26 November 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 29 November 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 - 8 November 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

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 8 November 2010.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 22 November 2010.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 29 November 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, amended by Council on 19/4/10, 11/10/10 & 8/11/10)

 

 

 

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@

 

22

6

 

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 8 NOVEMBER 2010 AT 7:37PM

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 - 11 October 2010

366  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 11 October 2010 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Passing of Dame Joan Sutherland AC DBE                                                                     

367  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Passing of Dame Joan Sutherland AC DBE be received.

 

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, John Thain and Greg Davies spoke in favour of the Mayoral Minute.

 

2        Passing of Hakusan City Mayor Mitsuo Kado                                                                

368  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Passing of Hakusan City Mayor Mitsuo Kado be received.

 

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, John Thain and Jackie Greenow spoke in favour of the Mayoral Minute.

 

3        Councillor Karen McKeown elected to Local Government Association of NSW          

369  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Councillor Karen McKeown elected to Local Government Association of NSW be received.

 

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Greg Davies, John Thain, Jackie Greenow and Ross Fowler OAM spoke in favour of the Mayoral Minute.

 

4        Draft Health Strategy wins Planning Commendation                                                       

370  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

          1.       The Mayoral Minute on Draft Health Strategy wins Planning                                  Commendation be received.

2.      The General Manager pass on Council’s congratulations to staff members, Anthony Price and Monique Desmarchelier, who prepared the Draft Health Strategy.

 

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM and Ross Fowler OAM spoke in favour of the Mayoral Minute.

 

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 29 September 2010                                                                                                

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

          That:

                   1.       The recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the                             Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 29                                      September, 2010 be adopted.

                   2.       With regard to Item 9, a memo be forwarded to all Councillors regarding                        the provision of a suitable alternative for people that use Morningbird Lane.

 

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 6 October 2010   

372  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 6 October, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 11 October 2010                                                                                                                                     

373  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 11 October, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

4        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 18 October, 2010                                                                                                                                     

374  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 18 October, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        2010-2011 Operational Plan - September Quarter Review                                              

375  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2010-2011 Operational Plan - September Quarter Review be received.

2.     The amendments to the 2010-2011 Operational Plan KPIs or task deferments be adopted.

3.     The 2010-2011 Operational Plan Review as at 30 September 2010, including the revised estimates and re-vote identified in the recommended budget, be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

2        2010-11 Financial Assistance Grant                                                                                  

376  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2010-11 Financial Assistance Grant  be received.

2.     Council increase the Financial Assistance Grant roads component budget by $91,416 to match the actual Financial Assistance Grant roads component received.

 

 

3        Audit Committee                                                                                                                 

377  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the information contained in the report on Audit Committee be received.

 

 

4        Pecuniary Interest Returns                                                                                                

378  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the information contained in the report on Pecuniary Interest Returns be received.

 

Note:  A further resolution on this matter is included at Minute No. 392  of these Minutes, when the matter was recommitted for consideration of Council.

 

 

5        2010 Local Government Association Annual Conference                                                

379  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Robert Ardill

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on 2010 Local Government Association Annual Conference be received.

2.   A letter of appreciation be sent by the Mayor to the Chairperson of the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council thanking the DLALC for their attendance and support at the 2010 Local Government Association Conference.

3.   Council note that the following Late Motion regarding Freight Transport was raised at the Conference and was referred to the LGA Executive:

The Local Government Association call on the Federal Government to reconsider the location of the proposed Intermodal Terminal facility at Moorebank and request that a feasibility study be conducted with a view to locating the Intermodal Terminal facility at the discarded Badgerys Creek Airport site.

4.   A submission be prepared on the justification and advantages of establishing the Intermodal at Badgerys Creek and that the submission be forwarded on behalf of the Penrith LGA and Western Sydney to the Local Federal Members surrounding the area and to the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Minister for Transport and Shadow Minister for Transport.

 

 

6        Glenmore Park Stage 2 - Voluntary Planning Agreement                                               

380  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Glenmore Park Stage 2 - Voluntary Planning Agreement  be received.

2.     Council endorse the finalisation, public notification and signing of the Voluntary Planning Agreement with the Glenmore Park Stage 2 Landowners in accordance with the terms of the Letter of Offer and in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and Regulations.

3.     Council authorise the Group Manager – Leadership and the Group Manager – Legal and Governance to finalise the terms of the Voluntary Planning Agreement as outlined in the report.

4.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to the Voluntary Planning Agreement developed in accordance with resolution 2 and 3 above.

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

 

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

 

7        Revitalisation of Dunheved Business Park in conjunction with "Link Road, St Marys Planning Agreement"                                                                                                         

 

381  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Revitalisation of Dunheved Business Park in conjunction with "Link Road, St Marys Planning Agreement" be received.

2.     Council consent to the “Link Road, St Marys Planning Agreement” in conjunction with St Marys Land Limited, Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd and Penrith City Council for the future development of the respective land ownerships by all parties.

3.     Public notification of the “Link Road St Marys Planning Agreement” to commence in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

4.     A further report on progress be presented to Council providing an update and status of the Link Road connection from Christie Street.

5.     The General Manager be delegated the authority to finalise negotiations with Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd for the Development Management  fee for the project.

 

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

 

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

 

 

 

382  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that Item 4 – Pecuniary Interest Returns be referred to Committee of the Whole for further consideration as the report refers to personnel matters concerning particular individuals and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 

14      Amendment to 2010 Meeting Calendar                                                                            

383  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Amendment to 2010 Meeting Calendar be received

2.     The 2010 Meeting Calendar be altered so that an additional Policy Review Committee Meeting is scheduled for 6 December 2010.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

8        Council's 2009-10 Annual Report                                                                                      

384  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kaylene Allison seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council's 2009-10 Annual Report be received.

2.     The Annual Report be endorsed by Council, as amended at page 19 (Councillor Attendance at Meetings: 2009-10), and forwarded to the Department of Local Government as required under the Act.

 

 

9        St Marys Spring Festival                                                                                                   

385  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.      Consideration of this matter be deferred to a future Ordinary Meeting of Council.

2.      The General Manager thank the staff involved in organising this year’s St Marys Spring Festival.

 

 

 

10      Application to remove a restriction to user on the title for the retention of existing trees on Lots 112 - 118 DP 1063700 (No. 62 - 76) Great Western Highway, Colyton. Applicant: Landcom;  Owner: Landcom                                                                                              

 

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Application to remove a restriction to user on the title for the retention of existing trees on Lots 112 - 118 DP 1063700 (No. 62 - 76) Great Western Highway, Colyton be received

2.     The restriction to user fifthly referred to in the Section 88b Instrument imposed in accordance with the Conveyancing Act 1919 be removed

3.     Council’s Common Seal be affixed to necessary documents associated with the removal of the restriction.

 

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

 

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

 

11      Development Application DA08/1333.02 Proposed Modification to Mixed Use Development at Part Lot 21 Sec 30 & Part Lot 22 Sec 30 DP 1855 & Part Lot 46B DP 411863 (No. 182 - 190) Great Western Highway, Kingswood. Applicant: Cityscape Planning & Projects;  Owner: Aesthete Pty Ltd                                                                                          DA08/1333.02

 

387  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA08/1333.02 Proposed Modification to Mixed Use Development at Part Lot 21 Sec 30 & Part Lot 22 Sec 30 DP 1855 & Part Lot 46B DP 411863 (No. 182 - 190) Great Western Highway, Kingswood be received.

2.     Section 96 application for modification of consent DA08/1333 be approved subject to the following amended and additional conditions:

Amend Condition 1 to read as follows:

2.1     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans stamped approved by Council, the application form, the BASIX Certificate and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions

 

Drawing Title

Drawing No

Issue

Prepared

Dated

Cover page, Location Plan & Drawing Schedule

DA00

K

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Site Analysis

DA01

B

Turner & Associates

17-12-08

Site Plan / Roof Plan

DA02

G

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Basement Parking Level 3

DA20

G

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Basement Parking Level 1 & Level 2

DA21

W

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Ground & Level 1

DA22

Q

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Level 2 & Levels 3-6

DA23

P

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Levels 7 & 8

DA24

P

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Sections

DA31

K

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

North Elevation

DA41

K

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

West & East Elevation

DA42

K

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

South Elevation

DA43

K

Turner & Associates

24-08-10

Shadow Diagrams

DA70

 

Turner & Associates

17-12-08

 

Amend Condition 28 to read as follows:

2.2     A preliminary assessment of the plans submitted with the application has disclosed that the following design and/or construction issues need to be addressed prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate to ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia:

a)    Two exits are required from the basement level L3 in accordance with Clause D1.2(c)

b)    Two fire isolated exits are required for the Class 2 apartments in accordance with Clause D1.3(a)

c)    Openings within 3 metres of the side boundary require protection in accordance with Clauses C3.2 and C3.4

 

Amend Condition 35 to read as follows:

2.3     A total of 86 off-street parking spaces are to be provided, linemarked and maintained for the development, generally in accordance with the approved schedule of external finishes. A total of 73 car parking spaces are to be provided for the residential component of the development at a rate of one for every dwelling and 12 visitor spaces. The 73 residential spaces are to be separately identified and made accessible to residents and visitors. The parking space dimensions and manoeuvring areas are to comply with AS2890.1 and AS2890.2 the Building Code of Australia and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act.

 

 

The parking spaces for persons with disabilities as shown on the approved plans are to be provided in accordance with AS1428.1 and are to be located close to all pedestrian access ways or entrances to the building

 

Add new Condition 7A & 7B as follows:

2.4     Secure bicycle parking shall be provided in appropriate locations. Details shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate

 

2.5     The acoustic measures recommended under the Acoustic Report dated 19 December 2008 prepared by Vipac Engineers& Scientists Ltd shall be applied to the new apartments at Level 1 of the building

 

Add new Condition 35A as follows:

2.6     Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate documentation is to be submitted to Council demonstrating appropriate dedication of parking spaces for each land use and visitor parking arrangements. Subleasing of car parking spaces is not permitted by this consent.

 

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

 

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

 

A Liveable City

 

12      Lenore Drive Extension Status                                                                                         

388  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Lenore Drive Extension Status be received.

2.     Adjustments be made to the Erskine Business Park S94 Plan expenditure that relates to intersection works once the claims are reconciled with Fitzpatrick Development Corporation.

 

 

13      Proposed Renaming of Part Mayo Road, Llandilo                                                           

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed Renaming of Part Mayo Road, Llandilo be received.

2.     Council endorse the proposed renaming of the western section of Mayo Road to Treanor Place and the proposed renaming be advertised in accordance with Council’s Road Naming Policy and the Roads Regulation, 2008.

3.     Subject to no valid objections being received during the advertising period, Treanor Place be advertised in the local paper and Government Gazette with notification sent to relevant authorities.

4.     A note be added to the Treanor Place sign to advise that Treanor Place was ‘formerly Mayo Road’.

 

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Sun Smart Actions                                                                                                     

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply to all Councillors detailing Council’s policy on staff employing sun smart actions when fulfilling Council duties outdoors.  Councillor Tanya Davies also requested that, if there is no policy for this, that a draft be prepared for discussion.

 

RR 2          Removal of Structures from Surveyors Creek Area                                              

Councillor Mark Davies requested a memo reply to all Councillors detailing the options for planting shrubs at the base of the structures at Surveyors Creek in order to deter graffiti, rather than remove these structures.

 

RR 3          Business Delegation to International Partners                                                       

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested a comprehensive report to Council outlining the recent overseas delegation to Council’s international partners in order that she may report back to the International Friendship Committee.

 

RR 4          Access and Egress - Kingswood Smash Repairs                                                    

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the camber of the road and kerb and gutter at the driveway of Kingswood Smash Repairs in Cox Avenue, Kingswood, which is causing damage to vehicles entering and exiting the premises.

 

RR 5          Urban Transport World Conference                                                                        

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo to all Councillors seeking interest in attending the Urban Transport World Conference to be held at Darling Harbour from 22 to 24 February 2011.

 

RR 6          Graffiti - Queen Street, St Marys                                                                            

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the repeated appearance of graffiti adjacent to the Department of Community Services building in St Marys, including the installation of ‘e-nose’ technology.

 

 

RR 7          Installation of Closed Circuit TV cameras at Glenmore Park                                

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply to all Councillors outlining the costs of installing closed circuit television cameras, with infra red capability, at the amenities block at Ched Towns Reserve and the Youth and Community Centre, both at Glenmore Park.

 

RR 8          Provision of Loans to Local Government                                                                

Councillor Prue Guillaume noted the recent State Opposition announcement of a policy to provide councils with billion dollar loans and requested a memo to all Councillors detailing how Council would raise the necessary funds to repay such a loan, should Council decide to take the full amount.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

390  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor John Thain that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 9:12 pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

 

A Leading City

 

2        Commercial Matter - Permanent Road Closures of Timber Lane, Werrington Downs and Javelin Lane, St Clair                                                                                                         

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Proposed Separation of Existing Tenancy at former Top One Restaurant Located within 114-116 Henry Street, Penrith                              

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

4        Personnel Matter

 

          This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to personnel matters concerning particular individuals and discussion of the matter in open meeting       would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

The meeting resumed at 9:30 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 9:12 pm on 8 November 2010, the following being 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

 

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

 

 

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Commercial Matter - Permanent Road Closures of Timber Lane, Werrington Downs and Javelin Lane, St Clair                                                                                                         

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

CW2 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Permanent Road Closures of Timber Lane, Werrington Downs and Javelin Lane, St Clair be received

2.     Council approve the sale of land to the adjoining owners of Timber Lane, Werrington Downs and Javelin lane, St Clair as outlined in the table contained within the report.

3.     Council finalise the permanent road closures of Timber Lane, Werrington Downs and Javelin Lane, St Clair.

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

 

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Proposed Separation of Existing Tenancy at former Top One Restaurant Located within 114-116 Henry Street, Penrith                              

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

CW3 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Council Property - Proposed Separation of Existing Tenancy at former Top One Restaurant Located within 114-116 Henry Street, Penrith be received.

2.     Council approve the intended separation of the existing premises to improve and upgrade the commercial sector of the ground floor relating to the Community Connections building as indicated in the report.

3.     A further report be submitted to Council at a later date outlining the tender process and seeking appropriate approval to proceed with required works.

 

 

4        Personnel Matter

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that a further report be brought back to the Committee of the Whole regarding designated individuals who are requested to complete a pecuniary interest return. 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                        

Recommittal of Item 4 – Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

391  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor  Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that consideration of Item 4 – Pecuniary Interest Returns be recommitted for consideration of Council.

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

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

 

Recommittal of Item 4 – Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

393  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor  Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

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

2.     A further report be brought back to the Committee of the Whole regarding designated individuals who are requested to complete a pecuniary interest return

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:37pm.

 



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        Max Harrison Retirement

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Vibrant City

 

Mayoral Minute

Max Harrison Retirement

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

           

 

I would like to acknowledge the retirement of Mr Max Harrison from the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre Management Committee after many years. During his time on the committee Max has continuously held the position of President.

 

Together with a handful of Kingswood residents, Max successfully lobbied Council to build a community centre in Kingswood. He attended a number of community consultations to ensure the vision for the community became a reality, and in August 2003 accepted the keys from the Mayor on behalf of the community.

 

Max was instrumental in participating in a community design reference group which met regularly for almost 12 months to assist Council with the design of the facility. He also spearheaded the push to ensure the hall was large enough to suit a range of community celebrations and activities. Max has spent many hours at the centre over the years, manning the office, cleaning the furniture, and meeting and greeting local residents. Rarely would a day go by without Max being seen at the centre.

 

I congratulate Max on his hard work; he should be very proud of his efforts. Under his stewardship as President, the committee was able to make significant improvements to the facility including the installation of solar panels and rainwater tanks, air conditioning, outdoor shade areas and playground-quality soft fall.

 

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Max’s wife, Mrs Dulcie Harrison. Dulcie has also been an active member of the management committee for a number of years and is also retiring. Her participation and contribution to the community of Kingswood and the neighbourhood centre has been invaluable.

 

On behalf of Council and the Penrith community, I congratulate both Max and Dulcie for their dedication and commitment to the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre, and I wish them well for the future.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Max Harrison Retirement be received.

 

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 8 November 2010

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 Novemeber, 2010

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Liveable City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 8 November, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), David Lance – Roads and Traffic Authority, Constable Bill Pearson – Penrith Police, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, The Mayor – Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Pat Sheehy AM Emeritus Mayor – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager City Infrastructure, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Phil Davies – Westbus, Steven Purvis – Ranger.

 

APOLOGIES

Councillor Jackie Greenow, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co‑ordinator, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, Alyce Kliese – Trainee Engineer

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 11 October 2010

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 11 October 2010 were confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Station Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of 'Bus Stop'                                              

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Station Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of 'Bus Stop' be received.

2.     A 16m ‘Bus Zone’ not be provided on the western side of Station Street, Penrith 10m north of the Union Lane intersection.

3.     The existing ‘Bus Zone’ on Station Street south of Union Lane be retained.

4.     Westbus be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

2        Gascoigne Street, Kingswood - Results of Resident Consultation Regarding Proposed Restricted Parking Area Scheme                                                                                      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Gascoigne Street, Kingswood - Results of Resident Consultation Regarding Proposed Restricted Parking Area Scheme be received.

2.     The proposed Restricted Parking Area Scheme not be supported and the current parking restrictions be retained.

3.     Affected residents and St Dominic’s College be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

3        Colorado Drive, St Clair - Provision of 'Kiss & Ride' Zone at Clairgate Public School 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Colorado Drive, St Clair – Provision of 'Kiss & Ride' Zone at Clairgate Public School be received.

2.     Consultation be conducted with affected residents, Clairgate Public School and Cooinda Child Care Centre regarding the proposed changes affecting their premises.  Clairgate Public School be requested to consult directly with their P&C, staff and parents regarding the proposal and advise Council of any comments as part of the school’s submission.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections:

a.   The existing ‘Bus Zone’ at the corner of Colorado Drive and Boston Place be relocated to the corner of Colorado Drive and Coonawarra Drive, St Clair.  ‘Bus Zone’ signage be installed for approximately 20m on Colorado Drive starting 10m north from the prolongation of the kerb of Coonawarra Drive, to the boundary between house numbers 51 Coonawarra Drive and 61 Colorado Drive, St Clair;

b.   The existing ‘Bus Zone’ fronting Cooinda Child Care Centre be relocated approximately 40m directly south-west along Colorado Drive;

c.   'No Stopping' distances at the existing marked footcrossing, fronting Clairgate Public School, be reduced to the mandatory minimum of 18m on approach and 9m on departure of the crossing;

d.   Approximately 29m of timed 'No Parking' zone (8.00am to 9.30am & 2.30pm to 4.00pm School Days) be installed to operate as a 'Kiss & Ride' zone immediately prior to the southern approach (‘No Stopping’) to the marked footcrossing on Colorado Drive, St Clair, fronting Clairgate Public School;

e.   Approximately 15m of timed 'No Parking' zone (8.00am to 9.30am & 2.30pm to 4.00pm School Days) be installed to operate as a 'Kiss & Ride' zone immediately following the northern departure (‘No Stopping’) of the marked footcrossing on Colorado Drive, St Clair, fronting Clairgate Public School.

4.     The Member for Mulgoa, all affected residents, Clairgate Public School and Westbus be advised of Council's resolution.

 

4        Bulu Drive, Glenmore Park - Speeding Vehicles                                                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bulu Drive, Glenmore Park - Speeding Vehicles be received.

2.     Consultation be conducted with affected residents on Bulu Drive, Glenmore Park as a result of the proposal and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections from affected residents, 10m of double‑barrier lines with raised reflective pavement markers be implemented on both approaches to the existing tadpole island in front of 18 Bulu Drive, and 9m of rumble bars be placed adjacent to the kerb on the both departures of the tadpole island on Bulu Drive, Glenmore Park.

4.     ‘Slow Point Ahead’ warning signs be installed 80m from the existing tadpole island on both approaches on Bulu Drive, Glenmore Park.

5.     Councillor Guillaume be advised accordingly.

 

5        Monfarville Street, St Marys - Provision of 'No Stopping' Signs on Corner of Monfarville Street & Lonsdale Street                                                                                                   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Monfarville Street, St Marys - Provision of 'No Stopping' Signs on Corner of Monfarville Street & Lonsdale Street be received.

2.     ‘No Parking’ (left arrow) sign be installed on Monfarville Street, 10m south of Lonsdale Street, St Marys.

3.     ‘No Stopping’ (right arrow) sign be installed in Monfarville Street 10m south of the intersection of Lonsdale Street, and a ‘No Stopping’ (left arrow) sign be installed on Lonsdale Street 10m west of the intersection of Monfarville Street, St Marys.

4.     Council’s Rangers be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6        Phillip Street, Kingswood - Relocation of 'No Stopping' Signage                                    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Phillip Street, Kingswood - Relocation of 'No Stopping' Signage be received.

2.     The existing ‘No Stopping’ sign on the south of the driveway of 17 Phillip Street, Penrith be relocated 2m north of the driveway at 17 Phillip Street, Penrith.

3.     The House With No Steps be advised of Council’s resolution.

4.     Council’s Rangers be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

7        Traffic Facilities Program Accident Evaluation - Penrith Local Government Area        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Traffic Facilities Program Accident Evaluation - Penrith Local Government Area be received.

2.     The Committee note the information.

 

8        Australia Day Event - Wednesday, 26 January 2011                                                       

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Australia Day Event - Wednesday, 26 January 2011 be received.

2.     The Event Applicant  be advised that this is a Class 2 Event under the Roads and Traffic Authority’s “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”; and the Traffic Management Plan be endorsed subject to compliance with all relevant conditions specified in the Guide, prior to the event, as follows:

 

(a)        A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) including a Risk Management       Plan be lodged by the event applicant with the Roads and Traffic    Authority for approval, a minimum of eight weeks prior to the event. A copy of the Roads and Traffic Authority approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event;

(b)       The event applicant obtains separate approval from the NSW Police and submits a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police a minimum of eight weeks prior to the event.  A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event;

(c)        A detailed Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Traffic Authority and NSW Police a minimum 30 days prior to the event. The Traffic Control Plan shall detail how emergency access is maintained during the event;

(d)       The event organiser advise ambulance and fire brigade (NSW Fire Brigade and RFS) and SES of the proposed event, a minimum of 30 days prior to the event;

(e)        All documentation required by the above conditions is to be submitted to Council for information purposes at least 30 days prior to the event.

                   3.       The applicant be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

9        Carrington Road & Bennett Road, Londonderry - Endorsement of Signage & Linemarking Plan                                                                                                                                      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Carrington Road & Bennett Road, Londonderry - Endorsement of Signage & Linemarking Plan be received.

2.     The road reconstruction and intersection realignment at the Carrington Road and Bennett Road intersection, Londonderry, including all associated linemarking and signage as per Plan No. AC 257 be finalised and endorsed, with funding available under the 2010/11 Nation Building Black Spot Program.

3.     A Traffic Management Plan be submitted to the Roads and Traffic Authority for the proposed no right turn and no left turn at the intersection of Carrington Road and Bennett Road, Londonderry.

4.     Council notify Westbus (Windsor Depot) of construction start times and dates prior to the commencement of works at this intersection.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Henry Street, Penrith – Proposed Alteration to Parking Provision  (Raised Council)    

Council has been advised that the “Top One” restaurant on Henry Street, Penrith, near Gaymark Lane, has now closed for business.  As this restaurant had catered to a transiting trade of passing tourist coaches, Council previously provided coach-only exception to the “No Parking” zone on the Henry Street frontage to the restaurant.

 

It is proposed that this section of Henry Street now be returned to on-street parking which is consistent with parking restrictions in nearby areas of Henry Street, ie, 1 Hour Parking (8.30am‑6.00pm Mon-Fri & 8.30am-12.30pm Sat).  Additionally, it is proposed that the intersection of Henry Street and Gaymark Lane be signposted “No Stopping” and that approximately 13m of existing “No Parking” immediately west of the entry to the Penrith Disabilities Resource Centre, be retained.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.   Consultation be carried out with affected property owners and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

2.   Subject to no substantial objections being received, approximately 35m of timed 1 Hour Parking (8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri & 8.30am‑12.30pm Sat) be installed to replace current “No Parking/Coach Parking” zone immediately east of the existing “Bus Zone” fronting numbers 116 to 118 Henry Street, Penrith.

3.   Subject to no substantial objections being received, approximately 10m of “No Stopping” be installed to replace existing “No Parking” at the eastern corner of the T-intersection with Gaymark Lane, Penrith.

 

 

GB 2          Kent Road, Orchard Hills – Proposed Linemarking  (Raised Council)       

Council is in the process of resealing and re-sheeting works with Kent Road, Orchard Hills earmarked for upgrade in the near future.  As part of this, Council’s Traffic Section investigated opportunities for linemarking upgrade in Kent Road immediately following the re-sheeting works.

 

It is proposed that the road linemarking upgrade include the provision of edgelines for the extent of works, being 1,200m from Gipps Street in the north to Lansdowne Road in the south.  The provision of edgeline marking improves safety for road users and prevents edge-breaks from occurring.

 

Further to this, it is proposed to provide double-barrier linemarking from Gipps Street until the M4 motorway bridge (450m length) and dashed separation linemarking from this point southward to the boundary of property number 92 Kent Road (400m length).  Due to the proximity of a bend and limited overtaking opportunity, it is proposed to introduce double‑barrier linemarking from property boundary number 92 Kent Road to Lansdowne Road, a distance of 350m.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.   1,200m of edgeline marking be provided from Gipps Street to Lansdowne Road, Orchard Hills with raised pavement markers as required.

2.   450m of double-barrier linemarking be provided from Gipps Street until the M4 motorway bridge.

3.   400m of dashed separation linemarking be provided from the M4 motorway bridge southbound until the boundary of property number 92 Kent Road.

4.   350m of double-barrier linemarking be provided from the northern property boundary of number 92 Kent Road to Lansdowne Road.

 

 

 

 

 

GB 3          Mulgoa Road, Wallacia – Fatal Motorcycle Accident  (Raised St Marys Police) 

The St Marys Police representative advised that a fatal motorcycle accident occurred on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 on Mulgoa Road, Wallacia.  Police are currently investigating the cause of the accident.

RECOMMENDED

That the Committee note the information.

 

GB 4          Penrith CBD ANZAC Day Marches – Sunday, 24 April 2011 & Monday, 25 April 2011  (Raised Penrith Police)                                                                                            

The Penrith Police representative advised that there will be an ANZAC Day March on Sunday, 24 April 2011 in the Penrith CBD from approximately 2.30pm to 4.00pm, and an ANZAC Day March on Monday, 25 April 2011 in the Penrith CBD from approximately 4.30am to 5.30am.

The Marches will be the same as in previous years, with no problems occurring in the past.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   The Committee note the information.

2.   The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 4 Event under the Roads and Traffic Authority’s “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guide must be complied with prior to the event.

3.   The event applicant submit to Council a copy of Public Liability Insurance (usually a certificate of currency) of minimum $10 million, 30 days prior to the event.  In addition, the event applicant indemnify Council in writing against all claims for damage and injury which may result from the proposed event.

4.   The event applicant obtain separate approval from the NSW Police and submit a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police a minimum of eight weeks prior to the event.  A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

5.   The event be run under the direct supervision of NSW Police.

6.   The event organiser obtain approval from ambulance and fire brigade (NSW Fire Brigade and RFS) and SES for the proposed event and submit a copy of the approval to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 10:35am.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 8 November, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 22 November, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, 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.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was granted to Councillor Kaylene Allison for the period 22 November 2010 to 27 November 2010 inclusive.

RECOMMENDED that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Kaylene Allison for the period 22 November 2010 to 27 November 2010 inclusive.

 

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 18 October 2010

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 18 October 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Tanya Davies declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 1-7 as she has interests in property located in some of the areas covered by the reports and her husband holds a Real Estate licence and works in the Real Estate industry in areas covered by the report. Councillor Tanya Davies stated her intention to leave the room for consideration of these items.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 4 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - St Marys as she has interests in properties located in St Marys which will be affected by the proposed zoning. Councillor Jackie Greenow indicated she would leave the room for consideration of this item.

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 4 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - St Marys as he has an interest in a property located in St Marys which will be affected by the proposed zoning. Councillor Marko Malkoc indicated he would leave the room for discussion of this item.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood as she has an interest in properties located in Werrington Downs and Penrith, however the zonings proposed are similar to the current zonings. Councillor Kath Presdee indicated her intention to remain in the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor John Thain declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood as he has interest in properties located in North St Marys and Colyton, however the zonings proposed are similar to the current zonings. Councillor John Thain indicated his intention to remain in the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Items 4, 6 & 7 as she has interests in properties located in St Marys, Glenmore Park and Emu Plains, however the zonings proposed are similar to the current zonings. Councillor Prue Guillaume indicated her intention to remain in the room for consideration of the items.

 

Councillor Greg Davies declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood as he has an interest in a property at St Clair, however the zoning proposed is similar to the current zoning. Councillor Greg Davies indicated his intention to remain in the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 6 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Leonay and Glenmore Park as she has an interest in properties in Leonay. Councillor Karen McKeown indicated her intention to leave the room for consideration of the item. Councillor Karen McKeown also declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less then Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and as she has interests in properties located in Emu Plains and South Penrith, however the zonings proposed are similar to the current zonings. Councillor Karen McKeown indicated her intention to remain in the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor Mark Davies declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 1-7 as he has interests in property located in the areas covered by the reports and holds a Real Estate licence and works in the Real Estate industry in areas covered by the reports. Councillor Mark Davies stated his intention to leave the room for consideration of these items.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood as he has an interest in a property located in Cranebrook, however the zoning proposed is similar to the current zoning. Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM indicated he would remain in the room for consideration of this item.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 4,5,6 & 7 as he is a Director of, Accountant for, Auditor for or owns a property in the areas that are the subject of the reports. Councillor Ross Fowler OAM indicated he would leave the room for consideration of the items.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 1-7 as he has an interest in  properties located in areas that are the subject of the reports. Councillor Jim Aitken OAM indicated his intention to leave the room for consideration of these items, and requested to be excused by his Worship the Mayor, for the remainder of the meeting.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:39 and did not return.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Green City

 

9        Blacktown and Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme

Environmental Health Manager, Graham Liehr introduced the report and Colin Pitman Director City Projects, Salisbury Council, South Australia who gave a presentation on Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme.

Councillor Kath Presdee left the meeting the time being 8:03pm.

Councillor Kath Presdee returned to the meeting the time being 8:06pm.

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting the time being 8:11pm.

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting the time being 8:13pm.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Blacktown and Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme be received

2.     Council support the submission for funding of up to $1,200,000 to the NSW Office of Water for Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme

3.     Council support the submission for funding of up to $1,000,000 to the NSW Office of Water for the extension of the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme to link to the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme Stage 2

4.     Council staff develop the Funding Deed with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities on the basis of a grant and funding agreement incorporating:

a.   A first Stage allocation sufficient for Council to undertake the required detailed design, costing and risk assessment and

b.   A provision that the progression of a project to construction is subject to a favourable confirmation of costs and a satisfactory risk assessment being confirmed by Council.

5.     A report be brought back to Council on the results of the funding application to the NSW Office of Water and funding model for the project, prior to signing the funding agreement with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

8        Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd

Children’s Services Manager, Janet Keegan introduced the report and Chairman Children’s Services Cooperative, Max Friend who gave a presentation on the Annual Report.                                        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd be received

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operation of Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd Annual Report for 2010/2011.

3.     Council write to the Chairperson, congratulating the Board and all staff for another successful year, including managing internal issues and the views of the community.

 

A Liveable City

 

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

Councillor Greg Davies introduced the report and Erik Henricksen, General Manager of Ripples who gave a presentation on the Annual Report and Board of Directors.

Councillor Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:34pm.

Councillor Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:35pm.

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:45pm.

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:47pm.

Councillor Robert Ardill left the meeting, the time being, 9:08pm.

Councillor Robert Ardill returned to the meeting, the time being 9:10pm.                                          

RECOMMENDED

That:

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

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operations of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd until the presentation to the Council of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd Annual Report for 2010/2011.

3.     Council congratulate, thank and write to the Board, General Manager and staff for another successful year.

4.     Council write to Mr Rodney Watson, thanking him for his contribution and hard work over many years on the Board of Ripples.

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

12      Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM introduced and invited the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd, John Kirkman and John Reed who gave a presentation on the Annual Report and Board of Directors.

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 9:14pm.

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9:14pm.                                           

RECOMMENDED

That:

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

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd Annual Report for 2010/2011.

3.     Council write to the Board congratulating them, the management and staff on the continued success throughout the previous year.

 

A Leading City

 

1        Adoption of Amendment 5 and 6 to Penrith Development Control Plan 2006                

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest Councillors Mark & Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 9:51pm and did not return.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Adoption of Amendment 5 and 6 to Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 be received.

2.     In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations 2000, Council adopt Penrith Development Control Plan 2010, as tabled at Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting of 22 November 2010.

3.     In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, Council give public notice of its decision in a local newspaper within 28 days, with the DCP amendments coming into effect immediately upon notification in the newspaper. 

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

 

 

2        Adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 2010                                                       

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 be received.

2.     Council adopt the recommendations contained in Attachment 2: Outstanding Submissions relating to Draft Penrith DCP 2010.

3.     In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations 2000, Council adopt Penrith Development Control Plan 2010, as tabled at Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting of 22 November 2010 subject to the inclusion of objectives and controls in Chapter C7 ‘Culture and Heritage’, as contained in Attachment 2, for new development adjacent to the heritage listed Torin Building.

4.     In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, Council give public notice of its decision in a local newspaper within 28 days, with the DCP coming into effect immediately upon notification in the newspaper.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

3        Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy                                                    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy be received.

2.     Council endorse the public exhibition of Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy in a form consistent with any revisions of the document as tabled tonight.

3.     The matter be reported back to Council after consideration of submissions received as a result of community consultation.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

4        Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - St Marys     

Having previously declared Pecuniary Interests, Councillors Ross Fowler OAM, Jackie Greenow and Marko Malkoc left the meeting, the time being 9.56pm.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - St Marys    be received

2.     Council endorse the Planning Proposal – draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) to be forwarded to the Department of Planning to commence the LEP plan making process under s56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

3.     Council undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, and that the Planning Proposal be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW prior to it being forwarded to the Department of Planning.

4.     Council seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal – Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) to be publicly exhibited in accordance with the community consultation requirements under s57 of the EP&A Act, and in a form consistent with any revisions of the Planning Proposal directed by Council and the Minister as part of the s56 Gateway Determination.

5.     A public hearing in accordance with s29 of the Local Government Act and 57(6) EP&A Act be held in relation to the proposed reclassifications from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’.

6.     The terms of the final Gateway Determination be reported to Council.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

 

5        Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Kingswood   

Councillors Jackie Greenow and Marko Malkoc returned to the meeting, the time being 9:57pm.     

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Kingswood    be received

2.     Council endorse the Planning Proposal – draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) to be forwarded to the Department of Planning to commence the LEP plan making process under s56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

3.     Council undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, and that the Planning Proposal be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW prior to it being forwarded to the Department of Planning.

4.     Council seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal – Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) to be publicly exhibited in accordance with the community consultation requirements under s57 of the EP&A Act, and in a form consistent with any revisions of the Planning Proposal directed by Council and the Minister as part of the s56 Gateway Determination.

5.     A public hearing in accordance with s29 of the Local Government Act and 57(6) EP&A Act be held in relation to the proposed reclassifications from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’.

6.     The terms of the final Gateway Determination be reported to Council.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

6        Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Leonay and Glenmore Park                                                                                                                   

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 10:00pm.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Leonay and Glenmore Park    be received

2.     Council endorse the Planning Proposal – draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) to be forwarded to the Department of Planning to commence the LEP plan making process under s56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

3.     Council undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, and that the Planning Proposal be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW prior to it being forwarded to the Department of Planning.

4.     Council seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal – Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) to be publicly exhibited in accordance with the community consultation requirements under s57 of the EP&A Act, and in a form consistent with any revisions of the Planning Proposal directed by Council and the Minister as part of the s56 Gateway Determination.

5.     A public hearing in accordance with s29 of the Local Government Act and 57(6) EP&A Act be held in relation to the proposed reclassifications from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’.

6.     The terms of the final Gateway Determination be reported to Council.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

7        Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood               

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 10:01pm.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood be received.

2.     Council endorse the Planning Proposal – draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) to be forwarded to the Department of Planning to commence the LEP plan making process under s56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

3.     Council undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, and that the Planning Proposal be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW prior to it being forwarded to the Department of Planning.

4.     Council seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal – Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) to be publicly exhibited in accordance with the community consultation requirements under s57 of the EP&A Act, and in a form consistent with any revisions of the Planning Proposal directed by Council and the Minister as part of the s56 Gateway Determination.

5.     A public hearing in accordance with s29 of the Local Government Act and 57(6) EP&A Act be held in relation to the proposed reclassifications from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’.

6.     The terms of the final Gateway Determination be reported to Council.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 10:02pm.

 

A Vibrant City

 

11      Penrith Valley Cemeteries                                                                                                 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Cemeteries be received.

2.     The Penrith Valley Cemeteries Action Plan detailed in this report be adopted for implementation.

3.     The draft Penrith Valley Cemeteries management Policy be presented to Council at a future Policy Review meeting.

4.     An urgent report be brought back to the next Council meeting detailing the fencing and security issues at Castlereagh and John Jamison cemeteries.

 


CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

The meeting closed to consider confidential business 10:08pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

RECOMMENDED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting to deal with the following matter:

 

 

A Leading City

 

2        Penrith Football Stadium - Naming Rights Sponsor                                                         

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

The meeting moved out of confidential session at 11:06 pm and the General Manager reported that after excluding the press and public from the meeting, the Policy Review Committee met in confidential session from 10:08 pm to 11:06pm to consider a commercial matter.

 

The General Manager reported that while in confidential session, the Committee resolved the confidential business as follows:

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Penrith Football Stadium - Naming Rights Sponsor

Recreation Manager, Andrew Robinson introduced the report and Ric Simpson, CEO of Penrith Panthers and Shannon Donato, Marketing Manager who gave a presentation.                                                

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in this report on Penrith Football Stadium - Naming Rights Sponsor be received.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 11:06pm.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 22 November, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

  



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Council Meeting Calendar for 2011

 

2        Provision of External Legal Services to Council

 

3        Transfer of Land from Department of Planning to Council - Lots 280/281 DP 1020286, No. 17 Bellevue Road, Regentville

 

4        Progress Report on Activities to Respond to Climate Change 

 

5        Investigations into Alternate and Renewable Energy Technologies

 

6        Future Community Infrastructure Program

 

7        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 October 2010 to 31 October 2010

 

A City of Opportunities

 

8        Community Assistance Program Planned Component 2010/2011

 

9        Services for Men Project

 

10      Bells Line of Road - Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan

 

11      Development Application DA09/0753 Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision for Lot 86 DP 270417 (No. 38) Twin Creeks Drive, Luddenham. Applicant: Cityscape Planning + Projects;  Owner: E & K Awad

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

 

12      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.

 

13      Development Application DA09/0164 proposed demolition of existing buildings, extension to existing quarry, office, road transport terminal and boundary adjustment at Lot 228 DP 1134016 Lot 2 DP 221313 Lot 229 DP 1134016 (No. 1513 - 1519) Elizabeth Drive, Kemps Creek. Applicant: Hi Quality Quarry (NSW) Pty Ltd;  Owner: Tranteret Pty Ltd

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

 

A Green City

 

14      E-Waste

 

15      Waste & Sustainability Improvement Payments

 

A Liveable City

 

16      Penrith Schools' Boatshed Management Committee

 

17      Wearing of Helmets at Council Skate Parks

 

18      Glenmore Park Stage 2 - Sports and Recreation Facilities

 

19      Penrith District Grade Cricket Club Grounds Maintenance Subsidy

 

20      Pathway construction from Carinya Avenue, St Marys to St Marys Village Shopping Centre

 

21      Tender Reference 08-10/11, Provision of Pre-mixed Concrete

 

22      Tender Reference 13-10/11 Construction of Concrete Path Paving

 

23      Tender Reference 11-10/11 Provision of a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner

 

24      Chameleon Reserve Basketball Court

 

URGENT

 

28      Castlereagh Anglican Cemetery and Sir John Jamison Cemetery - installation of security fencing and gates

 

A Vibrant City

 

25      Sponsorship of Sydney Dance Company & Australian Chamber Orchestra "Festival Inside Out" at Regatta Centre

 

26      Health Strategy

 

27      Heritage Assistance Fund 2010/2011

 

 


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Council Meeting Calendar for 2011

 

2        Provision of External Legal Services to Council

 

3        Transfer of Land from Department of Planning to Council - Lots 280/281 DP 1020286, No. 17 Bellevue Road, Regentville

 

4        Progress Report on Activities to Respond to Climate Change 

 

5        Investigations into Alternate and Renewable Energy Technologies

 

6        Future Community Infrastructure Program

 

7        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 October 2010 to 31 October 2010

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Council Meeting Calendar for 2011   

 

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 propose a Meeting Calendar for 2011. The report recommends that the draft Meeting Calendar be adopted. If adopted, the Council will have 15 Ordinary Council Meetings, 13 Policy Review Committee Meetings and 12 Councillor Briefings.

 

In preparing the draft Meeting Calendar, staff have taken into consideration a number of statutory deadlines where certain reports have to be presented to the Council.

 

An option that is open to the Council is to consider holding an Ordinary Council Meeting on 20 June 2011 when the National General Assembly of Local Government is held, as this year only four Councillors attended the Assembly. By holding an Ordinary Council Meeting on 20 June 2011, this will have the benefit of reducing the time between the 23 May and 20 June Ordinary Meetings to only 4 weeks (instead of 5 weeks) and will give the Council an opportunity to possibly have another Councillor Briefing on the 27 June 2011, if required.

Background

Section 365 of the Local Government Act 1993 states that the Council is required to meet at least 10 times each year, each time in a different month.

 

Prior to 2006, the Council’s Meeting cycle consisted of two Ordinary Meetings and one Policy Review Committee Meeting per month, with the second Monday in the month available for special meetings, such as Councillor Briefings, Workshops etc.

 

From February 2007, the Council adopted a three week rolling cycle of Ordinary Meetings, Policy Review Committee Meetings and Councillor Briefings, if required. Whilst the Council Meetings were at the time branded as a three week cycle, in practice the three week cycle of Meetings did not occur due to a range of circumstances.

 

Current Position

 

A Councillor has raised concerns about the frequency of Meetings that Councillors have been asked to attend, with a recent trend being that there are occasions where there might be multiple Meetings on the one night. In recent times, staff are endeavouring to reduce the number of nights that Councillors are required to attend a Meeting, and where possible, we are trying to schedule Meetings, if time permits, following one another so that Councillors are not required to attend a range of Meetings on multiple days.

 

An analysis was recently undertaken of the total number of Meetings that Councillors attend during a year (consisting of Ordinary, Policy Review Committee and Councillor Briefings). This analysis has revealed that last year there was a sharp spike in the number of total meetings up from 39 in 2008 to 49 in 2009. For 2010, we will have a total of 43 meetings, which appears to be close to the average number of Meetings that we have had for the last number of years. We have seen an increase in the amount of Councillor Briefings that have been held over the last few years, and this is predominantly as a result of a range of planning issues.

 

Council will have met 15 times in 2010, with one Ordinary Meeting held in the months of March, April, June, July, August, October and December, and two Ordinary Meetings held in the months of February, May, September and November and one Extraordinary Meeting held in the month of February. 

 

Draft 2011 Meeting Calendar

A draft Meeting Calendar has been prepared for 2011.

 

The draft Calendar is based on the following assumptions:

 

·     the Meeting cycle commencing with a Policy Review Committee Meeting on the last Monday in January 2011 – i.e. 31 January 2011.

 

·    at least one Ordinary Council Meeting each month (except for January), with a minimum period between Ordinary Council meetings of 2 weeks and a maximum period between Ordinary Council meetings of 5 weeks;

 

·    the Mayoral Election being held on the third Monday in September;

 

·    meetings alternating so that there are not successive meetings of the same type from week to week;

 

·    the meeting cycle concluding with an Ordinary Council Meeting on the second Monday in December – i.e. 12 December 2011.

 

This draft calendar has been discussed with the relevant Managers and all statutory and operating obligations are able to be met, including adherence to key dates for consideration of the Operational Plan for 2011-2012, Operational Plan Quarterly Reviews, Delivery Program Progress Reports and the presentation of the 2010-2011 Financial Statements.

 

In compiling the Calendar, consideration has been taken to avoid:

 

1.   Public Holidays

·   26 April 2011 – ANZAC Day (also Easter long weekend)

·   13 June 2011 – Queen’s Birthday

·   3 October 2011 – Labour Day 

 

2.   Other known commitments such as

·   National General Assembly of Local Government, Canberra (19-22 June 2011)

·   Local Government Ass’n of NSW Annual Conference, Nowra (23-26 October 2011)

 

In respect of the National General Assembly this year, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM was the Council’s voting delegate to the Assembly and Councillors Karen McKeown, Marko Malkoc and Jim Aitken OAM attended the Assembly as observers. The Council could consider moving the Council Meeting planned for 27 June 2011 to 20 June 2011, which would give the Council the opportunity to have an additional Briefing if required on 27 June 2011. A benefit of holding an Ordinary Meeting on 20 June 2011 will reduce the longest gap between two Council Meetings to only 4 weeks.

 

The Council’s Executive Officer is currently in the process of preparing a survey to be issued to all Councillors on a range of matters, including requesting feedback from the Councillors about the frequency of meetings. The feedback from the survey will inform the scheduling of reports for 2011.

 

Councillor Briefings

 

Councillor Briefings are a non decision-making forum established to provide a mechanism for informing and advising Councillors of matters relevant to Council activities that would not otherwise be achieved effectively using the written word, plans or diagrams alone. Councillor Briefings may involve presentations by Council Officers, City stakeholders, other organisations and individuals at the invitation of the Council or Council Officers through the General Manager.

 

It is proposed to conduct a number of Councillor Briefings throughout the course of the year to inform Councillors on a range of issues. These sessions are not open to the public. The following dates have been identified as possible Councillor Briefing sessions for 2011: Mondays Feb 14, Mar 7 & 28, Apr 11, May 16, Jul 11 & 25, Aug 8 & 29, Sep 12, Oct 17 and Nov 28.

 

Conclusion

The draft Meeting Calendar for 2011 (set out overleaf) has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Council policy. It incorporates at least one Ordinary Council Meeting for the months of February through to December.

 

15 Ordinary Council meetings, 13 Policy Review Committee meetings and 12 Councillor Briefing sessions are proposed for 2011.

 

A coloured draft Meeting Calendar for 2011, also incorporating proposed Councillor Briefing dates, has been circulated to Councillors under separate cover.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council Meeting Calendar for 2011 be received.

2.     The draft Meeting Calendar for 2011 be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

2011 Meeting Calendar - For Adoption by Council on 29 Nov 2010

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - 2011 Meeting Calendar - For Adoption by Council on 29 Nov 2010

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Provision of External Legal Services to Council   

 

Compiled by:                Matthew Bullivant, Legal Officer

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

This report recommends that Sparke Helmore Lawyers (“Sparkes”) be appointed to Council’s external legal panel.

 

On 22 March 2010 Council resolved to call for expressions of interest for firms to be included on Council’s external legal panel given changes to the composition of 2 of the 3 firms on the existing Council panel. The Council further resolved to continue with the contractual arrangements with Gadens Lawyers (“Gadens”) given that Gadens was previously appointed for a period of 4 years from November 2007 and that the composition of Gadens had not changed.

 

The report recommends that Sparkes be appointed to Council’s legal panel, in addition to Gadens. The report also recommends that Marsdens Law Group and Houston Dearn O’Connor be appointed where Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Gadens Lawyers have a conflict or more independence is required.

 

It is anticipated that the length of the term of the appointment of the above firms would be short term. It is expected that expressions of interest be called for the provision of Council’s external legal services early in 2012.

Background

At the Ordinary meeting on 5 November 2007 Council resolved to appoint three law firms to its panel for the provision of external legal services. The three firms selected were Cutler, Hughes and Harris Lawyers, Gadens Lawyers and DLA Phillips Fox Lawyers. Each of the firms were appointed for a period of 4 years.

 

The Council also resolved to appoint Marsdens Law Group only where the above 3 firms had a conflict or more independence was required.

 

A further report was considered by Council in relation to changes to the composition of lawyers in DLA Phillips Fox and Cutler, Hughes and Harris. It was reported to Council that the key managing partner from DLA Phillips Fox had left that firm and that Cutler, Hughes and Harris had merged with another firm (now Playford, Thomson, Cutlers).

 

 

Therefore, Council formally resolved to:

 

1.         Advertise for expressions of interest for up to two firms to be added (in addition to Gadens Lawyers) to Council’s legal panel for a period of 2 years.

 

2.         Continue with the contractual arrangements with Gadens Lawyers in accordance with the terms of the contract already in place between Council and Gadens Lawyers.

 

3.         Advise DLA Phillips Fox and Playford, Thomson, Cutlers that Council is to advertise for Expressions of Interest for two firms to be added to Council’s legal panel, for a period of two years and that they may lodge an Expression of Interest within that process should they wish to do so.

 

In the last report to Council on this matter it was stated that “Council in the past has nominated Councillors to assess the expressions received”. It is noted that Council did not resolve to appoint any Councillors to assess the expressions of interest.

 

Legal Services

It is important to outline the Council’s legal services function as a whole so that the composition of external legal services that Council requires can be placed into context.

 

Council has the benefit of an in-house legal team, consisting of two Solicitors, a Legal Secretary and a Legal Trainee. Council’s in-house legal team provides services across a broad range of practice areas including property transactions, litigation, land and environment court work, prosecutions, legal education, investigative advice and ongoing general legal advice.

 

It is also important to note that there are occasions where Council’s in-house legal team directly brief Barristers to appear on behalf of Council before Courts or Tribunals, or to provide further advice where necessary.

 

The Council’s in-house legal team therefore provides wide ranging legal services that represents the more routine work. Accordingly, the needs of Council in terms of its external legal services require firms that bring specialised expertise.

 

It is essential that Council’s external legal panel provide high end expert advice across a range of practice areas with exceptional levels of customer service.

 

Given the nature of Council’s external legal services, Council tends to retain much of the routine legal work in-house, and therefore the amount of work that is offered to Council’s external panel is not extensive, but what is offered, is generally unique or specialised work.

 

The Council’s yearly expenditure on legal services is a reflection of the composition of the legal services that it requires. The Council’s expenditure on its legal services has been much lower than that of Councils of comparable size. In fact, the Council’s expenditure on external legal services is much less than Councils of a much lesser size. This is because of those reasons discussed above: that most of the routine work is retained by Council’s in-house legal team and only the specialised work is referred to the external legal panel.

 

The in-house legal team has always maintained control of expenditure on internal and external legal services so as to avoid unnecessary and avoidable legal costs to Council.

Expressions of Interest

Fourteen (14) firms submitted an expression of interest in providing Council with external legal services. These firms are:

 

·    Adams & Partners Lawyers;

·    DLA Phillips Fox;

·    Forum Law Solicitors;

·    Herbert Geer;

·    Hones La Hood Lawyers;

·    Houston Dearn O’Connor Solicitors and Attorneys;

·    HWL Ebsworth Lawyers;

·    Lander & Rogers Lawyers;

·    Macpherson Greenleaf Lawyers;

·    Maddocks;

·    Marsdens Law Group;

·    McCue & Associates Lawyers;

·    Sparke Helmore Lawyers;

·    Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers.

 

In the past Council has appointed 2-3 law firms to its external panel. It is considered that Council should limit the number of firms on the external panel to two. Limiting the legal panel to two firms allows for more effective management and control of Council’s legal panel. It is fair to say that Council’s legal costs have always been under control, particularly when compared with Councils of a similar size.

 

One of the main factors for Council’s legal costs being stable has been due to the size of the panel. It is thought that Councils with large panels lack the control necessary to ensure legal advice is provided in a cost effective manner.

 

In order to receive the level of service that Council requires, and to ensure that the Council remains a priority client, two firms are seen as an appropriate sized panel. Again, limiting the panel to two allows for better management of the panel in terms of service provided and legal costs expended.

 

In addition to the above, it is noted that there is a modest number of Class 1 appeals out of the Land and Environment Court. It is noted that over the past two years the Land and Environment Court has pushed parties involved in Class 1 appeals to go through the Section 34 conciliation process rather than listing matters for hearing on the first occasion. This has meant that Council’s internal Legal Services team has been able to retain more of the Class 1 appeals without having to engage external firms.

 

For these reasons it is recommended that 2 firms be retained on Council’s external legal panel, including Gadens.

 

The above firms’ Expressions of Interest were analysed by Council officers in line with the requirements as specified in the “Request for Expressions of Interests (EOI) Provision of Certain Legal Services”. The assessment criteria were as follows:

 

·          quality of service offered as assessed by reference to experience, success rates before the Court and references;

 

·          an ability to provide a high standard of legal advice on a variety of matters;

 

·          an understanding of Council policy and direction;

 

·          an ability to work with the Council and officers to achieve a desired outcome;

 

·          an ability to provide prompt advice and to prioritise Council needs;

 

·          an ability to provide ongoing legal guidance, advice and information on any changes which have the potential for impacting upon Local Government generally or the Council particularly;

 

·          an ability to provide cost-effective provision of services;

 

·          a commitment to Council’s strategic objectives.

 

It is noted that Lander and Rogers Lawyers submitted an expression of interest, but only in relation to industrial and employment matters. It is considered that this firm did not demonstrate the scope of specialised expertise required by Council and therefore there was no further benefit to Council in further considering the submission from this firm.

 

Macpherson Greenleaf Lawyers submitted a non-conforming expression of interest.

 

Two firms (Adams & Partners Lawyers and Hones LaHood Lawyers) demonstrated a level of expertise in local government and planning law, in addition to a range of other areas of legal advice work.

 

It is noted that Hones LaHood Lawyers indicate that it acts for only one Council at present. That Council is Wollondilly Shire Council. According to its submission, Adams & Partners do not appear to be on any panel of any Council.

 

Although these 2 firms demonstrate a level of expertise in local government and planning law, it is considered that the other 8 firms (discussed in detail below) demonstrate a quality of service and specialised expertise across a broad range of areas of law beyond that of these 2 firms.

 

In relation to Forum Law Solicitors and McCue & Associates Lawyers, those firms have not demonstrated that they have experience in local government and planning law. McCue & Associates consists of 1 lawyer with 2 support staff, whilst Forum Law Solicitors consists of 2 full time solicitors and 1 part time solicitor, in addition to support staff.

 

It is considered that the 8 firms further discussed below demonstrate that they also have a capacity and level of infrastructure that the above 6 firms have not demonstrated. Further, having regard to the assessment criteria, there is nothing in the submissions from the above 6 firms that could be considered to place them equal to or above the 8 firms (discussed in detail below) in this report.

 

Accordingly, there was no benefit to Council in further considering the submissions from these 6 firms.

 

In relation to the remaining 8 firms the following comments are made:

 

DLA Phillips Fox

 

The firm is a large firm and practices in over 29 countries. It acts for 12 Councils in New South Wales. The team put forward (local government and planning team) in the firms submission includes a Partner, a Senior Associate and a Solicitor who were previously employed by Cutler Hughes and Harris, and who have since their move to DLA Phillips Fox, developed a relationship with Council.

 

The relationship partner is Charmian Barton who has extensive experience in planning and environment law. It is fair to say that Paul Vergotis, Senior Associate has been the main contact lawyer in the firm since Chris Drury’s departure.

 

The firm offers specialised legal services across a range of practice areas. In the past however, the main area of expertise relied upon has been the local government and practice area. The firm has acted for Council in other matters relating to insurance.

 

The firm has been retained on Council’s external panel for a period of over 30 years. One of the main reasons for this has been due to the expertise, reliability, customer service and cost effective advice given by Chris Drury (now with Sparkes).

 

Herbert Geer

 

The firm currently acts for 1 Council in New South Wales. The firm consists of approximately 330 staff and acts for a number of Councils in Queensland in addition to a number of State Government Departments and authorities.

 

In its submission the firm has advised that it is an experienced advisor to government. The firm asserts that this experience means that the firm understands unique public policy and political issues faced on a day to day basis.

 

The firm demonstrates specialised legal services across all areas of law. The firm makes a competitive submission and appears to have a range of Queensland Councils as clients. Despite the competitive submission, the firm acts for only 1 other Council in New South Wales.

 

The relationship Partner proposed by the firm is Alice Spizzo who is a former Executive Director of the Department of Planning.

 

Houston Dearn O’Connor Solicitors and Attorneys (HDO)

 

HDO currently acts for 5 Councils in New South Wales. The firm is a long standing panel member for 3 of those Councils. The firm is small (comprising 6 lawyers), but demonstrates specialised expertise in a range of practice areas, including local government and planning.

 

The relationship solicitor is the principal of the firm, Tim O’Connor. Tim is well respected and has extensive experience in the area of local government and planning law in particular.

 

Again the firm has made a competitive submission. Like many of the firms that have submitted an expression of interest, HDO offer education and training sessions to officers, along with over the phone advice, which are both free of charge.

 

The firm submits that its experience in acting for Councils, coupled with the focus on local government and planning and development law makes the firm unique in suburban Sydney. The firm claims that its local government and planning and development experience matches that of large city firms, however its suburban focus and size allows the firm to deliver high quality legal services at a fraction of the cost of the City firms and with a much more personalised approach.

 

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (HWL)

 

HWL provides legal services to 21 Councils in New South Wales. The firm has also submitted a very competitive expression of interest. The firm offers specialised expertise in all areas of law required by the Council.

 

The firm in its submission has demonstrated an understanding of the issues facing Penrith City Council, including policy objectives. The firm is a large firm comprising over 500 staff, of which 323 are professional staff.

 

The firm has highlighted that it has engaged the services of the Honourable David Lloyd QC, who retired as a Judge of the Land and Environment Court in February 2010. Further, 1 of the 2 relationship Partners identified in the firms’ submission is David Baird. It is noted that David Baird was a former Partner of Gadens Lawyers and that during his time with Gadens Lawyers, David Baird acted on behalf of Council.

 

The firm does demonstrate considerable experience and specialised expertise.

 

Maddocks

 

Maddocks provides legal services to 40 Councils in New South Wales and 72 of 79 Councils in Victoria. The firm has a specialist local government team consisting of 26 lawyers.

 

The submission from Maddocks highlights the firms’ experience in providing advice to a number of regional Councils, in addition to the advice given to neighbouring Councils of Penrith.

 

The firm demonstrates specialised expertise across all areas of law required by Council. The firm has submitted a very competitive expression of interest. Like many of the other firms, Maddocks also offers additional services to Council, including education seminars for staff, access to the firms’ library facilities and access to publications and alerts that the firm provides.

 

The relationship partner identified in the firms’ submission is Stan Kondoilios. He is well respected and has extensive experience in the area of local government and planning law.

 

Marsdens Law Group

 

In relation to Marsdens Law Group, the firm made a very competitive submission. The firm has been on the Council’s panel since 2002. The firm is well established in the area of local government and planning law. The firm acts for 45 Councils in New South Wales in addition to Penrith City Council. The firm also offers a specialised legal service across a range of practice areas. The firm has 12 partners and over 130 staff.

 

The firm submits that it has a proven track record in the provision of local government legal services. The relationship Partner is Adam Seton. Adam is an accredited specialist in local government and planning law. He is a member of the NSW Law Society Committee for specialist accreditation in local government and planning law. He is a well respected practitioner in this field.

 

Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Sparkes)

 

Sparkes consists of over 600 staff. The firm currently acts for 37 Councils in New South Wales. The firm demonstrates specialised expertise in local government and planning law, in addition to the range of areas of the law required by Council.

 

The submission from Sparkes demonstrates that the firm has a proven track record of providing Council with quality service, an understanding of the Council’s policies and strategic direction and quality advice for exceptional value for money.

 

Chris Drury was the Council’s relationship partner when he was at DLA Phillips Fox and he has now moved to Sparke Helmore Lawyers.

 

Sparkes offers a range of ‘value added’ services at no cost. These include access to the firms’ library, ad hoc telephone advice, training and seminars for staff, newsletters and legal updates and mentoring and coaching.

 

Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (WWSB)

 

WWSB submits that it is a specialist local government firm. The firm consists of 6 Partners and 5 Solicitors, in addition to 11 administrative staff. The firm provides advice to 11 Councils in New South Wales.

 

The firm offers specialised legal advice mostly in the area of local government and planning law. The firms’ submission does not provide details of further areas of law, including industrial and employment, which Council at times calls upon.

 

Having said that, the firm has extensive experience in all facets of local government and planning law. As is the case with the above list of firms, WWSB offers ‘value added’ services which consist of a ‘no fee helpline’ and regular seminar updates with staff.

 

Mr Neil Howie, a partner of the firm, has provided advice to and acted for Council in the past. On those occasions WWSB has provided good service and quality advice.

Cost effectiveness

A memorandum enclosing a table of the fees of each of the firms has already been provided to Councillors.

 

The range of legal fees charged by the 14 firms is broken down by reference to the type of lawyer and corresponding hourly rates in the following table:

 

Fee Breakdown (type of lawyer)

Fee (dollars per hour)

Partner

$275 - $460

Senior Associate/Associate

$275 - $400

Lawyer

$165 - $300

Other staff (including Paralegal)

$50 - $190

 

 

The legal fees charged by the firms do not necessarily provide a complete guide of legal advice provided. It is important to consider that Council has two employed Solicitors who provide a certain level of legal service. Usually, the matters that Council requires external advice on are matters that are highly specialised, or are matters where the employed Solicitors do not have the requisite expertise.

 

Given the nature of this specialised advice, it is expected that Council will pay more specialised rates for this work, which acknowledges the higher cost charge for Partner time in the larger City firms.

 

Further, consideration should be given to the fact that the work can be completed more efficiently with the greater expertise. With more resources available at the bigger firms, they are able to allocate work in a more efficient manner and thereby create more cost effective legal work, despite their rates being higher.

 

It has been the experience of the Legal Officer that even if the hourly rate of a particular solicitor is higher, that the overall bill may be less if that Solicitor is more efficient with providing the solution or undertaking the work.

 

Comments

 

The above 8 firms all demonstrate that they meet the assessment criteria contained in the Request for an Expression of Interest.

 

It is considered that the level of customer service and value for money is dependant on the Partner responsible for the provision of the legal service. The size of the firm is not necessarily determinative of high levels of customer service and value for money. That is, just because the firm is a large firm doesn’t necessarily mean that firm provides quality of service and value for money.

 

It is considered that in assessing the 8 expressions of interest, one has to have regard to the relationship partners and the services that they provide.

 

The submission from Sparke Helmore demonstrates a proven track record, quality of advice, an understanding of Council policy and direction, value for money and offers a range of specialised legal advice in all areas of law required by Council.  The relationship partner put forward has provided Council with strategic advice and direction in litigation and advice work which has proven to be invaluable in the past (when working at DLA Phillips Fox).  It is considered that the expression by Sparke Helmore provides Council with superior customer services and represents value for money. 

 

In addition to Sparke Helmore, it is recommended that Marsdens Law Group, along with Houston Dearn O’Connor (HDO), be appointed where Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Gadens Lawyers have a conflict or more independence is required.

 

HDO and Marsdens claim that their local government and planning and development experience matches that of large City firms (if not better). Both firms suggest however that their suburban focus and size allows them to deliver high quality legal services at a fraction of the cost of the City firms and with a much more personalised approach. Both of these firms also offer services across the range of legal services required by Council. Despite these comments it is considered that Sparke Helmore, whilst ever Chris Drury is the relationship Partner, will provide superior customer service.

 

The other firms who submitted an expression of interest did not demonstrate any particular service beyond the service that Sparke Helmore Lawyers (and Gadens) have provided. That is, the other firms of DLA Phillips Fox, Herbert Geer, HWL Ebsworth, Maddocks and Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie have not demonstrated a level of specialised expertise, customer service, quality of service and value for money at a level greater than Sparke Helmore, Marsdens or HDO.

Conclusion

Given that Council has two in-house Solicitors, there is less need for firms on the panel to undertake the more routine work. Accordingly, the Council’s need for external legal services is generally confined to specialised expert advice.

 

Sparke Helmore Lawyers have been able to demonstrate through their expression of interest how that firm can provide Council with the advice and representation required to assist Council to achieve its strategic outcomes.  This is while ever the firm operates through the suggested relationship Partner. 

 

Chris Drury is the relationship Partner put forward by Sparke Helmore Lawyers in terms of advice and service that firm provides to Council. Chris Drury has demonstrated his value to Council over a long period of time (during his time at DLA Phillips Fox). His expertise in local government and planning matters is of the highest quality and is always reliable.  Chris Drury when at DLA Phillips Fox provided Council with exceptional customer service especially in strategic litigation decisions.  From the submission of Sparke Helmore Lawyers there is no reason why that would not continue.

 

It therefore recommended that Sparke Helmore Lawyers be appointed to Council’s external legal panel. It is noted that Gadens Lawyers continues to provide high end expertise across a wide range of practice areas. The firm continues to provide exceptional levels of customer service.

 

The other firms who submitted an expression of interest did not demonstrate any particular service beyond the service that Gadens and Sparke Helmore Lawyers have provided. Therefore, other than what is recommended in this report, there appears to be no reason for extending the number of firms on the Council’s panel beyond Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore Lawyers.

 

It is anticipated that the length of the term of the appointment of the above firms would be short term. It is expected that expressions of interest be called for the provision of Council’s external legal services early in 2012.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Provision of External Legal Services to Council be received.

2.     Sparke Helmore Lawyers be appointed to the Council’s external panel.

3.     Marsdens Law Group and Houston Dearn and O’Connor be appointed where Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Gadens Lawyers have a conflict or more independence is required.

4.     Letters be sent to the unsuccessful firms who submitted an expression of interest thanking them for their submissions.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

3

Transfer of Land from Department of Planning to Council - Lots 280/281 DP 1020286, No. 17 Bellevue Road, Regentville  

 

Compiled by:                Bob Anderson, Property Officer - Valuation

Authorised by:             Brian Griffiths, Property Development 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)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s concurrence to the transfer of land at No. 17 Bellevue Road, Regentville from the Department of Planning (DOP) to Penrith City Council for Open Space purposes. 

 

Part of the land, 259.1m2, is zoned County Open Space and adjoins other County Open Space that has previously been acquired by the Department and subsequently transferred to Council.  The majority of the land, 611.8m2, is zoned residential 2(a).

 

The land had previously been subdivided into two lots in accordance with the zonings to enable transfer of the open space to Council with DOP intending to sell the 2(a) land for residential use however following opposition from owners adjoining and opposite the land and claims of access rights over the land to the river, the land was withdrawn from sale by DOP and offered to Council for use as open space.

 

The report recommends that Council accept the transfer of the land from the Department of Planning for use as open space and it be classified as “community” land.

 

Background

The land adjoining the Nepean River at the rear of residential properties fronting Bellevue Road, Regentville is zoned County Open Space.  Over the years, this land has been acquired by the Department of Planning and transferred to Council’s ownership for open space purposes.

 

DOP is the owner of Lots 280/281 DP 1020286, No. 17 Bellevue Road, Regentville.  Lot 281 is zoned 6(d) as County Open Space and Lot 280 is zoned 2(a) Residential.  A plan attached to this report shows the subject site.

 

DOP is the acquiring authority for the acquisition of the County Open Space and Council records show the Department purchased the total property as Lot 28 DP 16540 in 1956 for the amount of $400.  A subdivision to sever the County Open Space (Lot 281) was registered in 2000 with the intention of selling the residential Lot 280 identified as surplus to requirements.

 

A proposed auction of the residential land (Lot 280) was aborted in February 2001 as a result of lodgement of a caveat on the title of the land by a group of local residents.  The local residents were claiming a right of access over Lot 280 to the Nepean River.

 

To resolve the matter, the Department considered transferring the land to Council for a nominal consideration on the basis that Council would change the zoning from Residential to Public Recreation and classify the land as community land.  Whilst the land will be classified as “community” land, a rezoning to Open Space is not necessary.

 

The Residents Action Group resolved to settle on the basis that the land be transferred to Council as Open Space.

 

Current Situation

The Office of Strategic Lands is now managing the operations of the Corporation (being the Minister administering the environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979”) and have confirmed that the Corporation wishes to transfer to Council Lots 280/281 DP 1020286, Bellevue Road, Regentville and have forwarded the documentation for the transfer of Lots to Council.

 

The main terms of the transfer are as follows:

 

1.   The land must be classified as community land under the Local Government Act 1993 pursuant to section 31(2) of the Act;

 

2.   The land must be used for recreational purposes;

 

3.   No less than 90% to remain as open space (that is, an open area with improvements and structures that are not roofed and enclosed);

 

4.   Where Council wishes to develop or change the use of the land (amongst other things), it must seek the Corporation’s consent;

 

5.   If the land ceases to be used for recreational purposes and open space, the Corporation may request that the land be re-transferred to the Corporation for nominal consideration;

 

6.   If Council wishes to dispose of the land, the corporation has a first right of refusal to accept a transfer of the land for a nominal sum.

 

A Section 88D order (positive covenant) that reflects the above terms will be registered on the title to the land before the land is transferred to Council.

 

Summary

Lot 281 was always intended to be Open Space and transferred to Council.  Lot 280 is also proposed to be transferred to Council for use as Open Space.  This report seeks Council’s endorsement for the transfer.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Transfer of Land from Department of Planning to Council - Lots 280/281 DP 1020286, No. 17 Bellevue Road, Regentville be received.

2.     Council accept the transfer of Lots 280/281 DP 1020286 from the Department of Planning for Open Space.

3.     The land be classified as “community” land.

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Site Plan - Bellevue Road , Regentville

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Site Plan - Bellevue Road , Regentville

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

4

Progress Report on Activities to Respond to Climate Change    

 

Compiled by:                Bernadette Riad, Acting Sustainability Coordinator  

Authorised by:             Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager  

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Regional City that is resilient to climate change (2)

Strategic Response

Respond to the effects of climate change on our region (2.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The issue of climate change has been recognised by governments world wide as one of the most significant challenges facing the modern world. Communities across the globe will be forced to adapt and respond, and indeed have already begun to do so.

 

Penrith City Council has invested considerable effort towards addressing the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. As a leading member of the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program, Council adopted our first Local Action Plan in 2001 and since that time has been actively implementing initiatives to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In moving forward in addressing climate change however, Council must extend on our efforts in emission reduction and move towards planning for the impacts of climate change.

 

This report provides an overview of the work undertaken by Council in the last 18 months to develop our understanding of climate change and its relation to the operations and responsibilities of Council, and the perceptions and expectations of our communities with regards to this issue. Furthermore, this report seeks Council’s endorsement of the findings of the recent Risk Assessment and Adaptation Planning Project as a matter for community comment.

Managing Climate Change Impacts and Risks

One of the key features of climate change, from the perspective of both people and ecosystems, is that extreme weather events are becoming more common. Heatwaves and periods of extreme heat, bushfires, drought, storms and flooding are all likely to become more frequent and more intense. It is these extreme events which affect human and ecosystem health, damage property and infrastructure, overwhelm the capacity of emergency response services, increase insurance premiums, and affect investment patterns. 

 

In addition to these extreme events, research conducted by the CSIRO for the Hawkesbury Nepean region indicates that Penrith will also likely experience:

 

·     increased pressure on water supplies

·     increased energy demand for cooling

·     increased threat of insect borne disease

·     increased cost of food, water, energy and services

·     reductions in stream flows

·     increases in algal blooms and salinity

·     changes in the distribution of plant and animal species

·     changes in rates of deterioration for roads and infrastructure

·     increased risk of heat related health problems

 

Preparing for these impacts is imperative. The implications of climate change will affect all aspects of Councils operations. Changes in climatic conditions will require new consideration for land use planning and development, infrastructure design and construction, asset management, equipment use, and purchasing decisions.

 

Recognising the need to prepare for the challenges that lie ahead, Council engaged consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) in April 2009 to guide us through the process of climate change risk assessment and adaptation planning.

The Risk Assessment and Adaptation Planning Project

The Penrith Climate Change Risk and Adaptation Planning Project was developed in order to provide Council with the necessary first step in preparing ourselves, and our community, for the impacts of climate change. 

 

Accordingly, the objectives of the project were to:

·     identify and evaluate climate change risks for Council, our communities, and our local environment

·     develop a draft adaptation action plan to guide ongoing climate change adaptation and risk management activities

·     integrate climate change risk management and adaptation planning into Council’s existing risk management processes

·     develop a stronger understanding within Council and our communities of the potential risks posed by climate change and the importance of adaptation and adaptive capacity

·     increase Council capacity for climate change risk and adaptation; and,

·     increase the awareness and capacity of our stakeholders in relation to climate change risk and adaptation

 

Designed to align with best practice, the project followed the processes detailed in the publication ‘Climate Change Impacts & Risk Management: A Guide for Business and Government’ and the Australian standard for risk management ‘AS/NZ 4360:2004 Risk Management’.  This approach consists of five consecutive steps, namely; establish the context, identify the risks, analyse the risks, evaluate the risks, and treat the risks.

 

Key to this process was consultation with key stakeholders both within and external to Council. This included face to face interviews with selected managers from across Council in order to establish Councils current understanding and capacity in terms of climate risk, and further interviews with external stakeholders such as the Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Services (SES), Hawkesbury River County Council and Western Sydney Area Health Service.

 

Managers from across Council also participated in facilitated workshops to identify and evaluate climate change risks for Council, our communities and our local environment, and the actions required to respond to those risks.

 

Outcomes of the Risk Assessment

One of the primary outcomes of the risk assessment project was the compilation of national and regional climate projections in order to develop Councils understanding of the range of impacts likely to be experienced within the Penrith area. An overview of these impacts based on current climate projections is provided over page.

 

·     Overall, Penrith is expected to become warmer, with more hot days and fewer cold nights. As a result, energy demand for cooling in summer will increase markedly. Buildings, roads and other Council assets will deteriorate more quickly, increasing their life-cycle costs.

·     The incidence of more extreme and longer lasting heatwaves is likely to result in an increase in heat related deaths, and hospital admissions for heat stress and heat related illness. Higher temperatures may also contribute to the spread of vector-borne viruses and water-borne and food-borne diseases.

·     Sydney’s mains water supply will come under increasing stress as population growth and environmental flow requirements increase the demand for water, whilst reduced annual rainfalls and increased evaporation will mean less runoff into rivers and storage areas. Water restrictions are likely to be semi-permanent, with the use of potable water prohibited for irrigating playing fields.

·     Small urban streams will likely become ephemeral, while urban wetlands will dry out or suffer serious water quality problems from weed or algae. Aquatic weed in the Nepean River will require increasing effort and resources to control.

·     Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe as the century advances.

·     Food will become much more expensive and limited as Australia’s major food producing regions suffer from increasing water shortages.

·     With decreased rainfall and higher temperatures, the risk of serious bush fires will grow. The average annual days of very high or extreme bush fire risk will increase from the current 12 to16 in 2030 and to 22 by 2070.

·     Increases in short-duration extreme events are likely to result in more frequent and severe flooding in Penrith’s smaller urban streams and surcharge of sewerage and drainage systems causing both water quality and quantity problems.

·     Mainstream flooding from the Nepean River could increase by 2030, but then decrease by 2070 as rainfall intensities in longer-duration storms decrease.

·     Possible increases in storm severity will place additional demands on emergency services, and increase insurance premiums. Power blackouts will happen more often when transmission lines are damaged.

 

Based on these projections, the managers involved in the risk workshop identified a total of 59 risks presented by climate change. These risks were prioritised into four levels; extreme (0), high (21), moderate (36) and low (2) based on the assumed likelihood and consequence. A complete listing of the 59 risks identified as a result of this project is provided in Table 1 attached to this report. 

 

Of these risks, the majority (22) were attributed (in full or part) to an increase in the incidence of heatwaves or extreme heat days. Increased rainfall intensities, increases in the incidence and severity of bushfires, and decreased average rainfalls also featured heavily as factors contributing to the identified risks. Increased rainfall intensities in particular was noted as the sole cause of risk for 9 of the 59 identified risks, and as a contributing cause in another 9 risks.

 

In terms of the highest ranking risks, the risks assessed as having the highest priorities were those that involved; permanent loss of a valued feature (ie biodiversity), loss of human life, and serious adverse health or social impacts. Common characteristics of the next highest priority group of risks were those that would result in; lower level, but widespread, adverse health impacts (heatwaves, storms), costs to Council, uncertainty for Council, environmental degradation, risk of diseases and sickness.

 

In observing the outcomes of the Risk Assessment and Adaptation Planning Project, it should be noted that none of the risks which Council is likely to be exposed to are unique to Penrith alone. Furthermore, in many cases the primary responsibility for addressing these risks lies with an external organisation. As such, a number of adaptation strategies will be required to be developed on a regional or state wide basis.

Community Engagement

As noted previously in this report, climate change is an issue that will impact upon every community, every business, and every ecosystem. These impacts however, will be felt differently from region to region, and community to community. It is for this reason that it is imperative that policy and program decisions reflect the values and circumstances of the communities they serve.

 

Recognising this fact, Penrith City Council partnered with the Nature Conservation Council of NSW in 2008 in the NSW Climate Consensus Project. This project involved 14 local councils from across NSW delivering a series of community climate change forums in urban, rural, coastal and inland locations. The aim of these forums being to strengthen planning and decision making on climate change with community and stakeholder input.

 

As part of this project, Penrith residents were invited to attend a full day forum on climate change for the opportunity to hear from local experts, discuss their views, and make recommendations relating to  how this critical issue would be best addressed. The Penrith forum was held on Saturday the 29th of November 2008 at the Lewers Gallery. It was attended by a total of 23 community members as well as two local experts; Professor Peter Phibbs (University of Western Sydney), and Amber Ferguson (Aussie Solar), who contributed to the days discussions.

 

The discussions from this forum brought forward a range of views surrounding the issue of climate change and the options available for governments and communities alike to respond to this issue. An overview of some of the concerns and recommendations raised at this forum is provided below:

 

Concerns:

·     the impact of climate change on the opportunities and lifestyles of this and future generations

·     the degradation and loss of natural environments

·     food security and the sustainability of current farming and food production practices

·     current building design and materials not being able to cope with projected climate change

·     the need for action by government and industry

·     water security and the threat of prolonged drought

·     the need for support for communities and individuals in dealing with climate change

·     the capability of services to deal with the impacts of climate change

·     the impact of climate change on leisure activities and local amenity

 

Recommendations:

·     relocalise communities (strengthen local food production, establish local power generation, water harvesting and& recycling projects, and build local economic activity)

·     shift from coal based energy towards cleaner energy and support the development and trial of alternate fuels and technologies

·     assist communities in making ‘green purchases’ through improved labelling, increased promotion and the use of financial incentives

·     improve planning and infrastructure to support the shift away from private car use towards public and active transport

·     provide shade and cooling to ‘cool down’ urban environments and provide shade on hot days

·     improve current planning policies and practices so that they account for the impacts of projected climate change, and provide for sustainable outcomes

·     strengthen codes for the design and construction of new buildings and infrastructure to improve resource efficiencies and

·     encourage urban design to better manager stormwater as a resource

·     support the uptake of water and energy saving devices through promotion, education, retrofitting, and  financial incentives

·     provide communities with the tools to make change

·     support the development of sustainable communities and build community resilience

·     prepare services (energy / water supply, health, information etc) for the impacts of climate change (storms, heatwaves)

 

The range of views presented by forum participants more than demonstrated the concern of our community with regards to climate change and the impact that it will have on our lives and our environment. Just as importantly however, it demonstrated the enthusiasm of our communities to see action in addressing this important issue.

Next Steps

Drawing together the outcomes of the risk assessment project and the local forum, Council has commenced the development of a Strategy to more fully address the issue of climate change and the long term sustainability of Penrith. This strategy is being developed to replace Councils current greenhouse reduction plan ‘Carbon Neutral’ so as to provide a single strategy which addresses both mitigation and adaptation.

 

Throughout both of the projects outlined in this report, Council has been able to enter into meaningful conversation with our communities regarding climate change and how we can work together to address this important issue.  In finalising this strategy, Council would seek to continue these conversations. Utilising the opportunity that these discussions provide to ensure that the final strategy properly addresses the concerns of our community and takes into consideration the strategies and work programs of the various partner agencies involved in addressing this issue.

 

Conclusion

Changes to our existing climate, both locally and globally, will present a range of risks to the functions and responsibilities of Council, to local services and infrastructure, to our communities, and our natural environment.  Recognising the challenges that lie ahead, the next few years present Council with an opportunity. An opportunity to further our understanding of the scope of climate change impacts as they relate to our region, and to develop the processes and systems which will best enable Council and our communities to respond to those impacts.

 

Drawing together the outcomes of works completed to date into a final strategy to address both mitigation and adaptation will provide a strategic framework from which Council can target our resources to prepare ourselves, and our communities to respond to this critical issue.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Progress Report on Activities to Respond to Climate Change  be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Risks Identified

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Risks Identified

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

5

Investigations into Alternate and Renewable Energy Technologies   

 

Compiled by:                Andrew Hewson, Sustainability Education Officer

Bernadette Riad, Acting Sustainability Coordinator

Phillipa  Bishop, Senior Sustainability Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor John Thain

 

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

Electricity supply in NSW, and indeed Australia, has historically been dominated by the centralised generation and distribution of coal fired power.  Over recent years, technological developments and concerns regarding the sustainability of traditional coal fired energy generation have seen an increase in the development and application of renewable energy technologies.  More recently, changes in the Australian policy environment have created an unprecedented opportunity for the development of the renewable energy sector at both a small (domestic) and large (utility) scale.

 

Observations of Council’s energy use, and that of NSW communities in general, have demonstrated that despite significant efforts to improve our energy efficiency, the total demand on energy supplies has continued to increase.  It is therefore crucial that we continue to seek solutions to improve the sustainability of our power supply.  This report provides an overview of the options available and their current feasibility in the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA).

Background

Pressures arising from issues such as climate change, the capacity of existing energy networks, and the threat of increasing energy prices, have drawn significant focus from both government and industry in addressing the challenge of establishing sustainable energy supplies.

 

In NSW, conventional electricity comes from a mix of sources.  Approximately 94% of the state’s electricity comes from burning coal and only 6% from renewable energy sources.

 

Traditional coal based power generation is both resource and carbon intensive.  Over 1kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted for every 1kWh of electricity generated, with only a fraction of the energy stored in the fuel (typically 25-36%) actually converted into electricity.  The remainder is lost into the atmosphere as waste heat.  Of the electricity that is generated, approximately 8% is used to operate the power station, with a further 10% lost in the transmission and distribution networks.

 

The capacity of existing systems to meet future demand has also been identified as a potential issue.  With the TransGrid NSW Annual Planning Report (2009), stating that there is limited scope for existing networks to deal with continued increases in demand, and that future capacity increases would be likely to require construction of major new infrastructure (ie new coal fired power stations). 

 

Local or ‘distributed’ energy generation involves energy solutions close to where the energy is used, and can range from domestic scale photovoltaic (solar) systems of one or two kilowatts, to cogeneration of a hundred megawatts or more at industrial sites.  This form of energy generation has both financial and environmental advantages compared to traditional centralised energy generation.

 

Meeting the growth in demand with distributed energy systems has the potential to offer significant cost savings to both energy providers, and communities in general.  Savings can be achieved on network augmentation costs, the avoidance of transmission losses, and the potential to use the heat produced from energy generation, which significantly increases the efficiency of the system.

 

In terms of financial benefits to communities, local energy generation can also offer relief from increasing energy costs.  A recent study conducted by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal NSW (IPART) found that electricity costs have increased by around 15% from 2007, with further increases of around 18% per year expected over the next 2 years.  These increases are attributed to increases in network charges to fund improvements in network reliability, increased electricity purchase costs, increased retail operating costs, and increased retail margins.

 

Within the Penrith LGA, the development of partnerships to establish local generation projects has the potential to reduce reliance on traditional coal fired power supplies, and provide financial savings for both Council and our communities.

Alternatives to Current Supply

The range and applicability of ‘sustainable’ energy alternatives available in NSW is increasing as government and industry respond to the issue of climate change and the need for sustainable energy supplies.

 

Sustainable energy is the term given to energy sourced from ‘renewable’ (ie non-depleting) sources such as wind, solar, water, geothermal, biomass, or ‘low emission’ technologies such as co-generation or tri-generation.  An overview of some of these technologies and their applicability for Penrith and our region is provided below.

 

1.       Solar Power

Solar power is derived from energy radiated from the sun as light and heat.  A relatively mature technology, solar power is a proven energy resource, with two main categories of technology available for solar generation – Photovoltaic (PV) and Solar Thermal.

 

Photovoltaics (PV) is a solar technology which generates electricity from solar radiation (sunlight) using the ‘photoelectric effect’.  Although there are different types of PV systems currently available, the basic element of a PV system is the solar cell (or PV cell), which uses semiconductor technology to convert solar radiation into electric current.  Grouped into ‘modules’ or ‘panels’ PV systems can be mounted on existing structures (such as a roof or street light) or at ground level, and can vary in size from small scale (1.5kW – 20kW) through to large or utility scale (of over 1MW).

 

The use of PV technology in NSW has grown significantly in recent years to include home power generation, and grid-connected electricity generation at both the residential and commercial scale.  This increase in uptake is largely attributed to improved affordability through the provision of rebates and other financial incentives (RECS and similar), reduced purchase costs, rising energy costs, and an increasing community awareness of climate change.

 

A PV system is, however, still considered a costly alternative to traditional coal based power. With a recent assessment undertaken by WSROC indicating a pay back period averaging between 15 - 20 years, and a further study conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) indicating payback periods of around 6 years for a 10kW system once current financial incentives have been factored in.

 

These costs are likely to reduce in future, with literature indicating that PV is likely to be competitive with retail electricity prices in the residential sector by 2020 as a result of technological advances, market growth, and the increasing price of grid electricity.  Opportunities are also available to reduce paybacks either by procuring PV as a large scale project, or by a framework agreement contract.

 

Solar thermal systems differ from PV (which converts solar energy directly into electricity) in that they harness solar energy for thermal energy (heat) for either direct use or power generation.  Similar to PV however, solar thermal systems can vary from small scale, such as in solar water heating, through to large scale high temperature systems that concentrate sunlight using mirrors or lenses for electricity generation.

 

Large scale solar thermal is still being developed in Australia.  However as higher efficiency fluids and storage are developed, solar thermal has the potential to compete with traditional energy generation, and the Federal Government’s commitment of budget funds to develop a large scale solar thermal power station through the Solar Flagships Program provides a tangible incentive for the development of this technology within Australia.

 

These large scale solar thermal facilities are generally limited to companies that have demonstrated capability and experience in the planning, development and operation of these assets.  Looking to the future however, the development of small to medium scale solar hybrid technologies may offer significant advantages to organisations such as Council.

 

2.       Wind Power

Wind power is one of the most advanced and affordable forms of renewable energy, with Australia having some of the best wind resources in the world.  A versatile form of renewable energy, wind power can be used for differently sized projects ranging from large utility scale wind farms through to micro wind technology in the urban environment.

 

Large wind turbines range from 100 kW to 6 MW, with the towers for these turbines ranging from 30m to 100m in height.  Installation of these large turbines is capital intensive and presents considerable planning issues.

 

Small and micro wind turbines generally refer to turbines with a capacity under 100 kW, and can include turbines from 1 to 10 kW in capacity.  These turbines usually have less environmental and community related constraints and are suitable for urban environments, such as open areas with relatively low levels of surrounding development. 

 

The wind speeds required for small and micro wind turbines vary, with some turbines operating efficiently at low wind speeds of 2.5m/s, although wind conditions of more than 4 m/s are generally considered optimal.

 

Wind resources can vary significantly in intensity over any given time period, and are also affected by local topography and obstructions such as buildings.  Data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Penrith Lake Automatic Weather Station (AWS) from 1995 to 2010 indicates an average wind speed of 3.3 m/s.  This information suggests that Penrith has local wind resources available to support micro wind turbines, however site-specific wind and feasibility studies would be required before pursuing this further.

 

Micro wind turbines can be mounted directly to a building’s roof top, or on a tower.  The supporting infrastructure for these towers can also be used for other purposes such as street lighting and telecommunications.  Micro wind turbine proposals can currently benefit from both NSW Solar Bonus Scheme and Federal Solar Credit Scheme, thus considerably lowering the capital costs and improving the rate of return on investment.

 

3.       Bioenergy

Bioenergy is the chemical energy derived from recently living organisms or their metabolic by-products, also known as biomass.  Bioenergy technology extracts this energy using conventional power generation technology, such as combustion, to produce low emission renewable energy.  A recent report by ABARE (2010) stated that 1 MW of electricity derived from bioenergy avoids approximately 1 tonne of CO2.

 

Sources of biomass include agricultural crop wastes, food wastes, the organic component of municipal wastes, sewage and animal manure.  Bioenergy currently dominates Australia’s renewable energy production, accounting for 78% of renewable energy.  The use of this technology is expected to grow in future years, as Australia has a rich supply of economically viable and accessible biomass resources.

 

4.       Co-generation and Tri-generation

Maximising the output of an energy source is key to improving energy efficiency, and is also the main principle of co-generation and tri-generation technologies.  A co-generation system is a system that produces and uses two forms of energy.  It most commonly refers to a system that generates both electrical and thermal energy and is also known as a ‘combined heat and power system’ (CHP).  A co-generation system can be based on a number of different fuels, such as coal, petroleum products, natural gas, biomass and biogas.

 

In addition to producing electricity, the other outputs of a cogeneration system can include hot water production, space heating, hot air/steam (for use in industrial processes), space cooling (when a trigeneration system is installed) and dry air generation.

 

The heat produced from a cogeneration unit can also be used for powering an absorption chiller, which is an air conditioning unit powered by heat energy. When used in this capacity, it is referred to as trigeneration or combined heat, cooling and power (CHCP). It is typical for trigeneration systems to be included under the banner of cogeneration in technical reports and statistics, as opposed to being their own separate entity.

 

As noted earlier in this report, burning fuel in a typical power plant is generally inefficient. More heat energy is produced than actual electricity, and the heat energy is not harnessed or utilised. In comparison, cogeneration plants utilise the heat produced, making them much more efficient. Additionally because of their size, they can be located in close proximity to areas of demand. This achieves an energy efficiency rating of around 70%, making them an attractive option for increasing the sustainability of electricity production. Furthermore, in cases where excess energy is produced, this can be fed into the retail electricity network (the grid), which can help to augment the financial viability of a plant.

 

In NSW cogeneration only makes up a small percentage of the total installed energy generating capacity. In 2007 it accounted for just 5.6% of the total for the state. In comparison, a study undertaken by the International Energy Agency of the countries accounting for 80% of the global electricity generation demonstrated that cogeneration accounted for approximately 10.3% of the installed capacity. Whilst comparing these results, it must also be considered that in comparison to regions such as Europe, Australia generally has lower electricity cost and lower demand for thermal energy, making cogeneration financially less attractive.

 

As detailed below, there are a variety of different technologies that can be used in cogeneration or trigeneration, with the conditions of the installation determining which one is the most appropriate.

 

Reciprocating Engines

Reciprocating engines running on gas are the most common form of cogeneration in NSW. Reciprocating engines can run on a variety of commonly available fuels such as petrol, natural gas, biogas and diesel fuel. They are available in a wide variety of sizes from 5kW through to over 7MW. The engine turns a shaft, which in turn rotates a generator to create electrical energy. The electrical efficiency of a reciprocating turbine ranges from 25% to 45%.

 

Combustion Turbines

Combustion turbines are best suited for larger sites with demand for high temperature steam. One such example is Coopers Brewery in Adelaide. A combustion turbine can utilise natural gas, oil or a combination of fuels (dual fuel). They are also available in a wide variety of sizes, from 500kW to 25MW. Fuel is burnt with pressurised air in a combustion chamber, which produces a high pressure, high-velocity gas which is then used to generate electricity in a turbine. Combustion turbines have an electrical efficiency of 25 to 40%.

 

 

 

Microturbines

Microturbines are generally not commercially viable at present, however they do display strong potential for small scale applications. A gas fuelled plant has been installed by Newcastle University and the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle. They are suitable for small applications, producing between 25kW and 500kW. They can run on natural gas, hydrogen, propane or diesel for fuel. Microturbines are based on turbocharger technologies found in large trucks and turbines in auxiliary power units, and they have an electrical efficiency of 20% to 30%.

 

Fuel Cells

Fuel cells are becoming increasingly attractive as cogeneration technology, however current applications are limited by their high cost. Fuel cells work on a similar basis to a battery, in that they use an electro-chemical reaction to create an electric current. In a fuel cell, the fuel is continually replenished giving an ongoing supply of power. They can range in capacity from 1kW to 10MW, and have electrical efficiencies from 25% to 60%.

Policy and Legislative Considerations

There is a wide range of planning legislation and supporting government policy relating to the implementation of energy producing technology. The applicability of this legislation however, depends largely on factors such as the type of technology being employed, the size of the plant or system, and commercial arrangements relating to the sale of generated power.

 

One of the key policy arrangements supporting the implementation of renewable technologies is the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. This Act provides for the issuing of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) for the generation of electricity using eligible renewable energy sources.  These credits are issued 1 REC per 1 MWh of energy generation, and are a tradable commodity. Similar to other commodities their value varies with supply and demand. 

 

In addition to this, the Australian Government Solar Credits scheme offers a certificate multiplier incentive of up to 5 times the usual number of RECs issued for grid connected and off grid wind and solar power systems, of up to 1.5kW for the next three years, before tapering off in each subsequent year. The benefit of this scheme to Council is that RECs are usually offered as a point of sale discount. With the renewable energy provider then able to sell the RECs accrued from the installation on the open trading market.

 

Additional financial incentives are offered through the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme. Under this scheme, solar PV and wind turbines with a capacity of up to 10 kW which are connected to the electricity network through an inverter are eligible for a gross feed-in tariff of 20c/kwh.

 

With regard to related planning legislation and licensing requirements, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 requires an organisation to obtain a license from the EPA for electricity works that exceed set criteria. For a cogeneration system in the Sydney Metropolitan area (which includes Penrith) a license is required for a gas turbine of more than 20 megawatts, or an internal combustion piston engine (such as a reciprocating gas powered engine) which is 3 megawatts or larger. The likelihood of this being applicable for a system installed by Council is low, but worth noting.

 

With regard to the supply of energy, should Council wish to supply external customers with electricity generated from a Council owned cogeneration plant, Council would be required to obtain an electricity retailer supplier’s license. Applications for this license are assessed in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 and involve a public consultation process through IPART, with the final decision to be made by the Minister for Environment.

 

An alternative approach which does not require a retail license is to export energy to the grid via an arrangement with an energy retailer and the network utility. Under such an arrangement, Council would negotiate to meet certain standards for connection to the network with the network service provider. It should be noted however that such agreements have historically proven to be problematic.

Council’s Current Energy Management Practices

Penrith City Council has long been committed to improving the efficiency of our resource use and the sustainability of our operations.  This commitment is evident in the initiatives that Council has undertaken through its participation in the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Program (CCP) and in the development and implementation of strategies such as the Greenhouse Local Action Plan (2001), the Carbon Neutral Plan (2005), and the Energy Savings Action Plan (2007).

 

In implementing these plans, Council has carried out a significant program of works to improve the energy efficiency of our operations.  These works have included upgrades to heating and cooling systems, lighting, and building management systems, and as at June 2010 have provided Council with calculated annual savings of approximately 32,133 gigajoules (GJ), and 9,462 tonnes of CO2-e.

 

Despite significant efforts to improve our energy efficiency, however, Council is still a large consumer of energy.  During the 2009-10 financial year Council consumed 90,872 GJ of energy, at a cost of over $1.5million.  This resulted in greenhouse emissions of approximately 24,694 tonnes of CO2-e.  The majority of this energy was sourced from traditional coal fired electricity (90%), with the remaining energy sourced through gas (9%), and GreenPower (1%).

 

Having implemented a comprehensive program of initiatives to address energy efficiency, Council can now focus attention on the sustainability of our energy supplies.  These initiatives may involve more detailed feasibility assessments, and higher costs, but will also offer significant gains in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and the potential for long-term financial savings.  

 

In recent years Council has installed a number of PV systems. These installations have generally been small in terms of scale (3-5kW), but provide benefit in terms of both the energy generated, and in demonstrating leadership to our communities.

 

Despite the recent reduction of the feed in tariff from 60c/kWh to 20c/kWh, the provision of a feed in tarriff and RECs coupled with the demonstrated successes of this technology, provide Council with both the reasoning and opportunity to pursue further deployment of this technology.

 

Council has yet to explore the feasibility of wind and co-generation in detail. Initial investigations into these technologies indicate that they may be suitable for certain applications and should be investigated further.

 

The establishment of a bioenergy plant is beyond the normal scope of Council’s current operations as Council does not currently operate facilities to manage biomass.  This may however be something that Council chooses to support with our regional partners in the coming years.

Conclusion

Penrith City Council has invested considerable effort in recent years to improving the energy efficiency of our assets and operations.  Reducing our ‘business as usual’ energy consumption by approximately 32,133 GJ and abating 9,462 tonnes of CO2-e  per year.

 

Yet despite these efforts, the size and continued growth of our asset base and services mean that Council is still a significant consumer of energy. Looking forward, it is crucial that Council and the wider community in general, seek solutions to improve the sustainability of our power supply.

This next phase in our energy management activities will need to involve the continuation of energy efficiency initiatives, but importantly, it will also need to involve the development and implementation of sustainable energy supplies. Recognising that this next phase of action will require considerable research to ensure that our decisions achieve the best possible outcome, initial investigations highlight that investment in renewable technologies can provide an energy system that is both sustainable and reliable.

 

To assist with this work it is intended to report the progress of our investigations to the Climate Change Working Party in the first half of 2011.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Investigations into Alternate and Renewable Energy Technologies be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

6

Future Community Infrastructure Program   

 

Compiled by:                Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Carl Spears, Principal Communication Officer

Authorised by:             Alan Stoneham, General Manager   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

Penrith City Council has a record of conducting extensive consultation and engagement with the local community to identify and prioritise ongoing community needs and expectations.

On 29 June 2010, after further specific community consultation, Council adopted the Community Strategic Plan, Four Year Delivery Program and One Year Operational Plan.

The Strategic Plan identifies the priorities of the City’s communities and defines the high level responses that Council will make to those over the next ten years and beyond.

The Delivery Program sets out in more detail the actions and activities required to contribute to these long term strategic directions. Penrith is both a Regional City and a growth area and as a result, there are many demands upon our capacity. Prudent long term financial modelling and management have been features of this organisation for many years.

As a result of the intensive community engagement and investigations by management in consultation with Councillors over the last 18 months, a number of unfunded priorities have been identified in the Delivery Program.

Council again delivered a balanced budget for 2010-11 however as in 2009–10 it faced challenges resulting in adjustments to a number of programs, items of expenditure and funding sources. Current economic and legislative conditions also continue to have an effect on Council meeting emerging priorities.

The Council has adopted a practice of continuous review to identify efficiencies and to this end Council officers have already identified savings in the order of $500,000 during the early development of the 2011-12 budget. However long term financial modelling forecasts indicate future budgets will have an average deficit of $1.34m over the next 5 years. The continuing practice of identifying one-off savings to balance each year’s budget is considered unsustainable in the future without impacting on the delivery of programs and service levels.

There are a number of financially prudent pathways available to the City. It is important  to test these by consulting with the Community and then developing a clear course of action and priorities for an infrastructure delivery timetable, explore potential funding opportunities and minimise any impacts on the community.

 

This paper provides details on the unfunded priorities and outlines a communication and community engagement program.

 

It is anticipated that a report on the outcomes of the community consultation will be brought to the Finance Working Party in January with a further program of engagement to be conducted through February/March.

 

Background

With approximately 180,000 people living in the Penrith LGA, Penrith City Council is recognised as one of the largest Councils in New South Wales. The community is diverse and different groups have a range of needs and expectations.

To understand these community needs and expectations, Penrith City Council conducts ongoing consultation with the community. By way of example this has included more than 16 engagements over a twelve month period with local communities through the Neighbourhood Renewal Program, focusing on playgroups, senior groups, shopkeepers, businesses and street surveys. Other consultation and engagement has included online forums (Bang the Table), surveys, Workforce Forum, City’s Future Forum and regular Community Aspirations surveys.

Council has been formally surveying residents every two years (since 2003) to identify and prioritise community expectations in relation to, among other things, the provision of community facilities, Council services, infrastructure and traffic services and planning and development.

In the 2009 survey the top ten priorities listed by the community included maintenance of local roads, condition of public toilets, encouraging local industry and jobs, maintenance of footpaths and litter.

The independent survey also rated Penrith City Council with a mean satisfaction score of 7.2 for overall performance (out of a score of 10); comfortably above the NSW average of 6.0 and the state metropolitan average of 5.9.

On 29 June 2010, after further specific community consultation, Council adopted the Community Strategic Plan and 4 Year Delivery Program.

The Strategic Plan identifies the priorities of the City’s communities and defines the high level responses that Council will make to those over the next ten years and beyond.

The Delivery Program sets out in more detail the actions and activities required to contribute to these long term strategic directions.

Of course Penrith is both a Regional City and a growth area and as a result there are many demands upon our capacity. Prudent long term financial modelling and management have therefore been features of this organisation for many years.

Council again delivered a balanced budget for 2010-11 however as in 2009 – 2010 it faced challenges resulting in adjustments to a number of programs, items of expenditure and funding sources.

The Council has adopted a practice of continuous review to indentify efficiencies and to this end Council officers have already identified savings in the order of $500,000 for the 2011-12 year.

Current economic and legislative conditions will continue to have an effect on Council meeting emerging priorities.

Council will continue to investigate ways to prioritise the delivery of current services and service levels and address projected infrastructure works. These investigations will explore potential funding opportunities including loans, rates increases and grants and will consist of intensive community consultation and engagement to further identify the community’s priorities and to establish agreed acceptable timeframes required for delivery.

The opportunity to investigate a possible rate increase was flagged in the development of the 2010-11 Operational Plan.  A task was subsequently included in the 2010-11 Operational Plan, endorsed by Council, for Council Officers to pursue alternative funding options, including a rate increase following extensive consultation with the community, to fund emerging priorities.  The public consultation process for the 2010-11 Operational Plan, conducted in mid 2010, further highlighted the need for Council to investigate funding options.  Following the planned intensive community consultation and engagement, a rate increase may emerge as a likely funding option. Council Officer will ensure that both the Division of Local Government and Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal  (IPART) are advised of Council’s intentions to further investigate this option.

Long-Term Financial Model (LTFM)

The use of a ten-year financial model is a key factor in the planning for the achievement of a sound long-term financial position for Council and is now a requirement under the Division of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines.  Council's LTFM forms part of the Resource Strategy adopted with the suite of Strategic Planning documents adopted by Council in June 2010

The model extrapolates the current year base budget, incorporates recurrent projects, future capital projects and associated recurrent costs, debt servicing, rates projections, and has the capacity for a number of budget variables to be applied. The LTFM is a key tool in assisting Councillors to ensure that the organisation has sufficient capacity to deliver its programs and assess the impact on future years’ forecasts of the decisions made by Council in the current environment.

The LTFM forecast indicates future budgets have an average deficit of $1.34m over the next 5 years. There has been a practice in recent years of one-off savings being implemented to balance each year’s budget. This is considered unsustainable in the future without impacting on the delivery of these programs and service levels.

Infrastructure Delivery

“Sustainability of Local Government in NSW” commissioned by the LGSA in 2006 (commonly referred to as the Percy Allan Inquiry) identified significant backlogs of asset renewal across the State in the vicinity of $6.3b.

 

Council is the custodian of assets with a value of over a billion dollars, $914.9m of which requires regular investment to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The challenge of how we fund and address delayed infrastructure delivery has been a priority for Council prior to the LGSA Inquiry. 

 

Over recent years Council has actively committed increased allocations to asset program budgets.  This additional investment has been closing the gap between the estimated annual maintenance required and the allocation to maintenance in current budgets. 

 

This increased expenditure has been the result of strategic increases in spending on assets, particularly for roads and additional asset renewal included in the 2006-07 AREAS Special Rate Variation.

 

Council’s commitment to accurately measuring and confronting the city’s infrastructure maintenance obligation was always seen as a strength by Standard & Poors during their assessments and contributed to our overall rating of AA+, when last assessed in May 2008. 

 

The bulk of delayed infrastructure delivery is in the area of roads, bridges and footpaths.  Council Officers believe that the current level of road maintenance is appropriate and in fact is above average for most Councils.  The enhanced level of funding over the last several years has already meant the re-sheeting or reconstruction of 35% of our road network. The annual program is now at about 5% of the network which would see all roads in the City completed within the next 13-15 years at the current level of funding.  A fully reconstructed road would have an expected life span of 30-40 years.

 

The road pavement management system used by Council is quite sophisticated and prioritises road maintenance based on current condition data. This system is now showing a gradual annual improvement in the road condition index across the City.

Delayed infrastructure delivery of drainage maintenance/repairs primarily relates to the kerb inlet pits and grates throughout the road network. These are currently addressed under the road maintenance program which has traditionally had the capacity to include these repairs. It is our standard practice before we re-sheet or reconstruct a section of road to first repair all the associated inlet pits, kerb and guttering as this is the most efficient time to do so.

So, again, it is considered that the commitment Council made some years ago to increase the maintenance standards for roads, bridges and footpaths is adequate. Other assets, however, still require more attention. These are dealt with in the next section of this report and will be the focus of a presentation at a Policy Review Committee on January 31 2011.

 

Unfunded Priorities

As a result of the intensive community consultation and investigations by management in consultation with Councillors over the last 18 months, a number of unfunded priorities have been identified in the Delivery Program. The details of these priorities are provided in attachment 1, and include:

1. Maintaining existing service levels

2. Asset Renewal 

·    Park assets

·    Building assets

·    Public amenity replacement

3. Enhanced Services     

·    Public domain maintenance

·    Neighbourhood renewal

·    Shared pathways

4. CBD upgrades and renewal for Penrith and St Marys

General Manager’s Comments

Previous Council’s community engagement programs and surveys have demonstrated a level of confidence and expectation that Council responsibly manage the assets and finances of the city. This is to be expected as Council is responsible for overseeing over a billion dollars in assets and an annual budget of approximately $180 million. 

 

Financial modelling shows that Council is potentially facing a number of years with deficits based on current service levels.  Additional allocation of funding for asset maintenance and renewal is unable to be provided from the existing and forecast budgets whilst maintaining the current service levels and service activities. 

 

As discussed in this report there are a number of challenges facing Council both to continue to deliver current services and service levels and address renewal of infrastructure.  The community has also signalled, however that they would like the quality and amenity of the City to be taken to a new level.

 

There have been a number of opportunities for Councillors to discuss the financial challenges over the past 12 months at the Mid Term Review, Briefings and a number of Finance Working Party meetings.  This is a significant responsibility and any decisions should not be taken without careful consideration, extensive consultation and deliberation.

 

I believe there are financially prudent pathways available to the City. We should, however, test these with the community through even better consultation. From this we can develop a clear course of action and priorities for the infrastructure upgrade program, explore potential funding opportunities and minimise any impacts on the community. 

 

While a range of unfunded priorities have been identified and costed, it is a matter of moving now to settle on a timeframe for their delivery, ie 5, 10, 20 years. Community input will be vital to determining delivery schedules and will guide the preparation of a costing framework.

 

The proposed draft Community Engagement Strategy identifies a number of tools Council could use to engage residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders.

 

It is important that the range of community engagement methods selected, as a composite, maximise opportunities for community feedback and engagement on this important issue. Some of the tools identified and detailed in Attachment 2 include:

 

§  Letter to households

§  Printed and on-line Facts and FAQ sheets (for residents, ratepayers, media, other stakeholders)

§  Community Newsletter

§  General community forums

§  Newspaper Advertising

 

§  Media releases/briefings

§  On-line forums

§  Mayoral Message/Column/Speeches

§  Council Reports

§  Twitter and Facebook

§  City wide survey

§  Staff emails, briefings and newsletter

 

It would be prudent to establish a budget for the consultation process in the region of $153,000. The consultation strategy and budget will be confirmed with Council early next year.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Future Community Infrastructure Program be received.

2.     Intensive consultation commences immediately to determine the community’s views on potential funding opportunities and delivery timetables and to confirm priorities and the extent of the delivery program.

3.     Council Officers consult with the Division of Local Government and Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal regarding the intention to explore funding opportunities. 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Future Community Infrastructure Program - Attachment 1

5 Pages

Appendix

2. View

Future Community Infrastructure Program - Attachment 2

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Future Community Infrastructure Program - Attachment 1

 

 

 

Future Community Infrastructure Program - Attachment 1

Asset Renewal

 

Parks Asset Renewal Program

 

The Parks Asset Renewal Program commenced in 2008-2009 to address the renewal of a wide range of fixed parks assets. As with the development of the Roads and Buildings Asset Renewal Strategies all Parks fixed assets needed to undergo a condition assessment and have appropriate standards determined for each asset classification. Fixed parks assets include playground equipment, fencing, lighting, irrigation systems, signage, park furniture, seating and playing surfaces. The recurrent replacement value of these assets is approximately $13 million.

 

The program also includes an annual amount for the maintenance of the City’s street tree assets to address the effectiveness of the public domain lighting and risk management issues related to dead and decaying tree branches.

 

The Parks Program in the 4-Year Delivery Program has the following Activities and Priorities linked to the asset renewal program:

§  Manage and maintain sports grounds, parks and open space to meet community needs

§  Implement a Parks and Open Space Maintenance Strategy that maintains those assets to agreed standards for their contemporary purpose

§  Implement the ten-year Parks Asset Renewal Program. This program is identified as a priority in the Delivery Program 2009-2013.

 

The recently completed Draft Sportsground Management Strategy highlighted risks associated with the current management, provision and operation of sports grounds and recommends a number of strategies to address these, including the following related to sports ground infrastructure:

§  Provide a consistent level of infrastructure on each ground to maximise use and flexibility

§  Provide a range of infrastructure to support sports use of Council grounds that is consistent with peak bodies requirements and Australian Standards, and that protects community access

§  Amenities will be fit for purpose, designed to meet sports codes and accessibility standards, located on prominent sites and maintained long term in good condition (this will be addressed through the Building Asset Renewal Program)

§  Provide lights on all local, district or regional playing fields to a quality that meets Australian Standards and the operational requirements of Council, sport and users (the estimated additional cost to upgrade the existing lights is approximately $2.2m).

 

In 2008 the Parks Asset Renewal Program was costed at approximately $6.55 million. This program was recognised as a priority and allocated $250,000 p.a. in 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, at the same time it was recognised that this was an interim measure. The current estimated cost of the asset renewal required for fixed parks assets is $6.3 million in today’s dollars.  The issues identified in the Draft Sportsground Management Strategy add an additional $2.2m. This would enable Council’s existing sports ground assets to be upgraded to meet community requirements.

 


Buildings Asset Renewal

 

As discussed above, recognition of the need to increase the commitment for Buildings Asset Renewal was endorsed by Council when building asset renewal formed part of the AREAS Special Rate Variation in 2006-2007.

 

The on-going development of Council’s asset management systems has included detailed condition audits of building assets and the development of service standards that will ensure all buildings are fit for purpose and consider future needs. These service standards will ensure a greater emphasis on sustainability, compliance, risk management and meeting community expectations, such as accessibility.

 

This improved level of data confidence has identified additional works required to a range of facilities beyond those originally expected. Some urgent major upgrades such as Ripples and Penrith Indoor Sports Stadium also emerged after the establishment of this program. In addition the recent Neighbourhood Facilities Management Services Review has recommended significant additional upgrades and enhanced maintenance requirements to ensure these facilities are performing satisfactorily and meeting customer demands.

 

An increase in the budget for building asset renewal will see the significant backlog of works reduced in a more appropriate timeframe.

 

Public Amenity/ Toilet Replacement Program

 

The Public Amenity Replacement Program was adopted by Council in the 2008-2009 Management Plan but with limited funding. At this time the program was estimated to cost $2,700,000.

 

The Program identified the need to replace 21 stand-alone public toilets, of various sizes, throughout the Council’s area. By 30 June 2011 toilets will have been rebuilt at Werrington Lakes, Weir Reserve, Fowler Reserve and Kokoda Park replacement will be in progress. This leaves a further 17 toilet blocks to be replaced.

 

Funding of $150,000 p.a. was allocated in the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 budgets leaving a balance of approximately $2.4 million adjusted to today’s dollars.

 

The condition of public toilets continues to rate high importance and low satisfaction in recent Community Surveys. It has been rated with the lowest satisfaction rating in the last three surveys. This program is identified as a priority in the Delivery Program 2009-2013.

 

 

Enhanced Services

 

Enhanced Public Domain Maintenance

 

Enhanced Public Domain Maintenance was included as a high priority unfunded program in the development of the 2008-2009 Management Plan.  Additional resources are required to provide enhanced service levels in locations such as CBD car parks and commuter car parks, high activity city locations and precincts, industrial areas (including the new Erskine Park industrial precinct) and to address the emerging issue of litter throughout the Council’s area. It is proposed that litter would be addressed similar to Council’s successful Graffiti Minimisation Strategy i.e. a three-pronged strategy based around education, enforcement and removal.

 

Two additional 2-person public domain maintenance units is required to assist in addressing the issues referred to above at an estimated cost of $485,000 in the first year, due to the need to purchase plant and equipment, and $343,000 p.a. thereafter.

 

The provision of enhanced levels of service to high activity areas and addressing the emerging issue of litter throughout the Council’s area is identified as a priority in the Delivery Program 2009-2013.

 

Neighbourhood renewal

 

The Neighbourhood Renewal Program has actively engaged with residents in a range of established areas across the City to identify community strengths and issues and develop appropriate responses to the matters raised. The delivery of these responses have been framed within Neighbourhood Action Plans (NAPs) that outline actions for Council, service providers, other levels of government and the community to enhance and improve the physical amenity and social outcomes for residents within these communities.

 

To date, five NAPs have been endorsed by Council - Kingswood Park, Londonderry, Oxley Park, Kingswood and St Marys. Each NAP is implemented over a four year time frame. In addition each NAP is different and responds to the unique set of circumstances as identified by each community. Over time, the cumulative impact of the NAPs have resulted in the need for additional resources for the delivery of physical and social infrastructure. It has been identified that the existing physical and social infrastructure programs of Council do not have the capacity to respond in a timely way to the range of matters raised through the NAPs across the priority neighbourhood renewal areas. There are twelve neighbourhood renewal areas across the City. 

 

Most requests identified in NAPs are modest, with residents seeking to have the same level of services as other communities. Some issues have been identified as a result of redevelopment in areas or as a result of a changing community profile such as an ageing population.

 

Examples of the range of physical and social infrastructure that has been intenfied for delivery include:

§  Pedestrian safety in key locations in South St Marys and Kingswood

§  Traffic calming devices in Adelaide Street Oxley Park

§  Bus shelters and seating in areas of identified usage by older residents in Kingswood Park and Kingswood

§  Enhanced signage for local shopping strips in Oxley Park, South St Marys, Kingswood Park

§  Enhanced street lighting in Londonderry particularly near bus stops

§  Support for the ongoing delivery of the Magnetic Places Program which enables community partners to work with residents to hold small events or activities that reduce isolation and contribute to community capacity

§  Ongoing activation of community places through events such as Food, Family, Culture to maintain communication and positive relationships beyond the community engagement period in each area.

 


The Neighbourhood Renewal Program has been highly successful in building positive relationships, developing community capacity, opening opportunities for creative expression in communities and positive engagement with Council. These relationships have developed through collaborative planning and will be further enhanced by the timely delivery of recommendations, including physical infrastructure, within the NAPs for each community. An amount of $300,000 per annum has been identified to meet the requirements of the NAPs for neighbourhood renewal areas.

 

Enhancement to shared pathways program

 

The current footpath program is primarily focused on missing links in the existing network available to pedestrians. This funding was reduced to $150,000p.a. in 2009-2010 with the balance of the previous funding allocated to finance the loan repayments that funded the accelerated $4m Footpath Program completed in 2008-2009.

 

It is apparent that there is a growing demand from the community for a broader network of shared pathways that will provide a dual service for both pedestrians and cyclists. Such a network would encourage active movement around the City and help connect communities. This network would achieve many of Council’s health and sustainability goals as well as responding to recommendations of the PLANS (People’s Lifestyle Aspirations and Needs Study) and the Integrated Transport & Land Use Strategy (PITLUS).

 

An audit by expert consultants of shared path and cycling infrastructure was reported to Council earlier in the year. This study identified the need for significant new infrastructure and the modification and improvement of existing infrastructure in accordance with current standards. The review identified a number of priority routes that will have maximum benefit in increasing the uptake of cycling and walking as alternative modes of transport. Key elements of the suggested priority network include:

§  A focus on connections with the City centres of Penrith and  St Marys

§  Provide good access to railway stations

§  Maximise the length of off-road facilities

§  Provide routes that are as direct as possible

 

A strategy that addresses the recommendations of the audit and details options for the future development of a shared path network is currently being prepared and will be reported to Council next year. This strategy will also recognise the recently released NSW Bikepaths Plan that provides significant opportunities for the City. Under the NSW Plan specific funding is available for “River Cities” under the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy which will fund up to 75% of the cost of paths along State Roads such as the Great Western Highway and Mulgoa Road.  These key linkages throughout the City are closely aligned to the expected priorities of our strategy that is being developed.

 

 


CBD Improvements Penrith and St Marys

 

The Civic Improvement Plan has identified significant works that will contribute to the recognition of Penrith as a Regional City.  Whilst a number of the key improvements will be covered by developer contributions, there is a real opportunity to fast track the delivery of some of the key infrastructure and stimulate the further development of both CBDs. 

 

A program of civic infrastructure improvements for the Penrith and St Marys City Centres has been prepared to support their growth and development.  These improvements aim to upgrade the public domain throughout the Centres over time and create high quality public spaces that provide the centres with their own unique identities.  The improvements will provide a catalyst to encourage economic growth and support new investment.

 

The implementation of these special projects is integral to the successful revitalisation and growth of both Centres.

 

The Civic Improvement Plan for Penrith City Centre is a tool for assisting in achieving the vision of a high quality urban design response and a distinctive public domain character.  It sets principles and incorporates design strategies for the public domain needed to support growth and development in the City Centre integral for its revitalisation over the next 20 years.

 

The improvements identified aim to strengthen the regional position of Penrith City Centre as a multi- functional and innovative Centre that encourages employment and economic growth.

 

Research currently being undertaken by the Penrith Business Alliance identified that Penrith City Centre currently lacks a civic meeting place, a substantial outdoor eating precinct, a large civic park and associated urban infrastructure.  It also flags the goal for a high amenity centre and suggests a significant portion of Penrith’s civic improvements be forward funded by Council to attract and support new development.  The option of a special rate variation provides the opportunity for this approach.

 

Key potential projects in Penrith include the upgrade of Memory Park, the upgrade of segments of High, Station, Henry and Riley Streets with high quality kerbs, paving, lighting, trees and street furniture including strategic footpath widening for outdoor dining. 

 

The draft DCP for St Marys Town Centre encourages high quality activation of all building frontages and a continuation of a building line setback along Queen Street.  The generous building line set backs in many parts of Queen Street currently provides the setting for the creation of a vibrant and diverse street life culture.

 

A range of public domain improvements are being developed which will see Queen Street and key public spaces upgraded to create an attractive Centre and support investment.

 

Key potential projects include the upgrade to Coachmans Park, the upgrade of Queen Street with high quality kerbs, paving, lighting, trees and street furniture. 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 2 - Future Community Infrastructure Program - Attachment 2

 

 

 

Future Community Infrastructure Program - Attachment 2

 

Draft Community Engagement Plan

§  Branding – Future Community Infrastructure Program – build brand, develop identifying logo for program.

§  Develop communications matrix for each group of unfunded priorities:

o Sample attached.

§  Identify stakeholder groups for:

o Parks asset renewal

o Enhanced public domain maintenance

o Public amenity (through survey questions)

o Neighbourhood renewal

o Enhancement to shared pathways program

o CBD improvements for Penrith and St Marys.

§  Commence consultation with business groups in December eg:

o PBA

o Chamber of Commerce

o City Centre St.Marys

o City Centre Penrith

o Progress Associations.

§  Public Meetings and focus groups – late January/February:

o Develop mechanism for running meetings

o To be uniform across all meetings

o Where / when

o Venues

o Minutes and feedback/evaluation forms

o 3 public meetings.

§  Survey – late January/February

o Deliberative survey.

§  Collateral

o Advertisements

o Question and Answers

o Posters

o Information brochures/packages

o Letters/newsletter to households/reply paid envelope for feedback form - website/email address/dedicated phone number

Ø     Letters to specify community meeting dates and times.

o Introduction to process - community newsletter 17 December

o Special community newsletter wrap re Community Building Program include feedback form and list of community meetings – late January.

§  Opportunities to disseminate information

o Displays in Libraries, Civic Centres

o Information sent through childcare centres etc

o Shop front displays St.Marys CBD and Penrith CBD?

o Information desk in shopping centres

o Stall at Penrith Markets

o Information stall at Australia Day event.

§  Media

o Media releases/updates

o Mayoral Column updates

§  Other

o Develop timeline for activities

o Develop training sessions for all forum presenters

o Develop webpage – on line feedback forms?

o Develop feedback forms

o Arrange dedicated email address and phone number

§  Internal Communications

o GM update to all staff

o Network staff newsletter

§  On line and social media

o Develop online forum (through Bang the Table)

o Twitter messages

 


Draft outline of activities

Month

Activity

Outcome

December

Develop timeline for activities.

 

 

Brief media on Future Community Infrastructure Program.

 

 

Develop matrix for unfunded priorities.

Identify stakeholders for each priority and develop information for each group.

 

Compile list of community stakeholders re consultation and engagement.

Arrange dates for community meetings for January/February/March 2011

 

Identify business stakeholders:

§ Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce

§ St.Marys City Centre

§ Penrith City Centre

§ Penrith Business Alliance

Arrange meetings with business stakeholders prior to Christmas

 

Plan community meetings/venues

 

Identify venues and opportunities to disseminate information

 

Prepare draft collateral:

§ Information brochures/packages

§ Posters

§ Letter to households

§ Newsletters

Information to be available for community stakeholder consultation and engagement meetings

 

 

Draft website information.

 

Investigate social media opportunities.

 

Arrange dedicated email address and phone number.

 

Have on line presence and opportunity for feedback from community

January/

February

Commence community stakeholder meetings.

 

 

 

Community information opportunities.

Options:

§ Market stall Penrith Markets

§ Shopfront

§ Displays Civic Centre and Libraries

§ Australia Day information stall

 

Conduct community deliberative survey.

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

7

Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 October 2010 to 31 October 2010   

 

Compiled by:                Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of  investments for the period 1 October 2010 to 31 October 2010 and a reconciliation of invested funds at 31 October 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 31 October 2010.

 

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

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

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

 

 




 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

8        Community Assistance Program Planned Component 2010/2011

 

9        Services for Men Project

 

10      Bells Line of Road - Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan

 

11      Development Application DA09/0753 Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision for Lot 86 DP 270417 (No. 38) Twin Creeks Drive, Luddenham. Applicant: Cityscape Planning + Projects;  Owner: E & K Awad

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

 

12      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.

 

13      Development Application DA09/0164 proposed demolition of existing buildings, extension to existing quarry, office, road transport terminal and boundary adjustment at Lot 228 DP 1134016 Lot 2 DP 221313 Lot 229 DP 1134016 (No. 1513 - 1519) Elizabeth Drive, Kemps Creek. Applicant: Hi Quality Quarry (NSW) Pty Ltd;  Owner: Tranteret Pty Ltd

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

8

Community Assistance Program Planned Component 2010/2011   

 

Compiled by:                Sonia Dalitz, Social Planner

Authorised by:             Erich Weller, Community and 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 is to inform Council of the applications received in the 2010 Planned Component of the Community Assistance Program (CAP).

 

Council has an annual Community Assistance Program, through which small grants are allocated to non–profit organisations and community based groups to meet local community needs. The maximum grant available under the program is $1,200. The available budget is $39,000.

 

The funding round was extensively advertised and promoted in local papers, on Council’s web page and through a range of networks and interagencies.

 

A total of 84 applications were received from a diverse range of organisations which provide services to residents across all areas within the Penrith LGA. A total of 51 of the applications have been recommended for either full or part funding. The total recommended amount for funding is $39,150.  It is proposed the additional $150 be taken from the rolling component of the budget which still has $5,800 available.

 

The report recommends that Council receive the report and approve funding the applications and amounts totalling $39,000 from the Planned Component of the 2010 Community Assistance Program and $150 from the Rolling Component as outlined in Table 3 of this report.

Background

The Community Assistance Program provides local community organisations and groups the opportunity to apply for small grants to support their service delivery to residents of the City. In many cases the requests for funding enable local groups to extend and add value to core activities. A number of the groups that apply are made up of volunteers and receive no other government funding. Some groups would also not be able to access small grant funding from any other source.

 

There are two components of the Community Assistance Program. These are the Planned Component and the Rolling Component.

 

The Planned Component of the program is undertaken once a year in September/ October and is widely advertised and promoted. The Planned Component enables Council to assist local community organisations with funds for programs and activities that are planned to be undertaken in a particular financial year. The majority of funds are allocated under the Planned Component.

 

Recognising that not all funding needs can be foreseen, the Rolling Component allows for one-off requests to be considered by Council at any time during the year. This provides a flexible supplement to the Planned Component of the program.

 

All Planned and Rolling Component applications are assessed against the CAP eligibility and assessment criteria.

 

Eligibility and Assessment Criteria

There are three eligibility criteria for applications under the Community Assistance Program. All projects must satisfy these criteria to be eligible for funding:

 

· Community based non-profit organisations providing one off activities

· Direct benefit to, and participation by, Penrith City residents

· Project and project management in line with Council’s Access and Equity Policy.

 

Fundraising programs or organisations whose main role is to fundraise are not eligible.

 

All CAP applications are assessed for priority against the Assessment Criteria adopted by Council as part of the CAP Policy. Recommendations for funding are made according to the criteria listed below:

 

·        Whether the applicant for the community assistance receives significant Government funding, and whether the application is seen as a core responsibility of a Government funded program;

·        The size of the organisation or group, and its capacity to access alternative resources;

·        The possibility of access to other sources of funding for the request;  

·        The willingness of the applicant to work collaboratively with residents and other community groups;

·        The level of participation and direct benefit for residents of Penrith LGA;

·        Whether the proposal addresses the priority needs and issues of Penrith LGA residents, as identified through social planning processes;        

·        Whether the proposal is realistic;

·        The cost effectiveness of the proposal;

·        The beneficiaries of the project, ensuring that funds are distributed to diverse groups right across the Penrith LGA.

 

Organisations and groups that received funding in the 2009/2010 financial year were required to submit to Council a short evaluation form that included project outcomes. If any of the organisations or groups fail to submit their evaluation, they are not eligible for Community Assistance Program funding in 2010/2011.

 

 

Budget Allocation and Expenditure to Date

The total annual budget of the combined Planned Component and Rolling Component is $46,000 with $39,000 available for the Planned Component and $7,000 for the Rolling Component.

 

Table 1 below presents the budget allocation to the Planned and Rolling components as well as expenditure to date.

 

Table 1 – Budget Allocation and Expenditure 2010/11

 

 

Allocated

Expenditure to Date

Committed

Available

Planned Component

$ 39,000

          $        0

$    0

$ 39,000

Rolling Component

        $   7,000

$ 1,200            

$    0

$   5,800      

Total annual funds

$ 46,000

$ 1,200            

$    0

$ 44,800      

 

2010 Planned Component

The funding round for the 2010 Planned Component opened on 20 September and closed on 18 October. The funding round was advertised in local papers, on Council’s web page, and was also promoted through a range of local interagencies and networks. There is $39,000 available in 2010 for the Planned Component.

 

Applicants were required to complete an application form, identifying their project objectives, population target groups, budget and benefits to the local community.

 

The promotion of the 2010 Planned Component followed the Community Development Support Expenditure Scheme (CDSE) funding round in March, and precedes the Community Builders funding in November (formerly known as the Western Sydney Area Assistance Scheme funding.)

 

Applications Recommended for Funding

A total of 84 applications were received, requesting a total of $90,267. Of the 84 applications received, 51 have been recommended for funding for either all of the requested amount, or an adjusted amount in light of the merit of the project. This compares to previous years as outlined below in Table 2:

 

Table 2 – Funding History

 

 

Total

Applications Received

Total

Funding Requests

Total

Applications Recommended

2010

84

$ 90,267.00

51

2009

68

$ 73,640.00

43

2008

85

$ 91,796.00

46

 

Appendix 1 to this report provides a list of the 51 applications recommended for funding, including details of each project and the rationale. Where there is a recommendation for funding that is not the full amount requested, a rationale is provided. In general, the quality of project applications was high.

The total amount of projects recommended is $39,150. This is slightly higher than the budget available. The additional $150 is proposed to be taken from the Rolling component budget allocation.

 

Table 3 below is a summary of all projects recommended for funding.  Note that recommended projects have also been allocated to their particular population target groups. This enables Council officers to provide a summary of the distribution by target group of recommended Community Assistance Program planned component funds in 2010.  This summary is provided in Table 4 of the report.

 

Table 3 – Recommended for funding List

 

No.

Target Group

Organisation and Project

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

 

1

 

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Abiem People's Association
Equipment for meeting and workshop events

$     1,200.00

$          400.00

2

 

People with Disability

Westlink Respite Services

Equipment for after school care activities

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

3

 

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Bhutanese Community

Equipment for community sports and social events

$     1,200.00

$          900.00

4

 

Older People

Casa Bella Community

Equipment for meeting activities including tables and chairs

 

$     1,200.00

$          600.00

5

 

General community

Reach Out Ministries

Equipment purchase to continue outreach to the homeless

 

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

6

 

Children

Connect Child and Family Services

Community event relating to a transition to school project

 

$        680.00

$          680.00

7

 

Young People

Croatian Folkloric Ensemble

Community event relating to raising cultural awareness

$     1,200.00

$          750.00

8

 

Young People

Dance Oolites

Costume purchase

 

$     1,200.00

$          600.00

 

No.

Target Group

Organisation and Project

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

 

9

 

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Enosis Seniors Group St Marys

Equipment for group catering needs

$     1,100.00

$          600.00

10

 

People with Disability

Equipment Pool for Children with Disabilities

Equipment to repair wheelchair

 

$        731.72

$          732.00

11

 

Young People

Fusion Western Sydney

Youth Arts Project [music]

$        785.00

$          785.00

12

 

General community

Hawkesbury Community Church

Londonderry Community Carols

 

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

13

 

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Mamre Plains Ltd

Artwork project with Sudanese children



$     1,045.00

$          500.00

14

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

Mission Australia

Aboriginal community art project

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

15

 

General community

Mission Australia

Cooking skills classes

$        624.00

$          624.00

16

 

People with Disability

Nepean Area Disabilities Organisation

Healthy lifestyle education

$     1,116.12

$       1,116.00

17

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services

Aboriginal food project [kitchen garden in a box]

 

$     1,125.00

$       1,125.00

18

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services

Introduction to Traditional Indigenous Games
 [TIG]

 

$        932.50

$          467.00

19

 

Children

Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services

Purchase books for use at playgroups

 

$     1,200.00

$          800.00

 

No.

Target Group

Organisation and Project

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

 

20

 

Children

Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services

Community event “Puppet Pandemonium”

$        985.00

$          985.00

21

 

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Nepean Migrant Access Inc

Equipment for community group

$        765.00

$          765.00

22

 

Children

Nepean Multiple Birth Association

Equipment purchase

 

$     1,000.00

$          700.00

23

 

Older People

Community Visitors Scheme

Thank you event for volunteers

 

$     1,200.00

$          500.00

24

 

Older People

Nepean Neighbourhood Aid

Volunteer Expo event

 

$        980.00

$          500.00

25

 

General community

Volunteer Referral Service
Thank you event for volunteers

 

$     1,220.00

$          500.00

26

 

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Newpin Child and Family Network

Bilingual Story and Songbook community activity

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

27

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

North Penrith Community Centre

Equipment purchase

 

$        408.00

$          408.00

28

Children

North St Marys Community Preschool 

Equipment purchase

 

$     1,184.00

$          689.00

29

Older People

Olympus Greek Seniors Group

Activities for Seniors

 

$     2,020.00

$          600.00

30

Women

Penrith Family Support

Equipment for drumbeat program

 

$     1,200.00

$          900.00

 

 

 

 

No.

Target Group

Organisation and Project

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

 

31

Women

Penrith Older Women’s Network

Equipment for user groups

$        191.00

$          191.00

32

Older People

Penrith Senior Citizens Centre

Equipment for bowls activity



$     2,145.00

$       1,145.00

33

Women

Penrith Women’s Health Centre

International Women's Day event

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

34

Young People

Philippine Language and Cultural Association

Community event

 

$     1,200.00

$          700.00

35

People with Disability

Penrith Westclub

Equipment for community access to sport activity

 

$     1,000.00

$       1,000.00

36

Older People

Penrith Seniors Choir

Equipment for performances

 

$        100.00

$          100.00

37

Women

St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team

Equipment for beginners sewing

 

$        399.00

$          399.00

38

Young People

St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team

Community arts competition

 

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

39

General community

St Marys and District Historical Society

Equipment for book covering

 

$        440.00

$          440.00

40

General community

St Marys Community Development Project

Equipment and workshops for creative writing group

 

$     1,200.00

$          500.00

41

General community

St Marys Community Development Project

Equipment for Encore Historical Sewing Group

 

$     1,200.00

$          950.00

 

No.

Target Group

Organisation and Project

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

 

42

Women

St Marys Community Development Project

Community consultation activity at Claremont Meadows

 

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

43

People with Disability

Sunnyfield Independence St Marys

Equipment for sensory garden maintenance

 

$     1,200.00

$          900.00

44

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

The Berkshire Park Llandilo and Shane Park Action Group

Community line dancing lessons and social nights

$     1,188.00

$          572.00

45

People from diverse sexualities

The Open Door Community of Christ

Legal information community event

 

$        311.00

$          311.00

46

Older People

University of the Third Age

Equipment for reference library

 

$     1,200.00

$          700.00

47

Young People

Werrington Community Project

Equipment for parkour group

$     1,077.00

$          452.00

48

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

Werrington Community Project

Equipment for Aboriginal arts development and exhibition

 

$     1,082.00

$          982.00

49

Young People

Werrington Community Project

Equipment for youth arts project [photography]

 

$        944.79

$          859.00

50

General community

Westcare Community Services

Equipment purchase for food storage

$     1,876.00

$          923.00

51

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Nepean Migrant Access (auspice)

Chinese New Year community event

$     1,200.00

$       1,200.00

 

Applications Not Recommended for Funding

There are 33 applications that are not recommended for funding through the 2010 Community Assistance Program Planned Component. A rationale is provided of why each of these projects is not recommended for funding. Details of these 33 applications are provided at Appendix 2.

 

Target Group Analysis

It is useful to summarise the recommended allocation of 2010 Community Assistance Program Planned Component funds and the principal beneficiary target group for funding (see Table 4 below). 

 

These groups were formerly referred to as ‘target groups’ under the social planning guidelines and are now identified in the NSW Division of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework. They include children, young people, people with disabilities, older people,  women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people from diverse sexualities.

 

A ninth category “general community” has also been included in the table below because a large number of projects do not have a single target group. Please note that some project target groups could be placed in more than one category.

 

Table 4 – CAP Planned Allocation by Target Group

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

8 %

Children

10 %

General Community

15 %

Older People 

14 %

People from Diverse Sexualities 

2 %

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

17 %

People with Disability

10 %

Women

10 %

Young People

14 %

Total

100 %

Summary

Council has received 84 applications, requesting a total of $90,267.00 for Community Assistance Program funding, in the 2010/11 Planned Component. The available budget for the CAP Planned Component is $39,000. After careful consideration against the identified criteria, 51 projects totalling $39,150 have been recommended for funding. It is proposed to take the additional $150 from the remaining rolling component budget of $5,800.

 

Recommended projects cover a range of target groups and suburbs across the city, address many different social and related needs, and include a number of city-wide initiatives.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Community Assistance Program Planned Component 2010/2011 be received.

2.     Council approve funding the applications and amounts totalling $39,000.00 from the Planned Component of the 2010 Community Assistance Program and $150.00 from the Rolling Component as outlined in Table 3 of this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

2010/2011 Community Assistance Program - Projects Recommended for Funding

7 Pages

Appendix

2. View

2010/2011 Community Assistance Program - Projects Not Recommended for Funding

5 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - 2010/2011 Community Assistance Program - Projects Recommended for Funding

 

 

 








Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 2 - 2010/2011 Community Assistance Program - Projects Not Recommended for Funding

 

 

 






Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

9

Services for Men Project   

 

Compiled by:                Teresa Luk-Leung, Social Planning Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Greg Davies

 

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

At the Ordinary meeting of 20 July 2009, Council resolved to conduct the Services for Men Project.  The project aims at informing Council of the needs of men in Penrith City as well as a number of actions to address the identified needs.  This report presents a summary of the findings and proposed actions arising from the Services for Men Project.

 

The project examines the service provision for men within Penrith City.  The project research indicates that men face a number of barriers in accessing services.  The barriers may be a consequence of the way services are delivered, the service environment, language and cultural barriers or economic disadvantage. 

 

The Services for Men Project was undertaken recognising that the principal responsibility for funding of men’s services rests with the Commonwealth and State Governments.  At the same time Council has a role to play in supporting social services that are available to meet the diverse needs of men in our community.  This includes an advocacy role for Council. 

 

As with the population at large, the majority of men participate in social networks, including with their families, are employed, have a range of responsibilities as well as personal or family interests.  These interests might include sport or recreation, participating in a local service club or group or meeting with friends.

 

At the same time within the male population, there are groups who have specific needs for service and support. They include men at risk (for example, homeless men), separated fathers, refugee men, some Aboriginal men, men with a disability and men of diverse sexualities. In some cases, men may also experience significant isolation that can be caused by a number of factors.  The project identified a number of service gaps which include the lack of a designated social gathering space for men, the lack of access to preventative health services for men and the need for longer term support services.

 

The Services for Men project proposes a number of actions to address the issues affecting men and improve the service delivery for men in Penrith City.  A copy of the Services for Men Project report and Action Plan is provided as Attachment 1 to this Council report.  It is recommended that Council receive the report and endorse the Services for Men Project Action Plan for implementation.

Background

At the Ordinary meeting of 20 July 2009, Council resolved to undertake the Services for Men Project to assist with its planning and actions to respond to the needs of men in Penrith City.   The undertaking of the Services for Men Project aligns with Council’s Strategic Plan 2031 and it assists Council in achieving one of its community outcomes – “A City with equitable access to services and facilities”. 

 

Project Aim

The Services for Men Project aims at informing Council of the needs of men in Penrith City with proposed actions for Council to consider in responding to the identified priority needs.  The Services for Men Project was undertaken recognising that the principal responsibility for funding of men’s services rests with the Commonwealth and State Governments.  At the same time Council has a role to play in supporting social services that are available to meet the diverse needs of men in our community.  This includes an advocacy role for Council. 

 

Project Development

Preparation work for undertaking the Services for Men Project commenced in February 2010.  A project brief was developed that specified the necessary aspects of the study which included a combination of literature review, a summary demographic profile and community consultation.  Expressions of Interest were sought from a number of consultants and Arygle Research was selected to conduct the study.  This company has a particular expertise in research on men’s health, barriers to service access and related issues.

 

Due to resource and budgetary constraints, the project was designed as a focused study that aimed to identify key service issues for men in Penrith rather than a comprehensive needs analysis.  Interviews were held with a number of service providers from a wide range of service types to identify gaps in service provision for men, opportunities to improve services including available resources, advocacy and partnership.

 

Consultation

The consultation focused on government and non government service providers that operate services for men or primarily for men within the Penrith Local Government Area, and also other services and centres with an interest in men’s issues.   Organisations that participated in the consultation included peak community health organisations such as the Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre of University of Western Sydney,  the AIDS Council of New South Wales, agencies that work directly with men in Penrith City such as Anglicare Father’s Support Service, Burnside “Newpin” Fathers Centre, Dads in Distress, Nepean Youth Accommodation Service, Mount Druitt Aboriginal Men’s Shed, representatives from government agencies, namely, TAFE, Sydney West Area Health Service and the key community men’s network known as the Western Sydney Men and Family Relationships Network.

 

Research Findings

According to the 2006 Census, half of the population of Penrith is male (49.5%).  Most of the adult male population are employed full time and tend to work longer hours than women.  Male workers are concentrated in technical and trades occupations. 

 

The research project outlined both the strengths and challenges relating to the provision of services for men in the Penrith LGA.  The consultation identified that there is a general awareness within Penrith based services that particular groups of men have greater service support needs e.g. refugee men, separated fathers etc.  Most service providers are aware that generic services such as health, education and community services need to be adapted to be more accessible and welcoming to men.  As a result, these service providers are likely to be more receptive to the information that will assist in improving their services to men.

 

Another service strength highlighted in the research project is the presence of the strong networks and partnerships formed between Council and local service providers.  Within Penrith, there is a highly developed system of interagencies where services from particular sectors meet regularly.  This provides a strong foundation for disseminating information regarding men’s services.

 

As regards to the challenges relating to the service provision for men, the study identified that some men in Penrith experience a number of barriers in accessing services. These barriers are related to the way services are delivered e.g. lack of after hour service, the service environment, or a man’s language and or cultural background (particularly Aboriginal men and many refugee men).  Consultation with a range of stakeholders identified four major gaps in services for men in the Penrith LGA.  These are:

 

·    A designated social gathering space for men

·    Accommodation/housing for men at risk (homelessness, mental health issues)

·    Preventative health services for men (such as health screening)

·    Longer support services for men at risk (ongoing case management).

 

The following summary of these gaps is based on the local consultations as well as the research experience of the consultants.

 

Designated Social Gathering Space for Men

A number of stakeholders indicated that there is a need for a space in Penrith where men from different backgrounds can meet and participate in activities.  The consultation found there is a support for services to set up a community space inclusive of a wide range of men such as a Men’s Shed.

 

In recent years, men’s sheds have been established all over Australia.  These sites are usually set up by groups of men, in partnership with local community organisations or the support of local churches or Councils.  The focus of a men’s shed can vary accordingly, depending on the interests of the men involved but often involves mechanical and technical interests as well as social and volunteering activities.  Council officers are aware that some local retirement villages have men’s sheds but these are only open to residents of the villages.

 

In addition, many men in Penrith City currently belong to service clubs or social/recreation groups that may largely comprise males.  As in society at large, men from different backgrounds or interests will not generally join together for social or other activities.  Similarly, with a men’s shed, it is unlikely that a single facility could respond to the diversity of men in the community. In addition, men’s sheds generally function most effectively when attached to an existing adjacent social or other service that can provide some oversight, manage security, and facilitate access.  In some examples, men’s sheds have become exclusive rather than inclusive places.  This of course is less an issue when the men’s shed is attached to a church or other private landholder.

 

Though the notion of starting up a Men’s Shed has received support at large from the stakeholders involved in consultation for this project, it is recognised that setting up a Men’s Shed in Penrith requires further consultation with interested parties and detailed planning.

 

Accommodation/Housing for Men

The consultation undertaken as part of the project research found that there is a significant lack of appropriate housing for a number of men at risk groups.  These are summarised below.

 

Young Men at Risk – Young men at risk include young men who are unemployed and have left home, and may be suffering from substance abuse and involved in illegal activities.   Feedback from service providers indicates that young men at risk who are homeless are generally not considered as a high priority for public housing. Though there is some youth refuge accommodation in Penrith City targeting this group, the lack of longer term housing is the challenge. 

 

Men Experiencing Relationship Breakdown - Following relationship breakdown, it is often men who leave the family home. It is reportedly difficult for men to find suitable private rental accommodation particularly if the man is a father and has shared custody of his children.

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Men who live a transient lifestyle – Within the Penrith LGA, there are a number of Aboriginal men who are visiting from rural areas and may be experiencing relationship breakdown.  These men need support to secure appropriate and low cost accommodation.

 

Preventative Health Services

Within the Penrith LGA, there are barriers for men who find it difficult to access preventative health care due to lack of government funding for preventative health services and health promotion and the long working hours of men.  Men in Penrith are mostly involved in full time work with many also working during Saturdays.  These men find it difficult to access preventative health services due to their commitments and sometimes the isolated location of their work.

 

Long Term Support for Men at Risk

Men at risk reportedly find it hard to obtain long term support to address their complex needs.  According to service providers, men in crisis can find some type of immediate counselling or emergency support.  However, ongoing support such as integrated case management is more difficult to access as services are not well resourced to provide this.

 

Service Gaps for Specific Male Population Group

In addition to the service gaps for men discussed above, a number of service issues emerged for specific groups of men with the Penrith LGA.  They include:

 

Men at Risk – men who have specific support needs e.g. men suffering from mental illness, substance abuse, men who have left the criminal justice system and men who are homeless.

 

Men who are Fathers – fathers who are experiencing relationship breakdown, separation, divorce, shared parenting or being a single dad can create a need for support services and in some instances crisis intervention.

 

Men from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds – It is noted that Penrith has become a settlement place for a number of new emerging communities such as the South Sudanese community.  It is reported that refugee men are not accessing services due to lack of knowledge and language and cultural barriers. 

 

For older men from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, accessing home care and community services can be difficult.  It is reported that there is a general reluctance by older men from CALD backgrounds seeking help from services.

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Men – While some Aboriginal men in Penrith are having similar experiences to men in the general population in terms of employment and family life,  others are facing serious challenges.  Research shows that the challenges include loss of culture, identity, risk of imprisonment, alcohol and drug problems.

 

Men with Disability – People with disability and their carers generally struggle to find sufficient support services. Men with disability often find that services offered are oriented to the interests of women and are delivered in a “feminised” environment.  A main issue reported for men with disability was that of services and activities being “male friendly” or of interest. 

 

Men of Diverse Sexualities – Local health and community services reported that there is a growing community of gay and bisexual men who live and work in Penrith City.  The increasing number of gay people of different ages and family forms in the City will mean that local health and community services will need to respond to the needs of this group.  It was also reported that gay fathers experienced difficulties around levels of support and acceptance from family services.

 

Action Plan

 

Improving access to services will involve developing effective ways of addressing service availability and of making services more able to respond to the specific service needs of men.  The Services for Men Project highlighted the main issues for men accessing services in Penrith City and identified a number of key priorities for action.  These actions in the Action Plan are grouped under four themes.  These themes are:

 

·     Promote programs that educate men on their health and improve their general well being

·     Improve access to existing programs and services for men in the Penrith community

·     Foster the establishment of further programs and services for Men in the Penrith community

·     Raise awareness of critical issues relating to accommodation for men in the Penrith LGA.

 

The following table provides one example of an action under each theme.

 

Priority Theme

Example of Action

Promote programs that educate men on their health and improve their general well being

1.1 Support local health providers to improve preventative health screening to men in the Penrith LGA. For example working in collaboration with the Penrith NAIDOC organising committee to continue inviting services that provide ‘Pit Stop’ style health checks at annual NAIDOC events.

Improve access to existing programs and services for men in the Penrith community

2.2 Support the initiative of Western Sydney Men and Family Relationships Network (WSMFRN) in developing a Western Sydney Blokes Book that highlights and promotes services for men such as Men friendly GP’s and low cost counselling services.

Foster the establishment of further programs and services for Men in the Penrith community

3.1 In partnership with other service providers and men’s groups, host an initial meeting that investigates the feasibility of establishing a Men’s Shed in the Penrith LGA.

Raise awareness of critical issues relating to accommodation for men in the Penrith LGA

4.1 Continue to work in partnership with the Nepean Homelessness Taskforce in developing a 10 year plan to address the accommodation needs of the community including men

 

The Action Plan is on pages 19-21 of the Services for Men – Penrith LGA Final Report which is provided at Attachment 1 of this Council report. There are nine actions in the Action Plan.

Implementation and Resourcing

The Services for Men Project recognises the principal responsibility for funding for men’s services rests with the Federal and State governments. The role of Council is to lead and coordinate the implementation of the Action Plan incorporated in the Services for Men Project.  This will include Council advocating on issues affecting men and forming partnerships and supporting organisations that provide services to men in Penrith. 

 

It is important to note that a number of actions in the Action Plan have already been progressed.  These include:

 

·    Updating Council’s Community Services Directory to ensure the information on men’s services is up to date (Action 2.1) – the online Directory was updated in September 2009 with the inclusion of a specific section listing men’s services and programs available in the Penrith LGA.  The Directory will be updated again this financial year.

 

·    Supporting the initiative of Western Sydney Men and Family Relationships Network in developing a Western Sydney Blokes Book which highlights and promotes services for men such as men friendly GPs and low cost counselling services for men (Action 2.2) – a Council officer participates in the Western Sydney Blokes Book Working Party who are conducting research to seek the input of men in compiling the Blokes Book.

·    Support community organisations that provide services to men at risk and key male target groups (Action 2.4) – a Council officer regularly attends the Western Sydney Men and Family Relationships Network which is the key regional interagency represented by a wide range of community organisations from Western Sydney that provide direct services for men in need.  Council will continue to work in partnership with the Western Sydney Men and Family Relationships Network to facilitate information distribution on men’s services to service networks in Penrith City.

 

·    Continue to work in partnership with the Nepean Homelessness Taskforce in developing a 10 year plan to address the accommodation needs of the community including men. (Action 4.1) -  A combined funding of $1.8 million from the Federal and State Governments has been allocated for the first Regional Supportive Housing Service for the Nepean Region.  The project named Project 40 will provide an integrated homelessness service.  It will enable better access to early intervention and prevention support for homeless people including men and families at risk of homelessness.

 

The Service for Men Project and the proposed Action Plan have been developed in the context of available resources.  Most of the actions will be undertaken by the staff of Council’s Community and Cultural Development Department who have overall responsibility to coordinate and implement the Action Plan.  It is anticipated that no additional resources will be required.

 

The Community and Cultural Development Department will provide to Council an annual update on progress with the implementation of the Action Plan.

 

Summary

The Services for Men project examines service provision for men in Penrith City.  It highlights gaps in service provision and identifies opportunities to improve services for men.  The Services for Men Project was undertaken in recognising that each gender has unique needs and challenges and different approaches will be needed to make services accessible to men.

 

The project has received support from a number of service providers who were consulted in developing the study. The Services for Men Project and the proposed Action Plan have been developed in the context of available resources. The Community and Cultural Development Department will continue to play a leading role in coordinating the implementation of the Action Plan and will report to Council annually on progress with implementation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Services for Men Project be received.

2.     Council endorse the Services for Men Project Action Plan included in Attachment 1 of this report for implementation.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Services for Men Project Consultant Final Report

22 Pages

Attachment

  

10

Bells Line of Road - Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan   

 

Compiled by:                Adam Wilkinson, Engineering Services Manager

Authorised by:             Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure  

 

Objective

We have a say in our future

Community Outcome

A Council that speaks out for Penrith and our region (9)

Strategic Response

Advocate for the employment, transport, and infrastructure to ensure the region is sustainable (9.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present Council with information relating to the Roads and Traffic Authority’s (RTA) development of a long term strategic corridor plan for the Bells Line of Road.  The RTA have invited stakeholders to provide feedback on the values, objectives, opportunities and constraints within the area for a corridor and this report recommends that Council make a submission to the RTA.

Background

The NSW and Australian Governments have jointly announced the development of a Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan for Bells Line of Road.  According to the Terms of Reference, this Plan will:

 

“...guide the development and reservation of a road corridor for a future upgraded Bells Line of Road. Although current projections indicate that a major upgrade of Bells Line of Road is not expected to be required until at least 2033, it is appropriate that planning for this corridor progresses now for the future”. Further, “…the Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan will be developed through extensive consultation with local communities and stakeholders about the future of the Bells Line of Road corridor”.

 

According to the published material, the Plan will:

 

·    Identify a set of corridor objectives for the Bells Line of Road corridor, over the short, medium and long term.

·    Identify values, constraints and opportunities as to how the Bells Line of Road corridor could be upgraded in the short, medium and long term.

·    Identify strategic corridor opportunities and provide commentary on potential corridor options for the future upgrade of the Bells Line of Road.

·    Provide recommendations on how to identify a preferred corridor and the next steps in the process.  The development of this Plan is the first step of a longer term upgrade process for Bells Line of Road.

 

Attached is a copy of the Bells Line of Road project area.  An A3 copy is enclosed separately for the information of Councillors.

 

The Plan will cover three distinct sections:

1.      Eastern Section – from Bells Line of Road near Kurrajong Heights to the Sydney Motorway Network.

2.      Central Section – from Kurrajong Heights to Bell.

3.      Western Section – from Bell to the Great Western Highway near Lithgow.

 

In relation to the Eastern Section, the background report notes:

 

The eastern section extends from the Bells Line of Road near Kurrajong Heights to the Sydney motorway network.  As the connection corridor and the connection point to the Sydney motorway network have not yet been defined, a relatively wide area will be subject to investigation, encompassing the existing reservation for the Castlereagh Freeway and Windsor Road.

 

The eastern section includes areas between the M7 motorway and the Bells Line of Road, including much of Sydney’s North−West Sector, Richmond and North Richmond.  It represents a transition between the rapidly changing urban fringe of north western Sydney and the rural and bushland environment of the lower Bells Line of Road.

 

According to the documentation provided “this represents the initial phase of activities being undertaken in the preparation of the Bells Line of Road Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan.  The RTA is now seeking feedback from the community on these initial activities.  This will provide input into the development of the Plan.

 

The next steps are focused on building upon the current understanding of the Bells Line of Road corridor both through consultation with the communities that know it well, and through undertaking a range of technical investigations.  These next steps provide a basis which the Plan will build upon to guide future planning of the corridor.

 

The outcomes of this initial consultation will assist in finalising the project objectives and clearly identify the needs of the corridor from a road function perspective.  They will also help to identify constraints, values and opportunities that will be important in planning for the future of the corridor.

 

The corridor planning constraints and opportunities will also be identified through various technical studies addressing traffic, engineering, environmental and land use planning.  Once the constraints and opportunities have been identified, they will be presented to the community and stakeholders in an easily understandable and comprehensive series of maps.  This will allow for the identification of broad corridor options and the preparation of guidance on the approach to future planning of the corridor.”

 

Council’s Submission

The RTA has provided stakeholders with an opportunity, through the preliminary phase of their project, to provide feedback and have input to the development of the Strategic Corridor Plan.  The commentary below, if supported, will provide the basis for Council’s submission to the RTA.

 

The Bells Line of Road Corridor is a critical element of the strategic transport corridor connecting the Sydney Metropolitan Area with land west of the Great Divide.  Its connection at the eastern end, to the Sydney Motorway Network, is of key significance to Penrith and the planning for the north-west.

 

In a recent submission to the Metropolitan Strategy Review (May 2010) Council highlighted, amongst other things, the need for better mobility for people and freight; with particular focus on the need for a planned, timely, co-ordinated approach to the provision of road and transport infrastructure to support the anticipated growth across Penrith and indeed the region.

 

The current planning for Bells Line of Road raises similar issues to those posed in the review of the Metropolitan Strategy.  As such, it is proposed to highlight in our submission that the planning for Bells Line of Road must be undertaken with consideration to the need for the reservation of strategic transport corridors to connect regional centres, the Growth Centres and Penrith to facilitate the future provision of fast mass transit facilities (including bus transit ways and light/heavy rail).

 

The planning for Bells Line of Road Strategic Corridor cannot be undertaken in isolation.  The need for an inter-connected cross-regional arterial motorway and rail network connecting all parts of Metropolitan Sydney and beyond continues to be promoted as essential to meet the future needs and growth of Sydney.

 

Accordingly, the Bells Line of Road Strategic Corridor must consider and define the strategic east/west connection through to the M7, recognising existing established alignments.

 

Further, the planning for Bells Line of Road must give consideration to future north/south linkages, as well as connectivity with the proposed Werrington Arterial.  To accommodate the growth there will be a real need to establish cross-regional linkages supplementary to the existing M7, the first of which will likely be a cross-regional linkage (replicated to the north west of the M7) establishing a connection between St Marys and Riverstone (including the Werrington Arterial).  A further supplementary cross-regional linkage will likely be developed further west again and link Penrith with Bligh Park and McGraths Hill.

 

Whilst these strategic cross-regional corridors are not currently within the government’s planning framework, they have been promoted in some quarters as needed to facilitate and support growth across the Sydney Metropolitan Area.

 

Accordingly the planning for the eastern section of the proposed Bells Line of Road Strategic Corridor must give consideration to the possible future north/south and east/west linkages.

 

Conclusion

The RTA has embarked on a process to develop a long term strategic corridor plan for Bells Line of Road.  As an initial phase of that process, the RTA is seeking preliminary feedback to identify objectives, future needs, values, constraints and opportunities to assist in the subsequent development of the Plan.

 

Feedback and submissions are to be sent to the RTA by 8 December 2010.  It is anticipated that the Plan will be finalised by December 2011.

 

It is recommended that Council make a submission to the RTA based on the contents of this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bells Line of Road - Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan be received.

2.     Council make a submission, based on the contents of this report, to the Roads and Traffic Authority in relation to the preparation of the Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan for Bells Line of Road.

3.     Council make representations to the Roads and Traffic Authority requesting a presentation on the Plan as soon as practicable.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Bells Line of Road Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan - Project Area

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Bells Line of Road Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan - Project Area

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Development Applications

 

 

 

11

Development Application DA09/0753 Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision for Lot 86 DP 270417 (No. 38) Twin Creeks Drive, Luddenham  Applicant:  Cityscape Planning + Projects;  Owner:  E & K Awad    

 

Compiled by:                Greg Hall, Principal Planner

Authorised by:             Peter Wood, Acting 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 3 residential lots ranging in size from 1590m2 to 1766m2. The application seeks a variation to the maximum lot density requirement of 1 lot per 2 hectares under Penrith Local Environmental Plan No. 201 (LEP 201) by way of an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1). 

 

The subject site was originally rezoned by amending LEP 201 to enable it to be developed as a rural/residential housing estate including a golf course, golf country club and a community facility for 180 rural/residential lots. A revised Development Control Plan (DCP) according with the LEP amendment was approved for the site and adopted by Council on 3 March 2001.

 

Development Consent No.01/2722 was subsequently granted in 2003 for the Stage 1 community titled subdivision.  A number of consents have followed for the golf course and it’s club house, a sewage treatment plant for the development and community facilities including a meeting room, tennis courts, barbeque facilities, children’s play area and associated car parking and landscaping have been constructed.  The LEP does not set a minimum lot size. Development Consent No.08/1338 granted approval for 13 lots of 1500m² in May 2009 where 13 lots of 4000 m² were reconfigured. This application did not exceed the overall lot density requirement of one lot per 2 hectares however for the entire site under LEP 201 and was deemed suitable for the site.

 

Council, on 7 September 2009 and 30 November 2009, in considering the Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008, considered proposed amendments to the land known as Twin Creeks Estate at Luddenham. The amendment involved an increase in the overall lot yield to 285 lots and imposes a minimum lot size of 4000 m² with a reduced lot size of 1500m² in nominated areas close to the Community Facilities. This has been identified as Area 3 in Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (see Appendix No. 3).

 

Council, at its Ordinary meeting of 22 March 2010, considered two (2) Development Applications for subdivision of land at Twin Creeks. These two applications were located within the reduced lot size area (Area 3) and as a result Council supported the use of a SEPP 1 variation and referred the applications to the Department of Planning for concurrence. Appendix No. 3 shows the location of these two (2) applications in relation to the proposed development.

 

Concurrence from the Department of Planning was subsequently obtained and the applications were approved under delegated authority.

 

The applicant submitted this application prior to the gazettal of Penrith Draft Local Environmental Plan 2010 (DLEP) which permits the increase in lot yield and 1500m2 minimum lot sizes in Area 3. The applicant has requested that the application be considered at this time under the provisions of the SEPP 1 objection to the current development standard.

 

The applicant has been advised in writing that the proposed development does not comply with the current and the Draft PLEP 2010 provisions in terms of density and minimum lot area and that the development would not be supported.  The applicant was given the opportunity to withdraw the application.  No response has been received in respect to this request.

 

In accordance with the new reporting requirements of the Department of Planning, the matter is forwarded to Council for determination. The report recommends that the objection to the development standard not be supported and the application be refused.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the western side of Twin Creeks Drive and adjoins the golf course to the north and west, overlooks an existing dam on the golf course and is located approximately 750m from the community facilities of Twin Creeks (Refer locality plan Appendix 1). The site has an area of 5030m2, orientated in a north-west direction and has a gentle slope to the north.

 

The site is currently vacant with little vegetation. The surrounding area is characterised by rural/residential development of lots varying in area from 4000m² together with the golf course, natural vegetation and landscaping.

 

The Proposal

Proposed is a Torrens Title subdivision of one existing lot into 3 lots (Refer to plan of subdivision Appendix 2). The proposed residential lots will have areas of 1530m2, 1674m2 and 1766m2 and widths of approximately 36m.

 

The lots are proposed to have access from Twin Creeks Road with rear lots via a 6m wide access handle with rights of carriageways created.

 

As discussed earlier, an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards (SEPP No.1) has been submitted with the application in regard to the lot density provision of the LEP as an average overall lot density of one dwelling per 1.6 hectares is proposed instead of the 1 per 2 hectare objective.

 

The application was accompanied by:

 

·    Proposed Plan of Subdivision prepared by Vince Morgan Surveyors dated 4 January 2008;

·    Statement of Environmental Effects incorporating a SEPP 1 objection prepared by Cityscape Planning and Projects dated July 2009;

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the relevant matters for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As the application was lodged prior to gazettal of LEP 2010 this plan is to be considered as a draft LEP in accordance with its’ savings provisions and LEP 201 remains the principle planning instrument. The following relevant considerations identified:

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

An objection to Clause 35(2)(a) of Penrith  Local Environmental Plan 201 – Rural  Lands relating to lot density provisions for Twin Creeks has been lodged under this policy.

 

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 35(2)(a) of Penrith  Local Environmental Plan 201 – Rural  Lands. The relevant objectives are:

 

“(a) to allow rural/residential development at an average density for the area of the land to which this clause applies of not more than one dwelling per 2 hectares.”

 

Clause 35(4)(f) also requires that Council shall not grant consent unless it is satisfied 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.”

 

The applicant has made the following arguments in their SEPP1 objection:

 

1.       The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

 

2.       The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

 

3.       The underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

 

4.       The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

 

5.       The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone.

 

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. 

 

Twin Creeks is a pocket of rural residential development which was originally approved as the Luddenham Equestrian Estate. Strict design guidelines and lot limitations have been applied to the site in order to minimise its conflict with the surrounding area.  The fact that the entire estate has been master planned around the golf course and community facilities has always been a significant strength, and a point of difference which justifies the increase in density from the surrounding area. Residential development within Twin Creeks is subject to strict design guidelines imposed by the developers and Council.

 

The development as proposed will not maintain the settlement pattern as the development will be inconsistent with the local landscape from both the adjacent road corridor and existing rural residential development to the west. 

 

The subdivision provides lots at greater density allowed under the relevant zone provision, which does not satisfy the underlying intention of the development standard and the dwelling density of the broader zone. It is also not consistent with the adopted draft PLEP2010 provisions which should be given considerable weight at the time the application was lodged given the imminent at that time. 

 

The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the provisions of clause 35 of Penrith LEP 201 and the planning principle of the smaller allotments being established in close proximity to the community centre. The subject land is not in close proximity as identified in the area shown in Appendix No. 3.

 

The application does not satisfy the minimum area requirement and the development will result in lots considerably less than the size of the existing lots in the immediate locality being 4000m2. The variation to this area is 2410 m2 or 60% less than the existing lot areas. The prevailing settlement pattern is of Torrens Title lots that meet the 4000m2 lot area.

 

A key planning control in shaping the character of twin creeks area is this lots size and the density provisions.  As a basic development control it regulates the minimum area required for individual dwelling houses. The prevailing lot character in the immediate locality is lots of 4000m2.  The creation of an allotment that deviates so markedly from the norm would undermine the basic lot pattern that has developed which has been instrumental in establishing the existing rural/residential character.

 

SEPP 1 requires applications to be assessed on a merit basis.  On occasions there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part the extent of variations are not as significant as that being proposed.  Where there are large departures it is normally because there are exceptional circumstances that would proffer support for such departures like an imminent change in the Local Environmental Plan.  In this case the change proposed for the Local Environmental Plan at the time reinforced the current provision.

 

As a result the proposed subdivision does not satisfy the above objective and requirement of clause 35. 

 

The assessment of the SEPP 1 objection also needs to be considered against the objects stated in Section 5(a) (ii) of the EP&A Act which is as follows:

 

“(ii)  the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land

 

The proposal would set an undesirable precedent that is inconsistent with the provisions of both LEP201 and Penrith LEP 2010. The proposed development is also not consistent with the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as it does not represent the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.

 

As a result it is considered that in this circumstance strict compliance with the development standard is reasonable and necessary based on the above discussions and the SEPP1 objection ought not be supported.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 – Rural Lands (LEP 201)

The subject site was zoned 1(c) Rural-Residential under LEP201. The proposed development is defined as Torrens Title subdivision, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

Clause 35 of LEP 201 is the enabling provision which permits the Twin Creeks development. The objectives of the Clause additional to the zone objectives are:

 

(a)     to allow rural/residential development at an average density for the area of land to which this clause applies of not more than one dwelling per 2 hectares; and

(b)     to protect the existing vegetation, especially along creek lines and on ridges; and

(c)     to protect localities of Aboriginal archaeological significance; and

(d)     to protect downstream land from further flooding as a result of additional stormwater run off from the development; and

(e)     to ensure that development of the land is consistent with the aims and objectives of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 9 - (Extractive Industry) in relation to potential extractive industry in adjoining areas.

 

The proposed development satisfies each of the relevant objectives of Clause 35 of the LEP with the exception of the one dwelling per two hectare density objective outlined above. The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards to support the variation to this current density.

 

Clause 35 also outlines a series of criteria to be satisfied in order for Council to grant consent. These relate to the provision of services, siting of dwellings, existing flood constraints, water quality, views and rural character, compatible lot sizes, heritage and being satisfied that the development is part of a comprehensive and integrated development proposal which includes a golf course, golf country club, community facility and other associated recreation facilities.

 

The proposed subdivision would create dwelling sites which are inconsistent with directly adjoining lots to the south west and the siting of dwellings criteria of this clause.

 

2.   Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument (Draft) Penrith LEP 2010

The proposed development is not consistent with the relevant provisions contained in the Penrith LEP2010 as they relate to the Twin Creeks Estate as the site is outside the area that permits the smaller 1500sqm allotment sizes. (Refer to Appendix 3). 

 

As discussed above the Draft LEP 2010 has now been gazetted as Penrith LEP 2010. The Penrith LEP 2010 contains a savings provision relating to development applications that were lodged prior to the gazettal of the Penrith LEP 2010. The clause requires Council to determine the application under the former planning instrument being Penrith LEP 201.

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006)

Part 6.1 Luddenham Equestrian Estate (Twin Creeks) of the Development Control Plan sets out the objectives and development requirements for Density and Allotment Design for Subdivision.

 

The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the objectives and provisions contained in the DCP chapter for Twin Creeks.

 

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

The proposed subdivision lot sizes will not be consistent with the surrounding lot sizes which are generally a minimum area of 4000m2 and have a standard lot shape and do not involve battle axe access handles as proposed. This will create amenity impacts on adjoining properties in terms of golf course views, privacy and the consistent location of private open space areas.

 

The proposed subdivision is out of character with the immediate area and existing lot patterns and will have an impact on the locality. The proposed density of the development is not consistent with the existing and future density in the immediate locality as proposed by Penrith LEP 2010. The subdivision if approved would produce three building sites at various locations not in keeping with the established building lines of adjoining and adjacent properties. This will impact on existing golf course views, privacy and amenity associated with private open space locations.

 

5.   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 placed on public exhibition from 12 August 2009 and 26 August 2009. Council notified eleven (11) residences in the area and received no submissions in response.

 

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

The proposed development will be inconsistent with the provisions of Penrith LEP 2010 in terms of the minimum allotment area which is 4000m2. The subdivision if approved would create an undesirable precedent for the locality leading to an ad hoc settlement pattern.

 

The variation to the minimum lot size is significant and not consistent with the provisions of the Penrith LEP 201 and Penrith LEP 2010. Any support for the variation or approval of the application would not therefore be in the public interest.

Conclusion

The proposed subdivision would create 3 lots ranging from 1590 m2 to 1766 m2.  The lots are not in accordance with the minimum lot area in the Penrith LEP 201 and Penrith LEP 2010.

 

The proposed lot size and configuration will be out of character with existing settlement pattern in the immediate area impacting on the amenity of adjoining residents.

 

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection to the standard is not well founded.

 

The proposed subdivision and requested variation to the lot size and density provision in the current LEP is not supported for the reasons outlined in the report. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0753 Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision for Lot 86 DP 270417 (No. 38) Twin Creeks Drive, Luddenham be received.

2.     The objection to the lot density provisions of clause 35 of Penrith LEP 201 under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards not be supported.

3.     The application be refused for the following reasons:

3.1      Pursuant to 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of Clause 35 of Penrith LEP 201:

3.1.1  Minimum density objective

3.1.2  Allotment size and shape criteria

3.2                The objection to Clause 35 at Penrith LEP 201 under SEPP 1 is not well founded as compliance with the standard is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances

3.3      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument (Draft) Penrith LEP 2010 the proposed development is inconsistent with following the provisions of  Penrith LEP 2010 in terms of minimum allotment area:

Clause 35(3) (c)

All lots created by the development twill be 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  

Clause 35(3) (d)

The size and layout of lots that have boundaries with rural properties consider the interface between the rural residential estate and the potential for land use conflict.

3.4      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument (Draft) Penrith LEP 2010 the proposed development is inconsistent with the following aims and zone objectives of  (Draft) Penrith LEP 2010:

·    To provide for low - impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values 

·    To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values

3.5      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) – Public Interest  Approval of the development is not in the public interest as it will set an undesirable precedent.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Map

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Subdivision Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Area 3

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Map

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 2 - Subdivision Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 3 - Area 3

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

12

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:             Peter Wood, Acting 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 proposed subdivision is of land zoned rural and involves a SEPP 1 objection, concurrence from the Director General of the Department of Planning is mandatory before Council could issue an approval and only after Council has referred its’ in principle support of the application to the Department.

 

The application is also required to be reported to Council in accordance with the Department of Planning’s Circular (No PS 08-014) as the proposal seeks a variation to the development standard that is greater than 10%. The application was reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on the 11 October 2010. Council resolved to defer the application to a future Council meeting to allow for an on site meeting to be held. A meeting was held on site on the 15 November 2010.

 

The application benefits from savings provisions under the current Local Environmental Plan applying to the site (LEP2010) as it was lodged before the gazettal of this plan which now prohibits the proposed subdivision. Consideration of the new LEP must however be given as a Draft with considerable weight, in particular when considering the objection under SEPP 1. This report therefore maintains the assessment that the objection to the development standard is not well founded and recommends that the application be refused. 

 

 

Background

A 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 elected to put forward this application prior to the exhibition period for the stage 2 LEP. 

 

Site Inspection

A site inspection was undertaken on the 15 November 2010, attended by the owners, the Mayor and Councillors. At the meeting the applicant raised the following key points in a submission to the Councillors:

          “1.    Adverse impact upon the local character of the area

§ The site is unique in that:

§ It borders a adjoins lots with a smaller lot size than that sought;

§ It is located on a corner site with the existing dwelling fronting Komirra Road, therefore the development will simply result in a future built form being inserted in Grays Lane.

The consequence of approving the development is that in the 500m of Grays Lane the site sits within the streetscape would shift from 20 dwellings and a school to 21 dwellings and a school.

 

Such an increase is negligible if not imperceptible and therefore can’t be considered to cause adverse impact to the character of the local area.”

 

Comment:

The minimum lot size control for all sites along Grays Lane is 4,000m² as these sites provide the transition between the smaller lots to the west of the site and the adjoining rural area.  The sites along Grays Lane provide tree cover which is complimentary to the rural area.  Sites to the west of this site fall under the 2,000m² lot size and it is clear that a significant number of trees have been cleared which is detrimental to maintaining the visual qualities of this rural location. 

 

The flora and fauna assessment provided by the applicant has not been prepared by a suitably qualified consultant and there are inconsistencies within the report submitted with the application. Council’s Environmental Officer has reviewed the proposal and considered the proposal unsatisfactory in the conservation of Cumberland Plain Woodlands vegetation on the site.

 

Building envelopes have not been submitted with the application and an adequate assessment cannot be made of the impact to the streetscape and on potential vegetation removal. The proposed subdivision is much smaller than the surrounding lots along Grays Lane and the site is environmentally sensitive because of the known presence of the Cumberland Plain Woodland. A new development lot would not provide the same area for tree retention as the existing lot size. Any future building on the proposed lot would also be closer to Grays Lane and therefore inconsistent with the zone objectives.

 

          “2.     Concern over precedence unique site

§ The subject DA was lodged against the older LEP 201 and as such is assessed against that LEP framework.

§ The recent gazettal of LEP 2010 does not allow subdivision of the scale proposed and there is no opportunity to seek approval under SEPP 1 type provisions on R5 type lands.

§ Therefore the precedence issues and cumulative impact issues referenced in the report simply do not exist

§ If Council approve this DA then they can be assured that no precedence for further approval would ever rise.

§ This should give Council further comfort that the approval will not result in adverse impact upon the local character of the area.”

 

Provisions under LEP 2010 relating to variation of development standards are discussed in further detail under the heading of Planning Assessment below in this report.  Council would not be able to consent to this proposal under LEP 2010 as it results in two lots being less than the minimum lot size. 

 

Council is currently in the process of analysing the extent of services provided to lots along Grays Lane. Consultation with Sydney Water to determine the number of lots that could be connected to services has not yet been finalised.  However, this is being undertaken as part of the Stage 2 of LEP 2010. 

 

This may highlight the need for a review of the current planning controls to reduce the minimum lot size however; looking at this site in isolation with this proposal is not a strategic approach to local planning. Under the current LEP 2010 this would require a ‘Planning Proposal’ application to the Department of Planning to effectively request a “rezoning” of the land.

 

The most appropriate avenue for considering reducing minimum lot sizes can be achieved through Stage 2 of the Draft LEP, rather than a single development application to benefit a single lot. The proposed subdivision is pre-empting a broader strategic direction that should be considered as part of Stage 2 of LEP 2010.

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 currently meet the required minimum lot size.

 

North Cranebrook Zoning:

 

Under the provisions of Section 4.9 Rural Development of the Penrith DCP 2006 the following lot sizes apply (As shown in Appendix No. 1):

 

1. Heavy shading on map

Minimum area of 2000m2 providing created lots abutting the urban land are not less than 2000m2 in area and created lots not abutting the urban area provide a transition of lot sizes between the rural and urban land and are greater than 2000m2 in area.

 

2. Light shading on map

One allotment per 5000m2 only if each separate lot created is not less than 4000m2 in area (subject site).

 

3. Hatched on map

One allotment per 5000m2 only if each separate lot created is not less than 4000m2 in area and only if the subdivision:

(a) recognises and is sensitive to specific scenic and landscape attributes of the land; and

(b) conforms with the specific objectives of the Cranebrook rural/residential development controls in Section 6.6 of the Penrith DCP 2006.

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 objective 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. 

 

 

 

b) Section 5 - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Assessment of the SEPP 1 objection also needs to be considered against the objects 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 by eroding the transition between urban and rural areas.  It is acknowledged that the proposed subdivision may not set an undesirable precedent given the gazettal of LEP 2010 which now prohibits the proposal. The proposal pre-empts such planning controls contained within the Stage 2 LEP which is inconsistent with planning policy development.

 

The proposal is not considered an orderly use of land which would result in a significant number of allotments in the surrounding area being disadvantaged.

 

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%.

 

Council is currently in the process of analysing the extent of services provided to lots along Grays Lane. Consultation with Sydney Water to determine the number of lots that could be connected to services has been analysed as part of this application process. It is considered that the proposed subdivision is pre-empting a broader strategic direction that should be considered as part of Stage 2 of LEP 2010.

 

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 applicable minimum lot size and that proposed under the relevant Draft LEP. In this circumstance the clause is considered reasonable.

 

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 can only be given if it is 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.  Council does not have the power to approve this application without concurrence from the Department of Planning.

 

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 the 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 proposal’s 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.

 

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 LEP 2010 is still considered as a draft planning instrument for the purpose of this assessment.

 

An assessment of the application against the provisions of LEP 2010 has therefore been undertaken. The subject site is zoned R5 Large Lot Residential under LEP2010. 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.

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) does not apply to the land to which PLEP 2010 applies. Clause 4.6 provides provisions for development that does not meet the required standard stating that:

 

(2)  Consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

However clause 4.6 expressly excludes 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. Therefore provisions to vary a development standard under this clause do not apply to this proposal.

 

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 direction which may be inconsistent with future 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 Komirra 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.

 

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. Support of the subdivision of the proposed lots pre-empts the planning process and will make 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.

 

The site meeting on 15 November 2010 did not reveal any unique site characteristics or circumstances different to many others in the locality with the same zoning and planning controls.

 

 

 

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.

 

This assessment has not changed by any information brought to light at the recent site meeting. It is acknowledged that gazettal of the new LEP alleviates some concerns over precedence. Given this gazettal however, significant weighting must be given to the LEP as a Draft in considering this application and the circumstances of the site. To this extent the minimum lot size is maintained and the variation as proposed is not possible under the Draft.

 

The SEPP 1 objection has not demonstrated consistency with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1- Development Standards. The undesirable direction which would be set by approval is not in the public interest and should not be supported. If Council is of a mind however to consider approving the application, concurrence from the Department of Planning must be obtained prior to consent being granted. Council’s in principle support of the application would need to be referred to the Department for concurrence and the application would then need to be reported back to Council for determination.

 

 

 

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 pre-empt the future planning policy which is not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Zoning & Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Subdivision Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Zoning & Site Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

Appendix 2 - Subdivision Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

29 November 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

13

Development Application DA09/0164 proposed demolition of existing buildings, extension to existing quarry, office, road transport terminal and boundary adjustment at Lot 228 DP 1134016 Lot 2 DP 221313 Lot 229 DP 1134016 (No. 1513 - 1519) Elizabeth Drive, Kemps Creek  Applicant:  Hi Quality Quarry (NSW) Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Tranteret Pty Ltd    

 

Compiled by:                Steven Chong, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Peter Wood, Acting 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

On 26 February 2009, Council received a Development Application which proposes the demolition of existing buildings, extension and rehabilitation to an existing quarry, erection of an office and workshop, operation of a road transport terminal and a boundary adjustment.

 

The subject development site comprises of three (3) lots which has been used for the purposes of extractive industries for clay/shale extraction for a number of years. Council issued Development Consent in December 1969 for clay extraction on Lot 2 DP 221313 only.

 

The proposed development intends to carry out extractive industry activities at the site and formalise the various uses on the site which have occurred for a significant period. The current state of the site does not reflect the existing approval which has been issued. Consequently, a significant amount of unauthorised development has occurred on the site for some time.

 

The subject application is identified as ‘Designated Development’ under Section 77A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal involves extractive industries as well as crushing, grinding and separating works which are identified in Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. The Director General of the Department of Planning has provided their requirements in preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement which has accompanied the subject application.

 

The application is identified as ‘Integrated Development’ as approvals under Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000 and Section 48 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 are required for the purposes of Scheduled Activities.

 

The subject development site is part zoned 1(a)(Rural “A” Zone-General) and 1(b)(Rural “B” Zone-Smallholdings) under the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 (Rural Lands). The proposed development is defined as ‘extractive industries’ which are prohibited in each of the zones. However, Clause 30 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 -Rural Lands provides that extractive industries are permissible on sites that are identified in Schedule 1 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.9 - (Extractive Industry). The subject development site is identified in Schedule 1 - Division 1 of the Plan for the purposes of permissible clay/shale extraction areas of regional significance. Moreover, the proposal is also permitted by virtue of State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007.

 

The proposal includes a three into three lot subdivision of the site which requires a variation to the Development Standard for minimum subdivision requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards.

 

The provisions of the draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 applied to the subject site at the time of lodgement of the subject application. 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 considers the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 in its draft form only.

 

Pursuant to the Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008, the subject development site is zoned RU4 – Rural Small holdings. The proposed development is prohibited on the site.

 

The subject application is captured by Schedule 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 as the proposal involves a ‘transport terminal.’ In accordance with Clause 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, the application was discussed at the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee at the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) who have raised no objection to the proposal. 

 

The subject application was placed on public exhibition for a total of 30 days from 11 March 2009 to 10 April 2009. A total of three (3) submissions were received in response to the proposal with the following issues raised:

 

·    Permissibility

·    Compliance with relevant planning instruments

·    Impact to surrounding properties

 

The issues raised are discussed throughout this report and provide a platform for the determination of the subject application by way of refusal.

 

Pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, an assessment of the subject application has been made. The premise of the application is to formalise the existing uses and progressively rehabilitate the site, however the extent of proposed uses and the nature of the proposed subdivision with potential segregation of uses cannot overcome, the questions of permissibility such that Council is not in a position to support the proposal in its current form. 

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

 

History of the Site

The applicant submits that extractive industry has operated from the subject property since the 1930’s.  A review of aerial photos from the 1970’s indicates that extractive industry had extended over Lots 1, 2 & 3 DP 221313.  Previous aerial photos from 1961 indicate no evidence of extractive industry occurring on Lots 1, 2 and 3.

 

A Development Application was lodged by the then owner JW Nolan on the 17 July 1969 seeking Council consent for the extraction of clay from Lot 2, DP 221313.  Council approval was granted for Lot 2, DP 221313 only on the 25 March 1970 (DA55/69). 

 

The approval did not relate to Lots 1 & 3, DP 221313 despite clay extraction being conducted on these sites at the time of issuing approval. The proponent continued to extract clay from Lot 2 and Lots 1 & 3 despite the absence of Development Consent for this use on those lots. The property changed ownership in July 2006.

 

Council has currently engaged a consultant to undertake an audit of existing extractive industry sites within the Penrith Local Government Area including this site and the adjoining properties. The outcome of this audit and recommendations in relation to unauthorised development will be reported to a future meeting of Council and this forms a recommendation of this report.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject development site is situated to the north of Elizabeth Drive and comprises three (3) separate parcels of land with a total site area of 13.5 hectares (See locality plan Appendix No. 1). The site contains a main residence, a detached dual occupancy with associated garage and workshop, a timber framed dwelling as well as a workshop and office building.

 

The existing buildings are located to the front of the site fronting Elizabeth Drive and set amongst scattered trees and vegetation. The existing quarry is centrally located across the three (3) lots. The rear of the site primarily contains mature trees and vegetation.

 

To the north of the site is vacant land that contains substantial trees and vegetation. To the south of the site is Elizabeth Drive which maintains the border with Liverpool City Council.

 

To the east of the site is an existing quarry which has been exhausted and currently operates as a Waste Management Facility. This use is permitted on the site as an additional use outlined in the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. 

 

To the immediate west of the site is a rural property with a dwelling house and a number of outbuildings. It has been noted that this site has undertaken activities in an unauthorised manner primarily involving the receipt of waste. This matter is currently under investigation as outlined above.

 

Proposed Development

The key elements of the proposed development (see plans Appendix No. 2 – A3 copies will be provided to Councillors under separate cover) are detailed in the accompanying drawings and are summarised as follows:

 

 

 

Component

Description

Proposal

Demolition of existing buildings, extension and rehabilitation to an existing quarry, erection of an office and workshop, operation of a road transport terminal and three into three lot subdivision.

 

Consent Authority

 

Penrith City Council

Cost of Development

 

$4,400,000.00

Extractive Industries

Continued extraction of clay and shale material from the northern section of the site. The proposed area of extraction includes approximately 570,000m3 of material. Material would be extracted over a period of approximately 20 years. The extraction of clay/shale would only be extracted and transported from the site when there is a demand to complete an order.

The extraction process would occur on a 12 hour period from 6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday and 6am to 3pm on Saturdays. Works would occur 45 weeks of the year.

Rehabilitate 85.9% (approximately 12.16ha) of the site over the proposed 20 year operating life of the quarry. It is the aim of this rehabilitation to restore the area of the site to ‘pre-existing development’ landform and contours, similar to the site as it was in 1965-1970 prior to extraction taking place.

Site rehabilitation would be undertaken on a progressive basis in association with the ongoing extraction operations being undertaken at the site. Initially, areas previously extracted would be rehabilitated and revegetated. This would be followed by the progressive rehabilitation and revegetation of the proposed extractive industries to the north of the site.

Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) and Excavated Natural Material (ENM) would be brought onto the site and utilised to rehabilitate the existing areas of the void where extraction operations had already been completed. Rehabilitation of the proposed areas would be undertaken on a progressive basis during the continued extraction operations.

This rehabilitation work would be undertaken using a combination of VENM/ENM and materials produced as a bi-product of the crushing, grinding and screening of various building materials.

The VENM/ENM and building material would be imported by truck from various off-site sources. The rehabilitation process would include the importation of VENM/ENM, compaction, temporary grass seeding and preparation of the final landform.

A landscaping and rehabilitation plan for the site has been prepared which outlines the proposed final landform for the site including dams, drains and roads, general suitability of the proposed final use, a statement of compatibility with the surrounding areas, agricultural use, assessment of soil, a program of revegetation of all disturbed areas, fencing and security and monitoring and maintenance.

It is also proposed that crushing, grinding and separating works would be conducted on the site. These operations have previously been conducted on the site and would serve as an ancillary operation to the proposed extraction processes. The proposed separating works would include the continued importation of sandstone from various off-site sources for sale in association with various construction operations. These off-site operations include but are not limited to the manufacture of bricks, ready mixed concrete production, road construction materials and filtering material associated with drainage work.

The total approximate volume of the void to be filled is anticipated to be approximately 880,000m3. This void consists of the combination of the existing extracted area and the void to be created by the proposed continuation of clay/shale extraction.

Weighbridge

A weighbridge in association with the proposed development would be located on proposed Lot 3A. This weighbridge would include the weigh station and a small weighbridge office with a maximum height of 4.9 metres and a total floor area of 104m2. The proposed weighbridge building would be light weight with a cladding construction. Access though to the quarry would be provided from Elizabeth Drive, separate from the proposed office/workshop and cross through the weighbridge to the quarry at the rear.

Subdivision

A three into three lot subdivision is proposed to the existing three (3) as per the following layouts:

 

(i).     Proposed Lot 1A – caretaker/manager of extractive industry site. The existing dwelling on Lot 228 would be continued for use as a caretaker’s residence. The proposed lot would be reduced from 8.28 hectares to a proposed 0.83 hectares;

 

(ii).    Proposed Lot 2A – consolidation of office, car park area, refuelling area. A proposed office building and workshop would replace existing office and workshop buildings and would have a total area of 1.69 hectares; and

 

(iii).   Proposed Lot 3A – consolidation of the extractive industry use (weighbridge, excavated void, rehabilitation/landscaping) – 10.98 hectares.

Office/

Workshop Building

The proposed building would have a total floorspace of 3,119m2 and would accommodate the operational headquarters of Hi-Quality Quarries. The proposed office would be setback approximately 30 metres from Elizabeth Drive and would be screened by two landscaped strips.

The proposed office/workshop would have a maximum building height of 8.1 metres. The proposed office component would be two-storeys and comprise of office space, meeting rooms, amenities and lunch room.

Adjoining the proposed office building would be a workshop and vehicle servicing component. The section would contain 3 service bays, a wash bay and a lunch room and amenities.

The proposed office/workshop building would have a modern and contemporary appearance with full address to Elizabeth Drive and the workshop to the rear by the use of precast concrete walls complemented with substantial aluminium glass glazing.

Parking and Operational Matters

A total of 30 staff would be located at the proposed office/workshop building in any 24 hour period on the subject site.

Parking would be provided with 10 car spaces to the west of the proposed office, a dedicated truck parking area for 18 trucks to the north of the proposed office and 57 parking spaces including a wheelchair accessible space to the south-east of the proposed office for employees and visitors.

A refuelling area is proposed to service trucks and would be located to the north-eastern side of proposed Lot 2A and would include a 60,000 litre underground diesel tank

Vehicular access for cars and trucks to the office and workshop is permitted from an existing driveway at proposed Lot 2A.

 

Statutory Framework

Designated Development

The proposed development has been identified as ‘Designated Development’ pursuant to Section 77A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which is prescribed as follows: -

 

“77A   Designated development

Designated development is development that is declared to be designated development by an environmental planning instrument or the regulations.”

 

Pursuant to Clause 19 of Schedule 3 of the Regulations, ‘Extractive Industries’ is outlined in part as follows: -

 

19   Extractive industries

(1) Extractive industries (being industries that obtain extractive materials by methods including excavating, dredging, tunnelling or quarrying or that store, stockpile or process extractive materials by methods including washing, crushing, sawing or separating):

(a)  that obtain or process for sale, or reuse, more than 30,000 cubic metres of extractive material per year, or

(b)  that disturb or will disturb a total surface area of more than 2 hectares of land by:

(i)  clearing or excavating, or

(ii)  constructing dams, ponds, drains, roads or conveyors, or

(iii)  storing or depositing overburden, extractive material or tailings, or

(c)  that are located:

 (vi)  within 500 metres of the site of another extractive industry that has operated during the last 5 years.”

 

The proposed extraction of the site would fall into the above category and therefore be defined as Designated Development. Pursuant to Clause 16 of Schedule 3 of the Regulations, activities relating to crushing, grinding and separating are also outlined in part as follows: -

 

“16   Crushing, grinding or separating works

(1)  Crushing, grinding or separating works, being works that process materials (such as sand, gravel, rock or minerals) or materials for recycling or reuse (such as slag, road base, concrete, bricks, tiles, bituminous material, metal or timber) by crushing, grinding or separating into different sizes:

(a)  that have an intended processing capacity of more than 150 tonnes per day or 30,000 tonnes per year, or

(b)  that are located:

 (ii)  within 250 metres of a residential zone or dwelling not associated with the development.

 

The proposal also includes works for the purposes of crushing, grinding and separating, where such operations have previously been conducted on the site and would continue to serve as ancillary operations to the proposed extraction processes. The proposed separating works would include the continued importation of sandstone from various off-site for sale in association with various construction operations.

 

These off-site operations include but are not limited to the manufacture of bricks, ready mixed concrete production, road construction materials and filtering material associated with drainage work.

 

An Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the Director General’s Requirements issued by the Department of Planning.

 

Integrated Development

The proposed development has been identified as ‘Integrated Development’ pursuant to Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The subject application is identified as a ‘controlled activity’ under the Water Management Act 2000 and had been referred to the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water for comment. The Department has issued their General Terms of Approval for the proposed development.

 

The subject application had been referred to the Department of Environment and Climate Change for the purposes Section 48 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 where ‘Crushing of, Grinding or Separating’ and ‘Extractive Industry’ is listed as a Scheduled Activity  pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Act. The Department has issued their General Terms of Approval for the proposed development.

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)

Clause 16 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 required Designated Development to be determined by the JRPP. Notwithstanding this, Clause 16 of the SEPP provides as follows:

 

 

“16   Savings and transitional provisions

…..

 (2)  The amendments made to this Policy by the following Policies do not extend to project applications under Part 3A of the Act, and development applications under Part 4 of the Act, made but not finally determined before the commencement of those amendments:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) Amendment (Joint Regional Planning Panels) 2009”

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) Amendment (Joint Regional Planning Panels) 2009 commenced on 1 June 2009.

 

As this application was lodged before this date, the provisions relating to the Joint Regional Planning Panel are not applicable and accordingly, Council is the consent authority for the proposed development. 

 

Planning Assessment

The following reports have accompanied the subject Development Application and used throughout the planning assessment:  

 

·    Environmental Impact Statement, The Planni