17 November 2010

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 22 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

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 18 October 2010.

 

4.?????????? DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest ? Significant and Less than Significant (The Code of Conduct requires Councillors who declare a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

 

5.?????????? ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.?????????? MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION

?

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

 

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

 

11.???????? CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 22 November 2010

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


2010 MEETING CALENDAR

February 2010 - December 2010

(adopted by Council on 9/11/09, 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#

6?

11?

8#

13

(7.00pm)

22#

22

19

24#

21*

 

 

27^

(7.00pm)

 

29

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

15

8

 

10

 

 

9

13@

 

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

?

Meeting at which the 2009/2010 Annual Statements are presented

?

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

-                 Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-                 Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee).

Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Acting Executive Officer, Glenn Schuil.

 

 

?



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON MONDAY 18 OCTOBER 2010 AT 7:34PM

PRESENT

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

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 14 October 2010 to 6 November 2010 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM for the period 14 October 2010 to 6 November 2010 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Mark Davies for the period 14 October 2010 to 25 October 2010 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

?

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 13 September 2010

PRC 64 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 13 September 2010 be confirmed.

?

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

?

There were no declarations of interest.

 

The Acting Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM ruled an urgency motion to have a late report considered at tonight?s meeting on Transportation of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA Landfill Facility.

 

Procedural Motion

PRC 65? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor John Thain that a late report on Transportation of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA Landfill Facility be considered at tonight?s meeting.

 

??

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

5??????? Concept Plan Precinct D & E in Glenmore Park Stage 2 Release Area. Applicant: Norwest Land Pty Ltd, Owner Mulpha FKP Pty Ltd

Development Services Manager, Paul Lemm introduced the report and Cameron Lamb from Norwest Land who gave a presentation on the Concept Plan.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 66? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Concept Plan Precinct D & E in Glenmore Park Stage 2 Release Area. Applicant: Norwest Land Pty Ltd, Owner Mulpha FKP Pty Ltd be received.

2.???? The Precinct D & E Concept Plan be endorsed by Council with the exception of the departure proposed on the width of southern most local road where DCP compliance is required to be achieved.?

3.???? A further briefing be provided to Council dealing with the issues raised tonight in regards to the Concept Plan including public lighting in parks, ongoing maintenance of facilities and the transition of responsibility, built to boundary properties, fencing types of lot boundaries and management of litter in the nature reserve.

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

 

For

Against

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

 

4??????? Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors

Councillor Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:19pm.

Councillor Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:21pm.

Chairman of Penrith Whitewater Stadium, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM introduced the report and Stadium Manager, Jack Hodge who gave a presentation.

Councillor Prue Guillaume left the meeting, the time being 8:27pm.???????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 67? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received

2.???? Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Annual Report for 2010-11

3.???? Council note and support the Board?s re-appointment of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM as the continuing Chairman of Penrith Whitewater Stadium.

4.???? Council congratulate the Whitewater Board, Stadium Manager and Staff on another successful year.

 

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume returned to the meeting, the time being 8:35pm.

 

3        Neighbourhood Renewal Program - Update of Activities and Neighbourhood Action Plans - Kingswood and St Marys

Councillor Robert Ardill left the meeting, the time being 8:51pm.

Councillor Robert Ardill returned to the meeting, the time being 8:53pm.

Neighbourhood Renewal Programme Coordinator, Jeni Pollard and Community Engagement Officer, Heather Chaffey gave a presentation on the Neighbourhood Action Plans of Kingswood and St Marys.??????

PRC 68? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Neighbourhood Renewal Program - Update of Activities and Neighbourhood Action Plans - Kingswood and St Marys? be received.

2.???? Council endorse the Neighbourhood Action Plans for Kingswood and St Marys as provided in the attachments to this report.

3.???? Council endorse the proposed schedule of Neighbourhood Renewal activities as outlined in Table 2 of the report.

 

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? North Cranebrook Release Area Development Contributions Plan???????????????????????????????

PRC 69? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on North Cranebrook Release Area Development Contributions Plan be received.

2.???? Council resolve to rescind the North Cranebrook Release Area Development Contributions Plan.

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

 

For

Against

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

 

2??????? Formation of Local Health Networks????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 70? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.?? The information contained in the report on Formation of Local Health Networks be received.

2.?? Council endorse the General Manager or his nominee to submit an Expression of Interest to become a member of the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health Network.

3.?? Council write to the NSW Department of Health strongly advocating that a Penrith City Council Councillor be appointed to the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health Network.

 

?

A Liveable City

 

6??????? Feral and Infant Animals Policy?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 71? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Feral and Infant Animals Policy be received.

2.???? Council adopt the Feral and Infant Animals Policy.

 

 

7??????? Review of the Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 72? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Review of the Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy be received.

2.???? The proposed changes to the Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy be adopted to support the establishment, suspension and/or cancellation of Alcohol Free Areas and Alcohol Free Zones in designated areas in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

?

A Vibrant City

 

8??????? Transportation of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA landfill facility??????????????????????????????????

PRC 73? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Transportation of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA landfill facility be received

2.???? Council write to the Premier Keneally indicating Council?s opposition to the proposal to dispose of the contaminated wastes from 7-9 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill and request that the Remediation Action Plan include an alternative option for disposal of the waste

3.???? Council write to the Member for Mulgoa, Diane Beamer and seek her support in opposing the proposal to dispose of the contaminated waste to the SITA landfill site.

4.???? A further report on the legal position in terms of the DA consent on the SITA site be submitted to Council detailing issues surrounding the acceptance of radio-active waste.

5. ??? Council write to SITA seeking clarification of the Company?s position on accepting the proposal for radio-active contaminated waste and expressing concern over the lack of prior consultation provided to Council.

 

?

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1????????? International Users of Penrith Whitewater Stadium???????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to provide information on the economic benefit to Penrith of visiting training squads and delegations who utilise Penrith Whitewater Stadium. The information may include information detailing how many people used the facility, the duration and location of their accommodation. Further information relating to a formula which may be used to calculate the economic benefit to the City might also be provided.

 

RR 2????????? Hotel Development - Great Western Highway???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to update Councillors on the status of the proposed Hotel development located at Kingswood on the Great Western Highway.

 

RR 3????????? Oxely Park - Neighbourhood Action Plan????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to provide information on the endorsed Neighbourhood Action Plan for Oxley Park.

?

RR 4????????? Legal Advice - Conflict of Interest???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply providing legal advice on the appropriateness of the NSW Lands Minister putting forward an application and the Planning Minister determining the Part 3a application given both portfolios are occupied by the same Minister.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:41pm.

????


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

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

 

 

A Leading City

 

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

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

 

2??????? Adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 2010

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

 

3??????? Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

?

A City of Opportunities

 

8??????? Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd

?

A Green City

 

9??????? Blacktown and Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme

?

A Liveable City

 

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

 

11????? Penrith Valley Cemeteries

?

A Vibrant City

 

12????? Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

?

 


A Leading City

 

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

 

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

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

 

2??????? Adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 2010

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

 

3??????? Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Planning and Advocacy

 

 

 

1

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

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Natasha Baker, Senior Environmental Planner

Amanda McMurtrie, Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City?s future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

??? The purpose of this report is to seek Council?s adoption of amendments to Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006) which will also support recently gazetted plans for Erskine Business Park and Western Sydney Employment Area.

??? The report addresses the public submissions received for Amendment 5 and 6 to Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006.

??? Amendment 5 updates the Erskine Business Park Chapter of Penrith DCP 2006 to incorporate the changes to the relevant contributions plan, biodiversity conservation area and gazettal of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009 (SEPP (WSEA) 2009). Two submissions were received from landowners relating to this amendment.

??? Amendment 6 is a procedural matter to ensure that one DCP applies to one property, which is in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.? To achieve this, it is necessary to amend Penrith DCP 2006 to remove those controls that are no longer relevant and to ensure that there is consistency in application between the two documents. No submissions were received relating to this amendment.

??? The report recommends that Council adopts Amendments 5 and 6 of Penrith DCP 2006.

??? Penrith DCP 2006 (including the amendments) will be tabled at tonight?s meeting and a copy is available on Council?s website.

Background

In 2005, the State Government introduced an amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act which limited, to one, the number of DCPs that can apply to each parcel of land.? This is intended to make it easier to determine the controls applying to development on any property.? Although there is no limit on the number of DCPs a Council could adopt, the amendments to DCP 2006 represent the next step towards a single DCP for the City.

 

Penrith DCP 2006 is a compilation of all of Council?s existing DCPs into a single plan.? DCP 2006 came into effect on 15 December 2006.

 

Penrith DCP 2010 applies to those areas of the city covered by Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 and replaces and updates the corresponding parts of DCP 2006.?

 

At its Policy Review Committee Meeting of 28 April 2008, Council resolved that:?

 

????

 

4.?? Amendments to Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 be publicly exhibited, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and associated Regulations, as outlined in this report.

????? ???..?????????

7. Further reports be presented to Council following the exhibition.?

 

This report outlines the results of the public exhibition of Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 to Penrith DCP 2006. ?This report recommends that Council adopt Amendment 5 and 6 to Penrith DCP 2006. Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 will take effect upon notification of its adoption in the newspaper together with the adoption and notification of DCP 2010 (Stage 1).

 

Penrith DCP 2006

Penrith DCP 2006 currently applies across the City.? When Penrith DCP 2010 comes into effect, Penrith DCP 2006 will no longer apply to rural areas, industrial areas, or St Marys Town Centre.? Penrith DCP 2006 is being amended to remove its application to those areas and ensure consistency with DCP 2010.? It is also necessary to update DCP 2006 to reflect current policy and legislative changes. The two amendments to DCP 2006 are:

 

1.?? Amendment 5 updates controls that apply to Erskine Business Park to reflect amendments made to the developable area and incorporates recent changes to the Erskine Business Park Biodiversity Conservation Area. ?The amendment also includes changes relating to the inclusion of the site in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009 and opportunities to pursue contemporary building design and siting controls.

 

2.?? Amendment 6 excludes the areas and provisions covered by draft Penrith DCP 2010. Penrith DCP 2006 will continue to operate for those areas of the City not affected by draft LEP 2010 or draft DCP 2010.? These areas largely relate to the City?s residential areas, release areas and smaller commercial centres, specifically:

?? The Introduction has been amended to clarify that Penrith DCP 2006 does not apply to any land to which either draft Penrith DCP 2010 or any stand alone release area DCP applies.

?? Citywide and Specific Landuse controls continue to apply to the lands which will be included in Stage 2 of the Penrith LEP.?

?? Penrith LEP 2010 includes provisions for Exempt and Complying development, however the provisions within Penrith DCP 2006 need to remain to provide exempt and complying provisions for land in Stage 2.? The introductory section will be amended to clarify when and where the Penrith DCP 2006 provisions will apply.

?? A number of the Key Areas included in the Penrith DCP 2006 have either been amended or deleted.?

 

Public Exhibition

The draft Amendments 5 and 6 to Penrith DCP 2006 were exhibited for public comment from 28 October 2008 to 30 January 2009. ?Exhibition material was provided at Penrith Civic Centre and St Marys Office and details were advertised in the local newspaper throughout the exhibition period.? The draft plans were also available on Council?s website.?

 

Land owners, adjoining owners, state agencies and local resident groups were notified in writing of the exhibition of the draft plans.

 

Amendment 5 ? Erskine Business Park

As mentioned above, Amendment 5 to Penrith DCP 2006 intends to update the controls that apply to Erskine Business Park to reflect amendments made to the developable area in Erskine Business Park Development Contributions Plan 2008, and incorporate recent changes to the Erskine Business Park Biodiversity Conservation Area. The amendment also includes changes relating to the inclusion of the site in the SEPP (WSEA) 2009.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009 (SEPP (WSEA) 2009)

SEPP (WSEA) 2009 was gazetted on 21 August 2009 and defines the extent of lands within the WSEA which includes Erskine Business Park. The SEPP (WSEA) 2009 primarily aims to protect and enhance these lands for employment purposes.

 

SEPP (WSEA) 2009 recognises Penrith DCP 2006 as an additional development code, providing more detailed provisions including the provision of public amenities and service infrastructure, and biodiversity conservation.

Assessment of Submissions for Amendment 5

Two submissions were received for Amendment 5 from Erskine Business Park land owners. The major issues arising from the submissions and the assessment and comments to those matters are summarised below:

 

A. ??????? Biodiversity

The application of Biodiversity Conservation Areas were objected to by Jacfin Pty Ltd. ?The main concern of the submission was the intrusion of the Biodiversity Conservation Area onto its property. ?

 

Comment:?

Draft Amendment 5 extended the biodiversity conservation area over the Jacfin land.? The justification was based on the Council commissioned Biosis report and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW)?s support.? Council made a substantial case to the Department of Planning (DoP) regarding the preservation of a biodiversity corridor within Erskine Business Park of which the northern portion of Jacfin site is critically and centrally located.

 

Notwithstanding this, a subsequent Major Project Application under Part 3A was approved by the Minister for Planning on 28 October, 2009 which required a Biodiversity Conservation Area in the form of a ?Landscape Buffer? 70 metres wide along the northern edge of the property as well as committing to providing an offset adjacent to Ropes Creek riparian corridor (located in Blacktown LGA) in accordance with the offsetting ratios in the Biodiversity Management Plan. ?Jacfin has also been required to prepare a Management Plan for the landscape buffer in consultation with Council for the Director-General?s approval. Amendment 5 has been amended to reflect the Minister?s decision for this site.

 

B. ???? Height Controls

The submission objects to the inclusion of a new clause introducing a 15 metre height limitation for buildings and structures south of Lenore Drive and that height assessment should be merit based for buildings within the 4(e) zone. ?Although very few buildings would currently exceed the 15 metre height limit, there are tenants that require specialised structures over 15 metres in height.?

 

In addition, the submission raises concern that there are subclauses relating to building on slopes that have very little to do with the realities of industrial development. Also, industrial buildings (and tenants) require large flat floor surfaces to facilitate manufacturing or warehousing activities.? Although the intent of these controls is sound, they relate more appropriately to residential development (or other smaller scale development) and accordingly should be removed from the DCP.

?

Comment:

The 15m height control was introduced in response to certain poor development outcomes along the Mamre Road frontage where 20-25m buildings were approved in Part 3A DAs by the DoP.? It is therefore recommended that the 15m maximum building height will meet the needs of the industry, however Council may consider heights greater than 15m on merits. On this basis the 15m height limit will be retained as a benchmark.

 

The clause relating to the achievement of the level buildings with large floor plates located on slopes validly applied to smaller developments, however the clause encourages proper site selection and in its absence will be difficult to control.? It is therefore recommended to retain the clause in the DCP.

 

C. ???? Heat Effect

The submission states that Council has included a provision that requires applicants to demonstrate how a development proposal reduces the ?heat effect? and visual impact of large expanses of hardstand areas.? Most existing industrial developments are characterised by significant area of hardstand for heavy vehicles and external storage.? The potential ?heat effect? should not be an important factor upon which the assessment of an application is based.? It has been requested that the clause be removed as it is unnecessary.

 

Comment:

It is agreed that the specific clause relating to ?heat effect? should be removed as there are other clauses in the DCP which consider and assist in mitigating potential impacts.

 

D. ???? General Setbacks

Setbacks were raised as an area of concern as being excessive when compared to other industrial areas throughout Western Sydney.? The submission agrees that setbacks provide a better outcome for the streetscape, however full compliance with the DCP makes it very difficult to achieve viable and competitive lease terms with tenants who are often comparing different options across a variety of areas (in different LGAs).? The inclusion of fully compliant setbacks, particularly on sites with more than one street frontage, results in a site with far less development potential and site cover.? This submission indicates that the setback provisions present a considerable disadvantage for Erskine Business Park.

 

The submission indicates that the 20 metre landscape setback along designated roads such as Lenore Drive is acceptable and would like this retained.? Lenore Drive is an important link through Erskine Park, particularly as it will eventually link through Eastern Creek to the M7 Motorway.?

 

The submission suggests alternatively permitting car parking and hardstand areas within setbacks on all road frontages (other than along designated roads such as Lenore Drive).? However, a minimum 5 metre wide landscape area should be provided with earth mounding and dense planting, appropriate hedging species and alike. The suggested amendment will still satisfy Council?s objectives for the Erskine Business Park as buildings must still be set back the distance specified in the DCP.? This will achieve ?open streetscapes? throughout the area.? A 5 metre landscape area along all site frontages (other than along designated roads), will act to enhance the visual quality of development and is considered to be ?substantial? given that most industrial sites within the Erskine Business Park are quite large.

 

Comment:

Council?s Landscape Architect advised that recent proposals seeking a reduced setback by offsetting increased landscape densities were not satisfactory as they included European plantings rather than natives and would be inconsistent with the rest of the estate.? Maintaining the current landscaping provisions within the setback will ensure consistency across the estate, assist in managing microclimate and ongoing maintenance.

 

Council?s Development Services Department has also expressed concern that any proposal to reduce setbacks at this late stage of development of the estate would produce inconsistent setback standards throughout the estate.?

 

It is therefore recommended to maintain the 15m setback and to permit parking to a depth of 5.5m within that setback with the provision of a densely planted front landscaped area including canopy trees.? This compromise would satisfy assessment requirements and assist in boosting the competitiveness of Erskine Business Park.

 

E. ???? Transmission Line Easement Setbacks

The submission is concerned that the required setbacks from Electricity Transmission Line (ETL) easements have been increased from 5 metres to 8 metres as a result of the proposed amendments. Integral Energy and Transgrid already provide significant buffers to electricity infrastructure within each easement and that these buffers are designed to avoid possible dangers that electricity infrastructure could pose to development.? There is no reason for an additional setback from the easement particularly given that adequate landscaping and fire access driveways can be provided within the easement (subject to Transgrid or Integral Energy approval).

 

The imposition of an additional 3 metre setback requirement seems unreasonable and unnecessary given the already considerable distance between residential properties along the northern boundary of Erskine Business Park.? The rear boundary of residential properties is approximately 150 metres from the southernmost easement boundary.

 

The additional 3 metres will be inconsequential over this distance in terms of providing any visual impact mitigation or noise mitigation.? It will have even less benefit adjacent to the southern transmission lines that also run through the Fitzpatrick Estate lands.

 

The requirement for any setback to the ETL should be deleted entirely from the proposed amendments.

 

The submission also raised concern regarding Council?s objection to development being carried out within the Transgrid Electricity Easement along the northern boundary of the Erskine Business Park.? The DCP should not introduce a prohibition of use or development in the easement when this contradicts the provisions of current and draft statutory documents.

 

Comment:

It is recommended that the proposed setbacks to the ETL be retained. Development Services Department has advised that in practice an 8m rear setback to the easements is required due to fire truck access requirements. However, if the applicant can demonstrate that 5m is sufficient or if adjoining accessible land within the easement is accessible to a fire truck then a reduction below 8m may be warranted on merits. Advice from Development Services indicate that there is no objection to the location of car and truck parking within these easements due to potential electricity arcing. In this regard, the DoP has also indicated verbally to Council officers that it has no objection to Council?s inclusion within DCP 2006 of a clause that regulates use of land in this manner.

 

F. ???? External Storage Areas

In relation to external storage areas, the submission accepts that the relevant clause does not prohibit external storage entirely, and that all reasonable measures should be employed to mitigate potential visual impacts. ?However, it should be noted that the Erskine Business Park is an industrial area by nature and that potential impacts caused by some external storage should be considered a necessary and acceptable characteristic of any comparable industrial area throughout NSW and Australia.? This requirement should be modified to ensure that external storage is portrayed as an acceptable activity within the area if the correct measures are taken to minimise visual impacts.

 

Comment:

Council notes the issues raised, however the relevant clause is not considered to present any difficulties for potential developers and does not require amendment.? Council is prepared to consider outdoor storage provided that a significant landscape screen is provided and this will be further assessed on the merits of proposals as they come forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G. ???? Energy Ratings

Concern is raised in the submission regarding Council including a requirement that all development in excess of $1 million must demonstrate a commitment to achieving no less than 4 stars under Green Star and 4.5 stars under that ABGR system.? A pilot Green Star rating system has only recently been introduced for industrial development.? This system remains largely un-tested however many landowners and tenants are interested in its future success.? The ABGR system was introduced in 1998 and would only apply to the office component of any industrial development at Erskine Park.

 

Comment:

All development is already subject to the statutory obligation for sustainability under Section J of the Building Code of Australia.? The overriding SEPP requirements includes energy rating provisions which prevail. Therefore it is recommended that the relevant clause be deleted.

 

H. ???? Landscaping

a.?????? The submission objects to Clause 7.7.2(k) which requires large car parking areas (greater than 5 car spaces) to be visually separated from access roads and from the buildings they serve by landscaping. This contradicts another clause in the LEP that states that narrow strips of landscaped area between parking areas and a building should be avoided. A request has been made to delete the requirement for such landscaping as landscaping is already required (in other sections of the DCP) to screen car parking areas and is adequate to achieve the nominated objective.

 

Comment:

The requirements for landscaping between car spaces and the building will be retained as this clause is not unreasonable and developments within the estate have been achieving this level of landscaping. However, the number of car spaces required has been increased from 5 to10 car spaces which better defines large car parking areas.

 

b.?????? The submission also raises that Section 9.2.4 states that Council?s conditions of consent should ensure that, ?landscape works be maintained throughout the duration of construction works, and in perpetuity or the life of the development?.? This is not consistent standard construction staging that would normally see landscaping being constructed at the completion of all major building works.? This reference to construction should be deleted from this section.

 

Comment:

It is agreed that the relevant clause is confusing and it is recommended to be replaced with the following:

 

?9.2.4 Requirements ? Performance Standards and Maintenance

 

Landscape works are generally constructed at the completion of building works.?

 

However, Council may require by way of conditions of development consent, that tree bonds be placed over existing significant trees on a proposed development site.? Any such existing trees and all landscape works from the approved development should be maintained throughout the duration of the construction works and in perpetuity for the life of the development.? The onus for satisfactory maintenance is on the applicant until the development has been completed, and on the owner thereafter.

 

These requirements should be read in conjunction with Penrith DCP 2006 Part 2 Section 2.6 Landscape.?

 

I. ????? Car Parking Surfaces

Concern was raised that Council has introduced a requirement for car park surfaces to be painted in light colours or finished in light grey concrete to reflect as much light as possible.? Although some car parks are constructed using concrete, the large majority of light duty car parking surfaces (where not heavy vehicle access is required) are constructed using bitumen.? Bitumen is dark in colour, is relatively inexpensive and practical for such areas.? For similar reasons, all of Council?s road surfaces are constructed using the same material.? Painting on highly trafficable areas is unlikely to last for long periods of time and is an impractical requirement.? This new requirement seems unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

Comment:

It is recommended to delete this requirement based on discussions with relevant Council officers and the comments above.

Recommended changes to the Penrith DCP 2006 Part 6 Section 6.14 Erskine Business Park

The Erskine Business Park Section of DCP 2006 will be amended in accordance with Council?s comments above. Other text changes include re-numbering the section to 6.10, updating information in relation to the gazettal of the SEPP (WSEA) 2009, Link Road Concept Plan Approval and the Biodiversity Conservation Area including a Landscape Buffer.

 

The figures in the DCP will be amended where necessary to:

 

1.?? refer to the new SEPP (WSEA) 2009 land application boundary

2.?? remove any reference to ?proposed? areas

3.?? include the updated Link Road alignment, and

4.?? show updated Biodiversity Conservation Area and add the Landscape Buffer as per the Major Project Approval on the Jacfin property.

 

Amendment 6 ? Procedural

Amendment 6 of Penrith DCP 2006 proposes to exclude the areas and provisions covered by draft Penrith DCP 2010. ?Penrith DCP 2006 will continue to operate for those areas of the City not affected by draft LEP 2010 or draft DCP 2010.? These areas include the City?s residential areas, release areas and smaller commercial centres. This amendment is a procedural matter in ensuring that one DCP applies to one property which is in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

There were no issues arising from the exhibition of Amendment 6 of Penrith DCP 2006.

 

Those Sections in Part 6 DCP 2006 to be amended include:

 

 

Cranebrook

6.6????? Waterside (only to exclude the industrial lands as it is covered in DCP 2010)

 

Erskine Park

6.14??? Erskine Park Employment Area (as per Amendment 5)

 

Those Sections in Part 6 of DCP 2006 to be deleted include:

 

Badgerys Creek

6.1??? Luddenham Equestrian Estate (Twin Creeks)

 

Cambridge Gardens

6.2??? Proposed Road Closure, vicinity Richmond and Lewis Roads (map)

 

Cranebrook

6.5???? Cranebrook Release

 

Erskine Park

6.13? Road Pattern Erskine Park (vertiplan)

 

Londonderry

6.24?? Road pattern vicinity Hughes Avenue (map)

 

Mount Vernon

6.25?? Mount Vernon

6.26?? Land vicinity Horsely Road / Mount Vernon Road, Kemps Creek

 

Penrith & North Penrith

6.27 ? Penrith City Centre Floor Space Ratio Controls

6.32?? Land bounded by Union Road, Worth Street, Union Lane and Mulgoa Road

 

Penrith South

6.33 ? South Penrith (vertiplan)

6.34?? Road pattern, vicinity Mosely Avenue (map)

6.35?? Business 3(d) zone Mulgoa Road

6.36?? Glenbrook Street/Lot 1 DP 867180 Cameron Street

 

St Clair

6.37?? St Clair (vertiplan)

 

Werrington County

6.13? Roads, landscaping etc Dunheved Road / Henry Lawson Avenue (map).

 

There are no additional recommended changes to Amendment 6 of Penrith DCP 2006. It will remain as exhibited with the changes addressed earlier in this report.

Next Steps

1.?? Upon adoption by Council, Amendment 5 and 6 to Penrith DCP 2006 will be notified in the local paper and to the Minster of Planning in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979.

2.?? Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 will come into force immediately upon notification in the newspaper and adoption and notification of DCP 2010 (Stage 1).

 

Conclusion

DCP 2006 will continue to operate and apply to those lands excluded from DCP 2010 (Stage1) and being considered in LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

 

Amendment 5 will allow contemporary controls to be in place for future development in Erskine Business Park as this Section within the DCP 2006 will operate under SEPP (WSEA) 2009.

 

Amendment 6 is principally a procedural matter to ensure that Council complies with the one DCP per property provision, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.? It has been necessary to remove controls that are either no longer relevant in Penrith DCP 2006 or which will be covered by Penrith DCP 2010 (Stage1).?

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.?

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Map of land to which DCP 2006 applies

1 Page

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Map of land to which DCP 2006 applies

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 2010???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

??? The purpose of this report is to seek Council?s adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 (Penrith DCP 2010), which will support Stage 1 of Council?s new Citywide Local Environmental Plan (Penrith LEP 2010).

??? The report addresses the remaining three public submissions received in response to the exhibition of draft Penrith DCP 2010 (exhibited as draft Penrith DCP 2008).? The other 14 submissions received on the draft DCP have previously been considered by Council as part of its deliberations on Penrith LEP 2010.? The report recommends some minor changes in response to the remaining submissions.

??? A number of other changes have been made to the draft DCP since its exhibition, following further comments from other departments within Council.? These changes do not alter the policy directions of the DCP.? Rather, they provide clearer guidance to developers and the community on the form of future development in the City.

??? The report recommends that Council adopts Penrith DCP 2010 including the minor changes recommended in response to the remaining public submissions.

??? Penrith DCP 2010 will be tabled at tonight?s meeting and a copy is available on Council?s website.

Background

In 2005, the State Government introduced an amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act which limited, to one, the number of DCPs that can apply to each parcel of land.? This is intended to make it easier to determine the controls applying to development on any property.? Although there is no limit on the overall number of DCPs a council could adopt, DCP 2010 represents the next step towards a single DCP for the City.

 

Penrith DCP 2006 is a compilation of all of Council?s existing DCPs into a single plan.? DCP 2006 came into effect on 15 December 2006.

 

In conjunction with the preparation of Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1), Council staff prepared the draft Penrith DCP for Stage 1 (Penrith DCP 2010) which provided the opportunity to update development controls applying to the City.? DCP 2010 ensures future development reflects Council?s current strategic directions.

 

Penrith DCP 2010 applies to those areas of the City covered by Penrith LEP 2010 and replaces and updates that corresponding part of DCP 2006.

Draft Penrith DCP 2010

Draft Penrith DCP 2010 has been structured to integrate the principles of sustainability into the provisions that guide development across the City.? It includes controls for a range of matters that have not previously been covered by Council policy.? It also includes provisions for Mulgoa Valley and Orchard Hills, which were previously subject to State Government development control codes and design guidelines.?

 

Draft Penrith DCP 2010 applies only to those lands covered by Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).? The map in Attachment 1 shows the extent of these lands.? For those lands that are not covered by Penrith LEP 2010, including the deferred areas, Penrith DCP 2006 will continue to apply.

 

Draft Penrith DCP 2010 is divided into six sections:

???? Introduction;

???? DCP Principles;

???? Citywide Controls; e.g. controls relating to water, land and vegetation management;

???? Specific Land Use Controls; e.g. controls relating to rural and industrial uses;

???? Key Precincts; e.g. controls relating to Mulgoa Valley and St Marys Town Centre; and

???? Appendices; e.g. dictionary and submission requirements for development applications.?

 

The integrated approach to structuring the DCP means users will need to reference several parts of the document to find all the necessary information.? However, the DCP has been extensively cross referenced and includes matrices, which set out those parts of the DCP that are relevant for various types of development.? The DCP will also be available electronically to allow users to call up only those controls which are relevant to individual sites and specific proposals.? Building this electronic framework for the DCP has commenced and is expected to be completed within about a month of adoption of the DCP.

Public Exhibition

Draft Penrith DCP 2010 was placed on public exhibition with draft Penrith LEP 2010 from 28 October 2008 to 30 January 2009.

 

The details of the public exhibition process for the Stage 1 Planning Documents have previously been reported to Council as part of its consideration of the more than 650 submissions received in response to these documents.? This includes reports to Council?s Policy Review Committee meetings of 13 July 2009 and 21 October 2009.

 

While the majority of submissions received on the Stage 1 Planning Documents related to the draft LEPs, there were 17 submissions relating to draft Penrith DCP 2010.? Council has already considered 14 of these submissions as those submissions also related to LEP matters and were dealt with when the LEP matters were reported to and considered by Council.? In those circumstances where Council resolved to change the draft DCP, these changes have been incorporated into the final DCP.

 

The remaining three submissions, which focused only on DCP matters, are summarised in Attachment 2.? The only recommendation arising that, if adopted, will result in changes to draft Penrith DCP 2010 is the recommendation to include objectives and controls relating to any new development adjacent to the heritage listed Torin Building in Coombes Drive, Penrith.

Operational Changes to Draft Penrith DCP 2010

In addition to the changes made in response to the 17 submissions, there have also been changes made in response to further comments from other departments within Council since the exhibition of the draft DCP.? These changes do not alter the policy directions of the DCP.? Rather, they provide clearer guidance to developers and the community on the form of future development in the City.

 

The changes are:

1.?? Amendments to ensure the final DCP is consistent with Penrith LEP 2010; e.g. Clause 6.3 Flood planning and Clause 6.4 Development on natural resources sensitive land of Penrith LEP 2010 have required changes to the DCP to ensure consistent terminology and correct referencing;

2.?? Amendments to ensure the final DCP is consistent with recent amendments to State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs); e.g. deleting some controls for development which is now exempt under SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 and updating information to take account of changes to SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007;

3.?? Inclusion of a map to clearly explain where the DCP applies;

4.?? A more detailed explanation of the principles of universal design to encourage new homes and public buildings to be more accessible and adaptable;

5.?? Retention of the definition of ?tree or other vegetation? as contained in Penrith DCP 2006, so the same definition applies across the whole of the City.? Changes to the definition, at this stage, will cause difficulties in the administration of these controls and inconsistencies across the City.? This definition will be amended as part of Stage 2;

6.?? Inclusion of a map showing stream/watercourse classification to help clarify the requirements for riparian corridor widths;

7.?? Updated information on Aboriginal heritage following recent amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.? These changes are to ensure consistency with the Act,? They include changes to terms and references to recent guidelines produced by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

8.?? Clarification of controls relating to roads, including the inclusion of definitions, objectives and diagrams for road types;

9.?? Updated information on the Commonwealth and State Governments? positions on the proposed second Sydney airport;

10. Amendments to the chapter on Waterside Corporate (the industrial employment area), following Council?s separate consideration and adoption of these amendments on 27 September 2010;

11. A more detailed rationale for the controls relating to the St Marys Town Centre;

12. Amendments to the chapter now referred to as ?Notification and Advertising? to reflect current legislative requirements, identify specific community groups, define certain terms, reference Council?s DA tracking system and functions, and require Council to notify relevant development applications to both owners and occupiers of lots, including strata and community lots.? The change to the title of the chapter is to better reflect its content;

13. Updates to the names of Government departments and agencies;

14. Updates to relevant Australian Standards and other information sources; and

15. Editing changes; e.g. formatting, correcting typing errors and simplifying language.

Next Steps

Should Penrith DCP 2010 be adopted by Council, it will be notified in the local newspaper and to the Minister for Planning in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979.? The DCP will come into force immediately upon notification in the newspaper and apply to those lands covered by Penrith LEP 2010.? For those lands that are not covered by Penrith LEP 2010, including the deferred areas, Penrith LEP 2006 will continue to apply.

Conclusion

The preparation of Penrith DCP 2010 has involved an extensive review of the content and structure of controls in Penrith DCP 2006, particularly those relating to lands covered by Penrith LEP 2010, including the rural lands, industrial lands and St Marys Town Centre.? There has been a strong focus on integrating the principles of sustainability into the provisions of Penrith DCP 2010 to guide development across the City.? If adopted, Penrith DCP 2010 will provide more detailed, contemporary controls to support Penrith LEP 2010 and will be a significant milestone in the preparation of comprehensive planning controls for the City.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Map of Land to which Penrith DCP 2010 Applies

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Outstanding Submissions relating to Draft Penrith DCP 2010

5 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Map of Land to which Penrith DCP 2010 Applies

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1: Map of Land to which Penrith DCP 2010 Applies


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Appendix 2 - Outstanding Submissions relating to Draft Penrith DCP 2010

 

?

 

Attachment 2: Outstanding Submissions Relating to Draft Penrith DCP 2010

Submission No. 375 - The Torin Building, 26 Coombes Drive, Penrith

Lot 4 DP 242954 (North Ward, Tile 12)

 

Issue:? The submission from the Heritage Branch of the Department of Planning supported the inclusion of the Torin Building in Schedule 5 of Penrith LEP 2010.? Since the draft LEP was exhibited, the Torin Building has also been listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR).

 

The submission indicates that the listing on the SHR reduces the curtilage of the item from the whole of the current un-subdivided parcel of land, to ?a line running east-west for the width of the lot at a distance of 13 metres from the rear facade (southern side) of the Torin Building?.? This would allow appropriate development to the south of the building and ensure adequate setbacks from the building.

 

The submission includes suggested design criteria for inclusion in the draft Penrith DCP to guide the design and location of future development on the land south of the building, to ensure any development is sympathetic and does not substantially impact on the heritage values of the Torin Building.

 

Comment:? Figures 1 and 2 provide views of the Torin Building.

 

?Figure 1: Front view of the Torin Building

 

Figure 2: Aerial view of The Torin Building, Penrith

 

The design criteria suggested for inclusion in the draft DCP are:

 

New building style and character

Objectives

????? To provide adequate visual linkages, in terms of external appearance and materials used, between the Torin Building and the proposed new buildings to create compatible and sympathetic developments.

????? To ensure that the building style and character of the new development complements the significant architectural character of the Torin Building.

Controls

????? The height of new development adjoining the Torin Building should not be greater than 10.5 metres.

????? A contemporary building style and character should be employed in new development to best complement the modernist character of the Torin Building.

????? Fa?ade building materials should be compatible with the sparse and austere character of the Torin Building.

 

Landscaping

Objectives

????? To ensure that new landscaping does not obstruct the visual lines to the Torin Building from the surrounding streets and sites.

????? To ensure that new landscaping enhances the sparse character of the Torin Building fa?ades.

Controls

????? Landscaping along the site boundaries should be native grasses or drought resistant plants or a combination of both.

 

Fencing

Objectives

????? To ensure that new fencing does not have any adverse impact on the original curtilage of the Torin Building.

????? To ensure that new fencing used to demarcate site boundaries does not have a detrimental impact on the visual appreciation of the Torin Building from the surrounding area and from within the site.

Controls

????? Security fencing along the southern side of the Torin Building should be transparent in nature; e.g. chain wire, to allow for a continuous view of the southern fa?ade of the Torin Building.

 

These objectives and controls are considered to be reasonable given the significance of the building.? Its historical significance is derived from its association with internationally recognised architect Marcel Breuer, who designed all nine of the Torin Factories throughout the world (USA, Canada, Belgium and England), including the one built at Penrith.? The Penrith building is of particular historical significance as it was designed by Breuer in association with Herbert Beckhard and eminent architect, Harry Seidler.

 

The objectives and controls can be included in section 7.1.6 Site Specific Development Controls of Chapter C7 Culture and Heritage of the DCP.

 

Recommendation:? That the objectives and controls listed above regarding new building style and character, landscaping and fencing be included in section 7.1.6 Site Specific Development Controls of Chapter C7 Culture and Heritage of Penrith DCP 2010.


Submission No. 467 - Controls relating to land in the vicinity of the proposed Second Sydney Airport and community consultation

City wide

 

Issue:? This submission requests the following:

????? That removable dwellings be allowed on land where the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contour exceeds 25 for land in the vicinity of the proposed Second Sydney Airport, on condition that they be removed once the airport proceeds.

????? That the community be given a minimum of 4 weeks to review development applications, as this is needed to ensure greater transparency and flexibility for community members who work, need to obtain professional advice, prepare submissions, etc.?

????? That major development applications be advertised in relevant newspapers, as notification letters are not always received.? Complete copies of applications, including plans, should also be provided to neighbours, including in electronic form, if requested.

 

Comment:

Badgerys Creek Airport

Council officers sought to have the clause in Penrith LEP 2010 relating to development of land in the flight paths of the proposed second airport removed from the LEP, following announcements by the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the? Hon Anthony Albanese, ruling out a second airport at Badgerys Creek.

 

The Department of Planning, however, required that the clause be retained as removal would be inconsistent with the Minister for Planning?s Section 117 Directions for the preparation of LEPs.? To ensure the LEP and DCP are consistent, it is not recommended that the DCP requirement, which prohibits new dwellings (or significant alterations and/or additions to existing dwellings) on land where the ANEF exceeds 25, be amended.? Allowing any dwellings, whether ?removable? or not, would be inconsistent with recognised standards (i.e. Australian Standard 2021:2000 Acoustics ? Aircraft Noise Intrusion ? Building, Siting and Construction) and practice.

 

Community consultation

Appendix F4 of the draft DCP details the requirements for public notification and advertising on development applications.? The length of the exhibition period depends upon the type of development proposed and varies from 14 to 30 days.? These timeframes are based on legislative requirements or current practices, aimed at ensuring an efficient and effective process for community consultation while minimising delays in the processing of development applications.? For this reason, it is not proposed to amend the length of the exhibition period for all development applications to 28 days.

 

The requirements for placing notices in relevant newspapers are included in Appendix F4.? Notices are required for major developments, including State significant development, Crown development, designated development and integrated development.

 

Appendix F4 details the information required to be provided in a notification plan, which is sent out with notification letters.? Other relevant information can be viewed at Council offices and, as it develops, electronically through Council?s ?Online Services ? DA Tracker?.

 

In terms of the requirements for public notification and advertising on development applications, no changes are recommended to the DCP.

 

Recommendation:? That there be no changes to the draft DCP.


Submission No. 597 ? Landscape design requirements

City wide

 

Issue:? This submission from the Australian Institute of Landscape Designers and Managers raises two issues in relation to Chapter C6 Landscape Design of the draft DCP.? The first issue relates to how development is categorised and who can design and construct landscape works.? The second issue relates to the eligibility criteria for inclusion on Council?s register of approved landscape consultants.? These issues are described in more detail below.

 

Comment:? Chapter C6 of the draft DCP classifies development into three categories and, for each category, specifies who can design and who can construct the landscaping elements of a proposed development.? The table below provides further details.

 

 

?The submission requests that:

????? Category 2 development should be defined as ?Any development in Category 1 which in the opinion of Council would have a significant impact on the amenity of the locality and work beyond the scope of Category 1 but not covered in Category 3?.? The reference to work below $2 million should be deleted.

????? For Category 3 development, the reference to developments above $2 million should be deleted.

 

The submission argues that the cost/value of a development does not realistically reflect the extent of landscaping required.? ?Very expensive projects can have low landscape requirements and vice versa?.

 

Comment

The City Planning team has had some discussions with Development Services and Landscape Architectural Services regarding amending the definitions of Category 2 and 3 development so they do not rely on a cost/value.? However, reaching a solution that still provides clear guidance to applicants and Council officers on who can design and construct the landscaping elements of a proposed development has been difficult.? It is proposed that these discussions continue as part of the preparation of Stage 2 of the DCP, so as not to delay the finalisation of draft Penrith DCP 2010.

 

The submission further requests that the eligibility criteria for including consultants on Council?s register of approved landscape consultants be amended.? It should be noted that Council?s register, while referred to in the draft DCP, is not part of the DCP.? Specifically, the submission requests that:

????? For Category 2 development, a qualified person should, among other matters, include a person with landscape design qualifications equivalent to a Diploma/Associate Diploma in Landscape Design; a Diploma/Associate Diploma in Horticulture (Landscape) or a Degree in Environmental Science.? Where a potential applicant does not have these qualifications, other criteria must be achieved including demonstrated experience in landscape construction for a minimum of three (rather than two) years.

????? For Category 3 development, a qualified person could also be a member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Designers and Managers who satisfies the following criteria:

o? Demonstrated experience in landscape design for a minimum of five years

o? References from two Registered Architects to establish the suitability and capabilities of the qualified person to provide the required level of consultancy, particularly where comparable projects have been completed

o? Demonstrated understanding of environmental considerations applicable to the City of Penrith

o? Demonstrated understanding and experience in the construction and use of hard and soft landscape materials and surface treatments

o? Demonstrated design office experience including:

? Site survey and assessment

? Landscape design and documentation to contract stage

? Contract administration of landscape works

? Trade coordination and direction on site and coordination of projects

? Treatment of environmentally sensitive or visually sensitive areas.

All applicants will need to provide examples of design documentation skills and photo examples of completed projects. Examples used should also include addresses to facilitate site inspection.

 

Comment

This matter has been referred to Development Services and Landscape Architectural Services for action.? Given Council?s register of approved landscape consultants is not part of the draft DCP, the matter will be pursued separately.

 

Recommendation:

1.?? That there be no changes to the draft DCP;

2.?? That discussions continue on potential amendments to the definitions of Category 2 and 3 development, which do not rely on a cost/value, as part of the preparation of Stage 2 of the DCP.

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Planning and Advocacy

 

 

 

3

Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Abdul Cheema, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City?s future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

?? The Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy provides a strategic framework to manage future growth in the City?s existing and proposed urban areas, and meet the needs of our changing and diverse communities.

?? The Penrith Urban Study has identified the key centres in the City that will provide the focus of future growth and activity, in terms of community services, retail, employment, and housing around key transport nodes.

?? The draft Penrith Urban Strategy provides a framework to manage the growth of Penrith to 2031 through a ?centres-based? model to address the City?s anticipated population growth, demographic and household changes, and also respond to the Metropolitan Strategy dwelling targets.

?? Precincts around the Penrith City Centre, St Marys Town Centre and the Kingswood Specialised Centre provide key residential growth opportunities for the next five (5) years.? It is anticipated that other local centres will accommodate some medium to longer term urban development.

?? This report seeks Council?s endorsement to publicly exhibit the Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy.

?? The Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy will be tabled at tonight?s meeting and a copy is available on council?s website for public viewing.

Background

Council last undertook a major review of the City?s existing and proposed urban areas in 1997, with the resultant Residential Strategy guiding the preparation of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land).? The key drivers for undertaking the current Penrith Urban Study (the Study) and draft Penrith Urban Strategy (the draft Strategy) are:

?? the need to provide a strategic framework to manage future growth in the City?s existing and proposed urban areas, and meet the needs of changing communities;

?? to meet the housing targets, policy and planning directions set by the State Government?s Metropolitan Strategy and draft North West Regional Strategy;

?? to guide the preparation of planning controls for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) which will rezone the residential areas and local centres across the City, consistent with the Standard Local Environmental Plan (LEP) template.

 

A range of consultation opportunities and forums, as well as reference groups, internal workshops, and surveys, involved residents, landowners, business and community groups throughout the City in the Study and preparation of the draft Strategy.

Penrith Urban Study

Council has been briefed on various aspects of the Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy during the preparation of these documents. The Penrith Urban Study has identified the key centres in the City that will provide the focus of future urban growth and activity (including community services, retail, employment, and housing).? The Study has identified the guiding principles and a planning philosophy to guide future urban development in the City. It identifies the residential capacity of the City?s existing centres and suburbs, and outlines eight Key Sustainability Elements that should be addressed before further development is supported.? The Study, which is tabled tonight, is divided into five sections:

1.??? Introduction ? highlights the objectives of the Urban Study and Strategy report.

2.??? Policy and Strategic Context ? presents an overview of the key state and local policies and documents that are relevant to the Study and development of the draft Strategy.? This section also outlines the consultations that informed the preparation of the draft Strategy.

3.??? The City ? provides an overview of key elements influencing future urban development, including:

?? Profiles and Trends ? an overview of the demographic and housing profiles and trends that influence the type and diversity of future housing needs in the City, and

?? Key Issues ? key issues associated with affordable housing, sustainable housing, the urban and environmental context, which provide opportunities and constraints to future urban development in the City.

4.??? Building a Sustainable Penrith ? provides a summary of the key issues, development philosophy and strategic directions to inform the Urban Strategy.

5.??? Local Centres ? outlines the key characteristics of each of the City?s centres, suburbs and neighbourhoods, and their capacity for future development.

Draft Penrith Urban Strategy

The draft Strategy uses a centre-based model to identify future dwelling opportunities in the City to 2031.? It examines the capacity of each centre to accommodate more dwellings, based on access to community, commercial and retail services, transport infrastructure and services, and environmental considerations.? The Strategy seeks to:

?? locate future higher density residential development within 800 metres of a centre;

?? encourage a strong mix of housing types and densities (based on the ?designation? of the centre) that meet future population needs;

?? support communities with good transport and access to retail, commercial, community and recreation services (based on the ?designation? of the centre);

?? provide opportunities for community interaction and high amenity in the public domain

?? Guide future development by assessment against ?Key Sustainability Elements? criteria.

 

The draft Penrith Urban Strategy report, which is tabled tonight, is divided into five sections:

1.??? Introduction ? this section sets the direction for the Strategy and introduces the guiding principles that were developed to steer future urban development anticipated in the City by 2031.? It also discusses the approach undertaken to prepare the draft Strategy.

2.??? Key Assumptions ? this section describes the City?s future housing needs and discusses the assumptions underpinning the draft Strategy, in terms of the people we are planning for now and in the future.

3.??? Centres Hierarchy for Penrith ? this section provides an overview of the centres-based planning approach taken in the draft Strategy.

4.??? Centres and Neighbourhoods: Key Actions ? this section provides the key characteristics, opportunities and actions for the City?s centres and suburbs, and their capacity for future development.? It also outlines the possible future timeframes for growth in respective centres and suburbs.

5.??? Key Sustainability Elements ? this section outlines the Key Sustainability Elements, with actions to assist in delivering a more sustainable City in future.

Centres Hierarchy

On 26 March 2007, Council adopted the ?Centres Hierarchy? for the City, which was based on the ?centres typology? detailed in the State Government?s Metropolitan Strategy.? The draft Penrith Urban Strategy uses the adopted hierarchy to focus on the centres with future growth opportunities over the next twenty years.? The draft Strategy provides an indication of growth potential, and also recognises that development may not happen, or may only happen in increments depending on market fluctuations in housing delivery, and transport and infrastructure constraints.

 

The precincts identified with short term growth opportunities (the next five years) are around the Penrith City Centre, the St Marys Town Centre and the Kingswood Specialised Centre.? These three areas have significant capacity to respond to the City?s short term residential growth demands, and are therefore proposed to be included in the draft Penrith LEP 2012.

1.?????? Penrith City Centre Precinct

The Penrith City Centre LEP was gazetted in 2008, with zoned potential for around 3,700 additional dwellings in the City Centre.? The draft Penrith Urban Strategy adds to those additional dwellings by identifying further growth opportunities adjacent to the City Centre.

 

The identified Penrith City Centre ?precinct? includes the surrounding residential and employment areas (bounded by Parker Street to the east, Jamison Road to the south and Coreen Avenue to the north).? Generally, there are three areas which are proposed to be higher density (potentially 4-6 storeys) given their immediate proximity to core services, including schools, public transport and community facilities:

?? Mulgoa Road, Rodley Avenue and Union Road

?? High Street, Parker Street and Derby Street

?? Lemongrove area (east of Blaxland Avenue).

2.?????? St Marys Town Centre Precinct (including Glossop Street area)

Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) applied a mixed-use zone to the St Marys Town Centre, which provides for around 1,250 additional dwellings.? The draft Strategy has identified further growth opportunities around the St Marys Town Centre, in a precinct within walking distance of the train station and in proximity to parks and town services.? The higher density area is generally north of Chapel Street, to Station Street and Glossop Street.

 

The ?Duration Cottages? are also located within this precinct, to the west of the St Marys Town Centre.? This area is recommended to be developed as medium density housing (townhouses/villa houses) and, subject to lot consolidation, further development opportunities may occur within the next five years.? More detailed precinct planning and urban design analysis will focus on ensuring quality development outcomes can be achieved, given this area?s strategic location close to public transport, shops, schools and community facilities.

3.?????? Kingswood

The Kingswood ?Specialised Centre? is surrounded by major facilities and infrastructure including public transport, shops, the University of Western Sydney, Nepean Hospital, WSI-TAFE, the Western Sydney International Hockey Centre, parks and schools.? Kingswood therefore supports a strong employment sector in medical, educational, service retail and industrial uses, which brings with it a demand for quality housing.? A number of sites have potential for consolidation and redevelopment.? There are few environmental constraints to urban growth.

 

It is proposed to increase the residential densities in this area, specifically along the Great Western Highway and Bringelly Road, to provide a greater range of housing.? It is also proposed to expand existing retail and commercial zones along the major roads, and expand floor space opportunities to create greater diversity in retail and commercial uses, and build on Kingswood?s role as a Specialised Centre.

Next Steps

Following public exhibition of the Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy, Council will be requested to adopt the draft Strategy.? This will enable implementation of the Strategy?s actions, through a range of initiatives including advocacy, planning controls, precinct plans, social and cultural programs, and infrastructure programs.? It is anticipated that, over time, all of the City?s centres will be reviewed, with precinct plans developed for those centres with potential for future growth.

Conclusion

Preparation of the Penrith Urban Study and development of the draft Penrith Urban Strategy has been a major undertaking.? The draft Strategy identifies initiatives to manage future urban growth and respond to housing needs in the City?s existing and proposed residential areas, and local and neighbourhood centres, to 2031.? It will also guide the preparation of planning controls in draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 and draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

4

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

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Abdul Cheema, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

?? Over the past few years Council has been working towards implementing a comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Penrith in 2 stages. Stage 1 (Penrith LEP 2010) generally covered the rural areas, industrial areas, heritage items and the St Marys Town Centre. Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

?? Stage 2 (Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012) generally covers all residential areas (except St Marys Release Area) and local retail/commercial centres. Due to the planning reforms, the preparation of Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) will proceed as a Planning Proposal through the DoP?s new gateway process.

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Planning Proposal) will, in most cases, be based on a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the State Government?s Standard Instrument, especially for the established residential areas and local/neighbourhood centres which are not identified for growth in the next 5 years.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of site-specific ?rezoning? proposals, ?deferred? matters from the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a change in zone is proposed.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of adopted or gazetted LEPs.? These include the release areas LEPs (Glenmore Park Stage 2, South Werrington Urban Village and Caddens), the Penrith City Centre LEP 2008, Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation). As these plans have already been subject to extensive agency and community consultation, and have been endorsed by Council, further consultation on these elements of draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) is not proposed.

?? This report deals with the suburb of St Marys (the City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

?? This report seeks Council?s endorsement to forward the tabled draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 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).

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 will be tabled at tonight?s meeting and a copy is available on council?s website.

Background

Council has been undertaking a major planning exercise to prepare a new Citywide LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP), in accordance with the planning reform agenda set by the State Government. The new Citywide LEP must comply with the standard LEP template, known as the Standard Instrument (SI).

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 October 2005, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive LEP for the City, which has been brought forward in 2 stages as follows:

~????? Stage 1 generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas, St Marys Town Centre and heritage items.? Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

~????? Stage 2 primarily covers the residential, local/neighbourhood centres, and release areas.? Stage 2, known as Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 also incorporates a number of site specific rezoning proposals, and the following adopted or gazetted LEPs which have been based on the Standard Instrument (SI) LEP:

?? Penrith City Centre LEP 2008

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Glenmore Park Stage 2

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? South Werrington Urban Village

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Caddens

?? Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation)

?? Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

Planning Proposal - Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2)

Council was briefed in detail on various aspects of the Planning Proposal in June/July of this year. The Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning Guidelines: ?A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans? and ?A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals?.? A Planning Proposal is a document which explains the intended effect of a proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and sets out the justification for making that plan.? The Planning Proposal is comprised of five parts:

~??????? Part 1:??? Sets out the objectives and intended outcomes of draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? Part 2:??? Explains the provisions to be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012, including the details pertaining to any additional local provisions.? This part of the Planning Proposal also describes the areas in the City where a change in the current zone and/or planning controls is proposed.? In summary these are:

?? areas recommended for growth in the next 5 years in the draft Urban Strategy, or which are consistent with Council?s policy directions

?? site-specific rezoning proposals and key precincts

?? deferred areas and areas needing reconsideration from Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1)

?? amendments to existing Environmental Planning Instruments.

~??????? Part 3:??? Provides the justification for the Planning Proposal, particularly in relation to the areas of the City where a change in zone and/or planning controls are proposed. This part provides an assessment of the Planning Proposal and its relationship to the strategic planning framework (i.e. Metropolitan Strategy and draft Sub-Regional Strategy, State Environmental Planning Policies, Ministerial Directions and Council?s Strategic Plan).

~??????? Part 4:??? Sets out the proposed community consultation to be undertaken on the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

~??????? Part 5:??? Outlines the land proposed to be reclassified from ?community? land to ?operational? land as part of the Planning Proposal.? This land is also described in Schedule 4 of draft Penrith LEP 2012.

 

This report deals with the suburb of St Marys (the City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

 

Generally, the approach taken in preparing the proposed zones and provisions in the Planning Proposal has been to translate existing planning controls and, where appropriate, to implement the policy directions of the draft Urban Strategy.

 

A number of appendices form part of the Planning Proposal.? These provide background information, objectives and justification for the rezoning of key sites and precincts such as Riverlink and the South Creek ?Corridor Lands?. Maps containing relevant details including land use zones, building heights, floor space ratios (FSRs), subdivision and flood prone land, have also been prepared as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

Whilst not normally required as part of a Planning Proposal, the Department of Planning has agreed to Council including a notional draft LEP instrument (draft Penrith LEP 2012) to assist the community in understanding how the Planning Proposal may appear in a future formal instrument.

 

In draft Penrith LEP 2012, provisions relating to sustainable development, salinity, flooding, biodiversity corridors, and scenic character which were included in Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) have been applied, where relevant, to the urban areas of the City.

 

Consistent with the required format, clauses and appearing in:

~??????? black are set by the SI for LEPs, and cannot be varied by Council. These clauses are compulsory, and the title of the clause must be included in the plan, even if the clause itself does not apply to Penrith.

~??????? red have been developed by Council. Submissions or comments on clauses in red text can be considered by Council and the community as part of the exhibition of this Planning Proposal.

~??????? green are part of the gazetted or draft LEPs and which have been incorporated unchanged into the LEP.? No further agency or community consultation is proposed in relation to these parts of the Planning Proposal.

 

It is proposed to exhibit draft Penrith LEP 2012 as a part of the Planning Proposal.

 

A summary of the approach taken in developing the Planning Proposal is provided below.

 

1.?????? Residential and commercial/retail land

The Planning Proposal primarily covers the City?s residential areas (new and established), and local/neighbourhood centres.? Preparing the Planning Proposal has involved reviewing all of the existing planning instruments that apply to Penrith?s urban lands and local centres, including LEP 1998, LEP 188, Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance (PPSO) and various Interim Development Orders (IDOs).? These instruments have been assessed against the SI template and where issues were not adequately covered, additional provisions have been developed.

 

For the most part, the planning process for the established residential areas and local/ neighbourhood centres that are not identified for growth in the next 5 years has involved a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the SI template. In the areas where some growth opportunities have been identified, new planning controls have been developed to protect the character and amenity of the areas.

 

The Planning Proposal will bring forward the first 5 years of anticipated urban growth for the City.? This growth will be delivered through development within the release areas, the Penrith City Centre and Kingswood (which is defined in the draft Urban Strategy as a Specialised Centre). This builds on the additional residential opportunities in the St Marys Town Centre, which were zoned as part of the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

 

In relation to the residential areas, a change is proposed to the current 2(c) residential zone under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) which permits villas with a single storey appearance.? The SI template does not differentiate between villas and townhouses. The Planning Proposal therefore allows town houses and villas in these areas, to a maximum height of 2 storeys.? To assist in ensuring the streetscape character and amenity of adjoining residences is maintained, the minimum lot width for multi dwelling housing will be investigated and included in the design planning controls in the DCP.

 

The proposed ?business? zones reflect the Council?s adopted ?Centres Hierarchy? for the City, which underpins the draft Urban Strategy. Local centres that have been identified as having some medium to long term growth in the draft Urban Strategy will be progressively zoned in future amendments to Penrith LEP 2012. A summary of how the residential and business zones have been applied in the City?s established areas is provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

 

2.?????? Release areas

The approach proposed for integrating the current release area planning controls within the Planning Proposal is outlined below.

~??????? The three ?stand-alone? SI LEPs (Caddens, South Werrington Urban Village, and Glenmore Park Stage 2) will be included into draft Penrith LEP 2012.? No change is proposed to the planning controls applying to these release areas

~??????? For the four existing release area LEPs (Claremont Meadows Stage 2, Werrington Mixed Use Area and Waterside) an equivalent zone under the SI LEP has been applied and included in draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? The UWS lands and Werrington Enterprise Park, which are part of the WELL Precinct and currently zoned under LEP 1998 (Urban Land), will be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with zones consistent with the adopted WELL Concept Plan.? The North Werrington (Victoria Street) site, which is currently zoned under the PPSO and land in South Werrington, currently zoned under IDO 93, are also included

~??????? The Riverlink Precinct, which is currently zoned under various planning instruments, is included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with the proposed zones culminating from the additional studies undertaken for this precinct, and the adopted Riverlink Precinct Plan

~??????? In Waterside, the part of the site currently zoned 2(h) Residential Services under Penrith LEP 1998 (Lakes Environs) is proposed to be rezoned R1 General Residential to facilitate residential development on the land.

 

3.?????? Site-specific rezonings and key precincts

Council has received a number of site-specific rezoning proposals.? A number of these are complex and have required additional studies and assessment.? Further details relating to the studies and justification for each rezoning is provided as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

4.?????? Deferred Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) areas and amendments

Consideration of the submissions to Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) led to a number of areas and sites being deferred for further review and consideration.? These areas have been included in the Planning Proposal. Where the deferred area is still under investigation, a specific zone has not yet been applied.? The zones will be finalised as the Planning Proposal progresses through the Gateway processes.? Details on the deferred areas are included in the Planning Proposal.

Consultation Program

Council is required to consult with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats prior to the Planning Proposal being placed on public exhibition.? In January 2006, Council consulted extensively with agencies and adjoining councils in preparing the comprehensive LEP for the City.? The range of agencies consulted during that process is outlined in the Planning Proposal. Given the previous extent of consultation it is proposed that further agency consultations, if required, are undertaken concurrently with the exhibition of the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012.

 

The Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition after receiving a ?Gateway Determination? from the Department of Planning that the LEP process may proceed, and endorsement that community consultation may be undertaken.? The draft consultation program is detailed in Part 4 of the Planning Proposal. Ordinarily, the maximum timeframe stipulated by the Minister for a Planning Proposal of this nature is 28 days. However it is recommended that the Planning Proposal should be placed on exhibition for 8 weeks.? It should be noted, however, that it is now the Minister who determines the timeframe and form of community consultation, as part of the Gateway Determination.

Next Steps

Following endorsement by Council to proceed with the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2), the following steps will occur in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

1.????? Council will forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning, seeking a ?Gateway Determination? and authorisation that the LEP plan making process may proceed.

2.????? Council officers will liaise with the Department of Planning and negotiate any changes sought by the Department in the lead up to the Gateway determination.

3.????? Council will undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.? The Planning Proposal may be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW.

4.????? Council will seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited.

5.????? It is proposed to exhibit the Planning Proposal and draft Penrith LEP 2012 for 8 weeks. Agency consultations may be undertaken concurrently with the exhibition.? The Minister now determines the timeframes and form of the public exhibition.

6.????? A public hearing will be held after the conclusion of the public exhibition in relation to the proposed reclassification of public land.

7.????? Submissions to the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) exhibition and public hearing will be reviewed, and recommendations prepared for Council?s consideration.? The Planning Proposal may be varied or amended to address issues raised in submissions where it is consistent with Council?s agreed policy directions.

8.????? The Planning Proposal will be presented to Council for endorsement and then forwarded to the Minister of Planning to make the LEP.

 

It should be emphasised that the resolution sought from Council represent only the beginning of the LEP process. It is likely that the draft Planning Proposal will go through the Gateway process at least twice, to ensure that all appropriate studies and consultations have been completed prior to public exhibition.

 

During these processes, minor amendments to the draft Planning Proposal will continue to be made. These minor changes may result from further consultations (such as with relevant government agencies), directions or suggestions from the DoP or additional technical information, that subsequently affect draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

 

There are a number of issues where further studies or consultation is required.? The outcomes of these processes, together with any other proposed amendments that are significant or not consistent with Council?s planning intent and policy positions will be reported to Council for its consideration.

 

Tonight?s recommendations seek to initiate the new planning process for the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).? Under the new legislation Council must endorse the whole process, including seeking approval to exhibit the Planning Proposal.? Over the coming months, however, there will still be further opportunities for Council to consider changes to the Planning Proposal prior to exhibition.

 

It is important to note that while the initial Planning Proposal, once submitted to the Department of Planning will be placed on its website (and on Council?s), submissions and representations from the community are not sought and will not be considered until the commencement of the formal public exhibition process.

Conclusion

For some years, it has been Council?s goal to replace the myriad of environmental planning instruments that apply across the City with one single LEP.? This will assist in making planning information more accessible to residents, developers, business owners, community groups and staff.

 

In March 1960, the Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance provided a zoning plan for the whole City.? The tabled Planning Proposal advances Council?s goal of again achieving a single City-wide Local Environmental Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Application of the Residential and Business Zones

3 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Application of the Residential and Business Zones

 

 

 

Attachment 1:

 

Application/Translation of Residential Zones

 

Current instrument / zone

Suburbs

Proposed zone draft LEP 2012

New urban release areas

Caddens, Glenmore Park (Stage 2), North Penrith Urban Area, South Werrington Urban Village, Waterside.

R1 General Residential

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(a1) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection ? Emu Plains)

?????? 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection)

?????? 2(b) Residential (Low Density)

Cambridge Gardens, Cambridge Park, Claremont Meadows, Cranebrook (excluding Department of Housing Land), Emu Heights, Emu Plains, Erskine Park, Leonay, North St Marys, Regentville, South Penrith, St Clair, St Marys, Werrington County and Werrington Downs, parts of Jamisontown, Kingswood, Penrith, St Marys and Werrington.

The R2 zone will also be applied to parts of the following release areas: Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), Glenmore Park (Stage 2), and South Werrington Urban Village.

R2 Low Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

?????? 2(d) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

Parts of Kingswood and Werrington (near western railway corridor), St Marys, Oxley Park, Jamisontown, Cambridge Park (near park and local centre), Penrith (periphery of City Centre), Kingswood, Glenmore Park (limited areas), South Penrith (Maxwell Street) and Emu Plains (near the Lennox Shopping Centre).

 

The R3 zone will be applied to parts of the following release areas:? Caddens, Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), South Werrington Urban Village and Werrington Mixed Use Area.

R3 Medium Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(e) Residential (Medium-High Density)

Residential areas on the fringe of the Penrith City Centre currently zoned 2(e) Residential (Medium- High Density) under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land).? This zone has also been applied to the Parkview property in the Penrith City Centre.

Parts of Jamisontown, Penrith, Kingswood, St Marys and Werrington.

 

 

R4 High Density

Penrith LEP 188:

?????? Zone No. 2 (Urban Zone)

Glenmore Park

R2 Low Density

R3 Medium Density


Application/Translation of Business Zones

 


Local Centre

Proposed zone(s)
draft Penrith LEP 2012

?????? North St Marys shops

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

?????? Smith Street shops, South Penrith

?????? Cambridge Park shops

?????? Monfarville Street Shops, St Marys

?????? Corner Carpenter Street and Day Street shops, Colyton

?????? Hewitt Street shops, Colyton

?????? Melville Street shops, St Clair

?????? Emu Heights shops

?????? Leonay shops

?????? Corner Sydney Street and Brisbane Street shops, Oxley Park

?????? Sheppard Road Shops, Emu Plains

?????? Stafford Street shops, Penrith

?????? Shops on The Crescent Penrith

?????? Boronia Road shops North St Marys

?????? Cooks Parade, St Clair

?????? Werrington Station

B2 Local Centre

?????? Claremont Meadows

?????? Cranebrook

?????? Emu Plains (Station)

?????? Emu Plains (Lennox Centre)

?????? Erskine Park

?????? Glenmore Park

?????? St Clair

?????? South Penrith (Southlands)

?????? Release Areas

-???? Caddens

-???? Glenmore Park Stage 2

-???? North Penrith Urban Area

?????? Kingswood

B4 Mixed Use

B6 Enterprise Corridor

?????? Penrith City Centre and surrounds

B3 Commercial Core

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? St Marys Town Centre and surrounds

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? Mulgoa Road bulky goods and Homemaker Centre

B5 Business Development

 

?????? Highway service centres

-???? Cambridge Park (Star Court)

-???? Corner Banks Drive and Mamre Road, St Clair

-???? Corner Mamre Road and Wilson Street, St Marys

-???? Aspen Street, South Penrith (includes Pioneer Tavern, KFC and John Cootes Furniture)

-???? Areas along Great Western Highway corridor

-???? Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows

-???? Corner Great Western Highway / Roper Road, Colyton

-???? Victoria Street, Werrington

B6 Enterprise Corridor

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

5

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

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Abdul Cheema, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

???????

 

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

 

Executive Summary

?? Over the past few years Council has been working towards implementing a comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Penrith in 2 stages. Stage 1 (Penrith LEP 2010) generally covered the rural areas, industrial areas, heritage items and the St Marys Town Centre. Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

?? Stage 2 (Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012) generally covers all residential areas (except St Marys Release Area) and local retail/commercial centres. Due to the planning reforms, the preparation of Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) will proceed as a Planning Proposal through the DoP?s new gateway process.

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Planning Proposal) will, in most cases, be based on a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the State Government?s Standard Instrument, especially for the established residential areas and local/neighbourhood centres which are not identified for growth in the next 5 years.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of site-specific ?rezoning? proposals, ?deferred? matters from the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a change in zone is proposed.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of adopted or gazetted LEPs.? These include the release areas LEPs (Glenmore Park Stage 2, South Werrington Urban Village and Caddens), the Penrith City Centre LEP 2008, Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation). As these plans have already been subject to extensive agency and community consultation, and have been endorsed by Council, further consultation on these elements of draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) is not proposed.

?? This report deals with the suburb of Kingswood (The City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

?? This report seeks Council?s endorsement to forward the tabled draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 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).

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 will be tabled at tonight?s meeting and a copy is available on council?s website.

Background

Council has been undertaking a major planning exercise to prepare a new Citywide LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP), in accordance with the planning reform agenda set by the State Government. The new Citywide LEP must comply with the standard LEP template, known as the Standard Instrument (SI).

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 October 2005, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive LEP for the City, which has been brought forward in 2 stages as follows:

~????? Stage 1 generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas, St Marys Town Centre and heritage items.? Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

~????? Stage 2 primarily covers the residential, local/neighbourhood centres, and release areas.? Stage 2, known as Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 also incorporates a number of site specific rezoning proposals, and the following adopted or gazetted LEPs which have been based on the Standard Instrument (SI) LEP:

?? Penrith City Centre LEP 2008

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Glenmore Park Stage 2

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? South Werrington Urban Village

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Caddens

?? Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation)

?? Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

Planning Proposal - Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2)

Council was briefed in detail on various aspects of the Planning Proposal in June/July of this year. The Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning Guidelines: ?A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans? and ?A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals?.? A Planning Proposal is a document which explains the intended effect of a proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and sets out the justification for making that plan.? The Planning Proposal is comprised of five parts:

~??????? Part 1:??? Sets out the objectives and intended outcomes of draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? Part 2:??? Explains the provisions to be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012, including the details pertaining to any additional local provisions.? This part of the Planning Proposal also describes the areas in the City where a change in the current zone and/or planning controls is proposed.? In summary these are:

?? areas recommended for growth in the next 5 years in the draft Urban Strategy, or which are consistent with Council?s policy directions

?? site-specific rezoning proposals and key precincts

?? deferred areas and areas needing reconsideration from Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1)

?? amendments to existing Environmental Planning Instruments.

~??????? Part 3:??? Provides the justification for the Planning Proposal, particularly in relation to the areas of the City where a change in zone and/or planning controls are proposed. This part provides an assessment of the Planning Proposal and its relationship to the strategic planning framework (i.e. Metropolitan Strategy and draft Sub-Regional Strategy, State Environmental Planning Policies, Ministerial Directions and Council?s Strategic Plan).

~??????? Part 4:??? Sets out the proposed community consultation to be undertaken on the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

~??????? Part 5:??? Outlines the land proposed to be reclassified from ?community? land to ?operational? land as part of the Planning Proposal.? This land is also described in Schedule 4 of draft Penrith LEP 2012.

 

This report deals with the suburb of Kingswood (The City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

 

Generally, the approach taken in preparing the proposed zones and provisions in the Planning Proposal has been to translate existing planning controls and, where appropriate, to implement the policy directions of the draft Urban Strategy.

 

A number of appendices form part of the Planning Proposal.? These provide background information, objectives and justification for the rezoning of key sites and precincts such as Riverlink and the South Creek ?Corridor Lands?. Maps containing relevant details including land use zones, building heights, floor space ratios (FSRs), subdivision and flood prone land, have also been prepared as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

Whilst not normally required as part of a Planning Proposal, the Department of Planning has agreed to Council including a notional draft LEP instrument (draft Penrith LEP 2012) to assist the community in understanding how the Planning Proposal may appear in a future formal instrument.

 

In draft Penrith LEP 2012, provisions relating to sustainable development, salinity, flooding, biodiversity corridors, and scenic character which were included in Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) have been applied, where relevant, to the urban areas of the City.

 

Consistent with the required format, clauses and appearing in:

~??????? black are set by the SI for LEPs, and cannot be varied by Council. These clauses are compulsory, and the title of the clause must be included in the plan, even if the clause itself does not apply to Penrith.

~??????? red have been developed by Council. Submissions or comments on clauses in red text can be considered by Council and the community as part of the exhibition of this Planning Proposal.

~??????? green are part of the gazetted or draft LEPs and which have been incorporated unchanged into the LEP.? No further agency or community consultation is proposed in relation to these parts of the Planning Proposal.

 

It is proposed to exhibit draft Penrith LEP 2012 as a part of the Planning Proposal.

 

A summary of the approach taken in developing the Planning Proposal is provided below.

 

1.?????? Residential and commercial/retail land

The Planning Proposal primarily covers the City?s residential areas (new and established), and local/neighbourhood centres.? Preparing the Planning Proposal has involved reviewing all of the existing planning instruments that apply to Penrith?s urban lands and local centres, including LEP 1998, LEP 188, Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance (PPSO) and various Interim Development Orders (IDOs).? These instruments have been assessed against the SI template and where issues were not adequately covered, additional provisions have been developed.

 

For the most part, the planning process for the established residential areas and local/ neighbourhood centres that are not identified for growth in the next 5 years has involved a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the SI template. In the areas where some growth opportunities have been identified, new planning controls have been developed to protect the character and amenity of the areas.

 

The Planning Proposal will bring forward the first 5 years of anticipated urban growth for the City.? This growth will be delivered through development within the release areas, the Penrith City Centre and Kingswood (which is defined in the draft Urban Strategy as a Specialised Centre). This builds on the additional residential opportunities in the St Marys Town Centre, which were zoned as part of the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

 

In relation to the residential areas, a change is proposed to the current 2(c) residential zone under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) which permits villas with a single storey appearance.? The SI template does not differentiate between villas and townhouses. The Planning Proposal therefore allows town houses and villas in these areas, to a maximum height of 2 storeys.? To assist in ensuring the streetscape character and amenity of adjoining residences is maintained, the minimum lot width for multi dwelling housing will be investigated and included in the design planning controls in the DCP.

 

The proposed ?business? zones reflect the Council?s adopted ?Centres Hierarchy? for the City, which underpins the draft Urban Strategy. Local centres that have been identified as having some medium to long term growth in the draft Urban Strategy will be progressively zoned in future amendments to Penrith LEP 2012. A summary of how the residential and business zones have been applied in the City?s established areas is provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

 

2.?????? Release areas

The approach proposed for integrating the current release area planning controls within the Planning Proposal is outlined below.

~??????? The three ?stand-alone? SI LEPs (Caddens, South Werrington Urban Village, and Glenmore Park Stage 2) will be included into draft Penrith LEP 2012.? No change is proposed to the planning controls applying to these release areas

~??????? For the four existing release area LEPs (Claremont Meadows Stage 2, Werrington Mixed Use Area and Waterside) an equivalent zone under the SI LEP has been applied and included in draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? The UWS lands and Werrington Enterprise Park, which are part of the WELL Precinct and currently zoned under LEP 1998 (Urban Land), will be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with zones consistent with the adopted WELL Concept Plan.? The North Werrington (Victoria Street) site, which is currently zoned under the PPSO and land in South Werrington, currently zoned under IDO 93, are also included

~??????? The Riverlink Precinct, which is currently zoned under various planning instruments, is included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with the proposed zones culminating from the additional studies undertaken for this precinct, and the adopted Riverlink Precinct Plan

~??????? In Waterside, the part of the site currently zoned 2(h) Residential Services under Penrith LEP 1998 (Lakes Environs) is proposed to be rezoned R1 General Residential to facilitate residential development on the land.

 

3.?????? Site-specific rezonings and key precincts

Council has received a number of site-specific rezoning proposals.? A number of these are complex and have required additional studies and assessment.? Further details relating to the studies and justification for each rezoning is provided as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

4.?????? Deferred Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) areas and amendments

Consideration of the submissions to Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) led to a number of areas and sites being deferred for further review and consideration.? These areas have been included in the Planning Proposal. Where the deferred area is still under investigation, a specific zone has not yet been applied.? The zones will be finalised as the Planning Proposal progresses through the Gateway processes.? Details on the deferred areas are included in the Planning Proposal.

Consultation Program

Council is required to consult with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats prior to the Planning Proposal being placed on public exhibition.? In January 2006, Council consulted extensively with agencies and adjoining councils in preparing the comprehensive LEP for the City.? The range of agencies consulted during that process is outlined in the Planning Proposal. Given the previous extent of consultation it is proposed that further agency consultations, if required, are undertaken concurrently with the exhibition of the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012.

 

The Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition after receiving a ?Gateway Determination? from the Department of Planning that the LEP process may proceed, and endorsement that community consultation may be undertaken.? The draft consultation program is detailed in Part 4 of the Planning Proposal. Ordinarily, the maximum timeframe stipulated by the Minister for a Planning Proposal of this nature is 28 days. However it is recommended that the Planning Proposal should be placed on exhibition for 8 weeks.? It should be noted, however, that it is now the Minister who determines the timeframe and form of community consultation, as part of the Gateway Determination.

Next Steps

Following endorsement by Council to proceed with the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2), the following steps will occur in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

1.????? Council will forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning, seeking a ?Gateway Determination? and authorisation that the LEP plan making process may proceed.

2.????? Council officers will liaise with the Department of Planning and negotiate any changes sought by the Department in the lead up to the Gateway determination.

3.????? Council will undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.? The Planning Proposal may be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW.

4.????? Council will seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited.

5.????? It is proposed to exhibit the Planning Proposal and draft Penrith LEP 2012 for 8 weeks. Agency consultations may be undertaken concurrently with the exhibition.? The Minister now determines the timeframes and form of the public exhibition.

6.????? A public hearing will be held after the conclusion of the public exhibition in relation to the proposed reclassification of public land.

7.????? Submissions to the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) exhibition and public hearing will be reviewed, and recommendations prepared for Council?s consideration.? The Planning Proposal may be varied or amended to address issues raised in submissions where it is consistent with Council?s agreed policy directions.

8.????? The Planning Proposal will be presented to Council for endorsement and then forwarded to the Minister of Planning to make the LEP.

 

It should be emphasised that the resolution sought from Council represent only the beginning of the LEP process. It is likely that the draft Planning Proposal will go through the Gateway process at least twice, to ensure that all appropriate studies and consultations have been completed prior to public exhibition.

 

During these processes, minor amendments to the draft Planning Proposal will continue to be made. These minor changes may result from further consultations (such as with relevant government agencies), directions or suggestions from the DoP or additional technical information, that subsequently affect draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

 

There are a number of issues where further studies or consultation is required.? The outcomes of these processes, together with any other proposed amendments that are significant or not consistent with Council?s planning intent and policy positions will be reported to Council for its consideration.

 

Tonight?s recommendations seek to initiate the new planning process for the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).? Under the new legislation Council must endorse the whole process, including seeking approval to exhibit the Planning Proposal.? Over the coming months, however, there will still be further opportunities for Council to consider changes to the Planning Proposal prior to exhibition.

 

It is important to note that while the initial Planning Proposal, once submitted to the Department of Planning will be placed on its website (and on Council?s), submissions and representations from the community are not sought and will not be considered until the commencement of the formal public exhibition process.

Conclusion

For some years, it has been Council?s goal to replace the myriad of environmental planning instruments that apply across the City with one single LEP.? This will assist in making planning information more accessible to residents, developers, business owners, community groups and staff.

 

In March 1960, the Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance provided a zoning plan for the whole City.? The tabled Planning Proposal advances Council?s goal of again achieving a single City-wide Local Environmental Plan.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Application of the Residential and Business Zones

3 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Application of the Residential and Business Zones

 

 

 

Attachment 1:

 

Application/Translation of Residential Zones

 

Current instrument / zone

Suburbs

Proposed zone draft LEP 2012

New urban release areas

Caddens, Glenmore Park (Stage 2), North Penrith Urban Area, South Werrington Urban Village, Waterside.

R1 General Residential

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(a1) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection ? Emu Plains)

?????? 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection)

?????? 2(b) Residential (Low Density)

Cambridge Gardens, Cambridge Park, Claremont Meadows, Cranebrook (excluding Department of Housing Land), Emu Heights, Emu Plains, Erskine Park, Leonay, North St Marys, Regentville, South Penrith, St Clair, St Marys, Werrington County and Werrington Downs, parts of Jamisontown, Kingswood, Penrith, St Marys and Werrington.

The R2 zone will also be applied to parts of the following release areas: Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), Glenmore Park (Stage 2), and South Werrington Urban Village.

R2 Low Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

?????? 2(d) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

Parts of Kingswood and Werrington (near western railway corridor), St Marys, Oxley Park, Jamisontown, Cambridge Park (near park and local centre), Penrith (periphery of City Centre), Kingswood, Glenmore Park (limited areas), South Penrith (Maxwell Street) and Emu Plains (near the Lennox Shopping Centre).

 

The R3 zone will be applied to parts of the following release areas:? Caddens, Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), South Werrington Urban Village and Werrington Mixed Use Area.

R3 Medium Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(e) Residential (Medium-High Density)

Residential areas on the fringe of the Penrith City Centre currently zoned 2(e) Residential (Medium- High Density) under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land).? This zone has also been applied to the Parkview property in the Penrith City Centre.

Parts of Jamisontown, Penrith, Kingswood, St Marys and Werrington.

 

 

R4 High Density

Penrith LEP 188:

?????? Zone No. 2 (Urban Zone)

Glenmore Park

R2 Low Density

R3 Medium Density


Application/Translation of Business Zones

 


Local Centre

Proposed zone(s)
draft Penrith LEP 2012

?????? North St Marys shops

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

?????? Smith Street shops, South Penrith

?????? Cambridge Park shops

?????? Monfarville Street Shops, St Marys

?????? Corner Carpenter Street and Day Street shops, Colyton

?????? Hewitt Street shops, Colyton

?????? Melville Street shops, St Clair

?????? Emu Heights shops

?????? Leonay shops

?????? Corner Sydney Street and Brisbane Street shops, Oxley Park

?????? Sheppard Road Shops, Emu Plains

?????? Stafford Street shops, Penrith

?????? Shops on The Crescent Penrith

?????? Boronia Road shops North St Marys

?????? Cooks Parade, St Clair

?????? Werrington Station

B2 Local Centre

?????? Claremont Meadows

?????? Cranebrook

?????? Emu Plains (Station)

?????? Emu Plains (Lennox Centre)

?????? Erskine Park

?????? Glenmore Park

?????? St Clair

?????? South Penrith (Southlands)

?????? Release Areas

-???? Caddens

-???? Glenmore Park Stage 2

-???? North Penrith Urban Area

?????? Kingswood

B4 Mixed Use

B6 Enterprise Corridor

?????? Penrith City Centre and surrounds

B3 Commercial Core

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? St Marys Town Centre and surrounds

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? Mulgoa Road bulky goods and Homemaker Centre

B5 Business Development

 

?????? Highway service centres

-???? Cambridge Park (Star Court)

-???? Corner Banks Drive and Mamre Road, St Clair

-???? Corner Mamre Road and Wilson Street, St Marys

-???? Aspen Street, South Penrith (includes Pioneer Tavern, KFC and John Cootes Furniture)

-???? Areas along Great Western Highway corridor

-???? Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows

-???? Corner Great Western Highway / Roper Road, Colyton

-???? Victoria Street, Werrington

B6 Enterprise Corridor

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

6

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

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Abdul Cheema, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

?? Over the past few years Council has been working towards implementing a comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Penrith in 2 stages. Stage 1 (Penrith LEP 2010) generally covered the rural areas, industrial areas, heritage items and the St Marys Town Centre. Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

?? Stage 2 (Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012) generally covers all residential areas (except St Marys Release Area) and local retail/commercial centres. Due to the planning reforms, the preparation of Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) will proceed as a Planning Proposal through the DoP?s new gateway process.

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Planning Proposal) will, in most cases, be based on a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the State Government?s Standard Instrument, especially for the established residential areas and local/neighbourhood centres which are not identified for growth in the next 5 years.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of site-specific ?rezoning? proposals, ?deferred? matters from the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a change in zone is proposed.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of adopted or gazetted LEPs.? These include the release areas LEPs (Glenmore Park Stage 2, South Werrington Urban Village and Caddens), the Penrith City Centre LEP 2008, Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation). As these plans have already been subject to extensive agency and community consultation, and have been endorsed by Council, further consultation on these elements of draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) is not proposed.

?? This report deals with the suburbs of Leonay and Glenmore Park (The City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

?? This report seeks Council?s endorsement to forward the tabled draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 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).

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 will be tabled at tonight?s meeting and a copy is available on council?s website.

Background

Council has been undertaking a major planning exercise to prepare a new Citywide LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP), in accordance with the planning reform agenda set by the State Government. The new Citywide LEP must comply with the standard LEP template, known as the Standard Instrument (SI).

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 October 2005, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive LEP for the City, which has been brought forward in 2 stages as follows:

~????? Stage 1 generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas, St Marys Town Centre and heritage items.? Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

~????? Stage 2 primarily covers the residential, local/neighbourhood centres, and release areas.? Stage 2, known as Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 also incorporates a number of site specific rezoning proposals, and the following adopted or gazetted LEPs which have been based on the Standard Instrument (SI) LEP:

?? Penrith City Centre LEP 2008

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Glenmore Park Stage 2

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? South Werrington Urban Village

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Caddens

?? Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation)

?? Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

Planning Proposal - Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2)

Council was briefed in detail on various aspects of the Planning Proposal in June/July of this year. The Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning Guidelines: ?A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans? and ?A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals?.? A Planning Proposal is a document which explains the intended effect of a proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and sets out the justification for making that plan.? The Planning Proposal is comprised of five parts:

~??????? Part 1:??? Sets out the objectives and intended outcomes of draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? Part 2:??? Explains the provisions to be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012, including the details pertaining to any additional local provisions.? This part of the Planning Proposal also describes the areas in the City where a change in the current zone and/or planning controls is proposed.? In summary these are:

?? areas recommended for growth in the next 5 years in the draft Urban Strategy, or which are consistent with Council?s policy directions

?? site-specific rezoning proposals and key precincts

?? deferred areas and areas needing reconsideration from Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1)

?? amendments to existing Environmental Planning Instruments.

~??????? Part 3:??? Provides the justification for the Planning Proposal, particularly in relation to the areas of the City where a change in zone and/or planning controls are proposed. This part provides an assessment of the Planning Proposal and its relationship to the strategic planning framework (i.e. Metropolitan Strategy and draft Sub-Regional Strategy, State Environmental Planning Policies, Ministerial Directions and Council?s Strategic Plan).

~??????? Part 4:??? Sets out the proposed community consultation to be undertaken on the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

~??????? Part 5:??? Outlines the land proposed to be reclassified from ?community? land to ?operational? land as part of the Planning Proposal.? This land is also described in Schedule 4 of draft Penrith LEP 2012.

 

This report deals with the suburbs of Leonay and Glenmore Park (The City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

 

Generally, the approach taken in preparing the proposed zones and provisions in the Planning Proposal has been to translate existing planning controls and, where appropriate, to implement the policy directions of the draft Urban Strategy.

 

A number of appendices form part of the Planning Proposal.? These provide background information, objectives and justification for the rezoning of key sites and precincts such as Riverlink and the South Creek ?Corridor Lands?. Maps containing relevant details including land use zones, building heights, floor space ratios (FSRs), subdivision and flood prone land, have also been prepared as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

Whilst not normally required as part of a Planning Proposal, the Department of Planning has agreed to Council including a notional draft LEP instrument (draft Penrith LEP 2012) to assist the community in understanding how the Planning Proposal may appear in a future formal instrument.

 

In draft Penrith LEP 2012, provisions relating to sustainable development, salinity, flooding, biodiversity corridors, and scenic character which were included in Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) have been applied, where relevant, to the urban areas of the City.

 

Consistent with the required format, clauses and appearing in:

~??????? black are set by the SI for LEPs, and cannot be varied by Council. These clauses are compulsory, and the title of the clause must be included in the plan, even if the clause itself does not apply to Penrith.

~??????? red have been developed by Council. Submissions or comments on clauses in red text can be considered by Council and the community as part of the exhibition of this Planning Proposal.

~??????? green are part of the gazetted or draft LEPs and which have been incorporated unchanged into the LEP.? No further agency or community consultation is proposed in relation to these parts of the Planning Proposal.

 

It is proposed to exhibit draft Penrith LEP 2012 as a part of the Planning Proposal.

 

A summary of the approach taken in developing the Planning Proposal is provided below.

 

1.?????? Residential and commercial/retail land

The Planning Proposal primarily covers the City?s residential areas (new and established), and local/neighbourhood centres.? Preparing the Planning Proposal has involved reviewing all of the existing planning instruments that apply to Penrith?s urban lands and local centres, including LEP 1998, LEP 188, Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance (PPSO) and various Interim Development Orders (IDOs).? These instruments have been assessed against the SI template and where issues were not adequately covered, additional provisions have been developed.

 

For the most part, the planning process for the established residential areas and local/ neighbourhood centres that are not identified for growth in the next 5 years has involved a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the SI template. In the areas where some growth opportunities have been identified, new planning controls have been developed to protect the character and amenity of the areas.

 

The Planning Proposal will bring forward the first 5 years of anticipated urban growth for the City.? This growth will be delivered through development within the release areas, the Penrith City Centre and Kingswood (which is defined in the draft Urban Strategy as a Specialised Centre). This builds on the additional residential opportunities in the St Marys Town Centre, which were zoned as part of the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

 

In relation to the residential areas, a change is proposed to the current 2(c) residential zone under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) which permits villas with a single storey appearance.? The SI template does not differentiate between villas and townhouses. The Planning Proposal therefore allows town houses and villas in these areas, to a maximum height of 2 storeys.? To assist in ensuring the streetscape character and amenity of adjoining residences is maintained, the minimum lot width for multi dwelling housing will be investigated and included in the design planning controls in the DCP.

 

The proposed ?business? zones reflect the Council?s adopted ?Centres Hierarchy? for the City, which underpins the draft Urban Strategy. Local centres that have been identified as having some medium to long term growth in the draft Urban Strategy will be progressively zoned in future amendments to Penrith LEP 2012. A summary of how the residential and business zones have been applied in the City?s established areas is provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

 

2.?????? Release areas

The approach proposed for integrating the current release area planning controls within the Planning Proposal is outlined below.

~??????? The three ?stand-alone? SI LEPs (Caddens, South Werrington Urban Village, and Glenmore Park Stage 2) will be included into draft Penrith LEP 2012.? No change is proposed to the planning controls applying to these release areas

~??????? For the four existing release area LEPs (Claremont Meadows Stage 2, Werrington Mixed Use Area and Waterside) an equivalent zone under the SI LEP has been applied and included in draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? The UWS lands and Werrington Enterprise Park, which are part of the WELL Precinct and currently zoned under LEP 1998 (Urban Land), will be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with zones consistent with the adopted WELL Concept Plan.? The North Werrington (Victoria Street) site, which is currently zoned under the PPSO and land in South Werrington, currently zoned under IDO 93, are also included

~??????? The Riverlink Precinct, which is currently zoned under various planning instruments, is included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with the proposed zones culminating from the additional studies undertaken for this precinct, and the adopted Riverlink Precinct Plan

~??????? In Waterside, the part of the site currently zoned 2(h) Residential Services under Penrith LEP 1998 (Lakes Environs) is proposed to be rezoned R1 General Residential to facilitate residential development on the land.

 

3.?????? Site-specific rezonings and key precincts

Council has received a number of site-specific rezoning proposals.? A number of these are complex and have required additional studies and assessment.? Further details relating to the studies and justification for each rezoning is provided as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

4.?????? Deferred Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) areas and amendments

Consideration of the submissions to Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) led to a number of areas and sites being deferred for further review and consideration.? These areas have been included in the Planning Proposal. Where the deferred area is still under investigation, a specific zone has not yet been applied.? The zones will be finalised as the Planning Proposal progresses through the Gateway processes.? Details on the deferred areas are included in the Planning Proposal.

Consultation Program

Council is required to consult with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats prior to the Planning Proposal being placed on public exhibition.? In January 2006, Council consulted extensively with agencies and adjoining councils in preparing the comprehensive LEP for the City.? The range of agencies consulted during that process is outlined in the Planning Proposal. Given the previous extent of consultation it is proposed that further agency consultations, if required, are undertaken concurrently with the exhibition of the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012.

 

The Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition after receiving a ?Gateway Determination? from the Department of Planning that the LEP process may proceed, and endorsement that community consultation may be undertaken.? The draft consultation program is detailed in Part 4 of the Planning Proposal. Ordinarily, the maximum timeframe stipulated by the Minister for a Planning Proposal of this nature is 28 days. However it is recommended that the Planning Proposal should be placed on exhibition for 8 weeks.? It should be noted, however, that it is now the Minister who determines the timeframe and form of community consultation, as part of the Gateway Determination.

Next Steps

Following endorsement by Council to proceed with the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2), the following steps will occur in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

1.????? Council will forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning, seeking a ?Gateway Determination? and authorisation that the LEP plan making process may proceed.

2.????? Council officers will liaise with the Department of Planning and negotiate any changes sought by the Department in the lead up to the Gateway determination.

3.????? Council will undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.? The Planning Proposal may be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW.

4.????? Council will seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited.

5.????? It is proposed to exhibit the Planning Proposal and draft Penrith LEP 2012 for 8 weeks. Agency consultations may be undertaken concurrently with the exhibition.? The Minister now determines the timeframes and form of the public exhibition.

6.????? A public hearing will be held after the conclusion of the public exhibition in relation to the proposed reclassification of public land.

7.????? Submissions to the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) exhibition and public hearing will be reviewed, and recommendations prepared for Council?s consideration.? The Planning Proposal may be varied or amended to address issues raised in submissions where it is consistent with Council?s agreed policy directions.

8.????? The Planning Proposal will be presented to Council for endorsement and then forwarded to the Minister of Planning to make the LEP.

 

It should be emphasised that the resolution sought from Council represent only the beginning of the LEP process. It is likely that the draft Planning Proposal will go through the Gateway process at least twice, to ensure that all appropriate studies and consultations have been completed prior to public exhibition.

 

During these processes, minor amendments to the draft Planning Proposal will continue to be made. These minor changes may result from further consultations (such as with relevant government agencies), directions or suggestions from the DoP or additional technical information, that subsequently affect draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

 

There are a number of issues where further studies or consultation is required.? The outcomes of these processes, together with any other proposed amendments that are significant or not consistent with Council?s planning intent and policy positions will be reported to Council for its consideration.

 

Tonight?s recommendations seek to initiate the new planning process for the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).? Under the new legislation Council must endorse the whole process, including seeking approval to exhibit the Planning Proposal.? Over the coming months, however, there will still be further opportunities for Council to consider changes to the Planning Proposal prior to exhibition.

 

It is important to note that while the initial Planning Proposal, once submitted to the Department of Planning will be placed on its website (and on Council?s), submissions and representations from the community are not sought and will not be considered until the commencement of the formal public exhibition process.

Conclusion

For some years, it has been Council?s goal to replace the myriad of environmental planning instruments that apply across the City with one single LEP.? This will assist in making planning information more accessible to residents, developers, business owners, community groups and staff.

 

In March 1960, the Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance provided a zoning plan for the whole City.? The tabled Planning Proposal advances Council?s goal of again achieving a single City-wide Local Environmental Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Application of the Residential and Business Zones

3 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Application of the Residential and Business Zones

 

 

 

Attachment 1:

 

Application/Translation of Residential Zones

 

Current instrument / zone

Suburbs

Proposed zone draft LEP 2012

New urban release areas

Caddens, Glenmore Park (Stage 2), North Penrith Urban Area, South Werrington Urban Village, Waterside.

R1 General Residential

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(a1) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection ? Emu Plains)

?????? 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection)

?????? 2(b) Residential (Low Density)

Cambridge Gardens, Cambridge Park, Claremont Meadows, Cranebrook (excluding Department of Housing Land), Emu Heights, Emu Plains, Erskine Park, Leonay, North St Marys, Regentville, South Penrith, St Clair, St Marys, Werrington County and Werrington Downs, parts of Jamisontown, Kingswood, Penrith, St Marys and Werrington.

The R2 zone will also be applied to parts of the following release areas: Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), Glenmore Park (Stage 2), and South Werrington Urban Village.

R2 Low Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

?????? 2(d) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

Parts of Kingswood and Werrington (near western railway corridor), St Marys, Oxley Park, Jamisontown, Cambridge Park (near park and local centre), Penrith (periphery of City Centre), Kingswood, Glenmore Park (limited areas), South Penrith (Maxwell Street) and Emu Plains (near the Lennox Shopping Centre).

 

The R3 zone will be applied to parts of the following release areas:? Caddens, Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), South Werrington Urban Village and Werrington Mixed Use Area.

R3 Medium Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(e) Residential (Medium-High Density)

Residential areas on the fringe of the Penrith City Centre currently zoned 2(e) Residential (Medium- High Density) under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land).? This zone has also been applied to the Parkview property in the Penrith City Centre.

Parts of Jamisontown, Penrith, Kingswood, St Marys and Werrington.

 

 

R4 High Density

Penrith LEP 188:

?????? Zone No. 2 (Urban Zone)

Glenmore Park

R2 Low Density

R3 Medium Density


Application/Translation of Business Zones

 


Local Centre

Proposed zone(s)
draft Penrith LEP 2012

?????? North St Marys shops

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

?????? Smith Street shops, South Penrith

?????? Cambridge Park shops

?????? Monfarville Street Shops, St Marys

?????? Corner Carpenter Street and Day Street shops, Colyton

?????? Hewitt Street shops, Colyton

?????? Melville Street shops, St Clair

?????? Emu Heights shops

?????? Leonay shops

?????? Corner Sydney Street and Brisbane Street shops, Oxley Park

?????? Sheppard Road Shops, Emu Plains

?????? Stafford Street shops, Penrith

?????? Shops on The Crescent Penrith

?????? Boronia Road shops North St Marys

?????? Cooks Parade, St Clair

?????? Werrington Station

B2 Local Centre

?????? Claremont Meadows

?????? Cranebrook

?????? Emu Plains (Station)

?????? Emu Plains (Lennox Centre)

?????? Erskine Park

?????? Glenmore Park

?????? St Clair

?????? South Penrith (Southlands)

?????? Release Areas

-???? Caddens

-???? Glenmore Park Stage 2

-???? North Penrith Urban Area

?????? Kingswood

B4 Mixed Use

B6 Enterprise Corridor

?????? Penrith City Centre and surrounds

B3 Commercial Core

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? St Marys Town Centre and surrounds

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? Mulgoa Road bulky goods and Homemaker Centre

B5 Business Development

 

?????? Highway service centres

-???? Cambridge Park (Star Court)

-???? Corner Banks Drive and Mamre Road, St Clair

-???? Corner Mamre Road and Wilson Street, St Marys

-???? Aspen Street, South Penrith (includes Pioneer Tavern, KFC and John Cootes Furniture)

-???? Areas along Great Western Highway corridor

-???? Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows

-???? Corner Great Western Highway / Roper Road, Colyton

-???? Victoria Street, Werrington

B6 Enterprise Corridor

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Planning and Advocacy

 

 

 

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???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Abdul Cheema, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City?s future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

?? Over the past few years Council has been working towards implementing a comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Penrith in 2 stages. Stage 1 (Penrith LEP 2010) generally covered the rural areas, industrial areas, heritage items and the St Marys Town Centre. Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

?? Stage 2 (Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012) generally covers all residential areas (except St Marys Release Area) and local retail/commercial centres. Due to the planning reforms, the preparation of Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) will proceed as a Planning Proposal through the DoP?s new gateway process.

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Planning Proposal) will, in most cases, be based on a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the State Government?s Standard Instrument, especially for the established residential areas and local/neighbourhood centres which are not identified for growth in the next 5 years.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of site-specific ?rezoning? proposals, ?deferred? matters from the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a change in zone is proposed.

?? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of adopted or gazetted LEPs.? These include the release areas LEPs (Glenmore Park Stage 2, South Werrington Urban Village and Caddens), the Penrith City Centre LEP 2008, Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation). As these plans have already been subject to extensive agency and community consultation, and have been endorsed by Council, further consultation on these elements of draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) is not proposed.

?? This report deals with all the urban areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood (the City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

?? This report seeks Council?s endorsement to forward the tabled draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 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).

?? The Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 will be tabled at tonight?s meeting and a copy is available on council?s website.

Background

Council has been undertaking a major planning exercise to prepare a new Citywide LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP), in accordance with the planning reform agenda set by the State Government. The new Citywide LEP must comply with the standard LEP template, known as the Standard Instrument (SI).

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 October 2005, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive LEP for the City, which has been brought forward in 2 stages as follows:

~????? Stage 1 generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas, St Marys Town Centre and heritage items.? Stage 1 of the Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

~????? Stage 2 primarily covers the residential, local/neighbourhood centres, and release areas.? Stage 2, known as Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 also incorporates a number of site specific rezoning proposals, and the following adopted or gazetted LEPs which have been based on the Standard Instrument (SI) LEP:

?? Penrith City Centre LEP 2008

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Glenmore Park Stage 2

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? South Werrington Urban Village

?? Penrith LEP 2009 ? Caddens

?? Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation)

?? Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

Planning Proposal - Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2)

Council was briefed in detail on various aspects of the Planning Proposal in June/July of this year. The Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning Guidelines: ?A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans? and ?A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals?.? A Planning Proposal is a document which explains the intended effect of a proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and sets out the justification for making that plan.? The Planning Proposal is comprised of five parts:

~??????? Part 1:??? Sets out the objectives and intended outcomes of draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? Part 2:??? Explains the provisions to be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012, including the details pertaining to any additional local provisions.? This part of the Planning Proposal also describes the areas in the City where a change in the current zone and/or planning controls is proposed.? In summary these are:

?? areas recommended for growth in the next 5 years in the draft Urban Strategy, or which are consistent with Council?s policy directions

?? site-specific rezoning proposals and key precincts

?? deferred areas and areas needing reconsideration from Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1)

?? amendments to existing Environmental Planning Instruments.

~??????? Part 3:??? Provides the justification for the Planning Proposal, particularly in relation to the areas of the City where a change in zone and/or planning controls are proposed. This part provides an assessment of the Planning Proposal and its relationship to the strategic planning framework (i.e. Metropolitan Strategy and draft Sub-Regional Strategy, State Environmental Planning Policies, Ministerial Directions and Council?s Strategic Plan).

~??????? Part 4:??? Sets out the proposed community consultation to be undertaken on the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

~??????? Part 5:??? Outlines the land proposed to be reclassified from ?community? land to ?operational? land as part of the Planning Proposal.? This land is also described in Schedule 4 of draft Penrith LEP 2012.

 

This report deals with all the urban areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood (the City has been grouped into various suburbs to ensure a quorum for the consideration of this item is maintained in the meeting at all times).

 

Generally, the approach taken in preparing the proposed zones and provisions in the Planning Proposal has been to translate existing planning controls and, where appropriate, to implement the policy directions of the draft Urban Strategy.

 

A number of appendices form part of the Planning Proposal.? These provide background information, objectives and justification for the rezoning of key sites and precincts such as Riverlink and the South Creek ?Corridor Lands?. Maps containing relevant details including land use zones, building heights, floor space ratios (FSRs), subdivision and flood prone land, have also been prepared as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

Whilst not normally required as part of a Planning Proposal, the Department of Planning has agreed to Council including a notional draft LEP instrument (draft Penrith LEP 2012) to assist the community in understanding how the Planning Proposal may appear in a future formal instrument.

 

In draft Penrith LEP 2012, provisions relating to sustainable development, salinity, flooding, biodiversity corridors, and scenic character which were included in Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) have been applied, where relevant, to the urban areas of the City.

 

Consistent with the required format, clauses appearing in:

~??????? black are set by the SI for LEPs, and cannot be varied by Council. These clauses are compulsory, and the title of the clause must be included in the plan, even if the clause itself does not apply to Penrith.

~??????? red have been developed by Council. Submissions or comments on clauses in red text can be considered by Council and the community as part of the exhibition of this Planning Proposal.

~??????? green are part of the gazetted or draft LEPs and which have been incorporated unchanged into the LEP.? No further agency or community consultation is proposed in relation to these parts of the Planning Proposal.

 

It is proposed to exhibit draft Penrith LEP 2012 as a part of the Planning Proposal.

 

A summary of the approach taken in developing the Planning Proposal is provided below.

 

1.?????? Residential and commercial/retail land

The Planning Proposal primarily covers the City?s residential areas (new and established), and local/neighbourhood centres.? Preparing the Planning Proposal has involved reviewing all of the existing planning instruments that apply to Penrith?s urban lands and local centres, including LEP 1998, LEP 188, Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance (PPSO) and various Interim Development Orders (IDOs).? These instruments have been assessed against the SI template and where issues were not adequately covered, additional provisions have been developed.

 

For the most part, the planning process for the established residential areas and local/ neighbourhood centres that are not identified for growth in the next 5 years has involved a direct translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height, FSR etc) into the SI template. In the areas where some growth opportunities have been identified, new planning controls have been developed to protect the character and amenity of the areas.

 

The Planning Proposal will bring forward the first 5 years of anticipated urban growth for the City.? This growth will be delivered through development within the release areas, the Penrith City Centre and Kingswood (which is defined in the draft Urban Strategy as a Specialised Centre). This builds on the additional residential opportunities in the St Marys Town Centre, which were zoned as part of the Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1).

 

In relation to the residential areas, a change is proposed to the current 2(c) residential zone under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) which permits villas with a single storey appearance.? The SI template does not differentiate between villas and townhouses. The Planning Proposal therefore allows town houses and villas in these areas, to a maximum height of 2 storeys.? To assist in ensuring the streetscape character and amenity of adjoining residences is maintained, the minimum lot width for multi dwelling housing will be investigated and included in the design planning controls in the DCP.

 

The proposed ?business? zones reflect the Council?s adopted ?Centres Hierarchy? for the City, which underpins the draft Urban Strategy. Local centres that have been identified as having some medium to long term growth in the draft Urban Strategy will be progressively zoned in future amendments to Penrith LEP 2012. A summary of how the residential and business zones have been applied in the City?s established areas is provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

 

2.?????? Release areas

The approach proposed for integrating the current release area planning controls within the Planning Proposal is outlined below.

~??????? The three ?stand-alone? SI LEPs (Caddens, South Werrington Urban Village, and Glenmore Park Stage 2) will be included into draft Penrith LEP 2012.? No change is proposed to the planning controls applying to these release areas

~??????? For the four existing release area LEPs (Claremont Meadows Stage 2, Werrington Mixed Use Area and Waterside) an equivalent zone under the SI LEP has been applied and included in draft Penrith LEP 2012

~??????? The UWS lands and Werrington Enterprise Park, which are part of the WELL Precinct and currently zoned under LEP 1998 (Urban Land), will be included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with zones consistent with the adopted WELL Concept Plan.? The North Werrington (Victoria Street) site, which is currently zoned under the PPSO and land in South Werrington, currently zoned under IDO 93, are also included

~??????? The Riverlink Precinct, which is currently zoned under various planning instruments, is included in draft Penrith LEP 2012 with the proposed zones culminating from the additional studies undertaken for this precinct, and the adopted Riverlink Precinct Plan

~??????? In Waterside, the part of the site currently zoned 2(h) Residential Services under Penrith LEP 1998 (Lakes Environs) is proposed to be rezoned R1 General Residential to facilitate residential development on the land.

 

3.?????? Site-specific rezonings and key precincts

Council has received a number of site-specific rezoning proposals.? A number of these are complex and have required additional studies and assessment.? Further details relating to the studies and justification for each rezoning is provided as part of the Planning Proposal.

 

4.?????? Deferred Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) areas and amendments

Consideration of the submissions to Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1) led to a number of areas and sites being deferred for further review and consideration.? These areas have been included in the Planning Proposal. Where the deferred area is still under investigation, a specific zone has not yet been applied.? The zones will be finalised as the Planning Proposal progresses through the Gateway processes.? Details on the deferred areas are included in the Planning Proposal.

Consultation Program

Council is required to consult with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats prior to the Planning Proposal being placed on public exhibition.? In January 2006, Council consulted extensively with agencies and adjoining councils in preparing the comprehensive LEP for the City.? The range of agencies consulted during that process is outlined in the Planning Proposal. Given the previous extent of consultation it is proposed that further agency consultations, if required, are undertaken concurrently with the exhibition of the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012.

 

The Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition after receiving a ?Gateway Determination? from the Department of Planning that the LEP process may proceed, and endorsement that community consultation may be undertaken.? The draft consultation program is detailed in Part 4 of the Planning Proposal. Ordinarily, the maximum timeframe stipulated by the Minister for a Planning Proposal of this nature is 28 days. However it is recommended that the Planning Proposal should be placed on exhibition for 8 weeks.? It should be noted, however, that it is now the Minister who determines the timeframe and form of community consultation, as part of the Gateway Determination.

Next Steps

Following endorsement by Council to proceed with the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2), the following steps will occur in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

1.????? Council will forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning, seeking a ?Gateway Determination? and authorisation that the LEP plan making process may proceed.

2.????? Council officers will liaise with the Department of Planning and negotiate any changes sought by the Department in the lead up to the Gateway determination.

3.????? Council will undertake the required consultation with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) regarding critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.? The Planning Proposal may be amended to reflect any comments received from DECCW.

4.????? Council will seek approval from the Director-General of the Department of Planning for the Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited.

5.????? It is proposed to exhibit the Planning Proposal and draft Penrith LEP 2012 for 8 weeks. Agency consultations may be undertaken concurrently with the exhibition.? The Minister now determines the timeframes and form of the public exhibition.

6.????? A public hearing will be held after the conclusion of the public exhibition in relation to the proposed reclassification of public land.

7.????? Submissions to the Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2) exhibition and public hearing will be reviewed, and recommendations prepared for Council?s consideration.? The Planning Proposal may be varied or amended to address issues raised in submissions where it is consistent with Council?s agreed policy directions.

8.????? The Planning Proposal will be presented to Council for endorsement and then forwarded to the Minister of Planning to make the LEP.

 

It should be emphasised that the resolution sought from Council represent only the beginning of the LEP process. It is likely that the draft Planning Proposal will go through the Gateway process at least twice, to ensure that all appropriate studies and consultations have been completed prior to public exhibition.

 

During these processes, minor amendments to the draft Planning Proposal will continue to be made. These minor changes may result from further consultations (such as with relevant government agencies), directions or suggestions from the DoP or additional technical information, that subsequently affect draft Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).

 

There are a number of issues where further studies or consultation is required.? The outcomes of these processes, together with any other proposed amendments that are significant or not consistent with Council?s planning intent and policy positions will be reported to Council for its consideration.

 

Tonight?s recommendations seek to initiate the new planning process for the draft Planning Proposal ? Penrith LEP 2012 (Stage 2).? Under the new legislation Council must endorse the whole process, including seeking approval to exhibit the Planning Proposal.? Over the coming months, however, there will still be further opportunities for Council to consider changes to the Planning Proposal prior to exhibition.

 

It is important to note that while the initial Planning Proposal, once submitted to the Department of Planning will be placed on its website (and on Council?s), submissions and representations from the community are not sought and will not be considered until the commencement of the formal public exhibition process.

Conclusion

For some years, it has been Council?s goal to replace the myriad of environmental planning instruments that apply across the City with one single LEP.? This will assist in making planning information more accessible to residents, developers, business owners, community groups and staff.

 

In March 1960, the Penrith Planning Scheme Ordinance provided a zoning plan for the whole City.? The tabled Planning Proposal advances Council?s goal of again achieving a single City-wide Local Environmental Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Application of the Residential and Business Zones

3 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

Appendix 1 - Application of the Residential and Business Zones

 

 

 

Attachment 1:

 

Application/Translation of Residential Zones

 

Current instrument / zone

Suburbs

Proposed zone draft LEP 2012

New urban release areas

Caddens, Glenmore Park (Stage 2), North Penrith Urban Area, South Werrington Urban Village, Waterside.

R1 General Residential

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(a1) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection ? Emu Plains)

?????? 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection)

?????? 2(b) Residential (Low Density)

Cambridge Gardens, Cambridge Park, Claremont Meadows, Cranebrook (excluding Department of Housing Land), Emu Heights, Emu Plains, Erskine Park, Leonay, North St Marys, Regentville, South Penrith, St Clair, St Marys, Werrington County and Werrington Downs, parts of Jamisontown, Kingswood, Penrith, St Marys and Werrington.

The R2 zone will also be applied to parts of the following release areas: Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), Glenmore Park (Stage 2), and South Werrington Urban Village.

R2 Low Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

?????? 2(d) Residential (Low-Medium Density)

Parts of Kingswood and Werrington (near western railway corridor), St Marys, Oxley Park, Jamisontown, Cambridge Park (near park and local centre), Penrith (periphery of City Centre), Kingswood, Glenmore Park (limited areas), South Penrith (Maxwell Street) and Emu Plains (near the Lennox Shopping Centre).

 

The R3 zone will be applied to parts of the following release areas:? Caddens, Claremont Meadows (Stage 2), South Werrington Urban Village and Werrington Mixed Use Area.

R3 Medium Density

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land):

?????? 2(e) Residential (Medium-High Density)

Residential areas on the fringe of the Penrith City Centre currently zoned 2(e) Residential (Medium- High Density) under Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land).? This zone has also been applied to the Parkview property in the Penrith City Centre.

Parts of Jamisontown, Penrith, Kingswood, St Marys and Werrington.

 

 

R4 High Density

Penrith LEP 188:

?????? Zone No. 2 (Urban Zone)

Glenmore Park

R2 Low Density

R3 Medium Density


Application/Translation of Business Zones

 


Local Centre

Proposed zone(s)
draft Penrith LEP 2012

?????? North St Marys shops

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

?????? Smith Street shops, South Penrith

?????? Cambridge Park shops

?????? Monfarville Street Shops, St Marys

?????? Corner Carpenter Street and Day Street shops, Colyton

?????? Hewitt Street shops, Colyton

?????? Melville Street shops, St Clair

?????? Emu Heights shops

?????? Leonay shops

?????? Corner Sydney Street and Brisbane Street shops, Oxley Park

?????? Sheppard Road Shops, Emu Plains

?????? Stafford Street shops, Penrith

?????? Shops on The Crescent Penrith

?????? Boronia Road shops North St Marys

?????? Cooks Parade, St Clair

?????? Werrington Station

B2 Local Centre

?????? Claremont Meadows

?????? Cranebrook

?????? Emu Plains (Station)

?????? Emu Plains (Lennox Centre)

?????? Erskine Park

?????? Glenmore Park

?????? St Clair

?????? South Penrith (Southlands)

?????? Release Areas

-???? Caddens

-???? Glenmore Park Stage 2

-???? North Penrith Urban Area

?????? Kingswood

B4 Mixed Use

B6 Enterprise Corridor

?????? Penrith City Centre and surrounds

B3 Commercial Core

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? St Marys Town Centre and surrounds

B4 Mixed Use

R3 Medium Density Residential

R4 High Density Residential

?????? Mulgoa Road bulky goods and Homemaker Centre

B5 Business Development

 

?????? Highway service centres

-???? Cambridge Park (Star Court)

-???? Corner Banks Drive and Mamre Road, St Clair

-???? Corner Mamre Road and Wilson Street, St Marys

-???? Aspen Street, South Penrith (includes Pioneer Tavern, KFC and John Cootes Furniture)

-???? Areas along Great Western Highway corridor

-???? Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows

-???? Corner Great Western Highway / Roper Road, Colyton

-???? Victoria Street, Werrington

B6 Enterprise Corridor

 

 

?


A City of Opportunities

 

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

 

8??????? Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

8

Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd???

?

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

Marlene Cauchi, Management Accountant - Children's Services

Authorised by:???????????? Roger Nethercote, Group Manager - People and Places ??

 

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)

?

Presenters:?????????????????? Max Friend - Chairperson, Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd? - Annual Report??????

 

Executive Summary

This report provides details to Council following the eighth Annual General Meeting of the Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative Ltd (PCCSC), which was held in November 2010. The report recommends that the information be received and that Council underwrite the operations of the PCCSC for a further period of 12 months.

 

The PCCSC became effective from 1 January 2003 to manage Long Day Care, Preschool and School Age services sponsored by Council. In 2008, the Board also took on the management of St Marys Occasional Child Care following its co-location with St Marys Children?s Centre. The structure is a Board of 15 members including seven parent representatives, three Councillors, one staff representative, three community representatives and a representative of the General Manager. The Board meets on a bi-monthly basis and operates under Council delegation as a non-trading entity. The Board looks at broad policy matters, sets the direction for children?s services and makes major decisions that affect the provision of children?s services.? Parent Advisory Committees at each service level provide valuable input into the operational aspects of individual services.?

 

Following are reports extracted from the Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative?s Annual Report.

Chairperson?s Report

The Cooperative, as a non-trading entity, has a delegated role to manage Council sponsored Children?s Services and is made up of representatives from parents, staff, Councillors, the community and Council officers.?

 

Within the Council structure, Children?s Services sits within the City of Opportunities theme in Council?s Strategic Plan for the City under the People and Places group. Following a review of the Board?s first Strategic Plan, a new Strategic Plan (2009-2012) was developed identifying four major goals ? being a leader in quality, sound financial management, enabling a skilled workforce and being known and respected as a provider of high quality not-for-profit services. It is pleasing that a number of key strategies within these goals have been implemented during the period of review.

 

On Council?s behalf, the Board manages 26 facilities encompassing 17 long day care, six preschools, nine before and after school care, six vacation care and one occasional care service.? Approximately 1,018 children aged 0-6 years attend our early childhood services daily and an average of 400 children aged 5-12 years school age services each day.? Approximately 300 children?s services staff are employed in centre-based service delivery including permanent, temporary and casual employees.

 

Following on from the previous year?s favourable operational financial outcome, this year Children?s Services has focussed on consolidating service delivery to the high levels expected by the community.? In an effort to address some of the challenges faced during the year, the Board, along with the leadership and management team, have focussed attention on a variety of initiatives which are highlighted in this report.?

 

During the year, Children?s Services has strengthened its business model approach to the management of centres. The permanent appointment of a Business Coordinator dedicated to Children?s Services has strengthened and streamlined business practices across all services.?

Regular reviews of centre performance have been undertaken with swift rectification action as required. Significant attention has been paid to the issue of fee payment and billing and management of debt and there has been substantial improvement in these areas.

 

Streamlining of processes and policies has continued in the last 12 months to achieve consistency in practice, maintain and improve upon corporate governance and ultimately to achieve the vision and mission of Children?s Services. There have been many highlights within the last 12 months and a snapshot of these is captured in this annual report.??

 

The Board is committed to ensuring that the facilities are maintained and upgraded to enable the provision of safe and aesthetically pleasing environments for children, families, staff and visitors. These have included playground upgrades and a number of projects with Asset Management/Maintenance funds. Children?s Services was fortunate to receive $140,000 of funding through the second round of the Federal Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program which has enabled major upgrades to proceed at Strauss Road Children?s Centre, Stepping Stones Children?s Centre and Emu Village OOSH.

 

Children?s Services has continued to maintain strong partnerships with external bodies to add value and to ensure our centres remain contemporary and of high quality. Some of those partnerships are:

 

???? University of Western Sydney Nepean ? Professional Experience

???? Brighter Futures

???? Corporate Partners for Change?

???? Braddock Play Time ? Braddock Primary School and Connecting Cranebrook

???? Mission Australia ? Paint The Town REaD

 

Acknowledgement of quality services has been received through the National Accreditation and NSW Licensing mechanisms.? All the OOSH and LDC services that underwent Accreditation during this period achieved high quality outcomes. These achievements are a reflection of the dedication and motivation of our professional and experienced teams of staff who strive to achieve excellence in care delivery and education to the children and families who access our services.

 

Financial Results

The annual report presents two sets of financials. The first, statutory reports present the operation of the Cooperative as a separate legal entity, which is a non-trading Cooperative. The second are management reports detailing the operations of those services managed on behalf of Council for the year ending 30 June 2010.

 

The services managed by the Cooperative had an operating surplus from Ordinary Activities of $365,000 (2008/09 $446,000) compared to a budgeted deficit of $19,283. The surplus for 2009/10 was achieved from expenses from ordinary activities of $14,463,000 (2008/09 $13,863,000) an increase of 4.3% and revenues from ordinary activities of $15,213,000 (2008/09 $14,543,000) an increase of 4.6%.

 

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

Employee costs of $12,521,000 (2008/09 $12,098,000) an increase of 3.5%, excluding those costs funded by Grant programs, were under budget by $293,000. Employee costs represented 82.7% (2008/09 87.3%) of the total expenses from ordinary activities.

 

Expenditure on materials and contracts and other expenses were $1,942,000 (2008/09 $1,765,000) an increase of 10%.

 

The Out of School Hours services also have commitments to repay capital expenditure undertaken by Penrith City Council for the provision of buses needed by the services to deliver children to and from school. These buses are funded on a rolling replacement program, which sees each bus replaced every five years; two buses are generally programmed for replacement each year. The centres have an annual commitment of $5,300 per centre. In 2009/10 Kindana OOSH also made the final repayment of $7,454 for extensions undertaken at the centre a number of years ago. The combined cost of these commitments for 2009/10 was $55,154.

 

Revenues from Ordinary Activities

Charges to parents for the provision of care were $8,290,000 (2008/09 $7,979,000) an increase of 3.9%. Government funding for Child Care Benefit and Resource Allocation Model Funding was $5,153,000 (2008/09 $4,777,000) an increase of 7.9%. Combined revenues for the provision of care was $13,443,000 (2008/09 $12,756,000) an increase of 5.4%. This was $66,000 above budgeted expectations.

 

Government grants utilised for operational and specific programs expenditure was $1,628,000 (2008/09 $1,611,000) an increase of 1.1%.

 

Utilisation rates are the key driver to revenue generation and financial viability of the services. For each service type the utilisations achieved in 2009/10 are listed below compared to the utilisation anticipated in the budget deliberations and the utilisation achieved for the 2009/10 financial year.? It is very pleasing that long day and before and after school care concluded the year with utilisation on target, whilst utilisation for preschool and vacation care were below target.

 

 

 

 

Service Type

2009/10 Utilisation

2009/10 Target

2008/09 Utilisation

Long day care

90%

90%

89%

Preschool

69%

71%

67%

B&A care

76%

76%

77%

Vacation care

61%

68%

62%

 

Penrith City Council Contributions

In addition to their ordinary activities, the services managed by the Cooperative entered into arrangements with Penrith City Council for funding global expenditure programs to be funded from centre operations or reserves established before the creation of the Cooperative. These arrangements fall into one of two categories.

 

Contribution to ?pools? of money held on behalf of the services for future purposes. The Cooperative?s commitment to add to these pools for 2009/10 was $508,000 (2008/09 $255,000).

 

The second category provides expenditure of pre-Cooperative reserves or fundraising reserves for specific projects or programs. For the year ended 30 June 2010 the amount of funds spent from these reserves was $126,000 (2008/09 $202,000).

 

Penrith Council agreed to provide direct subsidy to the Cooperative services of $229,000 to underwrite the expected operations of the Inclusion Support Scheme (ISS), and St Marys Occasional Care and to provide funding of $1,000 to each vacation service for play equipment.? These commitments between the Cooperative and the Council reduce a $750,000 surplus into a $365,000 surplus.? This surplus is an excellent result for the services managed by the Cooperative in the current economic climate. The close monitoring of the services? operations throughout the year has enabled this result to be achieved and provides some necessary equity to better position the services for coming years.

 

Conclusion

The Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative is strongly committed to the provision of quality not-for-profit services for children. Affordability continues to be the driving factor for utilisation levels across all service types and balancing this with viability is high on the Board?s agenda. Lobbying and advocacy continues in an attempt to ensure that issues related to children?s services, and particularly issues related to the not-for-profit sector, are raised and continue to have a high profile.

 

Continued compliance with Licensing Regulations and Accreditation Standards is testament to the skill, motivation and dedication of our centre staff and the support provided by the Internal Coordination Unit.

 

The Board is under no illusion that the year ahead will hold many challenges as we strive to ensure our services remain viable within a climate of increased competition, legislation and regulation requirements and the maintenance of a skilled workforce.

 

In concluding, I would like to thank the centre parent advisory committees who work to support individual centres at the grass roots level and my Board Co-directors for their valuable input to the continued operations of the Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of centre staff and the officers of the coordination unit who enable us to strive for excellence in service delivery and ensure quality services are maintained.

 

Children?s Services Manager Operations Report

This has been an immensely challenging year especially for the early childhood sector. For practitioners, management bodies and sponsors of early childhood services, acceptance by COAG (Council of Australian Governments) of a National Quality Agenda (NQA) encompassing two known components of quality ? improved staff to child ratios and higher levels of qualification for the workforce ? was a welcome announcement. Implementation of the NQA will improve the quality of outcomes for young children into the future.??

 

Hot on the heels of the announcement came the launch of the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) ? a first for Australia. Locally, our services have embraced this as the footprint for the delivery of a curriculum that encapsulates the philosophy of Belonging, Being and Becoming. I am very proud of the work of the Children?s Services Curriculum Renewal group and our staff teams who have been instrumental in embedding the EYLF in day-to-day practice.?

 

During the year, the staffing structure for the Children?s Services Department was consolidated. The position of Children?s Services Manager Operations (CSMO) oversees the management of the Department as a whole. The position of Children?s Services Business Co-ordinator has responsibility for operational matters to support the CSMO and specified tasks and projects, e.g. business planning, financial planning and management, marketing and promotions. The Management Accountant for Children?s Services, the Senior Human Resource Officer dedicated to Children?s Services and the Children?s Services Coordinators complete the internal coordination unit.??

 

With a challenge to maintain a skilled and qualified workforce, significant workforce initiatives during the 2009/2010 financial year have included:

 

???? The ongoing implementation of permanent rotational staff members attached to geographical clusters of services for backfill for planned staff absences (e.g. RDOs, annual leave). Not only has this achieved significant cost savings but has resulted in greater continuity and consistency of staffing at the centre level.

???? A continuous advertisement on Council?s web site for Early Childhood trained Teachers. This has resulted in a more efficient recruitment process.

???? The employment of child care, business admin and, for the first time, hospitality trainees (a total of 28 trainees). Following their traineeships, these staff often progress to securing positions within Children?s Services, some going on to further study at TAFE and University.

???? The Children?s Services Tertiary Bonus scheme with eight employees enrolling for tertiary study.?

???? Participation in University and TAFE Open Days, career expos and student presentations to maintain our profile as an employer of choice.

???? Involvement in the Corporate Partners for Change program which offers opportunity for training and subsequent workforce participation.

???? Succession planning and opportunity for staff to take on higher grade duties.

???? 14 recruitment campaigns including Director, Cluster Director, Early Childhood Teacher, Child Care Aide, Child Care Assistant, Cook, Office Administrator, Child Care Clerical, Inclusion Support Facilitator.

???? Existing worker diploma level traineeships commenced in February 2009 and continued in this period with nine staff members continuing and two staff members completing the traineeship.

???? Professional development opportunities have included Belonging, Being, Becoming: Putting EYLF into Practice, Literacy: Building the Foundations for Communication, Noticing Change in Children and Time Management. Some professional development is linked to legislative requirements with other training undertaken to support staff individual interests.

 

In addition to opportunities for professional development through internal and external workshops, conferences and inservice training, with the support of Council?s Educational Assistance Program a number of children?s services staff undertook studies in the 2009/2010 financial year, some of which included:

 

???? Diploma of Child Studies

???? Bachelor of Teaching (Early Childhood)

???? Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood)

???? Masters of Education (Honours) Early Childhood.

 

Council hosted an Evening of Recognition during the year for staff with 20 years service and this involved many children?s services staff.?

 

Jennifer Shepherd from Ridge-ee-didge Children?s Centre was nominated for Trainee of the Year in 2010 and won the Category for Children?s Services which was a proud moment for all involved.

 

Children?s Services continued its partnership with the University of Western Sydney (UWS) during this period in a number of ways. One innovative strategy has been the Professional Experience program whereby students undertaking Early Childhood tertiary study are assigned to individual services for practicum and come together with Early Childhood Teachers and mentors for discussion and reflection. These students have the opportunity to submit expressions of interest for employment in children?s services following their studies.

 

Other partnerships adding value to the quality of service provision have included:

 

???? Active After School program (Australian Sports Commission)

???? Child Care Links (Federal Department of Families Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)

???? Munch & Move (NSW South West Area Health Service)

???? Intervention Support Program (NSW Department of Education and Training)

???? SCAN (Supporting Children with Additional Needs) funding (NSW? Community Services)

???? Life Without Barriers and Link Up (Community Services)

 

Support to improve access for children with additional needs has been provided by the Commonwealth funded Inclusion Support Agency (ISA) through Inclusion Support Subsidies (ISS). This program builds the capacity of services through the development of service support plans to include children with ongoing high support needs into mainstream services.? Through ISS funding, our services have supported 128 children to access long day care, out of school hours and occasional care services during this financial year. ISS funding enables services to engage an additional staff member but there is a significant shortfall in the funding received and the cost of employing additional staff which needs to be met by services.

 

As indicated in the Chairperson?s report, utilisation of our services determines income levels. Children?s services marketing and promotions plan is being prepared to ensure our ?point of difference? and not-for-profit status is promoted.? Some promotional activities during the year have included:

 

???? Roll-out of uniform for staff

???? Implementation of a marketing survey with over 350 parents providing feedback. Two recommendations from the survey have been implemented including street front improvements and entrance signage.

???? Advertisements in Council?s Community News and Directory Central which was distributed to over 30,000 homes

???? Numerous print advertising campaigns including: Woolworths shopper dockets, weekly segments in the Penrith Press, Star and Weekender and street banners

???? Participation in Children?s Week, Welcome the Babies Ceremony, Citizenship Ceremonies and Council?s Family Fun Day

 

The coming year will see a number of known challenges for children?s services.?

 

???? Further federal initiatives related to COAG and the National Quality Framework??

???? Changes to funding

???? The new Food Authority Regulation affecting LDC services

???? Maintaining ageing assets

???? Marketing and promotions

???? Maintaining utilisation???

 

The Internal Coordination Unit and support staff will need to keep abreast of emerging issues so that sound change management practices are adopted and the quality of service provision sustained.?

 

I would like to extend thanks to the Board for its commitment, vision and support over the last 12 months. With the Board?s ongoing support and enthusiasm Penrith City Children?s Services will continue to strive for excellence in leadership, quality and safety across all services. I would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the Internal Children?s Services Coordination Unit and extend my thanks to other Departments within Council for their support during this period.?

 

In conclusion, special thanks and acknowledgement must be extended to the children?s services centre staff for their hard work and commitment over this period. Without the dedication of our staff the service provided would not be at the level that meets expectations or that the community has come to expect.?

 

Board of Directors

No significant changes in the state of affairs of the company occurred during the financial year; however there were some changes of Board Directors. Council should note that, at the eighth Annual General Meeting, in accordance with rules of the Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative Ltd., Councillor Kaylene Allison, Max Friend, Roger Nethercote and Rebecca Zinghini retired and offered themselves for re-election. Rebecca Mott retired and did not offer herself for re-election. Jayne Smith was elected to fill that vacancy. Jo Jacobson was elected to fill the vacancy of community representative.? Karyn Wesselingh and Shaylee Deveigne filled casual vacancies on the Board since the last AGM and were formally reappointed at the AGM. Mr Max Friend was reappointed Chairperson and Sue Day appointed as Deputy Chairperson. Council?s Group Manager People and Places, Roger Nethercote, is the General Manager?s representative and Company Secretary.

 

Financial Services Manager?s Comment

The services managed by the Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative Ltd achieved a net surplus from Ordinary Activities for the year ended 30 June 2010 of $365,000 after allowing for contributions to capital projects and provisions. This result was achieved by utilisation levels generally achieving their budgeted expectations, together with reduced employee costs.? In particular, the continued employment of rotational staff has been instrumental in curtailing increased costs associated with staffing and as mentioned in the Children?s Services Manager Operations report, has also been fundamental in ensuring greater continuity and consistency of staffing for children across services.

 

The maintenance of utilisation levels is critical to the financial viability of services. It is pleasing to note that in 2009/10 long day care finished the year with utilisation on target. Preschools and vacation care however achieved below budgeted utilisation levels.?

 

Grant funding is of importance to the Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative and efforts continue to be made to lobby for additional funding. In particular the allocation of funding under the Department of Community Services Resource Allocation Model in 2009/10 has allowed the reduction of fees for families across Council?s Preschool services.? This funding opportunity will enhance access to Preschools particularly for Indigenous Children, children from low income families and children in the year before school.??

 

Conclusion

The establishment of the Penrith City Children?s Services Cooperative in 2003, has proved to be an effective management model for the children?s services sponsored by Council. The favourable outcome for the 2009/10 financial year is an excellent achievement given the current financial environment, and provides some necessary equity to better position the services for the coming years. The Board of Directors is well aware of the complexities of the operation of children?s services and the challenges that this brings. Maintaining a balance between services that are viable, accessible and affordable is high on the Board?s agenda. Sustaining the quality of service provision for which Council?s services are known is a key driver.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Green City

 

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

 

9??????? Blacktown and Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Green City

 

 

 

9

Blacktown and Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Sam Innes, Senior Waterways Officer

Graham Liehr, Environmental Health Manager

Authorised by:???????????? Graham Liehr, Environmental Health Manager ??

 

Objective

Our natural habitats are healthy

Community Outcome

A City with healthy waterways and protected natural areas (11)

Strategic Response

Work with others to protect and conserve the River, waterways and catchments, and natural environments (11.1)

?

Presenters:?????????????????? Graham Liehr - Environmental Health Manager - Penrith City Council - Managed Aquifer Recharge

????????????????????????????????????? Colin Pitman? - Director City Projects Salisbury Council - Managed Aquifer Recharge??????

 

Executive Summary

In September 2010 Senator, The Hon Penny Wong, the then Minister for Climate Change and Water, advised of the Australian Government?s commitment to provide funding of up to $4,193,500 for the proposed Blacktown and Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme under the ?Water for the Future ? National Urban Water and Desalination Plan?. Blacktown City Council is the lead Council in the funding application. As part of the funding offer, up to $1,981,000 is allocated to work in Penrith City Council for the Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme.

 

A previous report was provided to Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 1 February 2010 regarding the ?Partnership application between Blacktown City Council and Penrith City Council for Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Project Funding?. The report detailed the proposed Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme introducing the project and grant opportunity, and sought Council?s support to make a submission to secure funding.

 

The resolution from the February 2010 meeting included a commitment that a report would be provided to Council in relation to the viability and funding arrangements associated with the scheme prior to acceptance of any grant. The initial feasibility study was completed in February and provided sufficient justification to support a joint funding application to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) (Formally Department Environment Water Heritage and the Arts).

 

Recently, an opportunity has developed to apply for grant funding through the NSW Office of Water which would provide additional funding from the State Government to support this project. An additional funding source would significantly reduce Council?s financial contribution. In addition to this funding for the existing proposal it is also possible that funding could be secured to expand the reticulation network through State funding and provide opportunity for additional customers.

 

This report recommends that Council support the submission of two applications for funding to the NSW office of Water for the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme. The first application seeks to secure funding in addition to the funding offer from DSEWPC and the second application seeks to secure funding to extend the MAR network to support the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme.

A Water Sensitive City

Our highly variable climate, droughts, climate change and growth in Sydney?s population are challenges that require an adaptive approach to water management and afford opportunity for alternative water supply to contribute to the water needs of our communities. Council has exercised significant leadership in previously endorsing its Water Conservation and Water Quality Action Plan 2005 for the City and its resolve to expand the existing Penrith recycled water scheme.

 

The proposed Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme is a significant sustainability initiative and holds positive benefits in relation to a more efficient use of water resources which will over time be subject to increasing demands and potentially more restrictive to access. Council therefore has the opportunity to continue lead by example in advancing the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme as a demonstration of its commitment to sustainable long-term water resource management.

 

Defined as ?the purposeful recharge of water to aquifers for the subsequent recovery or environmental benefit? (NWC, 2009), Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is the most common MAR scheme and involves the injection of water into a well for storage and later recovery. Usually, stormwater is captured, stored and then utilised predominantly for irrigation and industrial end-uses. ASR allows for the storage of water in an aquifer during periods of water availability (when it rains) with the recovery of the same water when required.

Scheme Benefits

Functional stormwater reuse schemes, such as the proposed Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) scheme, result in a range of social and environmental benefits in addition to being financially viable. While the scheme?s financial viability is important, the value of the scheme to Penrith City is significant. This can be demonstrated through consideration of the additional social and environmental benefits which include:

 

???? Potable Water Savings: Estimates show that the scheme has the potential to reduce potable water consumption in excess of 100 million litres per annum;

???? Improved River Health: The Nepean River will benefit from reduced stormwater impacts from Emu Plains and reduced extractions by local irrigators. This will reduce the contaminant load on the river and help facilitate any future strategy to amend the licensing system for river extractions;

???? Improve Public Facilities: The scheme will offer a secure supply of water for irrigating a number of public playing fields, allowing them to be maintained at a level that achieves maximum availability and improved safety for community users;

???? Provide water security: The scheme will secure supply for Leonay Golf Course who do not currently have enough water to maintain their course;

???? Reduced carbon footprint: A ?fit-for-purpose?, decentralised water scheme has a greatly reduced carbon footprint in comparison to potable water;

???? Creation of habitat and improved biodiversity: The development of wetlands will improve habitat and biodiversity values;

???? Increased social capital: The use of MAR water in prominent facilities and high use public areas will provide a means to educate the community about water conservation and stormwater management, and demonstrate the commitment by Federal Government and Penrith City Council to reduce potable water consumption and improve environmental health;

???? Forge a pathway: As the first schemes in the greater Sydney Metropolitan area, the Penrith and Blacktown schemes will have significant implications for the future management of Sydney?s water resources;

???? The city leads: The scheme will demonstrate our role as a sustainability leader and our status as a regional city;

???? Support local clubs and businesses: We will provide a cost effective alternative which supports a local club and fosters growth in local business

???? Water Security: The Office of the Hawkesbury Nepean has recently indicated that all water extraction licenses will in the future be required to be metered and that the cost of water drawn from the River could rise. The MAR scheme will ensure that groups who are drawing water from the River will have a long-term sustainable water supply, particularly in periods of drought and low River flows where suppliers are likely to be more restricted.

 

While it is not possible to easily quantify the extent of the above benefits in monetary terms, they should not be excluded from consideration in an analysis of the overall scheme benefits and will serve to further increase the benefit-cost consideration.

Grant Status

In September 2010 Senator, The Hon Penny Wong, the then Minister for Climate Change and Water, advised Blacktown City Council of the Australian Government?s commitment to provide funding of up to $4,193,500 for the proposed Blacktown and Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme under the ?Water for the Future ? National Urban Water and Desalination Plan?. As part of the funding offer, up to $1,981,000 is allocated to work in Penrith City.

 

We have recently received a copy of the funding agreement from DSEWPC. The funding agreement outlines a two staged funding arrangement. The first stage allows for detailed design, costing and risk analysis confirming project viability and the second stage includes construction and commissioning. Blacktown City Council is the nominated lead organisation and will coordinate negotiations with DSEWPC. Blacktown City Council will be signing the funding agreement with DSEWPC (as the lead Council). As part of the funding arrangement, Penrith City Council will need to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Blacktown City Council.? This MoU will provide a clear governance relationship and is currently under development with Blacktown City Council.

 

Blacktown City Council resolved on the 6 October 2010 to accept the funding offer from DSEWPC for the Blacktown Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme.?

Potential Customers

Council Officers have continued discussions with potential customers who showed interest in the MAR project including Leonay Golf Course and ROCLA. These customers have provided in principle support for the project. We will continue to discuss opportunities with these and any other organisations that show interest in the scheme. There may be additional opportunity in the Emu Plains industrial precinct to offer an alternative water supply.? Additionally, an alternative water supply has been demonstrated to attract industry where MAR schemes have been introduced.

 

Expansion of the scheme

 

A feasibility study and costing of a linkage pipeline between the Scheme at Emu Plains and the Stage 2 Recycled Water Project east of the River is currently underway.? The feasibility is also exploring the benefits of maintaining the MAR as a separate alternative water supply.? We have had preliminary discussions with representatives from Landcom who have expressed an interest in providing a recycled water network throughout the North Penrith development. The expansion of the MAR network could be of considerable benefit as it would provide a more diversified and reliable customer base. The findings of this review will be reported back to Council in early 2011.

Office of Water Funding Opportunities

The NSW Office of Water has recently announced funding for the Water Recycling and Stormwater Harvesting Programs. There is potential to secure funds which could assist in reducing Council?s contribution to the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme. Additional funding could also be sought to include an expansion of the project to east of the River. The closing date for grant applications is 30 November 2010.

 

Initial cost estimates from the feasibility study investigating the expansion of the scheme indicate that it would cost up to $1,000,000 to link the MAR Scheme and the Stage 2 Recycled Water Project. Funding could be sought from the NSW Office of Water to assist with this linkage.

 

Council Officers have had preliminary discussions with the NSW Office of Water in relation to this new funding opportunity and they have confirmed the project meets within the funding criteria and invited our application.

 

Project Funding

The estimated project cost is $3,962,000. The funding for the project is still to be finalised, however the overall costs to Penrith City Council may be quantified in the following way subject to availability of funds and other opportunities.

 

1.?? 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Federal Government equating to $1,981,000 for the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme.

2.?? Application for up to $1,200,000 funding from the NSW Office of Water toward the MAR Scheme.

3.?? Contribution of $761,000 from Penrith City Council made up of contribution in-kind and direct funding. The funding model is yet to be finalised, however, sufficient funding should be available through Council?s Enhanced Environmental Program and Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program.

 

Application for up to $1,000,000 funding from the NSW Office of Water toward the extension of the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme to link to the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme Stage 2.

Parks Manager?s Comments

The proposed Penrith Aquifer Storage and Recovery Scheme represents an opportunity to secure an ongoing non potable water supply for some of Emu Plains most significant recreational assets, effectively drought proofing them and ensuring that Council has the capacity to provide sustainable, fit for purpose sporting fields.

 

The irrigation of Leonay Oval, Dukes Oval and Darcy Smith Oval is currently undertaken utilising both potable and non potable supply. The Aquifer Storage and Recovery Scheme provides an opportunity to secure an ongoing supply for these sites. The effective utilisation of this resource will require the installation of a sub surface irrigation system at both Darcy Smith Oval and Dukes Oval. These sites currently use sprinklers / quick coupling valves for irrigation, which does not have the capacity to supply the volume of water required to sustain turf growth during summer.

 

The proposed sites to be irrigated are extensively utilised during both the winter and summer seasons, with Rugby League, Football, Australian Rules, Cricket, Netball and Little Athletics being played across the facilities. Access to a sustainable water supply will assist in ensuring these sites have the capacity to sustain both winter and summer use.

Financial Services Manager?s Comments

The total capital cost of the project is estimated at $3.962m. Current funding of $1.981m has been allocated from the Federal Government and the report highlights the potential for additional funding of up to $1.2m to be sourced through the NSW Office of Water. If the grant application with the NSW Office of Water is successfully, combined with the $1.981m from the Federal Government would bring the total available funding would be $3.181m, leaving an unfunded shortfall of $781k. The report details that the shortfall could be funded from a combination of works in kind, the Enhanced Environmental Program, the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program. It is proposed that a funding solution would be further pursued in conjunction with the detailed design, costing and risk assessment.

 

Consultants Sinclair Knight Merz have indicated that the annual maintenance cost for this type of facility is in the order of $123,000. An amount would also need to be included for administration support for billing while it would also be prudent for an additional amount to be allocated for asset renewal and replacement that will be required. The scheme has the ability to supply 200ML per year and Council has reached in principle agreements with Leonay Golf Course and Rocla for supply from this scheme. Indicative figures have indicated that Leonay Golf Course and Rocla would demand a combined 100ML per year. If Council was to sell this water at a comparable price to the current Sydney Water Charge for recycled water ($1,609 per ML), this would generate income of $160,900. There is potential for this scheme to generate limited savings on Council parks based on current usage levels. Given the abovementioned figures the scheme could be viable provided:

???? The cost of water supplied from the scheme is charged at the above rate of $1,609 per ML,

???? The indicative annual maintenance cost including administration support and a provision for asset renewal and replacement is not substantial greater than the estimated $123,000 and

???? The proposed clients agree to long term contracts for the proposed demand of 100ML per year.

 

The scheme could become more viable should additional clients be sourced. In the event that council is the only user of the scheme, based on the estimated future demand of the proposed ovals, a cost of $40,000 would be incurred to irrigate these facilities meaning that the potential cost benefit would not be sufficient to offset the annual maintenance cost of the Scheme.

 

Following the completion of a detailed design, costing and risk assessment Council Officers will further assess the financial sustainability of the project and a further report will be provided to Council on the proposed funding model for the capital cost and the ongoing financial sustainability, including a provision for asset renewal & replacement, of the project before committing Council to Stage 2.

Steps to Progress Project

The following are identified as the next key steps to advance the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme:

 

1.?? Finalise the feasibility study and costing of a linkage pipeline between the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme and the Stage 2 Recycled Water Project.

2.?? Submit funding application of up to $1,200,000 to the NSW Office of Water.?

3.?? Submit a funding of up to $1,000,000 to the NSW Office of Water for the extension of the MAR to link to the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme Stage 2.

4.?? Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with Blacktown City Council.

5.?? Negotiate with the DSEWPC the specific terms for a two stage funding agreement.

???? Stage 1? includes detailed design, costing and risk analysis confirming project viability

???? Stage 2 includes construction and commissioning

6.?? Continue negotiations with potential customers

7.?? Report to Council early in the new year to advise of the results of our funding application to the NSW Office of Water and provide a funding model for the project, prior to signing the funding agreement with DSEWPC.

Conclusion

Council has exercised significant leadership in previously resolving to join the ICLEI Water Campaign, endorsing the Water Conservation and Water Quality Action Plan 2005 and more recently supporting the Penrith Recycled Water Project Stage 2. Council?s Water Conservation and Water Quality Action Plan clearly identifies Council?s role in investigating stormwater harvesting and new technologies in order to reduce potable water demand in the City. There is also a clear policy direction to implement water sensitive urban design. This has fed into Council?s Strategic and Operational plans where water efficiency and the health of the Nepean River System feature strongly.

 

The proposed MAR scheme is a significant sustainability initiative and holds substantial benefits in relation to a more efficient use of water resources which will over time be subject to increasing demands and potentially more restrictive access. The scheme will also bring environmental benefits to local waterways through reduced pollution and other stormwater impacts. Council therefore has the opportunity to take a leading role in advancing the expansion of MAR into NSW. In doing so, Council will further demonstrate its commitment to sustainable long-term water resource management.

 

The implementation of MAR will help reduce potable water use and provide alternatives to the drawing of irrigation water from the Nepean River, which over time will be the subject of closer agency monitoring and expected increases in supply costs. Reducing reliance on extracting water from the Nepean River also has substantial environmental benefits for the River system, particularly in ensuring adequate environmental flows during dry periods.

 

The proposed Penrith MAR scheme therefore offers an exciting opportunity for cost effective stormwater harvesting and managed aquifer recharge in a local context. The scheme can yield up to 200 million litres per annum of harvested stormwater through Managed Aquifer Recharge and Recovery. This will ultimately result in the equivalent reductions in potable water use and extractions from the Nepean River.

 

For these reasons, it is recommended that Council support the submission of the applications for further funding from the NSW Office of Water to reduce Council?s financial commitment to the schemes and support the on-going negotiations with the DSEWPC of a two stage funding agreement.

 

Council is well placed to advance such a significant project in NSW as the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme and offers significant sustainability outcomes and has capacity for future growth.

 

A further report will be brought back to Council early in 2011 following the completion of the funding model and prior to accepting any grant funding offer.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


A Liveable City

 

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

 

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

 

11????? Penrith Valley Cemeteries

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

10

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

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Erik Henricksen, General Manager - Ripples

Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:???????????? Glenn Schuil, Acting Executive Officer ??

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with active and healthy communities (19)

Strategic Response

Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

?

Presenters:?????????????????? Cr Greg Davies - Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic & Recreation Centre Ltd - Chairperson's Report

????????????????????????????????????? Erik Henricksen - General Manager - "Ripples" City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic & Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report & Board of Directors??????

 

Executive Summary

The report to the Council details the performance of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd for the financial year 1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010.

 

The reports from both the Chairperson and the General Manager highlight that a number of significant achievements have occurred within the Centre over the last 12 months which has seen the Centre expand on its 2009 Fitness Australia Award for ?Medium Fitness Business of the Year?. The year 2010 saw the Centre once again as finalists in this category as well as winning the local business awards for ?Outstanding Leisure and Fitness Facility?. In addition, the Centre is also a finalist in the ?Australian Small Business Champion Awards? (winners yet to be announced).

 

Completion of all the major refurbishment works has seen a vast improvement to the operational functionality and efficiency of the facility. The improved water quality, pool temperature consistency and pool hall atmosphere have now achieved the desired outcomes.

 

The report recommends that the information be received and the Council agree to underwrite the Company for a further period of 12 months until the presentation of the Penrith Regional Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd Annual Report for 2010/2011.

Background

This report to Council follows the sixteenth Annual General Meeting of the Company held on 2 November 2010 for the financial period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.

 

The Chairperson of the Board, Councillor Greg Davies and the General Manager, Erik Henricksen will be in attendance tonight to make a short presentation. Extracts from the company?s most recent annual report are provided below.? These give an overview of key aspects of the business during the period July 09 ? June 10.

 

Chairperson?s Report

?I am pleased to present the Chairman?s Report for the 16th Annual General Meeting of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Limited.

 

I wish to thank the Management and Staff of Ripples and the Board of Directors for the time and effort they have put in.? The complex itself is improving all the time and the feedback from users continues to be positive. The attitude of staff at Ripples is no doubt, a major reason for that good customer feedback.

 

I won't go into the ongoing challenges, as they have been pointed out time and time again, however I do thank the Board and staff who attended the strategic planning session. Hopefully the outcome of that session will allow us to focus on the achievable capital improvements and address issues such as increasing patronage.

 

This time next year when compiling this report, Ripples will be under the guidance of a new General Manager so I think it is opportune to note the outstanding service of our current GM.

 

It is with regret that the Board will be looking at a replacement in the new-year for Mr Erik Henricksen. The changes made since Erik's appointment have been amazing and he will leave a void difficult to fill.

 

On behalf of the board, the staff and the general community, I thank Erik for his long service to Ripples, to St Marys and to Penrith. I wish him all the best in his retirement and may it be a long and enjoyable experience for both Erik and Jill

 

I again pass on my thanks to both maintenance and office staff of Penrith Council for all their assistance. It is the continuing support of Council, overseen by the Erik, that has generated the necessary improvements to the centre and will see the ongoing asset revitalisation in the future.?

 

Operating figures for the Company are detailed elsewhere in the business paper for Directors information.

 

Last year I welcomed the new members of the Board and I again pass on my congratulations to those members and to the stalwarts for their ongoing input and commitment to Ripples.

 

A number of board members will be stepping down in accordance with the company requirements, most of them, I hope will be seeking re-appointment. I do note however that Mr Rodney Watson will not be re-nominating after many years contribution to Ripples and I wish to take this opportunity to thank him for his efforts and to let him know that he will always be welcome back.?

 

Councillor Greg Davies

CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

Ripples General Manager?s Report

?I am pleased to present the General Manager?s Report for The City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Limited for the year ended 30th June 2010.

 

Over the year we achieved a number of industry recognition awards;

???? Winner 2009 Fitness Australia NSW Medium Fitness Business of the year.

???? Finalist 2010 Fitness Australia NSW Medium Fitness Business of the year.

???? Winner 2010 Local Business Awards-Outstanding Leisure and Fitness Facility.

???? Finalist 2010 Australian Small Business Champion Awards-Health and Fitness Services.

???? 5 Star accreditation Royal Life Saving Society.

 

Industry recognition of this nature quite clearly demonstrates that ?Team Ripples? is steadily re establishing itself as a leader in providing Health, Fitness and Leisure services to the community. Congratulations to all staff for their contribution.

 

The year also presented us with many challenges as we underwent major renovations to most of our pool plant and equipment.

 

Replacement of the Mechanical Handling (Air Conditioning) plant, Pool Heating system and introduction of a U.V. water treatment system certainly tested the organisational skills of Management, Staff and Contractors. To the credit of all concerned these works were completed with less than one full day of pool closure required.

 

In addition to the abovementioned works the Spa/Sauna area was completely refurbished. A specific water treatment plant including U.V. now provides the Spa with a water quality second to none. The surrounding area has been landscaped in a sandstone finish with a glass fence and suitable plants added to the rear feature garden. Also Included in the program of works was; a remodelling of the front Reception area providing an improved functionality and contemporary appearance, heat retention blankets for the outdoor pools and the Hydrotherapy pool, improved security around chemical storage compounds and replacement of the strength and conditioning equipment in the Gym completes what has been a comprehensive overhaul.

 

These works represent a two million dollar investment by Penrith City Council in the Ripples facility to date and I would take this opportunity to thank Council on behalf of the Ripples Board of Directors, Management, Staff and our many customers for their significant support.

 

Unfortunately, whilst keeping pool closure to a minimum, the nature of the works undertaken did present a number of unavoidable operational difficulties. Inconsistent water temperatures and an uncomfortable pool hall atmosphere, combined with some unseasonal summer temperatures and one of the coldest winters on record saw attendance levels fail to meet expectations. This in turn impacted on the financial performance of the business.

 

 The company has returned a loss for the year of $131,516 after recognising Council subsidy of $660K (2009 surplus $25,781 also after recognising a similar subsidy from Council). A number of accounting practises were reviewed this year which had a negative effect on this figure. Write backs of accounts received after June 30th (previously not undertaken) plus recognition of advanced receipts in Learn to Swim (previously not undertaken) were responsible for approximately $120K of the disclosed bottom line figure.

 

Salaries and wages saw a significant increase over the previous year as we set about establishing the new Management structure and redesigning a diminished aquatics staff compliment which, at times, operated under extreme difficulties. The introduction of an additional Exercise Therapist at the Hydrotherapy Centre in conjunction with additional lifeguard hours required with the introduction of the two giant inflatables plus increased wages during the transitional stage of the restructure and the 3.5% award increase would be the major contributing factors for the increase. It should also be noted that the previous years salaries and wages were significantly reduced as a result of the compromised aquatics operation.

 

On a more positive note it is pleasing to see the reduction in our energy and water consumption (see attached graph). The introduction of the aforementioned plant and equipment combined with water efficient showers, toilets and other initiatives will continue to provide cost efficiencies for years to come. Sydney Water has also recognised our water saving initiatives and reduced our sewer usage discharge factor from 78% to 48%.

 

The facility also undertook an audit by the Royal Life Saving Society NSW Branch under their 5 Star Aquatic Facility Safety Assessment plan. The audit made a number of recommendations which aquatic staff are addressing. The facility gained an overall initial assessment rating of 82% which recognised it as a 5 star accredited facility. An excellent result for the Aquatics team.

 

In closing, and in view of my pending retirement, I would like to thank Chairman, Councillor Greg Davies? for the acknowledgement in his report of my achievements at Ripples. Needless to say these achievements were only made possible by the input and support of the whole ?Ripples Team? and many others too numerous to mention.

 

I take this opportunity to thank the Board and Management Team and all Ripples staff for their collective support and encouragement over the past 2 1/2 years. I would also like to extend that thank you to the ?far too many to mention? colleagues and friends who have been part of my 37 year journey delivering ?aquatic services? to the City of Penrith.

 

I am confident ?Ripples? is well placed to meet the challenges ahead and wish them every success.??

 

Erik Henricksen

RIPPLES GENERAL MANAGER

 

Financial Accountant Entities Comment

The City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd achieved, during the 2009-10 financial year, a deficit before Council subsidy of $791,516. Council?s subsidy to the company for 2009-10 was $660,000, providing a deficit for the year of $131,516.

 

This result is down on the 2008-09 financial year, which saw a deficit before Council subsidy of $634,219. Council?s subsidy for 2008-09 was $660,000 providing a surplus for the year of $25,781. This result comes on the back of operational revenues of $3,087,958 up from $3,026,160 in 08-09 (2.04%) and expenses of $3,879,474 up from $3,660,379 in 08-09 (5.98%).

 

As mentioned in Ripples General Manager?s Report, a review of the operations of the company during 2009-10 identified some areas of the companies operations which had been incorrectly treated from an accounting perspective in past years. The most significant of these was the non recognition of Learn to Swim income received in advance of the delivery of the Learn to Swim lessons. These lessons are paid in five week blocks approximately two weeks before the lessons are provided. Additionally, some expenditure incurred in June 2009 and not recognised in the 2008-09 accounts have been included in the expenditure for 2009-10.

 

These accounting changes have an adverse impact on the 2009-10 result of approximately $120,000 in favour of the 2008-09 result. Had these changes been implemented in 2008-09, the result for that year would have been a deficit after Council subsidy of $94,129 and the 2009-10 result would be a deficit of $11,516, an improvement on the revised 2008-09 result of $82,613.

 

The 2009-10 result was achieved whilst considerable renovations were occurring at the Centre and impacted upon the amenity of the facility. Ripples General Manager also noted that winter 2009-10 was one of the coldest winters on record and these factors had an impact on attendances.

 

Board of Directors

The Articles of Association of the Company provide, in part, that:

 

1.?? To provide continuity the members of the Board shall resign on a rotating basis. At the First Annual General Meeting, three (3) Directors (including one (1) Councillor) shall resign. At the Second Annual General Meeting, three (3) members shall resign (including one (1) Councillor). Thereafter, the members of the Board, except the Council officer, shall resign after they have served on the Board for three (3) years after appointment or re-appointment to the Board.

 

2.?? All retiring Directors shall be eligible for re-appointment.

 

Council should note that as per the Articles of Association, Councillor Greg Davies. Mr John Cottee, Mr Rodney Watson and Mrs Lynette Crossley retired as Directors at the Annual General Meeting held on 2 November 2010.

 

Councillor Greg Davies, Mr John Cottee and Mrs Lynette Crossley sought re-election and were re-elected as Directors at the Annual General Meeting. Mr Rodney Watson resigned from the Board after 12 years service and was thanked for his considerable contribution over that period. At the Board Meeting the issue of two vacancies on the Board was discussed and it was resolved that suitable applicants be sought to fill these vacancies.

 

Councillor Greg Davies and Mr John Cottee were elected as Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson respectively.

 

Council?s Director, Mr Craig Butler remains on the Board as Council?s General Manager?s representative and Company Secretary.

 

Highlights for the Year

 

A number of the highlights for the year are provided below:

?????? Having the confidence to now nominate for Industry Recognition Awards is in itself a significant step forward. Performing as well as we have in these Awards is certainly a highlight.

?????? Installation of new heat pump pool heating systems for both indoor and outdoor pools

?????? Replacement of the outdated and inefficient air handling system

?????? Installation of heat retention blankets for outside pools and Hydrotherapy pool

?????? Refurbished front counter providing improved functionality

?????? Construction of family BBQ area

?????? Completion of IT upgrade including conversion to Centaman Enterprise software management system

 

The following graphs indicate the downward trend experienced in attendance levels throughout the main Centre and the continued improved performance of the Hydrotherapy Centre and our utilities expenses.

 

TOTAL ATTENDANCE

 

2005/2006

521427

2006/2007

497071

2007/2008

488684

2008/2009

507604

2009/2010

483622

 

 

 

 

 

A disappointing result, however this is a reflection of the poor weather conditions experienced particularly during ?prime? times such as school holidays. Attendances were also affected by the poor pool hall atmosphere and inconsistent water temperatures during the refurbishment project.

 

GYM AND FITNESS ATTENDANCE

 

2007/2008

76594

2008/2009

83896

2009/2010

80169

 

 

 

A slightly disappointing result in attendance levels given last year?s results. Total revenue did however increase by 8.9%.

 

LEARN TO SWIM ATTENDANCE

 

2005/2006

163860

2006/2007

167055

2007/2008

168019

2008/2009

183951

2009/2010

179973

 

 

 

 

 

Whilst we failed to meet last year?s excellent results, it is encouraging to note that the performance is still well above the previous three years.

 

The uncomfortable pool hall atmosphere and inconsistent water temperatures experienced during the refurbishment project did have an impact in this area of operations.

 

SWIMMING POOLS ATTENDANCE

 

2005/2006

123741

2006/2007

134473

2007/2008

135963

2008/2009

137956

2009/2010

135151

 

 

 

The pool attendance figure is a further reflection of the overall trend that was experienced throughout the Centre for the year.

 

HYDROTHERAPY CENTRE ATTENDANCE

 

2005/2006

13715

2006/2007

14592

2007/2008

18430

2008/2009

19988

2009/2010

21903

 

 

 

 

 

The Hydrotherapy Centre continues to show improvement. The potential for this trend to continue is evident and a concerted effort focusing on available health initiatives should ensure further positive results.

 

NET RESULT ? HYDRO

 

2005/2006

-48000

2006/2007

-16000

2007/2008

-11000

2008/2009

35000

2009/2010

54879

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, an improved performance financially over the previous year. The introduction of an additional Exercise Therapist and the improved management structure has provided a more consistent service delivery which has contributed to the overall improved performance.

 

GAS AND ELECTRICITY

 

2005/2006

250224

2006/2007

249081

2007/2008

293448

2008/2009

268108

2009/2010

259958

 

 

 

A good result and a reflection of the improved operational efficiency of the new pool plant, heating and air handling equipment. We would expect this trend to continue.

 

REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE

 

2005/2006

118389

2006/2007

129598

2007/2008

135238

2008/2009

109680

2009/2010

132797

 

Additional expenditure was required to replace chemical dosing and analysis equipment and to relocate and secure chemical storage facilities.

 

The Year Ahead

?????? The primary focus in the short term should be the restoration of the roof. The completion of all the air handling, chemical treatment and pool plant replacement projects should now ensure the pool hall environment will not contribute to any significant degradation of a new roof structure.

?????? Resource and implement new marketing and promotions initiatives

?????? Source funding opportunities for indoor pool concourse upgrade and water feature replacement

?????? Commence Sydney West Integrated Clinical Health (SWICH) service from remodelled storeroom facility at the Hydrotherapy Centre

?????? Continue to increase involvement in promoting Health initiatives associated with Hydrotherapy services

?????? Commence upgrade of outdoor pool plant and equipment

?????? Implement asset management system in conjunction with updated Occupation Agreement

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

11

Penrith Valley Cemeteries???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Lynda Lowe, Cemeteries Supervisor

Mary Thorne, Cemetries Projects Officer

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

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with active and healthy communities (19)

Strategic Response

Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

???????

 

Executive Summary

In a briefing paper report to Councillors on 26 July 2010, information was provided on Penrith Valley Cemeteries under the care, control and management of Penrith City Council. These cemeteries include:

 

???? Penrith General Cemetery

???? St Marys Cemetery

???? Emu Plains General Cemetery

???? Castlereagh Anglican Cemetery (East Wilchard & Church Street, known as Castlereagh Cemetery)

???? St Stephens Church of England Cemetery, Penrith (Council was appointed as trustee by the Minister for Local Government in March 1982)

 

The briefing paper also identified significant issues concerning heritage cemeteries within the Penrith LGA.? In addition to the above five (5) Council managed cemeteries there are other privately owned heritage cemeteries within the Penrith LGA. These cemeteries are:

 

???? St Mary Magdalene Cemetery, St Marys (churchyard) ? Anglican Church

???? Sir John Jamison Cemetery, Penrith ? Catholic Church

???? St Thomas? Cemetery, Mulgoa (churchyard) ? Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation

???? McCarthy Catholic Cemetery, Cranebrook ? Penrith Lakes Development Corp Ltd

???? Uniting Church Cemetery, Upper Castlereagh (churchyard) ? Australian Upper Room (99 year lease)

???? Londonderry Methodist Cemetery ? privately owned

???? St James Cemetery, Luddenham (churchyard) ? Anglican Church

???? Uniting Church Cemetery, Luddenham (churchyard) ? Uniting Church

 

This report will provide an update on the current status and recommends the way forward for cemeteries under Council management to ensure a sustainable supply of burial/ashes placement sites for the Penrith LGA; recommends options for the ongoing enhancement and maintenance to meet community expectations and also recommends actions to prevent further damage and ensure preservation of the remaining burial sites within all heritage cemeteries.?

 

The report will provide an update on a proposal by the NSW State Government investigation into the development of a regional cemetery and crematorium at Berkshire Park.??

 

The report will also advise Council of the development of a draft Penrith Valley Cemeteries Policy that will amalgamate a number of previously adopted procedures and other relevant matters in a policy for the management of Penrith Valley Cemeteries for Council?s consideration to be presented at a future Policy Review meeting in early 2011.

 

The report recommends that a range of proposed actions outlined in the Penrith Valley Cemeteries Implementation Plan, included in the conclusion of this report be adopted.?

Background

As outlined at the Councillor briefing, there are a total of 13 cemeteries in the Penrith Local Government Area.? Council has care and control of five (5) of these cemeteries.? They are:

 

???? St Marys Cemetery

???? Emu Plains General Cemetery

???? Penrith General Cemetery

???? Castlereagh Anglican Cemetery (East Wilchard & Church Street, known as Castlereagh Cemetery, Cranebrook)

???? St Stephens Church of England Cemetery?

 

A brief history and current status on each of the 5 (five) Council managed cemeteries is outlined below.? The 8 (eight) cemeteries outside of Council?s control are discussed later in this report.

 

St Marys Cemetery

St Marys Cemetery dates from the 1880?s and is reaching capacity with limited sites available.? There are approximately 60 unsold sites available.? Burials occur in old and new ground and unused sites could be taken up within the next two years.

 

Ceasing pre-purchase at St Marys and Emu Plains and the introduction of a surcharge for plot purchase for persons outside the local government area, have contributed to extending the life of these cemeteries.?

 

Unlike Penrith General Cemetery, this cemetery does not have an ashes placement wall.? The provision of an ashes wall at St Marys would provide an ashes placement facility at the eastern edge of the city.

 

The wall, given the physical constraints of the available space at St Marys Cemetery, would be designed to compliment the character of the existing cemetery.? It is anticipated that the wall would be designed on a much smaller scale than the columbaria at Penrith General Cemetery, however the inclusion of an ashes placement wall would extend the operational life of this cemetery

 

 

Emu Plains General Cemetery

Emu Plains General Cemetery dates from 1860 and retains its rural charm and historic ambience.? Cemetery records up to 1967 are scant and existing headstones are the only record of burials for the first one hundred years.? In the 1980s, many vacant sites in the Catholic, Presbyterian and Methodist/Uniting sections of this cemetery were used for pauper burials.

 

There are approximately 30 sites left in the Presbyterian and Methodist/Uniting sections.? There are no Catholic or Anglican sites remaining.?? Less than 20 burials occur per year in this cemetery.

 

There is vacant land on the northern perimeter, however the preparation of this area for burials would incur considerable cost due to the gradient of the land and potential impact on the neighbouring properties.?? Improvements would require extensive earthworks, retaining walls, drainage works and access roads.??

 

For the above reasons it is proposed that no further land be developed for burial space in this cemetery.??

 

The provision of an ashes wall at Emu Plains General Cemetery would provide an ashes placement facility at the western edge of the city. A site specific design in keeping with the grounds of the cemetery would be required. As the Emu Plains Cemetery is not fenced, the design would also need to consider the use of robust materials within the design.? The cost of the wall is yet to be determined, however given the size of the cemetery it would be a low wall with approximately half of the niches proposed for St Marys.

 

Penrith General Cemetery

Penrith General Cemetery has the potential to serve the Penrith community for another 50 years.? This has been achieved through the Council decision several years ago to ensure the sustainable supply of burial sites by the provision of non-denominational lawn burial sites.?

 

Currently burial sites can be pre purchased.? The sustainable supply of burial sites could be further extended if the current St Marys and Emu Plains practice of ?at need only? purchase was also applied at Penrith General Cemetery.? The ?at need only? practice at St Marys and Emu Plains includes a clause that an adjoining plot, if available, can be purchased at the time of burial.? This practice allows an adjoining plot to be purchased for the spouse or partner of the deceased.? It should be noted that there are a number of reserved sites at Penrith General Cemetery dating from the early twentieth century (1910) that are still vacant.

 

The columbaria precinct (ashes placement walls and garden) has also proven to be very successful since the first wall was opened in the late 1990s. Two new walls (3 and 4) were completed in the last financial year.? The walls and garden provides the City?s residents with a Penrith Local Government Area facility for the placement of ashes.

 

The provision of additional memorialisation items (small monuments and plaques), and indeed, additional ashes placement walls, will be pursued for this cemetery.

 

The Master Plan for Penrith General Cemetery was adopted by Council fifteen years ago and has strongly influenced improvements in the cemetery.? It is now appropriate that the Plan be reviewed so that the remaining space can be used to maximise the number of burial sites.?

 

Major road works, in accordance with the master plan, were recently completed in the western sector of the cemetery.? Repairs to the older eastern sector roads have been required over the years but in some locations their condition is now considered beyond repair.? It is intended that these roads will be rebuilt to the appropriate standard as determined by the review of the Master Plan and Conservation Plan (referred to later in this report) to maintain the character and integrity of this older section of Penrith General Cemetery.

 

Castlereagh Anglican Cemetery (known as Castlereagh Cemetery, Cranebrook)

Castlereagh Cemetery is one of the oldest existing burial grounds in Australia.? The site is the only remaining physical evidence of the abandoned ?Macquarie Town? Castlereagh, established in 1810.

 

Following the enactment of the Local Government (Control of Cemeteries) Amendment Act 1966, Council sought confirmation from the Department of Lands as to which cemeteries in the Penrith LGA were under Council?s trusteeship.? The Department of Lands advised that this information would be forthcoming from the Department of Local Government.? The advice received was that Council?s trusteeship was limited to the St Marys, Penrith and Emu Plains cemeteries (Local Government Circular 2483 dated 14th September 1967).? As a result of this information, it was therefore Council?s understanding that Castlereagh Cemetery was owned by the Anglican Church.?

 

In 1979 a search was carried out by Council?s solicitors regarding ownership and the advice received was that ?The said parcel, Portion 281 of two acres, was Church of England Cemetery and appears to be part of the lands now controlled by the Anglican Glebe Administration Board.?

 

In the mid 1990s Council commenced investigations into the provision of a crematorium/cemetery to meet the needs of the Penrith Local Government Area and the surrounding region.? The most appropriate site for the provision of a crematorium, and cemetery, was the land adjoining the Castlereagh Cemetery.? The land, Crown Reserve Lot 245, surrounding Castlereagh Cemetery, was set aside for cemetery purposes in 1903.

 

As a result, Council sought trusteeship of Crown Reserve Lot 245, from the Department of Lands.? Trusteeship was granted to Council in 1995.?? There was no indication from the Department of Lands, at that time, that Council was also the trustee of the adjoining Castlereagh Cemetery, Lot 281.

 

During investigations in mid 2009, Council contacted the Anglican Church Property Trust seeking permission to repair the McHenry Tomb within Castlereagh Cemetery. The Anglican Church Property Trust advised that they were not the owners of the Castlereagh Anglican Cemetery.

 

As a result of this information, the Land and Property Management Authority (previously the Department of Lands) was again requested to advise on the ownership of this cemetery.? As a result of this request, Council was advised that in accordance with the Local Government (Control of Cemeteries) Amendment Act of 1966, Castlereagh Cemetery (Portion/Lot 281) is under the care and control of Council.?

 

 

Cemetery Maintenance

During the time of perceived ownership by the Anglican Church, some limited maintenance was carried out. The ?Friends of Castlereagh Cemetery? group, including descendants of people buried in the cemetery, was established with Council?s assistance and the sanction of the Anglican Church in 1993.? Until the end of 2008 this group maintained the cemetery with limited assistance from Council.? They have made a substantial contribution to its care and maintenance over the past sixteen years.?

 

Since Council staff became aware that the cemetery was in fact under the care and control of Council, Council?s cemeteries maintenance team now include this cemetery in their maintenance schedule along with Penrith, St Marys, Emu Plains and St Stephens.

 

Castlereagh Cemetery is subject to vandalism because of its isolation and current easy access.? The vandalism has had an impact on significant early settlement headstones within the cemetery and has also impacted on the surrounding landowners.?

 

The cemetery is currently not adequately fenced.? The timber front fence and gate erected 10 years ago are in extremely poor condition and termite infested.? The other three sides of the cemetery have rural type fencing.

 

To prevent further damage it is considered necessary to install appropriately styled security fencing and gates around the perimeter of this cemetery.?? Initial discussions with the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning, regarding the erection of a security fence has been positive, with the proviso that it be placed around the existing cemetery and be of an approved design.

 

The condition of the headstones, burial sites and cemetery in general are in a poor condition.? Work needs to be carried out to prevent further damage and to preserve the remaining headstones and burial sites.??

?

The National Trust of Australia (NSW) Guidelines for Cemetery Conservation strongly recommends that any ?significant work on a place of heritage value must be preceded by a professionally prepared study or conservation policy.? No work other than essential maintenance should be undertaken until an informed decision about the Conservation Policy for the cemetery has been made?.

 

In 2001-2002, a Conservation Management Plan (including a survey of the existing monuments) was prepared by Council?s heritage consultant. It is suggested that this document, in conjunction with the Council adopted 1989 Godden Conservation Plan for Castlereagh Cemetery be reviewed and updated before any significant conservation and restorative works are carried out in this cemetery.?

 

In the interim, basic grounds maintenance such as limited clearing of weeds by hand (to protect native species), rubbish removal and some mowing can be carried out.? It is also proposed to continue discussions with the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning concerning the installation of appropriately styled security fencing due to the urgent need to minimise further damage to this cemetery.? These works are in accordance with the 2001-2002 Conservation Management Plan.

 

 

St Stephens

 

Following a request from the Anglican Church, Council was appointed trustee of this cemetery by the Minister for Local Government in March 1982.? The church and cemetery were consecrated on 16 July 1839.? The most notable burial in the cemetery is that of Sir John Jamison (1776-1844), a significant citizen in the early days of the Colony.? The Register of the National Estate Statement of Significance states that St Stephens Church, including the Cemetery, is the only early colonial building remaining in the town of Penrith.? The unofficial town of Penrith achieved town status with the establishment of the church and cemetery.

 

Other Heritage Cemeteries in the Penrith Local Government Area

Early European settlement in Australia is reflected in the cemeteries of the early colony.? Fortunately, Penrith retains a number of these locally significant cemeteries.? In addition to the five (5) Council managed cemeteries, they include:

 

???? St Mary Magdalene Cemetery, St Marys (churchyard) ? Anglican Church

???? Sir John Jamison Cemetery, Penrith ? Catholic Church

???? St Thomas? Cemetery, Mulgoa (churchyard) ? Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation

???? McCarthy Catholic Cemetery, Cranebrook ? Penrith Lakes Development Corp Ltd

???? Uniting Church Cemetery, Upper Castlereagh (churchyard) ? Australian Upper Room (99 year lease)

???? Londonderry Methodist Cemetery ? privately owned

???? St James Cemetery, Luddenham (churchyard) ? Anglican Church

???? Uniting Church Cemetery, Luddenham (churchyard) ? Uniting Church

 

St Mary Magdalene Cemetery, Great Western Highway, St Marys

The Church was consecrated in 1840 and the first burial was that same year.? The cemetery includes burials from the King, Lethbridge and Marsden families.? The headstone of Phillip Gidley King, an early governor of NSW who died in England in 1808, is also in the cemetery.? The headstone was brought to Australia and placed next to that of his wife, Anna Josepha King in 1988.

 

The cemetery reflects the pioneering landholders and the growth of St Marys in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.? It is still available for persons with an existing burial right.? There are over 400 monuments in the closely packed cemetery.

 

Over the years there has been some vandalism but the cemetery is fenced and well cared for by the Church.

 

Sir John Jamison Cemetery, Lilac Place, Jamisontown

This cemetery was established by Sir John Jamison when he set aside a small portion of his estate for his Irish Catholic workers in the early nineteenth century.? An additional portion was added by another wealthy settler, Charles Thompson.? The burial ground was consecrated in 1839.? The cemetery has great historical significance and is tangible evidence of the huge Regentville estate of Sir John Jamison.??

 

In the late 1970?s and early 1980?s, the surrounding land was subdivided for housing.? The development of the surrounding lands and the clearing of the cemetery land encouraged vandalism and considerable damage has occurred over the years.? There is a great need for the cemetery to be protected from further vandalism and preservation of the remaining monuments.?

 

In 1983 the National Trust noted that ?the most remarkable surviving feature is the pair of fine wrought iron entrance gates?.? ?In 1988 the Godden Conservation Plan stated, ?Timber gate posts in the southeast corner indicate the previous location of a pair of forged iron gates which were stolen a number of years ago.?? The gate posts are still present at the site.

 

In 1994 the cemetery was in a very poor state.? Following complaints received about damage and vandalism, Council called a public meeting with local residents and stakeholders.? In 1996 fencing on all sides of the cemetery was considered by the Catholic Church.? The Church then advised that they were not going to erect a fence but would be requesting that all adjoining residents? gate openings into the cemetery be closed.

 

In the past, the cemetery accommodated an orchard for an adjoining owner and has been used as an access point for the construction of swimming pools and other works in the adjoining residential properties.?? Some properties still have gate access to the cemetery.? The current cemetery is readily accessible as there is no front boundary fence preventing access.

 

In 1994 The Nepean Family History Inc. published a Heritage Photographic Collection of this cemetery. This has proven a useful tool for comparison to assess damage that has occurred since that time.?

 

In mid 2009 Council officers carried out an audit of the remaining monuments.? The audit includes a written and photographic record of the condition of all existing monuments and fragments.?

 

The majority of monuments in the cemetery are Georgian style sandstone headstones dating from the 1830?s.? Later monument types include pedestals and desks in sandstone and marble.? The 2009 audit has shown that damage to this cemetery is extensive.? Many of the headstones are in pieces and lay face-up to the elements.? Headstones are missing from surrounds and it is apparent that all crosses have been removed from the cemetery.? There is now little evidence of the monuments that were situated on the western edge of the cemetery.?

 

Sir John Jamison Cemetery is a significant heritage cemetery.? The cemetery is considered at high risk and extremely vulnerable.? To address this risk the briefing paper suggested that Council consider pursuing ownership of Sir John Jamison cemetery with the Catholic Church.

 

Initial enquiries with St Nicholas Myra Catholic Church indicated that there is a level of interest in progressing discussion regarding the future ownership of the Sir John Jamison Cemetery. This will be the subject of a future report to Council.

 

St Thomas?, Mulgoa

This churchyard cemetery surrounds the Church, with the first burial occurring in 1839.? The dominant monument group in this cemetery is that of the wealthy and influential Cox family (children of William Cox, the Blue Mountains road builder) who settled in the Mulgoa Valley in the early nineteenth century.? Sons, Edward and George Cox donated parcels of land for the Church and cemetery.

 

According to the Godden Conservation Plan 1989, St Thomas? Church is one of the most important Gothic revival churches in NSW and the churchyard is an integral element of the church precinct. ?The precinct epitomises the early nineteenth century notion of the parish church and churchyard as a focal point for newly established rural Australian communities.?

 

The Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation is now the owner of the St Thomas? site which comprises the church and the surrounding 30 acres.? The rectory was damaged by a bushfire some years ago and not rebuilt.

 

McCarthy Catholic Cemetery, Cranebrook

This cemetery is possibly the earliest surviving burial ground in the Penrith district and the oldest Catholic burial ground in Australia, although this has not been confirmed by the Catholic Church.

 

James and Mary McCarthy settled at Birds? Eye Corner in about 1802.? In 1806 their daughter Elizabeth died and she was buried on the southern border of their property.? This later became a cemetery for local Catholics.? The cemetery was consecrated by Bishop Bede Polding in 1838.

 

The Sir John Jamison and McCarthy cemeteries exclusively provided burial space for local Catholics until the establishment of the Catholic Section at Penrith General Cemetery in the early twentieth century.

 

The McCarthy family lived on the property for over 170 years.? In 1965 the property was sold to Readymix however the cemetery was not included in the property sale.

 

The cemetery is within the Penrith Lakes environs and has suffered vandalism in the past.? The cemetery has been closed to the public for some years and access is by appointment only.? For many years ownership of the cemetery was undetermined.? Late in 2008, Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Ltd, under the provisions of the Real Property Act, 1900 became the owner of the McCarthy Cemetery.

 

Uniting Church Cemetery, Castlereagh

The Uniting Church Cemetery on Old Castlereagh Road provides important documentation of early Wesleyan settlement in the Castlereagh area.? The cemetery includes the grave of the church?s founder, John Lees who gave a portion of his land for the establishment of the first Wesleyan chapel in 1817.? John Lees and his wife Mary who were buried at Castlereagh General Cemetery were exhumed in 1921 and re- interred in this cemetery.

 

The Church and cemetery are situated on the perimeter of the Lakes development.? Both the Church and cemetery are leased for 99 years to the Australian Upper Room

(Community Church Group), on condition that the third chapel (1847), church hall (1863) and cemetery were restored and that an academy or retreat centre was built on adjoining land.

 

In February 1997, Council provided $6,000 for restoration of monuments from Voted Works.? The cemetery is still in use and is cared for by the lessee.

 

 

 

Londonderry Uniting (Methodist/Wesleyan), Londonderry Road, Londonderry

This cemetery is small with headstones dating from 1851 to 1892.? A Council file note (4124/17, Folio 15 dated 20 May 1992) indicates that the Church suggested that if the land were to be subdivided, Council may take on responsibility for the cemetery.? The cemetery and surrounding land was sold shortly afterwards by the Church.? It is understood that there is no covenant to protect the cemetery.

 

When the Godden Conservation Plan was prepared in 1989 there were twelve monuments and three footstones existing.? It also stated that there had been approximately 30 burials in the cemetery.? In 1994 the transcription record prepared by the Nepean Family History Society states that there were only nine monuments left.?

 

Uniting and St James? Anglican Cemeteries, Luddenham

These two churchyard cemeteries are still in use and both are situated on The Northern Road, Luddenham.? They date from the late 1800?s and are cared for by their respective owners.? Both cemeteries document the history of this village community.

 

Proposed Berkshire Park Cemetery/Crematorium Site (572-672 Richmond Road, Berkshire Park)

In June 2008 Councillors were advised by memorandum that the Department of Lands (now the Land and Property Management Authority, LPMA), were planning to develop a new regional cemetery at Berkshire Park on land adjacent to the John Moroney Centre, on the corner of Richmond Road and Llandilo Road.??

 

The LPMA has also advised that the development would include a crematorium as part of future development of the site.

 

Council?s draft LEP recommended that this land be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation under which cemetery use is prohibited.

 

As a result of this advice, Council was advised that further work on the investigation into the development of Council?s proposed Castlereagh Cemetery/Crematorium site was deferred until the outcome of the LPMA?s proposal was determined.??

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Penrith LEP 2010) was gazetted on 22 September 2010.? In accordance with Council resolution of 30 November 2009, a number of areas have been deferred from Penrith LEP 2010 for consideration in the next stage of the City-wide LEP.? In addition to the deferred areas, the NSW Minister for Planning has deferred this land at 572-672 Richmond Road, Berkshire Park.? The Minister for Planning deferred the site in response to representations from the LPMA which is investigating the land?s future use.

 

This further indicates that the LPMA still intends to pursue the establishment of a cemetery/crematorium in this site.

 

132-156 Church Street Cranebrook / Lot 245 DP752021

Existing zone

This site is currently zoned Rural 1(a) General under Local Environmental Plan 201 (Rural Land) and cemeteries are prohibited as they would be defined as "commercial premises". 

 

Proposed zone

A decision was made by Council to defer a number of matters from draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 for further investigation.  It was recommended that all land proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living in Castlereagh and Cranebrook (north of Cranebrook Rd) is to be deferred to allow more targeted community consultation and to determine the most appropriate location for the boundary between the proposed RU4 Rural Small Holdings zone and the proposed E4 Environmental Living zone.  Under the RU4 zone, cemeteries are a permissible use, unlike in the E4 zone which prohibits cemeteries. 

 

The draft LEP also proposed ESL hatching over this land.  This clause requires Council, when considering an application, to take into account a number of matters including the impact of the development on the vegetation and wildlife habitat.  The clause requires Council to be satisfied that the proposed development has been located and designed, and has employed appropriate measures to minimise its impact.  This may mean, for example, locating buildings and structures such as driveways, clear of existing vegetation, or, if that is not possible, in areas where the need for clearing is minimised.

 

However, as discussed above, until such time as the RU4 and E4 zones for this area are resolved for Stage 2 of the Citywide LEP (which is proposed to be on public exhibition in 2011), the prevailing controls under the existing environmental planning instruments remain.

 

Sustainable Burials

In 2008 a discussion paper on Sustainable Burials in the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area was prepared by the then NSW Department of Lands and widely circulated for public comment.? The paper provided a number of options for cemetery reform.??

 

The NSW Government responded to the Sustainable Discussion Burial Paper and approved a number of fundamental reforms to burial policy affecting Crown Reserve Cemeteries. The Crown Lands (General Reserves) By-law 2006 will be amended to:

 

???? Allow cemetery trusts the discretion to determine ownership of burial rights where there is uncertainty;

 

???? Restrict the sale of burial rights within a single Crown Reserve cemetery to one plot per person;

 

???? Reduce the minimum period required before unused burial rights can be revoked from 60 to 50 years;

 

???? Allow Crown Reserve cemeteries to revoke exclusive rights of burial in order to facilitate cemetery renewal programs;

 

???? Extend the By-law to all Crown Reserve Cemeteries managed by a Reserve Trust Manager appointed under Part 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1989.

 

These amendments are yet to be included in legislation.? The Crown Lands (General Reserves) By-law 2006 applies to cemeteries, specifically board governed trust cemeteries (e.g. Rookwood, Woronora and Botany) who report annually to the Minister for Lands through the Land and Property Management Authority.

 

Impact on Penrith City Council Managed Cemeteries

Penrith, St Marys, Emu Plains and Castlereagh Cemeteries are Crown Reserve Cemeteries with Council as trustee.

?

Until the repeal of the Local Government Act 1919 in 1993, Council cemeteries were covered by Ordinance 68 of that Act.? Ordinance 68 dealt specifically with cemeteries and burials.? It set out procedures, requirements and included sample forms such as Right of Burial Certificates.

 

The 1993 Local Government Act does not contain any sections or specific detail regarding the operation of cemeteries.? Generally, local government cemeteries continue to use Ordinance 68 as a guide to self-regulate their cemeteries. Penrith Council cemeteries operate under this Ordinance and not the Crown Lands (General Reserves) By-law 2006.

 

It is likely that the reforms will be extended to all local government managed cemeteries with Councils being required to operate their cemeteries under the Crown Lands (General Reserves) By-law 2006 including the above amendments.? This will be the subject of a further report to Council once more details are known.

 

Development of a Cemetery Management Policy

As mentioned in the July 2010 Councillor Briefing on Penrith Valley Cemeteries, there have been a number of Council resolutions that have been adopted as issue specific policy items.? In addition there have been a number of recommendations adopted by Council that have not been incorporated into a policy document.? It is proposed that these adopted recommendations and existing issue specific policy items be consolidated into one Cemetery Management Policy for the ongoing management of all cemeteries managed by Council.

 

Council?s Cemetery Service staff are currently researching and compiling all previously adopted Council resolutions and current cemetery practice deemed appropriate for inclusion in a policy, and a draft Penrith Valley Cemeteries Management Policy will be presented at a future Policy Review meeting in early 2011.

 

Financial Services Manager?s Comment

 

This report proposes any future operational surplus generated by the cemetery operations continues to be allocated annually to the Cemeteries Reserve. This practice in recent years has enabled the cemetery operations to continue to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements across the City?s cemeteries. The continued allocation of any annual surplus will ensure a sustainable funding source for ongoing future maintenance and the proposed improvements is secured.

 

Conclusion

The Councillor briefing on 26 July 2010 and this report identifies a number of issues relating to the ongoing management and maintenance of the existing Council managed operational cemeteries within the Penrith Local Government Area.? The report also identifies significant issues concerning heritage cemeteries within the Penrith LGA.

 

It is proposed that the actions identified in this report to address these issues be incorporated into a Cemeteries Action Plan.? This action plan outlined below also addresses the priorities identified for cemeteries in the Delivery Program 2009 -2013.?

 

Penrith Valley Cemeteries Action Plan 2009-2013

 

1. Maintain a sustainable supply of burial sites/ashes placement for the Penrith LGA

Proposed Actions:

???? Construction of an ashes wall at St Marys Cemetery, funded from the Cemetery Reserve (no facility for ashes placement currently exists at St Marys Cemetery);

 

???? Construction of an ashes wall at Emu Plains General Cemetery funded from the Cemetery Reserve (no facility for ashes placement currently exists at Emu Plains Cemetery);

 

???? Pre-purchase of plots at Penrith General Cemetery cease as per the current practice at St Marys and Emu Plains;?

 

???? The ?at need only? current practice at St Marys and Emu Plains that includes a clause that an adjoining plot, if available, can be purchased at the time of burial be applied to Penrith General Cemetery;?

 

???? The Master Plan for Penrith General Cemetery be reviewed.

 

2. Provide for the ongoing enhanced maintenance to meet community expectations for the five (5) cemeteries under Council?s control

Proposed actions:

???? Long term maintenance plans be developed for the cemeteries under Council?s care and control.? These plans would include determination of the level of service required to meet community needs, resources required and identification of funding sources including Cemetery Reserve and grant opportunities;

 

???? The annual surplus from cemeteries operations be allocated to the Cemetery Reserve to assist in the provision of a sustainable funding source for recurrent maintenance especially for those cemeteries at capacity and hence generating little or no income.

 

3. Prevent further damage to, and ensure preservation of, the remaining headstones and burial sites within heritage cemeteries??

Proposed actions:

???? The 1989 Godden Conservation Plan and the 2001 Conservation Management and Maintenance Plan be reviewed and updated. The recommendations from this review and update will be the subject of a further report to Council including an action plan to implement the recommendations at the cemeteries under Council?s care and control;

 

???? Appropriate fencing and gates be installed at Castlereagh Cemetery to assist in reducing vandalism and impact of neighbouring properties, particularly after hours access with funding from the Cemeteries Reserve. Daytime pedestrian access would still be available;

 

???? Discussions continue with the Catholic Church concerning the future ownership of Sir John Jamison cemetery that will result in a further report to Council;

 

???? Pursue grant funding to assist in the maintenance and preservation of Council managed heritage cemeteries;

 

???? The ?Friends of Castlereagh? be formally advised that Castlereagh Cemetery is under Council?s care and control and they be formally recognised for their dedication and work over the past years.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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 Committee meeting.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


A Vibrant City

 

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

 

12????? Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

22 November 2010

A Vibrant City

 

 

 

12

Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report???

?

Compiled by:??????????????? Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:???????????? Glenn Schuil, Acting Executive Officer ??

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

?

Presenters:?????????????????? Mr John Kirkman - CEO - Penrith Performing & Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report??????

 

Executive Summary

The Report to the Council details the performance of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd for the financial year 1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010.

The Report details the significant advancements that have been made by the Q Theatre, the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, the Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest and the Penrith Conservatorium of Music during 2009/10.

Of note the Report highlights that during the year there were an increased number of tickets sold at the Q Theatre, an increased visitation to and venue bookings at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre and an increased number of students and teaching sessions at the Penrith Conservatorium of Music.

The report recommends that the information be received and the Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Company for a further period of 12 months until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd Annual Report for 2010/2011.

 

 

Background

 

CEO Annual Report - 2009/10 Financial Year

Penrith Performing & Visual Arts (PP&VA) aims to develop and deliver cultural programs that enrich, educate, entertain and empower.? Each year PP&VA produces and presents cultural and arts education programs for the people of Penrith and western Sydney via:

-??? Q Theatre Company

-??? Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

-??? Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest

-??? Penrith Conservatorium of Music

 

 

 

 

 

2009/10 was a year of expansion and profit for PP&VA, with a major focus on:

 

-??? achieving a financial surplus

-??? continued revitalisation of PP&VA cultural programs

-??? audience development and resource building

-??? partnerships and strategic planning

 

2009/10 Highlights

 

-??? achieving an end of year profit of $115,009

-??? continuing partnerships with a range of premier Australian arts organisations/institutions e.g. Australian Ballet, ABC Classic FM, 2MBS FM, Campbelltown Arts Centre, Australian Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Art (Sydney), Japan Foundation, National Film & Sound Archive

-??? Beat Magic and Uniform World cultural programs with Japanese sister and friendship cities, produced in Penrith in November 2009

 

Issues of Concern in 2009/2010

 

Four major issues remained of concern throughout 2009/10 i.e.

 

1.? Arts NSW funding for the Q Theatre Company. Annual guaranteed Arts NSW funding of $300,000 for the Q Theatre Company ends in December 2010. PP&VA has continued to develop strategies and programs which will ensure funding continues.

2.? Thursday night security situation outside the JSPAC. Thursday night security outside the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre continued to be problematic throughout 2009/10.

3.? Maintenance Works and Capital Replacement. The need to maintain and replace essential capital items across PP&VA continued to impact heavily on the annual budget.

4.? Utilities and Insurance Costs. Costs for utilities ? electricity, water rates and telephone charges in particular ? increased dramatically in 2009/10. Similarly, so did insurance charges. Such charges will not decrease, and will continue to impact on PP&VA budgets.?

 

2009/10 Financial Result

 

The PP&VA 2009/10 financial result continued to build on the previous year?s strong performance, with PP&VA posting a profit of $115,009.

 

Revenue in the year at $3,385,694 was down on the past year ($3,442,505) by 1.65%. It is noted that in line with the total drop of income, Grants were a significant contributor to this decline, being down 6.2%. This is reflected also in the break-up of the global revenue received, whereby Grants as a percentage of the total, dropped from 61.2% to 58.3%. With the revenue decline, expenses also had to be contained, and despite significant cost increases in utility costs (11.5%), plus repairs and maintenance (14.9%), overall expenses fell 1.11%, from $3,307,353 to $3,270,353. More pleasing to note was that employment costs, which account for 45% of total expenditure, was contained, in fact being $35,745 lower than the 2009 figure.

 

With continuing improvement in financial controls, the entity has been able to significantly increase cash flows. The cash position at June 2010 was 31.1% higher than June 2009, bringing working capital into a positive position. It should be noted also that in the financial year 2010, the Directors brought to account the entities? Artworks Collection at $404,091. It was measured at fair value, by independent valuers, applying the International Valuations Standards Committee International Standards. With the formal accounting of the Artworks Collection, plus continued profit contribution, Equity grew from $83,853 to $602,953.

 

In 2009/10 PP&VA financial operations focused on the following core activities:

 

-??? improved financial management policies and procedures

-??? PP&VA Board and Subcommittee financial reporting

-??? JSPAC, PRG&TLB and Q Theatre Company audits

-??? accounts, payroll, BAS and superannuation

-??? budget reports for all grant applications and acquittals

-??? overseeing Box Office and Conservatorium financial procedures

-??? improved provision of financial data and reporting to Departmental Managers.

 

Future PP&VA Challenges??

 

-??? Uncertain Arts NSW funding. Arts NSW funding has decreased in dollar value, and increased in competition. This continues to impact on programming and project development initiatives (particularly for the Q and PRG&TLB).

-??? Facility maintenance and capital replacement. The major area of concern continues to be the replacement of malfunctioning, redundant and incompatible air conditioning systems at JSPAC and PRG&TLB.?

 

PP&VA Entity Reports follow:

 

-???? Q Theatre Company

-???? Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

-???? Penrith Conservatorium of Music

-???? Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest

 

Q THEATRE COMPANY

 

The Q Theatre Company?s artistic rationale is to produce and present theatre of excellence that engages the communities of Penrith and the surrounding region by offering programs that are diverse, stimulating and relevant. The Q Theatre Company?s artistic program incorporates four interlinked modules:

1.?? Production

2.?? Development

3.?? Education

4.?? Presentation

 

The Q Theatre Company aims to:

 

-??? be a ?flagship? for professional performing arts in Penrith and western Sydney

-??? celebrate and present performing arts excellence

-??? inform and entertain through outstanding performing arts activity

-??? create and present its own work

-??? facilitate performing arts education programs

 

2009/10 was a year of growth and expansion of key artistic programs such as Q Productions, accessible workshop programs and the Q Youth Company.

 

2009/10 Q Highlights

 

2009/10 highlights include:

 

-??? improved financial position

-??? increased Box Office and audiences

-??? increased awareness of, and participation in, the Q?s programs by the local community

-??? production and premiere of ?Mash Up?, the Q?s first self produced work in three years.

-??? ?Beat Magic?, a music event produced in collaboration with Penrith City Council and over 75 performers from Australia, Japan, China and Korea.

-??? expansion of the producing arm of the Q Theatre Company

-??? increased funding from state and federal Arts funding bodies for new projects

-??? expansion of the inclusive workshop program for people with a disability

-??? the ongoing relationships with the Sydney Festival, Ensemble Theatre, Bell Shakespeare, Company B and Sydney Theatre Company

-??? a new partnership with Circus Oz and Stalker Theatre Company

-??? continued exploration of new avenues of programming outside of Long Paddock and Playing Australia frameworks

-??? continued development of the Q Youth Company, Studio Q education and training programs

 

2009/10 Performance Program

 

??????????? In 2009/10, the Q Theatre Company provided a geographically and culturally important stage for 12 productions (including 2 self produced productions) and 3 works in progress, showing over 220 artists/arts workers, 7 Australian theatre companies and 6 international companies.

 

The significant increase in the Q?s Subscription Program was artistically and commercially successful, allowing the presentation of a more diverse range of theatre than in the previous year. The Q Subscription Program continued successful partnerships with leading Australian companies including Sydney Festival, Bell Shakespeare, Sydney Theatre Company, Christine Dunstan Productions, Hothouse Theatre, and Ensemble Theatre, as well as building a relationship with Circus Oz and Stalker Theatre Company.

 

In 2009/10, the Q redefined its program to give greater emphasis on and resources to new work produced by the company. The Q expanded its production program with the premiere of ?Mash Up?, the Q?s first self produced work in three years, and three works in development showings (one of which was in collaboration with Stalker Theatre Company).

 

The Q?s presentation program showcased 10 productions from leading Australian companies and one international company. The Q also expanded its program for children and young people through a comprehensive Education and School Holiday season. The 2009/10 Artistic Program provided a balance with and between:

 

-??? new Australian contemporary works (3)

-??? new Australian plays (4)

-??? international contemporary works (2)

-??? work from international writers (3)

-??? work in development showings (3)

-??? historically significant work by iconic writers (1)

-??? work for young people aged 0 ? 25years (8)

 

2009/10 Q Education Programs

 

In 2009/10, the Q Theatre Company continued to expand its education programs, building on the strong foundations established in previous years, to provide vital arts exposure and access for substantial school populations in our vast catchment area.

 

The 2009/10 Q Theatre Company Education Programs were considered to be an outstanding success, with the project important in assisting the Q to consolidate its position in a highly competitive market place to gain further competitive edge and profile. In particular, 2009/10 Q Theatre Company Education Programs focused on the following key areas:

 

1.? production and presentation of community access, education and training programs

2.? production and presentation of skills development and training workshops for regional communities

3.? development and distribution of information and education materials re the above programs

4.? development and management of training and skills development programs for volunteers, interns and school work placements

5.? increased access to arts experiences for a broad cross-section of the community (including socio-economically disadvantaged young people; culturally diverse groups; low income earners; the seniors? community; along with mainstream audiences)

 

Specific assessment of the 2009/10 Q Theatre Company Education Programs includes:

 

StudioQ Acting Courses for Youth and Adults

 

The 2009/10 program was strengthened with a quality team of 4 core tutors regularly taking weekly classes. The production focus of studioQ has strengthened in 2009/10 through end of term showings and the end of year showcase performance, which continue to provide an important opportunity for participants to perform in an industry-based context, and the establishment of the ?q youth company?, which has enabled the strongest participants to work with professional theatre practitioners.

 

In 2009/10, studioQ participation has continued to grow strongly with an additional weekly class added to meet demand. By the completion of this reporting period, over 80 students were undertaking weekly sessions with over 240 hours of combined tuition occurring each week.

 

Schools at the Q Theatre Performance Program for Primary & Secondary Students

 

2009/10 saw continued refinement and increasing specificity of programming for these important demographic sectors. As well as the self-produced Mash Up, productions were also sourced from leading Australian theatre companies specialising in making performances for this age group, including Monkey Baa Theatre for Young People and Patch Theatre Company.

 

FlannoFest: Secondary Schools Theatre Making Project

 

FlannoFest provided local drama students and their teachers with a ?real world? experience of creating and performing a new work in the industry. Students and teachers were able to enjoy quality time in the theatre and greater input from specialist theatre practitioners into developing their skills and performances.

 

FlannoFest is now sought out by local high school teachers as one of their core activities in theatre education each year, with strong verbal and written feedback suggesting that the festival is positively changing the culture of drama as a school subject / extra-curricular activity and being a vital contributor to improved HSC results.

 

In 2009/10, approximately 120 students and 9 teachers from 8 local high schools participated in this event for a combined total of over 200 hours of professional theatre engagement.

 

Kids at the Q Performances for Families

 

2009/10 was the third year of this program, featuring 4 music/theatre productions for children aged 3-12 and their families. Audiences for this program have grown dramatically since its inception in 2008, with over 2800 patrons attending.

 

Work Placements Program for Creative Arts / Entertainment students

 

This program continued to be successful, and is much sought after by local schools. Approximately 20 students undertook week-long placements in 2009/10, with positive feedback received from students, careers teachers and Q staff.

2009/10 Q Audience Development and Marketing

 

The aim of the 2009/10 Q Audience Development and Marketing Program was to:

 

-??? develop self produced work in collaboration with local artists and leading theatre companies

-??? strike a practical and creative balance between its own productions and the work of others

-??? present a diverse program that balances popular, accessible work with more challenging work

-??? develop new Australian theatre works (with special focus on interdisciplinary works)

-??? present productions from leading Australian performing arts companies and producers

-??? establish an ongoing relationship with Sydney Festival to ensure the festival reaches Penrith

-??? increase access from diverse communities such as people with a disability

-??? enrich performance programs via the development and implementation of education programs

-??? develop and present work for primary school students

-??? develop and present a school holiday program

-??? develop and implement community focused theatre skills development programs

-??? nurture and present the work of regional writers and performers

 

In 2009/10, audience numbers continued to increase despite a more streamlined and targeted program. 22,813 people attended productions presented and/or produced by the Q, representing a total audience increase of 12% from 2008/09 (20,344 people attended in 2008/09).

 

Overall audience capacity in 2009/10 was 70%, up from approximately 56% in 2008/09. This strong increase occurred despite a small decrease in the actual number of performances throughout the year ? 88 performances in 2009/10 compared to 93 performances in 2008/09. This upward trend in audience numbers highlights the success of offering a diverse mix of new Australian and International work plus programs such as the ?Primary School Program? and the ?School Holiday Program? in order to attract new audiences. It also highlights the success of offering a streamlined program that targets specific audiences.

 

Capacity for audience development and increased access remains high. As the company?s production arm continues to develop and grow, the program will need to be further streamlined to cope with the increased work load needed to self produce work.

 

2009/10 Q Research & Development

 

Having successfully re-built a strong audience base and re-established stable operational, programming and administrative structures, the Q Theatre Company was able to re-commence production with the ?Mash Up?. ?Mash Up? premiered at the Q in May 2009 and had a successful eight show season. The Q also produced a play reading series to develop new writing by Australian writers. The Q also undertook an extensive research project that looked at how to develop the Q?s accessible program and a long term plan to establish a mixed abilities ensemble.

 

In 2009/10, the Q established a partnership with Stalker Theatre Company, which saw seven artists from Stalker undertake a residency to develop ?Elevate? a stilt walking, break dancing and aerial performance. During the residency, the artists also worked with local young people who are ?at risk? of disengaging from the education system. The residency resulted in a public showing of a new physical theatre work that has since toured nationally and internationally. The Q will partner with Stalker in 2010/11 to develop and co-produce ?EN?, a new large scale outdoor performance.

 

q Youth Company

 

Throughout 2009/10, the Q offered StudioQ Acting Courses for Youth and Adults. Due to the strength and popularity of this program, the Q further developed the ?q youth company? in 2009 to the point where young people from this region now make at least one full-scale new work for a public audience each year, working with professional theatre practitioners from leading Australian performing arts companies. Their 2009 production was ?destination: where?? which received high praise from theatre critics and tertiary acting teachers. Based on a youth theatre model, the ?q youth company? continues to provide intensive training and performance opportunities for young people in this region who are seriously considering pursuing a career in the performing arts.

 

 

 

Future Q Directions

 

The 2009/10 Q Program was a more streamlined, targeted program of work than the previous year. This allowed the company to further develop its own productions in collaboration with professional artists and companies, and the local Penrith community.

 

In 2010/11, the Q will continue to expand its production arm, which will result in a reduced presentation program of the best work produced by leading Australian companies and artists. The 2010/11 Artistic Program will include a 6 show subscription season including 1 self produced work, 2 special events, 2 play readings, 4 school holiday performances, 3 primary school productions and 3 high school productions including 1 self produced work. The 2010/11 program will also involve 4 research and development projects.

 

Future Challenges for the Q Theatre Company

 

Future challenges for the Q Theatre Company include:

 

-??? achieving the financial resources to continue developing the company?s production arm and ensuring the ongoing production of Q theatre performance works

-??? developing a strong local audience base for new work produced by the Q

-??? on-selling the Q?s self produced work to other theatres and arts centres around the country

-??? meeting the increasing demand on the Studio Q and Kids at the Q programs

-??? creating work with the diverse communities in the Penrith LGA

-??? competing with strong local and regional entertainment e.g. Penrith Panthers, Penrith Leagues Club

 

2009/10 Q Performance Measures

 

1. Tickets sold:

-???? 2005/06 @ 5,775 ??

-???? 2006/07 @ 12,142?

-???? 2007/08 @ 14,693

-???? 2008/09 @ 20,344

-???? 2009/10 @ 22,813

-???? 2010/11 Target @ 25,000

 

2. Performances:

-???? 2005/06 @ 135

-???? 2006/07 @ 145

-???? 2007/08 @ 78

-???? 2008/09 @ 93

-???? 2009/10 @ 88

-???? 2010/11 Target @ 95

 

4. Q Education and Public Program participants

-???? 2005/06 @ 1,860

-???? 2006/07 @ 1,940

-???? 2007/08 @ 2,440

-???? 2008/09 @ 3,416

-???? 2009/10 @ 3,933

-???? 2010/11 Target @ 5,000

JOAN SUTHERLAND PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

 

For 2009/10, the JSPAC artistic rationale was to engage and develop audiences via a diverse range of music forms and genre by:

 

-??? presenting eminent composers, orchestras and ensembles

-??? developing new audiences via? programs involving contemporary music and emerging performers

-??? developing performance partnerships with key presenters e.g. ABC Classic FM, Sydney Symphony

-??? presenting regionally based Indigenous performers

-??? presenting regional performers and ensembles (including community based performers)

 

Specifically?

 

1. Stupenda Fine Music Series:

 

Focus for the 2009/10 Fine Music Program was the Stupenda Fine Music Series featuring leading Australian and international performers and ensembles i.e.

 

-???? Peter Sculthorpe Composer in Focus Gala Concert (31 October)

-???? 2009 Sydney Symphony Fellows Ensemble (15 November)

-???? Seckou Keita Quintet (22 January) with Sydney Festival

-???? Sunday Live ABC-Classic FM Live Broadcasts

1.??? Arco (7 March)

2.??? Marianna Ensemble (14 March)

3.??? Chris Duncan and Catherine Strutt (21 March)

4.??? Karen Cummings and John Martin (28 March)

-????? Money & Friends: Mozart Meets Stravinsky (30 April). Sydney Symphony Orchestra.

-????? The Pulse of Power: Thomas Buckner and Annea Lockwood and Topology (2 May). Aurora Festival.

 

2. Six Sundays in Winter Concert Series

 

This program continued an annual program of Sunday concerts, and featured:

 

-????? Over the Hills and Far Away (12 July) Works by Percy Grainger; performed by Tamara-Anna Cislowska

-????? Jim Conway?s Big Wheel (2 August)

-????? Boot Cake (16 August)

-????? Spooky Men?s Chorale (30 August)

-????? The Sydney Balalaika Orchestra (16 May)

-????? The Sydney University Graduate Choir (6 June)

 

3. Morning Melodies

 

Monthly concerts for Seniors i.e.

 

-????? Mary Schneider ? Australia?s Queen of Yodelling (22 July)

-????? The Fabulous Forties (26 August)

-????? Love is in the Air (23 September) NSW Police Band

-????? The Pommie Pub Party (28 October)

-????? Christmas with Kamahl (25 November)

-????? The Fabulous Fifties (27 January)

-????? Lonnie Lee ? The Legend Live (24 February)

-????? Growing Old Disgracefully (24 March)

-????? Born to Sing (28 April)

-????? Normie Rowe in Concert (26 May)

-????? The Winter Proms (23 June)

 

4. Community Music Program?

 

In 2009/10, JSPAC committed substantial financial, staff and infrastructure resources to support community based performers and musicians in order to increase audiences, skills development and music appreciation in the region. 2009 programs included:

 

-????? Penrith Symphony Orchestra 4 Annual Concerts (August 22 [2009], 7 November [2009], 20 March [2010], 29 May [2010])

-????? NSW State Band Championships (22, 23 & 30 August)

-????? Two Pianos Four Hands (11 October)

-????? Penrith City Choir, Warrimoo Chorale & Symphony Orchestra (4 December)

-????? Free Christmas Concert (17 December)

-????? Jazz at the Philharmonic (11 April)

-????? Pops for Tots (20 June) Penrith Symphony Orchestra

-????? Roger Woodward Masterclass (26 June)

 

JSPAC offers subsidised rehearsal, performance and storage accommodation to the following community music groups: Penrith Symphony Orchestra, Penrith City Choir, Penrith Valley Concert Band & Lofty Sounds, Penrith Eisteddfod, Acting Factory, Penrith Seniors Choir and Nepean Handbell Ensemble.

 

JSPAC Music Education

 

In 2009/10, JSPAC consolidated its music education programs to complement and expand existing ?in-school? curriculum studies, and ?pre and post-school? community needs. Music education programs continued to link participants with outstanding international and Australian performers and composers including:

 

-??? workshop program for 1-5 year olds (the fastest growing region for this age group in Australia)

-??? K-6 performance program particularly focusing on voice

-??? a 7-12 performance and workshop program celebrating the bodies of work of Australia?s pre-eminent composer Peter Sculthorpe

-??? public programs for seniors

 

The 2009/10 program featured 3 music productions for children aged 3-12 and their families. Quality of performances was strong for this particular price range. The 2009/10 program consolidated on its popular reception and continued to demonstrate potential for increased development of this niche program in the years ahead. Over 400 patrons attended.

 

JSPAC Australian Ballet Education Ensemble at the Joan

 

In its third year, this week long performance, workshop and professional development event attracted 802 students, 26 local dance teachers and 15 generalist school teachers. Sixty aboriginal students attended the ?Dance Movement for Indigenous Students? workshops.

JSPAC/Q Marketing and Promotion

 

Throughout 2009/10, JSPAC/Q marketing worked hard to drive a limited advertising spend further, through relationship building with our local media (across Penrith, Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury, and Sydney). For all shows, JSPAC/Q aimed to achieve a balanced, sustained exposure in the media (particularly local media) by spreading out over 3-4 weeks our advertising and editorial placement efforts. NB: JSPAC/Q competes with large organisations across the region that regularly place full-page media advertisements. Thus it is difficult to compete with on a ?toe-to-toe? basis.

 

The JSPAC/Q marketing strategy has grown extensively within the digital realm. The JSPAC/Q/PCoM website continued to be reviewed, refined and improved with a ?re-skinning? due for completion at the end of 2010. Similarly, the JSPAC/Q e-database was reviewed, which now boasts a patron base of over 6,500. JSPAC/Q ensures that its marketing strategy covers both traditional and digital means as not only cost effectively as possible, but in order to reach as wide an audience as possible, in addition to communicating with how patrons expect to be reached.

 

JSPAC/Q has begun advertising and publicising events further a field in an attempt to draw in newer audiences, in regions such as Blacktown, Fairfield, Auburn, Castle Hill and Parramatta. JSPAC/Q has also extended its reach in many different types of media, thus achieving publicity coverage in everything from main, suburban and regional print media, to radio covering commercial stations, ABC 7.02, ABC Radio National, ABC Classic FM plus community radio stations including 2MBS-FM, 2BLU & Vintage. Additionally, JSPAC/Q has achieved coverage in lifestyle magazines, ethic media, and specialist magazines, newsletters and E-news letters ? relevant to specific programs.

 

JSPAC/Q marketing continues to nurture relationships with independent producers, other theatre companies and their publicists to ensure that the Q and/or Joan venue gets included in publicity campaigns for touring shows ? to the benefit of all presenters. JSPAC/Q always cross-promotes the music program with the Q Theatre program, and via the Penrith Regional Gallery. There has also been a strategy to reach surrounding retirement villages, seniors groups (clubs and associations), school holiday care centres with our broad program to promote group bookings with some success.

 

The further development of JSPAC/Q databases will ensure that target markets are reached as effectively as possible e.g. niche audiences as determined on a program by program basis (for example, Indian or African communities). An area for improvement, to be actioned in 2010/11, is the development of an all-inclusive season program brochure that covers all JSPAC music events, instead of relying on marketing each event on a show by show basis. Using an enhanced, aggressive advertising program and more focused allocation of resources, PP&VA has been able to increase media coverage within both the local region and, when available, Sydney metropolitan press.

 

Through a balanced approach, the marketing program was successful in generating new audiences for JSPAC Music Programs and Q Theatre Programs. JSPAC/Q will continue to monitor and refine its ability to reach audiences through communication mediums that ensure cost efficiency and cut-through effectiveness in an often cluttered entertainment environment.

 

JSPAC Operations and Facilities Report

 

In 2009/10 JSPAC operations focused on the following core activities:

 

-??? Audience analysis and Database building

By conducting more audience analysis (through box office data collection), we are able to implement direct marketing offers as part of our promotions programs. There has also been a gradual move away from the reliance on printed communications via the ongoing development of our e-database (collection of email addresses) e.g. we have an e-data base of over 6,500 contacts.

-??? Digital marketing and promotion initiatives

JSPAC initiated a range of digital marketing initiatives including the redevelopment of the JSPAC website, monthly e-newsletter, Google Adword program and a banner link from our internal emails.

-??? Website maintenance.

Ongoing maintenance of the new website enabled effective online cross-promotion for all JSPAC and Q events in addition to the successful integration of the online box office sales system.

 

In 2009/10, JSPAC facilities operations focused on the following core activities:

-??? Air-conditioning maintenance and repairs

Maintenance and repair of the JSPAC air-conditioning systems continued to improve. However, problems remain in term of computer programs, system compatibility and the state of the old system.

-??? Plumbing maintenance and repairs

Plumbing maintenance and repairs continue to be required during peak usage. Problems still exist due to the original layout of the plumbing system under the Borland Foyer.

-??? Painting

Much work was done in 2009/10 in painting the JSPAC exterior via the PCC annual maintenance program. The interior of the building remained untouched and becomes increasingly shabby.

-??? Security

Security incident recording improved with the installation of the CCTV system. However, problems still remain with the slow and inconsistent response time from security providers.

 

JSPAC Future Challenges for Facilities Operations

 

-??? Venue security

Anti-social (particularly on Thursday nights) continues to pose image and patron service problems. This could affect the JSPAC and Penrith Conservatorium of Music patronage.?

-??? Painting

The quality aesthetics of JSPAC will continue to fall due to ad hoc and insufficient PCC painting schedules and programs.

-??? Poor plumbing and sewage systems

The plumbing system under the Borland Foyer continues to block and cause problems during peak usage unless the plumbing has been re-laid.

-??? Need to replace RBCH air-conditioning system

(Please refer to above entries).

 

2009/10 JSPAC Performance Measures

 

1. Visitation:

-???? 2005/06 @ 145,655

-???? 2006/07 @ 182,822

-???? 2007/08 @ 188,040

-???? 2008/09 @ 195,135

-???? 2009/10 @ 226,479

-???? 2010/11 target @ 250,000

 

2. Venue Bookings:

-???? 2005/06 @ 1,162

-???? 2006/07 @ 1,448

-???? 2007/08 @ 1,890

-???? 2008/09 @ 2,024

-???? 2009/10 @ 2,304

-???? 2010/11 target @ 3,000

 

3. JSPAC/Q Box Office Revenue

-???? 2005/06 @ $502,550

-???? 2006/07 @ $491.751

-???? 2007/08 @ $336,510

-???? 2008/09 @ $707,226

-???? 2009/10 @ $661,428

-???? 2010/11 target @ $682,000

 

4. JSPAC Venue Revenue

-???? 2005/06 @ $22,780

-???? 2006/07 @ $225,725

-???? 2007/08 @ $287,099

-???? 2008/09 @ $390,683

-???? 2009/10 @ $402,567

-???? 2010/11 target @ $437,600

 

5. PP&VA Community Subsidy Value

-???? 2005/06 @ $113,157

-???? 2006/07 @ $190,107

-???? 2007/08 @ $125,803

-???? 2008/09 @ $132,540

-???? 2009/10 @ $182,499

-???? 2010/11 target @ $135,000

 

 

 

6. PCC Free Rental Value

-???? 2005/06 @ N/A

-???? 2006/07 @ N/A

-???? 2007/08 @ $46,860

-???? 2008/09 @ $43,750

-???? 2009/10 @ $30,450

-???? 2010/11 target @ $33,000

 

PENRITH CONSERVATORIUM of MUSIC (PCoM)

 

Throughout 2009/10, student numbers and the number of scholarships continue to rise, indicating strong support and satisfaction for the PCoM (and the new programs that have been introduced e.g. expanded Early Childhood Music classes). Throughout 2009/10, PCoM focused on a range of strategic development initiatives, including:

 

-??? Extending PCoM teaching programs (particularly Early Childhood music programs).

These classes are an important first step before private tuition for young children.

-??? Scholarship Programs

The Penrith Conservatorium of Music continued to expand with the introduction of a community based program to source funding from local businesses and individuals to assist with the development of students in our region. This program was able to produce 5 additional full scholarships on top of our regular 9 scholarships comprising of full (4) and half (5) values. The Department of Housing in conjunction with Penrith City Council, also offered 3 full scholarships to students living in Housing Commission homes in the local area. All up, 17 scholarships were awarded.

 

2009/10 PCoM Highlights

 

-??? PCoM Disability and Early Childhood Music (ECHM) programs

The ECHM classes throughout the year involved performances from undergraduates from the music department of UWS. ECHM classes combined for an end of year concert, showcasing how the children have developed musically throughout the year. Music for people with disabilities is highlighted via training and concert programs e.g. the Nepean Handbell Ensemble, which also has an outreach program.

-??? PCoM student concerts

Many teachers present one or more concerts per year, often in conjunction with other teachers. These concerts not only showcase the student?s ability and enhance their performance technique, it is also used as a tool in preparation for their music exams.

-??? Increased use of JSPAC as HSC, AMEB, TRINITY and ANZCA exam centre

JSPAC continues to be recognised as a major music examination centre by these music organisations.

 

Future PCoM Challenges

 

-??? Need to increase teaching and performance programs

PCoM must continue to expand music genres to cater for a greater variety of music programs such as Jazz, Rock, World music as well as ensembles (such as String, Brass, Wind and Percussion).?

 

 

-??? Need industry standard percussion studio in JSPAC

This studio will be necessary in order to compete with other institutions and secondary schools to meet the Centre?s standard of quality teaching and facilities. In order to seed development of this program, a very basic percussion studio has been set up. NB: the shell of a future studio was included in the recent capital works.

-??? Increased regional competition

Maintaining the high quality standards offered by the PCoM is critical. Similarly, marketing and promotion will be a key to continued development.

 

2009/10 PCoM Performance Measures

 

1. Students:

-???? 2005/06 @ 340

-???? 2006/07 @ 400

-???? 2007/08 @ 410

-???? 2008/09 @ 403?

-???? 2009/10 @ 439

-???? 2010/11 target @ 460

 

2. Teaching Sessions:

-???? 2005/06 @ 14,663

-???? 2006/07 @ 17,251

-???? 2007/08 @ 16,800

-???? 2008/09 @ 16,523?

-???? 2009/10 @ 18,438

-???? 2010/11 target @ 19,320

 

PENRITH REGIONAL GALLERY & THE LEWERS BEQUEST

 

In 2009/10, Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest continued to develop and deliver exhibition, education and public programs of excellence for the people of Penrith and the surrounding region. Of particular success was the continued development of synergies with and between contemporary practice, community engagement, art history and scholarship. Importantly, the Gallery worked hard to honour the legacy and bequest of Gerald and Margo Lewers, and to consolidate community links and interest via inclusive exhibition programs that balanced populism with scholarship; local and global concerns; community and professional curatorship; emerging and established contemporary artists.

 

Special highlights of the year included:

-??? The Uniform World exhibition project involving PRG&TLB, Penrith City Council, Fujieda City and Hakusan City

-??? The culmination of a two-year partnership with the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney and international artist Sylvie Blocher and Campemaint Urban resulting in the exhibition Sylvie Blocher: What is Missing?

-??? PRG&TLB touring exhibitions Marella. The Hidden Mission, Vernon Treweeke: UV3D and Unreal Rock. The Photos of Jacques L?Affrique.

-??? The donation of artworks to the PRG&TLB and PP&VA collections worth over $400,000

-??? Sizzle 2009, the Gallery?s inaugural Inclusive Arts Festival. The Sizzle Festival program included art, film, dance, drama and a range of inclusive tours and workshops for people living with disability.

-??? Snap Shot, Teenagers Photographic Prize

-??? The Gallery?s caf? - Caf? at Lewers ? expanded its hours of operation to 5-days per week, and continues to enrich the Gallery?s visitor experience. Visitor feedback continues to be excellent.

 

2009/10 activities focused on the following key result areas i.e.?

 

2009/10 Exhibition and Curatorial Programs?

 

PRG&TLB aims to be a centre of excellence by providing a broad range of visual arts exhibition and educational experiences of a regional, national and international nature. Our mission is to develop and build audiences by delivering cultural and education programs that are diverse, stimulating and relevant to our targeted audiences, community and contemporary environment.

 

The 2009/10 exhibition project included:

 

-???? Operation Art 4 July ? 6 September 2009

-???? Kate Rohde 4 July ? 6 September 2009

-???? Class, Classy, Classic 12 September ? 1 November 2009

-???? Snap Shot- Teenagers Photographic Prize 12 September ? 1 November 2009

-???? Uniform: Japan Photos by Harold David 7 November ? 31 January 2010

-???? AOKI Tetsuo: woodcut prints 14 November ? 31 January 2010

-???? Sizzle 1 December ? 13 December 2009

-???? Sylvie Blocher: What is Missing? 13 February ? 4 April 2010

-???? TELE-VISION EYES 6 February ? 4 April 2010

-???? Preserved Installation by Tom Strachan 6 February ? 4 April 2010

-???? No Right Turn ? Drawing from Western Sydney 10 April ? 27 June 2010

-???? Berlin Burghers Microwave Monet 10 April ? 27 June 2010

-???? Blacklock & Edwards 10 April ? 27 June 2010

 

The Gallery also toured a number of exhibitions i.e.

 

-???? Marella: The Hidden Mission? Cowra Regional Art Gallery January 2010

-???? UV3D. Vernon Treweeke CarriageWorks Sydney June 2010

-???? Unreal Rock. The photos of Jacques L?Affrique CarriageWorks Sydney June 2010

 

 

PRG&TLB Education and Public Programs

 

The Gallery?s Education Program aims to enrich and extend the education?s sectors engagement with the Gallery?s exhibition program for a diverse range of education audiences. These include school students, youth and family audiences, seniors groups, disability organisations, tertiary students and the general public. In 2009/10, the program ranged across the following areas i.e.

 

 

Tertiary Program:

 

The 2009/10 program included Framed in the Windows of Lewers House professional development project in partnership with Nepean Art and Design Centre, culminating in a site specific intervention project and a photographic exhibition at the Gallery.?

 

Schools Programs:?

 

The 2009/10 program:

-??? provided focus for school students across a range of program areas: art appreciation, art criticism, art making, art history and kinetic literacy

-??? offered Master classes with contemporary artists, study days, curator led exhibition tours, forums and syllabus study packs

-??? assisted teachers in the classroom with syllabus specific exhibition and workshop notes across a range of syllabi including: Visual Arts, English and Human Society in its Environment

-??? offered practical art making opportunities linked to the exhibition program

-??? offered media specific studio days with contemporary artists

 

Seniors Programs:

 

The 2009/10 Program offered senior?s Gallery tours and morning teas.

 

Youth and Family Programs:

 

The 2009/10 program included:

-??? school holiday workshop programs and creative arts workshops for the under 5s, infants and? primary school children and teenagers

-??? family performance days

-??? playgroup mornings which include art making and garden activities.

-??? delivering Snap Shot 2010 ? Teenager?s Photographic Prize

-??? G2G: Gallery to Garden with Australian Ballet Education Ensemble ? an art/movement workshop for Aboriginal primary school students.

?

Education Program:

 

2009/10 Education Program included:

-??? delivering tailored education excursions including art appreciation, art making and site specific activities engaging with the heritage site

-??? development of a site specific drawing mural - supervising artist Catherine O?Donnell worked with TAFE students, high school and primary school teachers and students to respond to the site and its history and created a collaborative wall drawing. The mural was an education initiative for No Right Turn ?Drawing from Western Sydney. ?

-??? teacher development and enrichment programs, including Gallery tours that modelled interpretive strategies and art making workshops suitable for teachers to adopt in their classroom practice

-??? kids and family activities for targeted exhibitions, e.g. drawing activity booklet for No Right Turn ? Drawing from Western Sydney

-??? presenting disability workshop programs (in 2009 the Gallery targeted developing initiatives for people with vision impairment and providing studio access for education and recreational groups from the disabilities sector for visitors with an intellectual disability)

 

The 2009/10 PRG&TLB Education Program was considered a success in that it:

-??? increased access to arts experiences for a broad cross-section of the community, including socio-economically disadvantaged young people; culturally diverse groups; low income earners; the seniors? community; along with the general public

-??? expanded education and audience development programs to enable these groups to have increased awareness and involvement in the Gallery?s curatorial programs

-??? expanded training opportunities for arts educators and students

-??? provided valuable professional development opportunities for high school students, TAFE and University students

-??? provided a basis for the development and implementation of ongoing audience development strategies

?

PRG&TLB Disability Programs

 

The 2009/10 PRG&TLB Disability programs:

-??? welcomed visitors with disabilities by providing wheelchair accessible, disabilities parking and helpful visitors? services staff? - 112 groups attended with 1,587 people with a disability (and carers) participating

-??? delivered Sizzle 2009 ? An Inclusive Arts Festival, exhibiting 99 artworks and presenting 6 performances from people living with disability and delivering a series of inclusive tours and workshop as part of the Sizzle Festival Program

-??? offered art making workshops for visitors with a disability working with contemporary artists e.g. sensory painting workshop for International Day for People With a Disability?

-??? offered sensory tours to all exhibitions (including interpretative strategies that use the sense of touch, smell and sound as well as sight)

-??? provided a partnership project, exhibition and public information program with Richmond Fellowship for Mental Health Week

 

PRG&TLB Marketing and Promotion

 

The major focus of the 2009/10 PRG&TLB marketing and promotion was the development and implementation of digital strategies to ensure the introduction of new technologies, new paradigms of audience reach, and to divert resources from wasted hard copy and postage to more efficient means of accessing audiences, reflecting consumer?s changing habits of managing their social lives.

 

This strategy included

-??? reduction of hard-copy mail outs by 50%

-??? reduction of mail out costs by 50%

-??? increase of 40% print media advertising (and related editorial).

 

Throughout the year, much was done to raise and cement local and regional awareness. There was a balanced approach to such strategies, using diverse mediums to connect with our community and audiences. Specific strategies were developed for each identified target audience for each PRG&TLB project, including:

-??? dedicated advertising campaigns throughout Penrith, Blue Mountains, and Hawkesbury

-??? PR / Editorial - continued development of relationships with the local and metro media

-??? direct marketing - targeted direct mail on project by project basis

-??? E-newsletters - ongoing development of PRG&TLB e-databases (the Gallery now sends on average two e-newsletters per quarter to almost 3,000 recipients)

-??? online advertising - initiate digital advertising campaigns, with ?pay per click? ads on Google adwords

-??? outdoor - local area RTA community banners for selected events

-??? print collateral distribution - enhanced local and regional material distribution programs

-??? SMS - commenced trial SMS programs for mobile phone users, informing of special offers

-??? developed strategic partnerships with local businesses e.g. Westfield Plaza Penrith to promote our programs

 

It should be noted that the Gallery?s Marketing Officer was on extended maternity leave throughout 2009/10 (and will return from leave in early 2011), and that marketing was handled by outside consultants.?

 

PRG&TLB Collection Management and Conservation

 

The Gallery?s Conservation & Collection Program aims to care for and conserve the Gallery?s Collection and to facilitate scholarly research and general interest in the same. Major focus for 2009/10 focused on the conservation of outdoor elements of the Collection, structural elements of the Collection as well as the initiation of an overall Collection Area Management Project.

 

In 2009/10, conservation tasks included having the Lewers House Gallery and lounge room floorboards refinished in traditional tung oil; the Margo Lewers stained corkboard wall unit in Ancher House fully conserved (entailing surface cleaning, consolidation of pigment, cork infilling and in-painting) and a Margo Lewers plexiglass work Untitled c. 1971 repaired and cleaned.

 

During this period, a significant focus has been placed on works in the Gallery garden. This has resulted in two sculptural works, Paul Hopmeier, Three Wise Men 1982 and Lyndon Dadswell, Construction c. 1975, being relocated into the garden on new sandstone plinths. Importantly, the Margo Lewers Wall Mural Untitled c. 1970 (situated on the Lewers House verandah) has received conservation treatment, including the attachment of new flashing to the back of the tank stand, loose paint flakes being consolidated and re-adhered, the surface being cleaned and an application of varnish.

 

As a part of the garden focus, research was completed for the development of information text panels to be strategically placed to draw visitors through the garden area. Great care was taken to keep the intended audience in mind and the panels were written with the primary aim of providing a historical context that would enhance the experience of the general visitor. In addition, a text based project with artist Michael Lindeman and a skilled sign writer has seen selected site specific text located across the Gallery site.

 

In addition to major conservation jobs, the management of the Collection has also consisted of a Collection Archives Project that has progressed the housing of Collection photographs, correspondence and newspaper articles in museums standard storage folders. As a part of the Volunteer Archival Project, the artists? files have been catalogued and the exhibition archives rationalised. Furthermore, the purchase of a map draw unit will assist in the management of the works on paper element of the Collection and the creation of a Collection Register has been implemented to closely monitor the movement of works on arrival and dispatch.

 

The Gallery?s library has also received attention. Penrith City Council Library staff assisted in a project designed to make the Gallery Library accessible to both scholars and members of the general public. Staff members have catalogued the books in the Dewy system and began entering the reference information onto a Gallery specific link accessible via the Council library catalogue.

 

The Collection has also facilitated a series of loans to institutions. Three Margo Lewers? works, Broken Circles c. 1968, Orange with White (plexiglass) c. 1971 and Untitled (plexiglass) c. 1971, were loaned to Heide Museum of Modern Art, Melbourne, for their Cubism in Australia exhibition. The Power House Museum, Sydney, borrowed the Gerald Lewers, Model for fountain No. 2 c. 1960, a series of photos documenting the construction and installation of the Gerald Lewers I. C. I. fountain, Melbourne in 1958 and the Gerald Lewers Sketchbook, c.1958, for a touring exhibition, Modernism in Australia. Two Arthur McIntyre works, Cloudy Day Feeling 1972 and Someone Else?s Life 1994-96, were placed on loan to Hazelhurst Regional Gallery & Arts Centre, Gymea, Sydney for their exhibition Arthur McIntyre ? Bad Blood 1960-2000 and David Porter photographs for Unreal Rock: The photographs of Jacques L?Affrique aka David Porter were loaned to Carriageworks, Sydney.

 

Public access to the Collection archival material was provided to M/s. Darani Lewers while a public request was made to view the works of John Firth-Smith, Oil Sketch No.2, 1981, Rodney Milgate, Family c. 1965 and Tony Tuckson, No: 13 c. 1959. Furthermore, new acquisitions received consist of works from Brook Andrew, Harold David, Sonia Farley, The Robin Gurr Collection, Melinda Harper, Cherry Hood, Michael Kempson, Arthur McIntyre, David Porter, Greg Semu, Margaret West and Justene Williams.

 

PRG&TLB Garden Conservation

 

In 2009/10, the continuing focus was the implementation of the Heritage Garden Conservation Management and Maintenance Plan (CMP). Several heritage listed trees had become senescent (ill or dormant) in the Gallery car park, driveway area and Ancher House garden. A particular focus was given to the re-establishment of the tree canopy with youthful vigorous examples of the correct heritage species, to remain true to the CMP and to protect the under canopy from the western sun. The ongoing maintenance of the Lewers House front garden, succulent garden and Ancher House garden consisted of continued re planting and soil/compost replenishment to counter the often extreme climatic conditions.

 

PRG&TLB Strategic Partnerships

 

Throughout 2009/10 the Gallery continued its commitment to establishing cross institutional relationships by working with a number of key cultural institutions and organisations e.g.

-??? Campbelltown Arts Centre

-??? Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre

-??? Museum of Contemporary, Sydney

-??? CarriageWorks, Sydney

-??? The Australian Ballet

 

 

PRG&TLB Web Program

?

Throughout 2009/10, much work was done to expand the scope and scale of the Gallery?s website. Focus was given to the following areas:

-??? Gallery Caf?

-??? The Collection - acquisitions

-??? collection conservation and management

-??? history of the Gallery and site

-??? architecture, gardens and heritage

-??? the work and legacy of Gerald and Margo Lewers

-??? exhibitions ? Current, Pat and Present

-??? policies and management

 

PRG&TLB Intern and Volunteer Programs

?

Throughout 2009/10, interns and volunteers continued to assist with administration, curatorial and Collection management, workshop programs, hospitality and workshop programs, with the Gallery continuing to play a valuable role in professional development for our local community. The professional development opportunities are particularly valuable to our ongoing relationships with the high school education sector with our year 10 work experience program, and tertiary students through our internship programs delivered in partnership with UWS, University of Sydney, Macquarie University and Nepean Art and Design Centre. General volunteer programs continue to be a vibrant part of our volunteer program for the wider community.

 

PRG&TLB Facility Operations

 

In 2009/10, PRG&TLB facility operations focused mainly on:

-??? building and site maintenance - the facility and property are generally in very good condition, with the major exception of air conditioning, which remains problematic and requires constant maintenance

-??? garden conservation and maintenance - the garden remains in mint heritage condition and form

-??? air conditioning repairs and maintenance - the Gallery?s various air conditioning units were at times faulty, and did not operate to required and accepted museum standards. Over the year particular attention was paid to maintenance, monitoring and reporting so that the situation improved dramatically.

 

In terms of future facility and infrastructure challenges, Penrith City Council is aware of the following:

-??? unless Gallery maintenance is proactive and completed to schedule, the Gallery will again fall into disrepair

-??? current plumbing and drainage systems are inadequate and not suited to the high levels of visitation. Unless they are replaced, they will continue to fail.

-??? unless Gallery air conditioning systems are replaced and meet industry standards, the Gallery will be unable to exhibit works from major Australian galleries

-??? heating and cooling systems in staff offices range from poor to non-existent, and do not meet proper OH&S standards

-??? parking remains poor

-??? current Gallery space lighting system is outdated

-??? the area adjacent to the Gallery cafe requires re-surfacing?

 

Future PRG&TLB Challenges

?

-??? Poor and ad hoc maintenance

Unless Gallery maintenance continues to be proactive and completed to schedule, the Gallery will again fall into disrepair.

-??? Malfunctioning plumbing and drainage systems

Current plumbing and drainage systems remain inadequate and not suited to the high levels of visitation. Unless they are replaced they will continue to fail, resulting in further damage to the Gallery and garden.

-??? Air conditioning systems

Unless Gallery air conditioning systems are replaced and meet industry standards the Gallery will be unable to exhibit works from major Australian galleries. It will also be unable to exhibit its own Collection. The matter has been discussed with the Board and relevant Council officers.

-??? Poor parking amenity.

New plans have been drawn up by Council officers. Completion will greatly assist with visitor amenity.

-??? Outdated Gallery lighting system

Fittings and parts for the existing lighting system are becoming increasingly more difficult to source. The Gallery lighting system requires an overhaul in order for existing Gallery spaces to remain functional for future exhibitions.

 

 

2009/10 PRG&TLB Performance Measures

 

1. Visitation:

-???? 2001/02 @ 13,638 visitors

-???? 2002/03 @ 36,000 visitors

-???? 2003/04 @ 66,992 visitors

-???? 2004/05 @ 43,786 visitors (plus 12,360 to travelling exhibitions in Japan)

-???? 2005/06 @ 30,515 visitors

-???? 2006/07 @? 30,416 visitors (plus 47,353 to travelling exhibitions)

-???? 2007/08 @ 30,416 visitors

-???? 2008/09 @ 33,045 (plus 23,131 travelling exhibitions)

-???? 2009/10 @ 43,701 (plus 12,000 travelling exhibitions)

-???? 2010/11 target @ 47,000 (plus 16,000 travelling exhibitions).

 

2. Exhibitions:

-???? 2001/02 @ 12 exhibitions presented

-???? 2002/03 @ 24 exhibitions presented

-???? 2003/04 @ 37exhibitions presented

-???? 2004/05 @ 33 exhibitions presented (plus 2 travelling exhibitions)

-???? 2005/06 @ 22 exhibitions presented

-???? 2006/07 @ 19 exhibitions presented (plus 3 travelling exhibitions)

-???? 2007/08 @ 17 exhibitions presented

-???? 2008/09 @ 24 exhibitions presented (plus 4 travelling exhibitions)

-???? 2009/10 @ 19 exhibitions presented (plus 4 travelling exhibitions)

-???? 2010/11 target @ 22 (plus 2 travelling exhibitions).

 

 

3.?? Events/Workshops/Lectures

-???? 2001/02 @ 160 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2002/03 @ 300 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2003/04 @ 473 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2004/05 @ 660 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2005/06 @ 410 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2006/07 @ 191 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2007/08 @ 244 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2008/09 @ 102 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2009/10 @ 156 events/workshops/lectures presented

-???? 2010/11 target @ 200 events/workshops/lectures presented.

 

 
 


4. Education and Public Program participants

-???? 2001/02 @ 1,777 participants

-???? 2002/03 @ 6,000 participants

-???? 2003/04 @ 9,342 participants

-???? 2004/05 @ 8,223 participants

-???? 2005/06 @ 6,907 participants

-???? 2006/07 @ 12,382 participants

-???? 2007/08 @ 9,305 participants

-???? 2008/09 @ 7,349 participants

-???? 2009/10 @ 6,615 participants

-???? 2010/11 target @ 8,000 participants.

 

5. Venue Revenue

-???? 2001/02 @ $25,000

-???? 2002/03 @ $28,061

-???? 2003/04 @ N/A

-???? 2004/05 @ N/A

-???? 2005/06 @ N/A

-???? 2006/07 @ $22,428

-???? 2007/08 @ $15,303

-???? 2008/09 @? $24,975?

-???? 2009/10 @ $25,925

-???? 2010/11 target @ $25,500

 

6. Caf? at Lewers Rental Income

-???? 2009/10 @ $5,665 ?

-???? 2010/11 target @ $10,000.

 

In conclusion, I would very much like to thank the PP&VA staff, PP&VA Board and Penrith City Council for their continued commitment throughout 2009/10 to producing and presenting cultural and educational programs of excellence for the people of Penrith and the region.?

 

John Kirkman

CEO


NB? Graphs regarding the 2009/10 financial year will be part of the presentation to Council and will be forwarded separately for the information of Councillors.

 

Financial Accountant ? Entities Comment

 

Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Limited achieved a surplus of $115,009 after accounting for Council?s contribution of $1,461,518 in 2009-10 compared to their 2008-09 result of a $135,152 surplus after accounting for Council?s contribution of $1,461,518.

 

The company relies heavily upon both Council (43.17%) and the government (15.14%) to fund its operations. Government Grants to the company reduced in 2009-10 to $512,473 from $644,160 in 2008-09 a reduction of 20.4%. These amounts were 26.6% and 32.5% of all non Council provided funding for these years. The Chief Executive Officer has identified Grant funding as a major issue for the company into the future.

 

Of its own funding sources Hiring fees, Bar sales, Booking fees, Interest earned and miscellaneous income increased in 2009-10 whilst Ticket sales, Tuition fees and catering / conference revenues decreased. Overall funding from its own operations increased for the year to $1,411,703 from $1,336,827 (5.6%).

 

Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd ? Board of Directors

 

The Constitution of the above Company provides, in part, that

 

1.??? To provide continuity the members of the Board of Directors, except for the General Manager or his/her nominee, shall retire on a rotating basis. At the first Annual General Meeting after 1 July 2006, five (5) directors shall retire (including one (1) Councillor). At the second Annual General Meeting after 1 July 2006 five (5) Directors shall retire (including one (1) Councillor).? At the third Annual General Meeting after 1 July 2006 five (5) Directors shall retire. Thereafter the members of the Board of Directors, shall retire after they have served on the Board of Directors for three (3) years after appointment or re-appointment to the Board of Directors.

 

2.??? All retiring Directors shall be eligible for re-appointment.

 

Council should note that, as per the Constitution, Councillor Robert Ardill, Councillor Jackie Greenow, Councillor Karen McKeown and Mr. John Mullane retired in accordance with the Constitution at the fifth Annual General Meeting of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd held on 10 November 2010 (Councillor Robert Ardill, Councillor Jackie Greenow, Councillor Karen McKeown and Mr. John Mullane nominated for re-election). It was resolved, at the fifth Annual General Meeting of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd, that Penrith City Council be requested to endorse the appointment of Councillor Robert Ardill, Councillor Jackie Greenow, Councillor Karen McKeown and Mr. John Mullane as Directors of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd.

 

Council?s Director Mr. Barry Husking is the General Manager?s representative and was re-elected Company Secretary.

 

The Hon. Peter Anderson AM was re-appointed Chairperson and Mr. John Mullane was re-appointed as Deputy Chairperson.

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday November 22 2010

 

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

 

1??????? Presence of the Public????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1

 

2??????? Penrith Football Stadium - Naming Rights Sponsor

?

 


Policy Review Committee

22 November 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

?

1??????? Presence of the Public

 

Everyone is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council and those of its Committees of which all members are Councillors, except as provided by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

A Council, or a Committee of the Council of which all the members are Councillors, may close to the public so much of its meeting as comprises:

 

(a)                the discussion of any of the matters listed below; or

(b)               the receipt or discussion of any of the information so listed.

The matters and information are the following:

 

(a)                personnel matters concerning particular individuals;

(b)               the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers;

(c)                information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

(d)               commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

?                         prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or

 

?                         confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or

 

?                         reveal a trade secret.

 

(e)                information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of the law;

(f)                 matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property;

(g)??????? advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

The grounds on which part of a meeting is closed must be stated in the decision to close that part of the meeting and must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

The grounds must specify the following:

(a)                the relevant provision of section 10A(2);

(b)               the matter that is to be discussed during the closed part of the meeting;

(c)                the reasons why the part of the meeting is being closed, including (if the matter concerned is a matter other than a personnel matter concerning particular individuals, the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer or a trade secret) an explanation of the way in which discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

Members of the public may make representations at a Council or Committee Meeting as to whether a part of a meeting should be closed to the public

The process which should be followed is:

 

?        a motion, based on the recommendation below, is moved and seconded

?        the Chairperson then asks if any member/s of the public would like to make representations as to whether a part of the meeting is closed to the public

?        if a member/s of the public wish to make representations, the Chairperson invites them to speak before the Committee makes its decision on whether to close the part of the meeting or not to the public.

?        if no member/s of the public wish to make representations the Chairperson can then put the motion to close the meeting to the public.

The first action is for a motion to be moved and seconded based on the recommendation below.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:

 

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.

?

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY