and Fauna Impact Assessments prepared by Cumberland Ecology. The independent consultant, UBM Ecological Consultants, concluded that there would be nothing gained through the preparation of a Species Impact Statement in relation to Cumberland Plain Woodland at the Development Application stage given that all stakeholders have agreed that a regional park will be established and that this parkland will conserve representative samples of the identified ecological communities, threatened species and habitats. In addition, UBM concurred with Cumberland Ecology’s findings that the removal of small fragmented areas of potential habitat for the Cumberland Snail is “not significant”. These conclusions can therefore be extrapolated to apply to the subject development proposal.

 

(d)  The conservation outcomes achieved through the establishment of the regional parkland are irrelevant to the outcomes of the assessments of significance (seven-part tests) for the proposal. Any offsets must not involve land currently planned for conservation or resulting from planning requirements in addition to offsetting. The offsetting must result in a net improvement in biodiversity.

 

(e)  The proposed offsetting strategy does not satisfy the “Principles for the use of biodiversity in NSW” (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water).

 

(f)  The applicant has not provided any documentary evidence verifying that the regional parkland has been set aside to offset the loss of vegetation from the land zoned Urban and Employment under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys. The St Marys Development Agreement (2002) makes no reference to the regional parkland being an offset measure. The regional parkland only remains in the private ownership of the developer as a transitional arrangement.

 

(g)  The applicant has not documented the land offset to date and the related offset ratios for the development of the overall St Marys site.

 

(h)  The regional parkland is zoned for public open space purposes and is not available for development and therefore cannot be used to offset the clearing of CPW within the Western Precinct.

 

(i)   The regional parkland cannot be used as an offset as the developer had no role in conserving the land. The land was conserved by the former Federal Environment Minister under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 to protect the parts of the overall St Marys site listed on the Register of the National Estate.

 

(j)  A biodiversity offset should be provided via the developable areas of the overall site or through land owned elsewhere in the region by the developer or others (i.e. offsetting to private land). The level of offset should be proportionate in area and like for like in species composition.

 

(k)  A minimum offset of 100 hectares of CPW within the Western Precinct should be protected to form part of the proposed 30km Cumberland Conservation Corridor.

 

(l)   The impact of the proposed development on the proposed Cumberland Conservation Corridor must be considered in terms of edge effects from urban pollution, pest invasion and urban run‑off.

 

Response from Cumberland Ecology:

 

Sustainable areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland have been set aside for conservation in the Regional Park. The conservation outcome has been developed and approved by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and DEWHA. The approvals and rezoning facilitated the creation of the Regional Park as compensation for the loss of Cumberland Plain Woodland communities and associated species habitats. This was done so prior to the release of the recent DECCW (DECC (NSW), 2008) principles for the use of biodiversity offsets. Although the terms and formal agreements relating to “offsets” is a recent development, compensatory measures, namely the creation of the Regional Park, were developed with similar principles to those used in current assessments where offsets are provided. The Regional Park is effectively an offset to the approved development areas. There is no requirement to provide additional offsets under modern mechanisms, as the previous St Marys project approvals have been validly granted under the EP&A Act and EPIP Act.

 

The principles discussed above by Cumberland Ecology have been enshrined in Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys and in the Western Precinct Plan. In particular, the Precinct Plan establishes the future regional parkland as the foremost conservation measure to compensate for development in the Western Precinct (and the other development precincts).

 

In summary, the proposed development is considered satisfactory with regard to flora and fauna impacts for the following reasons:

 

·    The significant level of background investigations leading up to the release of the Western Precinct for urban development.

·    The estate is zoned for urban purposes and has effectively been ratified by three levels of government.

·    The Western Precinct is an extensively altered landscape comprising mainly mixed exotic and native grasses.

·    The examples of Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) communities that occur in the Western Precinct are highly degraded and consist of sparse native tree regrowth with largely disturbed under storeys.

·    The largest and highest quality vegetation communities (including CPW) and habitats are found outside the Western Precinct in the 900 hectare future regional parkland (the land area of the Western Precinct is 229 hectares). The regional parkland represents approximately 58% of the total land area of the overall St Marys site.

·    A total of 13 existing trees will be retained on the site. A total of 37 existing trees are intended for removal. The extent of proposed tree removal is considered negligible relative to the extensive tracts of high quality bushland that will be conserved within the future regional parkland.

·    Assessment of the development proposal under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 has been undertaken and the proposal is not likely to have a “significant effect” on any ecological communities, threatened species or habitats.

 

 

Traffic and Amenity Impacts

 

(m) The proposed development will dominate the landscape and destroy the open space views and amenity currently enjoyed by the residents of Cranebrook.

 

Although existing open space will be developed, the proposed development will form part of a new greenfield master planned estate showcasing best practice urban design set against a significant bushland corridor in the form of the future regional parkland.

 

(n)  The proposed development will increase traffic flows along The Northern Road and result in increased traffic congestion and loss of amenity in the locality.

 

Sufficient provision has been made to manage the likely additional traffic flows resulting from the subdivision proposal. Completion in the near future of the planned upgrade works to The Northern Road in this location by the Roads and Traffic Authority will assist in lessening the existing traffic flow problems along The Northern Road.

 

Internal Referral Comments

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

 

Referrals

Comments

Biodiversity Officer

No objection, subject to conditions (refer to Section 1 of report).

Development Engineer

No objection, subject to conditions (refer to Sections 2, 3 and 6 of report).

Heritage Adviser

No objection, subject to conditions (refer to Section 6 of report).

Landscape Architect

No objection, subject to conditions (refer to Sections 2 and 6 of report).

Traffic Engineer

No objection, subject to conditions (refer to Section 6 of report).

 

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

The site is suitable for the proposed development. Residential subdivisions are permissible in the Urban zone and the proposal meets the aims and objectives of the relevant environmental planning instruments. The proposed development is likely to improve the overall appearance of the site.

 

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

 

 

10.     Section 91 – Integrated Development

The development proposal is classified as “Integrated Development” pursuant to Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, since concurrent approval for the development proposal is required from the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) in relation to development of land identified as bush fire prone, pursuant to the Rural Fires Act 1997. The RFS has assessed the development proposal and has issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority for the proposal pursuant to the Rural Fires Act 1997, subject to General Terms of Approval (GTAs).

 

Conclusion

The proposed development is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the environmental planning instruments, Precinct Plan, Development Control Strategy and DCP pertaining to the land. Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed development is unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. The concerns raised by the submitters are acknowledged, however, on balance, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory and the grounds of objection are not considered sufficient to justify refusal of the Development Application. The proposed development represents a significant contribution towards the establishment of a new greenfield master planned estate in the City of Penrith. The proposed development will not only provide major social and economic benefits to the wider community but also to the future residents of the estate.

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 5A, Section 79C and Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory. The site is suitable for the proposed development and the proposal is in the public interest. The proposal is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0790 for the Stage 1E Residential Subdivision in the Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area at Lot 2 DP 1132380, (No. 1070 - 1274) The Northern Road, Llandilo be received.

2.     Development Application DA10/0790 for the Stage 1E Residential Subdivision in the Western Precinct of the St Marys Release Area at Lot 2 DP 1132380, (No. 1070 - 1274) The Northern Road, Llandilo be approved subject to the following conditions:

          Standard Conditions

2.1     A001          Approved plans

          A015          Site to be registered allotment

          A042          Asset protection zones in bush fire areas

          A044          Compliance with NSW Rural Fire Service GTAs

A046                    Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of                            works

B004                    Dust

B005                    Mud/soil

C003                    Uncovering relics

D002          Spray grass

D06A          Validation of fill material

D009                    Covering of waste storage area

D010                    Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D014                    Plant and equipment noise

H01F                    Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002                    Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of                            construction works

H041                    Hours of construction work

L005                     Planting of plant material

L006                     Australian Standard landscaping requirements

L007                     Tree protection measures

L008                     Tree preservation order

L009                     Tree preservation order (subdivision)

P002                     Fees associated with Council land

Q008                    Subdivision Certificate

Special Conditions

2.2     The development shall be undertaken in a manner which incorporates the recommendations outlined in the Interim Stormwater Management Strategy prepared by J. Wyndham Prince (Document No. 8999Rpt1B) dated 29 July 2010.

2.3     The development shall be undertaken in a manner which incorporates the salinity and groundwater control measures outlined in the Interim Stormwater Management Strategy prepared by J. Wyndham Prince (Document No. 8999Rpt1B) dated 29 July 2010.

2.4     The development shall be undertaken in a manner which incorporates the recommendations outlined in the St Marys Western Precinct Weed Management Plan prepared by Cumberland Ecology (Report No. 7070RP2) dated 16 July 2008.

2.5     The development shall be undertaken in a manner which incorporates the recommendations outlined in the St Marys Western Precinct Feral and Domestic Animal Management Strategy prepared by Cumberland Ecology (Report No. 7070RP3) dated 16 July 2008.

2.6     Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a minimum of three (3) trees shall be planted in suitable areas on the site for every healthy native tree removed as a result of the development. These trees shall be indigenous to the local area and consistent with the native vegetation located on the site. Details of the proposed plantings and their maintenance shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

                   The replacement trees shall be maintained until they become                                  established and self-supporting, for a minimum period of two (2) years.                 If any planted tree dies within this period, it shall be replaced with a tree                   of the same species and to the greatest extent practicable, the same                      maturity as the tree that died.

2.7     No fill, machinery or materials shall be placed or stored within the drip line of any tree to be retained on the site.

2.8     No other vegetation (including understory species) shall be cleared as part of this development other than specified on the approved plans.

2.9     An arborist’s report relating to the trees proposed for retention shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The arborist’s report shall include consideration of the proposed extent of cut and fill works to confirm whether the trees can be retained on the site. The report shall also specify tree protection measures to ensure that the trees proposed for retention have the best possible chance of surviving the proposed works.

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   All road works, drainage works and dedications required to effect the consented development shall be undertaken at no cost to Penrith City Council.

2.12   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.

2.13   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)  Opening the road reserve for the provision of utility service lead-in works.

                                The application is required to clearly document the proposed works and                         highlight any potential adverse impacts to Council’s infrastructure or                             streetscape.

                                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).

2.14   A Construction Certificate shall be issued by a Certifying Authority to include the following civil works.

(a)  On-site detention system

(b)  Roads

(c)  Thresholds

(d)  Intersection treatments

(e)  Stormwater drainage

(f)   Stormwater pre-treatment system

(g)  Overland flow paths

(h)  Inter-allotment drainage

(i)   Earthworks

(j)   Cycleways

(k)  Path paving

(l)   Retaining walls

(m) Paving works

(n)  Acoustic barriers

(o)  Line marking and signage

(p)  Laybacks

                                Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying                                              Authority shall ensure that:

·    Civil design drawings have been prepared strictly in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works and applicable Australian Standards.

·    Thresholds have a minimum specification of an 80mm type A paver on 30mm of sand, based on a 150mm thick, F82 reinforced concrete base with a 150mm wide concrete surround and designed for a 40 year design life, based on the prescribed traffic loading for the road.

·    Four-way median islands have been provided at the intersection of Road No. 8 with Road No. 12 and 13. All turn path movements at the intersection shall be designed to accommodate a 12.5m heavy rigid vehicle as defined by AS 2890.2-2002. The median islands shall incorporate pedestrian refuge facilities.

·    Laybacks are provided to align with the submitted building envelope plan (Drawing No. WP-V1e-BEP, Issue B, dated 03/08/10).

·    Salinity measures are incorporated into the Construction Certificate drawings in accordance with the requirements of the Interim Stormwater Management Strategy prepared by J. Wyndham Prince (Document No. 8999Rpt1B) dated 29 July 2010, as located in Appendix L of the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by JBA Urban Planning Consultants dated August 2010.

·    Shared paths are 2.5m wide, 125mm thick with F72 mesh and approved construction jointing. Shared path line marking and signage shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Austroads Guidelines.

2.15   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the proposed  roads have been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works and the following criteria:

Road No.

Chainage (m)

Road Reserve Width (m)

Carriageway Width (m)

Verge (m)

Footpath (1.5m wide)

ESA

8

023.599 – 292.088

15.6

8.0

2 x 3.8

Both sides

2 x 105

12

000.000 – 47.852

12.8

8.0

3.8 (north side)

1.0 (south side)

North side

2 x 105

13

000.000 – 90.000

15.6

8.0

2 x 3.8

Both sides

5 x 104

13

392.580 – 484.562

15.6

8.0

2 x 3.8

Both sides

5 x 104

15

000.000 – 166.679

15.6

8.0

2 x 3.8

Both sides

5 x 104

16

000.000 – 143.227

15.6

8.0

2 x 3.8

Both sides

5 x 104

17

000.000 – 104.151

15.6

8.0

2 x 3.8

Both sides

5 x 104

17

119.980 – 187.109

11.0

6.0

2 x 2.5

-

-

18

112.307 – 144.023

11.0

6.0

2 x 2.5

-

-

22

000.000 – 198.260

15.6

8.0

2 x 3.8

Both sides

5 x 104

2.16   A temporary on-site detention and erosion and sediment control basin shall be provided generally on accordance with the concept plans lodged for development approval prepared by J. Wyndham Prince (Drawing Nos 8953/DA01 – DA12, Issue B and Issue C, dated 29/07/10 and 30/08/10).

                   Engineering plans and supporting calculations for the on-site detention                   system are to be prepared by a qualified Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer              and shall accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

                   An operation and maintenance manual shall be approved by the                                      Certifying Authority as part of the Construction Certificate                                     documentation.

                   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority                  shall ensure that the on-site detention system has been designed in                       accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction                        Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

2.17   A Stage 3 Road Safety Audit (RSA) shall be undertaken on the proposed road works by an accredited auditor who is independent of the design consultant. A copy of the RSA shall accompany the design plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

                   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying                                 Authority shall ensure that the recommendations of the RSA have been              addressed in any plans approved with the Construction Certificate.

2.18   Inter-allotment drainage shall be provided for all lots that are unable to be drained by gravity to the street system. Inter-allotment drainage shall be constructed with a maximum pit spacing of 50m. Cleaning eyes with inspection covers at finished surface levels shall be provided for all lots serviced by inter-allotment drainage.

2.19   Prior to the commencement of works on the 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.

2.20   Work on the subdivision shall not commence until:

·    A Construction Certificate (if required) has been issued,

·    A Principal Certifying Authority has been appointed for the project, and

·    Any other matters prescribed in the development consent for the subdivision and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation have been complied with.

A Notice of Commencement is to be submitted to Penrith City Council two (2) days prior to commencement of engineering works or clearing associated with the subdivision.

2.21   Erosion and sediment control measures shall remain in place and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been rehabilitated and stabilised.

2.22   All existing (aerial) and proposed services for the development are to be located or relocated underground in accordance with relevant authorities regulations and standards.

2.23   Street lighting shall be provided for all new and existing streets of the proposed subdivision. Street lighting shall be designed and installed in accordance with Penrith City Council and the electrical authority standards.

2.24   All filling and earthworks shall be undertaken in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works and AS 3798. The level of testing shall be determined by the Principal Certifying Authority in consultation with the Geotechnical Testing Authority.

2.25   Soil testing shall be carried out to enable each lot to be classified according to AS 2870 “Residential Slabs and Footings”.

2.26   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision 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;

·   Notification of Arrangement from Integral Energy;

·   Provisioning Certificate from the telecommunications service provider; and

·   Provisioning Certificate confirming the availability of broadband or fibre optic internet access.

2.27   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works relating to the utility service lead‑in works within public road reserve have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

2.28   After completion of all civil works, works-as-executed drawings and compliance documentation shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

                   As part of the works-as-executed drawings, details of all fill placed on                  the site shall be indicated on a contour fill plan. These details must                            show, by various shadings or cross-hatchings, the depth of any fill                       within 0.3m depth ranges.

                   An original set of works-as-executed drawings and copies of                                 compliance documentation shall also be submitted to Penrith City                          Council with notification of the issue of the Subdivision Certificate                           where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.

2.29   After completion of all of the engineering works and prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, CCTV footage (DVD format) and an inspection report (SEWRAT format - prepared by a NATA accredited service provider) of all drainage pits and pipelines shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. A copy of the CCTV footage and inspection report shall also be submitted to Penrith City Council, if Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority. The CCTV footage shall ascertain the condition of the pits and pipelines at the end of the construction period. Any damaged or defective materials shall be repaired or replaced in accordance with any Penrith City Council directive.

                   (NOTE: The CCTV footage may be rejected if it is found not to be of                            an acceptable quality and standard).

2.30   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision 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.

2.31   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the on-site detention,  stormwater treatment and overland flow path systems:

·   Have been constructed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works and Construction Certificate conditions of development consent.

·   Will operate satisfactorily with regard to any variations or that suitable remedial works have been undertaken.

·   Will operate in accordance with the design intent and Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

          Details of the approved and constructed system/s shall be provided as part of the works-as-executed drawings.

2.32   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a restriction as to user and positive covenant relating to the on-site detention, stormwater treatment and overland flow path systems shall be registered on the title of the property. The restriction as to user and positive covenant shall be in Penrith City Council’s standard wording as detailed in Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

2.33   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate and installation of regulatory/advisory line marking and signage, plans shall be lodged with Penrith City Council and approved by the Local Traffic Committee. The plans shall include signage and line marking for shared paths and bus stops. All signage and line marking shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Austroads Guidelines.

                   NOTES:

(a)  Contact Penrith City Council’s Development Engineering Unit on (02) 4732 7777 for further information on this process.

(b)  Allow eight (8) weeks for approval by the Local Traffic Committee.

2.34   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, street signs shall be erected at road intersections.

                                      NOTE:

                                      Proposed road names can be selected from an approved list. An                                                        application for other names, in accordance with Penrith City Council’s                                      Street Naming Policy, can also be made. The regulations imposed under                              the Roads Act require that the proposed road names are advertised on                                         two occasions; firstly as a proposal, and secondly as an official naming.                                     This process means that you must pay the required advertising fee to                                        Council before Council can commence this process. Applications                                                for road naming should be made as soon as possible to ensure that this                                  process does not delay the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

2.35   The final layer of asphalt on the roads shall not be constructed until housing within the estate has reached 80% completion. Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a bond for the final layer of outstanding asphalt works (A/C Bond) shall be lodged with Penrith City Council.

                   The value of the bond shall be determined in accordance with Penrith                              City Council’s Bond Policy. The bond will be administered in                                       accordance with this policy.

                   NOTE:

                   Contact Council’s Development Engineering Unit on (02) 4732 7777                             for further information relating to bond requirements.

2.36   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a maintenance bond shall be lodged with Penrith City Council for the subdivision works.

                   The value of the bond shall be determined in accordance with Penrith                              City Council’s Bond Policy. The bond will be administered in                                       accordance with this policy.

                   NOTE:

                   Contact Council’s Development Engineering Unit on (02) 4732 7777                             for further information relating to bond requirements.

2.37   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the original subdivision plan and ten (10) copies shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. The Subdivision plan must indicate that:

(a)  “It is intended to dedicate all new roads to the public as road”.

All necessary easements, restrictions and covenants shall be included on the subdivision plan and accompanying 88B instrument.

The following information shall be shown on one (1) copy of the plan.

·   The location of all buildings and/or other permanent improvements.

·   The location of all services.

2.38   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, an 88B instrument shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority with the subdivision plan. The 88B instrument shall incorporate, but not be limited to, the following:

(a)  Building envelopes.

(b)  Acoustic controls.

(c)  Easements for access and maintenance – allotments which are intended to adjoin a single storey zero lot line wall shall be appropriately burdened with an easement for access and maintenance 900mm wide. Any second storey dwelling component to be positioned above a single storey zero lot line wall shall be setback a minimum distance of 900mm from the property boundary. Excavation works and/or obstructions (i.e. eaves, guttering or services such as electrical meter boxes and stormwater or sewer pipes) shall not be permitted within the maintenance easements.

(d)  Stormwater management controls.

(e)  Residue allotments – no development or building shall be allowed or be permitted to remain on residue lots unless satisfactory arrangements have been made with Penrith City Council for services (water, sewer, electricity and telephone), any outstanding contributions or consolidation with adjoining lots.

(f)   Asset Protection Zones (APZs).

2.39   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a Surveyors Certificate shall be submitted certifying that all services (including stormwater) are located wholly within the proposed lots or are within existing easements or proposed easements indicated on the subdivision plan.

2.40   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a copy of the geotechnical report indicating the soil classification for all lots shall be submitted to Penrith City Council.

2.41   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, street trees shall be planted in accordance with the submitted street tree plan (Drawing No. WP-V1e-STP, Issue B, dated 02/08/10). Street trees shall be located so as not to diminish the effectiveness of street lighting.

2.42   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision 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.

                                      The Subdivision Certificate shall not be issued until all conditions of                                           consent, except those relating to ongoing operational matters, have been                                   completed.

2.43   The temporary on-site detention system and erosion and sediment control system shall be maintained by the person with the benefit of the development consent until development run-off is diverted into the ultimate water quality/detention system and the temporary system has been decommissioned. A minimum 12 month maintenance period will apply to the ultimate water quality/detention system when completed.

2.44   All bicycle path construction shall be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Authority’s NSW Bicycle Guidelines and Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14 Bicycles.

2.45   The development shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Western Precinct Contamination Management Plan and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Western Precinct.

2.46   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Planning Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended.

2.47   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Development Agreement. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Development Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Development Agreement as amended. The provision of affordable housing lots shall be made to the Centre for Affordable Housing in accordance with Clause 17 of the Development Agreement.

2.48   The ultimate (permanent) treatment of the intersection of The Northern Road and the southern entry collector road shall be satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

2.49   The proposed Stage 1G road connection to The Northern Road (left‑in/left-out only) shall be satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

2.50   Decorative open-style fencing with associated landscaping shall be provided to the rear of Lots 1162 to 1171 and Lots 1207 to 1212 and to the secondary frontage of Lot 1171. The rear and side fencing to these allotments shall ensure an appropriate level of privacy is afforded to future residents of these allotments. Detailed plans and specifications shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The fencing and associated landscaping works shall be satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

2.51   The linen plan of subdivision is to be supported by an 88B instrument in accordance with Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creating a positive covenant requiring that future dwellings on Lots 1162 to 1171 and Lots 1207 to 1212 appropriately address the future northern entry collector road to ensure adequate natural surveillance and a suitable aesthetic appearance when viewed from this public area. Council shall be nominated as the only authority permitted to modify, vary or rescind such positive covenant.

2.52   A detailed landscape plan for the road verges at the four-way intersection of Road No. 8, 12 and 13 shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. All works shall be satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

2.53   A detailed landscape plan for the public pathway adjacent to Lots 1170 and 1171 shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscape plan shall include details of suitable landscaping, paving, lighting and fencing adjacent to Lots 1170 and 1171. The fencing shall be decorative, low-rise and open-style. The works shall be satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

2.54   Prior to the commencement of works on the site, the remaining Canary Island palm tree associated with heritage item “Site 14” (Dumbles new house and outbuildings) shall be preserved and translocated to another location in the Western Precinct. Details of the proposed translocation and an Interpretation Strategy relating to the former Dumbles house and outbuildings and the remnant palm tree shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

3.     The individuals who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision and of the consideration given to their concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Development Plans

8 Pages

Appendix

3. View

Western Precinct Concept Plan

1 Page

Appendix

4. View

Cumberland Ecology Response to Public Submissions

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - Development Plans

 

 

 









Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 3 - Western Precinct Concept Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 4 - Cumberland Ecology Response to Public Submissions

 

 

 




Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

16

Development Application DA10/0713 for a NSW Police Weapons and Ordnance Disposal Facility and a two lot subdivision to create one lease lot and a residue lot at Lot 221 DP 752037, (No. 667 - 683) The Northern Road, Londonderry  Applicant:  Landcom;  Owner:  WorkCover Authority of New South Wales    

 

Compiled by:                Schandel Jefferys, Principal Planner 

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with a strong local economy and access to jobs (6)

Strategic Response

Facilitate a diverse economy, sustainable businesses and secure employment base (6.1)

      

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 seeking approval for subdivision to create a leasehold lot and construction of a NSW Police Weapons and Ordnance Disposal Facility.  The site is located at 629-683 The Northern Road, Londonderry (Lot 221 DP 752037).

 

The site is zoned 1A Rural General under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 201 Rural Lands 1991 (LEP 201).  Under the provisions of LEP 201 the proposal is permitted with consent. 

 

The application seeks to vary the development standard for the minimum subdivision lot size as required by LEP 201. The application is supported by an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) to the development standard. 

 

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval to create a lease hold subdivision which will create one lot of land having an area of 9.7Ha and a second lot with an area of 4,232m².  Both allotments are less than 40 hectares in area and are therefore less than the minimum allotment requirement of clause 11(2)(a) of LEP 201. 

 

The SEPP 1 objection has demonstrated that full compliance with the minimum lot size is unreasonable and unnecessary due to the ability of the development to meet the objectives of the planning instrument.  Furthermore, the development is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality. 

 

In accordance with the reporting procedures required by the Department of Planning, the matter is forwarded to Council for determination as the variation to the development standard is greater than 10%.  The report recommends that the SEPP 1 objection be supported and the development application be approved.

 

An assessment under Section 79C of EP&A Act has been undertaken and the application is recommended for approval subject to receiving concurrence from the NSW Department of Planning.

Background

The site is part of a larger land holding which is known as the NSW WorkCover Authority Australia’s TestSafe site.  The WorkCover Authorities land holding is made up of Lot 221 DP 752037, Lot 1321 DP 845350, Lot 1 and Lot 2 DP 250922 at 629-683 The Northern Road, Londonderry (see Locality Plan at Appendix No. 1). 

 

The wider WorkCover Authority Australia’s TestSafe site accommodates a series of industrial buildings, laboratories, testing workshops and various offices. The site also accommodates a NSW Fire Brigade ‘Hot Fire Cell Training Area’ and ‘Fire Ground’, the National Measurement Institute Fuel Flow Laboratory, a dangerous goods magazine (with exclusion zone), a pump house and three water tanks, several roads and a car park in the southwest corner (refer to Site Plan in Appendix No. 2 - A3 copies will be provided to Councillors under separate cover).

 

A summary of the relevant development history at the WorkCover Authority’s site is outlined in the table below.

 

Address

Approval/Development

Description

667 The Northern Road

Lot 1321 DP 845350

 

DA 06/0927

National Measurement Institute Liquid Flow Measurement Facility Relocation to Test Safe site

667 The Northern Road

Lot 1321 DP 845350

 

DA 07/0067

Alterations to rural out-building

667 The Northern Road

Lot 1321 DP 845350

 

DA 08/0348

Installation of a lift

667 The Northern Road

Lot 1321 DP 845350

 

DA 08/0127

Subdivision to create 2 lots, one for leasing purposes, the other being the residue lot.*

 

* The subdivision approved by Council in 2008 created a new lot for leasing purposes.  This related to Lot 1321 DP 845350 and approved the creation of a new leasehold lot.  Lot 1321 DP 845350 had a total area of 10.2Ha and it was subdivision to create two lots, one being 10.1Ha and the second lot being 1,135m².  The smaller lot was created so that this land could be leased to the National Measurement Institute for their liquid flow measurement facility. 

 

This proposal also involves the subdivision of Lot 221 DP 752037 which is one of the lots forming part for the WorkCover Authorities land larger holding.  Lot 221 DP 752037 is approximately 10.1Ha is size.  The lot to be created for leasing purposes is to be 4,232m² in size and will facilitate the leasing of the land to the NSW Police.  The proposal also includes the construction of a new Police facility building which is to be constructed on the new being created of 4,232m². 

Site and Surrounds

The site is located at Lot 221 DP 752037 (667 -683) The Northern Road, Londonderry (refer to Locality Plan in Appendix No. 1).  The site is part of the NSW WorkCover‘s Test Safe Australia site and which is used to test explosives, fire extinguishers, safety equipment and the like (refer to Site Plan in Appendix No. 2 - A3 copies will be provided to Councillors under separate cover). 

 

The new Police facility is proposed to be located on a new lot in a subdivision of Lot 221 DP 75203 which an irregular shaped allotment of 10.1Ha. The site currently contains an industrial style building which is used by the NSW WorkCover Authority. 

 

The site contains vegetation which includes trees along with a sparse tall shrub layer and native grasses.   The site has a frontage and access to The Northern Road. 

 

Development in the general locality is comprised of rural land uses including rural dwellings, agriculture and intensive agriculture uses. To the north of the WorkCover site is an area used by the Londonderry Pony Club at 905 Londonderry Road, to the east is The Northern Road and beyond that are rural land holdings and rural dwellings at 932 and 924 Londonderry Road.

 

To the west is Londonderry Road and beyond that are rural land holdings, rural dwellings and associated sheds and structures. To the south of the WorkCover site is the Mining Resources

Core Library facility at 947 Londonderry Road. There are also rural allotments each with dwellings and shed structures located to the south (but to the east of 947 Londonderry Road) at site 691-695 and 685 The Northern Road.

Proposed Development

The application seeks the following:

 

Subdivision

The proposal involves subdividing Lot 221 DP 752037 into two new allotments (see Proposed Plan of Subdivision at Appendix No.3 - A3 copies will be provided to Councillors under separate cover). Lot 221 DP 752037 has an area of 10.1Ha. The leasehold lot to be created will have an area of 4,232m².   

 

The subdivision is sought in order to facilitate the leasing by NSW WorkCover of the land on which the Police facility building will be constructed to the NSW Police.  The Police facility is to be located on the proposed Lot 2.  Lot 1 will continue to be used by the NSW WorkCover Authority. 

 

The proposed leasehold subdivision will remain in single ownership.  The creation of this lot only allows the NSW Police to lease the land from the NSW WorkCover Authority. 

 

New Police facility

It is proposed that the new Police facility will be single storey with a building footprint of 37.83m x 22.95m.

 

The building will include the following elements:

·    Allocated plant area;

·    Workshops, store rooms and offices;

·    Meeting room, meals room, first aid room, waiting room, amenities rooms, lockers, lobby, and receipts room;

·    3 vehicle unloading bays;

·    6 at grade car parking spaces; and

·    Perimeter 1.8m high fencing with automatic sliding gates.

 

The new Police facility at Londonderry will be used by the NSW Police Weapons and Ordnance Disposal Unit. The main functions to be undertaken at the facility will be the receipt, documentation and disposal of firearms and ordnance. (See Elevations & Floor Plan at Appendix No. 4 - A3 copies will be provided to Councillors under separate cover). 

 

The building is to be setback 30m from the Northern Road frontage with direct access from the Northern Road.  The proposed building will be contemporary design incorporating the following materials and finishes:

·    Precast concrete walls with painted finish;

·    Aluminium roller shutter doors with powdercoat finish;

·    Lightweight metal clad wall system; and

·    Metal deck roofing.  

 

The proposed development will be connected to the existing on-site sewage management system. 

Statutory Assessment

The proposal has been assessed with due regard to the following relevant legislation and planning instruments:

 

·   Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999

·   Rural Fires Act 1997

·   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

·   State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

·   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

·   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development

·   Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River

·   Penrith Local Environmental Plan 201 (Rural Lands)

·   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

·   Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008

1.      Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999

The Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act 1995 aims to protect and encourage the recovery of threatened species, populations and communities listed under the Act.  The integration of the TSC Act with the EP&A Act requires consideration of whether a development is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations and ecological communities or their habitat. 

The site contains flora and fauna species common to the Londonderry and Castlereagh area.   A flora and fauna assessment was undertaken which revealed that one threatened flora species (Dillwynia tenufolia) was found within and adjacent to the site (Lot 221 DP 752037) and three additional species (Micromyrtus minutiflora, Grevillia juniperina subsp. juniperina and Persoonia nutans) have potential to occur on site. 

The proposed works will require the removal of approximately 0.27Ha of Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland vegetation for the proposed NSW Police facility including the 10m bushfire asset protection zone.  This is not likely to have a significant environmental effect as the vegetation loss equates to a loss of 0.007% of all Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland within the Penrith Local Government Area.  This vegetation community is not yet listed as a vulnerable ecological community under the TSC Act 1995. 

The assessment found that as a result of the proposed development only a small portion (approximately 3%) of the site’s existing Dillwynia tenufolia will be removed.  The assessment found that given the local abundance of Dillwynia tenufolia, it’s vulnerable status under the EPBC Act and the number of plants to be removed (only 3%), the proposal is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.

Approval from the Commonwealth Environment Minister is required under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 if the action will or is likely to, have a significant impact on matters considered to be of national environmental significance.

The flora and fauna assessment provides an Assessment of Significance under the requirements of this legislation which reveals that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats.  A Species Impact Statement is therefore not required.   

The flora and fauna assessment recommends that the vegetation community and potential habitat immediately adjacent to the site be protected both during and following construction.  The recommended strategies for achieving this are:

·    Protective fencing of Dilwynia tenufolia and native vegetation is to be established in accordance with section 4 of the Australian Standard for the protection of trees on construction sites (AS 4970-2009),

·    Soil and sediment erosion controls will ensure sediment is not transported off the construction site, and

·    A detailed vegetation management plan will be prepared and adopted to cover both the construction period along with implementation for 5 years after construction is complete. 

Following consideration of the minor extent of vegetation removal associated with the proposal along with the local abundance of these vegetation communities and the mitigation strategies outlined above, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on national the site’s flora and fauna. 

2.      Rural Fires Act 1997

The subject site is mapped as Bushfire Prone Land and therefore the proposal is to consider the requirements of the Rural Fire Service’s Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP) 2006. 

The PBP aims to provide for the protection of human life and to minimise impacts on property from the threat of bushfire, while having due regard to development potential, onsite amenity and protection of the environment. 

A site analysis has been undertaken through identifying vegetation fuel loads, slope and topographic position.  The assessment concludes that the proposal can meet the aim of PBP provided that appropriate combinations of bushfire mitigation measures are implemented. 

Bushfire mitigation measures include provision of a 10m Asset Protection Zone (APZ) from structural elements of the proposed NSW Police facility in all directions to provide defendable space.  The construction is to be designed so that it can withstand direct flame contact.  It is therefore considered that the proposal has addressed the requirements of the Rural Fires Act 1997 and PBP. 

3.      Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

In accordance with Part 3, Division 6 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 the proposed development falls within the definition of an emergency services facility which means a building or place (including a helipad) used in connection with the provision of emergency services by an emergency services organisation.

 

In accordance with Clause 48(1) of the SEPP development for the purpose of an emergency services facility may be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent in a prescribed zone. However, such development may be carried out on land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 only if it is authorised by or under that Act.

 

The NSW Police Force is defined as an emergency services organisation in accordance with the SEPP. Both the current zoning of the site (which has an equivalent zoning of RU4 Rural Small Holdings) and Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) RU4 Rural Small Holdings zoning of the site are prescribed zones for the purpose of Part 3, Division 6 of the SEPP.

 

The proposed Police facility could therefore be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 without consent subject to assessment under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979). The NSW Police and Landcom (on behalf of the NSW Police) have decided that the lodgement of a DA with Penrith City Council and assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Penrith LEP 201 and Part 4 of the EP&A Act 1979 is their preferred statutory assessment process for the development given that the subdivision is also proposed in the application and must be determined by Council.

 

Sydney Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

Clause 7 of SEPP No 55 requires that:

(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

a)   it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

b)   if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is to be carried out, and

c)   if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

The site is subject to the provisions of SEPP 55. The proposal seeks the construction and operation of a Police facility within the NSW WorkCover Test Safe Australia site which is currently used for office and industrial type uses.

 

Large sections of the WorkCover site are vacant and are comprised of vegetation. Apart from the current WorkCover uses, the site history indicates a history of rural/agricultural land uses and Council’s records do not identify the site as being contaminated.  Given the history of the site and the current and previous land uses, the site is deemed suitable for the proposed Police facility use and development and therefore the proposal satisfies the requirements of SEPP 55. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development

The proposed work, consisting of the proposed storage and handling of explosive substances, constitutes a potentially hazardous development. Consequently, State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 33 ‘Hazardous and Offensive Development’ is to be considered. 

 

SEPP 33 essentially requires that the potential hazards associated with the development be assessed to demonstrate that no levels of unacceptable risk exist to the surrounding community. Clause 12 of the SEPP outlines that a person who proposes to make a development application to carry out development for the purposes of a potentially hazardous industry must prepare (or cause to be prepared) a preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) in accordance with the current circulars or guidelines published by the Department of Planning and submit the analysis with the development application.

 

A PHA has therefore been prepared to assess the level of risks associated with the proposed development and the storage of explosive materials on site.

 

To assess whether the development is offensive, a screening method is provided within SEPP 33. The screening method uses the total quantity and class of dangerous goods on the site compared to the distance to the site boundary to determine if a threshold ratio has been exceeded.

 

As part of the PHA a multi level risk assessment was undertaken for the proposed development. The multi level risk assessment concludes that there is a negligible level of risk to offsite users from the proposed operation of the Weapons Disposal Unit.  The PHA therefore concludes that the site is not hazardous or offensive development under SEPP 33 and therefore satisfies the requirements of SEPP 33. 

 

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

The main aim of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 (SREP 20) is to manage and improve the water quality of water bodies and courses within the catchment area.  In accordance with the provisions of clause 4(1)(a) Council must take into consideration the general planning considerations set out in clause 5, and the specific planning policies and related recommended strategies set out in clause 6 which are applicable to the proposed development.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory against the matters listed in clause 5 of SREP 20.

Specifically the proposed development is considered to accord with the aims of SREP 20 and relevant strategies listed in the Action Plan of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Environmental Planning Strategy.

 

Specific planning policies are provided in clause 6 of SREP 20 and subclause 6 is most relevant to this proposal. This policy seeks to manage flora and fauna communities so that the diversity of species and genetics within the catchment is conserved and enhanced.

 

In this regard, notwithstanding that the site accommodates a Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland community and threatened plant species being Dillwynia tenuifolia, the proposed building has been positioned to minimise the impacts upon the Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland community and the threatened plant species.

 

It is noted that a detailed flora and fauna assessment has been submitted which assesses in detail the impacts of the proposal on the fauna and flora in the vicinity of the site. The flora and fauna assessment is discussed above which concludes that the proposal is unlikely to have significant effect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats.  The proposed development accords with the relevant provisions of the SREP 20.

 

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan No. 201 (Rural Lands) (LEP 201)

At the time the application was made, the site of the proposed Police facility was zoned 1(a) Rural General in accordance with LEP 201.  The proposed development is defined as a public building which in accordance with LEP 201 means: a building used as offices or for administrative or other like purposes by the Crown, a statutory body, a council or an organisation established for public purposes

 

Development for the purpose of a public building is development permissible with consent in the 1(a) Rural General zone.

 

The general aims of LEP 201 relate to encouraging the proper management, development and conservation of valuable natural and man-made resources within the rural lands of Penrith.

 

The specific aims of the LEP are to protect, enhance or conserve the rural character and setting of Penrith and the scenic quality and valuable landscape features of the rural areas. 

 

The proposal is consistent with the following objectives of 1(a) Rural General zone:

(a)     to protect and enhance the scenic quality and rural character of the locality

(b)     to ensure that development does not create unreasonable demands, now or in the future, for provision or extension of public amenities or services

(c)     to provide and maintain land for recreational and community pursuits

 

The proposal is consistent with the plan and zone objectives as a thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of the application has been undertaken and the proposal is considered to observe sound environmental planning principles.

 

The building is low scale being single storey and is well setback from the nearest street frontage (i.e. in excess of 30m from The Northern Road). The development benefits from a landscape scheme which includes mass plantings of native species around the periphery of the new building. In addition the proposal will be set amongst existing established vegetation which will assist in screening the building from public spaces and adjacent properties.

 

The development is positioned to take advantage of existing infrastructure and services provided at the WorkCover site, thereby reducing the need for further disturbance to natural resources.  The site is serviced with existing infrastructure and the proposal will not necessitate the requirement for significant upgrading of services.

 

Clause 11 Subdivision within Zones Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 5(d) and 7 at subclause (2) states that Council may consent to the subdivision of land to which this clause applies subject to a minimum lot size of 40 hectares for land within 1(a) Rural General zone. 

 

Issues related to variation to this development standard are addressed below. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

A variation to the minimum lot size is proposed and an objection to the minimum lot size development standard within LEP 201 has been lodged with this application. 

 

SEPP 1 seeks to provide flexibility in the application of planning controls where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects stated in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act.  These objects relate to the proper management of resources to promote the welfare of the community and environment, and, to promote the orderly and economic use of development of land. 

 

The SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the provisions of Clause 11 of LEP 201, and in particular the provisions of Clause 11(2)(a).  The relevant clause states:

 

The council may consent to the subdivision of land to which this clause applies only where the area of each allotment to be created by the subdivision is not less than –

 

(a) in the case of land within Zone No. 1(a) – 40 hectares;

 

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval to create a lease hold subdivision which will create one lot of land having an area of 4,232m² and the remainder of the lot will then have an area of 9.7Ha. 

 

Both allotments of the proposed subdivision are less than 40 hectares in area and are therefore less than the minimum allotment requirement of clause 11(2)(a).

 

The decision of Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Ltd v North Sydney Council identifies the principles for which a SEPP 1 objection must be made, as follows:

·    Is the planning control in question a development standard;

·    What is the underlying object or purpose of the standard;

·    Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act;

·    Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case; and

·    Is the objection is well founded.

 

The above principles are addressed in detail below.

 

·    Is the planning control in question a development standard?

 

The planning control in question is a minimum allotment size for subdivision and is a development standard as set out in Clause 11(2)(a) of LEP 201. Clause 11(2)(a) states that Council may only consent to the subdivision of land in the 1(a) Rural General zone where the area of each allotment created is greater than a nominated minimum allotment size.

 

The development standard is a numerical development standard and therefore is capable of being varied under the provision of SEPP 1. 

 

·    What is the underlying purpose of the standard?

 

The underlying purpose of the standard is to assist in controlling the overall size and arrangement of allotments in the 1(a) Rural General zone, to prevent fragmentation of prime agricultural land, to protect the scenic quality and rural character of the locality and to minimise demands for the provision or extension of public amenities and services.

 

The objectives for the minimum allotment size development standard are found in the zone objectives in the LEP 201 and also within the relevant general objectives of LEP 201.

 

·    Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act 1979 ?

 

The objects set down in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) are as follows:

a)   to encourage

i. the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural area, forest, mineral, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment.

ii.the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land…

 

Compliance with the Policy would not hinder the attainment of the objects of section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act, which are to encourage development that promotes the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, and to promote and co-ordinate orderly and economic use and development of land.

 

The proposal satisfies the zone and development standard objectives and therefore strict compliance with the standard is not required in order to achieve compliance with the objectives. Further, the assessment of this application the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjacent properties or the site. Strict compliance with the development standard therefore is not required in order to minimise adverse impacts.

 

·    Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

Strict numerical compliance would be unnecessary and unreasonable on the basis of the following:

–    The subdivision is proposed for the creation of leasehold lot for the proposed Police facility. It is proposed so that the NSW Police Force will be able to lease, have economic responsibility for and have reasonable autonomy within, a clearly defined land boundary.

–    Previous approval (DA08/0127) has been granted by Council for a similar non-compliant subdivision on the WorkCover site to facilitate the leasing of land within in larger land holding by a single owner.

–    The proposed subdivision will not undermine the relevant zone and LEP objectives, nor create a precedent due to the circumstances.

–    The proposal will not result in ad-hoc fragmentation of prime agricultural land as the land has not been used for agricultural purposes for many years.

–    The proposed use for the purpose of a Police facility for the NSW Police Weapons and Ordinance Unit is of a similar categorisation of land use as the land use of the wider NSW WorkCover site in that it is for public authority use.

–    The proposed subdivision will not result in detrimental impacts upon the scenic quality and rural character of the locality.

–    The building proposed to be constructed on one of the proposed allotments is low scale using complementary finishes and will be well screened from public locations and adjacent properties due to the considerable setbacks to boundaries, the retention of significant vegetation and the planting of a significant amount of new native trees and shrubs.

–    The proposal will not result in unreasonable or extensive demands for the provision or extension of public amenities and services to the site in order to service the proposed subdivision. Specifically, the proposed Police facility is a relatively low intensity use and will involve on average 6 full time staff resulting in only a small increase in the reliance on services and utilities. The existing WorkCover site is well serviced with existing utilities (i.e. tele-communications, gas, water, electricity, and roads).  The existing on-site sewage management system can cater for the additional load generated by this facility. The proposed subdivision will benefit from the existing services and infrastructure and will augment those services where necessary.

 

Given the circumstances addressed above, strict numerical compliance would be unnecessary and unreasonable on the basis that the proposed development achieves compliance with the objectives of the standard.

 

·   Is the objection well founded?

 

The proposal will result in a subdivision of land which will facilitate the lease of a site to the NSW Police Force by NSW WorkCover for the purpose of the construction and operation of an emergency services facility on one of the proposed allotments. The Police facility will serve an important public function and benefit not only the community of Penrith, but also the entire State.

 

The development is considered acceptable having regard to the objectives of the development standard and the aims of the LEP 201.  It is concluded that the objection is well founded as compliance with the standard is both unnecessary and unreasonable and would tend to hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act.

 

Concurrence of the Director-General NSW Department of Planning

The concurrence of the Director-General NSW Department of Planning is required because the proposal involves new allotments with greater than 10% departure from the development standard.  The Department has indicated that it will further consider applications for concurrence once Council resolve its position on the variation proposed.

 

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

The Draft LEP 2008 was gazetted on 23 September 2010 and is now known as Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010).  Savings provisions included under clause 1.8A of the LEP 2010 mean that this application is assessed against the planning instruments that were current on the day the application was submitted rather than the date of this report.  In this regard the Draft LEP 2008 is still considered as a draft planning instrument for the purpose of this assessment. 

 

The site is to be zoned RU4 – Rural Small Holdings in accordance with Draft LEP 2008. It is considered that the proposed emergency services facility does not strictly fall within any of the defined land uses although it is likely that the definition of a public administrative building best describes the facility.

 

Development for the purpose of a public administrative building is identified in the exhibited Draft LEP 2008 as development permissible with consent in the RU4 zone. 

 

The proposed subdivision and Policy facility are consistent with the following objectives of RU4 Rural Small Holdings zone:

 

·        To maintain the rural and scenic character of the land

·        To ensure development would not generate additional demand for public services or pubic facilities

·        To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within adjoining zone

 

The minimum lot size under Draft LEP 2008 is 2 hectares.  Although the lease lot is inconsistent with Council’s minimum allotment size for subdivision, Council can support the variation for the following reasons:

 

(i)      The proposed subdivision and lease lot are compatible with the environmental capabilities of the site and would have a negligible impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

(ii)      The proposal would not generate additional demands on public services and facilities. 

(iii)     Proposed lot is created for lease purposes to facilitate the operation of the NSW Police facility and is being created for as a separate allotment of land nor land capable for residential development.  The proposal does not compromise application of development controls and the underlying objectives under the Draft LEP 2008.

 

Council may grant consent to developments that would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument provided the consent authority has considered a written justification from the applicant demonstrating that:

 

(a)     compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case;

(b)     there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard;

(c)     the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out; and

(d)     the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained

 

Subclause (6) further states that consent must not be granted for a subdivision of land in Zone RU4 if:

(a)     the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

(b)     the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

 

Although the proposed lot size does not comply with the minimum requirement of Draft LEP 2008, Council can support this application for the following reasons:

 

(a)     A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted and the justifications for the variation to the minimum allotment size for subdivision are considered to be well-founded.

(b)     LEP 201 prevails over Draft LEP 2008, which does not have a subclause 6. 

(c)     The Director-General’s concurrence is to be obtained for the variation. 

(d)     The above assessment concludes that proposal is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone.

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

Development on this site is to consider relevant requirements of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006) as outlined in the table provided in Appendix No. 5. 

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

The likely impacts of the proposed development upon the surrounding area are discussed as follows:

 

Construction Impacts

Construction impacts will be minimal as the proposed works are relatively minor.  Hours of construction will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s requirements, and adjoining properties will be notified prior to commencement of works on site. 

 

Environmental Impacts

The proposed construction and operation of the Police facility and proposed subdivision will result in acceptable and positive impacts, such as the use of the proposed building being compatible with existing uses at the WorkCover Test Safe Australia site and also the current zoning of the site.

 

Further, the proposed use is considered to be a low intensity and low impact use with respect to traffic generation and noise generation. The proposed setbacks of the building from public spaces and adjacent private land holdings, combined with the responsive design, will also result in a development that has negligible impacts upon the rural landscape and character of the Londonderry locality.

 

The development is in accordance with the aims and objectives of the LEP 201 and the zone objectives and has been designed in a manner that is responsive to the physical constraints of the site.

 

The proposed removal of vegetation in order to provide a clear area for the proposed building is acknowledged as a potential adverse impact. Notwithstanding this the positioning of the proposed building responds to the existing vegetation in that it seeks to minimise the impacts upon the ecological communities present at the site by limiting the number of trees and shrubs required to be removed.

 

As such the impacts have been mitigated where possible and those that remain are not significant.  Overall it is considered that the proposal will have a negligible environmental impact.

 

Social and Economic Impacts

 

Positive economic and social benefits will result from the development in terms of the facilitation of an increase in employment generation opportunities associated with the proposal as well as the community benefits associated with the development of an emergency services facility and the public benefits associated with the disposal of weapons and ordnance which will be undertaken in a safe manner at the site.

 

The development represents a significant investment providing direct and indirect employment opportunities, through the use of local materials and suppliers, and the use of local consultants during the construction phase. Overall the impact of the development will be positive.

 

Traffic generation, parking and loading

It is not anticipated that the proposal will generate additional traffic that will impact on local traffic and parking conditions.

 

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

In view of the above assessment, Council is satisfied that the proposed subdivision is suitable for the site subject to conditions.

 

The preceding sections of this report demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed Police facility. The site is zoned 1A Rural General and the proposed Police facility is permissible with consent and considered to accord with the zone objectives and the aims of the LEP 201. There are no significant environmental constraints or impacts that would hinder the proposed development, and accordingly the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

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

Referrals

The application was reviewed by Council’s Team Leader Environment, Senior Development Engineer and Senior Building Surveyor.  Their comments have formed part of the assessment.  Comments received as part of the referral process concluded there is no objection to the proposal subject to recommended conditions. 

 

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 – Notification and Advertising, Council neighbour notified on 16 July and on public exhibition between 22 July 2010 and 5 August 2010.  Council did not receive any submissions.  

 

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

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in so far as it promotes the co-ordinated and orderly, and economic use and development of the land.  Furthermore, it complies with the objectives of the relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  As a result Council can be satisfied that the proposal subject to conditions will be in the public interest.

 

The proposal will provide an important public operation at the site in the form of a Police facility for the purpose of weapons and ordnance disposal. The Police facility will serve an important public function and benefit not only the community of Penrith, but also the entire State.

 

The proposed development represents a well designed, has a significant front setback, and is well screened from public places.  The proposal will not diminish the rural landscape or character of the Londonderry locality.

The proposed building and its use are commensurate with the long standing and ongoing land use and operations at the NSW WorkCover Test Safe Australia.  The building will provide the NSW Police with a purpose built facility of high amenity which also responds to the site and environmental constraints.

 

Subject to the adoption of any relevant recommendations arising from the flora and fauna assessment, the proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the site, the adjoining properties or upon the locality. 

 

In this regard, it can be concluded that the proposal is in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 contributions do not apply to the proposed development.

Conclusion

This Development Application seeks consent for the construction and use of a new Police facility at a site known as 919 Londonderry Road, Londonderry. The facility will be in the form of a single storey building located on Lot 221 in DP 75037.

 

The proposal also seeks consent for the subdivision of Lot 221 in DP 75037 for lease purposes. The proposed development is permissible in the zone and is unlikely to have any adverse impacts upon the environment or character of the area or immediately adjacent properties.

 

The proposed design is responsive to the rural setting and the use is compatible with the long standing and ongoing uses of the wider NSW WorkCover site.

 

The proposed variation to the minimum lot size development standard is well justified in this instance given the nature of the development, the compatibility of the development with current land uses at the site and the lack of adverse impacts resultant from the proposal.

 

The proposed subdivision will allow the NSW Police to enter into a lease agreement with NSW WorkCover and does not facilitate purchase of the site as freehold.  The proposal will not prejudice any adjacent lands from being developed.  

 

In view of all of the above it is recommended that the development application be approved by Council, subject to receiving concurrence to the subdivision from the NSW Department of Planning.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0713 for a NSW Police Weapons and Ordnance Disposal Facility and a two lot subdivision to create one lease lot and a residue lot at Lot 221 DP 752037, (No. 667 - 683) The Northern Road, Londonderry be received.

2.     The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection to the Development Standard be supported.

3.     The application be referred to the Department of Planning for concurrence in accordance with the requirements of the guidelines for concurrence provisions.

4.     Upon receipt of concurrence from the Department of Planning, Development Application DA10/0713 for a NSW Police Weapons and Ordnance Disposal Facility and a two lot subdivision to create one lease lot and a residue lot at Lot 221 DP 752037, (No. 667 - 683) The Northern Road, Londonderry be determined under delegated authority of the Development Services Manager.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

2 Pages

Appendix

2. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Proposed Subdivision Plan

1 Page

Appendix

4. View

Elevations & Floor Plan

3 Pages

Appendix

5. View

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006)

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 3 - Proposed Subdivision Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 4 - Elevations & Floor Plan

 

 

 




Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 5 - Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006)

 

 

 

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

 

Clause

Comment

Part 2.1 – Contaminated Land

 

The proposal seeks the construction and operation of Police facility within the NSW WorkCover Test Safe Australia site which is currently used for office and industrial type uses. Large sections of the WorkCover site are vacant and are comprised of vegetation.

 

Apart from the current WorkCover uses, the site history indicates a use for rural/agricultural purposes and Council’s records do not identify the site as being contaminated.

Given the history of the site and the current and previous land uses, Council can be satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed Police facility use and development.

Part 2.2 – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

The proposal seeks consent for a NSW Police facility and the design of the building includes appropriate measures for crime prevention.

Part 2.3 – Engineering Works

 

The proposal is supported by engineering drawings including a General Arrangement Plan which contains details of the proposed piped stormwater system and the On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system. The engineering drawings also include Sediment and Erosion Control plans. Council’s Major Projects Development Engineer has assessed the plans and found the proposal satisfactory subject to conditions. 

Part 2.4 – Erosion and Sediment Control

 

The proposal is supported by a Sediment and Erosion Control Plans as required. Conditions of consent relating to appropriate erosion and sediment control are to be included in the consent. 

Part 2.6 – Landscaping

 

The proposed development satisfies Council’s landscaping requirements and is supported with a detailed Landscape Plan. 

 

The Landscape Plan provides significant new native plantings to replace the proposed removal of 11 existing trees/shrubs.  The species and position of the proposed new plantings and the proposed planting methods accord with the requirements of Part 2.6 of the DCP.

Part 2.8 – Significant Trees and Gardens

 

The proposal involves the removal of 11 trees in order to provide a clear area for the proposed building. A site analysis plan has been prepared and a flora and fauna assessment undertaken which has determined that the ecological community present at the site is Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland.

 

80 individuals of the threatened plant species, Dillwynia tenuifolia, were identified in the vicinity of the proposed construction site. This species is listed as vulnerable under the both the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

A detailed flora and fauna assessment has been prepared and the recommendations of this will need to be implemented by way of conditions of development consent in order to ensure that any impacts to the ecological communities are mitigated.

Part 2.9 – Waste Planning

 

The application is supported by a Waste Management Plan which confirms compliance with the relevant provision of Part 2.9 of the DCP.

Part 2.11 – Car Parking

 

The DCP does not provide a specific rate of car parking for emergency service facilities or public administrative buildings. In the absence of an appropriate parking generation rate, the proposal has been designed to provide sufficient car parking spaces based upon the expected number of employees that will use/operate the facility on a day to day basis, being 4 to 6 employees.

 

It is therefore considered that the 6 parking spaces provided as part of the development is satisfactory.

Part 2.12 – On-site Sewage Management

The WorkCover site is serviced by an existing onsite sewage system. The proposed Police facility will be connected to the existing system, and conditions of consent will regulate the management and installation of satisfactory on-site sewage management. 

Part 4.9 – Rural Development

(Part B – Development Issues)

 

·    Setbacks

 

 

·    Services

 

·    Access

 

 

·    Trees

 

 

·    Existing vegetation

 

·    Car Parking

 

 

 

·    Noise generation and control

 

·    Drainage, landscaping, soil erosion and sediment control

 

 

 

·    Complies with minimum 30m to Londonderry Road and The Northern Road

 

·    Connect to and augment existing WorkCover services - complies.

·    Upgrade of access road to the site from The Northern Road frontage is proposed and will be undertaken to a level commensurate with the proposed use.

·    The proposal includes the removal of 11 trees. The issue is discussed in detail above in this table with regard to Parts 2.6 and 2.8 of the DCP.

·    Documentation provided illustrates the location of existing vegetation.

·    The proposed Police facility will employee 4 to 6 full time staff on a day to day basis. The proposal includes 6 on-site car spaces which respond to the anticipated car parking needs of the proposed use.

·    The proposal does not involve a noise generating development and does not require supportive acoustic documentation.

·    Drainage, landscaping and soil erosion and sediment control matters are dealt with in discussion above in this table with respect to Parts 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6 of the DCP. In summary the proposal is supported by engineering and landscape plans which describe in detail the proposed response to each of these elements and demonstrate compliance with the relevant Council requirements.

 

Part 4.9 – Rural Development

(Part E – Non-Agricultural Developments)

 

·    Rural Amenity

 

 

 

·    Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·    Services

 

 

 

 

·    Traffic

 

 

 

 

·    The proposal is not considered a noise generation development and it will not significantly adversely interfere with the rural amenity of the Londonderry locality or adjacent rural holdings.

·    The proposal is supported by a Design Intent Statement which explains the design responses of the proposal and, combined with the architectural drawing package, demonstrate that the proposed building is of a suitable bulk and scale, incorporates suitable materials and finishes and is set back from street frontages and adjacent properties appropriately, ensuring minimal impact on the rural setting of the locality.

·    The WorkCover site and the operations carried out thereon have adequate provision of all necessary support services and utilities. The proposed development will connect to these existing services as required and augment where necessary.

·    The proposal will not generate large traffic volumes.

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

17

Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook  Applicant:  Freeburn Surveying;  Owner:  Lexie and Giovanni Cettolin    

 

Compiled by:                Ashlee Cutter, Trainee 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 is in receipt of a development application for the subdivision of an existing lot into two Torrens title lots.  The site contains a single dwelling, a rural shed and landscaping. 

 

The application seeks variation to the minimum lot size requirement under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 201 (Rural Lands) 1991 of 4,000m² by way of an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards (SEPP1). 

 

As the proposal seeks a variation to the development standard that is greater than 10%, the application is to be reported to Council in accordance with the Department of Planning’s Circular (No PS 08-014).  The report recommends that the objection to the development is not supported and that the application be refused. 

Background

To date the following applications have been lodged on the site:

 

Reference

Details

Decision

 

DA 203/94

Detached dual occupancy

Approved 21 June 1994

BA 950367

Detached garage

Approved 15 February 1995

DA01/0258

Parking of 2 concrete pumping trucks

Refused 17 April 2001

DA01/1256

Parking of 2 concrete pumping trucks

Approved 8 October 2001

DA02/1077

Parking of 1 concrete pumping truck

Refused 29 October 2002

DA03/1018

Parking of 1 concrete pumping

Approved 28 June 2004

DA08/0581

2 lot Torrens title subdivision

Withdrawn 28 October 2008

 

The development application submitted in 2008 (DA 08/0581) proposed the same Torrens title subdivision as the current development application.  DA 08/0581 was withdrawn and the applicant proceeded to make a submission to Draft Penrith LEP 2008. 

 

The applicant made representations seeking to have the minimum lot size reduced under the Draft LEP 2008. It was decided to ‘defer’ the request to vary the subdivision standards over this one lot but rather look more holistically as to whether there was potential to review the subdivision standard over a bigger area.   This is to be considered as part of stage 2 of the Draft LEP.  The applicant has decided to put forward this application prior to the exhibition period for the stage 2 LEP. 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the eastern side of Grays Lane at its intersection with Komirra Road. The site has an area of 4,210m2 and supports a residential dwelling with detached garage.

 

The zoning map (Refer to Appendix No. 1) shows that the prevailing lot pattern along Grays Lane is 4000m2. Of the lots zoned (light shading and hatched) under the DCP, all of them meet the required minimum lot size of 4000m². Towards to the east of the subject site, lots are zoned with a minimum lot size of 2000m² (dotted shading). The location of these 2000m² lots is to provide a transition of lot sizes between rural and urban land and all of which meet the required minimum lot size.

The Proposed Development

A Torrens title subdivision of Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28-30) Grays Lane Cranebrook to form two lots is proposed. Proposed lots 1 and 2 are to be serviced by separate driveways with Lot 1 towards Grays Lane and the existing access off Komirra Road for Lot 2. The proposed area of these lots are:

 

Lot No.

Area

1

2069.9m2

2

2139.8 m2

 

An objection to the 4,000m² minimum lot size under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards (SEPP No.1) has been submitted with the application.

 

The application was accompanied by:

 

·    Proposed plan of subdivision prepared by Freeburn Surveying dated 15 May 2009

·    Statement of Environmental Effects incorporating a SEPP 1 objection and Flora and Fauna assessment prepared by Cityscape Planning and Projects dated March 2010.

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the relevant matters for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the following relevant consideration identified.  

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

The proposed development does not comply with Council’s development standard relating to minimum lot size contained in Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006. The DCP requires a minimum of 4000m2 to be provided for each lot to be created. The proposed subdivision proposed 2 lots of 2069.9m2 and 2139.8m2 respectively.

 

A development standard as defined by the Act relates to the provisions of any environmental planning instrument being a:

 

“a State environmental planning policy, regional environmental plan or a local environmental plan.”

 

The minimum lot size control is provided under Part 6.6 of Penrith DCP 2006 but is inextricably linked to clause 11(2)(c) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 201 (Rural Lands) which states:

 

“in the case of land within Zone No. 1 (c) - an area which complies with any requirements relevant to the subdivision set out in Section 4.9 (Rural Development) of Part 4 (Land Use Based Controls) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, as adopted by the council on 21 August 2006.”

 

Council’s Legal Officer has confirmed that the minimum lot size is a development standard and that a SEPP 1 Objection is applicable to the proposal. 

 

The applicants submitted a SEPP 1 objection and is considered as follows;

 

a) Development Standard

The SEPP 1 objection is required to demonstrate that compliance with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instrument and zone can still be achieved regardless of the variation to the development standard.

 

Clause 40 of Penrith LEP 201 outlines specific objectives for development within the 1(c) zone at North Cranebrook, northeast of Cranebrook Road and Boundary Road, which is applicable to the site.

 

The objectives relating to development of land to which this clause applies are:

 

(a)  to protect the environmental and scenic quality of the Cranebrook

Escarpment and nearby elevated areas;

(b)  to protect areas of natural vegetation which provide key ecological and scenic elements in the area; and

(c)  to retain and enhance the parkland quality of the area along Cranebrook Road, north of Vincent Road.

 

The object of this clause is to limit subdivision of, and the carrying out of development on the land to which this clause applies so as to ensure that the above objectives are met. In considering an application to subdivide the Council is to take into account:

 

(a)  the effect of the development on the rural setting of the area; and

(b)  whether the development will impinge on the character of items of

environmental significance (such as ridgelines, drainage courses and dams); and

(d)  the amount of existing vegetation that would be removed as a result of the development; and

(g)  whether the proposed form, scale, character and siting of any proposed building are appropriate for the rural and natural settings of the area; and

(i)   specific objectives contained in any development control plan applying to the land to which the application relates.

 

A key planning control in shaping the rural character of the area is the minimum lot size. The prevailing lot character along Grays Lane in the immediate locality is lots greater than 4000m2.

 

The creation of an allotment that deviates substantially from the development standard would undermine the existing lot pattern that has developed over a significant period of time and which has been instrumental in establishing the existing rural character.

 

The applicants SEPP1 objection prepared by Cityscape Planning states that the objection may be considered on the premise that the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the following basis:

 

·    The development proposal is inconsistent with the DCP minimum subdivision standards, however is consistent with other relevant objectives;

·    The subject site represents just one lot and a proportionally very small section of the broader North Cranebrook area. Therefore a non-compliance of such a small scale provides no opportunity to threaten the innovative approach taken as part of the development of the broader area;

·    The subdivision and subsequent development of the site would result in the removal of a very limited number of trees within the Cumberland Plain Woodland ecology. A detailed flora and fauna study has been undertaken at section 3 of the report and demonstrated no adverse ecological impact arises from the development;

·    The proposed subdivision will create an additional opportunity for meeting the demand for rural residential development;

·    The site is not visible from any major roads or other significant vantage points;

·    The site enjoys access to Sydney Waters reticulated sewer system and water supply services;

·    The development generates only one new dwelling. no potential for unreasonable demand is caused by such scaled development; and

·    The proposed development does not propose any new built forms. This matter will be addressed and considered as part of a future development application for a dwelling.

 

The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the existing pattern of the subdivision and layout and size within the vicinity of the site.  There are no existing lots along Grays Lane that are 2,000m².  Contextually, the proposal is inconsistent with the general character of Grays Lane and relevant zone objectives.  The proposal would result in an undesirable precedent, creating potential for the intensification of the surrounding subdivision patterns and resulting in a significant decline of the rural character in which the delineation between urban and rural would be eliminated.

 

 

 

 

b) Section 5 - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Assessment of the SEPP 1 objection also needs to be considered against the objectives stated in Section 5(a) (ii) of the EP&A Act. The objects of the Act have not been satisfied by this proposal. Specifically, but not limited to, the following:

 

 (ii)       [to encourage] the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land;

Variation to a development standard to the extent proposed would impact on the rural character of the area.  The proposed subdivision would set an undesirable precedent eroding transition between the urban and rural areas of Cranebrook.

 

The proposal is not considered an orderly use of land with particular concerns surrounding undesirable precedent subsequent of subdivision. This would result in a significant number of allotments in the surrounding area being disadvantaged and potentially seeking the same variation.

 

The SEPP 1 objection accompanying the application does not demonstrate that compliance with Clause 11 would be ‘unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case’, nor has it been demonstrated that compliance with Clause 11 would hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

c) Department of Planning Circular No. B1

The Department of Planning’s Circular No. B1 specifies other matters which should be considered by Council in its consideration of SEPP 1 objections including:

 

1)    Clause 8 – is the Development standard inappropriate in general terms and should Council review its planning controls? Draft instruments may also be impacted upon if SEPP 1 is repeatedly used on a clause which may be affected.

 

2)    Clause 9 – the likelihood of similar applications being made and the cumulative effect of similar approvals.

 

3)    Clause 11 – dealing with applications to extend non-conforming development by more than 10%.

 

In accordance with the delegations given to Council in relation to the use of SEPP 1 objections, where the extent of variation exceeds 10% for a rural lot subdivision, the concurrence of the Director General is required.

 

Concurrence from the Department of Planning could not be given if it is not Council’s intent to grant consent to the application. Comment from the Department on the SEPP 1 objection and the likelihood of concurrence being issued was not provided.

 

Development applications for subdivision on rural properties in Penrith Local Government Area often result in pressure being placed on the minimum lot size provisions. The proposal is a significant deviation from the minimum lot size and has the potential to set precedence along Grays Lane, in this circumstance the clause is considered reasonable.

 

The likelihood of similar applications being made is high given the large rural allotments in the immediate vicinity of the site. The cumulative effect of  this would result in significant change to the streetscape of Grays Lane which is inconsistent with the specific clauses aimed at retaining the rural character specifically in this area.

 

The variation proposed is significantly greater than 10%, and it has not been demonstrated that the minimum lot size requirements is unreasonable. 

 

For reasons discussed above, the SEPP 1 objection is not supported.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) No.201 – Rural Lands

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the provisions of the Penrith LEP 201 (Rural Lands) 1991.

 

The relevant aims and objectives under Penrith LEP 201 (Rural Lands) are:

 

(2)   The specific aims of this plan are to protect, enhance or conserve:

(a)     The rural character and setting of the City of Penrith; and

(b)     The scenic quality and valuable landscape features of the rural areas;

 

(3)   The objectives, policies and strategies of this plan are:

(c)     to promote rural/residential development where it is consistent with the conservation of the rural, agricultural, heritage and natural landscape qualities.

 

The intent of such aims and objectives is to ensure that the rural character of the area is protected and conserved. The significant variation to the lot size is inconsistent with the surrounding area and would impact on the scenic quality of the streetscape.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with rural character of the area and does not protect or conserve this character and as such is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of this plan.

 

Under this Plan the subject site is zoned 1(c) (Rural “C” Zone – Rural/Residential).  The proposed development is defined as a Torrens title subdivision, which is permissible in the zone subject to minimum lot size contained in Part 4.9 of Penrith DCP 2006. The DCP requires a minimum of 4000m2 to be provided for each lot to be created. The application proposes the following lot sizes:

 

Lot No.

Required lot area

Proposed lot area

Complies

Variation

1

4000m2

2069.9m2

No

48.2 %

2

4000m2

2139.8 m2

No

46.5 %

 

Notwithstanding the proposals failure to meet the minimum lot size requirement as stipulated by Penrith DCP 2006, an assessment of the application against the objectives of the 1(c) zone has been undertaken.

 

(a)       to provide the opportunity for development of integrated rural/residential communities in accordance with development control plans for the land; and

 

(b)       to promote an innovative approach to rural/residential development; and

 

(d)       to assist in meeting the demand for rural/residential development in Penrith where it is consistent with the conservation of rural, agricultural, heritage and natural landscape qualities; and

 

(e)        to ensure that attractive views from main roads and other vantage points are protected and enhanced; and

 

(f)        to ensure that adequate provision has been made for water and disposal of effluent; and

 

(j)        to ensure that the form, siting and colours of buildings, building materials and landscaping complement the natural scenic quality of these areas.

 

Comment: The intent of the objectives of the 1(c) zone is to ensure that the low density of the area is retained and to ensure that the rural character of the surrounding area is conserved. The intent of the subdivision pattern in the surrounding area is to provide a transition of lot sizes between rural and urban land. A significant “one off” variation to the minimum required lot size on this site would be inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

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

The site falls within the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment and as such is subject to SREP 20 which aims to ensure that the development does not negatively impact on water quality, fauna and flora habitats.

 

In accordance with Clause 6(6)(a) and (e) of SREP 20 – Flora and Fauna, strategies are to be maintained to ensure the management of flora and fauna communities present on the site are conserved and enhanced. Development is required to consider the long and short term impacts of the development on threatened species found on the site and in the surrounding area.

 

The existing vegetation on the site is disturbed and does not form a connection with any nearby vegetation corridors. Its importance from a fauna/flora perspective is arguable but the size and shape of the current allotment does enable its retention which accords with these considerations.

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010)

The Draft LEP 2008 was gazetted on 23 September 2010 and is now known as Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010). Savings provisions included under clause 1.8A of LEP 2010 mean that this application is assessed against the planning instruments that were current on the day the application was submitted rather than the date of this report. In this regards the Draft LEP 2008 is still considered as a draft planning instrument for the purpose of this assessment.

 

Notwithstanding the above, an assessment of the application against the provisions of the Draft LEP 2008 has been undertaken. The subject site is included in the Draft LEP 2008 and is proposed to be zoned R5 Large Lot Residential. In this zone development is to meet the following objectives:

 

·    provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive location and scenic quality.

 

·    To ensure that large residential allotments do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

 

·    To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

 

·    To promote development that safeguards the residential amenity of the area.

 

·    To ensure development is compatible with the available infrastructure, services and facilities and with the environmental capabilities of the land.

 

Comment: The proposal does not protect the rural setting by minimising impact on environmentally sensitive locations and scenic values.

 

The current lot size is consistent with the prevailing lot pattern. A significant variation to this pattern would impact on establishing the existing rural character of the area. The development directly conflicts with the transition between urban and rural lands in the North Cranebrook area and does not maintain the current rural and scenic character of the.

 

Clause 4.1

A minimum lot size of 4000m2 hectares applies the site under clause 4.1. The proposed development does not meet this requirement.

 

Clause 4.6

Clause 4.6 does not permit the proposed subdivision stating that:

 

“Consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land

in Zone … R5… if:

 

(a) The subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

 

(b) The subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.”

 

The subject site is located within the R5 zoning and results in 2 lots being less than the minimum area specified.

 

The applicant had made a submission in response to Stage 1 of the Draft LEP 2008 to reduce the minimum lot size for this site to 2000m2.

 

The Discussion Paper prepared for Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting 21 October 2009 outlined that that the proposed minimum lot size of 2000m2 would not only be inconsistent with the proposed minimum lot size for the area, but would also be inconsistent with the objectives of the zone namely desired residential amenity and demand for public utilities. As a result, the Draft LEP 2008 maintains the current minimum lot size of 4000m2. In summary, the proponent’s request for a smaller minimum lot size to allow the subdivision of the site into 2 lots was not supported and no change to the Plan was recommended.

 

Consultation with Sydney Water has outlined that various lots in the locality can be serviced in the future. As part of Stage 2 of the Citywide LEP, consideration is to be given to this serviceability in the further examination of the suitability of the site and the surrounding area for reduced minimum lot size controls.  This work has not yet been undertaken and will be required to take into account rural character and the need for further rural subdivision. However, it is considered that any future application for subdivision be on the basis of Stage 2 provisions.

 

Currently, the proposal pre-empts such planning controls contained within Stage 2 of the Citywide LEP which have not yet been fully considered by Council and would therefore set a precedent which is inconsistent with planning policy development.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

 

Part 4.9 Rural Development

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 - Part 4.9 Rural Development applies to the site and in regard to subdivision in the 1(c) zone, a minimum of 4000m2 to be provided for each lot to be created.

 

The intent of the minimum 4000m2 lot size is to ensure that the low density of the north Cranebrook area is retained, which in turn conserves the rural and landscape setting. 

 

The DCP outlines items that need to be addressed in subdivision and highlights the following under Part C Clause 3: 

 

·      Allow subdivision which will maintain the rural character of the locality.

·      Ensure that allotments are compatible in size and shape with the physical nature of the land, adjoining land uses and the likely use of the land in the future.

 

Future development of the site would impact on the streetscape of the surrounding properties. The average building setback along Kommira Road is approximately 16m, with an average building setback of 33m along Grays Lane. Any future built form as a result of this subdivision would impact significantly on adjoining properties as a result of the limited area of the site.

 

In Parrott v Kiama [2004] NSWLEC 77 it was found that a subdivision application should provide constraints on future buildings when the proposed allotments are smaller than usual, or environmentally sensitive or where significant impacts on neighbours is likely and needs careful design to minimise them.

 

In this case the proposed subdivision is much smaller than the surrounding lots along Grays Lane. Due to the building setbacks required, any future building on the proposed lot is likely to necessitate tree removal. Whilst it is accepted that this is not likely to have an impact on the existing ecological significance of the local vegetation community, it will impact on the existing natural landscape qualities of Grays Lane.

 

Part F of the DCP specifically outlines controls relating to development of certain land at North Cranebrook. Site specific subdivision controls have been specified for the North Cranebrook area to ensure that development in the area is consistent with the conservation of the rural, agricultural, heritage and natural landscape qualities of the area.

 

Clause 2 within Part F of the DCP aims to limit subdivision to 4000m2 to ensure that the above objectives are met. The proposed subdivision falls well below the minimum lot size required and would have significant impact on the scenic quality of the area should it be further developed in the future.

 

Council’s expectations for the site have been included in the relevant development control plan, including minimum lot size provisions. In the decision North Sydney Council v Ligon 302 Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 93 LGERA 23:

 

A development control plan is a detailed planning document which reflects a council’s expectation for parts of its area, which may be a large area or confined to an individual site. The provisions of a development control plan must be consistent with the provisions of any relevant local environmental plan. However, a development control plan may operate to confine the intensity of development otherwise permitted by a local environmental plan.

 

The aim of the lot size areas for North Cranebrook area have been contained in the DCP to ensure that the transitional character of the Grays Lane area is maintained. Therefore the development is inconsistent with the provisions set out in Part 4.9 of Penrith DCP 2006.

 

Part 6.6 Cranebrook Rural Residential Development

 

A separate chapter has been contained in the DCP specifically relating the development in the Cranebrook area. Clause 2.2 of this section states that:

 

“The rural/residential area adjoins the Cranebrook residential release area to the east and south. Both the rural and urban plans aim to soften the transition from an urban to rural environment, while providing an opportunity for social integration between the two communities.

 

The boundary between the two release areas has been strategically located in order to minimise disruption to the existing rural character.”

 

The subject site falls directly within in this transition area with urban lots located to the east within Cranebrook and the larger rural lots located to the west. A significant variation to the lot size would undermine the aim of this clause and in turn the DCP itself in providing a transitional lot layout between urban and rural.

 

Clause 3.3 outlines the objectives of subdivision within the Cranebrook area. The relevant objective of this section states that subdivision is:

 

(d) To provide a gradual transition of density controls between the Cranebrook urban and rural areas, running generally east to west.

 

The proposal development does not demonstrate consistency with this objective.

 

The application is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 namely Part 4.9 Rural Development and Part 6.6 Cranebrook Rural Residential Development.

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

The existing lot pattern aims to promote the rural streetscape of Grays Lane and surrounding area of North Cranebrook. The subdivision of this site would result in a development that would greatly affect the existing streetscape of Grays Lane and the character of the wider area.

 

Extensive consultation between Council’s Local Planning team and Sydney Water has been undertaken throughout the assessment of this application. It is noted that a number of sites in the locality can be adequately serviced by Sydney Water in the future. As this is to be further examined in Stage 2 of LEP 2010, an application under the current LEP is considered to pre-empt the planning controls contained within LEP 2010 which have not yet been fully considered by Council.

 

The subdivision of the site under the current planning controls could create an undesirable precedent, which would encourage a significant number of allotments in the surrounding area to seek the same outcome. This would have an undesirable and unintended impact on the rural form if permitted on an ad hoc basis as opposed to an informed policy outcome.

 

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

The site is a gateway location to the rural residential zone. The subdivision of the proposed lots could create an undesirable precedent, which will enable a significant number of allotments in the surrounding area be disadvantaged. This would have an undesirable and unintended impact on the rural form eliminating any transition between the rural and urban landscape setting.

 

The proposal exhibits a number of non-compliances with the current development controls and relevant standards. The extent of variation to these provisions is too significant to be considered under the current instrument. Until such a time as the locality is investigated as part of Stage 2 of the LEP, the application for subdivision is not a suitable development for the site.

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

In accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notification Development Control Plan, the proposed development was not required to be notified.

Referrals

The application was referred to the following stakeholders and their comments have formed part of the assessment:

 

Referral Body

Comments Received

Environmental Planner

Comments received  13/4/2010

Development Engineer

Comments received  7/4/2010

Environmental Health

Comments received 22/6/2010

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

 

The application is not in the public interest as it undermines the current and proposed development standards. The proposed subdivision would be an undesirable land use, permitting intensification following this subdivision.

Section 94 Contributions

Should a supportable application be submitted in the future, assessment of Section 94 contributions will be undertaken.

Conclusion

The applicant seeks consent for the subdivision of Lot 200 DP 811535 into two Torrens Title lots. The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.1 – Development Standards, Penrith Local Environmental Plan No. 201 (Rural Lands), Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 and Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 and the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions, intent and objectives of these plans.

 

The SEPP 1 objection has not demonstrated consistency with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards. The undesirable precedent which would be set by approval is not in the public interest and should not be supported and concurrence from the Department of Planning should not be pursued.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

          That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook be received.

2.   The SEPP 1 objection to Clause 11 of Penrith LEP 1991 not be supported.

3.   The Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook be refused for the following reasons:

3.1.    The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan No. 201 (Rural Lands) 1991:

i)          Clause 2 – the specific aims of this plan to protect, enhance or conserve:

(a)       The rural character and setting of the City of Penrith; and

(b)       The scenic quality and valuable landscape features of the rural areas

ii)         The following objectives of the 1(c) zone:

(a)       to provide the opportunity for development of integrated rural/residential communities in accordance with development control plans for the land

 

(b)       to promote an innovative approach to rural/residential development

 

(c)        to ensure that development is compatible with the environmental capabilities of the land and to encourage the conservation and enhancement of natural resources by means of appropriate land management techniques

 

(d)       to assist in meeting the demand for rural/residential development in Penrith where it is consistent with the conservation of rural, agricultural, heritage and natural landscape qualities

 

(e)        to ensure that attractive views from main roads and other vantage points are protected and enhanced

 

iii)        The proposed subdivision does not comply with the minimum area of each allotment to be created by a subdivision under Clause 11(2) and the objection to this standard under SEPP1 is not well founded

3.2.    The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions of the following draft planning instruments:

i)          Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010, the requirements of the following provisions have not been demonstrated:

Clause 2.1 – Objectives of the R5 Large Lot Residential

·    The proposal does not protect the rural setting by minimising impact on environmentally sensitive locations and scenic values

·    The current lot size is consistent with the prevailing lot pattern. A significant variation to this pattern would impact on establishing the existing rural character of the area

·    The proposal does not ensure land uses do not adversely affect the amenity of existing residents and the locality. The development directly conflicts with the transition between urban and rural lands in the North Cranebrook area

·    The proposal does not maintain the rural and scenic character of the land and would significantly impact on the streetscape should the site be development

·    The proposal does not ensure land uses are of a scale and nature that is compatible with the environmental capabilities of the land

3.3.    The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the following provisions of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006:

·      Chapter 4.9 – Rural Development

Part C Subdivision; and

Part F Development of land at North Cranebrook

·      Chapter 6.6 Cranebrook Rural Residential Development

3.4.    The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it has not been demonstrated the likely impacts of the development can be satisfactorily mitigated including:

·      Impact to streetscape and rural amenity; and

·      Existing vegetation on site

3.5.    The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it has not been demonstrated through compliance with the relevant provisions that the site is suitable for the proposed development

3.6.    The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal would set a precedent overriding planning policy which is not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Proposed Subdivision Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

Appendix 2 - Proposed Subdivision Plan

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

11 October 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

18

Section 96 application for modification to DA10/0289 for a Self Storage Facility on Lot 8 DP 1105133 and Variation to 88b Restriction affecting Lots 1-8 DP 1105133 (No. 142) Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains  Applicant:  Trevor Hitchen;  Owner:  Ryan Hitchen Pty Ltd & Emumatta Pty Ltd    

 

Compiled by:                Jonathon Wood, Trainee Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with a strong local economy and access to jobs (6)

Strategic Response

Facilitate a diverse economy, sustainable businesses and secure employment base (6.1)

      

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 Section 96 application seeking modification to an approved self storage facility and associated office premises (Hitchens Self Storage). The original development consent provided for the construction of a self storage facility and associated offices, carparking, landscaping, and relevant infrastructure in two (2) stages.

 

The bulk of the modifications are inconsequential and relate to reductions in driveway and building widths, a change to parking at the front of the site, and the provision of security fencing behind a landscape setback. The key change to the development is the provision of a second driveway that will facilitate dedicated entry and exit points for the development. There is a restriction on the title of the property under Section 88b of the Conveyancing Act 1919 which requires access from the site be via a shared driveway with the adjoining property that has a reciprocal right of carriageway.

 

An application to vary the 88b restriction applying to the land was lodged concurrently with the modification of the original development application. The variation seeks to remove the restriction requiring shared access points on eight (8) lots fronting Old Bathurst Road. The restriction is numbered three (3) in the plan and provides for the establishment of rights of carriageway across lots 1-8 and identifies access handles for lots 25 and 26. The restriction also provides:

 

‘Access to all lots sharing a common driveway shall be from Old Bathurst Road and within the shared driveways.’

 

The applicant has provided a traffic report that highlights a substantive number of safety concerns that would arise if the restriction is retained and the properties fronting Old Bathurst Road are developed with shared access arrangements. The primary safety concerns surround vehicular conflicts on the shared driveways given the scale of development that will be served by a single access and egress point. 

 

The proposal to vary the Section 88b restriction has been assessed with input from Council’s traffic section and it is recommended that the restriction be lifted in terms set out further in this report. This will also facilitate the granting of consent to the Section 96 modification which is also recommended in terms set out further in this report.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject development site is located in a newly created industrial subdivision situated in Emu Plains. The land is located on the southern side of Old Bathurst Road with a total site area of 8,170m2 . It is bounded by Old Bathurst Road to the north, a drainage channel and floodway to the west, and vacant industrial land to the south and east. The site is the first of the lots fronting Old Bathurst Road proposed to be developed. It should be noted that approximately half the site is affected by an easement for drainage, specifically to convey floodwaters in the 1 in 200 year flood event, however no additional works are proposed in this area. 

 

The surrounding area is predominantly industrial. The immediate area is largely vacant, however the zoning permits industrial development, and over time the area will be developed into a modern industrial precinct.  A Locality Plan is attached at Appendix 1.

The Proposed Development

The proposed modifications include the following aspects:

 

·    Construction of a separate egress point on the western side of the property;

·    Revision of the driveway width on the eastern and western boundaries to 6m;

·    Reduction in width of the storage facility building by 4m to accommodate the revised driveway width;

·    Revision of car parking spaces at the front of the development to adopt angled parking; and

·    Provision of security fencing behind the 10m landscape setback.

 

As outlined previously, this report provides for the concurrent assessment of the application to vary the Section 88b restriction applying to the land that currently restricts access to lots fronting Old Bathurst Road. This proposed variation to the Section 88b restriction is dealt with first as it has ramifications for the support of the revised access and egress arrangements proposed as part of the Section 96 modification application.

Section 88b Variation Request

The initial subdivision of the industrial precinct carried out under development consent 05/0375 provided for the establishment of 32 lots and the construction of a new loop road within the development. A condition of that consent required the establishment of a Section 88b restriction that, amongst other things, provided for limitations regarding access arrangements on a number of lots.

 

One of the limitations was the requirement for access to Lots 1-8, which front Old Bathurst Road, to be limited to a total of four (4) shared access points. The rationale for the condition limiting access points was triggered through some general advice provided by the Sydney Regional Development and Advisory Committee (a branch of the RTA) that it would be desirable to limit or eliminate access points to Old Bathurst Road. From review of the file history it is unclear on the actual intent of the advice. The broad nature of the advice could be construed as meaning the subdivision layout was inappropriate by providing large lots that front a busy road with no service lane access, or alternatively that shared driveways should be considered for those lots fronting Old Bathurst Road. Notwithstanding this a recommended condition at the time provided that access for lots fronting Old Bathurst Road should be restricted to shared driveways and a Section 88b restriction be created to that effect.

 

It is interesting to note that the Sydney Regional Development and Advisory Committee was not required to be formally consulted on the original subdivision application as the 200 lot trigger point, under State Environmental Planning Policy No.11- Traffic Generating Developments, was not achieved as only 32 lots were proposed.  As such the current request to vary the Section 88b restriction was not forwarded to the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee. Furthermore, the Local Traffic Committee was not consulted on the current application to vary the Section 88b instrument due to the fact that the trigger point (being 50 lots) contained within State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, which replaced SEPP 11, was not exceeded.

 

In support of the variation the applicant has provided a traffic report as well as some comments on traffic safety. The key arguments provide:

 

·    The 15m wide driveway and associated easement for access is insufficient and non-compliant with AS 2890.2, which requires a width of some 21.5m to accommodate vehicles associated with the development;

·    There are a substantial number of potential vehicular conflicts during the operation of two (2) separate developments sharing a single driveway which is exacerbated by the size of vehicles entering and leaving the site. These vehicles will utilise a significant portion of the driveway width to access and leave the sites;

·    The substantial queuing of vehicles that will occur when vehicles are entering and leaving the site at the same time, which is of particular concern during morning and afternoon peaks;

·    The likelihood that large vehicles will cross the centre line during a left turn movement onto Old Bathurst Road from the shared driveway creating a hazard for other motorists utilising Old Bathurst Road. 

 

Council’s Traffic Engineers support the above comments and are of the view that if the development proceeds with a single shared driveway it will result in greater traffic conflict. This relates primarily to vehicular conflict that will occur during concurrent entry and exit movements from the development sites as well as the ensuing queuing of large vehicles on Old Bathurst Road waiting to enter development sites.

 

The approved width of the driveway means that heavy rigid and articulated vehicles will need to utilise the majority of the driveway width to perform entry and exit manoeuvres and as such there is no capacity for vehicles to enter and exit the site at the same time. Additional conflict is also created during internal circulation of larger vehicles, as the reciprocal right of carriageway only extends 20m into the sites and the manoeuvring areas required for such vehicles in much larger than the pre-defined right of carriageway.

 

It is therefore recommended that restriction 3 in the deposit plan be amended to remove the requirement for shared access to lots fronting Old Bathurst Road (Lots 1-8) and the reciprocal right of way associated with those lots be extinguished.

Planning Assessment

The proposed modifications to the approved development have been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The following matters have been considered in the assessment.

Section 961A- Modifications involving minimal environmental impact

Under the provisions of Section 96(1A) of the Act, Council may, in response to an application, modify a consent if the development as modified will achieve minimal environmental impact and be substantially the same development as originally approved. There are a number of criteria that are required to be considered and these are addressed below.

 

Section 96(1A)(a) requires that the development must be of ‘minimal environmental impact’. The current proposal incorporates a number of changes- including the reduction in driveway size, building size, and provision of fencing- that clearly do not constitute more than minimal environmental impact. The provision of a second driveway will reduce opportunities for traffic conflict, and improve the overall operation of the development, by defining separate entry and exit points. This removes the conflict of vehicles entering and leaving the site at the same time which arises from the limited driveway width. The revised proposal will also ensure that large vehicles do not cross the centre line of Old Bathurst Road and cause potential conflict with vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. This change does not result in any more than minimal environmental impact. Therefore Council can be satisfied that the modified application will result in minimal environmental impact.  

 

Section 96(1A)(b) requires that the development must be ‘substantially the same’ as that originally granted consent. The question of whether a development remains ‘substantially the same’ has been the subject of a number of Land and Environment Court decisions. The most authoritative of these decisions include; Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (unreported 24 February 1992), North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd (1998) 97 LGERA 433, and Moto Projects (No.2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298.

 

Of most relevance to this proposal is the approach taken to defining the words ‘substantially’, taken to mean essentially or materially or having the same essence, and ‘modify’, taken to mean to alter without radical transformation, and in defining a method in undertaking a comparative task between applications. The comparative task was taken to involve an appreciation, qualitative, as well as quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper contexts (including the circumstances in which the development consent was granted).

 

In light of the above, the proposal is essentially the same when giving consideration to the information provided by the applicant, and would not constitute a ‘radical transformation’, in that the use remains the same, as does the majority of the building footprint. Streetscape presentation is comparable, with the existing approved façade and colour schedule being adopted as part of the modified proposal. The provision of a second driveway for egress improves the function of the development and would not constitute a radical transformation. 

 

Section 96(1A)(c) requires notification in instances where it is prescribed in the regulations or a development control plan. The current proposal is not captured by any provisions of the regulations and Penrith DCP 2006 does not stipulate that an application such as this requires notification. Therefore the provisions of Section 96(1A)(c), relating to a requirement for some modification applications to be notified, are satisfied and furthermore the provisions of Section 96(1A)(d), requiring the consideration of submissions regarding modification applications, is irrelevant.

 

Therefore Council, as the consent authority, may grant consent to the modified proposal as all provisions contained within Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are satisfied.

 

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

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River

The amended proposal will not generate any additional matters than those assessed as part of the original development application.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1996- Industrial Land

The subject property was zoned 4(a) General Industry under the provisions of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Industrial Land) under which the original application was determined. The proposal intends to erect an industrial building with associated offices to be utilised as a self storage facility and the overall categorisation of the development was a permissible use.

 

The proposed development was consistent with the objectives of the zone and the modified proposal does not warrant further assessment against any of the other matters contained within the LEP.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

Due to the fact that the modification application was submitted prior to the gazettal of LEP 2010, the provisions of Clause 1.8A are relevant. The clause states that if a development is made prior to the gazettal of the plan, the application must be determined as if the plan had not commenced. Therefore the provisions of the LEP are given draft weight in the assessment of the application.

 

The site is now zoned IN1 General Industry under LEP 2010. Self-storage units are still identified as a permissible use in the zone and the proposal would be appropriately defined as ‘self-storage units’. The modified proposal does not detract from the original developments consistency with the zone objectives which also remained unchanged. 

 

The map referred to in Clause 4.3 prescribes a maximum building height of 12m. The proposed development adopts a maximum building height of 7.6m, which is well below the requirements.

 

The modified proposal does not alter the original developments consistency with Clause 6.5, which relates to the protection of scenic character and landscape values. The provision of a second driveway and fencing behind the 10m landscaped setback is offset by the provision of landscaped plantings. The current landscape plan is not satisfactory given the lack of appropriate screen plantings and as such a revised condition of consent recommend that an additional landscape plan to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

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

There are no draft environmental planning instruments associated with the proposal.

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

Penrith DCP 2006

DCP Objectives

The objectives of the DCP have been satisfied.

Design and Numerical Requirements

Part 2.7 Notification & Advertising

The proposed development was not notified by virtue of the provisions of B12 of this section of the DCP. The amended development will not prejudice:

 

a)   Any person previously notified of the development;

b)   Any person who previously made a submission- as no submissions were received;

c)   Any matter previously raised in a submission- as no submissions were received.

 

Based on the above, the amended proposal does not warrant public exhibition or notification to adjoining property owners. 

Part 2.11 Carparking

The amended proposal does not necessitate reconsideration of parking matters as overall parking numbers do not change. 

Part 3 Section 3.1 Advertising Signs

The amended proposal does not necessitate reconsideration of signage matters.

Part 4.1 Industrial Land

The proposal remains consistent with this part of the DCP, and the only matters worthy of additional comment relate to building height and the front setback requirements.

 

The building height of 7.6m is well below the prescribed 9m maximum height contained in this part of the DCP.

 

The front setback was considered as part of the original development application, and the modified proposal does not propose any changes to the front setback, other than those required as conditioned of the original development consent. The provision of fencing behind the landscape setback is consistent with the DCP provisions and a condition of consent will require a black palisade fence to be provided in locations forward of the building line.

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

This section is not applicable for the subject application.

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

The proposed modifications do not detract from the likely environmental, social and economic impacts of the original development proposal. As discussed previously the revised driveway concept improves the function of the development and reduces the potential for conflict between vehicles entering and leaving the site and their interaction with other motorists on Old Bathurst Road.

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

The proposed modifications do not alter the suitability of the site for the development proposal, with the revised proposal providing a better design response to the site constraints by locating the access drive predominantly outside the floodway.

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

Referrals

The application was referred to the following stakeholders and their comments have formed part of the assessment:

Referral Body

Comments Received

Traffic Engineer

No objections, subject to conditions.

Development Engineer

No objections, subject to conditions.

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

The proposed modification to the entry and exit points has been demonstrated to improve the interaction between vehicles utilising the development and other motorists utilising Old Bathurst Road. The reduced opportunities for vehicular conflict indicate that the modified proposal is in the public interest.

Conclusion

The proposed modifications to the approved development will not significantly alter the development previously approved by Council. The modified proposal will result in minimal (if any) environmental impacts, and is appropriately defined as substantially the same development. The safety and efficiency of Old Bathurst Road is expected to be better maintained by this alternative access arrangement proposed. The Section 96(1A) application is therefore considered to be worthy of Council’s support.

 

In addition, the request to vary the Section 88b instrument applying to lots 1-8 is also worthy of support to reduce potential for traffic conflict.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Section 96 application for modification to DA10/0289 for a Self Storage Facility on Lot 8 DP 1105133 and Variation to 88b Restriction affecting Lots 1-8 DP 1105133 (No. 142) Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains be received.

2.     The terms of the easement for access numbered 3 in the deposit plan, relating to lots 1-8 in DP 1105133,  be amended to delete the following wording ‘Access to all lots sharing a common driveway shall be from Old Bathurst Road and within the shared driveways’

3.     The easement for access numbered 3 in the plan be extinguished as it relates to lots 1-8 in DP 1105133

4.     The Council seal be affixed where required to affect the recommendations contained in points two (2) and three (3)

5.     DA10/0289.01 for a Section 96 modification to an approved self storage facility be granted consent under delegation upon completion of recommendations 2-4 subject to the following amended conditions:

1     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans/documents:

 

§ Site Plan, numbered 10/110-01 Rev K, drawn by Stor-co Mini Storage Systems, and dated 4 August 2010;

§ Elevations, numbered 10/110-04 Rev B, drawn by drawn by Stor-co Mini Storage Systems, and dated 2 June 2010;

§ Ground Floor Unit Layout, numbered 10/110-02 Rev F, drawn by Stor-co Mini Storage Systems, and dated 25 February 2010;

§ First Floor Unit Layout, numbered 10/110-03 Rev F, drawn by Stor-co Mini Storage Systems, and dated 25 February 2010;

§ Drainage Plan, numbered 87182- D1-D3 Rev C, drawn by Kneebone Beretta & Hall and dated 31 August 2010;

§ Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Mullane Planning Consultants and (undated). 

 

       and stamped approved by Council, the application form and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions.

 

As amended on 11 October 2010 under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

6     Any structures or use located in the floodway area (including the future driveway extension) will require the submission of a new development application.

 

Existing surface levels and batters within the drainage easement / floodway area shall not be altered.

 

       As amended on 11 October 2010 under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

11   The landscape concept is to be revised to take into account the following matters:

      

§ landscaping along the northern boundary in the floodway (easement) is restricted to tree plantings, and the groundcovers are to be removed to enable the flow of water during a flood event;

§ the landscape bed is to be revised to be consistent with the architectural plans (with emphasis on the depth of the landscaping bed)

§ the provision of fencing, with landscape climbers, restricting access underneath the suspended driveway as required. In front of this area a variety of plantings are to be provided that will grow to a minimum height of 4m to screen the fencing. The length of the landscaped bed should be the first 20m of Stage 1. Species selection must consider impacts on the floodway.

§ fencing forward of the building line is to be black palisade fencing and is to be wholly located behind the landscape plantings

 

       In this regard the revised landscape plan is to be submitted to Penrith City Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

       As amended on 11 October 2010 under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

12   Landscaping works are not to impede the operation of the bioretention basin as shown on engineering plans by Kneebone, Beretta & Hall numbered 87182-D1 issue C dated 31/08/2010.

 

       As amended on 11 October 2010 under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.