10 December 2010

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 13 December 2010 at 7:00PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 29 November 2010.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.           ADDRESSING COUNCIL

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 24 November 2010.

Access Committee Meeting - 1 December 2010.

Waste Services Committee Meeting - 2 December 2010.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 6 December 2010.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 13 December 2010

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

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

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

COUNCIL CHAMBER seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross

We’ll toil with hearts and hands;

To make this Commonwealth of ours

Renowned of all the lands;

For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 



Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


For members of the public addressing the meeting

 
Council Chambers

Text Box: Lectern

Group Managers                          

                
          

 
Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

Director
Craig Butler

 

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

 

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Kevin Crameri OAM
North Ward

 

Acting Executive Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                          

                
          

 
   


2011 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2011 - December 2011

(Adopted by Council 29/11/10)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

7

 

 

2v

 

 

15#

5ü

10¨

7

12

(7.00pm)

 

28#

21

18

23#

27*

18

 

19^

(7.00pm)

 

21#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

 

 

14@

4

9

6

4

1

 

 

14

5

31

21

 

 

 

 

 

22

26@

31

 

 

Operational Plan Public Forum

 

6.00pm

 

 

 

 

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

Meeting at which the Draft Operational Plan for 2011/2012 is adopted for exhibition

*

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2011/2012 is adopted

#

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

@

Delivery Program progress reports

^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

ü

Meeting at which the 2010/2011 Annual Statements are presented

¨

Meeting at which any comments on the 2010/2011 Annual Statements are presented

-                 Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

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

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2010 AT 7:37PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by Rev. Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

 

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 8 November 2010

396  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 8 November 2010 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Marko Malkoc declared a Pecuniary interest in Item 4 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - St Marys in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as he has an interest in a property located in St Marys which will be affected by the proposed zoning. Councillor Marko Malkoc indicated he would leave the room for discussion of this item.

 

Councillor Tanya Davies declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 1-7 in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as she has interests in property located in some of the areas covered by the reports and her husband holds a Real Estate licence and works in the Real Estate industry in areas covered by the report. Councillor Tanya Davies stated her intention to leave the room for consideration of these items.

 

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 12 - Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: Lexie and Giovanni Cettolin as he exchanged preferences with one of the owners at the last local government election.

 

Councillor Mark Davies declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 1-7 in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as he has interests in property located in the areas covered by the reports and holds a Real Estate licence and works in the Real Estate industry in areas covered by the reports. Councillor Mark Davies stated his intention to leave the room for consideration of these items.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 4,5,6 & 7 in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as he is a Director of, Accountant for, Auditor for or owns a property in the areas that are the subject of the reports. Councillor Ross Fowler OAM indicated he would leave the room for consideration of the items.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM also declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 12 - Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: Lexie and Giovanni Cettolin as the owners are a client of his.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 1-7 in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as he has an interest in  properties located in areas that are the subject of the reports. Councillor Jim Aitken OAM indicated his intention to leave the room for consideration of these items.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 4 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - St Marys in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as she has interests in properties located in St Marys which will be affected by the proposed zoning. Councillor Jackie Greenow indicated she would leave the room for consideration of this item.

 

Councillor John Thain declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as he has interests in properties located in North St Marys and Colyton, however the zonings proposed are similar to the current zonings. Councillor John Thain indicated his intention to remain in the room for consideration of the item.

 

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

 

 

Councillor Karen McKeown declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 6 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Leonay and Glenmore Park in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as she has an interest in properties in Leonay. Councillor Karen McKeown indicated her intention to leave the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown also declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less then Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as she has interests in properties located in Emu Plains and South Penrith, however the zonings proposed are similar to the current zonings. Councillor Karen McKeown indicated her intention to remain in the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Items 4,6 &7 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as she has interests in properties located in St Marys, Glenmore Park and Emu Plains, however the zonings proposed are similar to the current zonings. Councillor Prue Guillaume indicated her intention to remain in the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as she has an interest in properties located in in Claremont Meadows and Jamisontown, however the zoning proposed is similar to the current zoning. Councillor Kaylene Allison indicated she would remain in the room for consideration of this item.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 7 - Draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2) - Urban Areas except for the suburbs of St Marys, Leonay, Glenmore Park and Kingswood in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 as he has an interest in a property located in Cranebrook, however the zoning proposed is similar to the current zoning. Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM indicated he would remain in the room for consideration of this item.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant in Item 12 -  Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: Lexie and Giovanni Cettolin as he exchanged preferences with one of the owners at the last local government election.

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

397  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7.48pm.

 

 

Mr Vince Hardy

 

Item 12 - Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: Lexie and Giovanni Cettolin

 

Mr Hardy, the applicant’s planning consultant, spoke in opposition of the recommendation.  Mr Hardy then addressed areas of concern including adverse impact on the character of the local area.  Mr Hardy stated that the development, whilst inconsistent with the development standard, would not cause any inconsistency with the zone objectives, and that approval would not create a precedent. Mr Hardy requested that Council refer the Development Application to the Department of Planning

 

Mr Spencer Buchanan

 

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

 

Mr Buchanan, the consultant town planner, spoke in opposition of the recommendation and outlined the proposal. Mr Buchanan, detailed the planning issues of the site and the historical background. Mr Buchanan provided an alternative subdivision proposal involving consolidation of lots in lieu of boundary adjustment and requested Council to consider approval of the proposal or defer the application for further discussions with Council staff.

 

Mr Patrick Hallinan

 

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

 

Mr Hallinan, applicant spoke in opposition of the recommendation and requested Council support the proposal. Mr Hallinan detailed the historic use of the site as a quarry and recycling site and claimed that the site would be rehabilitated using best practice techniques. Mr Hallinan believes there is a benefit to Council having a facility such as this approved which can receive materials such as soil, concrete and brick and that there is the potential to boost local employment.

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

398  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Mark Davies that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 8.02pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Max Harrison Retirement                                                                                                 

399  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Max Harrison Retirement be received.

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Greg Davies, Jackie Greenow, Ross Fowler OAM and John Thain spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute and requested appropriate formal recognition be arranged to express Council’s congratulations and thanks to Max and his wife Dulcie.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM indicated that the Mayoral Minute would be amended to reflect the omission of Mr Harrison’s OAM.

 

Reports of Committees

 

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

400  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

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

 

 

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

401  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 22 November, 2010 items 8-12 and Committee of the Whole items 1 & 2 be adopted.

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 1-7 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Mark Davies and Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:18pm.

402 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor John Thain that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 22 November, 2010 items 1,2 & 3 be adopted.

 

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

 

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in item 4,5,6 & 7 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 Councillor Ross Fowler OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:19pm.

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in item 4 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 Councillors Jackie Greenow and Marko Malkoc left the meeting, the time being 8:19pm.

403  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 22 November, 2010 item 4 be adopted.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

 

Councillors Jackie Greenow and Marko Malkoc returned to the meeting, the time being 8:20pm.

404  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 22 November, 2010 item 5 & 7 be adopted.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

 

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in item 6 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 22 November, 2010 Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 8:21pm.

405  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 22 November, 2010 item 6 be adopted.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

 

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM and Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 8:22pm.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Council Meeting Calendar for 2011                                                                                  

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

That:

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

2.     The draft Meeting Calendar for 2011 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

That:

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

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

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

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

 

 

4        Progress Report on Activities to Respond to Climate Change                                        

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

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

 

 

 

6        Future Community Infrastructure Program                                                                      

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

That:

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Procedural Motion

410  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor John Thain that consideration of Item 2 - Provision of External Legal Services to Council be deferred for discussion in Committee of the Whole because the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 

5        Investigations into Alternate and Renewable Energy Technologies                               

411  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

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

2.      A further report be prepared on Alternate and Renewable Energy Technologies to include:

· Possible partners and sites for technologies outside of Penrith City Council’s area.

·  Water turbine, solar thermal and bio-energy technology

· Cost benefit analysis on alternative and renewable energy technologies

 

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

412  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

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

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

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

4.     Commentary on the impact of wages inflation in the general economy and potential effect on increased rates to Council be included in the Summary of Investments and Banking report to the February 2010 Ordinary meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

8        Community Assistance Program Planned Component 2010/2011                                   

413  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

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

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

 

 

10      Bells Line of Road - Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan                                                

414  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bells Line of Road - Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan be received.

2.     Council make a submission, based on the contents of this report, to the Roads and Traffic Authority in relation to the preparation of the Long Term Strategic Corridor Plan for Bells Line of Road.

3.     Council make representations to the Roads and Traffic Authority requesting a presentation on the Plan as soon as practicable.

 

 

9        Services for Men Project                                                                                                   

415  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Services for Men Project be received.

2.     Council endorse the Services for Men Project Action Plan included in Attachment 1 of this report for implementation.

3.     A meeting of interested service providers and mens groups be convened to investigate the establishment of a men’s shed in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

 

 

 

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

416  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0753 Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision for Lot 86 DP 270417 (No. 38) Twin Creeks Drive, Luddenham be received.

2.     The objection to the lot density provisions of clause 35 of Penrith LEP 201 under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards not be supported.

3.     The application be refused for the following reasons:

3.1      Pursuant to 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of Clause 35 of Penrith LEP 201:

3.1.1  Minimum density objective

3.1.2  Allotment size and shape criteria

3.2                The objection to Clause 35 at Penrith LEP 201 under SEPP 1 is not well founded as compliance with the standard is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances

3.3      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument (Draft) Penrith LEP 2010 the proposed development is inconsistent with following the provisions of  Penrith LEP 2010 in terms of minimum allotment area:

Clause 35(3) (c)

All lots created by the development twill be compatible in size and shape with the physical nature of the land, adjoining land uses and the likely use of the land in the future  

Clause 35(3) (d)

The size and layout of lots that have boundaries with rural properties consider the interface between the rural residential estate and the potential for land use conflict.

3.4      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument (Draft) Penrith LEP 2010 the proposed development is inconsistent with the following aims and zone objectives of  (Draft) Penrith LEP 2010:

·    To provide for low - impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values 

·    To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values

3.5      Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) – Public Interest  Approval of the development is not in the public interest as it will set an undesirable precedent.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

 

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

Having previously declared Pecuniary Interests in Item 12, Councillors Ross Fowler OAM and Ben Goldfinch left the meeting, the time being 8:55pm.

Having previously declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant in Item 12, His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:55pm.

The Deputy Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, took the Chair for consideration of the item, the time being 8:56pm.

 

417  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor John Thain

          That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook be received.

2.   The SEPP 1 objection to Clause 11 of Penrith LEP 1991 be supported

3.   The application be referred to the Department of Planning for concurrence in accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP No1.

4.    Depending on the outcome of recommendation 3. Above, Development Application DA10/0275 - Proposed 2 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 200 DP 811535 (No. 28 - 30) Grays Lane, Cranebrook be reported to Council with a recommendation for approval subject to relevant conditions or refusal with relevant reasons.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Ross Fowler OAM and Ben Goldfinch returned to the meeting, the time being 8:58pm.

 

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

418  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0164 proposed demolition of existing buildings, extension to existing quarry, office, road transport terminal and boundary adjustment at Lot 228 DP 1134016 Lot 2 DP 221313 Lot 229 DP 1134016 (No. 1513 - 1519) Elizabeth Drive, Kemps Creek be received.

2.     A separate report/s be brought to Council regarding unauthorised works on this and adjacent land.

3.     The SEPP No.1 objection not be supported.

4.     The proposed development be refused on the following grounds:

4.1       The proposed development is inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 in that:

 

 

4.1.1  Clause 7(3) – The importation of material and uses are considered to be ‘Waste’ which is not permitted on the site.

4.1.2 Clause 12 –  The proposal does not provide sufficient public benefit

4.1.3  Clause 14 – Details relating to groundwater have not been submitted to conduct a detailed and accurate assessment of the proposal.

4.1.4  Clause 17 & Clause 18 – The proposal is inconsistent due to the receipt of imported materials and use for rehabilitation

 

(Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

4.2       The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the 1 (a) (Rural “A” Zone—General) and 1(b)(Rural “B” Zone—Smallholdings) zone under Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 in that the proposal would be incompatible with the rural character of the area due to the commercial nature of the development. (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.3       The proposed development does not comply with Clause 11 - Subdivision within of Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 in that the proposed subdivision does not achieve the minimum size requirement for the 1 (a) (Rural “A” Zone—General) and 1(b)(Rural “B” Zone—Smallholdings) zones and has not demonstrated that the variation to the Development Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.4       The proposed development is inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No.33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development as there is insufficient detail to conduct a detailed and accurate assessment of the proposed storage of fuels and chemicals at the site (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.5       The proposed development is inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land as there is insufficient detail to conduct a detailed and accurate assessment of the potential contamination of the site and associated recommendations in accordance with ‘Planning Guidelines for Contaminated Land’ (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.6       The proposed subdivision is not permitted in RU4 Rural Small Holdings Zone under the Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 in that the importation of material onto site does not conform with the land use definition ‘extractive industry’ (Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.7       The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with Objectives of the RU4 Rural Small Holdings Zone of the Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 in that the proposed would not be compatible with the long term planning and environmental capability of the land (Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.8       The proposed subdivision does not comply with Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size of Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 in that the proposed subdivision does not comply with the minimum subdivision requirement of two (2) hectares (Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.9       The proposed subdivision does not comply with Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards of Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 in that the proposed variation to the minimum subdivision requirement outlined in Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot size does not meet 90% of the prescribed Development Standard (Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.10     The proposed subdivision does not comply with Section 2.9 – Waste Planning of the Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 as a Waste Management Plan was not submitted with the Development Application (Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.11     The proposed development consists of a number of independent activities to the dominant use on the site which together with the proposed subdivision, the severance of these uses to operate in an independent manner is inconsistent with the long term planning for the area (Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.12     The proposed development could potentially be severed from the dominant use for the site and is therefore considered to be unsuitable for the site (Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

4.13     The proposed subdivision is not supported on the basis of its permissibility and impact to the surrounding areas as noted in a submission received during the public exhibition of the subject Development Application (Section 79C(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

 

 

 

4.14     The extent of subdivision and the potential segregation of uses on the site would create an undesirable precedent for inappropriate development which is not in the public interest. (Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

 

 

 

A Green City

 

14      E-Waste                                                                                                                              

419  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on E-Waste be received.

2.     Council partner with Sims recycling for a E-Waste “Drop Off” Service trial.

3.     Funding for the trial be provided from the Domestic Waste Management Reserve.

4.     The report be referred to the Penrith Business Alliance to investigate options for overseas partnerships to recycle and dispose of E-Waste.

5.     A report be provided to the Waste Services Committee on possible collection and disposal of chemical waste, batteries and tyres or alternatively a report on the promotion of collection and disposal initiatives of chemical waste, batteries and tyres.

 

 

15      Waste & Sustainability Improvement Payments                                                              

420  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Waste & Sustainability Improvement Payments be received.

2.     The proposed funding for the Waste & Sustainability Improvements Payments be approved as outlined in this report.

 

 

A Liveable City

 

16      Penrith Schools' Boatshed Management Committee                                                       

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Schools' Boatshed Management Committee be received.

2.     The following persons be appointed to the Penrith Schools’ Boatshed Management Committee for 2010/2011:

                             -        Ian McRae – President

                             -        Ray Green -  Vice President

                             -        Steven Taite – Secretary and Treasurer

                             -        Greg Corner – Boatshed Captain

                             -        James Robertson – General Committee Member

                             -        David Lunn – General Committee Member.

 

 

 

19      Penrith District Grade Cricket Club Grounds Maintenance Subsidy                             

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith District Grade Cricket Club Grounds Maintenance Subsidy be received.

2.     $9,110 is made available from the Penrith Panthers Precinct Reserve for the purpose of reimbursing Penrith District Grade Cricket Club for the construction of the maintenance shed at Howell Oval.

3.     $5,750 is made available from the Recreation Reserve for the purpose of reimbursing Penrith District Grade Cricket Club for the repair Cook Park wicket and sight screen at Rance Oval.

 

4.     A further report be submitted to Council regarding an increase in the grounds maintenance subsidy as part of the 2011-2012 budget process.

 

 

 

 

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

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 08-10/11, Provision of Pre-mixed Concrete be received

2.     Total Concrete Solutions P/L & South Coast Basalt Pty Ltd (trading as Western Suburbs Concrete) be appointed as the preferred contractor for the supply and delivery of Pre-Mixed Concrete for a period of two (2) years with an option to extend for a further one (1) year period, subject to satisfactory performance, allowing for rise and fall provisions.

3.     PF Concrete NSW Pty Ltd be appointed as the secondary contractor to be engaged in the event that the preferred contractor is unable to provide the service.

 

 

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

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 13-10/11 Construction of Concrete Path Paving be received.

2.     Devcon Civil Pty Ltd be appointed as the preferred contractor for the construction of concrete path paving for a period of two (2) years with an option to extend for a further two (2) by twelve (12) months periods subject to satisfactory performance, allowing for rise and fall provisions.

3.     Danste Pty Ltd be appointed as the secondary contractor to be engaged in the event that the preferred contractor is unable provide the service.

 

 

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

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11-10/11 Provision of a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner be received.

2.     An order be placed with Schwarze Industries Australia Pty Ltd for the supply and delivery of a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner for the lump sum purchase cost of  $279,636

3.     The existing unit to be replaced is returned to Schwarze Industries Pty Ltd as a trade in at a value of $10,000 to be offset against the capital cost of the new unit.

 

 

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 9:15pm.

 

17      Wearing of Helmets at Council Skate Parks                                                                    

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Wearing of Helmets at Council Skate Parks be received.

2.     An education program be developed for implementation from July 2011 within available resources.

 

 

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9:18pm.

 

18      Glenmore Park Stage 2 - Sports and Recreation Facilities                                             

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Glenmore Park Stage 2 - Sports and Recreation Facilities be received.

2.     Further consultation and an assessment of need be undertaken to determine the final configuration of sports grounds and potential users of the facility.

 

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

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Pathway construction from Carinya Avenue, St Marys to St Marys Village Shopping Centre be received.

2.     Council accept the offer of funding from Mirvac Funds Limited for the sum of $27,700 (x GST).

3.     The $20,000 shortfall in funding for the project be allocated from East Ward Voted Works.

 

24      Chameleon Reserve Basketball Court                                                                             

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

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Chameleon Reserve Basketball Court be received.

2.      The installation of a single basketball hoop at a cost of $3,000 be arranged with funding provided from East Ward Voted Works.

 

 

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

Councillor Ben Goldfinch left the meeting, the time being 9:49pm.                                                     

430  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Castlereagh Anglican Cemetery and Sir John Jamison Cemetery - installation of security fencing and gates be received.

2.    The Development Application for the Castlereagh Cemetery be brought back to the Ordinary meeting held on 7 February 2011.

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch returned to the meeting, the time being 9:50pm.

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 9:50pm.

 

A Vibrant City

 

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

431  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sponsorship of Sydney Dance Company & Australian Chamber Orchestra "Festival Inside Out" at Regatta Centre be received.

2.     Council provide sponsorship of $10,000 to the Sydney Festival “Festival Inside Out” funded from the City Marketing and Sponsorship budget. 

3.     A memo reply be provided to all Councillors detailing how Council will be involved in helping to promote the event.

 

 

26      Health Strategy                                                                                                                  

432  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Robert Ardill

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Health Strategy be received.

2.     The Health Strategy attached to this report be adopted by Council

3.     A letter of appreciation be sent to stakeholders who contributed during the consultation and public exhibition periods.

 

 

27      Heritage Assistance Fund 2010/2011                                                                                

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council’s Heritage Assistance Fund be received.

2.     The proposed list of successful applicants for the 2010/2011 Heritage Assistance Fund be endorsed.

3.     An Evaluation Report on the funding process to date and recommendations for the future Heritage Assistance funding process be reported to Council.

 

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9:59pm.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Disability Parking Design                                                                                         

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply detailing the design of disability parking bays and whether Council operates to a set standard. Councillor Davies would like the memo to include information concerning size, location and numbers of disability parking bays in the city and whether or not a city wide audit has been conducted on the size number and location to identify potential non-compliant bays.

 

RR 2          Colyton High School Zone                                                                                        

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply to all East Ward Councillors concerning the location of the 40km school zone on the Great Western High outside Colyton High School. Councillor Tanya Davies has received representations from a resident, that due to the pedestrian desire line, that it would be appropriate to relocate the school zone from adjacent to the Shell Service station to adjacent to the Mobil Service Station.

 

 

 

 

RR 3          Roper Road - Pedestrian Refuge Island                                                                 

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a memo reply to all East Ward Councillors with an update on the timeline from the RTA for installation of a refuge island at Roper Road, Colyton.

 

RR 4          Penrith Lakes Development                                                                                     

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council on the current status of the Penrith Lakes Development.

 

RR 5          Parkview Proposal                                                                                                    

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council detailing the Parkview proposal and the history of the development proposals.

 

RR 6          James Courtney Recognition                                                                                   

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council detailing how Council can honour James Courtney.

 

RR 7          Advertising Distribution Update                                                                              

Councillor John Thain requested a report to the Advertising Working Party in February regarding an update on the current advertising arrangement and in particular distribution issues.

 

RR 8          Seat/Bench installation - St Clair                                                                             

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report to Council providing quotations and costs for installation of a seat/park bench at the St Clair off leash dog area.

 

RR 9          7 Fauna Road, Erskine Park                                                                                    

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply to All East Ward Councillors providing an update on the tree issue at 7 Fauna Road, Erskine Park.

 

RR 10        Speeding Issues - The Lakes Drive, Glenmore Park                                             

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply on what can be done to mitigate speeding on The Lakes Drive, particular around the corner of William and Howell Drive.

 

RR 11        Speeding - Tarrabundi Drive, Glenmore Park                                                        

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply on options to mitigate speeding on Tarrabundi Drive, Glenmore Park.

 

RR 12        Antisocial Behaviour - Glenmore Park & St Clair                                                  

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply on ways that Council can work with Penrith and St Marys LACs to address significant antisocial behaviour issues at Tarrabundi Drive and Winna Place, Glenmore Park and Blackwell Avenue, St Clair.

 

RR 13        Footpaving - Glenmore Park                                                                                    

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply detailing any plans to provide footpaths along The Lakes Drive, (near William Howell Drive), Tarrabundi Drive and Luttrell Street, Glenmore Park. Councillor Guillaume also requested what the costing of providing these footpaths would be.

 

RR 14        Glenmore Park Loch                                                                                                 

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply regarding what can be done to address an overgrowth of water hyacinth in the Glenmore Loch.

 

RR 15        Glenmore Park Town Centre - Emergency Service Parking Bay                          

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply regarding organising Council rangers to patrol the emergency services parking bays at Glenmore Park Town Centre.

 

 

RR 16        Congratulate Council Staff                                                                                       

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested that Council staff be congratulated for the improvements to the footpath at Womra Place, Glenmore Park as she had received thankful representations from a resident in this area.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

434  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 10:10pm.

 

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

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

 

 

A Liveable City

 

2        Commercial Matter - Penrith Football Stadium, Naming Rights Sponsor                      

 

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

 

3        Commercial Matter - Provision of External Legal Services to Council

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

The meeting resumed at 10:53pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 10:10pm on 29 November 2010, the following being present

 

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

 

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

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Commercial Matter - Penrith Football Stadium, Naming Rights Sponsor                      

RECOMMENDATION

CW2 That the information be received and no further action be taken.

 

3        Commercial Matter - Provision of External Legal Services to Council                          

RECOMMENDATION

CW3 That the information be received.

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

That the recommendation contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2 & CW3 be adopted.

 

Recommittal of Item 2 – Provision of External Legal Services to Council

 

 

2        Provision of External Legal Services to Council                                                              

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

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

3.     Marsdens Law Group and Adams & Partner Lawyers be appointed where Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Gadens Lawyers have a conflict or more independence is required.

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

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 10:53pm.



PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                       


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        The passing of Pat Singh

 

2        Council recognised for commitment to gender equity

 

3        2010 National Disability Awards

 

4        James Courtney wins V8 Supercar Championship

 

5        Retirement of Panthers Director Barry Walsh OAM

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

The passing of Pat Singh

 

It is with great sadness that I note the passing of Pat Singh.

 

Penrith City is blessed to have so many people committed to volunteering and making a real difference to our community.

 

Pat was exceptional and I know how much she will be missed by not only the St Marys community, where she gave her time and efforts so generously, but all those across Penrith City whose lives were touched by her kindness and generosity.  

 

Pat joined the St Marys Senior Citizens Association in 2002 and took on the role of Secretary.  Pat soon became President and held this position for a number of years. With Pat’s guidance this organisation then evolved into the St Marys Combined Pensioners and Superannuants.

 

Pat was also involved with a number of charities and was a committee member for 10 years with both the Arthritis Foundation and Northcott Disability Services.

 

Pat had been involved on many committees of Council, notably the Seniors Week Committee since 2007 and also the recently formed St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct Community Reference Group. 

 

Pat was also a very committed member of the St Marys Anglican Church.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on The passing of Pat Singh be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Council recognised for commitment to gender equity

Strategic Objective: A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

           

 

In September Council endorsed a statement of commitment towards gender equity, and increasing the representation of women in local government, both as elected members and senior managers and professionals.

 

I am pleased to advise that Penrith City Council was presented with a Bronze Award, under the national 50:50 Vision – Councils for Gender Equity accreditation program, on 26 November 2010, at the National Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) Conference. I am proud that our organisation is again leading the way in reaching this first level of accreditation.

 

I am also pleased to advise Council of a second award, presented at the conference, to Amy Johnson who is a staff member from Lachlan Shire, with which Council has a Friendship Agreement. Amy Johnson (Parents Program Coordinator) won the Heart Foundation’s Go Red for Women Leadership Award, for her work with the ‘Widening the Circle’ program.  The program aims to improve the health and wellbeing of the participants (young Indigenous parents aged 12 to 25) and their dependent families, closing the gap between young parents and services and agencies.

 

I commend our organisation, and Lachlan, in leading the way on important issues.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Council recognised for commitment to gender equity be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

Mayoral Minute

2010 National Disability Awards

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

           

 

I’m pleased to advise that Penrith City Council was short-listed as one of three finalists in the Local Government category of the recent 2010 National Disability Awards. This prestigious annual award recognises the important work of individuals and organisations on behalf of people with disability. It is a great honour for Council to have reached the final stage of this award.

 

The short-listing recognised many years of hard work, in particular initiatives and action plans set out in Council’s 2003 Disability Action Plan and 2009 Penrith Inclusion Plan. These documents have guided Council in its important leadership role to contribute to a more inclusive and accessible City. In this role Council has adopted a strategic, planned and sustainable approach that ensures we make a difference to the quality of life as well as life opportunities for people with disability in our City. This approach is based on accessible customer service delivery as well as strong working relationships with our community partners.

 

Council was represented at the 23 November award ceremony by Deputy Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Cr Jackie Greenow, Council’s Access Committee members Ronda Hopkins and John Farragher, their carers and Council’s Community Programs Coordinator Joe Ibbitson. The Access Committee, which includes community representatives, is a critical building block in our approach to enhancing the lives of people with disability in our City. Their ongoing work was a key part of the nomination.

 

Council’s involvement in events such as the Nepean Disability Expo and International Day of People with Disability celebrations also impressed. It is through events like this that Council supports and raises awareness of the benefits of an inclusive society that recognises the diverse abilities of people and the importance of their contributions to the City.

 

I would also like to thank Council’s Disability Access Officer Ben Felten, Disability Services Officer Robyn Brookes, Community Programs Coordinator Joe Ibbitson and Community and Cultural Development Manager Erich Weller for their commitment and leadership in achieving this outcome.

 

 

Cr Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on 2010 National Disability Awards be received.

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Vibrant City

 

Mayoral Minute

James Courtney wins V8 Supercar Championship

Strategic Objective: A City with people and places that are inclusive, foster creativity, and celebrate diversity (20)

           

 

Former Penrith City resident James Courtney did his hometown proud, taking out the 2010 V8 Supercars Championship earlier this month and also winning the prestigious Barry Sheene Medal.

 

The former Emu Plains and Castlereagh resident proudly flew the flag for Penrith and Western Sydney at Sydney Olympic Park in the final race of the series, the Telstra 500. Courtney’s finish in 14th place was enough to see him take the championship on points. The following day James was presented with the Barry Sheene Medal, the sport’s best and fairest award, at the Annual V8 end of season gala dinner.

 

Courtney’s parents James (senior), mother Deanna and sisters still live in the local area although James lives in Queensland, where his race team is based.


In 1995 James Courtney became Junior World Karting Champion. He moved to Europe to further his career and made his Formula 1 debut in 2001. He returned to Australia and debuted in the V8 Supercar series in 2005.

 

Penrith City is home to many unique and inspirational individuals making their mark on the world. I will be writing to James on behalf of Council and the City, to congratulate him on his impressive achievements.

 

 

 

Cr Kevin Crameri OAM
Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on James Courtney wins V8 Supercar Championship be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Leading City

 

Mayoral Minute

Retirement of Panthers Director Barry Walsh OAM

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

           

 

The former Chairman and long-time Member of the Panthers executive, Barry Walsh OAM, has resigned from the Panthers Board following his election as Vice President of the NSW Rugby League.

 

Mr Walsh has been involved with Panthers for nearly 40 years, since starting as a gear steward in the 70s. Late last year Mr Walsh stepped down as Chairman, a position he’d held for 10 years, but retained his role on the executive board which he held for 27 years. His new role as Vice President of NSWRL prohibits him from also serving as a director of a club, resulting in his reluctant resignation from the Panthers board.

 

In 2009 Barry was recognised with the Order of Australia Medal for services to rugby league in the Penrith district.

 

Many building blocks go into making a successful Regional City, and the partnership between Council and Panthers is one such building block. The upgrade to Penrith stadium is just one example of what can be achieved through successful partnering. Over the past three decades, Barry Walsh’s distinguished leadership has brought great benefit to both the Panthers group and Penrith City.

 

On behalf of Council and the people of Penrith City I would like to thank and commend Mr Walsh for his valuable work, not only as Chairman, but also his many years of involvement with Panthers. His strong leadership, in addition to his passion and dedication for the Panthers, has brought great benefit to our City and I am sure he will continue to represent Penrith well in his new role.

 

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Mayor

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Retirement of Panthers Director Barry Walsh OAM be received.

 

 

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 24 November 2010

 

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

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Waste Services Committee Meeting held on 2 December 2010

 

4        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 December 2010

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Liveable City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership MEETING

HELD ON 24 November, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Karen McKeown; Ben Feszczuk, Penrith Local Area Command; Julie Passau, Penrith Local Area Command; Olivia Kidon, Penrith City Council; David Burns, Penrith City Council; Yvonne Perkins, Penrith City Council; Murray Halls, Penrith City Council; Kylie Chang, St Marys Local Area Command; Erin Davidson, Penrith City Council; Grant Healey, Penrith Local Area Command; Darryl Jobson, St Marys Local Area Command; Tracy Leahy, Penrith City Council.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Kaylene Allison for the period 22 November 2010 to 24 November 2010 inclusive.

 

APOLOGIES

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM; Councillor Kaylene Allison; Jeni Pollard, Penrith City Council; Katerina Tahija, Penrith City Council; Trudy Grant, Penrith Youth Interagency; Ray Filewood, St Marys Local Area Command; Gladys Reed, Penrith City Centre Association; Kristy Williams, St Marys Local Area Command; Gina Field, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce; St Marys Town Centre Management Inc.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 29 September 2010

The minutes of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting of 29 September 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007-2011 - Key Strategy Development          

1.   Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Free Areas

Olivia Kidon advised that, since the last Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting, a report was submitted to Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting in October where amendments to Council’s Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy were adopted.

 

The amendments were:

 

·  Allow a shorter determination process for applications for suspensions to Alcohol Free Areas and Alcohol Free Zones from 60 days to 30 days

·  Suspension to cover multiple events in one year

·  Alignment with Council’s insurer, Westpool.

 

Council continues to monitor a number of nominated locations and collects data pertaining to the amount of alcohol being consumed at each of these locations. A report will be submitted to Council should they be determined as suitable for establishment as Alcohol Free locations.

 

2.   NSW Attorney General Projects

‘Plate Safe’ Program

Yvonne Perkins advised that since the September meeting there have been a further two public fitting sessions for the installation of the anti theft number plate screws. The two fitting sessions were as follows:

 

·    30 October 2010 – St Marys Rugby League Club Car Park, Corner Forrester and Boronia Roads, St Marys from 10.00am til 3.00pm; and

 

·    6 November 2010 – Soper Place Car Park, Corner Belmore and Lawson Streets, Penrith from 10.00am til 3.00pm.

 

46 vehicles were fitted at St Marys Rugby League Club Car Park and 148 vehicles fitted at Soper Place Car Park. This brings the total number of vehicles fitted with anti theft number plate screws to 342.

 

The meeting was advised that the program is still experiencing challenges with fitting 1,500 vehicles with the anti theft number plate screws. 

 

The last two fitting sessions were advertised extensively in the local newspapers and to local commuters at Penrith railway station with the distribution of flyers. Flyers and posters were also distributed through local networks and local businesses within the CBD.

 

A variable message board was also sourced and displayed at Soper Place Car Park in the week leading up to the Soper Place fitting session which generated high community interest with the fitting of 148 vehicles.

 

Council will seek a further 12 month extension from the Department of Justice and Attorney General to continue to progress the project in line with the agreed conditions.

 

3. Update on Domestic Violence Projects

Domestic Violence Resource Project

The meeting was advised that interviews have been held with applicants to engage a casual staff member to coordinate part two of the project, the delivery of training activities for non government community service providers in the Penrith Local Government Area relating to domestic and family violence.

 

Reclaim the Night – Nepean Domestic Violence Network

The Nepean Domestic Violence Network successfully held two events to raise awareness for Reclaim the Night on Thursday 28 October 2010 from 6.00pm to 8.00pm.

 

Instead of holding a traditional march to mark Reclaim the Night, each event held at Westfield Penrith Plaza and St Marys Village Shopping Centre was marked with the distribution of balloons and flyers highlighting women’s safety and the significance of Reclaim the Night as an international event.

 

White Ribbon Day

November 25 is White Ribbon Day. Community Safety Staff will be handing out white ribbons to all staff to help raise awareness.

 

Community Safety staff have also assembled a display in the Civic Centre foyer to promote awareness surrounding violence against women and White Ribbon Day.

 

Tracy Leahy also advised that the St Marys and Penrith Aboriginal Police Liaison group will be in the green space from 9.30am until 11.30pm distributing white ribbons.

 

Staying Home Leaving Violence Program Launch

Olivia Kidon advised that the Nepean Domestic Violence Network is supporting the Program launch of the Staying Home Leaving Violence project as part of Stop Domestic Violence Day.  The project launch will be held on Friday 3 December in the Nepean Room from 9.30am until 1.00pm.

 

The project launch also incorporates a domestic violence service fair for service providers, who will provide an opportunity for workers to network and seek information for clients.

 

4.   Cranebrook Street Lighting Enhancement Project

David Burns advised that the Cranebrook Street Lighting Enhancement project is on schedule to be completed by the end of the year.

 

The installation of lighting along Pendock Road has been fully completed and the other stages of the project are completed and are awaiting approval from Integral Energy.

 

5.   Draft Code of Practice – Public Spaces CCTV Program

The meeting was advised that the Public Spaces CCTV Code of Practice was adopted by Council at its Policy Review Committee Meeting on 30 August 2010. All CCTV owned and operated by Council will now operate in accordance with the Code of Practice.

 

6.   Citywide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy

Warner Group Graffiti Education Program – Presentation

The recruitment process for 2011 has commenced for the Graffiti Education Program.

During the 2009/2010 financial year the Warner group has delivered 67 performances to primary school students and 47 performances to secondary school Students.  The Graffiti Education Program is the major action within the Graffiti Minimisation Strategy.

 

E-nose Graffiti Sensor 

E-nose technology has been located on Council property at two graffiti hot spot locations for a three month trial.  The device is designed to detect paint, aerosol, solvents and marker fumes. When the device detects these fumes it sends a notification via SMS to Council’s security provider for follow up action.

 

The units are moveable to other hot spot locations in the Local Government Area as required and Council may look to purchase the technology rather than lease it should the trial prove effective.

 

7.   Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Graffiti Project

The Department of Justice and Attorney General has selected Penrith Council as one of ten Councils to participate in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Graffiti Project. The rationale for selection by the Department is based on data from 2008.

 

Although Council has achieved significant outcomes in reducing graffiti since 2008, the project will continue in four known hot spots.

 

Olivia further advised that additional project information is yet to be received.  This project will commence in early 2011.

 

8.   Red Cross Park Bollard Lighting Project

Olivia advised that bollard lighting will proceed shortly and discussions are also continuing regarding the incorporation of a cultural arts component into the project.

 

9.   Federal Attorney General’s Department Safer Suburbs Plan Funding

The Federal Government and the Member for Lindsay have announced $200,000 will be committed for improved safety within the Green Space to extend the CCTV surveillance system and introduce activities to engage with young people in the space to discourage antisocial behaviour.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007-2011 - Key Strategy Development be received.

 

 

2        Status Report - Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007-2011                                

Olivia advised that the Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007 – 2011 is coming to an end in January 2011. It is proposed that an extension of the current plan be sought from the Department of Justice and Attorney General until December 2011. This will allow for the completion of current Attorney General funded projects, eg Plate Safe.

 

Council has been invited to apply for up to $50,000 funding under the Crime Prevention Grants Division grants scheme for 2011. To apply for this funding it is anticipated that Council needs to have an endorsed plan in place.

 

The Department of Justice and Attorney General has revised its guidelines, in line with the Crime Prevention Framework for NSW with a focus on situational measures and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

 

Further information on the development of a new Community Safety Plan for the city will be provided at the March 2011 Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting.

 

A PowerPoint Presentation detailing the achievements and progress of the current Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007 – 2011 was presented to the meeting.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Status Report - Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007-2011 be received.

2.     An extension of the term of the current Plan is sought until December 2011 from both Council and the NSW Department of Justice and          Attorney General. 

 

 

 

Regular Items

 

A)  Police Statistics

 

Penrith Local Area Command Crime Statistics

September – October 2010

 

Crime Category

Sept

Oct

Assault

90

75

Robbery

5

6

Break & Enter

35

47

Stealing

141

145

Steal Motor Vehicle

30

19

Malicious Damage

109

117

Drug Detection

108

34

Traffic Offences

527

554

Motor Vehicle Accident

70

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penrith Crime Statistics – October and November 2010

 

 

 

 

St Marys Local Area Command Crime Statistics

 

September – October 2010

 

Crime Category

Sept

Oct

Assault

113

94

Robbery

11

9

Break & Enter

77

40

Stealing

 

 

Steal Motor Vehicle

37

31

Malicious Damage

131

118

Drug Detection

22

11

Traffic Offences

 

 

Motor Vehicle Accident

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

St Marys Crime Statistics – October and November 2010

 

Kylie advised that she was unable to provide all statistics for St Marys for the period September through October 2010.

 

B) What’s in the Media?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Community Safety Information Stand                                                                      

Westfield Plaza management have asked that Council remove the Community Safety Information Stand from Westfield plaza. They have however, offered an alternative location on the lower level near the ATMs to have an information stand. Westfield has requested that we look into designing a display that can be mounted on the wall. The current stand has been in place for some years and is showing signs of wear.

 

 

GB 2 Emergency Magnet

Yvonne advised that the Emergency Magnet is distributed and contained within the Graffiti Removal Kits and that various other Community Safety Kits have undergone an update. Community Safety is seeking feedback on the design and content.  It was requested that Erin Davidson be advised of any amendments or suggestions via email.

 

 

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:30 pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 24 November, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 1 December, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Robert Ardill (Chair), Councillor Prue Guillaume, Ronda Hopkins, David Currie, John Farragher, Farah Madon, Councillor Jackie Greenow (arrived 5.19pm), Michael Morris (arrived 6.03pm)

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Hans Meijer, City Works Manager; Jonathon Wood, Trainee Environmental Planner; Graham Howe, Acting Building Projects and Maintenance Coordinator; Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager; Vanessa Muscat, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor; Pukar Pradhan, Senior Environmental Planner; Joe Ibbitson, Community Programs Coordinator; Robyn Brookes, Disability Services Officer; Ben Felten, Disability Access Officer; Steve Barratt (arrived 5.23pm)

 

The Chair welcomed everyone to the last Access Committee meeting for the year.

 

APOLOGIES

An apology was accepted from Denise Heath.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 6 October 2010

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 6 October 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Farah Madon declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 5 – Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee, DA09/0779 Lot 1 DP 781405 (No. 241-245) High Street, Penrith – Part demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building for a Medical Centre as she has had business dealings with the developer.  Farah Madon indicated she would leave the room for consideration of this item.

 

Farah Madon declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 5 Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee, DA10/0581 Lot 7 DP 7880702 Unit 5b and 5c (No 16-24) Borec Road, Penrith – Seeking consent for an existing gym “Fit 4 all” as she had done some voluntary work assessing whether they are compliant. Farah Madon indicated she would not participate in the discussion of this item.

 

Councillor Robert Ardill declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 5 – Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee, DA09/0779 Lot 1 DP 781405 (No. 241-245) High Street, Penrith – Part demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building for a Medical Centre as they are his local doctors.  Councillor Ardill indicated he would leave the room for consideration of this item.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

3        Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee                                       

DA10/0492     Alterations and additions to the Overlander Hotel/Motel, Cambridge Gardens – relocation of gaming lounge

Pukar Pradhan spoke to the development application as Robert Craig was unable to attend the meeting.  It was advised that the application is to relocate the gaming room from the southern side of the building to an existing outdoor lounge area on the northern side. An access report has been provided with this application.

 

Councillor Greenow arrived at the meeting at 5.19pm.

 

Some issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    accessible toilet facilities

·    replacing the door to the accessible toilet with a sliding door

·    moving the accessible parking space to the other side of the entrance.

 

Steve Barratt arrived at the meeting at 5.23pm.

 

DA10/0581     Seeking consent for an existing gym “Fit 4 all”, Borec Road, Penrith

Pukar Pradhan explained that the development consent is to convert two of the existing factory units into a gym.  The accessible toilets are on the ground floor and the entire ground floor is accessible.  The mezzanine is planned to house the cycle area and the physiotherapy rooms.  The applicant has advised that this can be moved to the ground floor if required.  It was suggested to use a chair lift to access the first floor level as an alternative solution.

 

Vanessa Muscat left the meeting at 5.32pm to obtain a copy of the BCA and returned at 5.35pm.

 

Councillor Ardill suggested taking this matter back to the applicant to obtain their response.  Pukar Pradhan advised he would ask the applicant to relocate the physio room downstairs, and possibly move the administration area upstairs instead of the cycling.

 

Graham Howe advised that there should be a shower in the accessible toilet.

 

DA10/0745     Alterations to Wallacia Hotel

Jonathon Wood spoke to the development application for the Wallacia Hotel.  The amenities are proposed to be relocated to the southern side of the building.  The beer garden at the rear of the building is also to be redeveloped.  One of the main access issues is the entry into the building – the functional entrance is at the rear of the site.

 

 

 

 

The Committee discussed:

 

·    preference for a common entrance at the rear of the building, which is accessible to everyone

·    provision of another accessible toilet near the restaurant

·    difficulty entering the building when using public transport

·    relocating the door to the accessible toilet and altering the location of the pan to create more circulation space

·    requesting an access report from the applicant.

 

DA10/1134     Fitout and use as Gym, 382 Great Western Highway, St Marys

Jonathan Wood spoke to the development application which is for the Direct Shoe Warehouse on the Great Western Highway at St Marys to be divided to accommodate a gym. A new dividing wall and partition will be erected to establish the gymnasium area.  A brief access report was provided with the application.  All facilities provided are on the one level.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    adequate carparking provision

·    consideration of placing bollards to prevent vehicular access from the laneway.

 

Councillor Ardill welcomed Michael Morris to the meeting at 6.03pm.

 

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in DA09/0779, Farah Madon left the meeting, the time being 6.05pm.

DA09/0779     Part demolition of existing building and construction of Medical Centre at 241-245 High Street, Penrith

Councillor Ardill declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in the application and left the meeting, the time being 6.07pm.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume took the Chair for the consideration of this item, the time being 6.07pm.

 

Pukar Pradhan advised that the application is for the old Pizza Hut restaurant site on High Street.  Part of the building will be demolished and a new two storey medical centre will be constructed.  The development will incorporate a lift, one accessible parking space, consulting rooms, pharmacy, waiting room and reception area.  An accessible toilet in the central part of the building is provided between the male and female toilets.

 

Erich Weller left the meeting at 6.10pm.

 

The Committee considered the following issues:

 

·    clearance to basement for access with a vehicle

·    provision of a second accessible carparking space near the lift and the front entry

·    consideration being given to the slope in the carpark

·    an accessible path of travel being provided through the pharmacy

·    insufficient carparking for the site

·    provision of another accessible toilet.

 

Erich Weller returned to the meeting at 6.17pm and left again immediately.

 

Graham Howe suggested going back to the applicant and discussing the issue of toilets and carparking.

 

Councillor Greenow expressed concern regarding the position of the loading bay and possible problems with deliveries and the movement of vehicles and pedestrians.  Pukar Pradhan suggested asking the applicant for a management plan to arrange deliveries before opening hours and after closing time.

 

Vanessa Muscat also suggested that the applicant provide a waste management plan for operational use.

 

Erich Weller returned to the meeting at 6.27pm.

 

Farah Madon and Councillor Ardill returned to the meeting at 6.28pm.

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

 

The meeting held a supper break at 6.30pm.

 

Jonathon Wood and Pukar Pradhan left the meeting at 6.30pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 6.40pm.

 

1        International Day for People with Disability 2010                                                            

Robyn Brookes spoke to the report concerning the International Day for People with Disability 2010 to be held on 3 December.  It was advised that the partner organisations for the event are the Sylvanvale Foundation, NADO, Flintwood Disability Services and Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy Centre.  The National Disability Coordination Officer Program at UWS is providing some funding support.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Council’s celebrations for International Day for People with Disability 2010 be received.

2.     Partner organisations, the Sylvanvale Foundation, NADO, Flintwood, Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy Centre and the National Disability Coordination Officer Program at UWS be thanked by correspondence for their involvement and support of IDPwD 2010 celebrations.

 

 

 

 

2        2010 Nepean Disability Expo                                                                                            

Ben Felten advised that the 2010 Nepean Disability Expo was a partnership project coordinated by NADO.  The Expo was held on 22 and 23 October in the Panthers Exhibition Pavilion.  Penrith Panthers donated 75% of the cost of hiring the exhibition pavilion. Initial feedback was that the exhibitors and visitors thought the appearance of the event was more professional than the previous Expo.

 

Committee members discussed food provision at the Expo and expressed concern that there was a limited variety, the service was too slow and there was only one coffee machine.

 

Ben Felten advised that the next organising committee will consider the comments and feedback from exhibitors and visitors for the 2012 Expo.

 

Councillor Greenow advised that John Farragher had spoken with the Hon Peter Primrose MLC at the Expo concerning access to the shops in High Street.  Ben Felten discussed the development of a program to create awareness by business owners of the importance of access to local business premises.  There is a good example in Marrickville where it is called “Missed Business”. 

 

Suggestion was made to make representation to the Chamber of Commerce and the City Centre Association for both the Penrith City Centre and the St Marys Town Centre. 

 

Councillor Guillaume left the meeting, the time being 7.10pm.

 

Other suggestions made were:

 

·    forming solutions before a meeting with business groups – businesses would have to sacrifice 1½ metres of their retail space to provide access

·    consideration of door design and how the doors operate

·    contacting Marrickville Council for information

·    investigating whether a cost/benefit analysis for business has been undertaken by any other organisations.

 

Erich Weller suggested presenting a report back to a subsequent Access Committee meeting with a more detailed proposal and incorporating some of the Committee’s suggestions.

 

RECOMMENDED

          That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on 2010 Nepean Disability Expo be received.

2.     A letter of thanks be forwarded to Nepean Area Disabilities Organisation for their coordination and administration of the 2010 Nepean Disability Expo.

 

 

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Upgrade of the Civic Centre First Floor Toilet                                                       

Graham Howe advised that the accessible toilet on the first floor of the Civic Centre should be completed in a few weeks time.

 

GB 2          Access Committee Orientation Evaluations                                                            

Robyn Brookes reminded Committee members to send back their evaluations from the orientation session.

 

GB 3          Penrith Railway Station Taxi Rank                                                                         

Joe Ibbitson reported that the Penrith Disabilities Resource Centre had written to Council regarding access at the Penrith Railway Station taxi rank. An onsite meeting was held at the taxi rank in August and Council then followed up the issue with Railcorp Infrastructure.  Railcorp has advised that the access upgrade will be included in their works for the Penrith Bus Interchange. The works will commence in mid December and be completed early next year.

 

GB 4          National Disability Awards                                                                                       

Councillor Greenow advised that John Farragher, Ronda Hopkins, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Joe Ibbitson and herself attended the National Disability Award ceremony in Canberra on 23 November.  Ronda Hopkins advised that 566 Councils nominated and Penrith Council was in the top three.  John Farragher thanked Council for the opportunity to attend the ceremony.

 

GB 5          Access Committee Information Session                                                                  

Councillor Greenow suggested that once or twice a year Council could ask people with disabilities to meet and talk about their issues with the Access Committee.  Ronda Hopkins thought that it could raise the profile of the Access Committee.  Vanessa Muscat indicated that it would be important to provide the correct information to issues brought forward.

RECOMMENDED that a report be presented to a future meeting outlining how an information and issues session with the Access Committee could be developed.

 

Councillor Ardill advised that the next meeting of the Access Committee will be held on 2 February 2011.  Councillor Ardill wished all Committee members and their families a happy and safe Christmas and New Year.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7.22pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 1 December, 2010 be adopted.

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Green City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Waste Services Committee MEETING

HELD ON 2 December, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM (Chairperson), Councillors Greg Davies, Marko Malkoc and Kath Presdee, and community representatives John Kliese, Trevor Robey and Andrew Wilcox (arrived at 7.25pm).

 

 IN ATTENDANCE

 

Alan Stoneham – General Manager, Barry Husking – Director, David Burns – Group Manager – City Presentation, Tracy Chalk – Waste and Community Protection Manager, Geoff Brown – Waste Services Coordinator, Brian Steffen – Group Manager Information & Customer Relations, Barbara Magee – Public Relations Consultant.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted for Patricia Ryan and Councillor Tanya Davies.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Waste Services Committee Meeting - 9 September 2010

The minutes of the Waste Services Committee Meeting of 9 September 2010 were confirmed.

 

 

 

BUSINESS ARISING FROM LAST MEETING

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM enquired about the biodegradable bags being provided with SITA identification so that bags can be sold through retail outlets nationally and requested that this matter be investigated further.

 

Councillor Greg Davies raised the issue of providing ‘no dumping’ signs around Charity Clothing Bins. David Burns advised that this would be followed up with City Works and that they would clean up the bins and provide signage around Charity Bins.

 

Trevor Robey enquired about the dumping of Bio Degradable Bags during the last distribution program and was advised that all issues associated with the distribution of the bags had been followed up by Council Staff.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Green City

 

1        Waste Management Services                                                                                            

Tracy Chalk provided a brief presentation on the information contained in item 1 of the Waste Committee Report which included the following issues:

 

·    Three-bin service operating satisfactorily, with 9% of residents opting for the weekly service;

·    Biodegradable bags were distributed to households in late September/early October and the next distribution program is due on 14 and 15 December 2010;

·    Communication  – the current communication theme is entitled the  ‘Clean Green Summer’ which sends a message to the community in regard to maintaining bins in the summer months, additional waste collections over the Christmas/festive season, E-Waste collection, chemical collections and finally ‘Clean up Australia Day’;

·    Community Education and Promotional activities;

·    Smith Family Clothing Drive was well supported by internal staff with around 300 kg of clothing and shoes collected;

·    Council Website is now regularly updated to keep residents informed about the domestic waste service.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM enquired in regard to the disposal of car batteries and whether they are accepted at the chemical cleanup. Tracy Chalk will investigate the acceptance of batteries in the chemical cleanup.

 

Trevor Robey enquired about the WASIP annual funding and was advised that these funds are distributed amongst NSW councils each year for Waste and Sustainable projects.

 

Councillor Greg Davies enquired about the possibility of publishing the results of the community waste survey in the Western Weekender Wrap.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee enquired in regard to the provision to additional information relating to the contamination management inspection program report.

 

Trevor Robey enquired about the inspection of contaminated bins. Geoff Brown advised that SITA was in stage 3 of the contamination management inspection program which will be due for completion in February 2011.  Stage 3 will see the completion of bin inspections throughout the entire urban area of the City. John Kliese enquired about the workable contamination level and whether this was built into the contract. Geoff Brown advised that the workable contamination level at the SAWT processing facility was 6% and the current estimated contamination level was around 12% by weight.

 

Geoff Brown further advised that Council has a responsibility in the first two years of the contract to contribute to the cost of high contamination.  In the third year, Council’s contribution to the cost of contamination is equivalent to 6% of the waste levy.

 

Alan Stoneham enquired about the contamination rate with regard to the Recycling Service.

 

Geoff Brown advised that the contamination level is about 6% and a contamination management program is conducted by Visy similar to the program operated by SITA.

 

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

 

 

2        Communications Strategy for the Three-Bin Domestic Waste Service                          

Brian Steffen provided a brief presentation on the information contained in Item 2 which included the following:

 

·    The main communication is focused on the theme titled ‘Clean Green Summer’;

·    Community telephone survey of 501 residents providing an overall satisfaction level of 73%;

·    Advertising, including the Top Tips for a Clean Green Summer, National Recycling Week and the Christmas Collections, E-Waste collection, Chemical Collection;

·    Promotion on the use of Council’s compost on the TV program the Garden Gurus.

 

Councillor Greg Davies asked about the use of banners for advertising. 

 

Trevor Robey expressed concern that the Western Weekender was not delivered to the Emu Plains/Emu Heights area.  Brian Steffen will follow this up.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Communications Strategy for the Three-Bin Domestic Waste Service be received.

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

Trevor Robey asked about use of gas emissions as an alternative energy resource and if further information could be provided on this.

 

Councillor Greg Davies suggested that all waste and sustainability reports be emailed to the Community Representatives.

 

Andrew Wilcox asked about the capture of methane gas as an energy resource relating to a business activity and was referred to the Penrith Business Alliance group for further direction.

 

Councillors Greg Davies, Marko Malkoc and Kevin Crameri OAM raised concerns with John Kliese about John Kliese’s negative comments with regard to Council and its Domestic Waste Service which have been posted on Facebook.

 

Councillor Greg Davies advised that Council and the Waste Committee are implementing programs to improve the three-bin service for the community and that John Kliese should also be reporting the positive outcomes on Facebook.

 

John Kliese responded by advising that all his comments should be read and that the social media is here as the latest means of communication.

 

John Kliese said he would take on board comments made by Councillors Greg Davies, Marko Malkoc and Kevin Crameri OAM.

 

 

NEXT MEETING

 

The next meeting will be held on Thursday 3 March 2011 at 7:00pm.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:00 pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Waste Services Committee meeting held on 2 December, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Liveable City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 6 December, 2010

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton - Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), David Lance - Roads and Traffic Authority, The Mayor – Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillor Karen McKeown – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Pat Sheehy AM Emeritus Mayor – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager City Infrastructure, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co‑ordinator, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer, Alyce Kliese – Trainee Engineer.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Paul Maynard – Ranger.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted for Councillor Jackie Greenow, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 8 November 2010

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 8 November 2010 were confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Local Traffic Committee - Meeting Dates for 2011                                                         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Local Traffic Committee - Meeting Dates for 2011 be received.

2.     The above dates be confirmed for 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2        Somerset Street, Kingswood - Removal of Redundant "Bus Zones"                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Somerset Street, Kingswood - Removal of Redundant "Bus Zones" be received.

2.     The existing “Bus Zones” on Somerset Street (eastern and western sides), Kingswood, between Derby Street and Stafford Street, be removed.  Both areas be provided with two marked parking bays in accordance with AS 2890.5 1993 Parking Facilities Part5: On-Street Parking.

3.     The residents at numbers 40 and 42 Somerset Street, and the body corporate of number 35 Somerset Street, Kingswood be advised of Council’s resolution.

4.     Westbus be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

3        Penrith Commuter Car Park - Provision of 10km/h "Shared Zone"                               

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Commuter Car Park - Provision of 10km/h "Shared Zone" be received.

2.     10km/h “Shared Zone” signage be installed in the Penrith Railway Station car park prior to opening for use by the public.

3.     Council’s Project Management Department be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

4        Saddington Street & Pages Road, St Marys - Reverse T-Intersection                          

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Saddington Street & Pages Road, St Marys - Reverse T-Intersection be received.

2.     Saddington Street and Pages Road, St Marys remain as a reverse T‑intersection.

3.     A lighting assessment be conducted at the intersection of Saddington Street and Pages Road, St Marys and appropriate lighting be provided.

4.     Council’s Risk Management Co‑ordinator and Westpool be advised of Council’s resolution.

5.     Councillor Greenow be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

5        Lakeview Drive & Waterside Boulevarde, Cranebrook - Removal of "No Parking" Restrictions                                                                                                                         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Lakeview Drive & Waterside Boulevarde, Cranebrook - Removal of "No Parking" Restrictions be received.

2.     The existing “No Parking” restrictions on Lakeview Drive (eastern and western sides) be removed between Waterside Boulevarde and Knot Street, Cranebrook.

3.     The existing “No Parking” restrictions on Waterside Boulevarde (southern side) be removed between Gannet Drive and Lakeview Drive, Cranebrook.

4.     Affected residents and J Wyndham Prince Consulting Engineers (JWP) be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

6        Parker Street/Jamison Road, Penrith - Proposed Installation of Safety Camera at Intersection                                                                                                                         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Parker Street/Jamison Road, Penrith - Proposed Installation of Safety Camera at Intersection be received.

2.     Council and the Local Traffic Committee note the information.

 

7        Abel Street, Jamisontown - Proposed B-Double Route                                                   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Abel Street, Jamisontown - Proposed B-Double Route be received.

2.     Abel Street, Jamisontown, from Regentville Road to the Nelson Trading premises at number 22 Abel Street, be approved for 25m B-Double use subject to conditions.

3.     The applicant ensure all necessary clearances to power lines are met for the 4.6m high vehicle and that the necessary driveway widths in accordance with AS 2890.2 (2002) for heavy rigid vehicles are in place at number 22 Abel Street, Jamisontown assuming unrestricted parking exists on Abel Street.

4.     The Roads and Traffic Authority be advised of Council’s resolution, and be requested to publish a notice in the Government Gazette in accordance with the “Route Assessment Guidelines for B-Doubles and Road Trains”, indicating approval to use Abel Street as a 25m B-Double route with the ingress route restricted to right-turn only from Regentville Road into Abel Street and then right into the property at number 22 Abel Street; and the egress route restricted to left-turn only from the property into Abel Street and a left turn into Regentville Road, with all ingress and egress movements to be made in a forward direction only.

 

 

8        Pages Road & Putland Street, St Marys - Pedestrian Refuge Facility Investigation    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Pages Road & Putland Street, St Marys - Pedestrian Refuge Facility Investigation be received.

2.     The construction of a pedestrian refuge at the southern leg of the Pages Road and Putland Stree t, St Marys roundabout not be supported due to conflict with heavy vehicle turning movements.

3.     Councillor Tanya Davies be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Desborough Road, St Marys – Results of Community Consultation on Crossing Modifications between Monfarville Street & Glenview Street  (Raised Council)                  

In February 2009 a request was received from Councillor Jackie Greenow, on behalf of a resident, for improvements to the former pedestrian crossing on Desborough Road at the intersection of Monfarville Street, St Marys.  As a result of this request a detailed investigation was conducted on all three crossing points and traffic management facilities in Desborough Road, between Monfarville Street and Glenview Street.

 

The investigation of the three crossing locations, markings and signage concluded that:

 

1.   Too many crossing points in a short distance, obstacles such as power poles blocking vehicle sight distances, and the proximity of the crossings at intersections made it difficult for motorists to see pedestrians from some approaches.

2.   The two marked footcrossings were providing a false sense of security to pedestrians as they crossed, with pedestrians often observed to cross without checking for approaching vehicles.

3.   It was considered safer if pedestrians cross with the understanding that they need to look out for vehicles and wait for them to pass.

4.   The former crossing at the corner of Glenview Street was poorly lit and led to an unpathed, steep, grassy verge area without ramps on its northern side.

5.   The centre pedestrian refuge was to be retained at the school’s side entrance on Desborough Road, and a new pedestrian refuge to be constructed at the intersection of Desborough Road and Monfarville Street.

 

 

 

 

As part of the investigation an on-site meeting was held with the Principal of St Marys South Public School to discuss the effect on the school of potential changes to the pedestrian crossings and centre pedestrian refuge on Desborough Road.  Following the on-site discussions, Council further investigated the viability of formalising a crossing at the school’s side-entry gate on Desborough Road.  At that time the location did not meet Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) warrants for provision of a full time marked pedestrian crossing.

 

The Local Traffic Committee, at its meeting on 3 August 2009, considered a report on Desborough Road, St Marys – Pedestrian Crossing Review.  This report considered the results of the Council officer’s investigations.

 

At its meeting on 24 August 2009, Council resolved, on the recommendation of the Committee, that:

 

“1.   The information contained in the report on Desborough Road, St Marys - Pedestrian Crossing Review be received.

 2.    The pedestrian crossing at the corner of Monfarville Street and Desborough Road, St Marys be removed and a median island and pedestrian refuge be constructed in its place.

 3.    The pedestrian crossing at the corner of Glenview Street and Desborough Road, St Marys be removed.

 4.    The red and white coloured Children’s Crossing flag poles at the existing pedestrian refuge adjacent to the school’s side-entry gate on Desborough Road, St Marys be removed.

 5.    Consultation be undertaken with the resident at 84 Monfarville Street regarding signage changes fronting the property at this location, and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

 6.    Subject to no substantial objections being raised by the affected resident, the existing ‘No Parking’ signage on the eastern side of Monfarville Street, immediately north of the intersection with Desborough Road, St Marys, be changed to ‘No Stopping’.

 7.    Costs associated with the removal of the crossings and provision of the median/pedestrian refuge be funded from the 2009-2010 Urgent Local Traffic Committee facilities budget.

 8.    Signage be provided on-site two weeks prior to and two weeks following removal of the crossings, advising “Changed Traffic Conditions – No Longer a Pedestrian Crossing”, or similar.

 9.    Councillor Jackie Greenow and the resident be advised of Council's resolution”.

 

At its meeting of 22 February 2010, Council endorsed the final design plans for pedestrian facility modifications at this location.  The improvements were completed in August 2010.

 

Following the implementation of the recommended modifications to pedestrian facilities on Desborough Road, Council received several representations culminating in Councillor Greg Davies requesting a report to Council detailing the reasons for the removal of the crossings. At its Ordinary Meeting of 16 August 2010, it was resolved that:

 

"1.     The information contained in the report Desborough Road, St Marys – Review of    Pedestrian Safety near St Marys South Public School be received.

2.       Council write to St Marys South Public School principal providing copies of this report together with the two previous Local Traffic Committee reports (3 August 2009 and 1 February 2010).

3.       This matter be further investigated by the Local Traffic Committee including direct consultation with the local community."

 

In response to Council’s resolution, Council officers wrote to the Principal of St Marys South Public School providing information on community consultation, with relation to pedestrian facility modifications, including a questionnaire to be circulated amongst the School’s P&C community.  The school was invited to provide any responses or additional feedback to Council officers, and to date, no response has been received from the school.

 

Further consultation was undertaken with the community within a designated catchment zone immediately to the north of Desborough Road and the school. This targeted consultation was deemed appropriate given that the catchment would likely be the dominant contributor to pedestrian activity along the subject section of Desborough Road. Consultation was in the form of a questionnaire which was distributed to 420 residents within the defined catchment.

 

The catchment was derived as the result of a radius being applied to all local primary schools in the vicinity.  The boundaries of the catchment for each school were defined by identifying the intersecting point between the radiuses surrounding each of the local schools.  The specific catchment for distribution of the questionnaire was then further defined as those properties, within the St Marys South Public School radius, situated to the immediate north of the school to which pedestrians may need to cross Desborough Road between Monfarville Street and Glenview Street

 

Figure 1 (below) shows the catchment area where the questionnaires were hand delivered (shaded area on map represents delivery area).

 

Figure 1: Desborough Road Crossing Points Catchment to St Marys South Public School

 

 

A copy of the questionnaire was also sent to all Councillors for information during the consultation period.
The questionnaire asked the following:

 

 

1.   Please write what street you live in (house number optional): 

 

2.   Do you have children that currently attend St Marys South Primary School?

 

q Yes                q No

 

3.   How do you use Desborough Road, St Marys, between Monfarville Street and Glenview Street?

 

3b. q Walk/run       q Cycle      q Drive      q Don’t go that way

 

3c. How often?                 q Daily      q Weekly   q Not Often

Comment?...........................................................................................................

 

4.   If you drive on Desborough Road, St Marys, between Monfarville Street and Glenview Street, have you noticed the recent changes to the crossing points?

 

q Don’t drive this way        q Yes                   q No

 

4b. If yes, how often?                 q Daily      q Weekly   q Not Often

 

4c. As a driver are you satisfied with the changes?

q Yes                q No                   q Neither yes or no

Comment?...........................................................................................................

 

5.   As a driver is the 40km/h School Zone on Desborough Road near St Marys South Public School easy to see and read for drivers?

 

q Yes                q No

 

6.   Do you or your children use Desborough Road, St Marys, between Monfarville Street and Glenview Street to walk to the school or shops?

 

q Don’t walk this way        q Yes         school        q Yes         shops         q No

 

6a. If yes, how often?                 q Daily      q Weekly   q Not Often

 

6b. As a pedestrian are you satisfied with the changes?

q Yes                q No                   q Neither yes or no

Comment?...........................................................................................................

 

7.   Do you have any suggestions that Council should consider at the two existing pedestrian refuge crossing points on Desborough Road, between Monfarville Street and Glenview Street?

 

Results of the Questionnaire

Of the 420 questionnaires distributed to residents, 14 were returned, representing a percentage return rate of 3.3%. The results of the questionnaire are summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1:
Results of Community Survey in Desborough Road Pedestrian Catchment Area

 

Total number of questionnaires delivered

420

Total number of questionnaires returned

14

Percentage return rate

3.3%

Number indicating dissatisfaction with crossing modifications

6

Number indicating satisfaction with crossing modifications

7

Number indicating neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction with crossing modifications

1

Responses to Q1.

Questionnaires returned from each street

Monfarville St:- 2, Desborough Rd:-  4, Adams Cres:- 1, Mark St:- 1, Carpenter St:- 2, Marsden Rd:- 1, Ranmore Rd:- 2, Maranie Ave:- 1

Responses to Q2.

Yes = 6

No = 7

Non response = 1

Responses to Q3.

10 respondents indicated that they negotiate Desborough Road as pedestrians (i.e. walk/run)

Responses to Q4.

Satisfied as a driver with the modifications:

Yes = 4

No = 6

Nether /non response = 4

Responses to Q5.

Satisfied as a driver with visibility of 40km/hr zone:

Yes = 10

No = 3

Non response = 1

Responses to Q6.

Satisfied as a pedestrian with the modifications:

Yes = 7

No = 6

Nether /non response = 1

Comments:

·     "This is a patrol/parking issue"

·     "Why not a crossing on Monfarville to the shops"

·     "Changes are OK"

·     "Both crossings were safe before they were taken away"

·     "Zebra crossing must come back"

·     "Pedestrian crossings should be put back"

·     "A crossing is needed"

·     "A designated crossing is clear and should be used"

·     "We need the crossing back"

Responses to Q7.

Comments:

·     "What pedestrian crossing"

·     "Please consider more No Parking signs around shops and intersections"

·     "The pedestrian crossing could be given back to the community"

·     "With footpath joining to it"

·     "Put the pedestrian crossing back"

·     "This is a busy road and not only used by school children, the elderly  should be considered"

·     "Put crossing back"

·     "Put in pedestrian crossing markings"

 

Of those questionnaires returned, six had indicated they were dissatisfied with the changes to the crossing points while seven indicated that they were satisfied with the changes, and one respondent indicated neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction. In summary the results of the questionnaire show that, of the 420 residences surveyed, only 1.4% indicated that they were dissatisfied with the modifications to the pedestrian facilities on Desborough Road.

 

These figures represented similar numbers to those obtained in the pedestrian and vehicle count numbers that were undertaken in August 2010 that indicated there were 10 pedestrians that crossed Desborough Road both in the morning and afternoon school peak times.

 

The results of the pedestrian and vehicle counts are shown in Table 2 below:

 

Table 2:
Results of Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts, Desborough Rd St Marys outside St Marys South Public School (August 2010)

 

Time (am)

V1

V2

P1

P2

Morning

133

97

2

7

Afternoon

128

124

7

5

 

The above results are consistent with pedestrian and vehicle counts taken prior to modifications in February 2010.

 

Currently, the footpath along the northern side of Desborough Road terminates mid-block and does not link the crossing points all the way from Monfarville to Glenview Streets.  It is likely that increased usage of the pedestrian refuge crossing points would be achieved with the installation of a footpath and pram ramps to complete the missing link at this location.  The footpath has not previously been extended to fill the missing link due to conflicting underground services, steep grades and the requirement for investigation into design plan feasibility.

 

Construction of a footpath at this location would come at a relative high cost due to the abovementioned factors and it is recommended that Council's Design Services Section be requested to prepare a design plan and cost estimate.  It should be noted that the current footpath program funding has been set by Council and any additions to the current selection list would not occur until 2012/2013 at the earliest.

 

Conclusion

Overall, a low return rate was achieved for the community questionnaire, indicating that many residents who live in the catchment and more broadly that would use the crossing to access the school or shops are satisfied with the current works. Of those who did respond, six indicated their dissatisfaction with the changes whilst seven indicated they were satisfied with the removal of the marked footcrossings.  In percentage terms, only 1.4% of surveyed residents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the modifications to the pedestrian facilities on Desborough Road. In addition, the current pedestrian and vehicle count numbers do not meet the RTA’s criteria for the installation of a marked pedestrian crossing at this point.

 

To improve access to the pedestrian refuge adjacent to the school’s rear gate on Desborough Road, it is recommended that Council's Design Services Section be requested to design a footpath on the northern side of Desborough Road, between Monfarville and Glenview Streets.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That:

 

1.     The prevailing traffic management facilities on Desborough Road, St Marys, between Monfarville Street and Glenview Street remain unchanged.

 

2.     Council's Design Services Section be requested to prepare a design plan for a footpath to complete the missing link on the northern side of Desborough Road, St Marys, between Monfarville and Glenview Streets. The final design and estimate be referred to Council’s City Works Section for consideration in future budgets.

 

3.     Councillor Greg Davies and St Marys South Public School be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GB 2          Memorial Avenue & High Street, Penrith – Proposed Parking Restrictions & Traffic Facilities for NSW Bike Plan 2010 Shared-Use Path  (Raised Council)                                  

Council, at its meeting on 6 September 2010, accepted a $1,000,000 funding offer from the NSW Government and the Roads and Traffic Authority.  Planning for the Year 1 Shared-Use Path from Worth Street to Memorial Avenue is progressing.

 

The project was placed on public notification from 1 to 29 November 2010 and no submissions were received.  The draft design has been completed and the project is expected to be ready for construction in mid-January 2011.  The works will be completed by the end of June 2011.

 

The project includes the following works that require the endorsement of the Local Traffic Committee, as highlighted in boxes on the relevant design sheets:

 

Memorial Avenue

 

·          The path crosses Memorial Avenue near Explorers Memorial and the Log Cabin Motel.  This requires approximately 20m of “No Stopping” zone (10m each side of crossing point) on both sides of Memorial Avenue to allow safe sight distances for pedestrians and cyclists to see oncoming traffic. (AH117, Sheet 6 of 16).

·          To assist in maintaining health and longevity of the line of Jacaranda trees near the Penrith Valley Inn, it is proposed to widen the footpath so that the shared path travels on the south side of the trees and construction does not damage tree roots.  It also results in less tree trimming being required.  This will be achieved through the widening of the footpath area which will, in turn, reduce the eastbound travel lane width and remove the on-street parking at this location.  Approximately 100m of “No Stopping” zone on the northern side of Memorial Avenue, principally at the frontage of the Penrith Valley Inn, is required.

This has been discussed with the Manager of the Penrith Valley Inn and the owner, Mr Ross Sinclair, who have raised no objection to the loss of on-street parking as ample on-site parking is available for the clients of the motel (AH117, Sheet 6 of 16).

·          The path crosses Memorial Avenue at the intersection of Great Western Highway.  A pedestrian/cyclist refuge is proposed at the intersection for safer crossing, replacing the existing median.  In addition, the alignment of the eastern kerb is altered to reconfigure the intersection to reduce instances of high speed left-hand turns from the Great Western Highway  (AH117, Sheet 7 of 16).

 

High Street

 

·          The path crosses the access to the Civic Centre, north of the existing roundabout.  The triangular traffic median associated with the roundabout is proposed to be adjusted to widen the refuge area within the median  (AH117, Sheet 10 of 16).

 

The shared use path will be signposted, marked with logos and linemarked.  Some tree removal and trimming will occur and driveway crossings will be adjusted to suit the appropriate design levels where necessary.

 

In addition, adjustments are being carried out by the RTA to the traffic signals at the intersection of Mulgoa Road and Great Western Highway to accommodate the proposed shared path.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.      Approximately 20m of “No Stopping” zone be provided on the western side of Memorial Avenue, Penrith, 10m each side of the path crossing in Memorial Avenue.

 

2.      Approximately 210m of “No Stopping” zone be provided on the eastern side of Memorial Avenue, Penrith, commencing 10m north of the path crossing in Memorial Avenue to the Great Western Highway.

 

3.      The design for the pedestrian/cyclist refuge, and associated signs/linemarking, at the intersection of Memorial Avenue and Great Western Highway, Penrith be endorsed.

 

4.      The design for the triangular traffic median north of the existing roundabout in High Street, Penrith at the access to the Civic Centre be endorsed.

 

 

 

 

 

GB 3          Comment Regarding Local Traffic Committee Reports  (Raised Representative for the Member for Londonderry)                                                                                                            

The representative for the Member for Londonderry commented on the quality of reports being submitted to the Local Traffic Committee and congratulated the Road Network Services Engineer and the Traffic Section team.  Councillor McKeown also congratulated the team on the quality of the content and information included in the reports submitted to the Local Traffic Committee.

 

RECOMMENDED that the comments be noted.

 

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 6 December, 2010 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Public Exhibition of the Wianamatta Regional Park draft Masterplan Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

2        Decision Making Arrangements During the Christmas/New Year Council Recess

 

3        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 November 2010

 

A City of Opportunities

 

4        Advocacy Program

 

5        Development Application DA10/0802 Proposed boundary adjustment, construction of a new dwelling, installation of an on-site sewage management system and landscaping at Lot 6 DP 258484 & Lot 5 DP 258484 (No. 70 - 72) Church Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: PreTech Pty Ltd;  Owner: Mr Terence & Mrs Jacqueline Brown

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

  

A Liveable City

 

6        Penrith Commuter Carpark - Tender 15-10/11 Selection  

 

A Vibrant City

 

7        2011 Seniors Week Grants Program

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Public Exhibition of the Wianamatta Regional Park draft Masterplan Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

2        Decision Making Arrangements During the Christmas/New Year Council Recess

 

3        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 November 2010

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Public Exhibition of the Wianamatta Regional Park draft Masterplan   

 

Compiled by:                Tony Crichton, 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 Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) has recently exhibited a draft Masterplan for the Wianamatta Regional Park.  Its three broad areas of focus are biodiversity, cultural heritage and recreation.  DECCW describes Regional Parks as ‘lands reserved to protect and conserve areas in natural or modified landscapes which are suitable for sustainable public recreation and enjoyment.  They offer open spaces for cultural and recreational activities which may not be permitted in national parks, state conservation areas or nature reserves’.

 

This report overviews the key elements in the draft Masterplan, which are generally supported, and recommends that Council make a submission in response to the exhibition of the draft Masterplan for Wianamatta Regional Park.

 

Background

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 (Amendment No.2) (SREP 30) was gazetted on 27 February 2009.  It established five zones across the site, including a Regional Park zone (see map of the area at Attachment 1).  A draft Plan of Management (PoM), to guide the future management of what is now known as the Wianamatta Regional Park, was prepared and exhibited by the State Government in 2007.  The PoM required preparation of a Masterplan to provide information on the long-term directions for the site, the staging of its delivery, proposed facilities and infrastructure, management plans, and associated costs.

 

The draft POM was publicly exhibited in May-June 2007, and reported to an Ordinary Meeting on 25 June 2007.  At that meeting, Council endorsed a submission to the draft PoM based on the recommendation contained in the report, and sought the support of DECCW in exhibiting the draft Masterplan.  Council’s 2007 submission argued to broaden the recreation opportunities available within the Regional Park.  The matters raised by Council in its 2007 submission remain generally relevant, and have therefore informed the submission proposed in this report.

 

Public Exhibition of draft Masterplan

The draft Wianamatta Regional Park Masterplan (draft Masterplan) was publicly exhibited by DECCW from 25 October to 26 November 2010.   The exhibited Masterplan was displayed through DECCW, the Department of Planning, at Blacktown City Council, and at Penrith City Council civic centres and main libraries.  The Masterplan was also available for viewing on the DECCW website.

 

The draft Masterplan for the Wianamatta Regional Park is guided by the key management objectives of the PoM.  The core aims identified in the draft Masterplan include identification and protection of significant heritage items, development of visitor facilities, provision of traffic circulation, provision of access routes into and within the Park, car parking, and management of different landscape areas and boundary interfaces.  The draft Masterplan (see map at Attachment 2) establishes three different categories of area:

Park Zone 1 – Primary Habitat Focus (561 ha, or 62% of the Regional Park)

§ includes the alluvial woodland area and all creek corridors

§ includes the Aboriginal cultural heritage zone at the confluence of South and Ropes Creeks

§ generally fenced, and public access is limited to guided access.

 

Park Zone 2 – Secondary Habitat Focus (163 ha, or 18% of Regional Park)

§ areas that have potential to be pursued in the future for either Habitat (Zone 1) or Recreation (Zone 3)

§ may be fenced to boundaries

§ public access may vary here, but will generally be open to day to day pedestrian and cycle access.

 

Park Zone 3 – Recreation Focus

§ these areas will be pursued for a recreation focus, with potential to be used for a specific use and interpretational theme for each specific area

§ will be located at key locations of the ‘track’ system

§ key recreational facilities will be present

§ public access will generally be open to day to day pedestrian and cycle access

§ will fundamentally integrate habitat enhancement and conservation with recreational activities and maintain habitat and conservation qualities of the area.

 

Within Park Zone 3, where the recreational activities are proposed, there are five main precincts.  The Main Visitor Precinct ($7.1 million) is situated in Blacktown, immediately west of the Ropes Crossing development.  This is intended as the major arrival and visitor orientation point for the Park.

 

The Western Visitor Precinct ($1.8 million) is proposed to the east of Jordan Springs, and includes:

§ the main Hill Top Park

§ visitor facilities (including park seats, picnic benches, tables, shelters and barbeques) to be located throughout the precinct

§ smaller cleared maintained grasslands to be maintained for day to day gathering, and a large open space gathering / community event area

§ a second main recreational open space park area along the ridge top, and fronting onto residential areas, for family picnicking

§ two key vehicle entry points along the western boundary, adjoining the proposed residential area

§ a number of pedestrian / cycle entry points

§ bus and event parking area, and day car parking area

§ one toilet facility, and fencing, barriers, tracks, and signage.

 

The Northern Central Visitor Precinct ($1.397 million) is proposed adjacent to the entry road into the Central Precinct, at its western edge.  This Precinct provides opportunities for visitors to experience the heritage interpretation and design outlined in the draft Conservation Management Plan, and includes:

§ a nursery

§ two event spaces (possibly market days)

§ park seats, picnic benches, tables, shelters and barbeques

§ two key vehicle entry points

§ a number of pedestrian / cycle entry points

§ limited parking area

§ public toilet facilities (to be considered)

§ fencing, barriers, tracks, and signage.

 

There are two proposed ‘future works’ precincts, which are the Southern Central Visitor Precinct and the Dunheved Heritage Precinct.  Overall, there is funding of $21 million allocated in the Masterplan to cover the costs of the three Park Zones 1, 2 and 3.

 

Assessment of Key Issues

In general, it is considered that the draft Masterplan responds appropriately to the biodiversity and habitat issues, and the heritage conservation matters.  There is potential to encourage DECCW to pursue additional opportunities for recreational activities, particularly in the Western Precinct adjacent to the new residential areas.  The Wianamatta Regional Park provides a significant resource for all of the City’s residents and visitors.

 

1.       Biodiversity and Habitat Issues

Conservation of endangered ecological communities and habitat protection has long been recognised as a key issue in Western Sydney.  The creation of the Wianamatta Regional Park protects 900 hectares of land identified for its conservation significance.  The draft PoM and the draft Wianamatta Regional Park Masterplan have provided strategies that will allow the proper management of these areas, provided that adequate funding is available to DECCW.

 

The Masterplan identifies and protects (encloses) the two key biodiversity habitat areas, and this approach is considered to be appropriate.  Council’s earlier (2007) submission indicated concerns with arrangements for constructing a feral- proof fence around the proposed Regional Park, and the Masterplan now provides further information on fencing for the protected areas.

 

2.       Heritage Conservation

The draft Conservation Management Plan (CMP), which is a key part of the draft Masterplan, was reviewed by a specialist heritage consultant engaged by Council.  The consultant has indicated that the initial work on the interpretation of the site’s history is excellent.

 

There is an opportunity for DECCW to build on the CMP in future, with individual Specific Elements Conservation Policies (SECP) for the remaining heritage buildings or groups of heritage buildings on the property, to provide sufficient detail regarding the fabric of these buildings and their potential future use.  An interpretation strategy would also enhance the current work.  The CMP should also consider the connection of the site to Werrington House. 

 

3.       Recreational Opportunities

Section 30H of the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974 identifies opportunities for recreation as a primary management principle for a Regional Park.  Specifically, it is noted that the purpose of reserving land as a Regional Park is to identify, protect and conserve areas in a natural or modified landscape that are suitable for public recreation and enjoyment.  In addition to the conservation of its natural values, a Regional Park is to be managed in accordance with the following principles:

§ the provision of opportunities, in an outdoor setting, for recreation and enjoyment in natural or modified landscapes

§ the promotion of public appreciation and understanding of the Regional Park’s natural and cultural values

§ provision for sustainable visitor use and enjoyment that is compatible with the conservation of the Regional Park’s natural land cultural values.

 

Recreation opportunities are proposed in Park Zone 3 of the draft Masterplan.  Council’s previous submission to DECCW suggested providing the following facilities and precincts:

§ a Bush Education Precinct (bush camping, eco-tourism cabins, an environmental / indigenous education or research centre, a bush amphitheatre, picnic / barbeque facilities and other related activities, in the north eastern corner of the park

§ a Family Activities Precinct - this would include uses such as picnic / barbeque facilities, informal open areas, visitor facilities, shelters and adventure playground, and could be located adjacent to the ‘active’ Regional Open Space area

§ a Kangaroo Park Precinct - a fenced kangaroo area with viewing platforms, adjacent to the main visitor entry and facilities.

 

The draft Masterplan references future opportunities for commercial tourism, including adventure challenge courses, competition events, eco events, private fitness training, corporate programs and supervised or controlled overnight stays.  There is potential for these future opportunities to enhance the proposed visitor facilities, and generate income for the Park.  DECCW could be encouraged to pursue these future opportunities in appropriate areas of the Regional Park.

 

It would also be appropriate to establish more specific timeframes for delivering the proposed Precincts, to ensure they are established concurrently with the development of the adjacent residential areas.  Further negotiation with DECCW will be needed to ensure the implementation timeframes reflect the residential growth.

 

Conclusion

It is considered that biodiversity and cultural heritage issues have been satisfactorily addressed by the draft Masterplan.  There is an opportunity to encourage DECCW to explore and pursue additional recreation facilities, particularly in recognition of the significance, for the City’s residents, of the Wianamatta Regional Park.  It is recommended that Council endorse a submission that reflects the comments outlined in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Public Exhibition of the Wianamatta Regional Park draft Masterplan be received.

2.   Council endorse a submission to DECCW that indicates general support for the draft Masterplan, and outlines the matters addressed in this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

SREP 30 Map showing Regional Park

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Map of Draft Masterplan Zones

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 1 - SREP 30 Map showing Regional Park

 

 

 

Attachment 1 – SREP 30 Map showing Regional Park

Appendix 1- St Marys Aerial Precinct Plan Map.JPG


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 2 - Map of Draft Masterplan Zones

 

 

 

Attachment  2 – Wianamatta Regional Park – draft Masterplan Zones

Appendix 3 - Masterplan Zones.jpg


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Decision Making Arrangements During the Christmas/New Year Council Recess   

 

Compiled by:                Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:             Matthew Bullivant, Acting Executive Officer   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of the decision-making arrangements during the Council Christmas/New Year recess and of any development applications that may need to be determined over this period. The report recommends that the information be received.

Background

Tonight’s meeting is the last Ordinary Council Meeting for 2010 and the first Ordinary Council Meeting in 2011 will be on 7 February 2011.

 

During Council’s recess, the General Manager, in consultation with the Mayor, has extensive delegations to deal with issues that come before Council during the break, other than policy matters and those matters that cannot be delegated under the Local Government Act. The role of the Mayor is, among other things, to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the Council between meetings of the Council.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 6 December 2004, Council adopted a policy on the decision-making arrangements in relation to development applications during Council’s Christmas recess. A copy of the policy is appended to this report for Councillors’ reference.

 

Current Position

Councillors who have matters to raise during the break can contact the General Manager, or Directors and Group Managers to have them dealt with as quickly as possible. Councillors will be provided with a contact list for Directors and Group Managers and the people who will be acting for them in cases of leave.

 

At this stage, there are no development applications requiring determinations to be made between 14 December 2010 and 6 February 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Decision Making Arrangements During the Christmas/New Year Council Recess be received.

2.     Development Applications which would normally warrant reporting to Council between 14 December 2010 and 6 February 2011 inclusive be determined under the General Manager’s delegation by the General Manager, after consultation with the Mayor.

3.     A report be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on 7 February 2011 relating to the operations of the organisation during this period.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Policy - Decision Making Arrangements During Council's Christmas/New Year Recess

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 1 - Policy - Decision Making Arrangements During Council's Christmas/New Year Recess

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Leading City

 

 

 

3

Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 November 2010   

 

Compiled by:                Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

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

Background

CERTIFICATE OF RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I hereby certify the following:

 

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

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

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

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

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

 

 




 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Advocacy Program

 

5        Development Application DA10/0802 Proposed boundary adjustment, construction of a new dwelling, installation of an on-site sewage management system and landscaping at Lot 6 DP 258484 & Lot 5 DP 258484 (No. 70 - 72) Church Lane, Cranebrook. Applicant: PreTech Pty Ltd;  Owner: Mr Terence & Mrs Jacqueline Brown

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

4

Advocacy Program   

 

Compiled by:                Mahbub Alam, Environmental Planner

Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager  

 

Objective

We have a say in our future

Community Outcome

A Council that speaks out for Penrith and our region (9)

Strategic Response

Advocate for the employment, transport, and infrastructure to ensure the region is sustainable (9.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The Advocacy Program has been developed to help in addressing the long-term needs and priorities for the City, particularly those that are generally outside of Council’s direct control.  The Program is a list of specific advocacy directions and priority projects that need to be pursued through the Federal and/or State Governments, and with the support of our City partners.

 

As a leader, Council will continue its strong focus on advocating for the region.  Finalising the Advocacy Program will provide clear directions for Council to engage with our City partners, and State and Federal Governments, about our community priorities.

Context for the Advocacy Program

Advocacy is effectively advancing the interests of the City through proactive representation and effective working relationships, particularly with the State and Federal Governments, and with our local and City partners.

 

Council’s adopted Community Strategic Plan 2031 identifies the outcomes that our communities want to see for the City over the longer term.  The Community Strategic Plan 2031 commits Council “as a leader, advocate, facilitator and educator in the City, Council will ... advocate for the employment, transport and infrastructure to ensure the region is sustainable”.

 

To work towards achieving those outcomes, Council’s adopted four year Delivery Program outlines Council’s strategic responses and priority actions.  The Delivery Program outlines 42 priorities across the adopted themes of leading, opportunities, green, liveable and vibrant.  Some of these priorities are delivered through Council’s existing programs and services (‘business as usual’).  They do not require a targeted advocacy focus, at this stage, to ensure their delivery.

 

The Advocacy Program has been developed to help in addressing the long-term needs and priorities for the City that are generally outside of Council’s direct control.  The Program distils the 42 priority actions that are outlined in the Delivery Program into a list of specific issues that need to be pursued through the Federal and/or State Governments, and with the support of our City partners.  Clearly, priorities and means of achieving outcomes may change over time, so the Advocacy Program has been established to provide that flexibility of response.

 

The Advocacy Program priorities have been grouped into two areas of focus – ‘Regional City’ and ‘Transport and Access’.  Each group contains a number of advocacy directions (RC1 – RC6 in Regional City, and TA1 – TA4 in Transport and Access).  The Program at this level is intended to capture the broader organisational-wide advocacy directions, and provides a comprehensive list of issues from which specific matters (relevant to the current circumstances, e.g. Federal Government initiative, State or Federal election, visit from a Government or Shadow Minister) can be drawn.  The advocacy directions were tested by considering such questions as:

§  what are we asking for?

§  is it supported by State or Federal policy directions?

§  what is currently being done?

§  can we substantiate our position?

 

Specific projects are identified under each advocacy direction, where relevant.  The projects have primarily been drawn from Council’s adopted Strategies, such as the Penrith Regional City Infrastructure Strategy (adopted by Council on 14 December 2009) and the Penrith City Centre Civic Improvements Plan (adopted by Council on 1 December 2008).

 

The projects suggested for inclusion in the Advocacy Program reflect Council’s current priorities and focus on delivering jobs, housing and transport outcomes for our Regional City.

 

With the Advocacy Program encompassing both broader advocacy directions and specific projects, it establishes a clear organisational approach for funding and advocacy initiatives.  The draft Advocacy Program, including proposed priority projects, is at Appendix One.

Implementing the Advocacy Program

When the advocacy directions and priority projects have been agreed, action plans for each element will be developed.  Advocacy actions will include:

§  establishing a Regional City Partners Alliance, to collaborate on the key advocacy directions for our City and provide a platform for consistent and targeted lobbying

§  using the research through which the priorities and projects have been identified to provide succinct justification and cost/benefit arguments to support our case

§  lobbying our Local Members and relevant State or Federal Ministers

§  engaging our partners and networks to work with us on achieving our Advocacy Program through shared advocacy initiatives

§  presenting our positions to senior State or Federal Department staff and policy advisors

§  using appropriate media and communications strategies to ensure our communities are informed, and messages are clear

§  following up our representations with further letters or meetings to ensure matters don’t ‘drop off’ the agenda.

Setting the Priorities

With the State election scheduled for March 2011, it will be of benefit for Council to have a clearly identified set of advocacy directions and priority projects.  Our key partners, such as the University of Western Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Panthers, Penrith Business Alliance, the Chamber of Commerce and others, are keen to work with Council on our advocacy to ensure messages about the City are consistent and clear, and target the delivery of agreed priorities.

 

There can be difficulties in lobbying for any advocacy direction or specific project that relies on external or agency delivery, as their other priorities can affect timeframes and outcomes.  This, however, is the nature of the Advocacy Program, as it is focussed on those issues that are primarily beyond our capacity as a Council to resolve or deliver.

 

Advocacy is particularly effective when the priorities are clear, the messages are simple, and a range of different stakeholders and partners are presenting a cohesive approach.  A strong and vocal Regional City Partners Alliance, all articulating the same priorities and advocacy directions for the City, will provide a positive platform for our lobbying.

Next Steps

It is Council’s role as a leader, advocate and facilitator, to coordinate advocacy of the City’s needs.  Clearly, these priorities should be discussed with our partners, who will bring their own views on priorities and experiences in lobbying to the table.  It is proposed to establish a Regional City Partners Alliance to provide a platform for facilitating consensus, commitment and consistent advocacy for the City.

 

Action plans will be developed for each element of the Advocacy Program, with concise Issues Papers prepared for specific advocacy directions and priority projects.  The initial focus will be on preparing for the upcoming State election.

Conclusion

The Advocacy Program captures Council’s advocacy directions, and provides a comprehensive list of issues from which specific matters, relevant to current circumstances such as elections, can be drawn.

 

Finalising the Advocacy Program will provide clear direction for Council to engage with our City partners, and State and Federal Governments, about our communities’ priorities.  Achieving these outcomes will provide significant steps towards building our Regional City into the future.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Advocacy Program be received.

2.     Council endorse the Advocacy Program as a platform to lobby for the City’s current and future needs.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Advocacy Program - draft Priorities

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 1 - Advocacy Program - draft Priorities

 

 

 

Appendix One

Advocacy Program - draft Priorities

1.     Regional City

2       Transport & Access

RC1        New jobs in the City

1.    Penrith Health and Education Precinct

2.    Penrith Economic & Knowledge Corridor (includes St Marys to Penrith)

3.    Penrith Lakes

4.    WSELIA (includes Badgerys Creek)

RC2        Sustainable funding models for local government, including:

1.    Financial assistance to redress the current infrastructure backlog
(local $53m & regional $1b)

2.    Constitutional recognition

RC3        A Regional Infrastructure Delivery Plan, incorporating:

1.     Transport links to the growth centres

2.     Passenger/freight rail links to the Western Sydney Employment Lands

3.     Outer Sydney orbital (M9)

RC4        Sustainable agriculture

1.    Defined urban and rural boundaries to support sustainable agriculture and local food production across the region

2.    Viable agricultural activities / businesses

RC5        Community facilities

1.     Civic Arts Precinct

2.     Penrith Regional City Community Services Facility

3.     Penrith Regional City Centre improvements

4.     Conservatorium of Music

5.     Multi Use Arena

6.     Gipps Street Community Park

RC6        Environmental initiatives

1.     Managed aquifer recharge

2.     Catchment management (includes recycled water & water quality projects)

3.     City’s green (biodiversity) network

 

TA1        Improved train services

1.    Western Express rail service

2.    Improved bus / rail interchanges
(Penrith, St Marys & Emu Plains)

3.    Business Park / University station

4.    Commuter car parking (Emu Plains)

TA2        Improved bus services

1.   More, and prioritised, buses

2.   Shuttle bus services in the City’s Centres

TA3        Better local and regional road connections

1.    Werrington Arterial

2.    Jane Street extension

3.    Wallgrove Road & M7 intersection

4.    Dunheved Link Road

TA4        Shared pathways network, including:

1.    a new pathway across Victoria Bridge

2.    Great River Walk


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

5

Development Application DA10/0802 Proposed boundary adjustment, construction of a new dwelling, installation of an on-site sewage management system and landscaping at Lot 6 DP 258484 & Lot 5 DP 258484 (No. 70 - 72) Church Lane, Cranebrook  Applicant:  PreTech Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Mr Terence & Mrs Jacqueline Brown    

 

Compiled by:                Aimee Lee, Environmental Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with lifestyle and housing choice in our neighbourhoods (8)

Strategic Response

Encourage housing that provides choice, achieves design excellence, and meets community needs (8.1)

      

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for boundary adjustment, construction of a new dwelling and installation of an on-site sewage management system at 70 – 72 Church Lane, Cranebrook.  The site is identified as a Deferred Matter under the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010).  Therefore this application is assessed against the relevant provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan No. 201 (Rural Lands) (LEP 201). 

 

Clause 11(2)(b) of the LEP states that a minimum 2 hectare allotment size for subdivision is applicable in Zone 1(b) (Rural “B” – Smallholdings).  Proposed Lots 5 and 6 being 10,144.1m2 and 10,092.7m2 do not comply with Council’s development standard for subdivision and proposed Lot 6 does not meet the minimum lot size for the erection of a dwelling house pursuant to Clause 12.  The applicant seeks variation to these development standards by way of an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1). 

 

The SEPP 1 objections have demonstrated that full compliance with the minimum 2 hectare requirement is unreasonable and unnecessary due to the ability of the development to meet the objectives of the planning instrument and its consistency with the surrounding subdivision pattern in the immediate locality.  Furthermore, the new dwelling is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality. 

 

In accordance with the reporting procedures required by the Department of Planning, the matter is forwarded to Council.  The matter also requires concurrence of the Director-General of NSW Department of Planning.

 

This report recommends that the SEPP 1 objections be supported and the development application be referred to the Department of Planning for concurrence with “in principle” support and, if obtained, the application be determined under delegation by way of approval.

If concurrence is not granted, the application would be reported back to Council for determination.

Background

Council’s records show that the site, forms part of an 8-lot subdivision to DP 430490 and DP 430491 (Subdivision No. S4072).  The subdivision was originally approved by Council in September 1976 and amended in August 1978.  This subdivision did contain parcels of land under Old System Title.  However, when the plan of subdivision was registered with the Land Titles Office on 16 October 1978 they were converted to Torrens Title.  The lot sizes of Lots 5 and 6 on the registered plan are 8,986m2 and 11,250m2 respectively.

 

One of the conditions of consent to Subdivision No. S4072 stated the following:

 

“The Old System Title parcel of land in each allotment is to be held conjointly with the Torrens Title forming each new allotment and a notation to this effect to be shown on the plan of survey.”

 

Council’s Legal Officer’s advice was sought in relation to this condition.  It was advised that the condition cannot be enforced and this application can therefore be processed.

Site and Surrounds

The site, consisting of 2 lots (Lots 5 and 6 DP 258484) is located at the south-western side of Church Lane and bounded by Cranebrook Road to the southwest (see Locality Map - Appendix No. 1).  Developments in the area are predominantly rural residential and the configuration and dimensions of lots vary with areas consistent with those proposed by this application.  It is noted that the properties at No. 82-88 and 82a Church Lane and 90-94 and 96 Church Lane have similar lot size and configuration and are under different ownerships.

 

The combined site area is 20,236.8m² and has a significant fall of about 20m from the front boundary to the rear.  There is an existing single-storey dwelling house erected on Lot 5.  Lot 6 is currently vacant.  There are existing trees on various parts of the site and the existing access handle is densely vegetated.  The site is subject to bushfire as identified in Council’s Bushfire Prone Land Map.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes:

 

·    Boundary adjustment to Lot 5 and Lot 6

·    Repositioning of the access handle servicing Lot 6 from the eastern side to the western side of the site and reduction of the width of the access handle from 17.07m to 10m (see Appendix No. 2)

·    Construction of a new part single and part two-storey dwelling on Lot 6

·    Installation of associated on-site sewage management system

·    Removal of one tree

 

The proposed dwelling is part single and part two-storeys, to be constructed of face brick with colorbond roof sheeting.  The ground floor consists of three bedrooms, a kitchen, living/dining/family room, a laundry and amenities.  The first floor consists of one bedroom and an en-suite.  A free-standing triple garage is also proposed and is connected to the dwelling by a covered walkway.  The proposed dwelling is setback about 207m from the front boundary, 9.5m from the west and 41m from the eastern boundary.  It will be accessible via a 3m wide sealed gravel driveway within the proposed 10m wide access handle (see Site Plan Appendix No. 3).

 

Details of the proposed boundary adjustment to Lots 5 and 6 are as follows:

 

 

Existing

Proposed

Lot 5

8,986.8m²

10,144.1m²

Lot 6

11,250.0²

10,092.7m²

 

The development application was accompanied by:

 

·    Objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to Clauses 11(2)(b) and 12 (2)(a) of LEP 201

·    Statement of Environmental Effects

·    Site and Building Plans

·    Flora and Fauna Assessment and 7 Part Tests of Significance

·    On-Site Wastewater Management Report

·    Bushfire Assessment Report

·    BASIX Certificate

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) (EP&A Act), and having regard to those matters; the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

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

 

The applicant seeks approval for the variation to the allotment size of Lots 5 and 6.  Details of the existing and proposed site area of Lots 5 and 6 are as follows:

 

 

Minimum allotment size

Existing

Proposed

Compliance

Lot 5

2 hectares

8,986.8m²

10,144.1m²

No (49% variation)

Lot 6

2 hectares

11,250.0m²

10,092.7m²

No (49.5% variation)

 

The proposed allotment size is inconsistent with Council’s 2 hectare requirement for subdivision within Zone 1(b) as stipulated under Clause 11(2)(b) of LEP 201.  A SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the provisions of this clause which states that:

 

“The council may consent to the subdivision of land to which this clause applies only where the area of each allotment to be created by the subdivision is not less than –

 

(b)     in the case of land within Zone No. 1(b) - 2 hectares.” 

 

The application also proposes to vary Clause 12(2)(a) which requires:

 

“A dwelling-house may, with the consent of the council, be erected on vacant land to which this clause applies only where that land is an allotment created by a subdivision in accordance with Clause 11”

 

The applicant provides the following justification to the proposed variation to the minimum allotment size: 

 

·    The proposal would retain the natural terrains and features of the site including mature trees and watercourse and thereby protect and enhance the scenic rural quality of the locality;

·    It allows for easy siting and construction of the proposed dwelling;

·    The proposal would not give rise to major demands on services;

·    The building form and external finishes of the proposed dwelling is compatible to the natural scenic quality of the area;

·    The proposed dwelling is located at the rear and would have minimal visual impact when viewed from Church Lane;

·    The proposed dwelling will be located on a clear area and the boundary adjustment requires minimal road works.  Therefore the impact of soil erosion would be minimal.

 

The SEPP 1 objections are also required to demonstrate that the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instrument and zone can still be achieved regardless of the variation to the development standard. 

 

LEP objectives

The following objectives are relevant to the proposal:

 

(1)     To encourage the proper management, development and conservation of valuable natural and man-made resources within the rural lands of the City of Penrith.

 

(2)     To protect, enhance or conserve:

(a)     the rural character and setting of the City of Penrith

(b)     the scenic quality and valuable landscape features of the rural areas

(c)     areas of significance for nature conservation

(d)     minerals, soils, water, creek systems and other natural resources

(e)     areas needed to accommodate Sydney’s future growth; and

(f)      areas needed to accommodate special uses such as public utilities.

 

(3)     To promote rural/residential development where it is consistent with the conservation of the rural, agricultural, heritage and natural landscape qualities

 

(4)     To minimise the cost to the community of fragmented and haphazard development of rural land by ensuring that development does not create unreasonable demands for the provision or extension of public amenities and services now or in the future

 

The proposal has achieved the above objectives which are discussed in more detail later in this report.

 

Assessment of the SEPP 1 objection also needs to be considered against the objects stated in Section 5(a) (ii) of the EP&A Act which is as follows:

 

“(ii)   the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land

 

The proposal is deemed to have attained the objects of the EP&A Act as it represents a site responsive development that does not create unreasonable demand on existing services and would not impact on the subdivision pattern, the existing vegetation and the rural character of the locality. 

 

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

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development with regard to stormwater disposal and noted that stormwater run-off from the proposed development can be disposed on site.  A condition can require for the provision of a level spreader system to avoid concentration of flows onto adjoining properties.

 

Standard conditions can also be recommended to ensure adequate provision of erosion and sediment control measures to minimise sediment being deposited in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River via the stormwater drainage system.

 

Subject to compliance with recommended conditions, the proposed development would be in accordance with the general planning considerations set out in Clause 5 of SREP 20 and the relevant specific planning policies and related recommended strategies relating to water quality and quantity.

 

Rural Fires Act 1997

Council’s records show that the site is bushfire prone land.  The applicant has submitted a Bushfire Assessment Report in support of this application.  This report recommends:

 

“The area between the building footprint and the north-western, south-western, north-eastern and south-eastern boundary fences be managed as an Asset Protection Zone.

 

·        The outer 10m along the south-eastern boundary should be managed as an Outer Protection Area

·        The area between the building footprint and the Outer Protection Area should be managed as an Inner Protection Area”

 

The application was referred to NSW Rural Fire Service under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.  NSW Rural Fire Service has issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority and recommended conditions to be imposed in the consent.

 

Water Management (General) Regulation 2004

Council’s records show that there is a natural water course to the southeast corner of the property.  According to Section 39A(g)(i) of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2004, the proposal does not require a controlled activity approval as the proposed dwelling house is the subject of a development consent to be issued under the EP&A Act and does not include any activity carried out in, on or over the bed of the watercourse. 

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 (Rural Lands) (LEP 201)

LEP 201 is applicable to the site which is zoned 1(b) – Rural “B” -Smallholdings.  The proposal is permissible in this zone with development consent.  The following zone objectives are relevant to the proposal:

 

(a)     to protect and enhance the scenic quality and rural character of the locality;

(b)     to ensure that development does not create unreasonable demands, now or in the future, for provision or extension of public amenities or services;

(c)     to ensure that the form, siting and colours of buildings, building materials and landscaping complement the natural scenic quality of these localities;

(d)     to ensure that where development is to be located on or near ridgetops, it will not significantly intrude into the skyline or detract from the scenic amenity of the locality;

(e)     to ensure that views from main roads and the rural character of the area will not be adversely affected;

(f)      to ensure that development will not lead to excessive soil erosion or run-off.

 

With respect to the aims and objectives of the LEP and Zone 1(b) – (Rural “B” –Smallholdings) the following comment is made:

·    The proposed lot configuration and lot size are similar to the existing allotments created under Subdivision No. S4072 and would have a negligible impact on the existing subdivision pattern and rural character of the area;

·    There are similar developments at 82-88 and 82a Church Lane and 90-94 and 96 Church Lane in terms of lot size and configuration;

·    The repositioning of the access handle from the northeast to the northwest of the site would facilitate retention of existing trees which contribute to the scenic quality of the site;

·    The site area of Lot 6 is adequate to accommodate construction of a new dwelling to satisfy the housing demand in the locality;

·    The applicant has designed the dwelling that compliments the rural character of the locality;

·    The proposed dwelling is responsive to the environmental capabilities of the site and would not create unreasonable demand on services and amenities;

·    The location, bulk and scale of the dwelling would not give rise to view corridor obstruction or visual impact when viewed from the surrounding areas.

 

Clause 11(2) stipulates the minimum allotment size for subdivision and Clause 12 specifies the minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house.  The proposed allotment size is inconsistent with Council’s requirements in this regard and issues related to the variations have been addressed under SEPP 1.

 

Clause 21 Provision of services

Council cannot grant consent unless adequate evidence is furnished demonstrating adequate support services and utilities will be available within a reasonable time.  Furthermore, there shall be satisfactory arrangement with Sydney Water for amplification and reticulation of water services unless not required by Sydney Water.  The site is not sewered however an on-site sewage management system is proposed and has been assessed to be adequate.  A standard condition for obtaining a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney Water for water supply and a clearance letter from Integral Energy and telecommunication provider can be recommended. 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006 Part 4 Section 4.9 Rural Development is applicable to the site and the following sections are relevant to the assessment of the proposal.  The following is an assessment of the proposal against the relevant issues.

 

Services

The objectives are to ensure:

·    Developments will not place unreasonable pressure on servicing authorities for timing and extent of supply.

·    Developments will take place only where satisfactory arrangements are made with the servicing authorities.

·    Adequate consultation is carried out with the relevant authority during the formulation of development proposals.

 

As stated above, the standard condition for obtaining documentary evidence from service providers to ensure services are available to support the development can be recommended.  Council’s Environmental Health Officer reviewed the proposed on-site wastewater management system and recommended conditions to be imposed.

 

Access

The objectives are:

·    To ensure satisfactory arrangements are made for access to any development or new allotment created by subdivision;

·    To encourage the orderly and economic provision of road and intersection works;

·    To ensure that existing roads and intersections are upgraded to provide a satisfactory level of service consistent with the volume and nature of traffic generated by the proposed development;

·    To require that access internal to the development is adequate to accommodate traffic generated by the development.

 

The proposed dwelling in Lot 6 will be serviced by a 10m wide access handle comprising a 3m gravel driveway.  Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection to the proposed access but recommended a sealed driveway be provided.

 

 

Tree Preservation

The objectives are:

·    To protect and preserve existing trees and vegetation on all land;

·    To encourage the retention of native vegetation on rural properties;

·    To assist in soil conservation through the minimisation of clearing.

 

The proposed dwelling is in proximity to an existing Eucalyptus Crebra (Ironbark).  A tree report was submitted stating that the proposed dwelling would significantly encroach into the Structural Root Zone and Tree Protection Zone of the affected tree and recommends its removal for the following reasons:

 

·    The Bushfire Report recommends that an Inner Protection Area (IPA) be created from the proposed dwelling to the north-western boundary which encompasses the affected tree;

·    The location of the proposed dwelling is a function of the physical constraint of the site;

·    The location of the proposed dwelling is 2.7m from the centre of the tree;

·    The site supports numerous trees and regenerating bushland and the removal of a single tree would not dramatically impact the local environment/ecosystem or streetscape.

 

In view of the findings of the tree report, no objection is raised to the removal of the Eucalyptus Cerebra subject to the planting of replacement trees of endemic species outside the Asset Protection Zone.  Protection of existing trees will be recommended.

 

Drainage

The objectives are:

·    To ensure adequate drainage is provided for the proposed development;

·    To ensure adjoining properties are not significantly affected by drainage from the proposed development.

 

Council’s Development Engineer reviewed the proposal and recommended that stormwater drainage from the site shall be discharged to a level spreader system and the proposed method of stormwater discharge be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

Landscaping

The objectives are:

·    To ensure the rural setting of the city is maintained and enhanced by appropriate landscaping of properties and developments;

·    To achieve landscaping which will perform a role in enhancing, screening or providing scale to a development as necessary and is of an appropriate scale and character;

·    To encourage utilisation of species which are suitable for the micro climate and soils of the site;

·    To ensure landscaping plans are adequate to describe the theme, detail and method of planting.

 

Landscape details incorporated in the site plan are satisfactory and will be conditioned.

 

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation

The objectives are:

·    To ensure that adequate consideration is given to the potential erosion of soils and the sedimentation of downstream watercourses or drainage systems;

·    To ensure details are submitted illustrating adequate sedimentation control measures for the circumstances of development.

 

Conditions for the provision of erosion and sediment control measures can be recommended to minimise runoff to the watercourse in the southeast corner of the site.

 

Dwellings

The objectives are to:

·    Encourage the construction of dwellings where the siting and design respects the rural character of the locality;

·    Ensure that external finishes used have minimal detrimental impact on the visual amenity of an area;

·    Encourage consideration of all the rural components of development such as fencing, outbuildings, driveways and landscaping in the design of the proposed development;

·    Encourage a diversity of interesting rural homes and buildings.

 

The proposed dwelling with an overall height of about 7.2m would not encroach into the skyline.  Also its western side setback (9.5m) and front setback (207m) provides adequate separation from surrounding developments for privacy purposes and would have a negligible visual impact when viewed from public places and the surrounding developments.  The face-brick construction with colorbond roofing is sympathetic to the existing built environment.  In view of the above, Council can be satisfied that its construction is in keeping with the rural character of the locality and would have minimal impact on the amenity of the surrounding developments.

 

Design and Numerical Requirements

Following is a summary table indicating the performance of the proposal against the relevant design and numerical requirements.

 

Controls

Requirements

Proposed

Compliance

Setback

15m from public road

207m

Yes

Height

2 storeys

Part single and part two-storey

Yes

Parking

1 space

3 spaces

Yes

 

The above compliance table demonstrates that the proposal is compliant with the numerical requirements of the DCP.

 

Subdivision

The objectives of these policies are

·    Allow subdivision which will maintain the rural character of the locality;

·    Ensure that allotments are compatible in size and shape with the physical nature of the land, adjoining land uses and the likely use of the land in the future;

·    Ensure satisfactory arrangements are made for access, servicing and landscaping;

·    Enhance opportunities for further subdivision if required in the future.

 

Issues related to the inconsistency with Council’s minimum 2 hectare requirement for subdivision have been dealt with under SEPP 1 and the justification stated in the SEPP 1 objection is supported.

 

The proposed boundary adjustment is supported for the following reasons:

 

(a)     The depth to width ratio of proposed Lots 5 and 6 is compliant;

(b)     The resultant configuration is in keeping with the subdivision pattern created by Subdivision No. S4072;

(c)     The proposal would facilitate retention of existing trees along the northeast boundary;

(d)     The proposed 10m access handle is satisfactory and the site has connections to existing services.

 

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

The development is compliant with the objectives of the planning controls and the impacts of the development are expected to be minimal.  The likely impacts of the proposed development upon the surrounding area are discussed as follows:

 

Context and setting

The intention of the proposed boundary adjustment is to minimise any impact on the existing trees along the northeast boundary.  The proposal would have minimal impact on the subdivision pattern established under Subdivision No. S4072.  The proposed dwelling has been designed to comply with the relevant design and numerical requirements and responsive to the character of the site.  The proposal would have a negligible impact on the established rural character of the area. 

 

Utilities

The site has connections to power and water.  The proposal would not result in unreasonable demand on these services and would not require their amplification.  A standard condition can require documentary evidence from service providers to ensure services are available to support the development. The site has adequate area for on-site sewage management as proposed.

 

Noise and vibration

To ensure the amenity of the residential neighbourhood, a standard condition restricting the hours of work during construction will be recommended.

 

Site design and internal design

The proposed dwelling is responsive to the site constraints and is consistent with the existing built form.  The internal layout of the proposed dwelling has been designed to maximise residential amenity. 

 

 

 

 

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

In view of the assessment, Council can be satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed development for the following reasons:

 

·    the proposed boundary adjustment and dwelling are permissible land uses in the zone and compatible with the surrounding developments;

·    the site area is adequate to accommodate the construction of an additional dwelling to meet the housing demand in the locality;

·    the development would maintain the residential amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwelling and the surrounding developments;

·    the site is not affected by local overland flows and Council’s Interim Policy for the development of flood liable land.

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

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer, Building Surveyor, Environmental Health Officer and Team Leader – Natural Systems who raised no objection to the proposal.

 

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan for the City of Penrith 2006 – “Notification and Advertising”, the proposed development was exhibited from 18 August to 1 September 2010 and fourteen owners and occupiers of the adjoining properties were notified of the proposal and invited to make comments.  No submissions were received. 

 

Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions are not applicable to the proposal.

 

Conclusion

The subject development application seeks approval for boundary adjustment, construction of a new dwelling and installation of an on-site sewage management system.  The proposal represents a permissible use in the zone and complies with the objectives of the relevant policies. 

 

The development is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

(a)     The proposed development complies with the objectives of the relevant planning instrument as outlined above and a site responsive dwelling has been achieved;

(b)     The proposal is in keeping with the rural character of the locality;

(c)     The site is suitable for the proposal and no concerns have been raised by adjoining owners/residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0802 Proposed boundary adjustment, construction of a new dwelling, installation of an on-site sewage management system and landscaping at Lot 6 DP 258484 & Lot 5 DP 258484 (No. 70 - 72) Church Lane, Cranebrook be received.

2.      The submitted SEPP 1 objection to Clauses 11(2)(b) and 12 (2)(a) be supported.

3.      Development Application DA10/0802 be referred to the Department of Planning for concurrence.

4.      Upon receipt of concurrence from the Department of Planning, Development Application DA10/0802 be determined under delegated authority by way of approval.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Boundary Adjustment Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3. View

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 2 - Boundary Adjustment Plan

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 3 - Site Plan

 

 

 

 


 

 

A Green City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

6        Penrith Commuter Carpark - Tender 15-10/11 Selection 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Liveable City

 

 

 

6

Penrith Commuter Carpark - Tender 15-10/11 Selection    

 

Compiled by:                Craig Ross, Major Projects Manager

Ari Fernando, Major Projects & Design Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

A City with an integrated local road and pathways network (16)

Strategic Response

Implement effective traffic and parking responses (16.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides an assessment of the tender submissions received for the construction of the Penrith Commuter Carpark and recommends that a contract be awarded to Denham Constructions Pty Ltd for the project.

 

The report also provides Councillors with an update on the progress of other matters relating to the delivery of the carpark and recommends that the awarding of the contract be conditional upon these matters being resolved.

Background

Council, at its meeting of 11 October 2010, resolved that the following contractors be invited to submit proposals for a Selective Tender for the Penrith Commuter Carpark construction:

§ A W Edwards Pty L td

§ ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd

§ Arenco (NSW) Pty Ltd

§ Buildcorp Pty Ltd

§ Denham Constructions Pty Ltd

§ Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd

§ Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd

§ Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd

§ St Hilliers Contracting Pty Ltd

 

The above contractors were selected based on the following criteria set in the Expressions of Interest tender:

 

Mandatory Criteria

·    Conflict of Interest statement

·    Insurance details

·    Compliance to the EOI conditions and Contract conditions

·    Demonstrated experience in working within the RailCorp environment

 


Demonstrated Capability

·    Experience of projects of similar budget

·    Experience with commuter car park program and/or commercial car parks

·    Capability of staff nominated & financial capacity

·    Qualifications & Resources

·    List of sub-Contractors and suppliers nominated

·    Ability to provide fill material to site

 

Management and Administration Criteria

·    Occupational Health & Safety

·    Company Resources and Personnel

·    Industrial Relations

·    Quality Assurance System

·    Environmental Management System

·    Management structure

 

Council also carried out third party financial checks to provide detailed financial assessment, in the form of commercial-in-confidence reports.  This information and reference checks undertaken confirmed that all the nine (9) companies were capable of undertaking the proposed project.

Current Situation

Invitations were sent to the nine contractors and the Selective Tender was placed on the

e-Tendering web site with a closing date of 16 November 2010.  Responses were received from Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd, Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd and St Hilliers Constructions Pty Ltd indicating that they were now not in a position to submit a tender proposal for the project.  Submissions were received from the remaining six contractors.

Tender Evaluation

A Tender Evaluation Plan was developed prior to the closing of tenders for the tender selection and a Tender Evaluation Panel was formed to evaluate the submissions.  A Tender Advisory Group (TAG) subsequently carried out an audit and review of the selection process. 

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of the following personnel:

Craig Ross (Major Projects Manager), Brett Richardson (Financial Services),

Rosemarie Canales (Architectural Supervisor), and Ari Fernando (Major Projects & Design Coordinator).  Ben Rodwell (Acting Supply Coordinator) and Laura Schuil provided administrative assistance as well as overseeing the evaluation process.

 

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consists of:

Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager Infrastructure, Stephen Britten, Group Manager Legal and Governance and Vicki O’Kelly, Group Manager Finance.

 

Council’s Legal Officer, Matthew Bullivant, acted as the Probity Advisor for the tender evaluation process.


Tender Evaluation Process

The process of evaluating all valid responses included the following:

 

·    Compliance with the pro-forma submission requirements

·    Cost

·    Risk assessment including referee checks & financial assessment

Summary of Responses Received

The contractors were invited to submit prices for a Fixed Lump Sum and an optional Guaranteed Maximum Price tender.  Both tenders also had elements to be priced as optional modifications to the scope of works.  These would be at Council’s discretion and included site filling and slab demolition, alternate landscaping and alternate façade treatment.  These were included to enable the project to be tailored to suit the construction budget if necessary.

 

Six submissions were received from the following contractors:

 

Contractor

 

 

Fixed Lump Sum

Guaranteed Maximum Price

Denham Constructions Pty Ltd

$10,845,101

No Submission

ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd

$11,346,777

No Submission

Buildcorp Pty Ltd

$11,534,133

No Submission

A W Edwards Pty Ltd

$13,508,645

$14,498,725

Arenco (NSW) Pty Ltd

$15,694,900

No Submission

Laing O’Rourke Aust Constructions Pty Ltd

$15,972,000

No Submission

 

Note:  The above prices exclude GST and relate to the full project delivery.

Evaluation of Tender Responses

There was only one submission lodged at tender closing for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (AW Edwards Pty Ltd) and this was in excess of the available construction budget for the project and was not considered further by the Evaluation Panel.

 

The Fixed Lump Sum tenders were then assessed by the Evaluation Panel.

 

The tender responses from Laing O’Rourke Aust Pty Ltd, Arenco (NSW) Pty Ltd and AW Edwards Pty Ltd did not offer any financial advantage to Council.  Their assessment, including the optional variations, was not further progressed, pending the satisfactory outcome of the assessment of the remaining tenders.  The responses from Denham Constructions Pty Ltd, ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd and Buildcorp Pty Ltd offered better value and were assessed in more detail.

 

The Panel conducted interviews of the above three tenderers to clarify some components and qualifications in their submissions.

 


During the course of the evaluation, an error in the contract documentation was discovered, where two clauses relating to the risk associated with latent conditions were in conflict.  Given the conflict in the conditions, all tenderers were given the same opportunity to clarify their responses to reflect that latent conditions and contamination would not be a claimable item under the contract.

 

Denham Constructions Pty Ltd

 

This company offered the lowest overall price for the full scope of the project.  The expected construction program is 9½ months. 

 

Denham Constructions have recently completed the Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct for Council with very satisfactory outcomes.  They have also recently completed the Holsworthy Commuter Carpark and have received favourable reports from TNSW for the project.

 

Following the Panel interview and subsequent further correspondence, Denham Constructions confirmed that they will accept the risk associated with latent conditions and contamination at an additional cost of $150,000 to cover the risk.  The above figures reflect this amount.

 

Also following the interview, the company submitted a price for the optional Guaranteed Maximum Price.  As this was not initially submitted at tender close the Panel was not in a position to consider the offer.

 

ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd

 

This company has offered the second lowest bid for the project and their expected construction time is 9½ months.

 

ADCO Constructions have recently completed a multi-deck carpark for Fairfield City Council with very satisfactory outcomes and are also completing projects for Bunnings in a number of locations throughout NSW including a major multi-level construction project just commencing in Castle Hill, NSW.  They have completed projects for Knox Grammar,

Wahroonga, Tuggerah Interchange and Wests Ashfield which involved work within the rail corridor.

 

Following the Panel interview and subsequent further correspondence, ADCO Constructions confirmed that they would accept the risk associated with latent conditions and contamination at no additional cost.

 

Also following the interview, the company submitted a price for the optional Guaranteed Maximum Price.  As this was not initially submitted at tender close the Panel was not in a position to consider the offer.

 

Buildcorp Pty Ltd

 

This company’s price is the third lowest and their expected construction program is 8 months.

 

Their response to the tender indicated some qualifications on their pricing where they costed alternate products that did not align with the specifications and plans.  Following the Panel interview and subsequent further correspondence, they submitted a further response indicating that they would accept the risk associated with latent conditions and contamination at an additional cost of $25,000.  They also indicated that the cost to construct with conforming products, was an extra $156,440. 

 

The Panel was of the view that there was no cost benefit or overall value in Council further considering this submission.

 

If this tender was considered further then regard must be had to the fact that the tenderer quoted a price based upon alternative products that did not align with the specifications and plans that were provided to all tenderers.

 

All three contractors have a construction methodology that proposes the use of Landcom land for temporary commuter parking which produces a reduced construction program.  Landcom have indicated in principal agreement for the use of their land for this purpose at no cost to the project.

 

All three tenderers also confirmed that they would be using local sub-contractors where possible and that trainees and indigenous workers form part of their labour teams. 

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Panel has assessed the submissions against the evaluation criteria.  Consideration was also given to the information provided in the EOI submissions and the earlier independent financial analysis.

In view of the information provided and the assessment within the report, the Evaluation Panel considers that Council will obtain best value and a lower risk in engaging Denham Constructions Pty Ltd for the construction of the carpark.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG)

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) has reviewed the Tender Report and is of the opinion that the methodologies, assessment and recommendations made are sound and appropriate given the scale and financial risk of the project.

Financial Services Manager’s Comments

The North Penrith Commuter Carpark project will be funded through a combination of State and Federal Government grants and a contribution from Landcom.  All funding agreements are nearing finalisation and will be completed prior to a contract being awarded.  The cost of construction, based on the recommended tender from Denham Constructions Pty Ltd for a Fixed Lump Sum of $10,845,101 is within the available construction budget for the project.

Probity Advisor’s Comments

Prior to the closing of tenders, the Tender Evaluation Panel determined to assess the Selective Tenders received against the evaluation criteria, which has been outlined earlier in this report.  This process of evaluation was applied throughout the entire evaluation process.  Procedural fairness was applied to all respondents.  The tenderers were afforded equal opportunity and were assessed on their merits.  The evaluation panel had regard and complied with the tendering provisions of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

Other Matters Relevant to Tender

There are three main issues that need to be resolved before Council can award a tender for the construction of the project.  These are:

 

1.   Transfer of ownership of the carpark site to Council

 

Landcom has been in negotiations with the Department of Defence (DoD) for some time regarding the sale of the land.  These negotiations are continuing and as soon as they are resolved, the carpark site will be transferred to Council at a nominal cost.

 

Council has been seeking advice on the status of this part of the sale for some time and has been told that it is imminent.

 

The recommendation of this report has been conditioned to ensure that this occurs before the tender is awarded. 

 

2.   Signing of funding agreements for the State and Federal funds for the project

 

At the time of writing this report, draft funding agreements had been received from TransportNSW and Infrastructure Australia and the contents were being negotiated with the respective agencies.

 

A recommendation of this report has been structured to give approval to sign the agreements and conditioned for these to be finalised before tenders are awarded.

 

3.   RailCorp and TransportNSW approval of carpark plans

 

Council has been in contact with RailCorp and TransportNSW since the inception of this project in 2008.  Whilst there have been numerous design changes made at the request of the agencies, there has not been any formal signoff of the design plans (at the time of writing).  This is required before tenders are awarded.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Commuter Carpark - Tender 15-10/11 Selection be received.

2.     Tender 15-10/11 for the construction of the Penrith Commuter Carpark be awarded to Denham Constructions Pty Ltd for a Fixed Lump Sum of $10,845,101 (excluding GST), once:

(i) the carpark site has been transferred to Council;

(ii) the State and Federal funding agreements have been executed; and

(iii) the carpark construction plans have been approved by TNSW and RailCorp.

3.      The General Manager be authorised to execute the funding agreements.

4.      The Council seal be affixed to any necessary documentation.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

7        2011 Seniors Week Grants Program

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

A Vibrant City

 

 

 

7

2011 Seniors Week Grants Program   

 

Compiled by:                Diane Boyde, Community Development Officer - Older People

Authorised by:             Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager   

 

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)

       

 

Executive Summary

In 2011, Seniors Week will be celebrated from Sunday 20 March up to and including Sunday 27 March. Seniors Week celebrations encourage the involvement of older people in community life and support their continued participation in a range of local events and activities.

 

Each year Council hosts a major Seniors Week celebration event in the City. In March 2010 two concerts were held during morning and afternoon sessions at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.  It is proposed that for 2011 a morning concert will again be held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre on Thursday 24 March.  In addition, a second morning concert will be held at the St Marys Corner Memorial Hall on Tuesday 22 March.  The Memorial Hall is fully accessible and will provide an opportunity for people in residential care and those community groups with high support frail aged clients to attend the concert.  This will allow more seniors, the well aged and the frail aged to attend a Council concert during Seniors Week.

 

Council also allocates funds each year, through the annual Seniors Week Grants Program, to community-based groups to assist with organising activities for older residents across the Penrith LGA.  The budget for this grants program is $6,500.

 

This report provides information about Council’s Seniors Week 2011 functions and makes recommendations on funding for the Seniors Week 2011 grants.  The report recommends that Council receive the information and approve Seniors Week grants to fourteen (14) local community organisations to the value of $6,473 as outlined in this report for activities to celebrate Seniors Week 2011.

 

Background

In 2011, Seniors Week will be celebrated from Sunday 20 March up to and including Sunday 27 March. Seniors Week celebrations encourage the involvement of older people in community life and support their continued participation in local activities. The theme for 2011 is ‘Live Life’, with an emphasis on thanking seniors and acknowledging their valuable contribution to the local community. Seniors Week is also a great opportunity for all generations to join and celebrate with older people.

 

Council hosts a major Seniors Week celebration event in the City – the Seniors Concert.  It is proposed that in 2011 two concerts will be held – a morning concert at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre and a second morning concert at the St Marys Corner Memorial Hall.  This will provide an opportunity for all seniors, including those with high support needs, to attend a Council concert.

 

Council also allocates funds each year, through the Seniors Week Grants Program, to community-based groups to assist with organising activities for older residents across the LGA. The budget for 2011 Seniors Week allocations to community organisations is $6,500.

 

As in previous years, Council has applied for grant funding from the NSW Department of Human Services - Ageing, Disability and Home Care to assist with Council’s Seniors Week event. It is expected that notification will be received by the end of December 2010 as to the success of the application.

Council Event – ‘Active Ageing’

Council’s 2011 Seniors Week concerts will be held on two separate days.  On Tuesday 22 March a concert will be held at St Marys Corner Memorial Hall.  The Memorial Hall is fully accessible and will provide an opportunity for people in residential care and community groups with high support frail aged clients to attend a concert.  In addition to the concert Council will provide a morning tea and light lunch. On Thursday 24 March a second longer concert will be held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre with Council providing morning tea. 

 

Each year the number of seniors wishing to attend the concerts has increased. Holding two concerts in these different venues will allow more seniors, the well aged and the frail aged to attend a Council concert during Seniors Week

 

The overall theme for Seniors Week is ‘Live Life’ and a local theme will be determined during the planning for the 2011 concert.  The performances will predominantly be by local groups and organisations including local high schools. The local theme will be consistent with Council’s ‘Planning for an Ageing Community’ Strategy.

 

A detailed concert program will be provided closer to the event.

Seniors Week Grants – Applications from Community Organisations

The availability of Council funds to assist community organisations and groups in the provision of Seniors Week activities in 2011 was advertised in the local media and extensively through community networks and on Council’s website. Applicants were requested to consider the aims of Seniors Week 2011 which are:

 

·    To promote, amongst people of all ages, a more positive understanding of ageing;

·    To enhance recognition of the contributions of older people to the broader community;

·    To provide information and activities that will assist older people to continue to lead independent lives.

 

Attachment 1 identifies that Council has received applications from community groups and organisations for fourteen (14) separate activities totalling $10,043.00.

 

Project Assessment

Project selection criteria identified in the 2011 Seniors Week grant guidelines are:

 

·    The activity or event must involve the wider community or have the potential to reach the wider community;

·    It must promote positive images of being older;

·    The activity should be innovative and creative;

·    It promotes “Active Ageing” by encouraging the participation of older people;

·    The activity or event should showcase the skills of older people and their continuing contribution to the general community.

 

Council officers have discussed activities and project budgets with project applicants. All fourteen (14) applications meet the conditions in the funding guidelines. All fourteen (14) applications are recommended for either part or full funding. The organisations and amounts recommended for funding are listed in Table 1 below. 

 

Due to the high number of applications received it has been necessary to discuss with the organisations any opportunities to reduce the amount of funds required, either through donations, the use of additional applicant organisational resources, or through alterations to the scope of the proposed activities. These changes have been negotiated and agreed with the applicant organisations.

 

Attachment 1 also provides some comments about each application and how it meets the funding criteria and identifies opportunities to better utilise the requested funding for each grant application.

 

Table 1:     Seniors Week Grants 2011 – Recommended Projects and Allocations

 

No

Organisation

Proposed Activity

Recommended

Allocation

1

Oxley Park Public School

 

Grandparents Day

$600

2

Nepean District Historical Society

Tour of Precinct + Devonshire      Tea

$93

3

Community Access Care Pair Inc.

Seniors Play Date

$400

4

Werrington Elderly Care

‘Life Lets Live’

$200

5

Nepean Community & Neighbourhood Services

Cranebrook Elders Barefoot Bowls Day

$500

6

Seniors & Disabled Outreach Group – Catholic Parish of Holy Spirit St Clair

‘Living a Positive & Healthy Life’s Journey’

 

$500

7

North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre Inc.

‘Sensational Seniors celebrate’

$500

8

University of the Third Age (U3A)

 Seniors Week – U3A Open Day

$500

9

Werrington Community Project Inc.

 Seniors Luncheon

$500

10

Mamre Plains Ltd

‘Live Life’ High Tea

$500

11

St Marys & District Historical Society Inc.

An historical parade of women of the district from 1788+

 

$180

12

Enosis Greek Seniors Group St Marys

Greek Seniors Week Activities, Information & Luncheon Get Together

 

$500

13

St Clair Youth & Neighbourhood Team

 

‘Live Life’ Luncheon

 

$500

14

Nepean Food Services Inc.

Seniors Week Concert for high support clients who are frail aged at Memorial Hall St Marys

 

$1000

 

 

TOTAL

$6473

 

The range of recommended projects will provide an exciting community program for Seniors Week 2011.

 

Summary

The 2011 Seniors Week event will be held on two separate days.  On Tuesday 22 March a concert will be held at St Marys Corner Memorial Hall.  The Memorial Hall is fully accessible and will provide an opportunity for people in residential care and community groups with high support frail aged clients to attend a concert.  In addition to the concert Council will provide morning tea and a light lunch. On Thursday 24 March a second, longer concert will be held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre with Council providing morning tea. 

 

The overall theme for the concert will be ‘Live Life’ with the local theme still to be finalised.  The performances will predominantly be by local groups and organisations including local high schools. The local theme will be consistent with Council’s ‘Planning for an Ageing Community’ Strategy.

 

Council has applied for grant funding from the NSW Department of Human Services - Ageing, Disability and Home Care, to assist with organising the function to celebrate Seniors Week 2011. Notification should be received by the end of December 2010 as to the success of the application.

 

The amount available for the Seniors Week 2011 Grants Program is $6,500. Community organisations have applied for contributions totalling $10,043 to assist in the delivery of fourteen (14) projects for Seniors Week 2011. 

 

It is recommended that Council provide grants to the value of $6,473 to fund fourteen (14) local community organisations and groups for the activities listed in Table 1 in this report to celebrate Seniors Week 2011. Then remaining funds from the budget will be expended on promotion.

 

Council will also be promoting the Seniors Week program of activities before Seniors Week 2011 commences through Council’s website, the local press, service networks and voluntary groups.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2011 Seniors Week Grants Program be received.

2.     Council approve Seniors Week grants to fourteen (14) local community organisations to the value of $6,473 as outlined in this report for activities to celebrate Seniors Week 2011.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

2011 Seniors Week Grant Applications

7 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2010

Appendix 1 - 2011 Seniors Week Grant Applications

 

 

 







 


Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday December 13 2010

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                          1

 

2        Commercial Matter - Property - High Street, Penrith

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lease Assignment of Shop 6 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre

 

4        Personnel Matter - Communication Protocol

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

13 December 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        Commercial Matter - Property - High Street, Penrith

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.

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lease Assignment of Shop 6 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre

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.

 

4        Personnel Matter - Communication Protocol

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

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY