16 February 2011

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 21 February 2011 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 31 January 2011.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

9.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.         CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 21 February 2011

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


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

ON MONDAY 31 JANUARY 2011 AT 7:43PM

PRESENT

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

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Ross Fowler OAM for 31 January 2011.

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 22 November 2010

PRC 1  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 22 November 2010 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        North Penrith Urban Area                                                                                               

Kerry Robinson, General Manager – Development, Landcom and Matthew White – Development Director, Landcom gave a presentation on North Penrith Urban Area.

          Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:26pm.
          Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:27pm.

          Councillor Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:51pm.
          Councillor Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:53pm.

PRC 2  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on North Penrith Urban Area be received.

2.     Council’s Sustainability and Planning Manager be given the delegated authority to finalise and forward Council’s submission on the North Penrith Urban Area Part 3A application based on the comments outlined in the report.

3.     A copy of Council’s submission be provided to Councillors upon its completion under separate cover.

4.     Council seek information from Hornsby Council and bring back a further report on the history, challenges and uptake of the newer high rise developments in and around Hornsby train station.

5.     A further report be prepared which details the traffic facilities and calming devices in the stage 1 proposal especially around the three cross intersections.

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

For

Against

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

 

 

2        Proposed changes to State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008                                                                                                            

Development Services Manager, Paul Lemm introduced the report on Proposed changes to State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008

PRC 3  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed changes to State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008  be received.

2.     A formal submission be made to the Department of Planning expressing concerns with the proposed changes to Stage 2 of the Codes SEPP (Industrial and Commercial Code).

 

 

 

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

For

Against

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

 

A Green City

 

3        NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy                                             

PRC 4  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy be received

2.     The Waste and Community Protection Manager provide a written response to the Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water within the terms of the comments made in this report.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9.23pm.

    



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and Caddens Residential Development Applications

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

 

2        Accessible Communities Program

 

3        Constitutional Recognition for Local Government

 

A City of Opportunities

 

4        Concept Plan of Precinct A within Glenmore Park Stage 2  Applicant:  Lensworth Glenmore Park C/O Byrnes PDM Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Lensworth Glenmore Park

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

  

A Liveable City

 

5        Access To Council Facilities

  

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and Caddens Residential Development Applications

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

 

2        Accessible Communities Program

 

3        Constitutional Recognition for Local Government

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and Caddens Residential Development Applications   

 

Compiled by:               Anthony Milanoli, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, Acting Group Manager - Leadership   

 

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

This report examines the consequences of a proposal by Landcom to offer alternative infrastructure delivery for the Caddens Release Area in response to the $30,000 cap on residential development contributions.

 

Appropriate infrastructure is essential to establish efficient, attractive and appealing environments for new communities. The $30,000 per dwelling Ministerial cap on development contributions will be insufficient to provide adequate infrastructure in the WELL Precinct and its Caddens sub-precinct, part of which is being developed by Landcom. Inadequate infrastructure impedes Council’s ability to approve Landcom’s development applications for the Caddens Release Area. Landcom proposes to overcome this obstacle by entering into an “In-Kind” arrangement with Council. This arrangement would involve Landcom offering contributions – in land and works – almost equivalent to its responsibilities under the WELL Precinct, District Open Space and Cultural Facilities s94 Plans.

 

Landcom’s offer, whilst well intentioned and seeking to address infrastructure shortfalls arising from State government initiatives beyond its control, would have adverse consequences for Council, the community and landowners/developers, and is not supported. Landcom’s proposed solution would not meet the infrastructure delivery requirements outlined in the Caddens LEP and DCP 2006 and achievement of the WELL Precinct vision. Moreover, Council’s resolution of 21 June 2010 also requires that development applications which do not meet infrastructure required by the s94 Plans be deferred.

 

Pursuing an “In-Kind” infrastructure delivery arrangement with Landcom would commit Council to implementing the WELL s94 Plan and therefore obligate Council to deliver infrastructure valued at $107 million across the WELL Precinct. The uncertainty of fully funding such infrastructure as a consequence of the $30,000 cap on residential development contributions may lead to a funding shortfall of $47.9 million which Council – and therefore the community – could be called upon to meet.

 

This report recommends the Minister for Planning be requested to exempt or “grandfather” the WELL Precinct s94 Plan, the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans from the $30,000 cap. Exempting the plans from the cap would enable their immediate implementation and delivery of high quality, low maintenance infrastructure in a coordinated, economic and achievable manner.

Background

Caddens and the WELL Precinct

Caddens is a predominantly residential sector located in the south-west of the Werrington Enterprise Living and Learning (WELL) Precinct.

 

Planning for the WELL Precinct was a jointly funded partnership project between Council, the Department of Planning (DoP), Landcom and the University of Western Sydney (UWS). Planning occurred between 1998 and 2008 at a shared cost of approximately $1 million, which financed staff, studies, consultants and plans, including the WELL Precinct Development Contribution Plan (or s94 plan). Plans for development of the precinct were subject to extensive community consultation, including newsletters, open days, public exhibition and information on Council’s website.

 

Vision for the WELL Precinct 

The WELL Precinct was planned to integrate the varied and disparate land uses into a holistic new community which was “a model for sustainable urban development” and “an internationally renowned destination of choice for business, residents and students”. The vision aims to “attract and accommodate a diverse range of land use activities and people” and offer “seamless integration of those people and activities”.

 

WELL s94 plan

In order to ensure adequate infrastructure for the new community and assist in achieving the vision for the Precinct, a s94 Plan was developed by Council in close cooperation with  Landcom and the University of Western Sydney.  All other landowners within the WELL Precinct were also consulted regarding the development of the Plan. The WELL s94 Plan levies contributions for:

·    open space (active and passive)

·    community facilities (a multi purpose community building)

·    drainage/water cycle management (treating water quality and quantity)

·    traffic and transport (eg, roads, cycleways)

·    plan administration.

 

The plan took effect on 1 July 2008. The total cost of works funded by the Plan is $107 million. To date, contributions charges valued at $2.45 million have been levied (but not received) for aged persons and campus accommodation developments at Kingswood.

 

WELL Residential Development Contribution rates

Under the current WELL s94 plan, the rate for the Caddens sub precinct varies from approximately $54,000 to $58,000 per lot/dwelling. Under the revised plan adopted by Council but not yet in force, the contributions rates vary from approximately $48,000 to $50,000 per lot / dwelling. The contribution rates in the WELL Precinct Plan reflect higher land acquisition costs and drainage charges required to provide infrastructure within the area compared to elsewhere in Penrith City.

 

 

 

Caddens

Caddens is zoned to provide for a variety of land uses including residential (approximately 1,247 dwellings), a Precinct Centre (approximately 10,000m2), recreation opportunities (active and passive open space), an environmental conservation area and infrastructure (drainage).

 

Caddens contains 13 separate landowners amongst the 31 landowners within the WELL Precinct. The numbers of landowners both within Caddens and elsewhere within the WELL Precinct are expected to grow as both Landcom and the UWS are selling selected landholdings within their property portfolios.

 

Voluntary Planning Agreements in Caddens

Council has previously entered into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Landcom for Caddens in which Landcom will make a financial contribution for affordable housing and transfer environmentally sensitive land to Council following its remediation.

 

Cap on Development Contributions Plans

Review of selected Development Contributions Plans

Ministerially-imposed caps on development contributions have their foundation in the then Minister’s 2009 request to councils – including Penrith City – to review selected s94 Plans. In response to this request, Council reviewed identified Contribution Plans with an independent consultant and identified significant savings.  These savings were up to 50% (in the case of the District Open Space Plan) and approximately 20% in the case of the WELL Precinct Plan. These revised plans were adopted by Council on 24 May 2010 and forwarded to the Department of Planning with a request that the Minister make the amended plans so that Council might immediately commence implementing the reduced rates.

 

Capped Residential Contribution Rates & Council’s resolution

On 7 June 2010 the then Minister for Planning applied a $20,000 per lot cap to all new residential development.

 

In response to the potential infrastructure shortfalls arising from imposition of the cap, Council on 21 June 2010 resolved to:

 

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

On 31 August 2010 the cap was increased by the Minister to $30,000 per dwelling for development contributions in release areas, including within the WELL Precinct (which includes Caddens). The cap limits contributions Council may apply to residential development in Caddens under the WELL Precinct s94 Plan, the District Open Space Plan and the Cultural Facilities Plans

Voluntary Planning Agreements which include contributions exceeding $30,000 per dwelling are exempt from the cap.

 

 

Cap-related Voluntary Planning Agreements

On 8 November 2010 Council resolved to support entering into a VPA with all landowners in Glenmore Park Stage 2 (GP2). This VPA will deliver all the infrastructure described in the GP2 s94 Plan and be exempt from the cap. This outcome will achieve compliance with the requirements of Council’s resolution of 21 June 2010.

 

Impact of the $30,000 Cap for the WELL Precinct (including Caddens).

The imposition of the $30,000 residential contributions cap leads to a $47.9 million infrastructure funding shortfall within the WELL Precinct (comprising $37.4 million from the WELL Precinct Plan and $10.5 million from the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans). The next section of this report examines the alternatives Council officers have considered to resolve the impasse presented by the cap-related funding gap. This examination is carried out by referencing the infrastructure delivery alternative proposed by the significant landowner, Landcom.

 

Landcom subdivision applications

Currently Council is assessing five development applications submitted by Landcom for the creation of new lots within a seven stage subdivision. The proposals would generate 144 residential allotments lots (representing approximately 12% of all lots within Caddens), 28 super lots (lots which will be further subdivided into allotments), 1 public reserve and 1 drainage reserve. Council considered two of these applications at its meeting of 24 May 2010 and resolved that they “be determined under delegation upon receipt of the certification from the Director General stating satisfactory arrangements have been made to contribute to the provision of designated State public infrastructure”. The Director General has since advised that no State Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) will be payable.

 

In assessing the applications, staff have applied Council’s resolution (and the LEP and DCP requirements) that proposals be deferred until the applicant can demonstrate adequate infrastructure delivery. Given that these applications would ultimately result in applications generating contributions of approximately $21 million, it is not appropriate to proceed with a delegated approval until there is certainty as to infrastructure delivery.

 

 DCP 2006 infrastructure delivery requirements

As described above, in addition to Council’s resolution regarding infrastructure delivery, the Penrith DCP 2006 requires that all new residential subdivisions are “adequately serviced in a timely, cost-effective, co-ordinated and efficient manner and contains specific expectations with respect to services such as drainage, roads, open space. The WELL Precinct s94 Plan is intended to be the mechanism that provided developers of subdivisions with the means of achieving this DCP service delivery requirement. In addition to these generic infrastructure requirements for new subdivisions, the Caddens Release Area Urban Structure Plan requirements of DCP 2006 specifies required locations and areas for new infrastructure including open space, roads and drainage.

 

Landcom response to the cap

Landcom infrastructure offer of 17 September 2010

To address the requirements of Council’s infrastructure-related resolution, the provisions of the LEP and DCP and to progress their applications, Landcom, by letter dated 17 September 2010, proposed, in principle, entering into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Council.   Landcom offered to consider making a commitment to providing a contribution (via works in kind) equivalent to the approximately $18.5 million which would be payable under the WELL s94 Plan for its subdivision applications.

 

Unlike the GP2 VPA, which applies to all GP2 affected landowners, Landcom advised it would not be seeking to coordinate other Caddens or WELL Precinct landowners to achieve a VPA for the whole urban release area.

 

By letter dated 24 September 2010 Landcom was advised of our appreciation of their attempts to progress the issue, however:

·    the works they proposed would not address the impact of their development beyond their landholdings

·    agreeing to the  offer potentially exposed Council to significant financial risk of approximately $47.9 million relating to the funding shortfall associated with the $30,000 contribution cap

·    the works proposed would not ensure delivery of infrastructure as outlined in the WELL s94 plan and hence fail to achieve the vision for the Precinct

·    we are awaiting advice from the Department of Planning (DoP) regarding exemption of the WELL s94 Plan, the District Open Space and the Cultural Facilities Plans from the $30,000 per lot cap.

 

In light of the above, Landcom was advised that their initiative could not be recommended to Council.

 

Landcom infrastructure offer of 15 December 2010

On 15 December 2010 Landcom made a further offer with respect to delivery of infrastructure relating to their residential subdivision proposal for Caddens. Landcom’s offer was largely similar to their offer of 17 September 2010 with the exception that:

·    rather than a VPA, an “In-Kind” arrangement was proposed

·    works and land transfer proposed in lieu of contributions were now valued at approximately $21 million

·    Roadworks required for their development under the section 94 plan and Development Control Plan were to be reduced, and

·    Landcom now propose to meet contributions which would be owing under the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans through land and works in Caddens.

 

Landcom’s “in kind” arrangement essentially involved the following elements:

·    Landcom building all infrastructure identified in the WELL s94 Plan which is located on their land (as Works in Kind) – this would include drainage and open space works in the western half of Caddens (north of Caddens Road) and the reduced roadworks along Caddens Road

·    Transferring ownership of active open space (including land for a drainage basin) in the eastern half of Caddens, remote from any parcels Landcom intends to develop. This would not involve embellishment of the active open space, and

·    Applying any credit achieved through the works in kind described above to offset/pay for any other financial contributions payable under the plans (such as those for community facilities, transport, etc).

 

Landcom’s December 2010 offer is similar to its earlier alternative infrastructure delivery proposal. With respect to the variations in the current offer, we are legally prohibited from accepting contributions owing under one plan through payment under another plan. The amended roadworks proposed are inconsistent with the s94 plan, are not substantiated and hence there is no nexus for such reduced works. The “in-kind” arrangement proposed does not appear to have a legal enabling mechanism (it is not a VPA, not a payment under a s94 plan, nor a payment under the cap). In light of the above, we advised Landcom that we remain unable to recommend Landcom’s offer to Council.

 

Landcom submission to Joint Regional Planning Panel

Landcom has advised that its alternative infrastructure delivery offer of 15 December 2010 is a precursor to it withdrawing the development applications currently being assessed by Council and lodging a single, combined application with the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

The Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) is a State Government body which makes decisions on regionally significant developments. Landcom’s application to the JRPP must initially be assessed to determine whether it satisfies the Panel’s selection criteria. If these criteria are met, the application will be assessed by Council and this analysis presented to the JRPP for its determination. This process is likely to take some months.

 

Consequences of accepting Landcom’s alternative to contributions payment

As outlined in our letter to Landcom, the unintended consequences of viewing Landcom’s offer in isolation would have serious adverse impacts for Council, the community, landowners/developers and the delivery of the wider Caddens estate and WELL Precinct objectives. These impacts are summarised below and discussed more fully in the appendix to this report:

·    Infrastructure required for Landcom’s site is not self contained but extends to open space and community facilities beyond their land holdings

·    An “In Kind” Arrangement may expose Council and the community to a $47.9 million facility funding shortfall as it commits Council to undertaking the $107 million in infrastructure works in the WELL s94 Plan

·    Rezoning of drainage land would be required, potentially exposing Council to requirements to acquire drainage land worth millions of dollars

·    Council would be compelled to accept, embellish and maintain active open space and drainage land too early and to its disadvantage and cost

·    Uncoordinated delivery of essential infrastructure would result, sterilising estate delivery

·    Unaffordable delivery of infrastructure

·    Developer uncertainty yielding development delays

·    Failure to achieve the WELL Precinct Vision

·    Adverse dwelling affordability impact

·    Higher ongoing infrastructure maintenance costs, and

·    Unattractive drainage infrastructure.

 

Other potential infrastructure delivery solutions & their implications

Landcom has presented a proposed solution to the infrastructure funding impediment arising from the $30,000 cap. Due to its adverse unintended impacts, Landcom’s solution is considered unsuitable. Other options for funding new infrastructure in the WELL precinct are summarised below and examined more fully in the appendicles to this report:

·    Enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with all landowners within the Caddens and WELL Precinct

·    Apply the $30,000 cap and condition development consents to deliver selected infrastructure beyond the cap

·    Apply the $30,000 cap and fund the $47.95 million shortfall through rates

·    Reduce the extent or standard of facilities provided in the plans

·    Apply a flat rate development levy

·    Request that the Minister “grandfather” the WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan – RECOMMENDED SOLUTION

“Grandfathering” a s94 Plan is a process in which the Minister exempts a Plan from the $30,000 cap if the extent of development that has occurred exceeds 25% of the expected number of dwellings projected for that estate. The Minister’s $30,000 cap is a constraint which primarily relates to residential, not multi-purpose, estates such as the WELL Precinct. Whilst the WELL Precinct has not met this 25% development threshold, extensive planning work has occurred over the past 10 years on this complex precinct in order to achieve State and local objectives. Additionally, unlike other greenfields release areas, which are predominantly residential in nature, the WELL Precinct is an employment, education and residential precinct.

In light of the above, Ministerial parameters for review of the WELL Precinct s94 Plan should recognise the “mature” planning and implementation phase the precinct has arrived at and the non-residentially focussed range of land uses it comprises. On this basis we believe the WELL Precinct s94 Plan should be exempted from the cap, whether by way of “grandfathering” or alternative Ministerial Direction.

The advantage of achieving exemption from the cap is that there would be no development contributions-related impediments to Council issuing consents for Landcom or other proponents. Integrated, efficient and high quality infrastructure would be achieved and landowners and the development industry would have certainty as to infrastructure costs, delivery timeframes and standards. This solution would result in a higher likelihood of achieving the WELL Precinct vision and meeting our undertakings to the community regarding future development outcomes.

 

Advice from the Department of Planning

On 2 December 2010 Council officers met with representatives of the Department of Planning (DoP) to discuss:

·    the status of the DoP’s review of our revised contributions plans

·    the WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan

·    the prospect of this Plan being grandfathered

·    the implications for Council, the WELL Precinct Vision, other Caddens landowners/developers and the community of Landcom’s proposed VPA.

 

The key DoP advice arising from that meeting was that they understood Council’s predicament but offered no remedy other than suggesting direct lobbying of the Minister

if we wished to pursue exemption of the s94 plans affected by the cap.

 

Next steps

If Council resolves to seek grandfathering – or exemption - of the WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan from the $30,000 cap by the Minister, the next step in the process would involve making representations to the Minister for Planning seeking the grandfathering/exemption of the revised version of the WELL Precinct Plan, the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans adopted by Council on 24 May 2010, without the need for re-exhibition of these plans. These representations would compliment our current formal submission to the DoP.

 

If the Minister grandfathers/exempts these plans Council would then be at liberty to issue consents for Landcom’s current Caddens development applications or recommend approval to the JRPP for future applications, using the revised contributions plans’ rates without concerns of inadequate infrastructure.

 

Conclusion

Landcom is understandably frustrated by the impasse in progressing its development applications for Caddens as a consequence of the infrastructure funding shortfall arising from the Minister’s $30,000 contributions cap. In an effort to overcome the impasse Landcom proposes to progress its development application by excising itself from the WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and entering into an “In Kind” arrangement with Council. Landcom’s proposal is not supported due to its significant, unintended, adverse impacts on Council’s finances, the community, landowners/developers and the achievement of the WELL Precinct vision. The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan – in combination with the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans – is the most effective mechanism for ensuring efficient, economic and integrated infrastructure delivery. It is appropriate for Council to seek the support of the Minister to have the adopted, revised plans “grandfathered” or exempted from the $30,000 cap by the Minister.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and Caddens Residential Development Applications be received.

2.     Council write to the Minister for Planning seeking a Direction exempting the WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan, the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans from the $30,000 per lot /dwelling cap.

3.     Council not enter into an “In Kind” arrangement or a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Landcom in relation to its residential development applications for the Caddens Urban Release Area.

4.     Council seek clarification/commitment from the NSW Government regarding delivery of State infrastructure which will affect development of the WELL Precinct.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Consequences of accepting Landcom's alternative contributions payments.

3 Pages

Appendix

2.  

Other potential infrastructure delivery solutions and their implications.

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

Appendix 1 - Consequences of accepting Landcom's alternative contributions payments.

 

 

 

Consequences of accepting Landcom’s alternative to contributions payments

 

 

Infrastructure required for Landcom’s site is not self contained

Not all the facilities needed as a consequence of Landcom’s development within Caddens can be provided on its landholdings (eg, community facilities, roads, cycleways, parks). In this sense, Landcom’s proposal is not a self contained infrastructure “island.”  It forms part of a broader physical and social network which the Contributions Plan integrates to help create a holistic community.

 

“In Kind” Arrangement or VPA commits Council to the $107 million WELL Plan.

Council entering into an “In Kind” arrangement or VPA with Landcom for works described in the WELL s94 Plan commits Council to the implementation of those works.  Without the certainty that other landowners within Caddens and the WELL Precinct will agree to contributions beyond the Minister’s $30,000 cap, there is a potential infrastructure funding shortfall of $37.4 million in the WELL Plan, along with $10.55 million for the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans.  As described in earlier reports and memos, Council does not have the financial resources to fund this infrastructure funding shortfall. It is also considered inequitable to expect existing and future residents to fund the shortfall through increased rates levies.

 

Rezoning of drainage land required

Drainage facilities in the WELL Precinct are zoned as “Special Infrastructure” and identified for acquisitions by Council under the Caddens LEP. If Council enters a VPA with Landcom but future contributions are limited to $30,000 per lot, drainage works would need to be deleted from the plan and privately provided by the developer.  Land zoned for drainage and acquisition would therefore need to be rezoned and not acquired. Until such rezoning and LEP amendment occurs, Council may be legally obliged to acquire land zoned for drainage at a multi-million dollar cost.

 

Council would be compelled to accept, embellish and maintain active open space and drainage land

The “In kind” arrangement/VPA being proposed by Landcom involves it transferring to Council ownership a six hectare open space and drainage parcel in the east of Caddens.  This transfer would impose on Council responsibility for the cost of maintenance of this land until it is embellished as open space and a drainage basin. Transfer of this land under these circumstances would achieve a development contribution credit for Landcom under its VPA.  The WELL s94 Plan does not propose development of this playing field until 50% of dwellings in Caddens have been completed.  As described below, a VPA with Caddens has the potential to delay, rather than expedite residential development in Caddens. Accordingly, under the VPA Council may be forced to acquire a maintenance liability with no certainty that development will occur to pay for the works.  This would seem to offer very significant benefits to Landcom at significant cost to Council and the community.

 

Uncoordinated delivery of essential infrastructure – leads to sterilising estate delivery

An essential function of a s94 plan is coordinating delivery of essential infrastructure amongst large numbers of disparate landowners in order to achieve efficient estate delivery. Landcom is only able to propose entering into a VPA with Council (and excise itself from the WELL s94 Plan) because its Caddens-west landholdings can achieve vehicular access without the need to negotiate with other landowners. Landcom does not have this option with its Caddens-east  landholdings. If the $30,000 cap applies, landowners – rather than Council through the s94 plan - become responsible for delivering selected essential infrastructure (such as roads).  The necessary negotiations amongst landowners regarding timing of development, cost of land, etc which will be required without a s94 plan are likely to result in higher land acquisition costs or barriers to estate delivery due to different landowner timeframes and expectations.  Accordingly, coordination of infrastructure, amongst all landowners (including Landcom) across the WELL Precinct via the WELL Precinct s94 Plan is considered the most effective means of achieving estate delivery.

 

Potentially anti-competitive outcome

An unintended result of entering into a VPA with Landcom is that it may place Landcom in an advantageous/exclusive position with respect to the property sales market for Caddens. Entering into an “In Kind” Agreement with Landcom may sterilise coordinated infrastructure delivery elsewhere in Caddens due to the absence of a s94 plan.  Landcom’s Caddens-west estate may be the only proposal that has progressed to sale and thus a price premium can be charged.  Accordingly, Council entering into a VPA with Landcom could potentially be anti-competitive as it undermines equity in estate delivery achieved via the WELL s94 plan.  Due to this outcome, other landowners in Caddens may also see a VPA with Landcom as evidence of partial, rather than impartial treatment by Council towards a single landowner.

 

Affordable delivery of infrastructure

Integrated/shared delivery of infrastructure (through a s94 plan) makes for more affordable infrastructure, as economies of scale are achieved and solutions which are not viable on an individual basis are practical and desirable at a larger scale. It also ensures delivery of infrastructure at agreed costs within agreed timeframes, providing landowners and developers with certainty.

 

Developer uncertainty yielding development delays

Due to the provisions of the s94 plan and the Caddens LEP, during the development of the Caddens LEP, DCP and s94 Plan Council staff were able to provide Caddens and WELL Precinct landowners with assurances regarding:

·    the future of the land identified for infrastructure,

·    the process for infrastructure-related land acquisition; and

·    the mechanism for providing coordinated drainage for future development on their land

This certainty for owners would cease if Council was forced to rezone the drainage land as it could no longer be viably acquired due to the $30,000 cap. Without the known infrastructure delivery mechanism of a section 94 plan applied to all proposals, developers are faced with uncertainty. This uncertainty is likely to result in development delays and hence the delivery timeframes for new dwellings (except Landcom’s) are likely to be extended.

 

 

 

Failure to achieve the WELL Precinct Vision

The vision for the WELL Precinct is to integrate the varied and disparate land uses into an holistic new community which is “a model for sustainable urban development” and “an internationally renowned destination of choice for business, residents and students”.  An example of such a precinct can be seen at Rouse Hill, which recently received an international award as one of the world’s 3 most sustainable new communities. If Council enters into a VPA with Landcom facilities such as drainage and roads will need to be removed from the s94 Plan and provided by the developer. The standard of drainage facilities would therefore drop as they would be small scale, localised, segregated and at minimum standards. With drainage for example, the best practice of large “rain gardens” which service neighbourhoods and treat water quality and quantity would be replaced with site-specific responses such as rainwater tanks and detention basins. While such responses are satisfactory, they would not achieve the vision of an internationally renowned sustainability standard in the manner of Rouse Hill and are unlikely to make Caddens a “destination of choice”.

 

Adverse dwelling affordability impact

Delayed development timeframes and more costly infrastructure as a consequence of independent rather than integrated infrastructure delivery are likely to increase the price of dwellings within Caddens. Developers would be forced to pass on the extra expense associated with these constraints to home buyers, thereby reducing housing affordability.

 

Higher ongoing maintenance costs

Smaller scale drainage infrastructure (which would result if individual arrangements are required as a result of a VPA with Landcom and application of the $30,000 cap), will require higher levels of maintenance than larger, integrated basins. Council will bear the ongoing costs of maintaining these structures at higher rates than would occur if the facilities envisaged in the WELL s94 Plan were built. If the drainage facilities are constructed on a lot by lot basis, the ongoing maintenance cost is passed on to home-owners, reducing their housing affordability. Council’s ability to inspect private drainage facilities is also hampered by audit costs and hence verification of drainage standards cannot be confirmed, resulting in reduced environmental outcomes.

 

Unattractive drainage infrastructure

The smaller scale drainage infrastructure (such as tanks or localised basins) which would result without integrated delivery via the WELL s94 plan, typically becomes a visual and physical liability, rather than an asset which can be enjoyed. Examples of aesthetically pleasing and functional water quality treatment basins and rain gardens that are visual and functional assets can be seen throughout Glenmore Park and Waterside.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

Appendix 2 - Other potential infrastructure delivery solutions and their implications.

 

 

 

Other potential infrastructure delivery solutions & their implications

Landcom has presented a proposed solution to the infrastructure funding impediment arising from the $30,000 cap. Due to its adverse, unintended impacts Landcom’s solution is considered unsuitable. Other options for funding new infrastructure in the WELL precinct are examined below:

Enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with all landowners within the Caddens and WELL Precinct

The benefit of this approach is that the VPA applies to the land, so if the sites are sold, new owners are also tied to the VPA.  The major difficulty in establishing a Caddens or WELL-wide VPA is the large and disparate number of landowners within both Caddens and the WELL Precinct and their different development intentions. There are currently 13 landowners within Caddens and 31 landowners across the WELL Precinct. Some owners (such as Landcom or UWS) may wish to develop in their own right, others in a partnership and others intend to sell. All owners have different development timeframes and financial capacities. On this basis, the likelihood of achieving agreement amongst these multiple landowners is very low. This situation contrasts with the 5 landowners within GP2, who had shared development objectives and partnership agreements and hence the capacity to reach an agreement with Council was greater.

Apply the $30,000 cap and condition development consents to deliver selected infrastructure beyond the cap

Under this approach, selected facilities – such as open space and community facilities - are funded under the $30,000 cap and other works – such as roads and drainage – are conditioned under the consent for delivery by the developer. Conditioning consents to provide new public facilities was the traditional approach to infrastructure construction before development contributions plans provided councils with a mechanism to coordinate delivery.  The benefit of re-instituting this traditional approach to our current problem is that it can be applied immediately, under the current plans.  The disadvantage is that it places the onus on developers to negotiate with other owners to achieve infrastructure delivery, and this can create delays. It is also a less economic, less physically attractive and less sustainable mode of infrastructure delivery, as described earlier in this report.

Apply the $30,000 cap and fund the $47.95 million shortfall through rates

This approach requires the funding for any infrastructure not covered by the capped Plans to be financed through Council’s rates.  The additional rates can be distributed across all residents in the City, or applied to landowners within the WELL Precinct alone.  The advantage of this approach is that it achieves delivery of all facilities contained in the Plan over time.  The disadvantages of this approach are the inequity for existing residents and the delays incurred in revising the current Contributions Plans and applying for Special Rate Variations through IPART. There is also no certainty that IPART would endorse the rate increase.

Reduce the extent or standard of facilities provided in the plans

The advantage in this approach is that reduced contributions could be applied to current Development Applications.  The disadvantage is that the facilities identified in the Contributions Plans and the standard of those facilities meets contemporary community expectations and current industry benchmarks. This approach would also fail to satisfy the agreed vision for the WELL Precinct in terms of both standard of built form outcomes as well as the Precinct’s ability to attract the future employment, education and residential land uses sought.

Apply a flat rate development levy

Even applying a flat rate levy of 3% (the current highest flat rate permitted by the Minister), the contribution generated (assuming a final development cost of $460,000 per lot), is only $13,800 per lot. This contribution would be less than 25% of the per lot infrastructure charge required to deliver essential new facilities for Caddens.

Request that the Minister “grandfather” the WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan – RECOMMENDED SOLUTION

“Grandfathering” a s94 Plan is a process in which the Minister exempts a Plan from the $30,000 cap if the extent of development that has occurred exceeds 25% of the expected number of dwellings projected for that estate. The Minister’s $30,000 cap is a constraint which primarily relates to residential, not multi-purpose estates such as the WELL Precinct. Whilst the WELL Precinct has not met this 25% development threshold, extensive planning work has occurred over the past 10 years on this complex precinct in order to achieve State and local objectives. Additionally, unlike other greenfields release areas, which are predominantly residential in nature, the WELL Precinct is an employment, education and residential precinct.

In light of the above, Ministerial parameters for review of the WELL Precinct s94 Plan should recognise the “mature” planning and implementation phase the precinct has arrived at and the non-residentially focussed range of land uses it comprises. On this basis we believe the WELL Precinct s94 Plan should be exempted from the cap, whether by way of “grandfathering” or alternative Ministerial Direction.

The advantage of achieving exemption from the cap is that there would be no development contributions-related impediments to Council issuing consents for Landcom or other proponents. Integrated, efficient and high quality infrastructure would be achieved and landowners and the development industry would have certainty as to infrastructure costs, delivery timeframes and standards. This solution would result in a higher likelihood of achieving the WELL Precinct vision and meeting our undertakings to the community regarding future development outcomes.

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Accessible Communities Program   

 

Compiled by:               Ray Richardson, Grants Support Officer

Joe Ibbitson, Community Programs Co-ordinator

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The Federal Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) has announced the Accessible Communities Program for Local Governments across Australia for the financial year 2011-12.

 

The total budget for the program is $5 million and each Local Government is able to apply for a maximum of two projects, with a maximum grant of $100,000 per project. Matching funding is required.

 

It is proposed that Council submit two applications.

 

The first is for upgrades to Tandara Childcare Centre in South Penrith (South Ward, Lindsay electorate). This Centre currently has 10 children enrolled who have a variety of disabilities, including two children who utilise wheelchairs. A disabled cubicle will be installed plus one bathroom upgraded to meet disability access regulations. Outdoor areas will be treated to improve safety, access and amenity.

 

The total project cost is $80,600. Matching funds will be provided from Children’s Services Pooled Funds 2011-12.

 

The second will be a proposal to construct 13 accessible bus shelters, principally in Penrith and St Marys CBDs (South & East Wards, Lindsay electorate). It is anticipated that the bus shelter improvements budget of $85,000 will be available in 2011-12 to provide matching funds for a $170,000 project. This project will assist Council in meeting its commitment to ensure that any bus stop constructed after 15 August 2002 is required to comply with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT). In addition, Schedule 1 of the DSAPT sets down the following timeline by which all existing bus stops are required to comply with the DSAPT:

·     31 December 2007 – 25% of bus stops;

·     31 December 2012 – 55% of bus stops;

·     31 December 2017 – 90% of bus stops; and

·     31 December 2022 – 100% of bus stops.

The DSAPT guidelines for the 2012 target date state that priority should be given to bus stops serving local shopping centres, industrial areas schools, hospitals, tertiary education intuitions, retirement villages, nursing homes and rehabilitation centres.

 

The Accessible Communities Program closes at 2:00 pm Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time on Friday 25 February 2011. Decisions are expected by 1 July 2011. All projects must commence by December 2011 and be completed by 30 June 2012.

Background

The Australian Government has recently announced a commitment of $11 million in 2010-11 under a package of initiatives to support people with disability through the new National Disability Strategy. ‘Make Local Communities Accessible for all Australians’ is one element of the program announced by the FaHSCIA on 24 January 2011. The Accessible Communities program will provide $5 million in 2010-11 on a matched dollar-for-dollar basis to Local Governments for improvements to local infrastructure.

 

The Grants Support Officer called for nominations for suitable projects. Several departments were unable to propose projects as matching funding was not available from projected operational budgets or other sources.

 

A number of project proposals, including the two recommended, were brought to the attention of the Access Committee on 2 February 2011.

 

In addition to the two projects described above, the following suggestions were received:

 

Sunnyfield Enterprises for construction of a path along the South side of Kurrajong Road St Marys to improve access for supported workers to their rented facility at 5 Kurrajong Road St Marys. The project was the subject of an unsuccessful application from Sunnyfield for funding under the Community Building Partnership Program.

 

The cost to construct 165m footpath, 1.50m wide along the south side of Kurrajong Road between Glossop Street and Plasser Crescent (Sunnyfield staff entrance) is $21,037. The path will facilitate the movement of the supported workers between St Marys Station and Sunnyfield. A path exists on the northern side of Kurrajong Road that is used by local residents, but is not of assistance to Sunnyfield’s needs.

 

The path is not on the current ‘missing links’ program but has been assessed separately due to the request for a path by Sunnyfield. There are currently no matching funds available for this footpath.

 

It was not certain that this project would meet the eligibility criteria for funding through the Accessible Communities Program, as the works could be seen as “Roads or related infrastructure covered by other government programs such as Roads to Recovery or Black Spot programs” which are deemed ineligible.

 

Penrith Regional Gallery and The Lewers Bequest Disability Signage Project, proposed by Penrith Performing and Visual Arts (PPVA).

 

The concept of this project is to initiate the development and implementation of a range of audience development and interpretation strategies for visitors with hearing and sight impairment, particularly in the key areas of audio guiding and special signage. Such programs would enable the Gallery to deliver disability audience specific experiential interpretive materials.

 

It was proposed that Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest commission the production and installation of signage and audio guide ‘infrastructure’ specific to the needs of vision and hearing impaired Disability groups who regularly visit the Gallery’s exhibitions, Café, gardens and heritage buildings. The project would develop permanent Braille signage and programmable audio guides to fully engage visitors, provide rigorous and comprehensive information, ensure cultural and educative access and utilise contemporary communication methodologies to ensure wider access for visitors with a visual and/or hearing disability.

 

The project was budgeted at $40,000, with 50% to be sourced from PPVA budgets.

 

It was not certain that this project would meet the eligibility criteria for funding through the Accessible Communities Program, as the project could be seen as “Information Technology and Communications hardware and software” which are deemed ineligible.

 

The Grants Support Officer will investigate alternate grant funding opportunities for this project, particularly through the philanthropic funding sector.

 

Penrith Library Services has Library Service identified a need to upgrade terminals and software to ensure accessibility to its services.

 

It was not certain that this project would meet the eligibility criteria for funding through the Accessible Communities Program, as the project could be seen as “Information Technology and Communications hardware and software” which are deemed ineligible.

 

FaHCSIA has announced an additional funding opportunity, the Local Government Increasing Accessibility Library Initiative, for the provision of playback devices to improve access to print material in a digital format for people with print disability through public libraries around the country. A call for Expressions of Interest from public libraries has been issued and Penrith Library are currently assessing whether the offer will be compatible with existing software.

Conclusion

The two projects identified rated highly as Council priorities. An upgrade to bus shelters will assist Council to move closer towards meeting the DSAPT requirements. At Tandara Childcare Centre, facilities are in urgent need of upgrading to improve access for children who are currently enrolled at the service.

 

These two nominated projects were also considered to be unquestionably eligible for funding under the Accessible Communities Program and were therefore deemed to be the most appropriate projects to be the subject of applications for grants under the Accessible Communities Program.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2.     Council endorse the submission of applications for the Tandara Childcare Centre and Accessible Bus Shelter Program.

3.     Sunnyfield Enterprises be advised of Council’s recommendation and the reasons for not seeking a grant for their proposed project.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

 

3

Constitutional Recognition for Local Government   

 

Compiled by:               Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:            Adam Beggs, Acting Senior Governance 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

Following on from the Local Government Constitutional Summit held in Melbourne on 8-11 December 2008, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has written to Council to advise of further progress on its campaign for Constitutional recognition for local government and to invite Council to become directly engaged in the campaign.

 

It is most likely that a dual referendum on Constitutional recognition for local government and the recognition of Indigenous Australians will be held in conjunction with the 2013 Federal Election.

 

To assist in the ongoing campaign for Constitutional recognition for local government, the ALGA is now asking all councils to pass appropriate resolutions declaring support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution; seeking the inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution; and calling on all political parties to support a referendum by 2013 to change the Australian Constitution to achieve Constitutional recognition for local government. This report proposes that Council pass resolutions in relation to these matters.

 

Once councils have passed resolutions, it is the ALGA’s intention that a Constitutional Declaration for Councils will be submitted for signature by council representatives at the conclusion of the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government on 22 June 2011.

 

The ALGA will be supplying Council in the coming months with further materials which will assist it in a campaign to win broad public support for Constitutional recognition of local government in the community.

Background

As Council is aware, the Australian Government is committed to pursuing Constitutional recognition for Local Government.

 

In response to this commitment, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has commenced a campaign on behalf of all councils across Australia to ensure that this commitment is met and that the right model for Constitutional recognition is put to the people at a referendum.

The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) is working with the ALGA in this campaign and Council will recall that a Local Government Constitutional Summit was held on 8-11 December 2008 to resolve a national position on this matter.

 

The following motion was adopted at the Summit:

 

“To ensure the quality of planning and delivery of services and infrastructure provided to all Australians, and the ongoing sustainability of local government, any Constitutional amendment put to the people in a referendum by the Australian Parliament (which could include the insertion of a preamble, an amendment to the current provisions or the insertion of a new Chapter) should reflect the following principles:

 

-     The Australian people should be represented in the community by democratically elected and accountable local government representatives;

 

-     The power of the Commonwealth to provide direct funding to local government should be explicitly recognised; and

 

-     If a new preamble is proposed, it should ensure that local government is recognised as one of the components making up the modern Australian Federation”.

 

Penrith’s View

It has been Penrith Council’s longstanding position that Local Government should be recognised in the Australian Constitution, and over the years, it has both sponsored and supported motions to the National General Assembly of Local Government and the Local Government Association Conference in support of this stand.

 

Council, at its Ordinary Meeting held on 4 August 2008, reaffirmed its support for Constitutional recognition for local government and it responded at that time to various ALGA questions and objectives which the ALGA asked Council to consider in regard to the proposed Constitutional model.

 

Current Position

Following the 2010 Federal Election, Prime Minister Gillard committed to holding a dual referendum on Constitutional recognition for local government and the recognition of Indigenous Australians, most likely in conjunction with the 2013 Federal Election.

 

The challenge for local government is now threefold:

1.   to ensure the referendum is held;

2.   to ensure that the type of recognition sought meets local government’s requirements; and

3.   to make sure a positive result is achieved in the referendum itself.

 

To assist in the ongoing campaign for Constitutional recognition for local government, the ALGA is now asking councils to pass appropriate resolutions in relation to the following matters:

·    a resolution declaring support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund local government directly;

·    a resolution seeking the inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed; and

·    a resolution calling on all political parties to support a referendum by 2013 to change the Australian Constitution to achieve Constitutional recognition for local government.

 

Proposed resolution declaring support for financial recognition of local government

 

The Australian Government does not currently have the power to fund local government directly, as was highlighted in 2009 by the decision of the High Court in Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation. In this case, the Court set out the limitations of the Australian Government’s powers.

 

The ALGA’s preference is for a pragmatic and simple change to the Constitution (most likely to Section 96) to allow direct funding of local government from the Australian Government to take place. The ALGA considers that the capacity for the Federal Government to fund councils directly to achieve national objectives to be in the best interests of local communities.

 

The form of financial recognition of local government proposed by the ALGA (which will not impact on the relationship between councils and state governments) has been endorsed by the LGSA and all other state and territory local government associations.

 

The ALGA believes it is now important that this position is also endorsed by all councils to demonstrate to Federal and state governments, oppositions and political parties that the position has widespread support within local government.

 

The ALGA’s research has shown that this approach is most likely to garner the necessary public support.

 

Penrith City Council’s previous response to the ALGA relating to proposed resolution:

 

Council rated the “Simplified/Streamlined Federal Funding (Direct Commonwealth funding rather than through States)” as HIGH for the reason that greater efficiency and transparency would result as well as guaranteed funding.

 

Proposed resolution seeking inclusion of local government in Constitution preamble

 

As a secondary approach, the ALGA is seeking the symbolic recognition of local government in a Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed. However, it acknowledges that such limited recognition alone would not meet local government’s requirements, nor would it address the uncertainty highlighted by the Pape case.

 

Penrith City Council’s previous response to the ALGA relating to proposed resolution:

 

Council rated the “Symbolic recognition of local government” as HIGH for the reason that it is important to local citizens that local government is recognised in the Australian Constitution.

Proposed resolution seeking support of all political parties

 

As part of the local government campaign, the ALGA believes that it is also important to ensure that national political leaders are left in no doubt about local government’s commitment to Constitutional recognition for local government.

 

The ALGA is asking that all councils write to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and their local Federal Members of Parliament to advise them of councils’ support for Constitutional recognition for local government.

 

Penrith City Council’s previous response to the ALGA relating to proposed resolution:

 

Council informed the ALGA that:

·    it is most important for the campaign to succeed, that the process be carried out in partnership with as many local citizens and community groups as possible, in accessible local forums, in the lead up to the ultimate referendum, if it proceeds;

·    it considers that all levels of government (including State Governments) need to be engaged, with Local, State and Federal Members of Parliament being kept well informed so that they can convey appropriate information to their constituents;

·    councils need to involve industry leaders and encourage the holding of regional summits to discuss Constitutional recognition and related reform issues; and

·    an ongoing media campaign is required, particularly at the local level.

 

Future Action

It is the ALGA’s intention that a Constitutional Declaration for Councils will be submitted for signature by council representatives at the conclusion of the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government on 22 June 2011.

 

The ALGA’s objective is that all councils will be in a position to sign the Declaration supporting financial recognition at that time.

 

The ALGA will be supplying councils in the coming months with further materials which will assist them in a campaign to win broad public support for Constitutional recognition for local government.

 

Conclusion

The proposed resolutions are considered worthy of support and are in line with Council’s stated position and previous responses on these matters.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Constitutional Recognition for Local Government be received

2.     Council declares its support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund local government directly

3.     Council seek the inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed

4.     Council call on all political parties to support a referendum by 2013 to change the Australian Constitution to achieve Constitutional recognition for local government and in this regard, Council write to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and local Federal Members of Parliament to inform them of Council’s support for Constitutional recognition for local government.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Concept Plan of Precinct A within Glenmore Park Stage 2  Applicant:  Lensworth Glenmore Park C/O Byrnes PDM Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Lensworth Glenmore Park

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

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

A City of Opportunities

 

 

4

Concept Plan of Precinct A within Glenmore Park Stage 2  Applicant:  Lensworth Glenmore Park C/O Byrnes PDM Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Lensworth Glenmore Park   

 

Compiled by:               Jonathon Wood, 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)

 

Presenters:                   Brendan O'Brien - Stockland Group - Concept Plan Presentation     

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

 

Executive Summary

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 requires that for Glenmore Park Stage 2, a concept plan setting out proposals for the development of a precinct is required to be lodged and approved by Council prior to, or with, the first subdivision development application for each precinct.

 

Council has now received a concept plan for Precinct A of the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area. The concept plan was submitted prior to the lodgement of the first subdivision development application for Precinct A. The concept plan is the third lodged for the release area, with a concept plan previously endorsed for Precinct B (located to the north) and Precincts D and E (located to the south). This concept plan will provide guidance for the future development of Precinct A and aims to demonstrate that the critical elements contained within the Development Control Plan (DCP) can be achieved.

 

The concept plan for Precinct A has been examined and found to be satisfactory when considered against the relevant criteria in Penrith Development Control Plan 2006. The concept plan is appropriate and it is recommended for endorsement. 

 

Council is also in receipt of development applications for Precinct A that seek to subdivide part of the precinct in accordance with the provisions of the concept plan together with applications for the restoration of the riparian corridor and a bridge that will span the corridor and provide connectivity between Precinct A and B. These applications are still under assessment however they are consistent with those matters prescribed within this concept plan.  It is envisaged that these applications will be determined within the coming weeks under delegated authority, subject to endorsement of the concept plan.

 

Site and Surrounds

The Glenmore Park Stage 2 Release Area is situated on part of the land previously utilised by Mulgoa Quarries as an extractive industry. The majority of the release area has been disturbed in the past through the operations of the old clay/shale mining site. The exception to this is the eastern fringe and southern portion of the release area which has been used predominantly for agricultural purposes in the past.

 

The Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area comprises eight (8) development precincts, identified alphabetically as precincts A-H. The release area is bordered by Ridgetop Drive, Rosecrea Court, Parakeet Grove and Mulgoa Nature Reserve to the north; Mulgoa landfill and Mulgoa Nature Reserve to the west; rural properties to the south; and rural properties to the east - with the Northern Road approximately 300m from the eastern boundary of the release area. A copy of an indicative Precinct layout plan of the release area is provided at Appendix No.1.

 

Precinct A, being the location of the current concept plan, is approximately 25 hectares in area and is located in the north-west portion of the release area. The precinct is bounded by Mulgoa Nature Reserve to the west; an existing and proposed riparian corridor to the north and east; and Precinct D to the south.

 

Precinct A is planned to accommodate a variety of land uses and is also bound by riparian corridors. The Structure Plan contained within the Development Control Plan (DCP) sets out the following elements that are to be provided as part of the development of Precinct A:

 

·    Residential development- at a variety of densities including, apartments, terraces, studios, built boundary and detached dwellings;

·    Primary school (subject to Department of Education and Training);

·    Local centre (Commercial);

·    Corridor edge parks and shared pedestrian and cycle paths; and

·    Connectivity to the active open space elements to the south.

 

Background

Matters arising from Policy Review Committee on 18 October 2010

A concept plan for Precincts D and E within the Glenmore Park Stage 2 Release Area was presented (Item 5) and endorsed by the Policy Review Committee on 18 October 2010. One of the resolutions from that meeting provided:

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

Information has been provided below with input from Council’s Group Manager - City Presentation on the first two (2) matters. Each of these issues are dealt with in turn. 

1.    Public lighting in parks

It is not general practice to light parks, due to the lack of passive surveillance. The merits or otherwise of the proposed lighting of public parks will be assessed on an individual basis.

It is also noted that the redevelopment of Jacaranda Park, and the concept plan for the local park in Precinct E, both do not provide for any lighting.

 

 

2.    Ongoing maintenance of facilities and transition of responsibility and management of litter in the nature reserve

The developer should be required to provide a detailed maintenance schedule for all facilities to be handed over to Council. This schedule should itemise and cost all maintenance activities required to maintain all public assets to the agreed standards and detail the timeframe for transfer to Council. This maintenance schedule should be submitted to Council for approval and be implemented by the developer during the period that it is responsible for maintaining the assets prior to hand over to Council. The maintenance schedule should include all assets to be transferred to Council including the management of the rain garden and riparian corridor, with specific emphasis on the management of litter on these areas.

 

The plans for assets to be transferred to Council are currently in the concept stage and more detailed commentary can be provided at the Development Application Stage where the maintenance schedule should be submitted with the more detailed designs. Council staff will then be in a position to consider and assess the suitability of the proposed infrastructure, including Council’s ability to maintain the proposed infrastructure, prior to giving approval.

3.    Built to boundary properties

The Development Control Plan (DCP) for the release area seeks to provide a diversity of dwelling types to suit the varying demands of the community. To do so, the DCP provides controls for indicative dwelling types, including apartments and studios, terraces, liveworks, semi-detached, built to boundary and detached dwellings. Built to boundary dwelling types are prescribed with the following indicative controls:

Lot Size Range

230 - 450m2

Lot Frontage

9.5m - 15m

Principal Open Space

Minimum area of 40m2

Minimum dimension of 4m

Front Setback

4.5m

Front Setback to Secondary Frontage

2m

Side Setback

0m on defined boundary and 0.9m on other boundary

Rear Setback

Lots with northern orientation - 8m

All other lots:

Ground Floor - 4m

Upper Floor - 6m

Garage to rear lane - 0m

Height

Maximum height of 2 storeys

Dwellings with northern orientation that share a rear boundary with residential development required to be within the prescribed building envelope.

 

The concept plan provides for some built to boundary dwelling types on different lots, with the key element being the ability to go to a ‘zero lot line’ (allowing development to be carried out with no setback to the side boundary) on one side. In doing so, the adjoining property is required to be provided with an easement for access 900mm wide - which effectively prevents two built to boundary dwellings having adjacent zero lot lines. These easements are set up at subdivision stage. The DCP also provides that no windows are to be located on the zero lot line wall. It is important to note that whilst the DCP provides the opportunity to have a zero lot line, it will ultimately be up to the future home owner as to whether they choose to take advantage of this, or whether they choose to adopt the more traditional 900mm setback from both boundaries.

4.    Fencing types of lot boundaries

The DCP also provides specific controls for fencing types within the release area. A summary of those controls are listed below:

·    Front fences must be transparent;

·    Side property fences in front of the building line shall be treated as the front fence;

·    Side property fences terminated at the front building line and returned to finish against the building;

·    Fences to the street frontage are to be a maximum of 900mm in height, and may be a maximum of 1200mm in height where they define the primary open space of the dwelling;

·    Side property fences are to be a maximum of 1800mm high;

·    Fences to corner lots that accommodate single dwelling houses are to be a maximum 900mm high on both the primary street frontage and secondary street frontage to a point 10m from the dwelling frontage where it may then increase to 1800mm in height;

·    Fences to corner lots that accommodate multi unit housing forms are to be a maximum of 900 mm on the primary street frontage and 900 mm in height along the secondary street frontage in areas in front of the built form or 1200 mm if they define the primary open space areas;

·    Transparent fencing shall have a minimum opening ratio of 50%;

·    Where solid fences are required to satisfy acoustic abatement, these fences shall not exceed 8m in length without some articulation or detailing to and must be softened on the street side with a landscaping strip of 700mm minimum;

 

History of Release Area and Status of Applications

The Glenmore Park Southern Expansion release area was endorsed by the NSW Government for inclusion in the Metropolitan Development Program in 2002, with the Minister for Planning declaring the study area as a release area in July 2003 and naming the area as Glenmore Park Stage 2.

 

After this process, Council engaged EDAW Pty Ltd to prepare a detailed Local Environmental Study (LES) relating to the release area to enable Council to prepare a detailed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for the area. The LES incorporated nine key (9) key elements, including:

 

1.   Biodiversity;

2.   Environmental Analysis;

3.   Bushfire Management;

4.   Culture and Heritage;

5.   Visual Environment;

6.   Connectivity and Accessibility;

7.   Physical Infrastructure;

8.   Economy and Employment;

9.   Social and Community Services.

 

These studies provided direction in Council’s preparation of a comprehensive LEP for the release area. Considerable work was undertaken by Council planners over the last few years, with a draft LEP, DCP and Development Contribution Plan being publicly exhibited and adopted for the release area.  A Planning Agreement between Council and the various landowners for contributions towards affordable housing and employment was also negotiated. The Planning Agreement also provided for the completion of trunk drainage works and the completion of substantial revegetation within the biodiversity corridor by the landowners group. 

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan (Glenmore Park Stage 2) 2009 was gazetted on 8 May 2009, and concurrently Part 6.44 of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (Glenmore Park Stage 2) came into force. The LEP rezoned 225 hectares of land to permit a range of urban, commercial, conservation and recreational uses. The overall release area contains a total of eight (8) precincts that are labelled Precincts A-H.

 

As mentioned previously, Council previously entered into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with the landowners within Glenmore Park Stage 2 that make provision for:

 

·    Monetary contributions towards affordable housing and employment;

·    The dedication of land for biodiversity conservation;

·    Works in kind for trunk drainage; and

·    Biodiversity corridor planting within the release area.  

 

There is also an in principle agreement between the Landowners Group and Council to enter into a further Planning Agreement to provide for the delivery of all those elements identified in the Glenmore Park Stage 2 Contributions Plan. This is to overcome shortfall that has been generated through the imposition of the maximum $30,000 per lot cap placed on all councils by the NSW State Government. It is anticipated that the entering of this agreement will occur in the coming months.

 

To date the following development has been granted consent by Council, and in the majority of circumstances, works have commenced:

 

·    Approximately 350 residential lots;

·    Bradley Street upgrade works;

·    Bridge crossing from Bradley Street to Precinct E; and

·    Jacaranda Park Embellishment

 

Currently several development applications are under consideration by Council, including:

 

·    Approximately 450 residential lots;

·    Riparian corridor bridge from Precinct A to B; and

·    Riparian corridor restoration works, including drainage and corridor edge park.

 

It is envisaged that these applications will be determined in the coming weeks, subject to statutory provisions.

 

Concept Plan

The requirement for the submission of a concept plan for precincts in the release area stems from the provisions of Part 6.44 of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006. Section 1.9 of the DCP outlines:

 

A Concept Plan setting out proposals for the development of each precinct or site is required to be lodged and approved by Council prior to, or with, the first subdivision development application for each precinct.

 

A Concept Plan shall demonstrate:

·   Proposed urban structure and public domain elements, including Landscape Masterplan

·   Delivery of required dwelling yield and diversity targets set out in Table 1

·   Distribution of lot types and housing forms to suit a variety of lifestyles, household types and financial capacities

·   Road hierarchy, sections and details

·   The location and design of open space networks

·   The location of pedestrian and cycle paths

·   The Northern Road viewshed analyses where required

·   Development Staging

·   Infrastructure Delivery Strategy.

 

The concept plan is to serve as a guide for future development of the precinct and as such it is a broad brush approach to the indicative layout of the precinct. The relevant extracts of the concept plan provided by Stockland for Precinct A are at Appendix No. 2, 3, and 4 and it should be viewed in conjunction with this report (colour copies have been provided to Councillors under separate cover).

 

Each element required to be detailed in the concept plan is discussed in turn.

 

1. Proposed urban structure and public domain elements, including Landscape Masterplan

The urban structure is clearly defined in the documentation submitted, and also provides detail on the public domain elements - most significantly in relation to the commercial local centre. It is important to note at this stage that the active open space falls outside the confines of Precinct A, and detail on the active open space was considered by the Policy Review Committee on 22 October 2010 as part of the consideration of the Concept Plans for Precincts D and E.

 

The detail provided on the Neighbourhood Precinct indicates compliance with the DCP matters, and the proposal creates two (2) functional land parcels with separate land use elements. The retail component will provide a highly accessible ‘retail village’ with an active street frontage and will also provide opportunities for shop top housing which is consistent with the DCP.

Stockland have outlined that the detailed design and planning of the Neighbourhood Precinct will occur as part of a detailed concept plan and subsequent staged development. This is consistent with the provisions of the DCP.

 

The landscape masterplan submitted provides the indicative street landscaping elements, with a palette of trees being utilised to create a landscape theme. The landscape masterplan is respectful of the riparian corridor by providing for a transition from exotic species to native and endemic species in those areas closest to the corridor. Detail on final street tree species selection will be established at development application stage.

 

2. Delivery of required dwelling yield and diversity targets set out in Table 1

Table 1 is located in Section 2.5 of the DCP, and provides for the minimum delivery of different dwelling types within the precinct. In relation to Precinct A, the table outlines:

 

Table 1: Dwelling Diversity

DWELLING TYPE

Precinct

Apartments and Studios

Terraces / Live-Works and

Semi- Detached

Built to Boundary

Detached

Precinct Total

A

50

33

56

100

239

 

The concept plan submitted for consideration provides detail on the lot mix and lot layout, with the dwelling yield and diversity numbers summarised below:

 

DWELLING TYPE

Precinct

Apartments and Studios

Terraces / Live-Works and

Semi- Detached (corner lot)

Built to Boundary

Detached

Precinct Total

A

50

34

103

69

255

 

It can be seen from the tables above that the required dwelling yield is achieved, with a minimum of 255 dwellings to be delivered, which is 16 dwellings in excess of the required DCP yield. However there is a departure in the minimum delivery of various dwelling types with a higher proportion of built to boundary dwelling types and a lower proportion of traditional detached dwellings. It is important to note that both of these housing types are of lower densities on lots ranging from 230-450m2 with a 9.5-15m frontage (built to boundary) to 360-600m2 with a 12-15m frontage (detached).

 

In relation to this technical departure the proponent has outlined:

 

Approximately 65% of the “built to boundary” lots are of a width that can accommodate a well designed detached dwelling (12.5m).  Lots of 10m in width will likely accommodate a 3 bedroom, single garage, single storey built to boundary dwelling.  Lots of 12.5m or more width are not only suitable for built to boundary dwellings, but with good design can also accommodate a detached dwelling that may contain 4 bedrooms, a double garage or be 2 storeys in height.

 

As the threshold between built to boundary and detached dwelling allotments cannot be simply prescribed at say 12.5m, the lot mix and layout plan has categorized broadly.  It is anticipated that a greater number of detached housing applications will emerge given the opportunity to build well designed detached housing on lots of 12.5m in width and greater.

 

In this regard the mix of housing product will be consistent with that proposed in the DCP.

 

In assessing the appropriateness of the departure it is necessary to examine the underlying intent of the prescribed dwelling diversity numbers. The DCP provides the following objectives and performance measures relating to dwelling diversity:

 

Objectives

 

·    To promote diverse housing forms that meet the increasingly diverse demands of the local community;

·    To ensure affordable housing strategies for the release area are achieved;

 

Performance Measures

 

These objectives may be achieved where:

 

·    Diverse housing forms are provided within precincts and across the overall development area.

 

It must also be recognised that the development controls relating to dwelling diversity within the DCP states ‘development achieves indicative housing type numbers identified for each precinct at Table 1’. Given the arguments presented, in that there is a degree of overlap between the housing types that will be refined during future development, it is considered that the technical non-compliance is satisfactory. This is also reinforced by a further two (2) matters:

 

1.   That the sum of the built to boundary and detached dwelling types exceeds the sum of the prescribed built to boundary and detached dwelling types in the DCP by 16; and

2.   That there is opportunity at development application stage to require the submission of an 88b instrument that will deliver the minimum numbers if considered necessary.

 

Having identified these two (2) points it must be accepted that market forces will play a determining role in the eventual dwelling mix and therefore some degree of flexibility must be accepted in these indicative numbers.

 

Based on this the information contained in the concept plan in relation to dwelling yield and diversity is considered satisfactory.

 

3. Distribution of lot types and housing forms to suit a variety of lifestyle, households types, and financial capacities

This element is interrelated with the delivery of the required lot yield and diversity discussed previously. The proponent has demonstrated that the diversity of lot sizes and built forms is able to suit a variety of lifestyle, household types and financial capacities.

 

4. Road hierarchy, sections and details.

The concept plan outlines the proposed road hierarchy. The proponent has outlined that the precinct will adopt the road dimensions for local roads, minor local roads, and laneways prescribed within the DCP. The detail on these roads will be considered with the development applications for the precincts.

 

The details submitted in relation to the road hierarchy, sections and details are sufficient at concept stage and the detail provided relating to the collector road adjacent to the neighbourhood centre is appropriate and consistent with the performance measures in the DCP, in that it provides for a friendly pedestrian environment and generally accords with the DCP diagrammatic representations.

 

5. The location and design of open space networks

The concept plan submitted provides detail on the location of open space networks, with particular reference to the central active open space area and the pocket edge park along the northern boundary of the precinct. As discussed previously, the active open space area is not located within the confines of Precinct A, with details submitted previously with the Precinct D and E concept plan. Detailed design of the pocket edge park will be subject to assessment at development application stage.

 

The location of the open space elements is consistent with the provisions of the DCP.

 

6. The location of pedestrian and cycle paths

The concept plan submitted contains documentation showing the location of pedestrian and cyclist paths/routes. The location and type of both pedestrian and cycle paths remains consistent with the provisions of the DCP and will enable linkages to other precincts with the release area.   

 

7. The Northern Road viewshed analyses where required.

The provisions of Section 3.1.6 identify those areas within the release area that have potential to adversely impact on the existing viewshed from the Northern Road towards the Blue Mountains. Precinct A is not identified as an area where a viewshed analysis is required. Therefore the concept plan is not required to be supported by a viewshed analysis.

 

8. Development Staging

The concept plan, through the lot mix and layout, provides some detail on the staging of the precinct. Supporting documentation has been received that clarifies the timing of each stage within the precinct.

 

The detail provided is sufficient at concept stage, and gives an indication on the delivery of the precinct, with an anticipated ‘finish’ in early 2012. This will be subject to market consideration and sales. The development applications for the precinct will have to detail the logistics of facilitating the release of subdivision certificates to enable the sale of individual lots.

 

9. Infrastructure Delivery Strategy

The concept plan outlines the location and types of infrastructure required to service the precinct, in terms of initial lot creation through to the servicing of individual dwellings. As discussed below, the provision of infrastructure contained in the Section 94 plan is not entirely certain at this point in time given the recent move by the NSW Government to cap developer levies. This does not impede Council’s ability to endorse the current concept plan for Precinct A and is a matter that will be dealt with as part of development applications for the Precincts.

 

At this stage, the landowners group have put forward a detailed proposal indicating a willingness to enter into a separate planning agreement with Council for the provision of all infrastructure contained in the Section 94 plan.

 

Comments from other sections of Council

The concept plan was referred to the relevant sections of Council for comment and feedback received indicated support for the concept plan. There will be further opportunity afforded to relevant internal staff to provide comment at development application stage, where greater detail will be provided by the proponent.

 

Conclusion

The concept plan submitted satisfies the provisions of Section 1.9 of Part 6.44 contained within Penrith Development Control Plan 2006. The plan provides direction to the future development of the precincts and gives Council comfort that the relevant provisions of the DCP are able to be achieved, or that the departures from the DCP are appropriate. It has been established as part of this assessment that the concept plan is worthy of Council’s endorsement.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Concept Plan of Precinct A within Glenmore Park Stage 2  Applicant:  Lensworth Glenmore Park C/O Byrnes PDM Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Lensworth Glenmore Parkbe received

2.     The Precinct A concept plan be endorsed.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Precinct Layout Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Concept Extracts

12 Pages

Appendix

3.  

Street Tree Plan

1 Page

Appendix

4.  

Staging

1 Page

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

Appendix 1 - Precinct Layout Plan

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

Appendix 2 - Concept Extracts

 

 

 













Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

Appendix 3 - Street Tree Plan

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

Appendix 4 - Staging

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

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

 

5        Access To Council Facilities

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

A Liveable City

 

 

 

5

Access To Council Facilities   

 

Compiled by:               Jill Connell, Building Assets Officer

Graham Howe, Building Projects Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Hans Meijer, City Works Manager   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

Provide well-maintained community buildings (17.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The Abloy Key System was designed for Council in 2002 in conjunction with Nepean Locksmiths.  A staged approach to installation of the Abloy Key System commenced in 2002.

 

This system is a secure locking system and Keys are only available through authorised Abloy Protec dealers and must be ordered through the centralised Key Manager Software.  The Key Manager Software was installed in 2003 to manage the issue and return of keys and to keep a complete register of all key holders. The report summarises the background for the need for a Key System Policy.

 

This report recommends that the draft Key System Policy be adopted and the Abloy Key System continue to be implemented across Council facilities.

Background

Penrith City Council has an extensive range of facilities under its care and control. These include numerous facilities that are available for use by community groups, sporting clubs and other users. In the past many of these facilities had locks that were replicated across facilities and the keys were unrestricted. Unrestricted keys could be replicated by locksmiths without authorisation. Council had no records of existing key holders and this meant that unauthorised persons may have copied keys.

 

As it was possible that keys could be copied and used across facilities, it was deemed necessary to change the existing lock systems in Council’s facilities. In addition, access to some of the buildings to perform maintenance repairs and scheduled servicing was becoming an issue wasting time/resources as  Council was not always in possession of keys to open facilities due to modifications made by users of the facility. Numerous Council facilities (mainly sporting and toilet amenities) have been vandalised over the years through opened doors and because there may have been numerous keys able to access the doors. As such Council was unable to take appropriate action to identify and take  further steps against the offender or stop it from happening again. The introduction of the Abloy system has overcome these issues.

 

The Abloy “PROTEC” system offers an improved level of security as it is a restricted locking system where the unique key can only be ordered and cut by authorised people. Key blanks are only available from the manufacturer through authorised dealers. This locking system is currently being used by numerous State and Federal Government organisations.

 

Council originally designed a key structure for all of Council’s operations so that gradually over the years Council could move to this new secure lock system. The keying structure of the system has various levels for gaining access to Council’s facilities. Staff and users are issued with keys to access specific components of the facility/system. In conjunction with the new keying system, an electronic register of key holders and authorised personnel is kept by Council.  Currently staff and users are required to sign a key issue acceptance form to acknowledge receipt of a key and the obligations on the use of the key. This acceptance form has been modified following a review by Legal & Governance and Workforce Development.

 

Due to the size of Council’s building portfolio the implementation has been staged and began with Glenmore Park Youth & Community Centre, followed by all Halls and Bush Fire Sheds in 2003.

 

In 2005 all childcare centres had front door locks replaced with Abloy Cylinders.

All Bin enclosures at sporting fields were fitted with Abloy Padlocks. The intent was to secure the bins to minimise risk to adjacent amenities.

 

In 2006, the Abloy systems at Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre and North St Marys Neighbourhood Centre were installed as part of their construction.  Currently all newly constructed buildings, including Glenmore Park Child & Family precinct and St Marys Memorial Halls, are fitted with Abloy Cylinders.

 

Public Toilets have just recently been converted to the Abloy system and the Sporting Amenities are now scheduled on a priority listing in conjunction with relevant departments and stakeholders.

 

There are still approximately 60 buildings yet to be converted to Abloy and this is progressed each year in line with available funding and as part of each responsible department’s priority listing.

 

A Key Policy document was drafted in 2010 in conjunction with Legal and Governance  staff to enforce the security of all buildings and the responsibility of key holders due to the large number of keys currently in circulation.  There are currently three thousand, three hundred and eighty six (3386) Abloy keys in circulation and it is anticipated that each Key Holder should be issued with the policy document.

 

The purpose of the Key System Policy is as follows:

 

1.   To provide a framework for the effective maintenance and management of Council’s lock and keying system, including procedures for the issuing of keys to internal staff, contractors and external stakeholders;

2.   To ensure Council’s lock and key system is effectively maintained and managed;

3.   To ensure all keys issued to staff, contractors and stakeholder groups and/or individuals are recorded and registered;

4.   To implement a key bond system, which will be applied when keys are issued to external stakeholders and a penalty fee for the non return of keys.

5.   To establish appropriate levels of accountabilities for key holders.

Risk Co-ordinator comments

 

The use of the Abloy Key System improves the security of Council’s Buildings and contents. Council is insured for property loss and damage through United Independent Pools with A/FM Global. Council has a $20,000 excess for each and every claim. Improved security will reduce the likelihood and consequences of unauthorised access that may result in theft of building contents and vandalism and thereby reduce council’s potential for claims and losses.

Only Council supplied locks should be used to secure Council facilities. The use of Council supplied locks to secure council facilities also facilitates the maintenance of essential fire safety measures and building assets thereby reducing other risk exposures.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Access To Council Facilities be received.

2.     The draft Key System Policy be adopted

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Draft Key System Policy

7 Pages

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

21 February 2011

Appendix 1 - Draft Key System Policy

 

 

 

 

 

POLICY DOCUMENT

 

Policy Name:

  Keying System Policy

Policy No:    

Adopted by:

Date

Group Manager – City Infrastructure
<<Draft >>

Minute No:   n/a

Review:

 

Doc No:        

Relevant Legislation: (if applicable)      

  n/a

Responsible Department:

City Works

 

 

 

 

Keying System

Policy

 

Penrith City Council

 

 

 

 

1.   INTRODUCTION

 

The Keying System Policy has been prepared to outline the procedures for the issuing of keys to Council’s facilities and assets and the maintenance of the keying system distribution.

 

2.   APPLICATION

This policy shall apply to all employees and Councillors of Penrith City Council, contractors, community sports groups and any person applying for a key to access Council’s facilities and assets.

 

This policy does not apply to locks fitted to desks, lockers, filing cabinets and similar items.

 

3.   OBJECTIVE OF POLICY

 

The objective of this policy is to:

 

·    To provide a framework for the effective maintenance and management of Council’s lock and keying system, including procedures for the issuing of keys to internal staff, contractors and external stakeholders.

 

·    To ensure Council’s lock and key system is effectively maintained and managed.

 

·    To ensure all keys issued to staff, contractors and stakeholder groups and/or individuals are recorded and registered.

 

·    To implement a key bond system, which will be applied when keys are issued and a penalty fee for the non return of keys.

 

4.   STAFF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

The authority to order keys lies with those officers approved by the General Manager to order keys.  At the time of writing this policy, the following Penrith City Council staff had been granted authority:

·    City Works Manager

·    Strategic Asset Management Officer (ProMaster System Administrator)

·    Building Projects Coordinator

·    Building & Maintenance Projects Coordinator

·    Building Support Officer

·    Building Maintenance Supervisor

 

The authority to issue keys lies with those officers approved by the General Manager to issue keys.  At the time of writing this policy, the following Penrith City Council staff had been granted authority:

 

·    Strategic Asset Management Officer

·    Building Support Officer

·    Facilities Operations  Admin Officer 

·    Recreation Support Officer

·    Parks Admin Officer

·    Childcare Admin Officer

·    Public Domain Admin Officer

·    Waste & Community Protection Admin Officer

·    Fleet Coordinator

 

 

The following authorities and responsibilities apply:

 

Review of this policy and recommend changes

City Works Manager

Approve changes to this policy

Group Manager – City Infrastructure

Maintain records of who has which key

Strategic Asset Management Officer

Building Support Officer

Facilities Operations  Admin Officer 

Recreation Support Officer

Parks Admin Officer

Childcare Admin Officer

Public Domain Admin Officer

Waste & Community Protection Admin Officer

Fleet Coordinator

 

Annually review the list of who has which key in order to check for anomalies

City Works Manager

 

Confirm insurance arrangements are up to date

Risk Management Coordinator

Custody of Security bond (and associated records)

Financial Services Mgr

 

5.   PROCEDURES FOR ISSUING OF KEYS TO STAFF

A request for the key to be issued must be provided in written form (hardcopy or electronic) authorised by the relevant Coordinator or Manager.  Masterkeys to any facility or asset must be endorsed by a Manager.

 

The staff member must acknowledge in writing that they are personally responsible for the key, that they are aware of this policy, and that they agree to comply with the requirements of the policy.  The acknowledgement is a corporate record and must be registered.

 

6.   PROCEDURES FOR ISSUING OF KEYS TO NON STAFF

A key bond, consistent with the Council’s Management Plan, ($50 as at 2009) will be charged to each individual or user groups for each key issued. This bond will be released upon return of the key.

 

Provision for this to be waived in some circumstances must be approved by the relevant Group Manager

 

The person requesting the key must use the approved form.  The form will include the following details.

 

Name of individual

Name of organisation

Address / contact details/ valid email address

Date of key issue

Period required

Restrictions

Date of return

Key number

Asset number

 

Person requesting their key must sign the Key Issue Responsibility Acceptance form acknowledging:

 

(a) that they have received the key(s);

(b)  they unconditionally agree to return the key if it is requested to be returned and otherwise when the period applied for expires

(c)  they will immediately inform Council if the key is lost;

(d) they are personally liable for the cost of replacing the key;

(e)  they will keep the key secure and not tag it in a way which would easily identify it, and they will comply with Council’s Keying System Policy

(f)  they may be held liable for replacing all locks that can be opened with that key if the key is lost or otherwise compromised and Council considers this is necessary to maintain security – if the key is a master key the cost of replacing the locks could include all locks in multiple buildings

(g)  if the key is a master key - they are adequately insured

(h) that they are not to replace/alter any Council lock without written Council approval. Failure to comply will result in the locks being removed and replaced with a Council lock and will be liable for the costs incurred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The form is a corporate record and must be registered.

 

Keys will not be mailed out. All keys must be signed for by the applicant at time of issue.

 

Cleaners, contractors and security companies must provide certificates of currencies for insurances to cover the cost of a total re-keying should a Master Key be lost.  The certificates must be renewed annually.

 

 

All persons issued keys will also be issued with a copy of this Keying System Policy.

 

7.   RESTRICTIONS

Keys shall be used for the purposes for which they are issued or for other approved Council purposes only. 

 

Additional restrictions may be placed on any key when it is issued or subsequently to the holder in writing.  Such restrictions could include directing a contractor as to which of its employees may have effective access to the key, the way in which the key is stored, or that the key is not to be taken off the premises.  Restrictions on staff might include that the key is to be kept secured on Council premises during periods of leave.

 

Staff who lend keys remain responsible for ensuring the key is only used for approved purposes.  It is expected that keys are only lent for very short periods of time (e.g. during a lunch break).

 

8.   RETURN OF KEYS BY STAFF

 

Staff must return keys when requested to do so, and in any event must return keys prior to termination of employment.  Staff must immediately advise their coordinator/supervisor if they believe the key is lost, destroyed or otherwise unable to be returned on demand.  Coordinators/Supervisors must advise Key Administration staff immediately.

 

Council staff will be required to provide a statuary declaration in the event of a key being lost. It will be at the discretion of the Departmental Manager to determine if the explanation is acceptable.

 

9.   RETURN OF KEYS BY NON-STAFF

At the conclusion of a contract, lease or facilities hire period, etc the key(s) must be returned to the Council where upon the key bond(s) will be returned.

 

 

Failure to return the key(s) at the completion of the contract or hire period will result in a loss of the bond and also possible rejection of future issuing of any keys. It may also incur costs for rekeying of all locations where the key could be used.

 

10. BREACHES OF THIS POLICY

The obligation to comply with this policy rests with each, employee, person or organisation obtaining a key. Sanctions may be applied if this policy is breached.

 

Any person may report an alleged breach of this policy Staff reporting a serious breach are encouraged to utilise Council’s protected disclosures policy.

 

If this policy has been breached, action against the people responsible may include counselling, disciplinary action (including termination of employment), the laying of charges, withholding future key allocation and the taking of civil action.

 

11. DISCLOSURES

This policy does not remove any other obligations under the Local Government Act, any other legislation, or relevant codes and policies regarding the disclosure of any interests.

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

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