Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2011 AT 7:35PM

29 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that Council reaffirm Standing Orders in place and prohibit the use of an electronic device during the meeting.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM read a statement of recognition of Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage.

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev. Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

APOLOGIES

30 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM than an apology be received for Councillor Robert Ardill.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 7 February 2011

31 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 7 February 2011 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 1 - Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM as the matter relates to him.

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 21 February, 2011 as he is a owner of property in the area.

Reports of Committees

1 Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 February 2011

32 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 February, 2011 be adopted.

3 Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 2 February 2011

33 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 2 February, 2011 be adopted.

Councillor Jackie Greenow spoke to General Business Item 5- Pathway Construction St Marys Village Shopping Centre in the report and wished to acknowledge the efforts of the Shop Owners in contributing half of the required funds required to construct the pathway which provides improved pedestrian access to St Marys Village Shopping Centre from Carinya Avenue.

Councillor Jackie Greenow also spoke to General Business Item 4 - Accessible Holiday Accommodation in the report and asked that a motion be presented to the Local Government Association that ensures standard Accessible Holiday Accommodation information is available advising customers of the level of accessibility of the facilities..

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM advised this would be included as a recommendation in Item 6 of tonight’s meeting.

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 21 February, 2011, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:46pm.

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, took the Chair for consideration of Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 21 February, 2011.

2 Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 21 February, 2011

34 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 21 February, 2011 be adopted.

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, returned to the meeting and took the Chair the time being 7:48pm.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

A Leading City

3 Pecuniary Interest Returns

35 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the information contained in the report on Pecuniary Interest Returns be received.

4 Summary of Investments for Period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments for Period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011 be received.

2. The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011 be noted and accepted.

3. The graphical investment analysis as at 31 January 2011 be noted.

7 Amendments to 2011 Meeting Calendar

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Amendments to 2011 Meeting Calendar be received

2. The 2011 Meeting Calendar be altered as follows:

· an additional Ordinary Council Meeting be convened for 7:00pm on Monday 11 April 2011 for the purpose of considering one item of business only - the ‘Adoption of the Draft Operational Plan for 2011-12 for exhibition’;

· the Operational Plan Public Forum be held on Wednesday 4 May 2011 in lieu of Monday 30 May 2011; and

· the Ordinary Council meeting scheduled for Monday 23 May 2011 be held instead on Monday 30 May 2011.

1 Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM read a statement expressing disappointment over the incidents discussed in the report and his confidence in the transparency of the process in bringing this report to an open Council meeting.

Councillor John Thain expressed concern towards the Mayor’s actions and disappointment in the lack of contrition the Mayor has demonstrated and outlined the training that had been provided.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM spoke to the report and expressed his disappointment at not being able to show a presentation to the meeting. Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM strongly denied any inappropriate behaviour with young women, and reiterated that all photographs he appeared in were requested by other parties, with the exception of one.

At the conclusion of Councillor Kevin Crameri’s OAM 5 minute address he was invited by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM to ask for an extension of time to continue addressing the meeting. Councillor Crameri OAM however, indicated that he would close his address as he had previously been told that he could not make his full electronic presentation and declined to request an extension.

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that a Councillor Officer highlight the process which has been undertaken since the Code of Conduct matter was first raised.

Group Manager – Legal & Governance, Stephen Britten responded outlining the process that had been followed in relation to providing Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM with natural justice.

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM then discussed the ‘Reasonable Man Test’ and whether natural justice has been served. Councillor Ross Fowler OAM stated he believed anyone who reviewed the process and the opportunities that have been extended to Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM to comment on the issues raised would say that natural justice has been served. Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, reaffirmed that all Councillors had adopted and agreed to the same Code of Conduct and that it is reasonable to determine that the series of behaviours outlined in the report would be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Greg Davies requested a response from Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM in respect of recommendation 10.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM indicated that any resignation would mean pleading guilty to the 38 complaints. Councillor Crameri OAM stated he stepped aside voluntarily and indicated that he will wait until the Division of Local Government makes a further decision.

38 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM be received.

2. Council Receive and note the report of the Conduct Review Committee;

3. The Council determines that the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM has breached clauses 6.1 (c), 6.2 and 6.3 of Penrith City Council’s Model Code of Conduct.

4. The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be censured for misbehaviours in (22) of (38) allegations, defined in the Report through (22) Breaches of the Penrith City Council Code of Conduct identified by Clauses 6.1 (c), 6.2 and 6.3.

5. The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be required to provide to the Council, the Penrith Business Alliance, the International Friendship Alliance and to the leaders of the host delegations in the Cities visited, an unreserved written apology for his inappropriate behaviour while on a trade delegation to China, Korea and Japan between 14 October 2010 and 3 November 2010. The written apology is to be copied to all Councillors and to the General Manager.

6. The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be required to participate in a planned Counselling Program. The Program is to be determined by an appropriate independent person.

7. The censuring, apologies and counselling are to be completed within 30 days of the Council decision on the report.

8. That the Council considers the conduct of the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM to be of such a nature that warrants the Division of Local Government to consider suspension of the Mayor as a Councillor under Section 440H (1) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993, and that Council Officers write to the Division seeking the Division of Local Government consider the suspension of the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM at the request of Council.

9. Council moves that it has no confidence in Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM as Mayor.

10. This Council call Councillor Crameri OAM to resign as Mayor effective immediately.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, left the meeting and did not return, the time being, 8:14pm.

2 Six Month Review of the Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the December Quarter Review of the 2010-2011 Operational Plan

39 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Six Month Review of the Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the December Quarter Review of the 2010-2011 Operational Plan be received

2. The 2010-11 Operational Plan Review as at 31 December 2010, including the revised estimates identified in the recommended budget, be adopted.

5 Planning for Penrith Lakes

40 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Planning for Penrith Lakes be received

2. The Minister for Planning, the Head of the State Government Taskforce, and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation be invited to brief Council on the status of planning for the Penrith Lakes Scheme.

3. The Department of Planning be requested to coordinate a briefing of Council staff by the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation and their technical consultants on the methodology and infrastructure for managing flooding within the Scheme in order to progress the application.

4. Council write to the Minister for Planning requesting that a Councillor and a Council Officer be included as members of the State Government Taskforce.

6 2011 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government

41 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2011 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government be received

2. Council nominate Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM as its voting delegate for the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government.

3. Council nominate Councillors Ross Fowler OAM, Karen McKeown, Jackie Greenow and Marko Malkoc to attend as observers at the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government.

4. Leave of Absence be granted to all Councillors attending the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from 19-22 June 2011.

5. A further report detailing suggested motions be considered at Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting to be held on 4 April 2011.

6. A motion be presented to the Australian Local Government Association that ensures standard Accessible Holiday Accommodation information is available advising customers of the level of accessibility of the facilities.

A City of Opportunities

9 Community Assistance Program Rolling Component Projects Approved Under Delegated Authority July - December 2010

42 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That the information contained in the report on Community Assistance Program Rolling Component Projects Approved Under Delegated Authority July - December 2010 be received.

8 Grant Application - Regentville Hall Kitchen upgrade

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Grant Application - Regentville Hall Kitchen upgrade be received

2. The funding agreement between Council and Ageing, Disability and Home Care NSW Department of Human Services be signed enabling the sum of $46,070 to be utilised for the refurbishment of the Regentville Hall kitchen.

3. Correspondence be forwarded to the Minister for Ageing, Disability Services, Volunteering and Youth thanking the NSW Government for the grant to complete the project as outlined in this report.

10 St Marys Spring Festival

44 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1. The report on the St Marys Spring Festival be received.

2. Option 2 (the St Marys Development Committee engage an external event manager to organise the festival) be pursued with the additional $10,000 funding required to come from $3,000 voted works for North and South Wards, and $4,000 from East Ward.

3. At the conclusion of the 2011 St Marys Spring Festival a comprehensive review be undertaken to determine a long term solution to delivering the Spring Festival into the future.

4. A contribution of $1,377 be voted from each ward from voted works (total $4,131) to cover the net deficit for the 2010 St Marys Spring Festival.

A Green City

11 Support for Earth Hour 2011

45 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Support for Earth Hour 2011 be received

2. Council participate in Earth Hour 2011 and promote the event to the community.

A Liveable City

12 Great River Walk Stages 7 and 7a grants

46 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Great River Walk Stages 7 and 7a grants be received.

2. Council endorse the acceptance of funding for Great River Walk Stage 7 – West Bank Construction Phase 2 offered under the Metropolitan Greenspace Program 2010.

3. Council send letters of thanks to the Minister for Planning and the Local Member, and to the Great River Walk Inc and Hawkesbury City Council for their support.

4. Council endorse the lodgement of the application for the 2011 Metropolitan Greenspace Program grant for the Great River Walk Stage 7a – West Bank Construction Phase 3 as outlined in this report.

13 Community Safety Grant Funding

47 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Community Safety Grant Funding be received.

2. Council accept the grant funding from the NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General, CPTED Graffiti Hotspot Program, in the amount of $103,833.

3. Council accept the grant funding under the Federal Government’s, Safer Suburbs Program, in the amount of $200,000.

4. Council write to the NSW Attorney General expressing appreciation of the funding offer.

5. Council write to the Federal Minister for Home Affairs/Minister for Justice expressing appreciation of the funding offer.

A Vibrant City

14 Fire Safety Report

48 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Fire Safety Report be received

2. Council continue to monitor the four premises as part of its Fire Safety Audit Program with a view to ensure essential fire safety measures are being maintained in the buildings

3. Council advise the Brigade of its decision

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

RR 1 50/50 Development

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council on the status of what the proposed 50/50 development would mean to the current LEP and will it need to be revised, and if so the cost in doing so. Also, what will this mean to the City Centre and Rural Lands.

RR 2 Economic Benefits of Sporting Events - Penrith Whitewater
Stadium & Regatta Centre

Councillor Kath Presdee requested a report to a future Policy Review Committee meeting, on the economic benefits of international, national and state level sporting events at the Penrith Whitewater Stadium and Regatta Centre.

RR 3 Public Space - Surveyors Creek, Glenmore Park

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply on the space near Surveyors Creek, Glenmore Park which adjoins Aberdeen Circuit and expedite plans for it’s urgent clean up.

RR 4 50/50 Urban Development

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a report to Council, detailing how many Greenfield sites will need to be considered for housing to accommodate the NSW Coalition’s plan for 50/50 Urban development should they be elected.

RR 5 St Marys Town Centre

Councillor Greg Davies requested an urgent report on the processes to be put in place to replace the St Marys Town Centre Manager following the retirement of the current position holder.

RR 6 Traffic Safety - Bromley Street & Russell Street intersection - Emu Heights

Councillor Mark Davies requested a memo regarding safety issues at the intersection of Bromley & Russell Street, Emu Heights and the possibility of making the intersection safer in terms of pulling out on to Russell Street.

URGENT BUSINESS

UB 1 Christchurch Earthquake Appeal

Councillor Marko Malkoc requested that an amount of $1,000 be taken from each ward’s voted works and donated to the New Zealand 2011 Red Cross Earthquake Appeal.

Committee of the Whole

49 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:56pm.

Councillors Ross Fowler OAM and Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:57pm.

1 Presence of the Public

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

A Leading City

2 Commercial Matter - Property Great Western Highway, St Marys

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

3 Council Property - Lease of Shop 5, Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to existing Tenants, Stuart & Tammie Plevey

The meeting resumed at 8:59pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:57pm on Monday 28 February 2011, the following being present

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

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

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

2 Commercial Matter - Property Great Western Highway, St Marys

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

CW2 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Property Great Western Highway, St Marys be received

2. Council purchase the subject property in accordance with Conditions 1-6 as outlined in the summary of the report

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

3 Council Property - Lease of Shop 5, Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to existing Tenants, Stuart & Tammie Plevey

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

CW3 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - Lease of Shop 5, Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to existing Tenants, Stuart & Tammie Plevey be received

2. Council grant a five (5) year lease with a five (5) year option to the existing tenant in accordance with the terms and conditions as outlined in the report

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

Councillors Ross Fowler OAM and Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:59pm.

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

52 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2 and CW3 be adopted.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:00pm.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Liveable City*

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 7 March, 2011

PRESENT

Michael Alderton - Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), David Lance - Roads and Traffic Authority, Ryan Horne – Roads and Traffic Authority, Councillor Karen McKeown – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Pat Sheehy AM Emeritus Mayor – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Constable Bill Pearson – Penrith Police, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co‑ordinator, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Alyce Kliese – Trainee Engineer, Steve Stepanovic – Senior Design Engineer (part-time)

IN ATTENDANCE

Phil Davies – Westbus, Eric Ryffel - Ranger

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted for Councillor Jackie Greenow, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager City Infrastructure, Ruth Byrnes – Senior Traffic Officer

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 February 2011

LTC 18 That the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 7 February 2011 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

A Liveable City

1 Evan Street, Penrith - Proposed Changes to Parking Restrictions

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 19 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Evan Street, Penrith - Proposed Changes to Parking Restrictions be received.

2. Existing parking restrictions in Evan Street, Penrith, between High and Henry Streets, be modified to “P1” parking Monday to Friday 11:00am-2:00pm, Saturday 8:30am-12:30pm, and “No Parking” Monday to Friday 7:00am-11:00am and 2:00pm-7:00pm.

3. The affected businesses and Council’s Rangers be advised of Council’s resolution.

2 Carrington Road, Londonderry - Request for Timed Parking for Australia Post Vehicles

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 20 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Carrington Road, Londonderry - Request for Timed Parking for Australia Post Vehicles be received.

2. In accordance with Australian Road Rule No 198, signage indicating “No Parking – Australia Post Vehicles Excepted” be installed at the Post Office frontage for 7m (3m either side of the 1m Street Posting Box) in Carrington Road, Londonderry.

3. Australia Post be advised of Council’s resolution and be requested to fund the installation of the signage for the parking restriction.

4. The Postmaster and shopkeepers of the Londonderry shopping centre be advised of Council’s resolution.

3 Castlereagh Road, Penrith - Head of the River - Saturday, 2 April 2011

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 21 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Castlereagh Road, Penrith - Head of the River - Saturday, 2 April 2011 be received.

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

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

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

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

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

(e) All documentation required by the above conditions is to be submitted to Council for information purposes one week prior to the event.

3. The applicant be advised that all future Traffic Management Plans in association with events are to be submitted to Council a minimum of six months prior to the event.

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

4 Masters Place, Penrith - Provision of “Loading Zone” Restrictions

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 22 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Masters Place, Penrith - Provision of “Loading Zone” Restrictions be received.

2. The existing parking restriction be modified to 10m of “No Stopping” and 40m of “Loading Zone” in Masters Place, Penrith, extending from Woodriff Street to the east.

3. The affected businesses and Council’s Rangers be advised of Council’s resolution.

5 Wattlebird Crescent, Glenmore Park - Provision of Double-Barrier Linemarking

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 23 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Wattlebird Crescent, Glenmore Park - Provision of Double-Barrier Linemarking be received.

2. Subject to consultation with affected residents, double-barrier linemarking be provided outside house number 16 Wattlebird Crescent for a total distance of 38m.

3. Curve warning signs (W1-3A) be installed on the westbound approach to the subject bend.

4. 10m of double-barrier linemarking and RRPMs be installed in Wattlebird Crescent at Ridgetop Drive, Glenmore Park.

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

6 Installation of School Zone Flashing Lights - Various Sites across the Local Government Area

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 24 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Installation of School Zone Flashing Lights - Various Sites across the Local Government Area be received.

2. Council note the information.

3. The Principals of the Nepean District Christian School, Xavier Catholic College, Cambridge Park Public School, Llandilo Public School and Henry Fulton Public School be advised of the proposed installation of the flashing lights in the School zones by the Roads and Traffic Authority.

7 High Street, Penrith - Implementation of Bus Zone for Shuttle Bus Service

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 25 That:

1. The information contained in the report on High Street, Penrith - Implementation of Bus Zone for Shuttle Bus Service be received.

2. The bus zone be implemented in High Street, Penrith for a distance of 20m, between 20m and 40m west of the intersection with Worth Street, Penrith.

3. The bus zone No 5 in the shuttle bus route be endorsed, subject to compliance with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 as it relates to bus zones. Evidence of satisfactory compliance is to be provided to Council by Transport NSW prior to the operation of the bus zone.

4. All costs of the bus zone implementation be borne by Transport NSW.

5. Westbus be requested to notify affected property owners/businesses and any substantial objections be brought back to the Local Traffic Committee if necessary.

6. The Minister for Transport, Transport NSW and Westbus be advised of Council’s resolution.

GENERAL BUSINESS

GB 1 Glenmore Parkway, Glenmore Park – Endorsement of Signs & Lines Plan (Raised Council)

Council’s Design Section has provided design plans for the installation of a rumble bar and linemarking upgrade for the Glenmore Parkway, Glenmore Park, approximately 200m west of The Northern Road. This report seeks to endorse the signs and lines plans (Plan No. AG 138) in order for the legal regulation of traffic to occur. The current proposal, with accompanying plan, shows road narrowing incorporating a rumble bar treatment with associated transverse markings and curve warning signage.

The project has also been submitted as a Black Spot under the 2011/12 Nation Building Black Spot Program, as a part of overall works to the Glenmore Parkway. It is anticipated that advice will be received from the Roads and Traffic Authority by the end of April 2011 confirming funding has been approved/disapproved. If Black Spot funding is not received, it is anticipated works can be funded from the signs and lines Block Grant.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 26 That a road narrowing treatment for the Glenmore Parkway, Glenmore Park, approximately 200m west of The Northern Road, including all associated linemarking and signage as per Plan No. AG 138 be finalised and endorsed.

GB 2 Borrowdale Way, Cranebrook – Endorsement of Signs & Lines Plan (Raised Council)

Council’s Design Section has provided design plans for the installation of a pedestrian refuge in Borrowdale Way, Cranebrook immediately east of Witcom Street. This report seeks to endorse the signs and lines plan and the proposed refuge (Plan No. AB 164) in order for the legal regulation of traffic to occur. The current proposal, with accompanying plan, shows a refuge island with kerb blisters, kerb ramps, and associated signage and linemarking.

The project is to be funded from Council’s current traffic facilities budget and completion is anticipated within this financial year. Due to tight swept path movements for buses on the southern side, the bus shelter requires relocation further west. Public consultation would also have to be undertaken with landowners to the north.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 27 That:

1. Subject to satisfactory public consultation, a pedestrian refuge in Borrowdale Way, Cranebrook immediately east of Witcom Street, including all associated linemarking and signage as per Plan No. AB 164 be endorsed, with funding available in the current major traffic facilities budget.

2. All signage and linemarking to be in accordance with AS 1742.10 and the Roads and Traffic Authority’s Road Design Guide.

3. Any substantial objections resulting from the public consultation process be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

4. Council’s Public Domain Co-ordinator be requested to investigate lighting levels at the proposed traffic device.

GB 3 Parking Agreements with Centro Nepean, Penrith – Endorsement of Signage Plan (Raised Council)

Council has received a request from the Centre Management of Centro Nepean Shopping Centre, Penrith to enter into a parking agreement with Council to regulate disabled parking bays and “No Parking” areas within their car parks, and to regulate the loading dock areas, under Section 650 (Subsection 6) of the Local Government Act. In addition, Centre Management is proposing that “3P” time-restricted parking bays be installed and regulated.

It is proposed to endorse this plan, subject to the finalisation of the written agreement for enforcement between Council and Council’s Rangers, and Centro Nepean. Importantly, any condition of consent must be complied with as part of any agreement between Council and Centro.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 28 That:

1. The plan be endorsed in principle, subject to finalisation of a formal agreement and minor amendments by Council’s Road Network Services Engineer being approved by Council for enforcement and subject to compliance with current Development Applications conditions for the site.

2. “No Parking” signs be amended to specifically identify the vehicles exempt from the restriction.

3. Two parking signs be provided for armoured cash delivery vehicles; location to be determined in consultation with the Police and Centre Management.

4. Centro Nepean Centre Management and Council’s Rangers to be advised of Council’s resolution.

GB 4 Hobart Street, Oxley Park – Endorsement of Signs & Lines Plan (Raised Council)

Council’s Design Section has provided design plans for the installation of a tadpole island in Hobart Street, Oxley Park, outside house number 32-34. This report seeks to endorse the signs and lines plan and the proposed tadpole island (Plan No. AH 118) in order for the legal regulation of traffic to occur. The current proposal, with accompanying plan, shows a tadpole island with kerb blisters and associated signage and linemarking.

The project is to be funded from Council’s current traffic facilities budget and completion is anticipated within this financial year. The project is a continuation of the Oxley Park LATM Scheme which provides for minimum 200m spacings between devices. Public consultation would also have to be undertaken with landowners to the south.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 29 That:

1. Subject to satisfactory public consultation, a tadpole island in Hobart Street, Oxley Park, outside house number 32-34, including all associated linemarking and signage as per Plan No. AH 118 be endorsed, with funding available in the current major traffic facilities budget.

2. Any substantial objections resulting from the public consultation process be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

3. Council’s Public Domain Co-ordinator be requested to investigate lighting levels at the proposed traffic device.

GB 5 Penrith City Festival – Cancellation of Event Previously Proposed to be held on Saturday, 19 March 2011 (Raised Penrith Police)

The Penrith Police representative advised that the Penrith City Centre Association has submitted a Schedule 1 application under the Summary Offences Act through NSW Police to hold a Family Fun Day on 19 March 2011 in Judges Park. The Police noted that no TMP is required as there are no road closures associated with this event.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 30 That the information be noted.

GB 6 Ropes Crossing Boulevard between Beston Drive, Ropes Crossing and Forrester Road, St Marys – Speed Review (Raised Roads and Traffic Authority)

The Roads and Traffic Authority representative advised that the RTA recently conducted a speed review on Ropes Crossing Boulevard between Beston Drive, Ropes Crossing and Forrester Road, St Marys. As a result of the review, the speed limit will be reduced from 60km/h to 50km/h on Ropes Crossing Boulevard between 210m south of Susannah Drive, Ropes Crossing and Forrester Road, St Marys.

It is expected the speed limit signs will be installed on Ropes Crossing Boulevard, Ropes Crossing from 17 March 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 31 That the information be noted.

GB 7 Leonay Parade, Leonay – Parking Congestion (Raised Councillor McKeown)

Councillor McKeown raised concerns on behalf of a number of residents regarding traffic and parking congestion on the east side of Leonay Parade, Leonay, near the general store, child care centre, gym and Australia Post Street Posting Box. Councillor McKeown requested that Council officers investigate traffic congestion in the location.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 32 Council investigate the matter and advise Councillor McKeown of the results.

GB 8 Russell Street, Emu Plains – Parking Restrictions (Raised Councillor McKeown)

Councillor McKeown requested the status of a previous request for the provision of parking restrictions in Russell Street (eastern side), Emu Plains, between Forbes Street and the Great Western Highway. Council’s Road Network Services Engineer noted that this matter had previously been referred to the RTA, but to date no response has been received.

RECOMMENDATION

LTC 33 That the matter be investigated and Councillor McKeown be advised of the outcome.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 10:25am.

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 March, 2011 be adopted.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Green City*

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
Waste Services Committee MEETING

HELD ON 10 March, 2011

PRESENT

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM (Chairperson), Councillors Greg Davies, Ross Fowler and Kath Presdee, and community representatives John Kliese, Trevor Robey, and Patricia Ryan.

IN ATTENDANCE

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

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted for Andrew Wilcox and Councillor Tanya Davies.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Waste Services Committee Meeting - 2 December 2010

The minutes of the Waste Services Committee Meeting of 2 December 2010 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

A Green City

1 Waste Management Services

Tracy Chalk provided an overview of the three bin service and the progress of the service since its introduction in August 2009. Tracy also advised that all issues listed within the Terms of Reference had been addressed and reported to the Waste Services Committee. As such, it was recommended that, in future, the Committee meets on an as needs basis.

Tracy provided a brief on the following items listed in the report:

1. To oversee and endorse reports to the Council on the implementation of the recommendations emanating from the Council Meeting of 15 February 2010

· Three-bin service operating satisfactorily, with approximately 10% of residents opting for the weekly service;

· Council staff will be investigating initiatives by the State Government for the funding of biodegradable bags and their use within the commercial sector. Council will continue to provide biodegradable bags to the community until these investigations have been completed;

· Council’s waste to landfill diversion rates have reached 61.8%;

· The contamination management program is ongoing providing community assistance on how to use the organics bin;

· Education and promotional programs and initiatives included “Clean Green Summer” media releases, IRIS community telephone survey, local radio advertising, school and community education. Promotional activities included advertising the e-waste recycling drop-off day, chemical collection drop-off day and Clean Up Australia Day;

· The number of residents with two recycling bins has increased steadily with a growth of about 10% since October 2010 from 606 in October 2010 to 669 in February 2011;

· Sita is seeking confirmation from Nylex (bin suppliers) regarding the reason why organic bin lids are arcing upwards;

· The additional Christmas collections proved very successful and this service will be provided each year;

· The issues on medical waste and foam waste were detailed in previous reports and sufficient services are available for the disposal of these wastes within the community. Disposal points are promoted on Council’s website. A successful community e-waste drop-off program was conducted at Jamison Park generating 73 tonnes of material for recycling. An additional e-waste drop-off program will be conducted in the second half of 2011. It is anticipated that progress on the roll-out of the Federal Government E-Waste Product Stewardship program will be known in the near future.

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

· It is considered that AWT processing of residual waste from the rural and multi-unit development sector is the appropriate enhancement to Council’s resource recovery (waste services) program. This will progressed through the current tender for the Processing, Treatment and/or Disposal of Garbage.

3. Review waste disposal and resource recovery initiatives in the commercial and industrial sectors within the Council’s area

· This matter is a State Government initiative announced in the review of the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy. This strategy was reported to the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 31 January 2011.

4. Review waste disposal and resource recovery initiatives in public places within the Penrith LGA

· The waste generated from street and parks litter bins is currently processed at Camellia for the recovery of organic and recyclable content. It is expected that up to 60% of this waste may be recoverable. Council’s domestic waste contract makes provision for the collection of waste and recyclables at community events.

Cr Greg Davies questioned the need to screen the red weekly bins to determine whether these bins were being used for the disposal of organics. Tracy Chalk advised that specific screening of the red weekly bins was not being conducted at present. Geoff Brown advised that this was being performed to a minor extent under our current contamination management program; however, more emphasis can be placed on the screening of these bins as time permits.

Barry Husking questioned if all the bins are being audited and he was advised that only the organics bins are being inspected at this stage. However, a full audit, taking into account all the bins, will be conducted in November 2011. David mentioned that Council staff talk to residents during the bin inspection program to identify issues with bin selection for placement of waste.

Cr Greg Davies asked if the complaints about the three bin service had reduced and was advised by Tracy Chalk that the complaints are now minimal, compared to 12 months ago.

Cr Kath Presdee suggested that an information pack be provided with the rates issues providing information on what waste goes into each bin.

Cr Presdee enquired about the timing of the change from analogue to digital reception for TV broadcasting and was advised that 2013 was the changeover in Sydney.

Cr Presdee offered her thanks to Council staff and community representatives for their contribution and participation on the Waste Services Committee.

There was discussion regarding the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy review and the introduction of Australian Standard compostable bags.

Cr Presdee raised the issue of the Council biodegradable bags and other biodegradable bags in the marketplace and the suitability of these bags for use at the SAWT processing facility.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Waste Management Services be received.

2. The three-bin service is operating at a satisfactory level and all the Terms of Reference have been presented and considered by the Waste Services Committee. It is recommended that any future meetings of the Waste Services Committee for the purpose of considering issues associated with the Terms of Reference be scheduled as necessary when issues arise.

3. The supply of biodegradable bags to the community continue until investigations regarding the State Governments Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy review on the supply of biodegradable bags and house hold food waste collections have been considered.

4. Council continue to provide an E-Waste collection programs until the introduction of the Federal Governments e-waste product stewardship program.

5. Council thank the community representatives for their time and contribution.

2 Alternatives for the Disposal and Recycling of Batteries and Car Tyres

Tracy Chalk provided a brief presentation on the information contained in Item 2 which included the following:

· The Federal Government’s National Waste Policy for waste and resource recovery in Australia over the next 10 years;

· Setting a Product Stewardship framework to provide voluntary accreditation of community and industry run recycling schemes;

· Information on the six key areas of the strategy direction;

· Information on priority waste tyres and waste of concern – batteries;

· Information and advice on the responsible disposal of tyres and batteries for Penrith residents;

· Information to the community on disposal locations is detailed on Council’s website

Cr Greg Davis raised the issue of foam packing, advising that the simple answer to resolve this waste material is not to generate it in the first place and the Local Government Association should take action in this regard. Penrith City Council submitted a motion to this effect at last year’s Local Government Conference.

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Alternatives for the Disposal and Recycling of Batteries and Car Tyres be received.

GENERAL BUSINESS

Tracy Chalk raised the issue of The Garage Sale Trail being conducted in Blacktown, Liverpool and Parramatta LGAs. This promotional activity involves a garage sale by households within the community on the same day, which assists in the re-use of unwanted goods, rather than disposal. Tracy was seeking support from the Waste Services Committee to extend this program to Penrith in April 2011.

John Kliese raised the issue of clothing bins that had been removed from Charles Hackett Drive. David Burns advised that these bins were relocated to a more suitable site as a result of excessive rubbish dumping.

John Kliese provided thanks to all Council staff and Waste Services Committee members for their participation and contribution to the Committee over the last 12 months. John also welcomed the introduction and continuation of programs for e-waste, Christmas collections, weekly collections for the red-lidded bins and a reduced price for second recycle bins.

NEXT MEETING

Meetings of the Waste Services Committee will be determined on an as needs basis.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9.00 pm.

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Waste Services Committee meeting held on 10 March, 2011 be adopted.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Leading City*

Draft Planning Proposal - Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2011

Compiled by: Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager

Objective	We plan responsibly for now and the future
Community Outcome	A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)
Strategic Response	Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

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

Executive Summary

§ Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) was published on 22 September 2010 and draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2011 (the Heritage LEP) is expected to be finalised by the Department of Planning (the Department) shortly.

§ In order to correct a number of minor anomalies that have emerged, a draft Planning Proposal has been prepared to enable minor amendments to be made to LEP 2010 and the Heritage LEP. The main purpose of the Planning Proposal is to ensure that Council’s intent for LEP 2010 is achieved, particularly in relation to the planning controls that apply to land in Orchard Hills and to subdivisions proposed under community title schemes.

§ The draft Planning Proposal also includes amendments to address various minor discrepancies to ensure the written instrument and maps for LEP 2010 and the Heritage LEP are accurate.

§ This report seeks Council’s endorsement to forward the draft Planning Proposal to the Department, to seek a ‘Gateway Determination’ to commence the local environmental plan (LEP) making process and to commence a consultation program with public authorities and the community as required by the gateway determination.

§ A copy of the draft Planning Proposal is enclosed separately for the information of Councillors.

Background

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) was published (gazetted) on 22 September 2010 and came into effect on that date. LEP 2010 generally covers the City’s rural and industrial areas and St Marys Town Centre. It also includes a significant number of heritage items. LEP 2010 is the first stage of Council’s City-wide local environmental plan (the City-wide LEP). The draft Planning Proposal for Stage 2 of the City-wide LEP was forwarded to the Department in December 2010 seeking a ‘Gateway Determination’ and authorisation that the LEP making process may proceed.

The Heritage LEP was submitted to the Department in December 2009 with a request that the Minister make the plan. It is expected to be finalised shortly.

Draft Planning Proposal

This draft Planning Proposal has been prepared to enable minor amendments to be made to LEP 2010 and the Heritage LEP. The purpose of the Planning Proposal is principally to ensure that Council’s intent for LEP 2010 is achieved in relation to the planning controls that apply to land in Orchard Hills and to subdivisions proposed under community title schemes. In preparing the Planning Proposal, the opportunity has also been taken to address various minor discrepancies to ensure the written instrument and maps for LEP 2010 and the Heritage LEP are accurate.

The draft Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning Guidelines: ‘A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans’ and ‘A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals’.

The proposed amendments are detailed below.

1. Orchard Hills Amendment

Following the publication of LEP 2010, it was Council’s intention that all land within Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.25 – Orchard Hills (SREP 25), with the exception of one site, Landcom land known as ‘The Knoll’, being part of Lot 21, DP 1151724, Nos.17-53 Caddens Road, Kingswood, would be subject to LEP 2010. The Landcom site was deferred to Stage 2 of the City-wide LEP in response to a submission from Landcom, which indicated its intention to seek a rezoning over the land. Landcom, however, has since advised that it is not proceeding with the rezoning.

Given SREP 25 was to only apply to this one site, it was not repealed. Council’s Legal Officer has advised that the consequence of not repealing SREP 25 is that it continues to apply to all land in Orchard Hills, including land zoned under LEP 2010, and prevails in the event of an inconsistency between SREP 25 and LEP 2010.

The draft Planning Proposal includes a new provision be inserted in LEP 2010 to clearly indicate that SREP 25 will only apply to ‘The Knoll’.

2. Subdivision Amendment

Clause 4.1 of LEP 2010 sets minimum subdivision lot sizes, by referring to a Lot Size Map, with the exception of the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme, which may be subdivided into lots less than the minimum size. This was not the intent of the subdivision provisions of LEP 2010, particularly in rural and environmental zones.

The draft Planning Proposal includes a new provision to clearly indicate that land subdivided under a community title scheme must not result in lots that are less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map for that land. This will ensure that a consistent approach is applied to subdivisions. It will also ensure that subdivisions under community title schemes do not undermine the objectives behind minimum lot sizes, including retaining the character and density of development within an area and minimising the fragmentation of rural land.

3. Other Minor Amendments to Penrith LEP 2010

The draft Planning Proposal includes a number of minor amendments to ensure the written instrument and maps for LEP 2010 are accurate and consistent. These amendments essentially relate to correcting typographical errors, minor mapping discrepancies and descriptions of heritage items, and rationalising the use of land use terms (most of which occurred through the translation of Council’s draft LEP to the final LEP by Parliamentary Counsel).

4. Amendment to Draft Penrith LEP (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2011

The draft Planning Proposal includes an amendment to transfer the listing of an existing heritage item, referred to as ‘Regentville Workers’ Terrace’ on land known as 1 Bundarra Road, Regentville, from LEP 2010 to the Heritage LEP. The amendment is necessary as the heritage item is on land covered by the Heritage LEP and not LEP 2010.

Proposed Community Consultation

In accordance with the Department’s guidelines, the draft Planning Proposal is classed as a ‘low impact planning proposal’, requiring an exhibition period of 14 days. Any consultation with public authorities will be undertaken concurrently, if the Department requires this as part of the gateway determination.

Next Steps

If Council endorses the draft Planning Proposal, it will be forwarded to the Minister for Planning, seeking a ‘Gateway Determination’ and authorisation that the plan making process may proceed. Approval will also be sought from the Director-General of the Department for the draft Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited. Following exhibition, submissions will then be reviewed and a report presented to Council for its consideration.

Amendments to the Standard LEP Instrument

On 23 February 2011, the State Government published the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment Order 2011 (the Order). The Order makes a number of changes to the Standard Instrument for Principal Local Environmental Plans Template, including refining existing standard provisions, inserting new provisions, zone objectives and land use terms and making improvements to the dictionary.

Although LEP 2010 is based on the Standard Instrument, the Order contains transitional provisions to ensure that it does not affect LEP 2010 for 4 months (from the date of commencement of the Order). Preliminary advice from the Department suggests that Council will be required to prepare another Planning Proposal to amend LEP 2010 to implement the changes made by the Order. The Department also advised that as any Planning Proposal would be a direct consequence of the Order, it is highly likely that there will be some protection from the community consultation exercise normally required. This should result in the timely delivery of the required amendments to Penrith LEP 2010.

The Department has recommended that the Planning Proposal required to implement the Order should be kept separate from the draft Planning Proposal for amendments to LEP 2010 and the Heritage LEP, given the potentially different consultation requirements.

The Planning Proposal to implement the Order will be reported to a future Council meeting.

Conclusion

Although minor in nature, the proposed amendments to LEP 2010 and the Heritage LEP are essential to ensure Council’s intent for LEP 2010 is achieved. This is particularly so in relation to the planning controls that apply to land in Orchard Hills and to subdivisions proposed under community title schemes. The Department has agreed that this separate draft Planning Proposal is the most appropriate and timely way of achieving these amendments.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Draft Planning Proposal - Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2011 be received.

2. In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation, 2000, Council endorse the Draft Planning Proposal – Amendments to Penrith LEP 2010 and draft Penrith LEP (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2011 and forward it to the Department of Planning seeking the issue of a Gateway Determination to commence the local environmental plan making process and the exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

3. In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation, 2000, Council commence the consultation program with public authorities and the community as required by the Gateway Determination.

4. A further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition of the draft Planning Proposal advising of the outcomes of the consultation program and any recommendations relating to the adoption of the final Planning Proposal.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Leading City*

Progress on Proposed Special Rate Variation

Compiled by: Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Vicki O’Kelly, Group Manager - Finance

Authorised by: Alan Stoneham, General Manager

Objective	We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct
Community Outcome	A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)
Strategic Response	Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Meeting held 7 February 2011 Council endorsed a report to commence comprehensive consultation with the community about a proposed Special Rate Variation (SRV) to be phased in over 4 years.

On the back of Council’s ongoing community engagement processes and in response to feedback received from resident focus groups in January detailing community preferences as to how they would like to be consulted, an extensive community engagement program was developed. The breadth and depth of community engagement undertaken has been greater than for any other previous rating proposal sought by Penrith City.

The feedback received from the various survey and engagement processes leads to the view that there is a conservative level of community support for the proposed rate increase and the associated program of works. If Council agrees with this view and is satisfied that the other criteria set by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Authority (IPART) have been met, an application for the SRV can be forwarded to IPART.

If this is the agreed course of action Council will continue to consult with the community about the SRV while IPART assesses the application. This consultation will occur during April and May as part of the public exhibition of Council’s 2011-12 Operational Plan. In particular, the Operational Plan will include two budgets: one with and one without the SRV, enabling the community to comment on both alternatives. Exhibiting alternate budgets like this is an IPART requirement. IPART also requires Council to formally approve the SRV-based budget (after the Operational Plan’s public exhibition) before it will consider approving the SRV.

The report recommends forwarding the SRV application to IPART, so it may commence its assessment of Council’s proposal, as well as continuing community consultation about the SRV. This will lead to a final decision by Council in May as to whether or not to adopt the SRV as part of the 2011-12 Operational Plan.

Background

Balancing the competing priorities for the City, including the on-going provision of services, enhancements to services and facilities as well as ensuring that an annual adequate provision is made for asset renewal is a challenging task that Council is very familiar with.

Investigations by management in consultation with Councillors over the last two years, has identified a number of unfunded priorities in the current Delivery Program and challenges to continue to deliver existing services and programs and these can be grouped into three key areas as follows:

1. Maintaining existing assets and service levels,

2. Enhanced services, and

3. City centres upgrades and renewal for Penrith and St Marys

One of the constraining issues for increasing the revenue base for Councils in New South Wales is that the State Government, through the Minister for Local Government, has up until the current year set the maximum amount by which rates can increase each year. Historically this has often been less than the Consumer Price Index which places pressures on Councils’ budgets to maintain existing services where costs have increased and limited their ability to provide additional or enhanced services.

Extensive work has been done in an effort to be able to adequately address these priorities within Council’s existing capacity and has been discussed in previous reports to Council. Many of these priorities need to be addressed as soon as possible to ensure that the asset condition does not deteriorate to such an extent that extensive and expensive rectification is required in the future.

The 2010-11 Operational Plan included a task to pursue alternative funding options to deliver Council services and facilities, including consideration of a SRV, following community consultation and engagement.

Section 508A of the Local Government Act allows for multiple annual percentage increases to a council’s general income for between two and seven years. Under a s508A variation, council identifies the amount of additional income it requires over the phase in period of the proposed variation, calculated as a percentage. It would then determine the annual percentage increases it requires over the period to match this total amount. These percentages, which will include the rate peg for each year, may be different from year to year.

The additional revenue generated over the period of a s508A special variation will be permanently added to the council’s notional general income. It is important to note that the increases for each year under a s508A variation are cumulative and compounding.

Under a s508A variation, a council is able to phase in a potentially significant rate increase over a number of years, rather than substantially increase rates in one year, as would be the case under a s508(2) variation.

In the event of an approved percentage being lower than the rate peg percentage determined in a particular year, the rate peg limit would apply for that year so that the council is not disadvantaged. This is consistent with section 508A(6)(a) of the Act.

In June 2010, the Premier announced a new role for the IPART in the regulation of rate revenue for local government in New South Wales.

As well as determining the annual rate peg based on a new Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) after making allowance for a productivity adjustment factor IPART will also determine SRV requests by councils.

In December 2010 IPART announced that the LGCI for 2011-12 was 3% and after allowing a productivity adjustment factor of 0.2%, the Rate Peg increase for 2011-12 is 2.8%.

A number of meetings and briefings have subsequently been held with Councillors over the past twelve months to discuss the funding of future community infrastructure and the overall financial position and capacity of Council. At these meetings it was confirmed that the most appropriate and timely funding solution was through a SRV phased in over 4 years. At the Ordinary Meeting of 7 February 2011 Council resolved that:

1. The information contained in the report on “Funding Our Future” Program be received

2. That the community consultation about the potential use of a Special Rate Variation commence immediately

3. A further report be provided on the outcomes of the community consultation to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 21 March 2011

Current Situation

The SRV process is now a three stage process. The first step is to lodge an “intention to Apply” letter with IPART. The second stage is the formal application which must be forwarded to IPART by 25 March 2011 at which time IPART will commence its assessment. A key consideration in the decision to lodge the application is the level of community support for the proposal.

Recent discussions with IPART have confirmed that the third stage, requires Council to formally adopt an Operational Plan including the SRV after further community consultation. This must be completed by 3 June 2011.

Council’s current meeting calendar has the adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan scheduled for 30 May 2011. Should Council resolve to adopt the proposed SRV as part of the 2011-12 Operational Plan IPART will be notified prior to the 3 June 2011 deadline. IPART will then announce its final determination of Council’s application on 10 June 2011.

Process for Lodging a SRV Application

The first stage of the process was the notification to IPART by the 28 January of Council’s intention to submit an application. This notification addressed the following:

§ Nature of the request: A brief statement outlining the purpose of the special variation.

§ Proposed increase: Details of the proposed increase, both in percentage and dollar terms, for each year of the variation.

The second stage of the process requires, by the 25 March, a response to IPART’s guidelines including details that address the following criteria:

Criterion 1. Demonstrated need for the rate increases derived from council’s completed Integrated Planning & Reporting (IP&R) framework

Criterion 2. Demonstrated community support for the special variation.

Criterion 3. Reasonable impact on ratepayers.

Criterion 4. Sustainable financing strategy consistent with the principles of intergenerational equity.

Criterion 5. An explanation of the productivity improvements the council has realised in past years, and plans to realise over the period of the proposed special variation.

Criterion 6. Implementation of the IP&R Framework

As requested by Council in November 2010 Council Officers have held a number of discussions with IPART. At a recent meeting management presented an update on the current proposal and focussed on the assessment criteria. Overall the feedback provided was positive however IPART indicated that they would seek more detail on the consultation process and demonstrated community support.

To enable Council to continue the development of the 2011-12 Operational Plan, inclusive of an option for a SRV, an application needs to be forwarded to IPART by 25 March 2011.

Further information on each of the criteria and how Council is addressing the criteria is provided in Attachment 1, however given the importance of Criterion 2 additional information is provided below:

Criterion 2 - Demonstrated Community Support for the SRV

Criterion 2 of the IPART assessment states that councils must “demonstrate community support for the special variation”. This means that Council must show that extensive community consultation has taken place and that there is support for the proposed program of expenditure and resulting special rate variation. The application must therefore provide:

· details of the range of methods used by Council to inform the community on the special variation proposal and to obtain community feedback on the proposed option.

· a summary of the outcomes from community consultations and engagement, including details of the level of community support for the proposal.

In response Council developed in conjunction with feedback received from resident workshops, a comprehensive program of community engagement designed to reach as many stakeholder groups as possible and where possible provide measured assessment of demonstrated community support. The different strategies implemented also reflected varying levels of community participation from information provision to informing, involving & consulting key stakeholders. The key stakeholders targeted by this program included:

· Residents across the city

· Ratepayers

· City partners (business, sporting etc)

· Library visitors

· Council staff (65% who live locally)

· CALD groups, senior citizens, disability groups

· On-line web community

The range of engagement methods used included:

· Direct mail out to 65,000 ratepayers (including letter from the General Manager, short information flyer & short survey)

· Media releases, media briefings, news articles and advertising

· Council News page and Mayoral Message

· Community radio interview

· Council’s “Funding our Future” (FoF) website including a library of downloadable key information documents

· Every ‘public use’ library PC linked to the FoF website

· Static displays and information provided at Civic Centre foyer and libraries

· Information packs sent to 14 different sporting groups and progress/resident associations for comment

· Broadcast messages on Social Media (Twitter and Facebook)

· Community Hotline 4732 7650

· Staff emails and briefings

· Face to face meetings with City partners (Penrith Business Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, Penrith and St Marys City Centre Associations, Sporting Associations, Senior Citizens and Combined Pensioner groups and CALD groups

· 11 listening posts held throughout the City at shopping centres, a community fun day & Londonderry Post Office

· Deliberative Survey of 620 residents across the city conducted by independent research company.

· Residents workshops (50 participants) conducted by independent research company

· On-line discussion forum at Council’s FoF website

· On-line Survey on Council’s FoF website

Throughout the extensive consultation it became apparent that the more opportunity the community had to understand the proposal the more in favour they were (eg: focus groups, shopping centres, market stalls, meetings with community groups and phone calls received through the community hotline). Many residents were unaware of the services Council provides and appeared to be confused, raising issues such as of lack of Australia Post boxes and bus services as reasons not to support the proposal.

Overall comments in support of the increase can be summed up as acceptance that the rate increase is necessary so long as Council spends the money undertaking the projects as outlined.

Overall comments of non support were varied and included references to the general increasing cost of living, perceptions of wastage (including Council’s overseas trips) and concerns about the disparity of infrastructure and services in the older and more established areas of the City as opposed to new residential areas.

In summary, two main concerns have dominated the comments; pensioners and self funded retirees are concerned about their ability to pay any increases (although many have supported the proposal), and secondly the perceived disparity between older and more established areas of the City as opposed to newer residential areas.

To address the issue of pensioner hardship it is proposed that strong representations be made to State and Federal Governments to consider increasing pensioner rebates for rates (the NSW Government has recently increased pensioner rebates for electricity charges).

It is also proposed that the issue be raised at the Australian Local Government Association Conference and with the Local Government and Shires Association.

The community’s concern about the disparity of services and infrastructure in older and more established areas of the city as opposed to the new estates are effectively addressed in the programs to be undertaken by the proposed rate increase. These include upgrades of playgrounds, footpaths, buildings and toilets across the city and the renewal of St Marys and Penrith City Centres.

Attachment 1 provides more detail on the extended consultation program and the results from that consultation.

An important element of the Community Engagement Strategy for the SRV was the use of various survey methods, each designed to encourage different stakeholder group feedback (qualitative information) and where possible, to provide a measured assessment of demonstrated community support (quantitative information).

The responses during the period 11 February to 13 March have yielded a number of important results.

In terms of qualitative results, the Deliberative Survey of 620 randomly selected residents resulted in just over 53% of residents in support of Council’s proposed rate rise. The methodology behind this survey was intended to provide a statistically reliable sample. The results from the deliberative survey were further supported by two resident workshops (of 50 randomly selected participants) held in February which resulted in 66% of participants in favour of Council’s SRV proposal. Both these methods were conducted by an independent research company and indicate conservative support for the SRV.

Another two types of surveys were undertaken, namely a household survey based upon a mail out to 65,000 ratepayers and an on-line survey on Council’s hosted website. Both methods were seen as valuable ways to increase the reach of feedback from all ratepayers and the on-line community. However, at the close of the consultation period only 5,648 people completed the household survey (that is, 9% of the entire mail out) resulting in 38% in support of the SRV, 48% opposing the SRV and 14% undecided or no response given. 73 people had completed the on-line survey (or 8.7% of visitors) resulting in 51% in support of the SRV, 45% opposing the SRV and 4% undecided or no response given.

Advice sought by Council from two independent sources, (IRIS Research and Newspoll) indicate that both surveys were based on self-selection, open to campaigning, uncontrolled in the methods of sampling and had returns far too small to be conclusive. Feedback received however reinforced many of the concerns raised about affordability in particular the impact of the SRV on pensioners and low income earners.

Next Steps

IPART requires that two draft Operational Plans for 2011-12 be exhibited and that Council notify IPART by 3 June if it intends to proceed with the SRV. Each Service Plan will be shown twice, with the first page showing the draft Operational Plan 2011-2012 with existing funding, and the second page showing the draft Operational Plan if the SRV is supported. On both pages, the commentary box directly below the Service Plan provides details on any changes to the service activities or tasks that will happen irrespective of the SRV.

The subsequent determination from IPART, on 10 June 2011, or if Council decides to withdraw the SRV application will mean that one option will no longer be relevant. The irrelevant pages will be removed and only the appropriate Service Plan pages, depending on the outcome, will be included in the final published version of the Operational Plan.

If Council decides not to proceed with the application for the SRV at tonight’s meeting then only the “Existing Funding” option for each Service Plan will be exhibited in April – May 2011.

Timetable

The timetable for the development of Council’s 2011-12 Operational Plan and the SRV process is outlined in the table below.

21 March	Report to Ordinary Meeting: · Progress report on the outcomes of the Community Consultation and consideration given to lodging an application with IPART for their assessment while conducting additional community consultation.
25 March	· SRV application, if agreed by Council at the Ordinary Meeting 21 March, will be forwarded to IPART
28 March	2^nd Council Operational Plan Workshop: · Response to directions set by Council at the 1^st workshop · 2011-12 Operational Plan information and determination of priorities for resourcing where required including two Draft Operational Plans and budgets if the SRV application proceeds
11 April	Report to Ordinary Meeting: · Endorsement to publicly exhibit draft 2011-12 Operational Plans (including Fees and Charges)
April - May	Public Exhibition of the draft 2011-12 Operational Plans (including Public Meeting 4 May and other consultations).
30 May	Report to Ordinary Meeting: · Adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan or Plans (including Fees and Charges) including consideration to adopt SRV and advise IPART of Council’s resolution by 3 June 2011.
10 June	IPART determination of SRV applications announced.

Conclusion

Three of the four survey methods used, the deliberative and on-line surveys and the resident workshops, all showed support for the increase. Just over 53% of residents surveyed in the independent deliberative survey supported the increase while this rose to 66% in the resident focus groups. It is also worth noting that an additional 26% of the participants in the resident focus group indicated that they would support a smaller rate rise to ensure existing service levels and assets are maintained.

Of the remaining survey method used to measure the community’s attitude to the SRV, the householder survey, resulted in a higher number opposed to the increase (48%) than in support (38% with 14% undecided).

A conclusion needs to be drawn from the range of survey methods about the level of community support for the proposal. The groups of residents that were independently invited to participate in the focus groups produced the largest support for the SRV, suggesting that the more people are informed about the need for the increase the more likely they are to support it. The conservative level of support shown in the deliberative survey can be relied upon because of the research-based methodology used by IRIS. The household survey provided information about the SRV to every ratepayer and attracted responses from 9% of households. The information dissemination and feedback from this process has been useful however according to our independent experts the reliability of the responses from a statistical point of view is not as solid as research-based methods.

In this regard IRIS Research was asked to provide an assessment as to the validity of the survey methodologies used as part of the wider community engagement strategy. The response was that in the case of the deliberative survey, they were 95% confident (with a maximum error rate of +/-4%) that the results gained from the 620 resident surveys truly represented the whole population of Penrith. On the other hand, with only 9% of household survey returned and 8.7% of the on-line participants completing the survey, no clear conclusions were able to be drawn from such a small sample.

To complement this advice Council sought a further opinion from another independent research company, Newspoll. The result was that both research companies agreed that the household mail out and on-line surveys were both subject to possible self-selection, open to campaigning and therefore provided an uncontrolled method of sampling. Given the small number of returns both could not provide a conclusive result. Both researchers have indicated that results of the deliberative survey and the resident workshop provide more statistically reliable results. The advice sought from Newspoll is provided in Attachment 2.

Weighing all this up it is considered that there is a conservative level of community support for the proposed SRV. This view is underpinned also by letters of support that have been received from several large representative bodies: the Penrith Business Alliance, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce, St Marys Town Centre Association and the Penrith Valley Sports Foundation. There are a significant number of members and users represented by these organisations and their representative views, albeit there are likely to be alternate individual opinions, should carry considerable weight when assessing community opinion about the proposal. Copies of these letters are provided as Attachment 3.

This report recommends that Council officers lodge the application by the due date and that further community consultation continue as the Draft 2011-12 Operational Plans, including the alternate budget, are exhibited from mid April to Mid May. Following this exhibition period Council will have the opportunity to adopt both of the budgets pending a determination from IPART on the SRV or to withdraw the SRV application and adopt the alternate budget that does not include the SRV priorities.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Progress on Proposed Special Rate Variation be received

2. In accordance with Section 508A of the Local Government Act 1993 Council forward to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal an application for a Special Rate Variation in line with the details in this report.

3. A further report be provided to Council on 11 April to consider the next stage of the Special Rate Variation proposal as part of the exhibition of the Draft 2011-12 Operational Plan.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	IPART Assessment Criteria	12 Pages	Attachment
2.	Independent Assessment on engagement methods	4 Pages	Attachment
3.	Letter of Support	9 Pages	Attachment

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A City of Opportunities*

Development Application DA10/0632 Proposed Additions, Alteration and Swimming Pool at Lot 15 DP 237405 (No. 11) Sylvan Place, Leonay Applicant: Mr and Mrs Lee; Owner: Matthew S Lee

Compiled by: Matt Shahidi, Trainee Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Objective	We have access to what we need
Community Outcome	A City with lifestyle and housing choice in our neighbourhoods (8)
Strategic Response	Encourage housing that provides choice, achieves design excellence, and meets community needs (8.1)

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for additions to the ground and first floor of an existing two storey dwelling and a swimming pool in the rear yard. The application seeks to vary the 6 metre rear setback requirement and the minimum landscaped area requirement of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). The application is supported by an objection under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to this development standard.

The site is located in a cul-de-sac towards the end of Sylvan Place. The rear of the property adjoins the Blue Mountains National Park.

The objectives of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land), are to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings, protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value, and to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

The proposed additions and reconfigurations attain these objectives by providing a modern development complimenting the surrounding area and proposing minimal impacts on adjoining properties.

The SEPP 1 objection has demonstrated compliance with the minimum landscaped area and rear setback requirements are unreasonable due to the site adjoining the Blue Mountains National Park to the rear and the proposal not resulting in loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views.

In accordance with the reporting procedures required by the Department of Planning, the matter is forwarded to Council for determination as the variation exceeds 25%. The report recommends the SEPP1 objections be supported and the development application be approved.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located within a cul-de-sac, with the primary frontage facing Sylvan Place (see Locality Plan Appendix No. 1). The site is 720m² in area and faces northeast. The dwelling is located on a relatively flat area of the site having the driveway sloping towards the front. The site and surrounding properties are in close proximity to the Nepean River, an environmentally sensitive area. The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of single and two storey dwellings of varying scales.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

Ground floor:

· Reconfiguration of internal walls

· Addition of a workshop, a single garage on the north eastern side and a double garage on the southern side at the front of the dwelling.

· Enclosing an open verandah area on the southern side to create a rumpus room

First Floor:

· Addition of balconies to the rear, a covered patio and privacy screening

· Addition of a master bedroom and ensuite

· Addition of an alfresco dining area above the garage facing the street

The development application was accompanied by:

· An objection under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Land.

· Statement of Environmental Effects

· Site and Building Plans

· BASIX certificate

Planning Assessment

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards

Two objections to development standards within LEP 1998 (Urban Land) have been lodged. The objections are to vary the minimum rear setback requirement and the minimum landscaped area as shown in the following table:

	Minimum required under LEP	Minimum Proposed
Rear Setback	6.0m	3.0m
Landscaped area	50%	46.7%

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

Variation of Rear Setback

The SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the provisions of Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands), and in particular the provisions of Clause 12(4). The relevant clause states:

“The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building unless:

(a) that building is set back at least 6 metres from the rear boundary of the site or, in the case of a single storey building in Zone No. 2(a) at least 4 metres from the rear boundary of the site; and

(b) the land within the rear boundary setback is used for the purposes of landscaped area only”.

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval for varied rear setbacks indicating a minimum 3m setback to the first floor balcony. The minimum rear setback required is 6.0m for two storey dwellings (see Site Plan and Elevations Appendix No. 2). This variation proposes a maximum departure of 50% from the development standard.

Variation of Minimum Landscaped Area

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

Clause 12(3):

“The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building in Zone No. 2(a) unless:

a) the building is wholly within the building envelope, and does not contravene the maximum external wall height or minimum landscaped area, for the zone calculated in accordance with Table 4 below:

Zone No.

Building envelope

specified height at

side boundary

Maximum external wall height

Minimum landscaped area

2(a)

1.8 m

6.5 m

50%

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval for the proposed landscaped area of 339m² or (46.7%) of the site. The minimum landscaped area required is 50%. This variation proposes a maximum departure of 6.6%.

Assessment of SEPP 1 Objections

1) Development Standard

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

The objectives for Zone 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection) are as follows:

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

(b) to protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value by limiting the range of permissible uses and requiring larger residential allotments.”

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

The proposed additions are positioned so as to maximise views to the Blue Mountains National Park and provide additional living spaces and facilities. The site retains 46.7% landscaped ratio which is considered appropriate. No trees are to be removed as part of the development. The site is not identified as being in a Heritage Conservation Area.

The lot is 720m² in size and currently accommodates a two storey dwelling. The additions and reconfigurations of the internal rooms are considered minor as the allotment is considerably large in size.

The proposed development does not include further non-residential uses.

The objectives of Clause 12 of LEP 1998 (Urban Lands) are as follows:

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

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

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

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

The proposed development will satisfy these objectives even with a variation to the minimum rear setback and landscaped area requirements.

The dwelling is considered to be compatible with existing housing in the area and will provide an improved visual outcome. The proposal is considered to be site responsive and provide minimal impact to the streetscape as the development will not result in an increase in overall wall height and maintains a large front setback to the building line. The overall height of the dwelling will not increase and is reasonable within the street.

There will be no loss of views and privacy as the rear of the dwelling backs to the Blue Mountains National Park. Privacy screening has been provided to the sides of the covered patio on the southern side ensuring adequate privacy for the neighbouring property. The surrounding area contains numerous trees and landscaped areas which minimises the visual impact of the development.

The dwelling allows for an approximately 13m front setback to the proposed garage and alfresco dining area and 20m to the habitable areas. This is in keeping with the existing dwellings in the neighbourhood. The irregular shape of the site does not allow for further development to the front due to the steep slope from the dwelling to the street. The proposed additions encroach within the building envelope on the north-western and south-east boundary.

As a reasonable portion of the site will remain landscaped and neighbouring dwellings have similar rear setbacks, the environmental characteristics of Sylvan Place will be maintained.

The SEPP 1 objections are suitable and the development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary on the following basis:

1. The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

2. The proposed dwelling addition is reasonable development for the site.

3. The extent of the landscaping and proposed rear setback is consistent with the surrounding area.

4. Minimal loss of privacy is likely to occur as there is no immediate structure at the rear and the adjoining properties contain similar rear setbacks.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20—Hawkesbury-Nepean River

The provisions of SREP 20 apply to the property as it falls within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment. SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the potential impact on residential development and water quality. The proposed development will have minimal impact on the total catchment management, water quality and water quantity. No heritage items are located on the site. The dwelling additions will not be visible from the riverine corridor. Stormwater will be controlled and directed to a rain water tank. The proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the SREP.

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

Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 – “Residential Single Dwellings” is applicable to the current development application. The table in Appendix No. 3 details the relevant sections of compliance to the DCP. The development is considered to satisfy the DCP provisions.

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

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

Appropriate conditions are to be included relating to site management during construction. Hours of work and construction noise will also be subject to consent conditions.

The proposed alterations and additions will compliment the established area of Sylvan Place and will improve the current design.

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

The site is suitable for the proposed alterations and additions. Whilst there are a number of variations required for the proposed development, the proposal is considered to address and satisfy the objectives of the relevant planning documents.

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

Referrals

The application was referred to the following stakeholders and their comments have formed part of the assessment:

*Referral Body*	*Comments Received*
Rural Fire Services	No objections, subject to conditions relating to asset protection zones, design and construction and landscaping.

Community Consultation

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

Conclusion

The subject development application seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing two storey dwelling and is supported by SEPP 1 objections seeking a variation of the minimum landscape area and rear setback requirement. The SEPP 1 objections are supported for the reasons discussed.

The minimum landscape area and rear setback variation are unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality.

Whilst the proposed development application requires variations to minimum landscape areas and minimum rear setbacks, it is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning instruments as outlined above and a site responsive dwelling is considered to have been achieved.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0632 alteration and additions at Lot 15 DP 237405 (No.11) Sylvan Place, Leonay be received

2. The SEPP 1 objection relating to the minimum landscaped area and minimum rear setback be supported

3. DA10/0632 for alterations and additions at 11 Sylvan Place, Leonay be approved subject to the attached condition:

Standard Conditions

3.1 A001 – Approved Plans

A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A019 – Occupation Certificate

A041 – Building in Bushfire Prone Land

A046 – Construction Certificate Required

D001 – Erosion and Sediment Controls

D007 – Filling of Land

D009 – Covering of Waste Storage Area

D010 – Appropriate Disposal of Excavated Area

E001 – BCA Compliance

F006 – Rainwater Tanks and Nuisance

H001 – Stamped Plans and Site Notice

H002 – All forms of Construction

H009 – Cut/Fill details

H030 – External Finishes

H037 – Safe supply of water from catchment

H038 – Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 – Rainwater tank pump

H041 – Hours of work

I003 – Roads Act approval 1

J001 – Excavated material removal

J002 – fencing when water in pool

J004 – Pool fence residential

J007 – Boundary fencing

J010 – Pool board/sign

K016 – Stormwater Disposal

L008 – No tree removal

P001 – Costs

P002 – Fees associated with Council Land

Q01F – Notice of Commencement

Q05F – Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

3.2 A Special – Building in Bushfire Prone Land:

Conditions imposed by RFS:

3.3 At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the entire property shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’ and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document ‘Standards for asset protection zones’.

3.4 New construction shall comply with section 8 (BAL 40) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 ‘Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas’ and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection’.

3.5 There is to be no exposed timber on the proposed building.

3.6 The existing building shall be upgraded to improve protection against bush fires by preventing the entry of embers by undertaking the following:

a) Windows are to be screened with aluminium, bronze or corrosion resistant steel mesh with a maximum aperture size of 2mm. Screens shall be placed over that part of the window that can be opened;

b) Vents, weepholes and the like are to be screened with aluminium, bronze or corrosion resistant steel mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm;

c) External doors to be sealed with draft excluders.

3.7 Landscaping to the site to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

3.8 Compliance with the requirements of Bushfire Threat Assessment Report dated 26 November 2010 prepared by Bushfire Safety Solutions are as follows:

a) External cladding material to be -/30-30 FRL (or greater up to 60 minutes FRL) and be non combustible and not subject to “sprawling” during the standard fire test in accordance with As 1530.8.2;

b) External cement rendered concrete brickwork;

c) Existing external timber support posts to be clad with non combustible cladding to achieve at least -/30/30 fire resistance levels. Fire protection material to comply with the requirements of As 1530.8.2;

d) External windows to be protected with flexible radiant heat curtains (or similar);

e) Glazed elements to the western northern and southern elevations to be toughened glazing to comply with AS 1530.8.2;

f) A system of external radiant heat curtains to be incorporated into the window and sliding doors located along the western elevation;

g) External doors to be solid core doors to comply with AS 1530.8.2;

h) Garage roller doors to be protected in accordance with PBP Chapter 4, Clause 4.3.5 Figure 4.9;

i) Proposed glazed balustrade to western elevation balcony to be toughened glazing to 6mm in thickness. Alternatively, the proposed glazed elements be substituted with an open, non combustible material that complies with the Building Code of Australia Part 3.9.2;

j) External defendable space at the rear of dwelling to be constructed to IPA standard;

k) External rear boundary line drencher system to protect and lower radiant heat flux. The design of the external drencher system to be formulated by a hydraulic specialist and details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application;

l) Additional static water supply to be provided by protected water supply tank to be connected to a permanent bushfire pump system located with the workshop portion of the dwelling. The proposed water storage column to be coordinated with the delivery rates and estimated water supply requirements for the external fire hose and fixed external drencher system.

m) Fire fighting 18mm rubber fire hose and reel to be provided to reach all elevations of the dwelling.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Locality Map	1 Page	Appendix
2.	Site Plan & Elevations	1 Page	Appendix
3.	DCP Compliance Table	1 Page	Appendix

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Green City*

Tenders for the Processing, Treatment and/or Disposal of Garbage - Tender No 06-10/11

Compiled by: Geoff Brown, Waste Management Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Tracy Chalk, Waste and Community Protection Manager

Objective	We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption
Community Outcome	A City with a smaller ecological footprint (12)
Strategic Response	Respond to the impacts of climate change, by mitigating and adapting what we do (12.1)

Executive Summary

Council’s Domestic Waste Strategy was developed in 2005 as a staged approach to achieve a waste to landfill reduction target of 66% by 2014. The target and timing is in accordance with the State Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2003.

Council’s strategy commenced with the introduction of an organics collection service and organics composting service in August 2009 to compliment the existing residual waste and recycling collection service.

The current service where residual waste (red-lidded bins) is being disposed of at landfill provides a waste to landfill diversion rate of approximately 61.5%.

The last stage of the strategy has been initiated with the calling of tenders for the processing, treatment and/or disposal of garbage.

Tenders were called on 22 October 2010 and closed on 20 December 2010 after an extension of time was granted at the request of prospective tenderers.

Tenders were received from the following organisations:

1. WSN Environmental Solutions (WSN)

landfilling of garbage from the red-lid residual garbage bins

2. SITA Environmental Solutions (SITA)

Option 1 - processing and treatment of garbage from all the red-lidded residual garbage bins

Option 2 - processing and treatment of garbage from red-lidded residual bins from the two-bin garbage system only and landfilling of the garbage from the red-lid residual bins from the 3 bin system

The SITA Option 2 tender appears to conform with the tendering requirements and provides the best economical and environmental outcomes in terms of the other tenders and Council’s Domestic Waste Strategy. This tender however requires numerous clause changes to the contract document. The impact of these changes requires further consideration and negotiation with the tenderer.

It will be recommended that the Waste & Community Protection Manager and the Legal & Governance Group Manager be authorised to:

1. conduct negotiations with SITA Environmental Solutions in regard to their tender option 2 for the processing and treatment of residual waste (from the two-bin system only) and for the residual waste from the three-bin system to be disposed of at landfill; and,

2. prepare contracts for signing under the Common Seal of Council.

Background

Tenders for the Processing, Treatment and/or Disposal of Garbage No. 06-10/11 were advertised on 22 October 2010 for a period of 25 days, closing on 16 November 2010. An extension to 20 December 2010 was granted due to a number of prospective tenderers advising that there was insufficient time to prepare tenders for submission. A tender briefing session for prospective tenderers was held on 29 October 2010.

At the time of calling tenders the government organisation WSN Environmental Solutions was placed for sale on the open market with interest being shown from a number of private sector organisations including SITA. By the close of the tender it was revealed by the State Government that WSN Environmental Solutions had been sold to SITA Environmental Solutions.

Tender Evaluation Team and Evaluation Process

A tender evaluation team was formed to consider and evaluate the tenders and to ensure high probity levels were maintained throughout the process. The team comprised the Waste & Community Protection Manager, Waste Management Coordinator, Internal Auditor and Paul Howlett, Wright Strategy (external consultant).

The evaluation process comprised:

1 Evaluation of each tender against the evaluation criteria

2 Tenderer interviews

3 Financial risk analysis

4 Referee checks

The evaluation criteria for each of the tenderers is as follows:

Value for money – quality and level of service to be provided in comparison to the service cost.

Financial capacity – financial viability both past and present, to meet the requirements of the Contract.

Management skills, staff and other resources – relevant skills and experience of staff and technical resources to provide a quality service to Council and its customers.

Resource recovery – Processes, systems and facilities proposed to maximise the recovery of beneficial resources and the resources recovered.

Waste disposed of at landfill – The amount of waste disposed to landfilling, compared to the amount of Waste received.

Community education and customer service – experience and capacity to develop and provide education and customer service facilities.

Occupational Health and Safety – policies and procedures, including past and current performance.

Service delivery and capacity – relevant experience and ability to develop and deliver services (including the use of subcontractors) for Council, including innovation strategies.

Industrial relations – industrial relations policies, ability to maintain industrial harmony, and terms and conditions of employment.

Environmental management – policies and procedures to properly manage, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment in and around the processing and/or disposal facilities.

Tenders Received

The tender provided the opportunity to explore competition within the marketplace for both the processing and treatment of household waste (residual waste from the red-lidded bins) and also for the disposal of waste to landfill, if required.

The primary objective of the tender, however, was to achieve the waste to landfill diversion target of 66% by 2014 in accordance with both the State Government and Council’s waste strategy through the processing and treatment of waste.

Our current waste to landfill diversion rate is approximately 61.5%. This is being achieved through the collection and processing of dry recyclables and garden and food organics.

Tenders were received from the following organisations:

1. WSN Environmental Solutions for the landfilling of garbage from the red-lid residual garbage bins

2. SITA Environmental Solutions

Option 1 - processing and treatment of garbage from all the red-lidded residual garbage bins

Option 2 - processing and treatment of garbage from red-lidded residual garbage bins from the two-bin garbage system only

WSN Environmental Solutions’ Tender

This tender provides for the landfilling of waste at the Eastern Creek landfill site for all waste generated from the red-lid residual garbage bins. This amounts to approximately 27,000 tonnes of waste per annum.

The tender rate is $150.30 per tonne (including the current environmental waste levy of $70.30 per tonne). This tender rate is subject to increases in the Environmental Waste Levy and a CPI increase from the date of tender and annually thereafter.

The total annual cost (based on 27,000 tonnes and the current environmental waste levy) would be $4,058,100.

It must be noted, however, that Council’s current arrangement for the landfilling of waste requires that the cost per tonne be increased over a three-year period to reflect the current market price. Council’s current landfill rate is $154.66 per tonne (including the environmental waste levy). It is expected that this will increase to $189 per tonne for 2011/2012. This would amount to around $1M per annum more than the WSN landfilling tender.

Any proposal to landfill all of the residual waste, however, will not improve our current waste diversion level of 61.5%.

WSN’s tender however is subject to numerous clause changes to the contract.

In accordance with the requirements of the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water, councils entering into any contract arrangement for landfilling of waste must do so on a short-term arrangement and for not more than a five-year period. This requirement was imposed to encourage councils to explore alternative options to landfilling, with the objective of achieving the waste to landfill reduction targets.

SITA Environmental Solutions

SITA provides two options for the processing and treatment of waste. These options are:

Option 1 – provides for the processing and treatment of waste from all the red-lidded residual garbage bins within the City. SITA proposes to recover the organic component for composting and metals for recycling. The compost will be used for approved land applications, such as mine rehabilitation. Although there is a plastic content (contaminated with organic matter), SITA advises that at this stage there is no viable local market for the recovery and reuse of this material. SITA is, however, exploring options for the reuse of this material including resource derived fuel (RDF).

SITA estimates that they would recover approximately 27,000 tonnes of residual waste for processing. SITA has indicated that 25% of this amount would be recovered for beneficial reuse.

The tender rate is $284.20 plus 75% of the waste levy per tonne. Based on 27,000 tonnes and the current levy, this amounts to an annual cost of $9,096,975.

It is estimated that this tender option will increase our waste diversion level to 67%.

Option 2 – provides for the processing and treatment of waste from the red-lidded residual garbage bins of the two-bin system only and the landfilling of the residual waste from the three-bin system.

SITA proposes to recover organics and metals as detailed in Option 1. Under this proposal SITA advises that the two-bin system has greater organic content and would provide for greater recovery compared to the organics depleted three-bin system. SITA has indicated that they would recover 50% of organics and metals from approximately 11,300 tonnes of residual waste generated from the two-bin system.

The tender rate is $166 plus 50% of the waste levy per tonne. Based on 11,300 tonnes, this amounts to $2,272,995. However, there is 15,700 tonnes of residual waste remaining from the three-bin system that will need to be landfilled. SITA has indicated that they will honour the tender price and terms specified in the WSN tender, as detailed above. Based on the WSN tender price the annual cost for the disposal of the residual waste from the three-bin system will amount to $2,359,710. Therefore, the total annual cost for the processing, treatment and disposal of residual waste from the two and three-bin systems will amount to $4,632,705.

It is estimated that this tender option will increase our waste diversion level to about 65-66%.

A summary of the tender options and prices is included in the following table. The prices are 2010/11 costs and will rise from July 2011.

Tenderer

Tender

Tender Price per tonne

Total Annual Cost

WSN Environmental Solutions

Landfilling residual waste

$80.00 + $70.30 (levy)

$4,058,100

SITA Environmental Solutions

Option 1

Processing all residual waste

$284.20 + $52.72 (75% of levy)

$9,096,975

SITA Environmental Solutions

Option 2

Processing of residual waste from the two-bin system

Landfilling residual waste from remaining residual

$166.00 + $35.15 (50% of levy)

$80.00 + $70.30 (levy)

Total Cost

$2,272,995

$2,359,710

$4,632,705

Tender Evaluation Group Comments

The Waste & Community Protection Manager, Waste Management Coordinator, Internal Auditor and Paul Howlett, Wright Strategy (external consultant) met to discuss the tenders for the processing and treatment of garbage.

The tender assessment group also conducted a post tender interview with SITA Environmental Solutions on 18 February 2011for the purpose of clarifying a number of points within their tender.

It is believed that fair treatment has been provided to all tenderers and that the tender assessment has been undertaken in an appropriate manner.

Tender Assessment Group’s Comment

The tender for the processing, treatment and/or disposal of garbage was considered by the Tender Assessment Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager – Legal and Governance and the Senior Governance Officer.

Under the tender process the Council is able to consider the alternative tender as proposed by SITA, and recommended Option 2 of SITA’s tender is supported by TAG.

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

The proposal under Option 2, provided by SITA Environmental Solutions, has been considered and as outlined in the report provides for some savings compared to the current contract price while achieving a greater diversion from landfill. Council’s domestic waste function is required to be self funding and the tendered price will be included in the calculation of all future Domestic Waste Charges to continue the practice of setting the different charges at full cost recovery.

Summary

This tender served the purpose of formalising our current domestic waste landfilling arrangement within the terms of the tendering requirements under the Local Government Act. The tender provided the opportunity to explore the market place for suitable Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) options that would assist Council in meeting the objectives of both local and State strategies.

The tenders revealed that the development of AWT processes for the treatment of residual waste within the Sydney region is limited. The tender by SITA also demonstrates that there are limited markets for certain waste types (plastics) when mixed with residual waste.

The SITA tender Option 2, however, provides for the processing and treatment of residual waste from Council’s two-bin system only (rural and residential flat sectors) and for the landfilling of the residual waste from the three-bin system. While the volume of waste to be treated is just under half the total output, the outcome is reasonable from both an economical and environmental perspective. The estimated annual cost is approximately 14% more than the landfilling option by WSN (now SITA) and approximately 50% less than the SITA Option1. The estimated waste to landfill diversion rate is expected to be about 65% - 66%.

While it is expected that our strategy objectives should be reached under SITA’s tender Option 2, opportunity still exists to explore and consider emerging technology for the processing and treatment of residual waste given the requirement by the State Government to restrict contracts for landfilling to short-term arrangements and no longer than five years.

It will be recommended that Council authorise the Waste & Community Protection Manager and the Legal & Governance Group Manager to negotiate with SITA Environmental Solutions their tender option 2 with the view of preparing contracts for signing under the Common Seal of Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Tenders for the Processing, Treatment and/or Disposal of Garbage - Tender No 06-10/11 be received.

2. The Waste & Community Protection Manager and the Legal & Governance Group Manager be authorised to conduct negotiations with SITA Environmental Solutions in regard to their tender option 2 for the processing and treatment of residual waste (from the two bin system only) and for the residual waste from the three-bin system to be disposed of at landfill; and prepare contracts for signing under the Common Seal of Council.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Liveable City*

Tender Reference 14-10/11, Provision of Building Trades Services

Compiled by: Laura Schuil, Supply Officer - Contracts

Ben Rodwell, Acting Supply Coordinator

Graham Howe, Building Projects Co-ordinator

Glen Tuckwell, Project Co-ordinator

Stuart Benzie, Administration Officer - Policy & Communication

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

Hans Meijer, City Works Manager

Stephen Britten, Group Manager - Legal & Governance

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

A tender for the provision of Building Trades Services on the basis of a “Standing Offer” contract on an “as required” basis, was advertised on 5 November 2010 and closed on 9December 2010.

The report advises Council on the outcome of the tender process and recommends that Council accepts tenders from the companies identified within the recommendation of this report, as a “Panel of Approved Contractors” for the provision of trade services for an initial period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods by mutual agreement, and subject to satisfactory performance allowing for rise and fall provisions.

The tender requested companies to provide for the following trades; Building Maintenance & Construction Works; Concreting; Electrical; Floor Coverings; Glazing; Painting; Plumbing & Drainage; Property Maintenance (gutter cleaning); Roof Anchors; Security Alarm and Detection Systems; Shop fitting, and Steel Fabrication and Repairs.

The Tender Evaluation Committee reviewed all tenders submitted. The recommended panel of preferred contractors is enclosed within the recommendation of this report.

Background

Council initially established agreements for the provision of various building trade services in December 2000, following a public tender process to create a list of preferred contractors. The agreements worked successfully over the five (5) year period and were later replaced by new agreements in February 2006 following another public tender process.

The existing panel agreements established in February 2006 were for an initial period of 3 years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods. The options to extend the current agreements were taken up for all services and are due to expire in March 2011. The current panel agreements include the following building trade services:

· Concreting Services

· Electrical Services

· General Building Works and Repairs

· Glazing Services

· Painting Services

· Plumbing and Drainage Services

· Security Alarms & Detection Systems

Based on the success of the previous and current panel agreements, a new tender for an expanded list of building trade services was recently advertised. The expanded scope of the new tender is designed to provide a panel of preferred contractors for the following building trade services:

· Building Maintenance and Construction Works

· Concreting

· Electrical

· Floor coverings

· Glazing

· Painting

· Plumbing and Drainage

· Property Maintenance (gutter cleaning)

· Roof Anchors

· Security Alarm and Detection Systems

· Shop Fitting

· Steel Fabrication and Repairs

The Request for Tenders was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Western Weekender and on the e-Tendering website on 5 November 2010, for the Provision of Building Trades Services for a period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year period. The request for tenders closed on 9 December 2010.

It was proposed in the tender documents that Council would select one primary contractor and up to two secondary contractors to perform each of the specified services. The highest ranked supplier (primary contractor) will be given first preference to carry out the works subject to satisfactory performance, and it should be noted that no work is guaranteed. In the event that the primary contractor is unavailable or if Council considers that the primary contractor does not have the capacity to perform specific work, the second ranked supplier will be requested to complete the work, and so on.

Tenderers were required to submit their tender on a standard pro-forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria. Tenderers were also required to complete a price schedule setting out the unit rates for each service.

Tender Evaluation Committee

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Graham Howe, Building Projects Co-ordinator, Glen Tuckwell, Project Co-ordinator, Ben Rodwell (Acting Supply Coordinator) & Laura Schuil (Acting Supply Officer). Stuart Benzie from the Council’s Legal and Governance Department provided the Tender Evaluation Committee with probity advice throughout the tender evaluation process.

Tender Evaluation Criteria

The selection criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders were:

Scope of Requirements

· Range of services for the Trade offered

· Resource capability for the Trade offered

· Relevant knowledge, experience & qualifications of personnel for the Trade offered

· Previous relevant work history (if available) for the Trade offered

· Sourcing of materials & equipment

· Safety Record

Cost/Price Category

· Unit rates offered

· Rise and fall provisions

· Financial viability

Management and Administration

· Resources and Personnel

· Employment Policies (Apprenticeships)

· Quality Assurance Systems.

· Environmental Management Systems.

· Industrial relations

· Occupational Health & Safety

Summary of Tenders Received

Tenders we received from 52 companies for the supply of various Building Trades Services, with several companies applying for multiple trade packages. Tenders from the following companies were received past the closing time and were not considered further; Alifix Pty Ltd, B.G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd (submitted more than one tender however their tender for building maintenance & construction works was received late), Height Safety Engineers, Leonay Plumbing and Safemaster Height Safety Solutions.

Tenders from the following companies were incomplete and were therefore considered to be non-complying; ATS, Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd (for concreting), BezCorp, Cains Glass Service Pty Ltd, G C Singletons, GN Ryans Electrical Services Pty Ltd, Height Safety Protection Systems, Roseville Plumbing, NMC Building Services Pty Ltd, Platinum Electrical Contractors, Taymar Building Services Pty Ltd. Council cannot consider non-complying tenders under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

The tender submission provided by Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd contained a number of assumptions and modifications to Council’s advertised tender and contract conditions. In the opinion of the Tender Evaluation Committee, these modifications would alter the liabilities of the agreement and are not in the best interest of Council. Due to these modifications the tender submitted by Transfield’s Services (Australia) Pty Ltd was also considered non-conforming.

Evaluation of Tenders

Following a detailed analysis of all complete responses, each tender was evaluated against the evaluation criteria. The evaluation was used to determine a final ranking for each tender.

Consideration was then given to each of the tenderer’s unit rates to determine the best value for money solution for Council.

Listed at Appendix 1 are the names of the companies that applied for each of the trade services advertised.

All companies recommended within this report for each of the services specified were selected based on their high level of compliance, demonstrated ability to meet Council’s requirements, and competitive hourly or schedule of rates for the services offered.

Based on the outcomes of the evaluation process, eight of the twelve trade services resulted in only two companies being recommended to the panel of preferred contractors for those particular services. It is the Tender Evaluation Committee’s understanding that Council has not previously needed to utilise a third contractor for any of these particular trade services and is therefore satisfied that is sufficient to recommend a only primary and secondary contractor for each of these services. The remaining four services resulted in three companies being recommended for each service.

Based on all compliance and cost considerations, the following tenders were shortlisted and ranked in the following order.

Building Maintenance & Construction Works

No 1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Penrith, established in 1981 and was incorporated in 2000. The company provides a diverse building trade services and facilities management. Westco are currently on Council’s preferred contractor list.

No 2. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Penrith and was incorporated in 2006, and operates as a provider of building works and building maintenance solutions. This covers all trades including: plastering, bricklaying, concreting, glazing, painting, carpentry, electrical, plumbing, metal fabrication, shop fitting, tree removal etc.

No 3. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Parramatta and was incorporated in April 1990. The company operates as a commercial and industrial building contractor as well as the provision of facilities maintenance services. The company has previously won contracts with Council constructing Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre, renovations to Penrith Regional Gallery and heritage conservation work to Emu Plains Family History Society (Old School).

Concreting

No 1. Allied Civil Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Arndell Park, was established in 2000 and incorporated in February 2003. The Company specialises in provision of concrete works, excavation, demolition and drainage works. Allied Civil are currently on Council’s preferred contractor list.

No 2. C W Concrete Pty Ltd

The Company’s office is in Ryde and was incorporated in March 1999. The company is a supplier of concrete and asphalt services including footpaths, driveways, kerbs and gutters, roads and drainage and have worked for numerous other Councils.

Electrical

No 1. HIX Group Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Penrith and commenced trading as Hix Electrical in 1992 and was incorporated as Hix Management Pty Ltd in 1999. The company trades across 6 divisions to provide trades and services including electrical and data services, plumbing and hotwater, carpentry and building trades for the maintenance, installation and service to the residential, commercial & government sectors. The Hix Group are currently on Council’s preferred contractor list.

No 2. B.G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Penrith and was established 30 years ago as BG Plumbing. The company was incorporated as B&G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd in 1993 and operates as a plumbing, electrical and building works contractor to local and state governments. B&G Enterprises are currently on Council’s preferred contractor list.

No 3. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd

Floor Coverings

No 1. Campbells Carpet Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Cranebrook and has been operating since 1962. The company is a carpet and floor covering retailer, who also provides installation services via the use of sub-contractors. Campbells Carpets have been providing services to Council for several years.

No 2. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

Glazing

No 1. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd

No 2. Panther Glass Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Penrith has been in operation since 1990 and was incorporated in June 2005.The company manufactures, fabricates, installs and repairs all aluminium/steel framing to buildings, all composite & glass louvres, glass windows, auto door entries, curtain walls, shopfronts, pool fences and shower screens.

Painting

No 1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd

No 2. Programmed Maintenance Services Limited

The Company is based in Victoria with offices in Sydney and a branch in Penrith. The business was founded in 1951 and provides property maintenance and asset management solutions to the private and government sectors. Currently they have several painting contracts at Council including the exterior of the Civic Centre and JSPAC.

No 3. Shades Painting Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Londonderry and has been in operation since 1988 and was incorporated in July 1993. The company offers a Sydney wide service for commercial and residential painting services. Services include restoration works on older buildings as well as painting works for new buildings.

Plumbing & Drainage

No 1. B.G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd

No 2. HIX Group Pty Ltd

No 3. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd

Property Maintenance (gutter cleaning)

No 1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd

No 2. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

Roof Anchors

No 1. Compass Gas and Plumbing Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Picton and has been in operation since 2000 and was incorporated in May 2010. The company provides trade services in the plumbing, drainage and gas fitting trade along with roof cleaning services, height safety inspections and installations predominately for government facilities, contracts for the Department of Education & Training, Corrective Services and TAFE's. The company also provides specialist gas services including nylon gas mains insertion, commercial and domestic appliance repair and gas leak pinpointing.

No 2. Australian Safety Systems Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Taren Point and commencing trading in November 2007. The company specialises in the design, supply and installation of Height Safety and Fall Protection Systems. It offers customisation and implementation of individual safety systems that exceeds all the relevant Height Safety and OH&S requirements for safe work on roofs. The company specialise in all aspects of Height Safety Systems. The company's products have been independently tested by Testsafe Australia, assured by their ISO 9002 quality management systems and accredited by NATA testing laboratories.

Security Alarm and Detection Systems

No 1. Piekar Comm Services

The Company is based in Cranebrook and was registered in August 2003 and commenced trading as a new venture in March 2004. The company offers sales, installation, service and maintenance on a range of products across 7 main fields comprising of public address systems, emergency warning intercom systems, audio-video intercom systems, telephone systems, security systems, access control systems and fire systems. Piekar Comm Services are currently on Council’s preferred contractor list.

No 2. McCalls Services Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Penrith and was incorporated in June 2007 to act as the trustee for McCall Services. The Trust is an electrical contractor business that specialises in the provision and installation of P.A. systems, audio / visual systems, security systems, CCTV and digital antennas.

Shopfitting

No 1. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Penrith and was incorporated in 2006, and operates as a provider of building works and building maintenance solutions. This covers all trades including; plastering, bricklaying, concreting, glazing, painting, carpentry, electrical, plumbing, metal fabrication, shop fitting, tree removal etc.

No 2. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

The Company is based in Parramatta and was incorporated in April 1990.

The company operates as a commercial and industrial building contractor as well as the provision of facilities maintenance services. The company has previously won contracts with Council constructing Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre, renovations to Penrith Regional Gallery and heritage conservation work to Emu Plains Family History Society (Old School).

Steel Fabrication and Repairs

No 1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd

No 2. S A Leitch Mobile Welding

The Company is based in Penrith and commenced business in 1997. The business is engaged in mobile welding/ repairs and has a workshop for fabrication. The business has been a contractor for Council for several years in this field.

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis and performance analysis. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Any risks identified in the review of the tenderers have been discussed and explained to the Tender Evaluation Committee to allow this information to be considered as part of their evaluation.

Conclusion

The report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the tenders from the companies listed below be accepted as a Panel of Approved Contractors for the provision of Building Trades Services.

The recommended tenderers have demonstrated their capability in providing the specified services and have proven to Penrith City Council that they are capable of delivering the service as tendered.

As previously advised the tender clearly set out that Council would select one primary contractor and up to two secondary contractors to perform all of the specified services. The highest ranked supplier (primary contractor) will be given first preference to carry out the works subject to satisfactory performance, and it should be noted that no work is guaranteed. In the event that the primary contractor is unavailable or if Council considers that the primary contractor does not have the capacity to perform the work, the second ranked supplier will be requested to complete the work, and so on.

The recommended panel of suppliers are detailed below:-

Service Description	Recommended Panel of Suppliers
Building Maintenance & Construction Works	1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd
	2. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd
	3. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

Concreting	1. Allied Civil Pty Ltd
	2. C W Concrete Pty Ltd

Electrical	1. HIX Group Pty Ltd
	2. B.G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd
	3. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd

Floor Coverings	1. Campbells Carpet Pty Ltd
	2. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

Glazing	1. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd
	2. Panther Glass Pty Ltd

Painting	1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd
	2. Programmed Maintenance Services Limited
	3. Shades Painting Pty Ltd

Plumbing & Drainage	1. B.G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd
	2. HIX Group Pty Ltd
	3. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd

Property Maintenance (gutter cleaning)	1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd
	2. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

Roof Anchors	1. Compass Gas and Plumbing Pty Ltd
	2. Australian Safety Systems Pty Ltd

Security Alarm and Detection Systems	1. Piekar Comm Services
	2. McCalls Services Pty Ltd

Shopfitting	1. Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd
	2. Rapid Constructions Pty Ltd

Steel Fabrication and Repairs	1. Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd
	2. S A Leitch Mobile Welding

Tender Assessment Group (TAG)

The Tender Assessment Group (TAG) comprising of the Council’s Group Manager ~ Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten, the Legal Officer, Matthew Bullivant and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil reviewed the tender process. Prior to the closing of tenders, the Tender Evaluation Committee determined to assess the tenders received against the evaluation criteria, which has been outlined earlier in this report. This process of evaluation was applied throughout the entire evaluation process. Procedural fairness was applied to all respondents. The tenderers were afforded equal opportunity and were assessed on their merits. The Tender Evaluation Committee had regard and complied with the tendering provisions of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

The TAG supports the methodologies used throughout the tender process and the recommended panel of contractors.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 14-10/11, Provision of Building Trades Services be received

2. Council appoints the tenderers as recommended in the report to the Panel of Approved Contractors for the provision of building trade services.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

Names of the companies that applied for each of the trade services advertised

5 Pages

Appendix

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Appendix 1 - Names of the companies that applied for each of the trade services advertised*

Appendix 1 – Names of the companies that applied for each of the trade services advertised.

Building Maintenance & Construction Works	Suburb	Concreting	Suburb
Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern	Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern
Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Allied Civil Pty Ltd	Arndell Park
Asset Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd	Baulkham Hills	Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill
Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill	C W Concrete Pty Ltd	Ryde
DLR Building Services Pty Ltd	Glenmore Park	Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista	Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya	Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
Interiorbuild Pty Ltd	Glenbrook	Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta
Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard
M.S.St.Clair Building Consultants	Colyton
Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood	Floor Coverings
NMC Building Services Pty Ltd Pty Ltd	Cranebrook	Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern
OSSA Services Pty Ltd	Alexandria	Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta	Asset Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd	Baulkham Hills
Taymar Building Services Pty Ltd	Glenmore Park	Campbells Carpets Pty Ltd	Cranebrook
Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd	Penrith	Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill
Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard	Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
		Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya
Electrical		Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern	Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta
Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard
Argyle Technology Pty Ltd	Smeaton Grange
B.G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd	Penrith	Glazing
Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill	Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern
Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista	Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya	Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill
HIX Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
Interiorbuild Pty Ltd	Glenbrook	Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya
Legion Technologies Pty Ltd	Glossodia	Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
McCalls Services Pty Ltd	Penrith	Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Panther Glass Pty Ltd	Penrith
Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood	Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta
Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta	Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard
Stowe Australia Pty Ltd	Penrith
Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard	Plumbing & Drainage
		Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern
Painting		Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern	B.G Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd	Penrith
Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Compass Gas and Plumbing Pty Ltd	Picton
Asset Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd	Baulkham Hills	Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill
Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill	Edinburgh Plumbing	Kingswood
Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista	Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya	Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya
Hallers Master Painters Pty Ltd	Roselands	Franklins Plumbing Pty Ltd	Mount Druitt
Interiorbuild Pty Ltd	Glenbrook	HIX Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	KMP Plumbing	Cambridge Gardens
Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood	Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Novaretti Painting Pty Ltd	Kemps Creek	MP Maintenance Pty Ltd	Mortdale
OSSA Services Pty Ltd	Alexandria	Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
Programmed Maintenance Services Ltd	Auburn	Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta
Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta	Rapid Trade Solutions Pty Ltd	Werrington Downs
Shades Painting Pty Ltd	Londonderry	T.J. Matthews Plumbing Services Pty Ltd	Rouse Hill
Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd	Penrith	Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard
Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard
		Roof Anchors
Property Maintenance (gutter cleaning)		Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern
Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern	Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Australian Safety Systems Pty Ltd	Taren Point
Asset Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd	Baulkham Hills	Compass Gas and Plumbing Pty Ltd	Picton
Compass Gas and Plumbing Pty Ltd	Picton	Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill	Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya
Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista	Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya	Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
Interiorbuild Pty Ltd	Glenbrook	Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta
Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard
Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta	Security Alarm and Detection Systems
Rouge Property Maintenance	St Clair	Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern
Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd	Penrith	Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard	Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
		McCalls Services Pty Ltd	Penrith
Steel Fabrication and Repairs		Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern	Piekar Comm Services	Cranebrook
Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith	Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta
Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill	Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard
Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya	Shop Fitting
Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood	Alphacom Projects Limited	Redfern
Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta	Arcs Building Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
SA Leitch Mobile Welding	Penrith	Cunneen Group Pty Ltd	Castle Hill
Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd	Penrith	Ethcorp & Associates Pty Ltd	Bella Vista
Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard	Evolve Projects Pty Ltd	Maraylya
		Micks Painting Maintenance Group Pty Ltd	Penrith
		Newland Constructions Pty Ltd	Eastwood
		Rapid Construction Pty Ltd	Parramatta
		Zadro Constructions Pty Ltd	Vineyard

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Liveable City*

Naming of the Pavilion at Howell Oval

Compiled by: Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager

Authorised by: David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation

Objective	Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities
Community Outcome	A City with active and healthy communities (19)
Strategic Response	Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

Executive Summary

The project to complete the redevelopment of the southern end of Penrith Stadium and Howell Oval cricket pavilion is nearing completion with a practical completion date for the whole project being 6 May 2011.

At a recent Penrith Stadium Redevelopment Working Party meeting consideration was given to naming the new structures in recognition of pre-eminent local identities associated with rugby league or cricket. It was determined that the southern end of Penrith Stadium would not be named after an individual however there was a suggestion that the new cricket pavilion should recognise the work in local cricket of Trevor Wholohan OAM. Penrith District Grade Cricket Club have outlined that they have no objection to this consideration, however they have indicated that they would prefer that the pavilion’s original name of N A Hunter (Norman A Hunter) be retained in its own right as the sole name. Should Council consider that the pavilion be renamed the Club has proposed three options, these being:

1. Hunter - Wholohan Pavilion

2. N A Hunter and T H Wholohan Pavilion

3. That two separate buildings are named at the facility, these being the N A Hunter Pavilion and, additionally, the T H Wholohan Indoor Practice Centre

In addition to the Club’s proposals, it is recognised that there are a number of other reserves and buildings in the City that recognise the full names of individuals. These include, as examples: George Churchward Pavilion, Ray Morphett Pavilion, Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, Cec Blinkhorn Oval, Darcy Smith Oval, Harold Corr Oval, among others. This approach presents the possibility of the new buildings being called the Norman Hunter and Trevor Wholohan Pavilion.

This report recommends that Council consider that a cricket pavilion building at Howell Oval be named in recognition of Norman A Hunter and Trevor Wholohan OAM.

Background

Prior to demolition, the pavilion serving the Howell Oval cricket facility was named the N A Hunter Pavilion. Penrith District Grade Cricket Club has expressed a preference for the pavilion to retain the N A Hunter name, however an opportunity exists to consider other names for the newly redeveloped pavilion buildings at Howell Oval, recognising people who have made an extraordinary impact on the sport of cricket. One such person, Mr Trevor Wholohan OAM, was identified as such an individual at the Penrith Football Stadium Redevelopment Working Party. This report outlines the credentials of Trevor Wholohan OAM in the local cricket environment, as well his significant achievements in cricket at a state and national level.

Current Situation

The following details of Mr Wholohan’s cricket career are provided to allow Council to assess whether his name should be associated with the new pavilion buildings.

Nepean District Cricket Association

Since 1956 Mr Wholohan has held the following positions with the Nepean District Cricket Association; President, Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary, Centenary Chairman, Gibson Cup Selector, Council Liaison Officer and Delegate from the Nepean District Cricket Association to the Hawkesbury Cricket Council.

Throughout this period Mr Wholohan has tirelessly been the driving force behind the development and implementation of numerous projects for the benefit of all cricketers in the Local Government Area, in many cases seeking and obtaining funds for these projects from grants, through his organisation of funding raising luncheons, and working in partnership with Penrith City Council. Recent project examples include the development of practice wickets at Dukes Oval and a turf wicket square at Jamison Park.

Mr Wholohan’s commitment of volunteer time has not been restricted to administration or project delivery. He has spent countless hours preparing and maintaining both outfields and turf wickets at various locations across the City providing playing surfaces to a high quality as well as ensuring Council’s assets surrounding the grounds are presented to an outstanding standard.

Penrith District Grade Cricket Club

In 1973, Mr Wholohan was instrumental as the Secretary of the Steering Committee in achieving Penrith District Grade Cricket Club’s entry into the Sydney Grade competition and from that time has had a major impact on the club’s growth and facility developments at Howell Oval, Cook Park and Rance Oval. From being the club’s inaugural Secretary in 1973-1974 he went on to become President of the club for a combined total of 16 years between 1975 and 1993, and overall has spent 24 years on the club’s Management Committee. Other roles that Mr Wholohan has undertaken on behalf of the club include:

- Player for 9 seasons captaining 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Grades and the Colts

- Grounds Manager, 2003-2005

- Marketing Manager, 2002-2003

- Canteen Manager at Howell Oval for 7 years

- Delegate to NSW Cricket for 13 years

- Delegate to the Sydney Cricket Association for 9 years

- Delegate from Penrith District Grade Cricket Club to the Nepean District Cricket

Association for 9 years

- Independent Selector, 1986-1991

- Liaison Officer between the Club and Penrith City Council for 24 years

- Chairman of the Blue Mountains Cricket Council for 7 years.

Once again, during this time, Penrith District Grade Cricket Club benefitted from Mr Wholohan’s ability to identify and implement projects to ensure facility development. He arranged sponsorship to build a synthetic wicket training facility at Howell Oval, negotiated the installation of turf practice wickets, a picket fence and the development of two new dressing rooms at Howell Oval, built a new turf wicket and installed picket fences at Rance Oval, and organised and installed picket fences and developed a club house at Cook Park.

Mr Wholohan has also ensured that long standing arrangements have been put in place to contribute to the future sustainability of the club. In 1978, whilst President of the Club, he and the Vice President of the club at the time (the late Bill Winter) negotiated an annual sponsorship of the club with Penrith Leagues Club. Mr Wholohan also advocated for and negotiated with Penrith City Council to employ a full time curator at Howell Oval, and also obtained permission for the Club to be able to park cars around the ground for Penrith Panthers home games to raise funds. All of these arrangements remain in place today.

His efforts as Chairman of the Retention Committee for the Club have also ensured that a host of high profile cricket players have represented Penrith District Grade Cricket Club including; John Benaud, Geoff Davies, Kerry O’ Keefe, Trevor Bayliss, Steve Small, Les and Tony Radanovic, Ian Davis, Graeme Beard, Rod Bower, Graeme Pity and Brian Wood.

NSW and Australian Cricket

As an administrator Mr Wholohan’s work has not been limited to local and Grade cricket and his ability as an administrator has been recognised with roles at the highest levels of the game. The list includes:

- Director of the Cricket Australia Board for 6 years between 1988 – 2004

- Director of the Cricket NSW Board for 8 years (1988 – 1996)

- Committee of Management NSW Country Cricket Association for 7 years (1989- 1996)

- Committee of Management Sydney Cricket Association for 7 years (1987 – 1994)

- Vice President of Cricket NSW for 6 years (1998 – 2004)

Penrith District Grade Cricket Club have outlined that they have no objection to the consideration to rename the pavilion, however they have indicated that they prefer that the pavilion’s original name of N A Hunter to be retained in its own right as the sole name. The Club have expressed that they understand that the final decision on this matter rests with Council. Should the pavilion be renamed the Club has proposed three options, these being:

1. Hunter - Wholohan Pavilion

2. N A Hunter & T H Wholohan Pavilion

3. That two separate buildings are named at the facility, these being the N A Hunter Pavilion and, additionally, the T H Wholohan Indoor Practice Centre

Conclusion

Mr Wholohan’s commitment to developing the game of cricket is unquestionable and his work will contribute to the future success of the sport in the Local Government Area. The commitment he has shown and the outcomes he has been successful in achieving have been recognised through the numerous awards and life memberships he has achieved, including;

Awards

- OAM

- The Centenary Medal

- The Australian Sports Medal

- The AMP Administrator of the Year

- The Gold Medal awarded by Cricket NSW and Cricket Australia for over fifty years of

service to cricket

- The Penrith Valley Sports Foundation – Jim Anderson Memorial Award for service to

cricket

- Cricket NSW Volunteer Award for services to all levels of cricket from international to

junior cricket

- Penrith City Council Wall of Achievement 1997

Life Membership

- Cricket NSW

- Penrith District Grade Cricket Club

- Nepean District Cricket Association

- Penrith RSL Senior Cricket Club

- Penrith RSL Junior Cricket Club

- Patron Nepean District Cricket Umpires Association

- Patron Penrith RSL Senior Cricket Club

The agreed names will be displayed at appropriate places on the buildings and, in addition, suitable plaques with summary details of any named persons will be displayed in a suitable place inside the facility.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Naming of the Pavilion at Howell Oval be received.

2. Council consider that a cricket pavilion building at Howell Oval be named in recognition of Norman A Hunter and Trevor Wholohan OAM.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Liveable City*

Redevelopment of Penrith Park Football Stadium and Howell Oval Cricket Pavilion

Compiled by: Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager

Authorised by: David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation

Objective	Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities
Community Outcome	A City with active and healthy communities (19)
Strategic Response	Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 10 June 2009 the Penrith Football Stadium Redevelopment Working Party determined a project scope of work to expend a $5m grant contribution from the Commonwealth Government for the purpose of redeveloping the southern end at Penrith Football Stadium and provision of a cricket pavilion/clubhouse at Howell Oval. Subsequently a funding agreement for the project was executed on 13^th May 2010 with the Commonwealth Government.

It was agreed at the Working Party in June 2009 that should there be budget savings after the scope of work outlined in the Commonwealth funding agreement was delivered, authority would be sought from the Commonwealth Government for expenditure of this money for other projects at the Football Stadium. At that time it was indicated that permission would be sought to expend the money on catering and amenity upgrades in the Western Grandstand.

At the most recent Penrith Football Stadium Redevelopment Working Party a report was presented which indicated that the project budget, including interest accrued of $48,000, is now $5,048,061. Once the original scope of work is completed, the forecast project cost will be $4,479,731 if no further contingencies are expended due to future project variations. The forecast cost indicates a budget surplus of $568,330 from both projects. The Working Party nominated that this budget be expended on:

- The installation of a pathway linking the southern end to the eastern and western grandstands

increasing accessibility at the facility ($342,860).

- Enhanced security to the cricket pavilion including window shutters, a security screen to an

electrical cupboard, and back to base alarm ($19,000)

- Additional drainage work to Howell Oval for stormwater (40,000).

- Pavilion naming sign - design and install ($12,000).

- Reinstatement of sight screen ($5,000)

- Design variations for adjustment to posts outside the training area and coving support to wet

Areas ($10,000).

- Professional fees - QS and consultants during construction, and inspections on completion ($40,000).

- Provision of additional contingency for the Howell Oval Project ($25,000).

The total budget for these works is $493,860 (including contingencies) leaving a budget of $74,470 (excluding remaining contingencies) to be allocated. At the Working Party meeting it was determined that the best value for money would be to expend the budget remaining as a contribution towards the enhancement of the hospitality level in the Eastern Grandstand to allow greater access to the facilities for those members of the community with a disability. A letter has been sent to the Federal Government seeking a change to the scope of works to allow the enhancement of the hospitality level.

This report recommends that the information regarding the expenditure of the projected surplus budget be received and Council endorse the Working Party’s decision for the expenditure of any remaining project budget.

Current Situation

Construction

Within the Commonwealth Funding agreement it was identified that, as a result of Quantity Surveyor reports, the redevelopment of the southern end of Penrith Football Stadium would cost an estimated $1,772,818 (excl GST) and the forecast final cost for the Howell Oval redevelopment would be $3,227,182 (excl. GST). On this basis, a secondary funding agreement was executed between Penrith City Council and Penrith Panthers on 21 January 2010 (this funding agreement and budget approval occurred prior to any DA conditions) granting $1,772,818 to Penrith Panthers. The agreement allowed Penrith Panthers to manage the redevelopment of the southern end of the football stadium, with Council retaining responsibility for the delivery of the cricket pavilion and clubhouse.

The Development Application for the redevelopment of the southern end of Penrith Football Stadium was approved on 17 November 2009 and the construction certificate was approved on 23^rd February 2010. The Development Application for Howell Oval was approved on 30 November 2009 and the construction certificate was approved on 27 May 2010.

A funding agreement for the project was executed on 13^th May 2010 with the Commonwealth Government which outlined the scope of works as:

1.1 “The project consists of:

a. The construction on the Property of a cricket pavilion/clubhouse at Howell Oval which will operate so as to achieve the Program Objectives; and

b. The refurbishment of an existing building on the property in order to redevelop the Southern Grandstand of the Penrith Football Stadium which will operate so as to achieve the Program Objectives.

The Organisation must carry out, or arrange for carrying out the following works:

a. Penrith Football Stadium

(i) External improvements including spectator entrance, and exit pathways and associated landscaping;

(ii) Improved public amenities and toilets; and

(iii) Upgraded food and beverage area.

b. Cricket pavilion/clubhouse at Howell Oval

(i) Construction of two new change rooms and player amenities (toilets and showers);

(ii) Construction of new umpires rooms and amenities (toilet and shower)

(iii) Construction of two lane indoor cricket training facility;

(iv) Construction of first aid and medical rooms;

(v) Construction of new kitchen and kiosk;

(vi) Construction of central area for general club and community purposes;

(vii) Construction of a utility room and storage areas;

(viii) Construction of scorers room;

(ix) Construction of a viewing area for players and spectators; and

(x) Construction of a 42 space car park.

Penrith Panthers entered into a construction contract with Evolve Construction for the redevelopment of the southern end of Penrith Football Stadium. Work commenced on 20September 2010 with a project program outlining that the facility would be completed in time to be operational for the first home game of the pre-season. In relation to the cricket pavilion at Howell Oval, Penrith City Council appointed Bilas Knight as the construction contractors after a tender process.

The redevelopment of the southern end of Penrith Park Football Stadium was completed in time for the first home game of the season against Newcastle Knights. The completion of the new cricket pavilion/clubhouse has seen some delays due to inclement weather with practical completion now expected on 6 May 2011.

Budget

With the project nearing completion an updated budget (a summary budget table is attached to this report at appendix 1) was presented to the Working Party and it was identified that:

- $5m was committed to the project by the Federal Government. Interest earned on this amount is $48,061 (to 28 February 2011).

The total budget amount available for the project is $5,048,061

- The project budget for Howell Oval was established as $3,227,182 (excl. GST)

The current contract commitments to date total $2,558,609 including a $25,000 contingency.

- The project budget for Penrith Stadium was established as $1,772,818 (excl. GST).

This element of the project is now completed and Evolve Projects has reported that there is a $122,488 saving with the project cost totalling $1,650,330.

- Other non-contractor project expenditure (professional fees) currently totals $270,792 .

- It is forecast that the cost of delivering the existing scope of work will be $4,479,731 if no further contingencies are expended due to future project variations which is $568,330 within the overall project budget of $5,048,061.

At the Working Party’s most recent meeting it was resolved that, to fulfil a Development Consent Condition, an eastern and western link path connecting the southern end to the adjoining grandstands should be constructed as a priority with any remaining project funds.

Since the meeting a cost of $342,860 (including a contingency allowance of $30,115) has been obtained for installation of the pathways from Evolve Projects. The cost has been verified by a Quantity Surveyor and the work has been commissioned and commenced. Commissioning of this work reduced the overall available project budget to $225,470.

From the $225,470 available the Working Party resolved that $40,000 of this is to be allocated to providing stormwater drainage at Howell Oval which, if not completed, has been deemed to present a future risk to users of the facility. Additional and required work was also approved:

- Enhanced security to the cricket pavilion including window shutters, a security screen to an

electrical cupboard, and back to base alarm ($19,000)

- Pavilion naming sign - design and install ($12,000).

- Reinstatement of sight screen ($5,000)

- Design variations for adjustment to posts outside the training area and coving support to wet

Areas ($10,000).

- Professional fees - QS and consultants during construction, and inspections on completion ($40,000).

- Provision of additional contingency for the Howell Oval Project ($25,000). There is an estimated $1m of work to complete and a current contingency of $25,000 is available. Reallocation of an additional $25,000 to the contingency fund will mean that $50,000 (or 5% of the value of the work remaining) is available for future project variations.

After committing to the necessary drainage and additional works, it is forecast that $74,470 will remain in the project budget. The final figure could increase, or decrease, depending on any future project variations and expenditure of the proposed contingency amount available of $80,115 ($50,000 for Howell Oval and $30,115 for the football stadium linking pathways).

In response to the Working Party’s direction a letter has been sent to the Federal Government seeking consideration to a change of project scope to allow for expenditure of any remaining budget on:

‘the enhancement of the hospitality level in the Eastern Grandstand to allow greater access to the facilities for those members of the community with a disability.’

This outstanding work in relation to accessibility contributes to the fulfilment of the Master Plan objectives for the site and includes: room enlargements, entry doors widening, levelling of floors to allow access for wheelchairs, and provision of two additional dedicated spaces to the southern end of the eastern grandstand for persons with wheelchairs and carers. The budget remaining will act as a contribution to the completion of the hospitality accessibility works which is estimated at $250,000 - $300,000 in total.

No determination has been received from the Federal Government, regarding changing the scope of work to include enhancements to the Eastern Grandstand hospitality level, at the time of writing this report. Should approval to expend remaining funds not be forthcoming, the Working Party identified that the next priority for expenditure should be limited upgrades to, and equipment for, the catering facilities in the Western Grandstand. This would also require Federal Government approval.

A provisional date for the opening of the Howell Oval pavilion has been set for 4 September pending confirmation from NSW Cricket that a representative team is available to play. In relation to the naming of the newly developed pavilion buildings at Howell Oval and facilities at the southern end of Penrith Park Football Stadium a separate report is provided in tonight’s business paper.

Conclusion

It is recognised that, when this stage of the redevelopment of the Football Stadium is completed, there are still projects identified in the original master plan for the facility that remain outstanding. A proposed priority list of projects provided which will contribute to realising the original master plan for the Stadium includes:

1. Completion of stage 2 works, Eastern Grandstand accessibility to hospitality level.

2. Completion of Stage 3 Western Stand amenities, new male, female and disabled toilets, new food and beverage facilities under the western stand, including new hard stand for outside broadcast trucks. Estimated Cost $1,500,000.

3. Event Control, inclusion of the training field into the controlled space of the stadium for multi purpose and carnival event mode and security of the facility, by relocating fence line. Estimate Cost $500,000.

4. Eastern Stand concourse level under stand to provide spectator toilet facilities and relocated maintenance facility, circulation space and additional space for the centre for sports excellence at ground level. Estimated Cost $1,500,000

5. New southern Stand, 4000 seat stadium. This is dependant on average crowds and available funding. Estimated Cost $10,000,000.

6. Expand and improved forecourt entries to the Stadium, North West, North East and Southern entries including new pavement, walk of fame, street furniture, tree planting and signage, also includes Ransley Street event fencing, foot path widening, in ground services for mobile food van etc. Estimated Cost $1,650,000.

As previously reported to Council, it is the intention that architects will be engaged to complete any designs for these works and to determine accurate costs. The architects will be engaged once the existing development project has been finalised. A report will then be presented to a future Working Party meeting and an Ordinary Meeting of Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Redevelopment of Penrith Park Football Stadium and Howell Oval Cricket Pavilion be received

2. Council endorse the decision of the Working Party to expend the remaining project budget on:

- The installation of a pathway linking the southern end to the eastern and western grandstands increasing accessibility at the facility.

- Enhanced security to the cricket pavilion including window shutters, a

security screen to an electrical cupboard, and back to base alarm.

- Additional drainage work to Howell Oval for stormwater.

- Pavilion naming sign (design and install).

- Reinstatement of sight screen.

- Design variations for adjustment to posts outside the training area and coving

support to wet areas.

- Professional fees -QS and consultants during construction, and inspections on completion).

- Provision of additional contingency for the Howell Oval Project.

- Enhancement of the hospitality level in the Eastern Grandstand subject to

Federal Government approval.

- Upgrades to the Western Grandstand catering facility, including equipment purchase, if the Federal Government do not approve the proposed upgrades to

the hospitality level of the Eastern Grandstand.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

Summary Budget

1 Page

Appendix

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*A Leading City*

1 Presence of the Public

Everyone is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council and those of its Committees of which all members are Councillors, except as provided by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

A Council, or a Committee of the Council of which all the members are Councillors, may close to the public so much of its meeting as comprises:

(a) the discussion of any of the matters listed below; or

(b) the receipt or discussion of any of the information so listed.

The matters and information are the following:

(a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals;

(b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers;

(c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

· prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or

· confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or

· reveal a trade secret.

(e) information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of the law;

(f) matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property;

(g) advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

The grounds on which part of a meeting is closed must be stated in the decision to close that part of the meeting and must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

The grounds must specify the following:

(a) the relevant provision of section 10A(2);

(b) the matter that is to be discussed during the closed part of the meeting;

(c) the reasons why the part of the meeting is being closed, including (if the matter concerned is a matter other than a personnel matter concerning particular individuals, the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer or a trade secret) an explanation of the way in which discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

Members of the public may make representations at a Council or Committee Meeting as to whether a part of a meeting should be closed to the public

The process which should be followed is:

· a motion, based on the recommendation below, is moved and seconded

· the Chairperson then asks if any member/s of the public would like to make representations as to whether a part of the meeting is closed to the public

· if a member/s of the public wish to make representations, the Chairperson invites them to speak before the Committee makes its decision on whether to close the part of the meeting or not to the public.

· if no member/s of the public wish to make representations the Chairperson can then put the motion to close the meeting to the public.

The first action is for a motion to be moved and seconded based on the recommendation below.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

A Leading City

2 Council Property - Lease of Shop 14, Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to existing Tenants, Mr Mohit Patel & Mrs Shruti Ben Patel

3 Council Property - Bennett Road, St Clair

4 Council Property - Lease of Proposed Cafe Shop, 225-227 Queen Street, St Marys

5 Senior Staff Matters

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

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

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Appendix 1 - Locality Map*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Appendix 2 - Site Plan & Elevations*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Appendix 3 - DCP Compliance Table*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Appendix 1 - Summary Budget*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Attachment 1 - IPART Assessment Criteria*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Attachment 2 - Independent Assessment on engagement methods*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Attachment 3 - Letter of Support*

*Ordinary Meeting*	*21 March 2011*
*Attachment 1 - Summary of Investments*