Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 2 MAY 2011 AT 7:38PM

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

APOLOGIES

87 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that an apology be received for Councillor Ben Goldfinch.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 11 April 2011

88 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 11 April 2011 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Kath Presdee declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 3 - Council Property - Electricity Easements over Public Reserve - Lot 1150 DP 259016, Pasturegate Avenue, Werrington Downs as she lives on the street and stated her intention to leave the chamber for discussion of the item.

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Non – Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 12 - The Foundation for Creative Enterprise - Nepean Creative Embroiderers Art Needlework Project as he is the Honorary Auditor of the organisation. Councillor Fowler OAM stated his intention to remain in the chamber, but declared he would take no part in any discussion of the item.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

89 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:41pm.

Item 11 - Pedestrian Laneways

Mrs Susan Harmon

Mrs Harmon, an affected person spoke in support of the recommendation and stated that since the closure of the laneway her life has returned to normal. The anti-social activity which had been occurring while the laneway was open has ceased. Mrs Harmon requested that Council continue to keep the laneway closed.

Mr Peter Shaw

Mr Shaw, an affected person spoke in support of the recommendation. Mr Shaw outlined that nearly his entire property fronts the laneway and that over the years his family and property have been subjected to various forms of anti-social behaviour and vandalism including, trespassing, burglary, property damage, fire, and noise. Mr Shaw highlighted that the laneway is primarily used at night, and provides an easy escape route.

Procedural Motion

90 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Mark Davies that Mr Shaw be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 7:48 pm.

Mr Shaw requested that given the laneway does not provide a shortcut to public transport or shopping centres, and is infrequently used during the day that Council continue the closure of the laneway.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

91 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:50pm.

Reports of Committees

1 Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 30 March 2011

92 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 30 March, 2011 be adopted.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

Procedural Motion

93 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that Item 11 – Pedestrian Laneways be moved to be dealt with first.

A Liveable City

11 Pedestrian Laneways

94 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kaylene Allison seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Pedestrian Laneways be received

2. Peachtree Lane, Penrith and Carlyle Lane, Cambridge Gardens be physically closed through the installation of suitable fencing and gates and given the initial interest shown, the option of sale to adjoining property owners be pursued.

3. Short Lane, Emu Plains remains open.

4. Morningbird Lane St, Clair remains physically closed.

Councillor Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 7:54pm.

A Leading City

1 Annual GST Compliance Certificate

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Annual GST Compliance Certificate be received.

2. The Deputy Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, General Manager and Group Manager - Finance / Responsible Accounting Officer sign the 2011 GST Compliance Certificate.

2 Council Property - Dedication as Road - Volume 855 Folio 183, Lot 6-10 DP 234163, The Northern Road, Cranebrook

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - Dedication as Road - Volume 855 Folio 183, Lot 6-10 DP 234163, The Northern Road, Cranebrook be received.

2. Lots 6-10 DP 234163, being the residue in Volume 855 Folio 183 be formally dedicated as public road by notice in the Government Gazette under Section 10 of the Roads Act 1993.

3 Council Property - Electricity Easements over Public Reserve - Lot 1150 DP 259016, Pasturegate Avenue, Werrington Downs

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Kath Presdee left the meeting, the time being 7:54pm.

97 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - Electricity Easements over Public Reserve - Lot 1150 DP 259016, Pasturegate Avenue, Werrington Downs be received.

2. Council grant Integral Energy an Easement for Padmount Substation 2.75 x 5.5 metres over Lot 1150 DP 259016 Pasturegate Avenue, Werrington Downs.

3. Council accept the compensation in the amount of $6,050 plus GST for the easement.

4. Integral Energy bear all reasonable costs associated with the granting of the easements.

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

Councillor Tanya Davie returned to the meeting, the time being 7:56pm.

Councillor Kath Presdee returned to the meeting, the time being 7:56pm.

4 Transfer of Land from Landcom to Council - Lot 101 DP 700213, No. 2b Brookfield Avenue, Werrington Downs

98 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Transfer of Land from Landcom to Council - Lot 101 DP 700213, No. 2b Brookfield Avenue, Werrington Downs be received.

2. Council accept the transfer of Lot 101 DP 700213 from Landcom for Open Space on the terms outlined in the summary.

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

4. A letter of appreciation be forwarded to the Chairman of Landcom conveying his appreciation for their offer to transfer this land to the community at minimum cost.

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

6. Letters be sent to local residents in the area outlining the outcome of this project.

A City of Opportunities

5 Tender Reference 12-10/11, Provision of Supply and Delivery of Child Care Food Services

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 12-10/11, Provision of Supply and Delivery of Child Care Food Services be received.

2. The tender process for the Provision of Supply and Delivery of Child Care Food Services be discontinued.

3. ABCOE Distributors Pty Ltd be thanked for their participation in this tender and be advised of the outcome of this process.

4. Council consider the process of Expression of Interest as a trial for one of the five products outlined in the report, and if this process to be satisfactory that an Expression of Interest process be used for the remaining four products.

6 Development Application DA10/1240 existing awning at Lot 235 DP 815531 (No. 8) Mulloo Place, Cranebrook. Applicant: Anthony Farrugia; Owner: Anthony Farrugia

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/1240 existing awning at Lot 235 DP 815531 (No. 8) Mulloo Place, Cranebrook be received.

2. The owner be issued with a $750.00 penalty notice for erecting the awning without development consent.

3. The SEPP 1 objection relating to landscaped area and rear setback be approved.

4. DA10/1240 for existing awning at 8 Mulloo Place, Cranebrook be approved subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

4.1 A001 – Approved Plans

4.2 E001 – BCA Compliance

Non-Standard Condition

4.3 As marked in red on the approved plans, an area of 1m x 12.8m on the side boundary and 2.8m to 2m x 9.8m of paved area along the rear boundary to be removed. The area to be landscaped with native plants and vegetation.

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

For	Against
Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Tanya Davies
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Robert Ardill
Councillor Prue Guillaume
Councillor Mark Davies
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Kaylene Allison

A Green City

7 Tender for the Design & Risk Assessment Consultancy Service for the Penrith Recycled Water Project

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

That:

1 The information contained in the report on Tender for the Design & Risk Assessment Consultancy Service for the Penrith Recycled Water Project be received

2 The tender be awarded to the NSW Public Works to undertake concept design and risk assessment for the amount of $ 44,706.

3 Subject to the acceptance of risk assessment report, the NSW Public Works be further engaged to undertake the detailed design and Review of Environmental Factors for the amount of up to $112,486.

4 A further report be presented to Council on completion of the concept design and risk assessment.

8 Management of Gipps Street Reserve Lot 2 DP81099 (No. 34 - 102) Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows

102 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1. The information contained in this report on Management of Gipps Street Reserve Lot 2 DP81099 (No. 34 - 102) Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows be received.

2. $187,200 be allocated from the Waste Reserve for leachate treatment system maintenance and management works and the final site validation and site audit as detailed in this report.

3. The annual leachate monitoring budget funded through the Waste Reserve be increased from $55,000 per year to $70,000 per year as detailed in this report.

4. A report be brought back to Policy Review Committee on the proposed funding arrangements and status update on the project overall.

A Liveable City

9 The naming of a walking track at Blair Oval

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on The naming of a walking track at Blair Oval be received

2. That Council endorse the naming of the informal walking track at Blair Oval “The Kevin Stone Memorial Walk”

3. That a sign reflecting the name of the walk be installed.

10 Green Cover Demonstration Design Project - Successful Project Application

104 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Green Cover Demonstration Design Project - Successful Project Application be received

2. That the project team comprising representatives of Council’s Sustainability Unit, Major Projects Unit and Parks Department work with the Government Architects Office in the delivery of the project.

3. That the completed design project be presented to Council at a future Policy and Review Committee meeting.

A Vibrant City

12 The Foundation for Creative Enterprise - Nepean Creative Embroiderers Art Needlework Project

105 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1. The information contained in the report on The Foundation for Creative Enterprise - Nepean Creative Embroiderers Art Needlework Project be received.

2. An amount of $5,000 be allocated equally from each Ward Voted Works to assist with the “Birds of the Waters project”.

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

RR 1 Honoured Citizen Recognition - Former Councillor Malcolm Borland

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested a report be brought to Council considering the bestowing on former Councillor Malcolm Borland the title of “ Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith”.

RR 2 Development Application Approval Process

Councillor Greg Davies requested that a report be brought back to Council outlining the resource and cost effects on Council given that all development applications will now be dealt with by Council, as opposed to previously when some were considered by the Department of Planning.

RR 3 Glenmore Park Loch

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memorandum concerning the “clean up” of the Loch as wall as the safety of the walkway into the Loch.

RR 4 Waste on side of Roads

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memorandum concerning the amount of waste on the side of the roads, and what can be undertaken to keep our suburbs beautiful.

GENERAL BUSINESS

GB 1 Certificate of Appreciation

Councillor Tanya Davies presented a Certificate of Appreciation to the Deputy Mayor, Jim Aitken OAM recognising Penrith City Council for its support, dedication and contribution to the “Camp Victory 2011 program”.

Committee of the Whole

106 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:32pm.

1 Presence of the Public

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor John Thain 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 Council Property - Lease Assignment of Shop 6 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to 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 3, 32-52 Harris Street, North St Marys within the North St Marys Commuter Car Park

4 Council Property - Lease of Shop 1, 144 Henry Street, Penrith

The meeting resumed at 8:35pm pm and the Acting General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:32pm on 2 May 2011, the following being present

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 Council Property - Lease Assignment of Shop 6 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre

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

CW2 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - Lease Assignment of Shop 6 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre be received

2. Council grant an Assignment of the Lease from Mr Zafar Ali to Brittle Pty Ltd ATF Maniodra Property Trust over Shop 6 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre in accordance with the terms outlined in 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 3, 32-52 Harris Street, North St Marys within the North St Marys Commuter Car Park

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

CW3 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - Lease of Shop 3, 32-52 Harris Street, North St Marys within the North St Marys Commuter Car Park be received

2. Council grant a two year lease with a five year option to Glenn & Nerryl Williams 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

4 Council Property - Lease of Shop 1, 144 Henry Street, Penrith

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

CW4 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - Lease of Shop 1, 144 Henry Street, Penrith be received.

2. Council grant a 5 year lease with a 5 year option to ReinRab Pty Limited 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 necessary documentation.

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

110 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendation contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2, CW3 & CW4 be adopted.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:38pm.

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A City of Opportunities

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 6 April, 2011

PRESENT

Councillor Jackie Greenow (Chair), Michael Morris, David Currie, Denise Heath (5.12pm), Farah Madon (5.22pm), Councillor Robert Ardill (5.47pm)

IN ATTENDANCE

Joe Ibbitson, Community Programs Coordinator; Robyn Brookes, Disability Services Officer; Hans Meijer, City Works Manager; Ben Felten, Disability Access Officer; Graham Howe, Acting Building Projects and Maintenance Coordinator; Marnie Mitchell, Human Resources Coordinator; Jeni Pollard, Acting Community and Cultural Development Manager; Vanessa Muscat, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor; Colin Wood, Building Approvals Team Coordinator; Robert Craig, Senior Environmental Planner

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from Councillor Prue Guillaume, Ronda Hopkins and John Farragher.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 2 February 2011

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 2 February 2011 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Farah Madon declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 5 – Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee, DA11/0119, Lot 31 DP576288 (No. 144) Henry Lawson Avenue Werrington County – Alterations and additions to the Henry Lawson Club as she is the Access Consultant for the project. Farah Madon indicated she would leave the room for consideration of this item.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

A City of Opportunities

4 Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards

Colin Wood spoke to the report and advised that the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 and changes to the Building Code of Australia will provide consistency between the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the Building Code of Australia (BCA). This legislation becomes effective on 1 May 2011.

Colin Wood gave a presentation which explained the general requirements of the Access to Premises Standard and the Access Code. The BCA changes to the National Construction Code after 1 May. It will be unlawful to contravene the Premises Standard.

Colin Wood advised that seminars would be run for Council building surveyors and planners and that Access Committee members would also be invited. The seminars may occur from June and Access Committee members will be advised of the date.

Farah Madon arrived at the meeting at 5.22pm.

The Committee discussed the following issues:

· lessee exemptions

· compliant back rests for toilets

· short term rental accommodation.

Colin Wood advised that if Committee members would like a copy of the Premises Standard a link to download can be provided or contact Vanessa Muscat or himself and one will be sent out.

Councillor Robert Ardill arrived at the meeting at 5.47pm.

Colin Wood advised that if there is a difference between the Premises Standard and the BCA the Premises Standard takes precedence.

Councillor Ardill left the meeting at 5.50pm.

Councillor Greenow asked how Councillors would be advised of the new Premises Standard. Colin Wood stated that he was happy to come to a Councillor Briefing and give his presentation.

Councillor Ardill came back to the meeting at 5.55pm.

Colin Wood suggested that a similar presentation on the new Premises Standard be given to the Building Designers Association.

Other issues discussed by the Committee included:

· cost increase to an average dwelling under the new Premises Standard

· compliance of State school halls.

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards be received.

The meeting held a supper break at 6.00pm. The meeting reconvened at 6.10pm.

A Leading City

1 Penrith Inclusion Plan - Workforce and Workplace Progress Report

Marnie Mitchell spoke to the Workforce and Workplace Progress report which focused on employment access and participation of Council employees, achievements that have been made and accessible workplace environment.

Marnie Mitchell also advised of EEO and diversity training, staff training in disability awareness, review of position descriptions to reflect responsibility for people with a disability, inclusion of people with a disability in the traineeship program, and provision of employment information in alternate formats. The Access Committee was invited to provide feedback regarding the EEO and Anti-Discrimination Policy and EEO Management Plan 2011-2014 which were attached to the report.

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Penrith Inclusion Plan - Workforce and Workplace Progress Report be received.

A City of Opportunities

2 Productivity Commission Draft Report

Robyn Brookes spoke to her report which advised that the Productivity Commission’s draft report was released in February. The Productivity Commission draft report consists of two volumes and a summary overview, which is a user friendly version.

If the Productivity Commission’s report is adopted it will change the way services are provided – people with a disability will have financial control which will be a shift in terms of who manages the money. The emphasis will go from funding the service to funding the individual.

Robyn Brookes advised that there are implications from a local government point of view so it is important that another submission be made in response to the draft report to highlight Council’s role in disability.

The Committee was advised that there is a link in the business paper to the summary on the website which is easier to read and gives key elements of the report.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Productivity Commission Draft Report be received.

2. Council make a submission to the Productivity Commission on the draft report into Disability Care and Support.

3 Penrith City Centre Access Map

Ben Felten spoke to the report and advised that this is the third version of the Penrith City Access Map. The Access Committee were asked for comments on the draft map.

The Committee discussed the following issues:

· the omission of Penrith Pool from the map

· suggestion to list the pool as a community service on the back page

· including the Quarterdeck function room on the map

· inaccessible ramps at Worth Street parking

· PCYC not being wheelchair accessible

· the front entrance of the police station is accessible

· the courthouse is not accessible

· inconsistency with buildings marked as accessible and showing lifts

· the pedestrian crossing on High Street between Station and Woodriff Streets is actually traffic lights.

Ben Felten advised that Council is in the process of undertaking an access audit of all Council owned polling places and keeping a database and sharing information with the NSW Electoral Commission. PCYC which has been promoted as an accessible venue will be looked at as part of this process.

Ben Felten advised that the map would identify where state, federal and local government services are so people could identify and plan their path of travel before leaving home.

Council commissioned PDRC to undertake a landscape audit of paths, pram ramps and parking areas for the purpose of providing the data to update the access map.

Ben Felten will provide the information to the desktop publisher and include more detailed comments as well as other features.

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Access Map be received.

Marnie Mitchell left the meeting at 6.58pm.

4 Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee

DA11/0214 Construction of a McDonalds Takeaway food and drink premises, Peachtree Road, Penrith

Robert Craig spoke to the development application for a new McDonalds, Castlereagh and Peachtree Roads across from Peachtree Hotel. The restaurant will seat up to 120 patrons. Currently located on the site are car wash bays and a car yard office building.

There is pedestrian access off Castlereagh Road but no vehicular access. Vehicular access is from Peachtree Road. An accessibility audit has been lodged with the development application. There will be two accessible parking spaces.

The access audit recommends:

· accessible counter at main service area

· accessible toilets with horizontally mounted baby change table

· a backrest in the accessible toilet

· a lever type handle to the accessible toilet door.

The Committee discussed the following issues:

· the traffic flow in and out of site

· where people could sit to watch children in the play area

· an accessible table with a chair which can be moved out of the way

· a passing space being required at the end of the corridor

· suggestion to ask for a full access report.

Discussion was held around the position of the two accessible parking spaces and difficulty with the traffic flow.

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in DA11/0119 Farah Madon left the meeting at 7.15pm.

DA11/0119 Henry Lawson Club, alterations and additions – Werrington County

Robert Craig advised that the development application is for an expansion of the existing Henry Lawson Club facilities. A new entrance is proposed as well as an expanded function room and gaming room. Additional parking will be provided as well as a new gift and bottle shop.

An access report is provided. Recommendations made as part of the access report include accessible parking, the main entrance, internal layout, and accessible amenities to be altered to comply with the standards.

The Committee discussed the following issues:

· suggestion to replace accessible toilet with a new one

· accessible seating

· access to the auditorium

· hearing loop at the front counter and in the auditorium

· access provisions in the games room.

RECOMMENDED

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

Farah Madon returned to the meeting at 7.31pm.

GENERAL BUSINESS

GB 1 Kara Leo, Youth Ambassador to the Samuel Morris Foundation

Michael Morris advised that Kara Leo won a gold medal at the Australian Swimming Championships recently.

GB 2 Construction of pathway at St Marys shopping centre

Hans Meijer advised that construction had commenced on the pathway at St Marys shopping centre and it will be fully accessible when it is completed.

GB 3 Articles in the Network News

Joe Ibbitson provided copies of Council’s Network News which included articles on the National Disability Awards Presentation and a Council employee with a scooter.

GB 4 Accessible Communities Funding Program

Joe Ibbitson advised that two applications were forwarded from Council for the Accessible Communities Funding Program. The first application was for Tandara Children’s Centre and the second for bus stops.

GB 5 Accessible Holiday Accommodation

Joe Ibbitson advised that a draft motion was put to Council and is being sent forward to the ALGA Conference to be discussed and to make representations to the Minister for Tourism to establish a rating scheme for holiday accommodation.

GB 6 Passing of Steve Hyland

Councillor Greenow advised of the passing of Steve Hyland who had been an Access Committee community member for six years.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7.35pm.

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 6 April, 2011 be adopted.

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A Leading City

Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan Review

Compiled by: Anthony Milanoli, 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

This report examines options for expending remaining and projected funds under the Glenmore Park Stage 1 (GP1) Development Contributions Plan (s94 Plan) so that the plan may be concluded.

Since implementation of the GP1 s94 Plan in 1993, facilities funded by contributions to meet the needs of the new population have largely been completed. The completion of all works will leave an amount of approximately $1.41 million in restricted funds (derived from existing and projected contributions). These remaining contributions must be expended on new capital works which serve the GP1 community. The contributions cannot pay for maintenance, replacement or rectification works. The contributions must either be expended on the types of facilities currently described in the plan or the plan must be amended and exhibited to permit funding of additional types of facilities. Exhibition and implementation of an amended GP1 s94 Plan (and expenditure on new types of facilities) would take approximately 6 months.

This report outlines a list of proposed works for expending remaining funds. The proposed works include active and passive recreation facilities, footpaths, children’s playgrounds, shade structures, landscaping and accessible toilet facilities.

Following allocation of all contributions for these additional facilities the GP1 s94 Plan should be rescinded. Upon rescission of the GP1 Plan, future additional residential development in the suburb will be subject to payment of contributions for “established areas” – such as Local Open Space and Footpaths in Established Areas Plans, along with continued application of the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities s94 Plans.

Background

The Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan was adopted by Council on 5 July 1993 to ensure that new capital works were provided to meet the needs of the incoming population. The Plan levied contributions on additional residential lots or dwellings to provide the following Council-owned facilities:

· Drainage/water quality facilities

· Open space (active and passive including bushland reserves)

· Community facilities (childcare, youth facility, neighbourhood centre and the Blue Hills Child and Family Precinct)

· Road and traffic management facilities

· Pathways/cycleways

· Bus shelters

· Street trees

· Glenmore Park-related studies

· Plan Administration.

Current consideration

With the exception of minor works, all facilities funded by the Plan have now been delivered, however there remains an amount of approximately $1.41 million in contributions either paid or due to be paid in conditioned development consents. These remaining and projected funds must be expended either on facilities described in the Plan (such as further enhancing open space, extending path networks, etc) or the Plan will need to be amended to provide for construction of alternative facilities (such as a library).

If remaining and consent-conditioned s94 funds are expended on facilities currently described in the GP1 s94 Plan they must not be used for infrastructure remediation, rectification or maintenance but on additional works to meet the needs of the GP1 community. The range of facilities upon which remaining funds might be spent includes:

· Cycleways

· Footpaths

· Passive Open Space embellishment

· Active Open Space embellishment

· Bus shelters, and

· Child and Family Centre upgrading (for example shade structures).

Alternatively, remaining s94 funds may be spent on new types of facilities (such as a library) not currently described in the Plan. This outcome would require the formal amendment, exhibition and making of the revised Plan.

Potential new capital works to expend remaining and projected contributions

In order to present Council with a wide range of potential facilities which might be funded utilising the $1.41 million in available GP1 s94 Plan funds, all relevant Council Departments were invited to submit a list of proposed capital works. These proposals were assessed against the following criteria:

· The works satisfy the legislation, case law and best practice guidelines for s94 planning

· The works will add to the range or extent of facilities currently available and serve currently unmet resident needs;

· The works may serve a large number and broad cross section of Glenmore Park residents;

· The works may create positive synergies with existing facilities in Glenmore Park or make existing facilities significantly more appealing;

· The works may be consistent with other Council objectives (e.g. PITLUS); and/or

· The works reflect sizeable community feedback or the needs of sectors of the community without a voice, such as children;

· The works may have minimal ongoing maintenance and running costs.

The table attached to this report presents all the submitted projects assessed against the above criteria. From this preliminary table a refined list is presented below, describing those projects which we consider best meet the criteria described above. The refined list includes a 15% contingency component to allow for potential facility delivery cost variations (12-15% contingency provision is an acceptable industry norm for smaller scale works).

Recommended list of works for expending remaining and projected GP1 s94 funds	Cost
Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct play area - shade structure over child play equipment	$47,290
Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct play area - additional soft fall	$64,400
Ched Towns Reserve – tree planting	$5,000
Ched Towns Reserve - terraced seating	$100,000
Ched Towns Reserve - shade structure	$10,000
Ched Towns Reserve – storage facility (final design to be determined)	$80,000
2 x accessible toilets located in Ched Towns Reserve, Surveyors Creek Reserve, adjoining existing toilets, final design to be determined following consultation with Access Committee/specialist staff	$160,000
Surveyors Creek Reserve - shade and seating	$30,000
Surveyors Creek Reserve – tree planting	$5,000
Glenmore Parkway tree planting (between Massey and Floribunda)	$5,000
Health and Fitness Outdoor Trail	$130,000
Playgrounds - 4 x Council reserves additions + new teens outdoor equipment recreation facility	$180,000
Greenscreening planting anti- graffiti project	$10,000
Place making through public art (embedded into open space)	$29, 380
Footpath - Tarrabundi Drive	$44,880
Footpath - Luttrell Street	$54,060
Footpath – Blue Hills Drive	$5,100
Footpath - St Andrews Drive 170m footpath	$27,000
Footpath – William Howell Drive	$32,640
Footpath, Woodlands Drive, Oriole Street to Glenmore Parkway	$54,862
Footpath – Glenmore Parkway, Kenneth Slessor Drive to Marie Pitt Place	$9,975
Footpath, Morrison Street, William Howell Drive to Glenmore Parkway	$26,077
Suburb entry treatment Glenmore Parkway & Mulgoa Road Reserve– landscaping, street furniture, embellishment, signage, garbage bins, etc	$57,330
Provision of Storage Facility – Surveyors Creek Softball Facility (final design to be determined)	$70,000
Sub Total	$1,237,994
Contingencies (15%)	$185,699
TOTAL	$1,423,693

In addition to the above recommended list of works, a number of additional projects were suggested by relevant departments and would satisfy the requirements of Section 94 of the EP&A Act along with Ministerial Directions and relevant case law. These Projects are described in the table below.

Proposed Capital Work Project (further options)	Cost
4 x Batting Cages – Surveyors Creek facilities	$40,000
Additional Footpath Construction ($105 x 1.5m wide x lineal metre)
Additional garbage bins (parks across suburb)	$10,000
1 x Accessible toilet – Blue Hills Reserve	$80,000
Upgrade of the 2m path to a major 3m District shared pathway link along Alston Drive and the open space corridor along Surveyors Creek Rd. - 1.5km	$210,000
Upgrade of the 1.5m path along the power line easement south of the Glenmore Parkway from Woodlands Drive to Blue Hills Drive - 1.8km	$252,000
Floodlight upgrades - Surveyors Creek Softball Facility	$300,000
TOTAL	$ 892,000

In the event that there are any further surpluses following completion of the adopted “recommended list of works”, it is proposed that the remaining funds be spent on the “proposed capital works projects (further options)” prioritised in the order described in the table above.

The complete list of proposed capital works submitted by relevant Departments and assessment of their merit is shown at Attachment 1 to this report.

Proposed Glenmore Park Library

Amongst the works considered for expenditure was a new library involving additions and alterations to the existing Youth Centre in Luttrell Street, Glenmore Park. The proposed library is a facility not currently described or provided for in the GP1 s94 Plan. If contributions were to be allocated towards this proposed facility, legal advice confirms it would be necessary to amend the Plan, place it on public exhibition and bring into force the amended Plan. Discussions with Department of Planning’s s94 specialists have revealed that if Council was to seek to amend the Plan to include a library facility it would not be supported by their officers. The Department advised that libraries are not included in the “Essential Works List” Practice Note released in November 2010, which is used to asses the merit of new or amended s94 plans. Due to this, there would be no prospect of allocating remaining GP1 s94 Plan funds towards a new library.

Moreover, Council’s Architects have provided a preliminary costing of works required to add library specific floorspace to the existing Glenmore Park Youth Centre and convert the Centre to perform a multi purpose role including library floorspace. The cost of these works is calculated to be approximately $2.343 million. Of this cost, the component that could be funded by the GP1 s94 Plan is limited to $1.32 million, as legal advice confirms that remediation and refurbishment work on the existing Youth Centre’s conversion would need to be funded from non-s94 Plan sources. The funding shortfall for the proposed library is thus $1.022 million. Any ongoing costs associated with the operation of the library (staffing, maintenance, replacement) cannot be met from s94 funds.

A library at Glenmore Park would be consistent with the objectives of the Penrith Integrated Transport and Land Use Study (PITLUS) of enabling more daily/weekly activities to occur within walking/cycling distance of home thereby reducing numbers of vehicle trips. A library would also help make Glenmore Park Shopping Centre a stronger, more self sufficient community “hub” and enliven the suburb, providing a broader range of social and recreational options. However, given the library’s capital cost funding shortfall and the likely sizeable ongoing costs associated with staffing (potentially several hundred thousand dollars), this report does not support allocating s94 funds for a new library.

Timing Implications of Final Facilities Project List

Once Council has resolved a final list of works to be funded, the timing implications for actioning the works can be determined. If Council resolves to support a list of works that are consistent with those facilities described in the current GP1 s94 Plan, funds may be outlaid immediately and, upon allocation, the Plan may be rescinded. Alternatively, if Council resolves to support works (such as a new library) which are not currently included in the GP1 s94 Plan, it will be necessary to exhibit an amendment to the Plan. The exhibition of the plan and reporting back to Council for adoption and bringing it into force would take approximately 6 months. The proposed amended Plan would need to be reviewed by the Department of Planning, which may add to the implementation timeframe. Expenditure of funds on facilities added to the Plan may then occur after the new Plan takes effect.

Next Steps

The next steps in resolving expenditure of the remaining and projected GP1 s94 plan funds are as follows:

1. Council adopts the list of projects it wishes to fund using the contributions

2. If Council resolves to fund works consistent with the current Plan the funds could be allocated immediately – subject to referral of the siting of the accessible toilet locations to the Access Committee – and the Plan rescinded. Future additional residential development in Glenmore Park Stage 1 would then be subject to “established areas” contributions plans, which would result in eventual payment under the District Open Space Plans, Cultural Facilities footpaths and local open space.

3. If Council resolves to fund works which are not contained in the current GP1 s94 Plan, it would be necessary to prepare an amendment to the current plan to include these new works and seek the endorsement of the DoP. If the Department endorses the amended Plan, it would be placed on public exhibition, the outcomes of the exhibition reported to Council, adopted and the amended plan brought into force. This process would take approximately 6 – 8 months.

Upon allocation of the funds in the amended Plan it could be rescinded and future additional residential development in Glenmore Park Stage 1 would then be subject to those “established areas” contributions plans described above.

Conclusion

The Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan has achieved its goal of providing appropriate new facilities for the incoming residential population. Given that the s94 Plan applied over 18 years, that facilities were projected to cost $98 million and that expenditure to date has been over $97million (i.e. a facility cost variation of less than 2%) the “reasonableness” of the plan is amply illustrated. The Plan is now in its concluding phase and remaining funds should be spent on local facilities consistent with the range of works currently described in the plan. The range of facilities proposed to be funded as described in this report will satisfy this objective. When remaining and projected contributions are expended, the GP 1 s94 Plan should be rescinded. Upon rescission of the Plan, Glenmore Park Stage 1 can be said to have become an “established” residential area and any future development will be subject to contributions plans applying to such established areas.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan Review be received

2. Council resolve to expend remaining and projected Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions funds on the “recommended list of works” described in this report

3. That in the event that there are any further surpluses following completion of the adopted “recommended list of works”, that the remaining funds be spent on the “proposed capital works projects (further options)” described in this report

4. If Council resolves to fund works that are not currently provided for in the Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan or the list recommended in this report, it resolves to amend the Plan to include those new works in the Plan’s facilities list and exhibit the revised plan in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act

5. Upon allocation of all remaining and projected funds in the Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan, Council authorises staff to rescind the Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and Regulations, and future additional residential development in the area be subject to contributions for established areas, upon amendment of the relevant Development Contributions Plans.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

Analysis of Expenditures for Glenmore Park Stage 1 s94 Plan

7 Pages

Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

Appendix 1 - Analysis of Expenditures for Glenmore Park Stage 1 s94 Plan

Attachment 1 –

Glenmore Park $1.3 million remaining funds expenditure – Analysis of Council Department Submissions

Description of Works	Cost of Works	Ccl Dept	Complies with s94 Provisions	Ongoing Costs ?	City Planning staff Comments
Glenmore Park Child and Family precinct - Shade Structures x 2	$40,000	Community Development and Children’s services	Yes	Yes - replacement	Supported. Reflects community feedback on absence of shade since the facility’s opening.
Glenmore Park Child and Family precinct - additional softfall	$64,400	Community Development and Children’s services	Yes	No	Confirmed with legal that works satisfy s94 requirements
M4 Pedestrian overpass - 170m	$1,904,000 (GTA Study – 2009 cost)	Design and Technical Advice	No	No	Bridge would be on RTA land and hence not be a Council-owned and controlled asset. The submitted quote exceeds available s94 funds.
M4 Pedestrian overpass Feasibility Study	$80,000	Design and Technical Advice	Yes	No	Study would be used to determine need and cost of a facility which links GP1 with surrounds
Upgrade of the 2m path to a major 3m District shared pathway link along Alston Drive and the open space corridor along Surveyors Creek Rd. - 1.5km	$210,000	Design and Technical Advice	Yes	No	Whilst desirable, the cycleway/pathway already exists, these works augment capacity but don’t add to range of available facilities.
Upgrade of the 1.5m path along the powerline easement south of the Glenmore Parkway from Woodlands Drive to Blue Hills Drive - 1.8km	$252,000	Design and Technical Advice	Yes	No	Whilst desirable, the cycleway/pathway already exists, these works augment capacity but don’t add to range of available facilities.
Ched Towns Reserve Install sub-soil drains at 4 fields	$280,000	Recreation	No	No	Legal advice confirms that remediation or rectification of existing facilities does not meet s94 requirements.
Ched Towns Reserve Extension of car parking	$400,000	Recreation	No	Yes – cleaning and maintenance	Adequate car parking already delivered in accordance with the Plan. Further works would not meet legal constraints.
Ched Towns Reserve Install terraced seating	$100,000	Recreation	Yes	Yes – cleaning & replacement	Supported. The proposal offers an additional amenity for users.
Ched Towns Reserve Shade provision	$10,000	Recreation	Yes	Yes, replacement	Supported – shading addresses community identified need.
Ched Towns Reserve Planting of selected perimeters and embankments	$5,000	Parks	Yes	No	Supported. Will enhance the visual attractiveness of the facility and provide informal shade.
Surveyors Creek Softball Facility Floodlight upgrades	$325,000	Recreation	Yes	Yes, maintenance, electricity, replacement	Will add to existing facilities and enable the field to be used for training by other sports, however the works come at a significant opportunity cost – many other projects would need to be foregone.
Surveyors Creek Softball Facility Provision of storage facility	$70,000	Recreation	Yes	Yes, maintenance & replacement	Significant cost but would address only a limited segment of the GP1 population. Not supported.
Surveyors Creek Softball Facility Provision of 4 batting cages	$40,000	Recreation	Yes	Yes, replacement	Adds to the capability of the recreation facility at minimal cost.
Surveyors Creek Softball Facility Provision of shade and seating	$30,000	Recreation	Yes	Yes, replacement	Provides much needed shade and responds to community identified need.
Surveyors Creek Reserve Perimeter tree planting	$5,000	Parks	Yes	No	Supported. Additional planting will provide shade and enhance the appearance of the facility.
Health and Fitness Outdoor Trails - two locations to be determined	$130, 000	Recreation	Yes	Yes, replacement	Strongly supported. Provides for a very wide cross section of GP1 population and for unstructured, passive recreation. Locations need to be specified
Playground Upgrades – the installation of shade structures and child safety fencing at the following sites – Blue Hills Reserve, Ched Towns Reserve, Nindi Crescent Reserve, Laguna Crescent Reserve Plus an older childrens/teens play facility elsewhere in the area	$180,000 ($30,000 x 4 parks + 1 x $60,000 older teens playground)	Parks	Yes	Yes, cleaning, maintenance and replacement	Strongly supported. Adds much needed shade and security to facilities, services broad cross section of suburb.
Rotary Park – the installation of retaining walls and planting along the length of the Park (800m). Park located to the south of Glenmore Loch. Works required to improve the safety, functionality and aesthetics of the pathway.	$100,000	Parks	No	Yes, maintenance	In light of legal advice this is remediating an existing pathway, which cannot be funded under s94 – maintenance issue.
Accessible toilets at the following locations – Blue Hills Reserve, Ched Towns Reserve, Surveyors Creek Reserve	$240,000 ($80,00 x 3 parks)	Parks	Yes	Yes but limited to lighting & cleaning and would be associated with other facilities already located on these sites.	Strongly supported, especially to address broader needs associated with future ageing of the GP1 population and likely access issues.
Floribunda Community Centre Upgrade existing kitchen to semi-commercial kitchen	$45,000	Public Domain and Safety	No	Yes, electricity, cleaning, maintenance & replacement	Legal advice confirms this cannot be funded as it is remediation/rectification of an existing facility.
Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre Upgrade existing kitchen to semi-commercial kitchen	$45,000	Public Domain and Safety	No	Yes, electricity, cleaning, maintenance & replacement	Legal advice confirms this cannot be funded as it is remediation/rectification of an existing facility
Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre Provision of solar panels $21,000	$21,000	Public Domain and Safety	No	Yes, replacement	Whilst desirable from a sustainability perspective conventional electricity supply has already been provided and hence this would be rectification of an existing functioning service that could not be funded.
Surveyors Creek Community Centre Upgrade existing kitchen to semi-commercial kitchen	$45,000	Public Domain and Safety	No	Yes, electricity, cleaning, maintenance & replacement	Legal advice confirms this cannot be funded as it is remediation/rectification of an existing facility
Surveyors Creek Community Centre Provision of energy efficient solar panels	$21,000	Public Domain and Safety	No	Yes, replacement	Whilst desirable from a sustainability perspective conventional electricity supply has already been provided and hence this would be rectification of an existing functioning service that could not be funded.
Greenscreening Project Planting of vegetation along fence lines adjacent to reserves that have high incidents of graffiti	$10,000	Public Domain and Safety	Yes	No	Supported. It is additional landscaping and will enhance the appearance and perceived safety of the facility.
William Howell Drive – 320m of footpath - Morrison Street to Marcus Clarke Crescent (north end).	$32,640.	City Works	Yes	No	Supported. Although a footpath exists on the opposite side of the street, this is an area of high pedestrian traffic near the school, with worn nature strip areas. The works are additional.
Tarrabundi Drive – 440m of footpath - Talara Avenue to The Lakes Drive.	$44,880	City Works	Yes	No	Supported
Blue Hills Drive – 50m of footpath - Existing to Waterford Way.	$5,100.	City Works	Yes	No	Supported
Luttrell Street – 530m of footpath - Kenneth Slessor Drive to The Lakes Drive.	$54,060	City Works	Yes	No	Supported
St Andrews Drive 170m footpath (east side from Garswood Road to pedestrian crossing).	$27,000	City Works	Yes	No	Supported
Footpath, Glenmore Parkway, Kenneth Slessor Drive to Marie Pitt Place	$9,975	City Works	Yes	No	Supported
Footpath, Woodlands Drive, Oriole Street to Glenmore Parkway	$54,862	City Works	Yes	No	Supported
Footpath, Morrison Street, William Howell Drive to Glenmore Parkway	$26,077	City Works	Yes	No	Supported, however footpaths exist on the opposite side of the street and at surrounding intersections.
Three previous path paving works constructed during 2009/10 being: Glenmore Parkway, The Lakes Drive and Kukundi Drive.	$33,801	City Works	No	No	These are not additional works but previously funded pathways and hence cannot be supported.
Glenmore Parkway tree planting - Between Massey and Floribunda, adjoining reserve	$5,000	Parks	Yes	No	Supported. Additional planting will provide shade and enhance the appearance.
Glenmore Parkway entry treatment landscaping and seating	$57,330	Parks	Yes	No	Supported as it is specifically provided for in the plan but was never fully completed. Would provide strong entry exit statement to enhance suburb identity.
Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre Library	$1.93 million (Total project cost is $5.2 million)	Library and Community Development	Yes	Yes staff costs (several hundred thousand per annum), cleaning, maintenance and replacement	Although consistent with most criteria , there are insufficient s94 funds to meet either the total or s94 alone costs. Additionally, ongoing staff and book costs would be very significant (up to several hundred thousand dollars per annum) . Not supported due to these limitations.
Place making through the use of public art. Art is embedded into the public works, not a stand alone piece	$29,380	Community Development	Yes	Yes, cleaning maintenance and replacement	Supported as it would be an added component in the public domain, largely missing at present.

Recommended works

The criteria for recommending selected works to expend remaining funds are :

· The works satisfy the legislative and practice guidelines for s94 planning

· The works will add to the range or extent of facilities currently available and serve currently unmet resident needs; and /or

· The works may serve a large number and broad cross section of Glenmore Park Residents; and/or

· The works may create positive synergies with existing facilities in Glenmore Park or make existing facilities significantly more appealing; and/or

· The works may be consistent with other Council objectives (e.g. PITLUS); and/or

· The works reflect sizeable community feedback or the needs of sectors of the community without a voice, such as children; and /or

· The works ideally, may minimise ongoing maintenance and running costs .

On the basis of the above, the recommended expenditure list is :

Anthony Milanoli

Senior Town Planner

25 March 2011

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A Leading City

2010-11 Operational Plan March Quarter

Compiled by: Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Acting Group Manager - Finance

Objective	We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct
Community Outcome	A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)
Strategic Response	Base our decisions on research, evidence, and our responsibility to anticipate harm before it occurs (5.2)

Executive Summary

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting guidelines, Council must prepare a report on the progress of the service activities and tasks in the Operational Plan every 3 months. This review reports on the performance of external and internal services (with the exception of the three controlled entities which have separate reporting requirements) outlined in the 2010-11 Operational Plan.

The March Quarter review covers the first 9 months progress of the 2010-11 Operational Plan. It also forms part of the third instalment of Year 2 of the Council’s (4 Year) Delivery Program 2009-2013.

The report is divided into two sections:

Section 1: March Quarter Review of the 2010-11 Operational Plan covering the performance summary of Council’s 45 services, completed tasks and projects and exception reporting.

Section 2: A review of Council’s Financial Position as at 31 March 2011 including revised estimates and revotes identified in the recommended budget.

A brief executive summary of the results in each area is provided below. Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary, provides detailed information on all three sections mentioned above, and is also available on Council’s website. Councillors will receive copies of the Progress Report and Services Performance and Financial Review Summary report under separate cover as an enclosure to this Business Paper.

March Quarter Review Services Performance Summary

The combined effort of Council’s 45 services for the nine month period ending 31 March 2011 has resulted in a 72% achievement of the yearly requirement as required in the adopted 2010-11 Operational Plan, and is 3% below target.

Council’s Performance Planning System indicates that of Council’s 549 Tasks, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Capital and Operating Projects, 516 were either ‘on target’ or ‘completed’ by 31 March 2011. Details of the remaining 33 items and the challenges they are facing have been included in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary.

The cumulative budget result for the year as at March 2011 is a surplus of $117,139. This result comprises both positive and negative variations to the original budget, with the most notable for the quarter being write-offs in relation to legal costs ($65,000) and tools ($68,000), a decrease in Penrith Pool income ($60,000), and additional costs in relation to Council’s print room operations ($81,000). The Review also identifies salary savings for the March quarter of $268,668 which it is proposed to transfer to general revenue in order to provide a strong financial position prior to year-end adjustments. In addition to these adjustments there are also projects proposed to be revoted into 2011-12 as they are not expected to be completed in the current financial year.

This report recommends that the revised budget estimates identified in the report and detailed in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary be adopted.

How is Progress Measured?

Progress for the Operational Plan is expressed through the use of actual results versus target expressed as percentages and ‘traffic light’ indicators. The rating scales and parameters for each ‘traffic light’ are explained below.

Table 1: Guidelines for ‘Traffic Light’ Status Indicators

[Green] On Target	90%+	A task, project, budget, or KPI is within 10% of targeted performance for that YTD period.
[Amber] Attention Required	75-89%	A task, project, budget or KPI is within 11%-25% of targeted performance. It is at risk of non-completion, and may be the subject of a proposed carry over or partial revote of works. A comment is required about the issue, the focus required, and what will be done to address it.
[Red] At Risk	<75%	A task, project, budget or KPI is more than 25% off its targeted performance and/or is the subject of a proposed revote of works. A comment is required about the issue, the focus required, and what will be done to address it.
C Completed	100%	Completed (usually applies to Capital & Operating Projects and Tasks with defined target dates). Represents 100% completion.

Section 1: March Quarter Review – 2010-11 Operational Plan

The Operational Plan progress report for the period ending 31 March 2011 is the third quarterly review of Council’s 2010-11 Operational Plan, which in turn contributes to the achievement of Council’s Delivery Program 2009-13.

Each quarter, all Managers are required to report progress on each of their services, based on service activities, service budgets, tasks, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), capital and operating projects as set out in the adopted 2010-11 Operational Plan. The results for the March Quarter Review are as follows:

1. Overall Services Performance Summary

Council’s Performance Planning System indicates that the combined effort of all services for the nine month period ending 31 March 2011 has resulted in a 72% achievement of the yearly requirement as required under the adopted 2010-11 Operational Plan. This is 3% below the target of 75% for this stage of the year.

The contributing factors to this result are summarised in the table below.

Table 2: Service Performance Summary

SERVICE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY	Completed	GREEN (On Target)	AMBER (Requiring Attention)	RED (At Risk)	Totals
SERVICES OVERALL (excluding Controlled Entities)		42 (93%)	3 (7%)	-	45

· Tasks	14 (8%)	156 (90%)	4 (2%)	1 (<1%)	175
· Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)		98 (94%)	3 (3%)	3 (3%)	104
· Capital Projects	77 (48%)	74 (46%)	8 (5%)	3 (2%)	162
· Operating Projects	18 (17%)	79 (73%)	9 (8%)	2 (2%)	108
Totals	109	407	24	9	549

Analysis of Results

Table 2 shows that overall, Council services performed well. The key contributing factors to this positive result are :

· 98% of Tasks Completed or On Target

· 94% of KPIs were On Target

· 94% of Capital Projects were Completed or On Target, and

· 90% of Operating Projects were Completed or On Target.

Table 2 also indicates that 42 out of 45 services were “On Target” as at 31 March 2011. Three services were identified as “Requiring Attention” as their progress YTD was below the “On Target” cut-off mark of 67.5% progress YTD. An explanation for this result for each of these services is provided later in this report.

It is important to note however that it is generally the case that for the third quarter in any Operational Plan year that while the vast majority of reporting elements would be “on track” there will be some projects which may be delayed due to external factors outside the control of Council especially given that a large number of projects which are phased for completion in the remaining half of the year.

2. Highlights

On a positive note there were a number of highlights completed this quarter which are worthy of mention. These included:

· Successful Australia Day Celebrations with over 15,000 spectators at Penrith Lakes

· Environmental initiatives with 500 high school and primary school students involved in the Stormwater Education program

· Extensive community engagement for the proposed Special Rate Variation

· “Welcome to Llandilo Day” as part of Council’s Neighbourhood Renewal program

· Local capacity building initiatives as part of the Northern Rural Community Development Project

· Park and sporting field improvements

· Completion of the Penrith Health & Education Precinct Strategic Plan

· Launch of the Penrith Bus Shuttle

· Completion of all Round 2 Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Projects

· Seniors Week 2011

· Successful “Sydney Festival” Event in Penrith

More detailed commentary on each of these highlights are provided in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary.

3. Completed Tasks and Projects

Another positive result coming from Table 2 is the identification of 109 tasks, capital and operating projects that were completed in the 9 months to 31 March 2011 of which 27 were completed within the third quarter.

Some of the key projects and tasks completed in the March quarter include

· Development of Council’s Building Asset Management Plan

· Clean-Up Australia Day 2011

· Lighting installation works as part of the Community Safety Program – Safer Suburbs Program

· Great River Walk Stage 3 - Signage Branding & Promotion

· Jamison Park Off Leash Dog Area Fencing

· Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme (MAR) Feasibility Study completed

· Path Paving Program – completion of projected annual target

· Completion of Peach Tree Creek Rehabilitation Stage 2 works

· Peppertree Oval Reconstruction

· Peter Kearns Reserve Amenities work completed

· Annual component of Tree Replacement - Spotted Gum 5 Year Program already completed

· Turf Cricket Wicket Construction at Dukes and Howell Ovals

More detailed commentary on each of these tasks and projects are provided in the Services Performance and Financial Review Summary which is an attachment to this report.

4. Exception Reporting

The Service Performance Summary in Table 2 identifies 3 out of 45 services as “requiring attention” (Amber traffic light) at this stage of the year (75%). A brief explanation why this has occurred for these services has been provided in the table below.

Table 3: Overall Services ‘requiring attention’ for the March Quarter 2011

Service	Progress YTD	Target YTD	Comments
City Planning	Amber 65% (10% ↓ target)	75%	Due to significant delays by the NSW Dept of Planning (DoP) in the gazettal of Penrith LEP 2010 and providing its initial response to the Planning Proposal for PLEP 2012 (2nd stage of the City Wide LEP), the public exhibition of PLEP 2012 has been delayed and will now not occur until the 2011-2012 financial year.
Design & Project Management	62% (13% ↓ target)	75%	All projects are generally ‘on track’ with the significant exceptions being the Penrith Commuter Carpark and the WELL roadworks construction which have not been able to be progressed due to matters outside of Council's control. Refer to Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary for more information on these two projects.
Strategic Planning	64% (11%↓ target)	75%	Given resource constraints and priorities, the Penrith Planning Strategy will not be progressed substantially until the second half of 2011. The delay in this project while significant is not impacting on the completion of any other projects within the service. Refer to Attachment 1 for more information on this project.

A further operational breakdown of the Table 2 reveals that a total of 33 Tasks, KPIs and Projects in 18 services were also identified as ‘requiring attention’ (Amber’ traffic light) or were at ‘at risk’ of not being delivered or ‘not achieved this quarter’ (Red’ traffic light). A complete listing, sorted by individual service, is provided with commentary also provided in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary. The progress of all exceptions will continue to be monitored and remedial action taken to return these to a “Green” traffic light “On Target” status where possible.

Section 2: Financial Position for the March Quarter

The financial position of Council for the quarter is expressed by providing information on:

· Budget Position (whether balanced/surplus/deficit)

· Significant Variations

· Identified Revotes

· Funding Summary

· Reserve Movements for the quarter, and

· the Capital and Operating Budget Projects list for the quarter

Budget Position

$000’s

Original Budget Position	(18.3)
Variations – Surplus/(Deficit)
September Quarter Variations	(89.3)
December Quarter Variations	147.6
March Quarter Variations (reported to Council)	-
March Quarterly Review Proposed Variations	77.1
Revised YTD Surplus/(Deficit)	117.1

The predicted cumulative result for the year as at March is a surplus of $117,139 after the recommended variations for the quarter. These adjustments together with proposed minor variations, revotes, and reserve movements are detailed in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary. Commentary is provided below on the more significant issues in the review.

Net Salary Savings - $268,668

During the third quarter of 2010-11 salary savings have been realised primarily due to vacancies across a number of departments. The majority of these vacant positions are in the process of being filled. It is recommended that some of the identified salary savings are retained in the individual departments to enable the engagement of consultants or temporary staff to ensure the delivery of key Operational Plan tasks and projects. The salary savings, net of those being retained by departments, total $268,668 for the March Quarter and it is proposed to return these savings to general revenue.

Savings in Safer Suburbs funding-Cranebrook Lighting -$56,599 (16%)

This project commenced in 2009-10 with grant funding of $300,000 received for this project to install or enhance lighting as determined by Council to which has been added $91,500 from general revenue for a total project estimate of $391,500. There were initially 6 project sites planned, however the decision was made to only proceed with 4 of the project sites due to issues with the lighting designs that were prepared for the other 2 sites.

The budget allocation for 2010-11 was $346,599 comprising $89,099 general revenue revoted from 2009-10 and $257,500 remaining from grant funds. This project has now been completed and the total project cost is $334,901 which is below the initial estimate and the budget allocation for this year. The 2010-11 project costs are proposed to be adjusted to match the revised final costs funded using the grant of $257,500 and $32,500 from general revenue, which leaves a balance of $56,599 to be returned to general revenue.

Savings in Corporate Training Budget - $50,000 (16%)

Savings in the annual allocation for Corporate Training are due to delays experienced in the commencement of two staff training programs which are now planned to commence in early 2011-12. This program will continue to be monitored to ensure that appropriate level of funding is provided to complete the intended program over the 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years.

Additional Net Development Related Income - $43,000

§ Additional Subdivision Certificates Income $30,000 (150%) and Subdivision DA Applications Income $55,000 (69%)

Subdivision activity is increasing and with the release areas being seen as a viable economic alternative to other forms of residential take up it is likely to continue. The increase in development activity also results in an associated increase in certificate income.

§ Additional Engineering Services - Construction and Compliance Certificate Income - $38,000 (11%)

This increase in income over annual budget has resulted from increased activity in the subdivision area, due in part to the renewed interest in residential release areas. This budget adjustment reflects actual income received to date, with establishing budget estimates for this income impacted by competition from private certifiers.

§ Reduction to Development Services - Construction Certificates $55,000 (18%), Compliance Certificates $10,000 (4%) & Occupation Certificates- $15,000 (25%)

There has been a decline in the number of commercial/industrial buildings certificates applied for which reflects the shift in the development market away from this type of development to more residential focused development. Income received from residential buildings does not match that of the larger commercial/industrial buildings. The expansion of the Exempt and Complying State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008) SEPP has opened up further the extent to which Council can be bypassed in the CC process, inspection of buildings and the issue of occupation certificates.. .

Additional Costs in Print Room Operations- $81,008 (48%)

This variance relates to additional costs for print room equipment, finishing equipment, and impression charges that had not been allowed for in the original budget. Finishing equipment in the form of a booklet binder was required to meet the standard of printing required by Council. The proposed budget variation reflects current utilisation levels and future budget estimates will also be adjusted accordingly.

Tools Write-off - $68,000 (567%)

Each year an annual allocation of $12,000 is included in the budget to cover the write-off of tools that may be required during the year. This budget variance relates to the 2010 stock take which has now been completed. The final check count has been reviewed and approved, with the variances being submitted and recorded as the final count. The adjustment equates to approximately 17% of total stock holdings. The period covered is over two years with the last stock take occurring in 2008. The next stocktake is planned for October 2011, with the frequency of all future stock takes to occur at least once a year.

Bad/Doubtful Debts Legal Write-off - $65,000 (650%)

Council was successful in obtaining a costs order (in the sum of $65,000), however the company is now in the process of being wound up. Council remains a creditor of the company and following the realisation of the assets of the company, any available funds will be distributed to the creditors in order of priority according to the rules in the Corporations Act. The receivers appointed to wind up the company have indicated that it is unlikely that Council will receive these costs (although Council may receive a small portion of them) and it is considered prudent, that at this time for the income to be written off.

Reduction in Penrith Pool Income - $60,000 (9%)

Penrith Swimming Centres has an annual budget revenue target of $644,600 based on an annual attendance of 140,000. As at the end of the March quarter this service is $67,269 behind target with a further $105,574 to achieve for the remainder of the year. It is forecasted that a shortfall of $60,000 will be incurred by 30 June and it is proposed to reduce the income budget accordingly.

Factors leading to decreased income include the following:

§ Penrith Swimming Centre’s attendance has been affected by inclement weather conditions in late December and January, fluctuating from extreme heat, to prolonged periods of wet weather. Annual attendance at 31 January was 82,660, 23% behind the same time the previous year. Better weather during the month of February saw an improvement in attendances during the school carnival session and as at the end of March annual attendances totalled 113,543, 12% behind the last two years attendances at the same time. This has consequently reduced kiosk and recreation programming sales and accordingly these projections have been reduced by $20,000 as part of the proposed adjustment.

§ The third quarter has seen the emergence of three new and revitalised competitors in the market providing indoor aquatic learn to swim and squad coaching. This has increased competition in the market and has led to reduced squad numbers and sessions undertaken at Penrith Swimming and Centre.

§ Facility refurbishments to the pool concourse and kiosk from funds made available from the RLCIP grant funding require a pool closure for 6 weeks commencing in June, accordingly income projections have been reduced by $16,000 to account for the closure.

Increase in St Marys Spring Festival Expenditure - $26,233 (45%)

As part of the December Review income of $30,413 was recognised from stall holders for the St Marys Spring Festival. Due to inclement weather the event was rescheduled and a report was presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 28 February 2011 outlining the final project costs for the event. There has been no change to these financial figures reported including the amount allocated from voted works ($4k) however due to the income being recognised through the December Review this adjustment is required to recognise the expenditure budget.

Other variations with no impact on Available Funds and proposed revotes

A number of other variations are proposed as part of this review that do not have an impact on the available funds. Details of these adjustments are provided in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Service Performance and Financial Review Summary. In addition to these adjustments a total of $3.7m of planned capital works and operating projects are proposed for revote this quarter and a full listing can be found in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary. The total value of revotes for the year to date (including the proposed revotes) is $4.1m compared to $6.9m for the same period last year.

Conclusion

The 2010-11 Operational Plan March Quarter review indicates that the performance of Council Services is overall ‘on track’ to meet Council’s challenging annual program despite the ongoing financial challenges faced.

The review documents will be placed on Council’s website, and will also be available to the public in hard copy and CD versions on request. The opportunity is available for Council tonight to seek clarification or elaboration on particular matters in any section of this report, or the enclosed Progress Report and Services Performance and Financial Review Summary Report.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2010-11 Operational Plan March Quarter be received

2. The 2010-11 Operational Plan Review as at 31 March 2011, including the revised estimates identified in the recommended budget outlined in this report and detailed in Attachment 1 – 2010-11 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary be adopted.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

2010-11 Operational Plan - March Quarter

63 Pages

Attachment

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A Leading City

Adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan

Compiled by: Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

David McIllhatton, Acting Financial Services Manager

Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Andrew Moore, Acting Group Manager - Finance

Authorised by: Barry Husking, Director

Alan Stoneham, General Manager

Objective	We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct
Community Outcome	A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)
Strategic Response	Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

Executive Summary

At the beginning of this year Council engaged in an extensive community consultation on a proposed Special Rate Variation (SRV) (Funding our Future). The community was asked to consider a four year phased increase in rates (above the annual IPART increase) to maintain existing assets and service levels, fund key priorities which had been previously identified by the community including city centres upgrade for St Marys and Penrith.

Council’s approach to addressing these funding challenges by phasing in the increase over four years was designed to minimise the impact on the City’s ratepayers. This approach ensures that the increase is affordable within the context of the other cost of living pressures being experienced by our community, but also allows for the community’s assets so be appropriately and responsibly maintained.

The community consultation was concluded in mid March and the outcomes of that consultation were reported back to Council at the Ordinary Meeting held 21 March 2011. While it is acknowledged that there has been some community opposition to the proposal it was reported to that meeting that a conservative level of community support for the proposal had been demonstrated. This support highlights that Council’s desire to maintain existing services was in line with the communities expectations and that it was incumbent on Council to ensure that the communities assets are maintained. It also highlighted the opportunity for a leadership role in ensuring the vision for the Penrith and St Marys City Centres is implemented. The renewal of these areas as outlined in the SRV will position the City of Penrith and its residents to take advantage of economic, social and wellbeing opportunities that will come from being a Regional City. Subsequently an application for a SRV was lodged with IPART on 25 March 2011 for their review and assessment.

Consequently the development of the 2011-12 Operational Plan, and in particular the services and service levels that Council provides to the community has undergone an unprecedented level of community engagement even before the Draft 2011-12 Operational Plan was endorsed for exhibition at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 11 April 2011.

As part of the SRV process Council was required to bring forward the exhibition of the Draft 2011-12 Operational Plan and confirm its commitment to the SRV by adopting the 2011-12 Operational Plan, which includes two scenarios- one with the additional funding and programs contained within the SRV and one without those components that also identifies the measures, through service reductions, taken to address the projected deficit. The adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan including the two budgets must be advised to IPART by 3 June 2011.

In meeting the above requirements, the draft Operational Plan 2011-12 (including the draft Fees and Charges) was on public exhibition from 15 April to 16 May 2011. The community engagement strategies used during this period to ensure that the community had an opportunity to put forward submissions on the draft Plan are reported in detail later in this report.

The feedback from the community during the public exhibition resulted in 73 submissions (18 emails, 28 letters, 1 submission form and 26 from residents/ratepayers attending the public meeting held on 4 May) being received. Of that total, 18 submissions related to the draft Operational Plan 2011-12 (services and operations). A detailed list of these submissions is provided in Attachment 1. For the remaining 55 submissions that specifically relate to the SRV, these will be addressed later in the report.

As a result of these submissions changes to the draft Operational Plan document have generally been minor, as most issues are addressed through existing tasks. There were however a number of budget adjustments, the addition of a new project and changes coming from March quarter revotes were required to be made. More significant budget adjustments are detailed later in this report and a complete listing provided in Attachment 2. After incorporating these adjustments a revised deficit of $13,333 in Scenario One (excluding SRV) is projected, and a balanced budget is maintained in Scenario Two (including SRV).

This report seeks a confirmation of Council’s commitment to the SRV in the form of adopting the draft 2011-12 Operational Plan, including the ‘in principle’ adoption of both budgets with and without a SRV incorporated, subject to approval or otherwise of Council’s application by IPART on 10 June 2011. Following IPART’s determination, a further report will be brought back to Council confirming the Making of Rates and Charges on Monday 27 June 2011.

Background

In accordance with section 405 of the Local Government Act (1993), Council placed its draft Operational Plan 2011-12 on public exhibition from 15 April to 16 May (30 days). An extensive program of community engagement was undertaken to ensure that the Community was given ample opportunity to provide submissions on the draft Plan. This report outlines the public exhibition process and the submission received. Any resultant changes to the draft Operational Plan are also outlined in this report for Council consideration.

Public Exhibition

The public exhibition process encouraged community feedback on both parts of the draft Operational Plan, that is,

· Part A : Operational Plan (including Service Plans, Budget, Revenue Policies and Special Initiatives)

· Part B : Fees and Charges 2011-2012

The community had opportunity to view and comment on the draft plan during the exhibition period through a number of engagement strategies. These strategies were supported by weekly advertisements in all local papers and announcements on the local radio station (Vintage FM). These strategies included:

· Hardcopies and CDs of the draft plan (both parts) were publicly exhibited at all Council libraries, child care centres, neighbourhood and community centres and at the main Council offices at Penrith and St Marys. “Have your Say” submission forms were also supplied at each location.

· Copies of the draft plan and supporting documents available on the internet, through www.ourfuture.com.au/draftoperationalplan which could be accessed directly, or through a link from Council’s main website. An on-line submission form was also available at this website.

· A public meeting held at the Civic Centre at Council on Wednesday evening on 4 May.

· An online forum, which was run throughout the exhibition period by ‘Bang the Table’ at www.ourfuture.com.au/draftoperationalplan, also provided the web community and visitors opportunity for informal comment and discussion about the draft plan.

· Over 600 organisations, individuals and community groups were provided information on how to access the documents and inviting them to the public meeting.

Comments on each of these approaches are provided below.

Council Website

During the public exhibition, visitors to Council’s main webpage were provided access to the draft plan and other supporting documents through a link to www.ourfuture.com.au/draftoperationalplan where on-line documents could be viewed or downloaded and printed later if required. The website was well utilised compared to the previous year as demonstrated in the table below.

Website Statistics	Public Exhibition 2010	Public Exhibition 2011
Number of visitors	447	571
Page views	2,838	3,026
Aver. time on site	5 min 21 sec	2 min 59 sec
No. of documents downloaded	416	763
Most downloaded documents	· Draft Community Strategic Plan · Draft Fees & Charges 2010-11 · Draft 2010-11 Operational Plan	· Draft 2011-12 Operational Plan · Draft Fees & Charges 2011-12 · Proposed Budget Reductions for 2011-12 ($1.3m)

Two formal on-line submissions were received through the website and are mentioned later in this report.

An important outcome of Council’s on-line presence has been the increased dissemination of information about Council documents and feedback received.

On-Line Discussion Forum

As part of the community engagement process, an on-line discussion forum was created for the on-line public to take part. This is the fourth year that this approach has been used. At the forum website at www.ourfuture.com.au/draftoperationalplan, internet visitors were given the opportunity to join in on a discussion thread or comment on, view or download the draft documents.

This online forum continues to be a valuable means of generating awareness of, and comment on, exhibitions and the importance of specific issues. This approach provides opportunities for members of our communities (including those not easily reached through more traditional forms of consultation) to engage more extensively with the process and Council’s planning for the City. Council Officers monitored the site and had the opportunity to clarify some statements of fact.

During the exhibition period a total of 25 comments were posted under the 13 discussion topics available compared to the 12 comments posted under 4 topics last year (2010). Although these comments are not formal submissions because those who post comments do not leave contact details, they do provide some useful qualitative feedback often supporting comments reflected in formal submissions made elsewhere.

The on-line discussion forum continues to be a valuable form of consultation as reinforced by the above results.

Exhibition Points

Static displays with hardcopies of the draft plan (both parts) set up in various locations around the City, including the Civic Centres at Penrith and St Marys, the libraries and at Council child care, neighbourhood and community centres. It is difficult to gauge how much these exhibition points were used, however it is considered that they remain an important part of the overall community engagement, particularly for people who do not have access to, or who are not comfortable using computers.

Public Meeting

A public meeting was held on Wednesday 4 May 2011 to present the draft plan and provide an opportunity for residents and ratepayers attending to comment or raise questions. The meeting was attended by 65 members of the public, representing local organisations and businesses, government departments and as individual residents and ratepayers. This is an increase from last year where 21 people attended the public meeting.

The public meeting was opened by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM followed by a presentation by the Director and Chief Financial Officer providing an overview on the Operational Plan and information on the proposed Special Rate Variation. This was followed up by the Financial Services Manager’s presentation on finances and the proposed budget for 2011-12. The public were then invited to ask questions or raise issues directly with Council officers at a round table forum held immediately after the formal presentations.

Particular focus was provided to the SRV in the presentations and this theme continued at the discussion tables following the concerns raised by those present on 5 issues which are outlined later in this report. It was also noted that the majority of these concerns, and the residents present, related to the affordability of the rate rise for rural properties and equity in service provision.

Submissions Received

During the public exhibition period, a total of 73 formal submissions (18 emails, 28 letters, 1 hardcopy submission form and 26 comments/statements from residents/ratepayers attending the public meeting held on 4 May) were received. These have been divided up into two categories:

· 18 submissions relating to the draft Operational Plan 2011-12 service activities, tasks and

· 55 submissions received on the Special Rate Variation.

Feedback on the draft Operational Plan

As would be expected the submissions on the draft plan covered a range of issues and varied significantly in detail. Some related to specific issues while others were broader in nature, relating to the overall themes of parking, roadworks, access and disability. A summary of the matters raised in each of the 18 submissions has been provided in Attachment 1 with Managers providing responses based on Council’s current policy positions and in some cases a link to the Operational Plan tasks or activities.

Feedback on the SRV

There were 55 submissions received on the Special Rate Variation (SRV) included 15 emails. 28 letters and 12 comments/statements made by residents attending the public meeting on 4 May.

A total of 28 submissions were received in support of the proposed SRV including 5 from residents, 5 from business groups including the Penrith Business Alliance, Penrith Chamber of Commerce, Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association, 15 from sporting associations, 2 from community groups and 1 from a neighbourhood centre.

There were 27 submissions received which opposed the SRV and 25 residents who attended the public meeting who were vocal in their opposition to the proposed SRV. A summary of the key issues raised leading to SRV opposition include:

· The general affordability of a rate increase in an environment of other cost increases (eg interest rates, electricity, food and fuel prices) and for those who are on fixed incomes (eg pensioners)

· The inequity between what rural and urban residential property owners would pay with the rate rise and the view that rural residents already receive fewer services those in the urban areas and that they will not receive any additional benefits from an increase in rates

· The view that CBD improvements should not be paid for by the residents

· Council should look to being more efficient in its operations rather than charging residents more.

· Suggested areas for savings include cuts to perceived non-essential services (eg overseas trips)

In addition to these formal submissions there were approximately 30 requests for further information. These will be addressed by Council Officers directly with the person who has originated the request. These requests will be addressed separately as they are not classified as formal submissions affecting the draft Operational Plan 2011-12.

Information regarding rural rates

Information on rates in the rural areas and the impact of the SRV indicate the following:

· Total number of properties 65,064

· Total number of rural properties 4,407 (6.8% of total)

· Total number of farmland properties 407 (0.6% of total)

· Average Rural Rate in 2010-11 $2,111.16

Under the NSW property rating system, land values are the main determinant of the rates paid by all ratepayers in the City. Every three years new land values are provided by the Valuer General and these amended values affect the distribution of rates across the City. Council is bound to levy the same total dollar value in rates however the amount different categories (residential, farmland, business) and individual properties contribute varies according to the change, if any, in the land value.

The most recent valuation, base date 1 July 2009 effective 1 July 2010, delivered significant savings in rates to the rural areas. The table below illustrates by suburb the average 2009-10 rate, the average 2010-11 rate (which uses the most recent valuation) and the average 2011-12 and 2012-13 rates proposed under the SRV.

As can be seen in most of the rural areas the rates in 2012-13, even with the SRV, will be below the 2009-10 rates. Of course there will be individual instances which may be contrary to this trend particularly if the land has been re classified.

Suburb	Number of Residential Properties	2009-10 Average Residential Rates	2010-11 Current Average Residential Rates	2011-12 Average Residential Rates With 6.3% SRV	2012-13 Average Residential Rates With 6% SRV
Agnes Banks	115	$2,156	$1,984	$2,111	$2,152
Badgerys Creek	4	$4,170	$3,764	$4,005	$4,082
Berkshire Park	291	$1,989	$1,902	$2,024	$2,063
Castlereagh	339	$2,554	$2,248	$2,392	$2,438
Kemps Creek	95	$3,310	$3,070	$3,267	$3,330
Llandilo	417	$2,744	$2,411	$2,565	$2,615
Londonderry	1053	$1,795	$1,709	$1,818	$1,853
Luddenham	290	$2,603	$1,796	$1,911	$1,947
Mount Vernon	303	$3,070	$2,696	$2,868	$2,923
Mulgoa	541	$2,281	$2,140	$2,277	$2,321
Orchard Hills	545	$2,683	$2,385	$2,538	$2,587
Wallacia	414	$1,238	$1,155	$1,229	$1,253

In all the 12 suburbs shown above the average rate is less this year than what it was in 2009-10. For 10 of these suburbs next year’s (2011-12) average rates will also be less than 2009-10. In 2012-13 the majority of the suburbs will still have average rates less than 2009-10.

In regard to submissions concerning equity of service provision there is significant work planned for regional facilities that service all residents including those in our rural communities. These include the Ripples St Marys Leisure Centre, Penrith Pool, Child Care Centres, the Civic Centre, The Library, Baby Health Centre, St Marys Cultural Precinct, University of the Third Age, Senior Citizen Centres, The Joan Sutherland Centre and the Lewers Regional Gallery.

The building asset program includes all of Council’s building assets including neighbourhood centres, halls, public toilets and canteens at sporting fields. There is a strong focus on preventative maintenance so that they last and continue to deliver the required service. Many of these buildings are focal points for rural communities. Specific examples of some of the buildings on the program include Castlereagh Hall, Mulgoa Hall, Berkshire Park Hall, and Londonderry Neighbourhood Centre. Council also undertakes maintenance of Rural Fire Service buildings and maintains and services Rural Fire Service vehicles.

Changes to Part A: Budget Adjustments

The financial estimates included in the exhibited draft Operational Plan were based on the best information that was available at the time. During the exhibition period, further budget adjustments have been required as a result of Council decisions or as additional information has emerged. Additional adjustments will still be required in the first quarter of 2011-12 as a number of assumptions remain unconfirmed including the Financial Assistance Grant and the impact of the recent announcement by the NSW Government to hand back planning decisions to Council.

The exhibited draft Operational Plan 2011-12 presented a deficit of $1,374 in Scenario One (excluding SRV) and a balanced budget in Scenario Two (including SRV). During the exhibition period a small number of adjustments have been made to increase this deficit to $13,333 in Scenario One and maintaining a balanced budget in Scenario Two, if Council chooses to adopt all the proposed recommendations contained in this report.

The March 2011 Quarterly Review is reported to tonight’s meeting and includes proposed revotes of $3.22m for capital works and $480,670 for operational works. The Operational Plan 2011-2012 has been adjusted to incorporate these proposed revotes.

There have only been a small number of resolutions made by Council during the exhibition period that have had an impact on the 2011-12 budget, but not the overall budget position, and these are shown separately in Attachment 2. The 2011-12 budget also includes additional allocations derived from earlier Council decisions during 2010-11 now included to reflect the allocation of these projects over both the current year and 2011-12. Finally, the 2011-12 budget will be adjusted to reflect the outcomes of any Council resolutions that may be made tonight.

Provided in Attachment 2 is a complete list of all budget changes that have occurred during the exhibition period. The more significant changes to the budget not previously reported to Council are detailed below with their impact on the budget surplus, with the impacts – favourable (F) or unfavourable (U) – indicated where applicable.

· Family Links Worker – (No Effect)

The Child Care Links Project commenced in September 2004 at Kindana Children’s Centre. Funding for the project is received from the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FACSIA). The funding is under the Federal Government’s Stronger Families and Communities Strategy and it aimed to improve the health and well-being of young children by strengthening the resilience of their caregivers by using child care services to foster the development of child-friendly communities. Kindana is one of the three child care services in New South Wales and one of nineteen nationally to be funded under this Federal Government initiative.

In July 2008 the program received a twelve month extension and since this time the allocation has been brought into the budget as the annual program funding was confirmed. Council has now been advised that the Childcare Links Program has been extended for a three-year period to 30 June 2014. The 2011-12 allocation of $101,861 for this program and associated grant funding has now been included in the budget.

· Property Development Model - (No Effect)

The Property Development Model has continued to be updated during the exhibition period to incorporate the most current information with all changes offset by transfers to or from the Property Development Reserve. Variations proposed to the Property Development Model for 2011-12 include:

§ Capital Expenditure – net increase of $751,000

The capital costs associated with the acquisition, development, and disposal of properties for 2011-12 has been reviewed, with an overall increase of $751,000 being allocated to such activities as consultancies, refurbishment, survey and other development costs.

§ Sale Income – net decrease of $5,410,000

This variance reflects a review of the expected timing of income to be received from the sale of Council property with a major property sale now scheduled for 2012-13.

§ Operational Expenditure – net increase of $23,500

Minor changes have been made to operational expenditure budgets and the annual transfer to the Parks area of income received from mobile phone antenna rent.

§ Other Income –net increase $108,830

A small number of laneway closures are now proposed, and in addition rental income in relation to a number of Council’s commercial premises has been reviewed and adjusted to reflect current rental agreements with tenants.

· Public Library Grant Funding- (No Effect)

This budget adjustment reflects estimated recurring Public Libraries Funding that represents one of the Library’s major funding sources courtesy of the State Government of NSW (via the Library Council of New South Wales/State library of NSW). It is provided in the form of an annual per capita subsidy and a Disability and Geographic adjustment funding for special library projects.

In 2011-12 this recurring funding is proposed to be used for refurbishment of St Clair Library, preliminary investigation into the establishment of a new library at Glenmore Park, and library promotional events and materials.

· Integrated Local Plan- ($82,618 U )

This budget variation restores the agreed annual allocation for this project to $125,000, with an additional $60,000 included in 2011-12 having been revoted in the December 2010 Quarterly Review.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 (Stage 1 of the ‘Local Plan’) was gazetted in September 2010. Since then the Department of Planning has required Council to undertake a number of additional and separate Planning Proposals to make changes to the gazetted LEP. Each of these Planning Proposals requires a specific community consultation process, and may also need other studies or analysis to be completed.

The draft Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Stage 2 of the ‘Local Plan’) is currently with the Department of Planning, which will soon issue advice on the studies required to advance it to exhibition. The community consultation process for Stage 2 will be extensive. Additional resources may also be required to support the City Planning Team at these times, and to progress the draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2012. The funding is required to enable the respective Planning Proposals relating to Penrith LEP 2010, and for Penrith LEP 2012, to be advanced.

· Rural Roads Intersection Mowing - ($40,000 F)

The 2010-11 budget included savings in Rural Intersection Mowing of $40,000 achieved due to efficiency factors and competitive tendering. This savings was to be ongoing and the budget for this program has now been adjusted in 2011-12 to reflect this resulting in $40,000 being returned to General Revenue.

· Dedication – Drainage Works - (No Effect)

The subdivision developer drainage asset value has been revised and is expected to increase for 2011-12. This increases the value of predicted dedications for drainage to $1.5m in 2011-12 and is offset by a corresponding increase in Dedication Drainage Works income.

· Penrith Pool Operations - ($45,000 U)

Facility refurbishments to the Penrith Pool concourse and kiosk from funds made available from the RLCIP (Round 3) grant require closure of the Pool for 6 weeks commencing in June 2011. This factor, combined with increased competition in the market providing indoor aquatic learn-to-swim and squad coaching, has led to a review of income for Penrith Pool with the income budget now reduced by $60,000 in 2011-12. This decrease in income has been partly offset by predicted operational expenditure savings of $15,000 due to the Pool closure in July, with a net variance of $45,000.

· Controlled Entities Operational Budgets - (No Effect)

The 2011-12 Operational Plan has now been updated to include the estimated 2011-12 operational budgets for Council’s Controlled Entities. While overall expenditure and income has been varied as a result, the subsidies provided by Council in 2011-12 remain unchanged as follows:

§ Ripples – total of $660,000

§ Penrith Performing and Visual Arts - total of $1.46m

§ Penrith Whitewater Stadium – Nil

· Employee Costs - ($51,410 F)

During the exhibition period employee costs have been updated to reflect salary levels, staff allocation to services, and available funding in 2011-12. The net effect of these reviews has been the return of $51,410 from employee costs to General Revenue.

· Management of Gipps Street Reserve - (No Effect)

At the Ordinary Meeting of 2 May 2011 Council approved the use of the Waste Reserve to fund $187,200 for Maintenance and Management of the Leachate System at Gipps Street Reserve, and an additional $15,000 from 2011-12 onwards for annual leachate monitoring. The maintenance and management of the leachate system is to be carried out over two financial years and this budget adjustment allocates the $125,000 that is expected to be spent in 2011-12.

· Great River Walk –Stage 7 - (No Effect)

As reported to Council on 28 February 2011, Council has received grant funding for Great River Walk Stage 7- West Bank construction Phase 2- under the Metropolitan Greenspace Program 2010. The project has a total value $560,000, with 50% grant funding and 50% Council funding. The project is to be completed over two financial years with $104,552 currently allocated in 2010-11, and the 2011-12 Operational Plan has now been updated to include $455,488 balance of this project.

· Federal Regional & Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) Round 3- (No Effect)

As reported to Council on 19 July 2010, Council has been allocated $721,000 under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) Round 3 with all projects due for completion by December 2011. Expenditure on this Program has now been split between 2010-11 and 2011-12 to reflect the current scheduling of projects with $184,430 now added to 2011-12 for the following:

§ Erskine Park High School Playing Fields - $50,000

§ New Playing Field at Roper Road – $73,000

§ Children’s Services Shade Audits and Compliance Work- $15,430

§ St Clair Branch Library Refurbishment – $46,000

· Other

Other variations totalling $24,249 (favourable) have combined with the above to produced a revised deficit of $13,333 in Scenario One (excluding SRV), and maintained a balanced budget in Scenario Two (including SRV).

The Making of Rates and Charges

This matter will be addressed in a separate report to Council at Ordinary Meeting on 27 June 2011 to incorporate the outcome of Council’s application to IPART for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) which is due for determination on 10 June 2011.

Changes to Part B ~ Fees and Charges

A small number of changes to the draft 2011-2012 Fees and Charges have been proposed during the exhibition period. Provided in Attachment 3 is a complete list of all proposed changes to the draft Operational Plan 2011-2012 Part B ~ Fees and Charges. Of these changes there are new fees proposed with the two main areas discussed below:

· A new fee of $475 is proposed under the “Annual Domestic Waste Management Service” which will apply to serial contamination offenders of the organics service after Council Officers have exhausted all attempts to communicate with, and educate, serial offenders to place the correct waste in the organics bin.

· Under “Community Managed Neighbourhood Facilities” there have been a number of additional fees and charges to reflect changes to ensure consistency of fees across facilities, to classify Fees and Charges into more detailed types and categories, and to enable flexibility in bookings.

· A new section has been added under “Recreation and Leisure Facilities Management” for St Marys Tennis Courts fees. In a separate report to tonight’s meeting it is recommended that Council take over the management of the Courts which were previously managed by a committee and the proposed fees cover both court and clubhouse/hall bookings.

Conclusion

The adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan and the two budgets contained within is a significant step for Penrith City in ensuring financially sustainable as we continue to deliver the services and service levels demanded by the community. The adoption confirms Council’s commitment to the SRV and the platform that it lays for the implementation of the vision for Penrith as a Regional City.

Consultation on the SRV has been extensive and, following the initial consultation which concluded in March 2011 culminating in the lodging of an application to IPART, the consultation has been extended to the exhibition of the Draft 2011-12 Operational Plan. This second period of consultation has run concurrently with Council’s application being assessed by IPART. Ultimately IPART will be the arbiter and the assessment process that they have established is extensive and considers the key reasons for the SRV, the extent to which we have consulted the community, the impact of the increase on ratepayers, Council’s overall financing strategy, past and future productivity improvements and implementation of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. Throughout their assessment IPART have had constant contact with Council Officers and, have on a number of occasions requested, further information in relation to Council’s application. In particular additional information was requested and provided on the programs proposed and efficiencies that Council has achieved.

The affordability of this increase across the community has been in the forefront of Council’s consideration in the development of the SRV and was the main driver behind the variation being introduced over a 4 year period. For almost 90% of residential ratepayers the total increase phased in over 4 years will be no more than $254 with the additional component above the IPART rate peg contributing no more than $118 of this increase. The majority of the rural properties throughout the City will be paying less in 2 years time than they were in 2009-10. Affordability has been the focus of additional information requested by IPART as they investigate the impact of the increase and Council can be confident that the exemplary process that they are undertaking will ensure that this issue will be appropriately and adequately addressed in their independent determination.

After consideration of the submissions made in respect to the draft Operational Plan, and of the proposed variations, Council needs to adopt its Operational Plan for 2011-2012, including two budgets and incorporating the variations to the originally exhibited Draft 2011-12 Operational Plan as outlined in this report and the attachments to the report should Council agree, in order to comply with the legislative requirements under the Local Government Act 1993.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan be received

2. That the Operational Plan, including two budgets, with and without the Special Rate Variation be adopted pending the determination by IPART on the proposed Special Rate Variation and following that determination the no longer relevant budget be disregarded.

3. Council write to IPART confirming Council’s commitment to the SRV and advising that the 2011-12 Operational Plan has been adopted pending their determination.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Attachment 1 - Public Submissions	8 Pages	Appendix
2.	Attachment 2 - Proposed Amendments		Appendix
3.	Attachment 3 - Fees & Charges proposed amendments		Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A City of Opportunities

Development Application DA11/0025 Proposed Health Facility Lot 2 DP 157408 (No. 26) Gidley Street, St Marys Applicant: Savills Project Management; Owner: State Property Authority

Compiled by: Deepa Randhawa, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Objective	We have access to what we need
Community Outcome	A City with a strong local economy and access to jobs (6)
Strategic Response	Facilitate a diverse economy, sustainable businesses and secure employment base (6.1)

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of an application from Savills Project Management on behalf of Sydney West Area Health Service for change of use to an existing building for the purposes of Health Services Facility including building works.

Pursuant to Section 88 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Sydney West Area Health Service is defined as a “prescribed authority” for the purposes of the Crown. Accordingly, the subject Development Application is identified as a ‘crown development’.

Section 89(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that a consent authority cannot refuse a development application without the approval of the Minister, nor impose a condition of consent without the approval of the Minister or the applicant.

In accordance with Section 89(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, draft conditions of consent (as documented in this report) were forwarded to the applicant for consideration. In response, the applicant advised that the conditions were reasonable and satisfactory.

The site is currently zoned 2 (d) Residential (Medium Density) pursuant to LEP 1998 - Urban Land. The proposed use is a permissible development by virtue of the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP 2007).

Key issues to emerge as a result of the assessment process are:

· The applicant’s SEPP 1 (State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards) objection seeking a variation from Council’s development standards relating to:

o maximum external wall height,

o minimum landscaped area and

o rear setback requirements

· Access, parking and traffic

These matters are discussed in detail in the report.

In assessing the social benefits resulting from the proposal against the policy departures being applied for, it is considered that the application be supported subject to conditions of consent.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south-east corner of Gidley Street and Chapel Street, St Marys. The total area of the site is approximately 950m². The site is located on the eastern side of Gidley Street, halfway between King Street (to the south) and Phillip Street (to the north). The eastern side of Gidley Street is predominantly characterised by residential dwellings, with the western side consisting of predominantly open at-grade parking areas mix together by large single storey commercial/bulky goods premises. St Marys Railway Station is located at a distance of 600m from the site with the Great Western Highway approximately 360m to the south. See Appendix No.1- Locality Plan.

The existing building was previously used as a community welfare centre. The site is surrounding by a mixture of land uses including commercial development, open space and residential development.

The Proposed Development

The application seeks approval for following works and use.

Proposed Use

The subject site has been identified by Sydney West Area Health Service for consolidating related health services/facilities within the one location. Services to be provided from the subject site will cover:

· Primary Care & Community Health;

· Community Mental Health; and

· Community Drug and Alcohol.

These services are currently being carried out in the St Marys community at Shop No. 5 Corner of Phillip & East Lane St Marys and 42 Gidley St, St Marys and that no additional service is proposed.

Proposed Works

· Refurbishment and upgrade of internal areas at ground floor and first floor level;

· Addition at ground floor level involving the extension of an existing single storey element at the rear of the building;

· Minor addition at first floor level to accommodate new access arrangements between levels (i.e. new lift and stairs) to meet BCA and Disability

· Discrimination Act 1992 access requirements;

· Infill of ground floor window along northern elevation;

· New egress fire door to existing rear brick fence;

· Removal of planted rear courtyard area to accommodate ground floor extensions;

· Provision of seven (7) onsite car spaces including an accessible parking space; and

· The proposed hours of operation are 8:30am to 5:30pm Monday to Friday.

See Appendix No.2 –Architectural Plans.

The applicant has described the proposed use as follows:

“St Marys Community Health Centre (CHC) will be a multi-function centre offering a range of centre-based ‘outreach’ and ‘inreach’ programs designed to improve or maintain the health and wellbeing of the community served. Key service providers to be accommodated will be Primary Care & Community Health, Community Mental Health and Drug & Alcohol Services.

These services will provide a core range of community services for people of all ages including assessment and treatment services (such as Child & Family Health nursing, allied health and counselling services), health promotion, prevention, and early detection and intervention services.

Community Mental Health services includes the provision of core ambulatory and home-based mental health services (including acute management) for children and adolescents, adults and aged people.

Services provided include:

· regular appointments in the centre, in the client’s home or in the community as arranged psychological interventions for specific issues

· medical interventions including prescription and administration of psychotropic medications and medical reviews

· provision of information about and referral to community services and non-government organisations

· group rehabilitation activities

· support, information and/or education for families, friends or carers

· skills training

The Area Mental Health Service is responsible for the delivery of the bulk of community mental health services including those for children and adolescents, adults and all ages. Child and Youth Mental Health services Specialised Mental Health Services for Older People will be located at the Penrith CHC with outreach to St Marys CHC. Other specialist services will be provided through St Marys as an outreach from Penrith CHC and Nepean Hospital.

Drug and Alcohol Services will be delivered from the St Marys Community Hub to provide evidenced-based management of consumers with substance misuse problems. These services will provide a core range of community services for people of all ages – either directly or indirectly affected by substance use issues – including on site assessment and counselling services, as well as linkages to other appropriate services within the Drug and Alcohol Network, other Networks, and NGO Services as required.

The Drug and Alcohol services to be provided represent only a small component of the proposed integrated community health facility being proposed. To remove any doubt and dispel any misunderstandings, the Drug and Alcohol services to be provided will not involve any drug dosing or drug administration. The nature of the Drug and Alcohol Services is generally non-invasive and will primarily involve counselling of patients and support in becoming a contributing member of society.”

The following reports have accompanied the subject development application and used throughout the planning assessment:

· Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment

· Stormwater and Sediment and Erosion Control report

· Arboricultural Impact Assessment

· Accessibility Review

· BCA Assessment Report

· Social Impact Assessment Report

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) – The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP 2007)

Division 10 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 relates specifically with ‘health services facilities’ and in accordance with clause 57(1) development for the purpose of ‘health services facilities’ may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone. The proposal, which involves establishing a health services facility within an existing building that is located on land in a prescribed zone, is accordingly permissible subject to Council consent.

A health service facility is defined under the Infrastructure SEPP as:

‘...a facility used to provide medical or other services relating to the maintenance or improvement of the health, or the restoration to health, of persons or the prevention of disease in or treatment of injury to persons, and includes the following:

(a) day surgeries and medical centres,

(b) community health service facilities,

(c) health consulting rooms,

(d) facilities for the transport of patients, including helipads and ambulance facilities,

(e) hospitals.’

The proposed use of the existing building is considered to fall within the above definition, in particular as community health service facilities.

Under clause 57(1) of the SEPP 2007, development for the purpose of ‘community health services facilities’ may be carried out by any purpose with consent on land in a prescribed zone. The subject site is located within zone No 2 (d) Residential (Medium Density) under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land), which equates to the R3 Medium Density Residential ‘prescribed zone’ under the Infrastructure SEPP. Accordingly, as the proposed use of the building is for a community health services facility and the site is located on land in a prescribed zone, the proposed development is classified as ‘development permitted with consent’.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997)

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Relevant to the proposal is the requirement to assess potential impacts on water quality. There will be a requirement for suitable sedimentation and erosion controls to be in place prior to any site work commencing. This will provide adequate guarantee that water quality leaving the site is suitable for its receiving environment. The provisions of the SREP 20 are therefore considered to be satisfied.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

LEP and Zone Objectives

The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP. The particular objectives of the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone are as follows:

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

(ii) to protect the character of traditional cottage development and streetscapes, and

(iii) to consolidate population and housing densities, and

(iv) to expand housing choices by allowing multi-unit housing up to a two storey appearance, and

(v) to promote a variety of housing types or forms upon each site, and

(vi) to allow a range of compatible non-residential uses.

The zoning allows for a range of compatible non residential land uses. The objectives of the plan are to ensure that non-residential development is planned and designed according to principles of traditional suburban design with the intent to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties, as well as to the neighbourhood character.

It is considered that the proposed use is in keeping the existing character of the area and is a compatible non-residential use consistent with the above relevant objectives

Development Standards

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant development standards contained in the LEP relating to multi-unit housing and development generally in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone, as detailed below.

*Development Standards*	*Requirement*	*Compliance*
Clause 12(3) – Building Envelope	1.8m from property boundary and 45^oheight plane.	No: Both the existing and proposed additions to the rear do not comply with the Building Envelope development standards. Refer to discussion regarding SEPP No. 1 objection.
Clause 12(3) – External Wall Height	6.5m	No: 10m –Refer to discussion regarding SEPP No. 1 objection.
Clause 12(3) – Landscaped Area	40%	No: Existing 3%, Proposed zero percentage. Refer to discussion regarding SEPP No. 1 objection.
Clause 12(4) – Rear Setback	6m for 2 storey and 4m for single storey.	No: Part of the existing building has zero setbacks to the rear boundary and part has a 6m rear setback. The resulting development does not involve alterations or extensions that encroach within 6m of the rear boundary; however the rear setback area will continue to be used for access purposes and not as a landscaped area. Refer to discussion regarding Clause 12(7) and SEPP No. 1 objection.
Clause 13(2) – Solar Access	§ 3 hours direct sun to living areas. § 3 hours direct sun to neighbouring living areas.	The proposed additions and alterations do not result in any additional overshadowing impacts on the adjacent residential dwellings.

Clause 12(7) - Rear setback requirement

Clause 12 (7) states that Council may consent to the erection of a related non-habitable structure which is not compliant with the required rear building setback provided it will only have minimal adverse impact on the site and any adjoining land. In this regard, the existing a section of the covered car park has a zero setback to the rear boundary where as the open car parking area is setback more than 6m. The proposed alterations or extensions do not encroach within 6m of the rear boundary or result in any new/additional impacts on the neighbouring properties and therefore is considered compliant with the requirement of this clause.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

The proposed development does not comply with Council’s development standards relating to the maximum external wall height of a building and the minimum landscaped area of a site. In this regard, Clause 12(3) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land) stipulates that in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone the maximum allowable external wall height of a building is 6.5m and the minimum required landscaped area of a site is 40%. The proposed development includes a maximum external wall height of 10m (both existing and proposed extensions) and a no landscaped area, representing proposed variations from the relevant development standards of 35% and 100% respectively.

The application was accompanied with a written objection to the development standards contained in Clause 12(3) of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1). SEPP 1 enables councils to consider development proposals that do not comply with a particular development standard where in the circumstances of the case the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the standard to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

Section 4(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 defines development standards as follows:

development standards means provisions of an environmental planning instrument or the regulations in relation to the carrying out of development, being provisions by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements or standards in respect of:

(c) the character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design or external appearance of a building or work,

(f) the provision of public access, open space, landscaped space, tree planting or other treatment for the conservation, protection or enhancement of the environment

Based on this definition, it is considered that Council’s requirements relating to the maximum external wall height of a building and the minimum landscaped area of a site can be categorised as development standards. Council is therefore able to consider the SEPP 1 objection submitted by the applicant.

External Wall Height

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the maximum allowable external wall height of a building (6.5m) in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone is summarised below.

· “In this instance strict compliance with height development standards pursuant to Clause 12 of the Penrith (Urban Land) LEP is unnecessary and unreasonable in that the proposal:

· Relates to an existing site where compliance is not currently achieved;

· Does not increase the existing level of non-compliance;

· Does not result in additional impacts to privacy, overshadowing, or view loss;

· Provides for the adaptive re-use of an existing vacant building, which will enable a health services facility to be established on the site; and

· Provides significant social, economic, and public benefits.

In the context of existing siting and massing of development on the site and the minor alterations and additions proposed (which are contained within the profile of the building and do not encroach upon the existing ‘rear’ boundary setback), there is not likely to be any adverse impact to existing views or outlook experienced from the adjoining residential property.

The proposed minor additions and alterations do not result in any additional overshadowing impacts on adjacent residential dwellings

The proposed works will not cause any additional undue overlooking or privacy issues for surrounding residential dwellings. It is unlikely that surrounding residents will notice any change between the proposed use of the building as a health services facility and the previous use of the building by the Department of Community Services.

Given there are no significant changes proposed to the key visible facades of the existing building, there will accordingly be no change to the existing building’s contribution to the streetscape or character of the area.

Furthermore, the application of residential built form outcomes on the subject site is considered unreasonable in the context of the existing commercial form of development on the site, as well as adjoining the site. Similarly to achieving compliance with the height controls would be for the existing building to be demolished and a significantly smaller building erected on the subject site. Such a solution is not reasonable, practical, or financially feasible and would not in any event provide the health services facility with the necessary floor area to support the integrated health care model sort to be achieved.

In conclusion, the proposed development will not adversely affect the existing level of amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.”

Clause 12(2) of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) defines the external wall height of a building as follows:

“external wall height” of a building means the vertical distance measured between natural ground level at any point at which the building is sited and the topmost point of any external or enclosing wall within the development site, but excluding the sides and faces of any dormer windows…

In this regard, the height of the proposed extensions to the rear is compatible with existing building as the height and bulk and will achieve only minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy and views. The shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate there will be no additional impacts on adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing. See Appendix No.3 - Shadow Diagrams.

Landscaped Area

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the minimum landscaped area of a site in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone is reproduced below.

· “Compliance with the minimum landscaped area pursuant to Clause 12 of the Penrith (Urban Land) LEP is unnecessary and unreasonable in that the proposal:

· Relates to an existing site where compliance is not achieved;

· Involves alterations and additions to an existing commercial building, which has significantly different landscaping requirements than a residential dwelling;

· Will not affect the existing commercial character of the site or its contribution to the area;

· Is located in close proximity to expansive parkland areas;

· Relates to a site which is devoid of environmental features; and

· Will not affect existing on-site stormwater arrangements on the site.

The landscaping controls that apply to the subject site reflect outcomes consistent with its ‘residential’ zone. The site’s ‘residential’ zoning does not however give an accurate portrayal of the current development on the site, which is a large two storey brick building that has in the past been used for non-residential purposes. The proposed development seeks to continue the site’s historic non-residential use, through establishing a health services facility together with minor alterations and additions.

The only way for a health services facility to be established on the site which complies with the relevant landscaping controls would be if the existing building were demolished and a new significantly smaller building erected on the site with a site coverage of only 60% enabling 40% of the site to be dedicated for landscaping.

The requirement to provide at least 40% of the site as a landscaped area is at significant odds with actual requirements for the proposed health services facility. Whilst beneficial for workers and visitors to have access to an outdoor landscaped area, it is not considered reasonable for 40% of the site to be dedicated as a landscaped area. The landscape/private open space needs of staff/visitors for a health services facility are very different to that of residents.

Further, whilst not provided on-site, staff and visitors will have access to a large and expansive parkland area only metres away across Chapel Street, with an even larger park (Bennett Park) located to the south less than 150m away.

The subject site does not contain visible environmental features which are characteristic of the surrounding residential zone (e.g. the site does not contain landscaped front or rear gardens). As noted, the site contains a relatively large non-residential building and hardstand areas occupying the majority of the site. The retention and re-use of the existing building, together with confining the majority of proposed external works to the rear and least visible side of the site, will not therefore undermine the continued protection of the broader environmental features found throughout the surrounding residential area.”

Clause 12(2) of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) defines the landscaped area of a site as follows:

“landscaped area”, of a site, means that part of the site not occupied by a building and which is predominantly landscaped with gardens, lawns, shrubs and trees and is available for the use and enjoyment of the occupants of the site. It does not include areas used for driveways, parking areas, garbage storage areas or any area less than 2 metres wide, except a verge at least 1 metre wide that is located next to a driveway and landscaped with trees and shrubs, but may include a verandah associated with a landscaped area.

It is considered the applicant’s objection is well founded and is consistent with the aims of the SEPP outlined in Clause 3 in that compliance with the standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in this case as it’s an existing non compliance. On site detention is not required and there is very little increase in hardstand areas. Stormwater will be connected into the existing system.

The SEPP 1 objection has adequately addressed the matters prescribed in State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has demonstrated that compliance with the prescribed maximum external wall height and minimum landscaped area would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

2. Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – The Provisions of any Development Control Plan

Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006

Section 2.2 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) aims to ensure development is appropriately designed to reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed. By introducing measures to achieve appropriate natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement and space management, it is anticipated that this will assist in minimising the incidence of crime and contribute to perceptions of increased public safety.

The proposal involves a new use and minor alterations and additions to an existing building therefore there are limited opportunities to improve the buildings existing contribution to minimising and reducing crime.

The existing building is built to boundary along the Chapel Street and Gidley Street boundaries therefore limiting any potential for landscaping and concealed areas. The public (pedestrian) access to the building is from Chapel Street. This entry is via steps and a ramp accessed at the front façade of the building into the reception area which will ensure that people entering the building can be clearly monitored. Existing windows to the Chapel Street and Gidley Street façade positioned along the building’s facade will also support casual surveillance of the street during working hours.

Access to the rear courtyard/parking area is available from either Chapel Street through a roller door. The use of active security systems, such as CCTV and electronic security access will also be in place to provide further capacity for staff to oversee the premises. See Special Condition No. 3.3.

Section 2.4 Erosion and Sediment Control

The proposed development includes provision for appropriate strategies to manage and minimise erosion and sedimentation during the course of the development works.

Section 2.6 Landscape

The subject site has limited opportunity for landscaping, with an existing large two storey commercial building occupying a large proportion of the site, with the remaining area of the site predominately consisting of a hardstand courtyard.

In order to accommodate the proposed minor additions, the existing small garden area (including feature planted trees) will be removed.

Three trees are to be removed as a result of the developments which are located within the rear courtyard area. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report is submitted in support of the proposed additions and extensions.

An assessment of their significance has been undertaken in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report which concludes that whilst the trees would be a mix of high and low significance under normal conditions, due to their low visual amenity within an enclosed courtyard they are of moderate significance. In summary, the report concludes that the trees to be removed are not sustainable within the context of the proposed development.

Section 2.9 Waste Planning

The application has been accompanied by a waste management plan and it suitably describes the likely waste generation of the proposal and identifies appropriate actions to manage the generation, storage and disposal of wastes.

Section 2.11 Car Parking

No specific parking rates for community health centres are listed in Penrith DCP 2006. The DCP requires that in the absence of specific requirements relevant to particular developments, the provisions of the RTA “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” and Australian Standard AS2890.1-2004 should be referred to as a guide.

The development proposes a gross floor area (GFA) of 1007m² comprising both the “office use” and the “medical centre” use. The entire first floor area is for office and administration use as demonstrated on the plans submitted with the application and it is considered to be appropriate in this case to use parking rates for ‘office use’ for area principally used for administration use.

The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA)’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments requires parking for “medical centres” at a rate of 4 spaces per 100m² gross floor area (GFA) and a 1 car space per 40m² gross floor area.

The car parking requirement for the development is calculated as follows:

Medical Centres and Offices 540m² = 21.6 spaces

Admin/ Office 467m² = 11.7 spaces

Total car spaces required are 33 spaces

The applicant has provided a Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment Report in support of the application based on the above requirements.

The Traffic Report shows the following calculation:

Medical Centres and Offices 540m² = 16.3 spaces (reduced as per the car travel rates in St Marys)*

Office 467m2 = 11.7 spaces

Total car spaces required are 28 spaces

(* reduced as per car travel rates in St Marys is applied based on the travel modes of people employed in the for the St Marys area, i.e. only 39-53% people travel to work by car).

The applicant has provided the following justification for the reduction in car parking rates.

“Availability of public transport

· There are a number of regular public bus services with stops close to the site.

· Bus services provide connections in all directions of travel, including St Marys,

Penrith and Mt Druitt train stations.

· The site is located within a 600 m walk from the St Marys train station. This is within the station's catchment area, typically considered to be of 800 m radius.

· Service frequencies are approximately 10 to 20 minutes in each direction during the commuter peak periods. The site is well services by rail transport.

· No dedicated bicycle paths are provided around the site. Cyclists use vehicular roadways and footpaths.

· The area topography around the site allows for convenient bicycle connections.

· Paved footpath connections are provided between the site and public transport stops.

· The area topography around the site allows for convenient pedestrian connections.

Public car parks nearby

· There are over 350 vacant spaces within close walking distance from the site.”

Council’s Senior Traffic Officer has reviewed the application including the applicant’s traffic report and has provided the following comments:-

· “Availability of public transport is acknowledged

· Walking/cycling options is acknowledged, however, bike parking/end of trip facilities not noted on plans.

· Public car parks nearby is acknowledged, however not appropriate for clients with reduced mobility/parents with prams.

· Availability of on-street parking; - The subject lot does not benefit from on-street parking being a corner lot at a roundabout intersection. 1 hour on-street parking is available adjacent to and opposite the proposal in Gidley Street, however, adjacent parking is frequently used by clients to the adjacent premises.

· The previous use of the building on the subject lot has been by Department of Youth and Community Services, for which 17 spaces were paid for in contributions which justified the shortage on-site.

· The reduced rate assessed as per car travel rates in St Marys is not considered in parking calculations, as the parking rate for a business area considers car travel rates.

It is noted that the St Marys Town Centre S94 Contributions Plan does not apply to this site.

The traffic report estimates that 53 vehicle trips (in/out - 26 vehicles) in the morning and afternoon peak periods will be generated by the development. The potential traffic generated by the development in peak hours will not have an adverse effect on current traffic operations in the City Centre locality.

Justification provided for the shortage is acknowledged in part, however the shortfall is substantial with no S94 contributions applicable in this case.”

The extent of reduced car travel rates applied by the applicant is not agreed. The total spaces required for the proposal remains as 33 car spaces.

The proposal provides for 7 on site car parking spaces, however as discussed in the Traffic Officer’s comments, a consent dated 24 October 1985 was approved for the construction of a two-storey commercial office building to be used Department of Community Services on the subject site, where by 17 car spaces were paid for in contributions.

The parking demand for the use of the building was calculated to be 29 spaces, 12 of which were provided on site and the remaining 17 spaces were public car spaces paid for as contributions.

The payment of the sum of $67,150 for acquisition and construction of car parking facilities for the 17 car spaces was paid on 12 June 1987 to Council. The site therefore has credit of 17 car spaces in the public car park.

In summary, the proposal provides 7 spaces against the required 33 spaces with a shortfall of 26 spaces and given that the site benefits from a credit of 17 car spaces, the actual shortfall therefore is of 9 car spaces.

It is noted that the St Marys Town Centre S94 Contributions Plan does no longer apply to this site and even if these contributions were applicable to the site, Council is unable to levy Section 94 contributions for Crown development in accordance with the Department of Planning Circular D6.

Circular D6 was introduced in 1993 by the former Department of Urban Affairs and Planning ('DUAP') and updated in 1995. The circular provides policy direction regarding appropriate conditions of consent, in particular, the limitations on imposition of levies on Crown Developments where an application proposes a public service or a facility that leads to significant benefits for the public in terms of essential ‘community service’ and employment opportunities.

Furthermore, the proposed development will centralise the services that are already provided and relied upon by the community in one location. The parking arrangements in the existing two existing community health facilities are as follows:

1. No. 42 Gidley Street (converted dwelling house) provides 8 off-street parking spaces. Any additional parking demand is met on-street or within the large public car parks to the west.

2. Shop 5 (corner of Phillip St and East Lane) does not provide any specific off-street parking spaces. Any parking demand associated with the facility (bearing in mind its proximity to the train station) is met through on-street parking or within the surrounding public car parks.

In summary the parking arrangement is similar to the two existing facilities operating in the area, which is highly reliant on public transport and availability of public car parking.

The proposed development as argued by the applicant will result in improved benefits for the public in terms of providing an essential ‘community service’. It is considered that the socio- economic benefits that the proposed development will provide to the local and regional community need to be given adequate consideration in respect to the non-compliance in car parking numbers.

3. Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Provisions of the Regulations

There are no regulations applicable to the proposed development.

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

(i) Context and Setting

The subject site is a corner site and is located on the fringe of a mix of low to medium density residential development to the north and south-east of the site and the land to the west of the site has been developed for commercial uses.

The development has two separate road frontages to Chapel Street and Gidley Street to the north and the western side of the site and the site abuts a two storey commercial building to the south. This location limits the number of residences which directly abut the site, thereby limiting the impacts such as privacy, over looking and over shadowing on the adjoining buildings.

(ii) Social Impacts

The proposed development is intended to offer an integrated approach to meet the health services of the community with particular focus on families, children, the youth and the disadvantaged.

The key service providers to be accommodated will be Primary Care & Community Health Centre (CHC), Community Mental Health and Drug & Alcohol Services.

The Area Mental Health Service is responsible for the delivery of the bulk of community mental health services including those for children and adolescents, adults and all ages. Children and youth mental health services, specialised mental health services for older people will be located at the Penrith CHC with outreach to St Marys CHC. Other specialist services will be provided through St Marys as an outreach from Penrith CHC and Nepean Hospital.

Drug and Alcohol Services will be delivered from the St Marys Community hub to provide evidenced-based management of consumers with substance misuse problems. These services will provide a core range of community services for people of all ages – either directly or indirectly affected by substance use issues – including on site assessment and counselling services, as well as linkages to other appropriate services within the Drug and Alcohol Network, other Networks, and NGO Services as required.

A condition is recommended to ensure the nature of the Drug and Alcohol Services is non-invasive and no drug dosing or drug administration takes place in the centre. See Special Condition No.3.2.

Council’s Social Planner (Community and Cultural Development Team) has reviewed the proposed development with regard to social impacts and has provided the following comments in this regard:

“The community profile (of St Marys) as it is presented and the statistics published by the Sydney West Area Health as referred in the Social Impact Assessment Report, it is believed that a Health Facility as proposed will be of benefit to the local community though the facility itself will have a much wider catchment area.

In terms of the social impact of the proposed facility on the area, it is believed that it will not pose a major adverse impact on the area as it involves an amalgamation of two existing health services which are currently operating in the area. The integrated service model delivery as proposed is worth supporting as it will deliver a better outcome for the patients and the community at large.”

The provision of the above services in one central location will assist with improving access and convenience for users and make a positive impact to the quality and quantum and spectrum of health services available to the wider community.

Accessibility

The application was accompanied by an Access Report prepared Accessibility Solutions. This report provides advice and strategies to maximise reasonable provisions of access to the proposed development for people with disabilities. These requirements relate to matters such as ingress and egress, paths of travel, circulation areas and accessible toilets.

The Access Report recommends a series of measures to be incorporated into the detailed construction design plans for the proposal to ensure an appropriate degree of accessibility for the development. Each of the recommendations in the Access Report is capable of being incorporated into the detailed construction design plans for the proposal. This matter can be conditioned accordingly.

In addition, it should be noted that the application was referred to Council’s Access Committee for comment. The Access Committee considered the matter at its meeting held on 2 February 2011 and raised the following issues:

· Safe path of travel from car park

· Wheelchair accessible car park spaces

· The grade of the ramp off Chapel Street into the building

· Vehicular entry via the roller door

· Lack of parking

· The first floor accessible toilet does not comply

· Handrails at entry stairs should not protrude out of the property boundary

It should be noted that the Commonwealth’s Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards (the Premises Standards) made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) that applies to all new building work and to “affected parts” of existing buildings came in force from 1 May 2011.

The proposal does involve works to an existing building, however as the application was lodged prior to the commencement of this code and as there are there are no transitional provisions that apply to the introduction of the new Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, the news works are not captured by this legislation.

The Premises Standards, which establish new requirements for access to buildings, are incorporated into the Building Code of Australia (BCA), also from 1 May 2011.

The applicant has however submitted amended plans to be compliant with Australian Standard 1428 – Design for Access and Mobility however the issue of the travel distance from the accessible car park to the building and the minor non compliance with the grade of the ramp off Chapel Street into the building are issued remaining to be addressed. Compliance with these issues is capable of being incorporated into the detailed construction design plans for the proposal as there is opportunity to improve the access as part of the alterations and additions to the building. This matter can be conditioned accordingly. See special condition No 3.4.

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

The zoning allows for a range of compatible non residential land uses. The neighbourhood character comprises of a mix of residential and commercial/retail uses including health facilities. The site is located on the border of a high residential density zone with commercial/ retail uses on the opposite side, west of Gidley Street. Gidley Street acts as the eastern edge to the St Marys commercial/ retail precinct with predominately residential dwellings located beyond Gidley Street to the east.

A number of non residential uses located on the eastern side of Gidley Street (residential zone) including a two storey commercial office building south of the subject site which currently accommodates tax accountant’s office and the Nepean area Disability Organisation (NADO). Several other non- residential uses in the zone along Gidley Street is the St Marys Community Mental Heath Centre at No. 42 Gidley and Mission Australia – Child and Family Centre at No. 50 Gidley Street.

The proposed use is to operate from an existing building previously approved for the Department of Community Services a similar non residential land use. It is considered that the proposed use is in keeping the existing character of the area and is a compatible non residential use consistent with the above relevant objectives.

The neighbourhood character comprises of a mix of residential and commercial/retail uses including health facilities. A number of non residential uses are located on the eastern side of Gidley Street including a two storey commercial office building south of the subject and several other similar types of non- residential uses such as the St Marys Community Mental Heath Centre and Mission Australia – Child and Family Centre are also established in the area.

The subject site has previously been used for the purposes of a community facility. This form of development is considered particularly suited to the site given it has two separate road frontages which limits impacts on residential neighbours. The site attributes are therefore considered conducive to the development proposal. It is also considered that the proposal has been designed in a manner consistent with the character of the locality.

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

Community Consultation

In accordance with Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposed development has been advertised in the local newspapers and notified to nearby and adjoining residents. The application was advertised between 25 March and 8 April 2009. A site notice was also placed on the site.

Council received 2 submissions with 4 signatories in response to the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and considered below.

Lack of onsite parking

This matter has been discussed earlier under Section 3 of this report.

Negative Social Impacts

The proposal involves the consolidation of two existing health services in St Marys to one central location. Council is not aware on any negative social impacts arising from the two existing centres in the area.

Drug Dosing on site

A condition is recommended to ensure the nature of the Drug and Alcohol Services is non-invasive and no drug dosing or drug administration takes place in the centre. See Special Condition No.3.2.

Referrals

The table below summarises the results of internal referrals in relation to the proposal:

*Referral*	*Comments*
Building Surveyor	No objection, subject to building upgrade for fire resistance/egress and energy efficiency.
Development Engineer	No objection, other than lack of parking spaces
Community & Cultural Development	No objection, other than lack of parking spaces
Access Committee	Amended plans required
Traffic Officer	Justification provided for the shortage is acknowledged in part, however the shortfall is substantial with no S94 recoup.

7. Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

Community facilities are permissible in the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zone and the proposal meets the aims and objectives of the relevant environmental planning instruments. The proposed development is likely to improve the overall appearance of the site.

The properties in the immediate vicinity of the site were notified of the development proposal. In considering the issues raised in the resident submissions, it is unlikely that the proposed development will adversely impact on adjoining residents, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Conclusion

The proposal involves the consolidation of two existing health services in St Marys to one central location. The proposal will be a multi-function centre offering a range of centre-based ‘outreach’ and ‘inreach’ programs designed to improve or maintain the health and wellbeing of the community. Key service providers to be accommodated will be Primary Care & Community Health, Community Mental Health and Drug & Alcohol Services.

The major issue of this development proposal is the provision of on site car parking requirements. The proposal provides a public benefit in terms of providing an essential ‘community service’. It is considered that the social benefits resulting from the proposal justify the car parking departures.

In terms of the social impacts of the proposed facility on the area, it is believed that it will not pose a major adverse impact on the area as it involves an amalgamation of two existing health services which are currently operating in the area. The subject site has previously been used for the purposes of a community facility. The site is considered particularly suited to the site given it has two separate road frontages which limits impacts on residential neighbours.

The proposal offers an integrated service delivery model that will assist in improving access and convenience for users and make a positive impact to the quality and quantum and spectrum of health services available to the wider community. The integrated service model delivery as proposed is worth supporting as it will deliver a better outcome for the patients and the community at large.

The proposed development will lead to significant benefits for the public in terms of providing an essential ‘ community service’ and socio economic benefits that the proposed development will provide to the local and regional community are considered to outweigh with respect to the minor non compliance in the car parking numbers.

Having regard for all of the relevant matters, it is considered that the proposed development is capable, subject to the enforcement of conditions, of operating in such a manner as to present only minimal adverse impacts on the local community. The concerns raised by the submitters are acknowledged, however, on balance, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory and the grounds of objection are not considered sufficient to justify refusal of the Development Application.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA11/0025 Proposed Health Facility Lot 2 DP 157408 (No. 26) Gidley Street, St Marys be received

2. The objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to the minimum landscaped area and maximum external wall height provisions under Clause 12(3) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) be supported

3. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA11/0025 Proposed Health Facility Lot 2 DP 157408 (No. 26) Gidley Street, St Marys be approved subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1 A001 Approved plans

A029 Hours of operation and delivery times

A039 Graffiti

D001 Implement approved sediment and erosion control measures

D009 Covering of waste storage area

E003 Structural alterations

E006 Disabled access and facilities

E009 Annual fire safety – essential fire safety (Class 2-9 buildings)

E01A BCA compliance for Class 2-9

G002 Section 73

G004 Integral Energy

H001 Stamped plans and erection of site notice (Class 2-9)

H002 Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of construction works

H003 Traffic safety during construction

H006 Implement waste management plan

H041 Hours of construction work

K221 Access car parking and manoeuvring

Q001 Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Special Conditions

3.2 The Drug and Alcohol Services is to be non-invasive and no drug dosing or drug administration (methadone) in relation to the Drug and Alcohol Service shall take place in the centre. Medication may be administered as part of the Mental Health and Community Health Services

3.3 A closed circuit television (CCTV) system shall be installed at the entrance/exit to the Health Services Facility prior the occupation of the building

3.4 Amended plans are required to be submitted to ensure that the accessible car space is located close to the entry foyer/entrance to the centre and the grade of the ramp off Chapel Street into the building is be compliant with Australian Standard 1428 – Design for Access and Mobility

3.5 Car parking areas shall be well lit in accordance with relevant Australian Standards

3.6 Automatic gates or roller door to be installed at the entrance to the car park area and shall be kept locked outside of normal business hours and/or controlled by a swipe card system (or similar)

3.7 The individuals who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision and of the consideration given to their concerns.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Locality Plan	1 Page	Appendix
2.	Architectural Plans	5 Pages	Appendix
3.	Shadow Diagrams	3 Pages	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A City of Opportunities

Development Application DA11/0121 Proposed dwelling addition at Lot 270 DP 250485 (No. 5) Malabine Place, South Penrith Applicant: Michael O'Brien; Owner: Michael O'Brien

Compiled by: Christopher Hawkins, 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 construction of a dwelling addition. The application seeks to vary the 50% landscaped area and 4 metre rear setback requirements of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands). The application is supported by objections under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to these development standards.

In accordance with Planning Circular PS08-014 issued by the Department of Planning on 14 November 2008, the subject application is reported to Council as the variation to the Development Standard exceeds 10%. It has been noted that the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has recently allowed Penrith City Council to consider applications where a variation exceeds a Development Standard up to 25%. The proposal exceeds this threshold and is reported to Council in accordance with the Circular.

The proposed addition comprises a family rumpus room, additional bedroom, laundry and alfresco area. The site is in a cul-de-sac with a slight cross fall from the rear boundary to the street.

The objectives of the Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands 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 dwelling achieves these objectives by providing an innovative and site responsive development that compliments the surrounding area and minimises impacts on adjoining properties.

The SEPP 1 objection has demonstrated full compliance with the landscape and rear setback requirement is unreasonable due to the irregular shape of the site, the proposal having minimal impacts on adjoining properties, and the precedence set by other similar developments in the locality. The variations to the planning instrument and the proposed dwelling addition are unlikely to have any significant impact on the amenity and locality of the area.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located at the bottom of Malabine Place which is a Cul-de-sac. The site is approximately 650m² in area and has a Southerly orientation. The site is relatively level with a fall of 200mm from the north-western corner to the street. The site is currently occupied by a single storey, brick veneer dwelling, detached garage and swimming pool. (See Appendix No. 1 – Locality Plan).

The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of single and two storey dwellings of varying scales.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development is for the construction of additions in the rear yard consisting of a family/rumpus room, additional bedroom, laundry and alfresco area (see Appendix No. 2 – Site & Elevations).

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

· Engineers details

· Specifications booklet

· BASIX certificate

· Waste Management Plan

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 (SEPP 1)

Two objections to development standards contained within LEP 1998 (Urban Lands) have been lodged in accordance with the provisions of this State Environmental Planning Policy. One is to vary the minimum landscape area requirement; the other seeks approval to vary the minimum rear setback requirement as shown in the following table.

	Minimum required under LEP	Proposed	Extent of Variation
Rear Setback	4.0 metres	2.67 – 3.48 m	33% - 13%
Landscaping	50%	45%	10%

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 Landscaped Area

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(3). The relevant clause states:

“The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building in Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a), 2(b) 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e) unless the building is wholly within the building envelope, does not contravene the maximum external wall height or minimum landscaped area.

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval for the construction of a dwelling addition with a landscaped area of 45%. This variation proposes a departure of 10% from the development standard.

Assessment of the proposal took into account similar development in the area and site constraints. The overarching constraint affecting the site is the narrow street frontage. This restricts the attainable landscaping in the front yard and results in the dwelling being pushed back placing pressure on rear landscape corridor. The existing swimming pool in the rear yard and the proposed alfresco area matches the development pattern in the immediate vicinity and provides an area for the use and enjoyment of the occupants. As the addition to the existing dwelling is single storey the proposal will maintain privacy to the adjoining properties and considering the restrictive nature of the site the application demonstrates that compliance with the objectives of the LEP.

Variation of rear setback

“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), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e), 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 the construction of a dwelling addition with rear setback of 2670mm extending to 3485mm (an encroachment of 1330mm to 515mm). This variation proposes a departure of 33% from the development standard.

Assessment of SEPP 1 Objections

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(b) Residential (low density) are as follows:

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

The proposed dwelling addition is positioned so as to minimise the amount of vegetation required to be removed and to allow for sufficient landscape works to be completed within the rear setback. The proposal does not involve the removal of any trees. The site is not identified as being in a Heritage Conservation Area.

“(ii) to promote the established urban and landscape character of traditional residential subdivisions by limiting the range of permissible uses.”

The existing allotment is irregular in shape and is more constrained. A dwelling is a permissible land use.

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

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

The objectives for Section 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 rear setback requirements.

Lot 270 is an irregular shaped allotment, where there is more than one rear boundary. The encroachment into the rear setback is considered to satisfy the objectives of this control by being compatible with existing established housing in the locality. The visual impacts of the addition are considered to be minimal as the proposed works are in the rear yard, single storey and not visible from the street.

Landscaping to the rear of the dwelling can still occur. The rear setback will still allow for appropriate establishment of landscaping. This landscaping can occur and not compromise the setback encroachment.

Minimal overshadowing to neighbouring properties will occur due to the orientation of the dwelling and lower wall heights. A larger setback would have no impact on improving solar access on neighbouring properties.

The privacy impacts of the rear setback encroachment are considered to be negligible when compared to a 4m rear setback. Windows facing the boundary as for low stay rooms (bedroom and laundry) which will cause minimal privacy impacts on neighbours.

The rear setback will have minimal impacts to any adjoining property in relation to loss of privacy or views. Suitable separation to other buildings is also maintained. No site environmental features are affected by the addition or the encroachment into the rear setback (such as removal of significant trees).

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

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

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

· The proposed rear setback is consistent with the surrounding area.

· A rear landscape corridor is maintained and minimal loss of privacy is likely to occur as the structure is of single storey construction.

Section 5 - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

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

It is considered that the proposed dwelling addition and rear setback will ensure attainment of the objectives of section (ii) and refusal would be unreasonable in this regard for the following reasons:

· The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of Section 5(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

· The dwelling is reasonable development for the site.

· The proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone.

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 impacts on the total catchment management, water quality and water quantity. No heritage items are located on the site. The dwelling addition 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.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

Under the terms of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) the land is zoned as Zone No 2(b) Residential (Low Density). The proposed development is defined as a dwelling, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone as described in the above SEPP 1 assessment.

Development Standards

Section 12 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands) provides requirements for building envelopes, heights of buildings, landscape areas and rear boundary setbacks for development that requires consent.

Building Envelope and Maximum External Wall Heights

Under Clause 12(3) of the LEP, a building is required to be constructed within the building envelope and maximum external wall heights being 6.5m. The proposed dwelling complies with the maximum external wall heights and building envelope requirements.

Rear Boundary Setback

The minimum rear setback non-compliance has been addressed above in the assessment of the SEPP1 objection.

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. Appendix No. 3 shows the relevant standards and how the dwelling satisfies the requirements of Penrith DCP 2006.

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.

Stormwater is to be directed to the street via a rainwater tank, minimising impacts on adjoining properties.

Appropriate conditions are to be included relating to site management during construction. An appropriate waste management plan has been provided. Hours of work and construction noise will also be subject to consent conditions.

The proposed dwelling is located and designed to make the most economic use of the site and provides minimal adverse impacts to the subject site and adjoining properties.

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

The site is suitable for the construction of a new residential dwelling. 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*
Development Engineer	No objections

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

Under the objectives of the Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands, development is required to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings, protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value, and allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

The subject development application seeks approval to construct a new residential dwelling addition and is supported by SEPP 1 objections seeking a variation of the minimum rear setback requirement and landscaping.

The SEPP 1 objections are supported as it has been demonstrated that the rear setback requirement is unreasonable in this case and that the attainment of the objectives of Clause 5(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will not be hindered by the proposal.

The development is considered satisfactory under the heads of consideration of Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The rear setback variation and the proposed dwelling addition are unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality. Whilst the proposed development application requires variations to 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.

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 DA11/0121 Proposed dwelling addition at Lot 270 DP 250485 (No. 5) Malabine Place, South Penrith be received

2. The SEEP 1 objection relating to landscape area and rear setback be supported

3. Development Application DA11/0121 Proposed dwelling addition at Lot 270 DP 250485 (No. 5) Malabine Place, South Penrith be approved subject to the attached conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1 A001 - Approved Plans

A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A009 – Residential Works DCP

A046 – Issue of Construction Certificate

D007 – Cut and fill of land requiring Validation Certificate

D009 – Covering Waste Storage area

D010 – Waste disposal

E001 – BCA compliance

H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H030 – Roof colours

H041 – Hours of work

L008 – Tree preservation order

P002 - Fees

Q01f – Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q05f - Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

3.2 Erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to the commencement of works on site including approved clearing of site vegetation. The erosion and sediment control measures are to be maintained in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan(s) for the development and the Department of Housing's “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” 2004

(Note: To obtain a copy of the publication, you should contact Landcom on (02) 98418600)

The approved sediment and erosion control measures are to be installed prior to and maintained throughout the construction phase of the development until the land, that was subject to the works, have been stabilised and grass cover established. These measures shall ensure that mud and soil from vehicular movements to and from the site does not occur during the construction of the development

3.3 In accordance with the requirements of clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, you are required to install a hard wired smoke detector in the existing dwelling. This detector is to comply with the requirements of AS3786 and must be located in accordance with 3.7.2 of the Housing Provisions. A certificate from a Licensed Electrician attesting to the installation of the smoke detector is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

3.4 The external finishes of the dwelling are to compliment and blend with the established streetscape and amenity of the area

3.5 No earthworks including cut and fill or building works including a retaining wall, garden shed or other structures of the like are permitted within the easement. The easement is to remain at natural ground level at all times.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

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

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A City of Opportunities

Development Application DA10/0951 Two (2) Lot Subdivision and Construction of a Private Access Road at Lot 2 DP 556036 (No. 61 - 109) Bakers Lane, Kemps Creek Applicant: Catholic Health Care Limited; Owner: Catholic Church (Diocese of Parramatta)

DA10/0951

Compiled by: Steven Chong, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

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

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a Development Application which proposes a subdivision to create two (2) leasehold lots and construction of a private access road.

The subdivision of the site would be carried out in a leasehold arrangement so as to enable Catholic Healthcare Limited to achieve separate land tenure for the Emmaus Aged Care Complex from existing areas containing the existing primary and secondary schools administered by the Catholic Education Office.

The application was lodged prior to the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 on 23 September 2010. In this regard, the Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 – Rural Lands is considered in this assessment and the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 is considered in its draft form only.

Zoning applicable for the assessment of the proposal is 1(a)(Rural ‘A’ Zone General) under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 – Rural Lands. The minimum subdivision requirement is 40 hectares, of which, each lot would not achieve the minimum subdivision requirement.

The application is accompanied with an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standard in respect to Clause 11(2)(a) of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 – Rural Lands. The objection seeks approval to create a leasehold lot having an area of 10.53 hectares to accommodate the Emmaus Aged Care Complex and a second lot with an area of 30.345 hectares for the existing educational establishments. The variation would represent a minimum 25.7% variation to the Development Standard.

The objection, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standard has demonstrated that compliance with the minimum lot size is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances and would meet the objectives of the planning instrument.

The application is defined as Integrated Development under Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The site is identified as bush fire prone land and was consequently referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The RFS provided their bush fire safety authority on 8 April 2011.

An assessment under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken and it is recommended that the SEPP 1 objection be supported and the Development Application be approved, subject to receiving concurrence from the Department of Planning.

Background

Development Consent No.348/86 was initially granted for a Catholic High School at the site in March 1987 followed by a primary school that was approved in May 1993 by virtue of Development Consent No.473/92. The existing retirement village at the site was granted under Development Consent No.429/90 in August 1991.

Development Consent was granted to DA05/0628 in January 2006 for a concept masterplan for an aged care facility at the site. The concept masterplan involved the following components:

· Partial demolition of, and alterations and additions to, the existing Residential Aged Care Facility;

· Construction of additional Independent Living Units (ILU);

· Provision of support facilities and infrastructure;

· Construction of new access road from Baker Lane;

· Construction of internal road network and additional parking facilities; and

· Construction of ancillary drainage, landscaping and bushfire protection measures.

All components conceptually approved under DA05/0628 would need to be approved under separate Development Applications. The Consent was afforded an operational period of five (5) years from the date of determination.

DA06/1108 was granted Development Consent on 30 March 2007, which sought to activate Stage 1 of the approved concept masterplan. The application comprised of a 30 bed single storey residential aged care facility. This consent however had not been activated and has since lapsed.

DA10/1248 was recently granted Development Consent on 13 January 2011 for preparation works for the construction of an internal access road to the rear of the site. This application involved partial construction of an internal access road however no formal connection from Bakers Lane was made.

Site and Surrounds

The site is situated on the northern side of Bakers Lane approximately 1km east of Mamre Road (See Appendix No. 1 – Locality Plan). The site has an area of 40.87 hectares and has a frontage to Bakers Lane of 494 metres to the south, 714 metres to the western boundary, and 537 metres to the northern boundary adjacent to the Sydney Water Pipeline and 895 metres to the eastern boundary.

The site contains the Emmaus Catholic College located on the south-eastern part, Trinity Catholic Primary School located on the south-western part and the Emmaus Retirement Village located on the north-eastern part.

The land on the southern side of Bakers Lane and the adjoining land to the east are rural residential properties containing rural dwellings and open grazing land. These land uses surrounding the site maintain a typical rural setting. Land to the north however, which includes the Sydney Water Pipeline is known as the Erskine Business Park which is characterised with large state significant employment generating development.

Proposed Development

The proposed development involves the following aspects (See Appendix No. 2 – Plan of Subdivision):

Component

Description

Subdivision

§ The proposal involves subdividing Lot 2 DP 556036 to create an additional leasehold lot.

§ The remaining lot (Proposed Lot 102) would have a total site area of 30.345 hectares and accommodate the Emmaus Catholic College and Trinity Catholic Primary School operated by the Catholic Education Office.

§ Proposed leasehold Lot 103 would have a total site area of 10.53 hectares and would accommodate the Emmaus Aged Care Complex operated by Catholic Health Care.

§ The proposed leasehold subdivision will remain in single ownership and allows Catholic Health Care to lease the land from the Diocese of Parramatta - Catholic Church

§ Easements for vehicular access and utilities are to be created to service the respective lots.

Access

§ Construction of a private access road to service the aged care facility along the eastern boundary.

§ The proposed road would be 5.5 metres in width which permits two (2) way access.

§ Access is permitted directly from Bakers Lane at the southern boundary with connection to the existing internal road serving the existing facility.

The purpose of the subdivision is to enable the applicant to construct the approved aged care facility within separate land tenure to the existing uses on the site. The proposed subdivision would be conducted in a leasehold arrangement that enables the existing educational establishments and the aged care facility to be administered by the Catholic Education Office and Catholic Healthcare respectively, both of which are associated entities under the Catholic Church.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Conveyancing Act 1919 provide the statutory framework for the subdivision of land under leasehold purposes.

Section 4B(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides in part: -

“4B Subdivision of land

(1) For the purposes of this Act, subdivision of land means the division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition. The division may (but need not) be effected:

(a) by conveyance, transfer or partition, or

(b) by any agreement, dealing, plan or instrument rendering different parts of the land available for separate occupation, use or disposition.”

The proposed subdivision involves the division of one (1) lot to create an additional lot for Catholic Health Care to lease the land from the Diocese of Parramatta - Catholic Church. The additional lot allows for the separate administration of the aged care facility by Catholic Health Care and the existing schools by the Catholic Education Office.

Section 23G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 provides that should a lease of an existing lot exceed more than five (5) years in duration, Development Consent for subdivision is required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It should be noted that the legislation does not impose a time limit for the leasing period.

A leasehold subdivision differs from a Torrens Title Subdivision in that the proposed lot remains under the same ownership and cannot be disposed of under a separate title.

Planning Assessment

The following planning instruments are considered in the assessment of the proposed development: -

· Sydney Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP1)

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 - Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No 2 -1997);

· Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201- Rural Lands;

· Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008; and

· Penrith Development Control Plan 2006.

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows: -

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

(a) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River (SREP 20) applies to the subject land and stipulates that the consent authority shall not grant consent to an application unless it is of the opinion that the carrying out of the development is consistent with any relevant, general and specific aim of SREP 20 and that any impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context.

The proposed subdivision would not compromise the health or environment of the river system given the erosion and sediment control measures to be incorporated during construction.

An application under the previous Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 for a Part 3A permit was issued by the then Department of Natural Resources, which included conditions to address drainage, stormwater and water quality devices.

In this regard, the approved concept masterplan had previously addressed the provisions of SREP 20 and therefore, the site would be suitably managed in this respect.

(b) Penrith Local Environmental Plan No. 201 - Rural Lands

The Penrith Local Environmental Plan No.201 – Rural Lands (PLEP 201) applied to the subject site at the time of lodgement of the application and therefore, an assessment under this plan is made.

The site was zoned 1(a)(Rural ‘A’ Zone - General) under PLEP 201. Subdivision of the site is permitted with the consent of Council by virtue of Clause 10.

The construction of the private access road would be permitted only with Development Consent.

Clause 38 details the requirements for permissibility of the approved aged care facility at the subject site as follows: -

“38 Development of certain land at Erskine Park

(1) This clause applies to land being Lot 2, DP 556036, Bakers Lane, Erskine Park.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this plan or of State Environmental Planning Policy No 5—Housing for Aged or Disabled Persons, a person may, with the consent of the council, carry out development on land to which this clause applies for the purposes of housing for the aged or disabled.

(3) The council may only grant consent as referred to in subclause (2) if:

(a) satisfactory support facilities and transport facilities will be provided for residents of the development, and

(b) the development is integrated with the other uses on the site and the council is satisfied that the site will be managed by the one organisation.”

The purpose of the subdivision is to enable the applicant to construct the approved aged care facility within separate land tenure to the existing uses on the site. The subdivision would be conducted in a leasehold arrangement that enables the existing educational establishments and the aged care facility to be administered by the Catholic Education Office and Catholic Healthcare respectively, both of which are associated entities under the Catholic Church.

The proposed subdivision therefore, complies with Clause 38.

The objectives of the zone are outlined as follows: -

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

(b) to ensure that development is compatible with the environmental capabilities of the land and to encourage the conservation and enhancement of natural resources by means of appropriate land management techniques, and

(c) to protect productive agricultural and horticultural land which supplies produce to the Sydney markets, and

(d) to protect valuable deposits of extractive materials, and

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

(f) to ensure that traffic generating developments are suitably located so as not to adversely affect the safety and efficiency of roads, and

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

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

(i) to ensure that views from main roads and the rural character of the locality will not be adversely affected, and

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

The site is unique given the existing uses on the site comprising of the primary and high school as well as the aged care facility. The low built form of the existing and proposed buildings are sympathetic to the rural zone. The proposal is unlikely to impact upon the inherent visual quality of the land. On this basis, the proposed subdivision is considered to meet the objectives of the zone.

Clause 11 provides that the minimum subdivision requirement for the subject site is 40 hectares. The proposed lots do not achieve this requirement and as such, the application has been accompanied with an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standard (SEPP 1) in respect to Clause 11(2)(a) of PLEP 201.

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

SEPP 1 aims to provide flexibility in planning controls in circumstances where strict compliance with those development standards would be considered as unreasonable or unnecessary, or hinder the attainment of the objectives prescribed under Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These objects relate to the proper management of resources to promote the welfare of the community and environment, and, to promote the orderly and economic use of development of land.

A SEPP 1 objection to the Development Standard within PLEP 201 has been lodged in support of the application. The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval to create a lease hold subdivision which will create one lot of land having an area of 10.53 hectares and the remainder of the lot will then have an area of 30.35 hectares. Both allotments of the proposed subdivision are less than the required 40 hectares prescribed in Clause 11(2)(a) of PLEP 201. Proposed Lot 102 and Lot 103 represent a 24% and 73% departure respectively from the Development Standard.

The decision of Winten Property Group Ltd v North Sydney Council (2001) NSWLEC 46 identifies the principles for which a SEPP 1 objection must be made and are discussed as follows: -

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

The minimum allotment size is a numerical Development Standard and therefore, is capable of being varied under the provisions of SEPP 1.

What is the underlying purpose of the standard?

PLEP 201 contains a number of key aims which are outlined as follows: -

· Encourage the proper management, development and conservation of valuable natural and man-made resources within the rural lands of Penrith.

· Protect, enhance or conserve the rural character and setting of Penrith and the scenic quality and valuable landscape features of the rural areas.

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

The aims for the PLEP 201 clearly provide for the proper management of rural lands and specifically identify land such as the subject site to ensure the protection and enhancement of the rural character and scenic quality. Moreover, the plan incorporates provisions that prevents the fragmentation of prime agricultural land and minimises demands for the provision or extension of public amenities and services. The aims are further reinforced in the objectives of the 1(a) zone.

The underlying purpose of the Development Standard is to assist in controlling the overall size and arrangement of allotments in the 1(a) Rural zone. The zone is a general rural zoning which provides a minimum subdivision requirement of 40 hectares thereby allowing sufficient area in achieving rural character.

Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act 1979 ?

The objects set out in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) are as follows: -

a) to encourage

i. the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural area, forest, mineral, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment.

ii. the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land…

The applicant in part has provided the following comment:

“The site is not productive agricultural land and the subdivision is not proposed for rural lifestyle use.

The purpose of the subdivision is to identify land within which the approved aged care development will occur and to enable the clear delineation of this land for internal administrative and funding purposes. The development standard prevents this and thus inhibits the implementation of the approved development which is inconsistent with the objects of the SEPP.

Compliance would hinder the attainment of the above objects in that the proposal will permit the aged care facility to be on its own title, thus allowing external funding to be obtained so that the approved extensions to the aged care facility can operate.”

The proposed development is consistent with the objects of the Act and represents the orderly and economic use of the land which is justified in terms of the provision of existing and potential future aged care and disabled housing to the community and the minimal impacts on the nearby agricultural land.

The subject site is characterised from Bakers Lane with a primary and high school which provide for a unique built form when viewed in the rural context, however the minimal bulk and scale together with the topography and existing landscaping ensures that the rural character of the area is maintained.

The approved aged care facility and the proposed subdivision would not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjacent properties or the site.

The proposal satisfies the underlying objectives of the Development Standard and therefore strict compliance with the standard is not required in order to achieve compliance with the objectives.

Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

The applicant in part has provided the following comment:

“The proposal is to subdivide land which is currently development and approved to be further developed for aged care purposes. The site, although located in a rural zone, has been separately identified within the Penrith LEP 201 as being permitted to be developed for the purposes of housing for the aged and disabled. The site is therefore distinctly different from other rural allotments. The subdivision is for the specific purpose of creating a lot for an approved and permissible use of aged care housing. In this regard, is unlikely to set a precedent for further rural subdivision in the Penrith LGA.”

With respect to the above comments, it is considered that strict compliance of the proposal to Clause 11(2) of the PLEP 201 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances as discussed in the following points: -

· The proposal aims to subdivide land which currently accommodates a number of institutional uses and approved for construction of additional aged care dwellings. The site is uniquely identified within the PLEP 201 which permits the land for the purposes of housing for the aged and disabled. The proposed subdivision is for the specific purpose of creating a lot for an approved and permissible use of aged care housing. In this regard, the proposal is unlikely to set a precedent for further rural subdivision in the surrounding area.

· The underlying objective of the Development Standard is to prevent the fragmentation of productive agricultural land, and protect the rural character. It is considered that the subject site has limited potential for productive agricultural land as it is currently developed for the purposes of aged care and educational facilities. The proposed subdivision reflects the approved and permitted use of the land.

· The Western Sydney Employment Area is situated on land to the east and north. A wide range of industrial uses are proposed for the area zoned industrial to the east of the site including the development of the Oakdale Estate containing significant industrial buildings that would support local employment and logistics within the M4/M7 corridor. This area is part of a larger 646 hectare site identified for industrial development to the south of the Sydney Water pipeline.

· Land to the north of the site is known as Erskine Business Park which forms part of the greater Western Sydney Employment Area. The Park contains approximately 500 hectares which is projected in accommodating an employment potential of up to 5,000 jobs. The area surrounding the site is identified as land which is to be developed for employment generating purposes.

· The subdivision of the site is required to enable Catholic Healthcare to have separate land tenure of the existing Emmaus Aged Care Facility. Catholic Healthcare is able to obtain funding that is required to develop the works approved as part of the approved concept masterplan.

· The subdivision of the site does not give rise to the need for additional services or amenities as the site is currently developed for educational and aged care purposes.

· The non-compliance with the Development Standard does not give rise to any adverse environmental impacts. The proposal does not offend the objectives of the Development Standard.

Having regard to the circumstances addressed above, strict numerical compliance would be unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances on the basis that the proposed development achieves compliance with the objectives of the Development Standard.

Is the objection well founded?

The objection to Clause 11(2) is well founded for the following reasons:-

· The proposal is appropriate on this site and necessary to give effect to current use which provides substantial social and economic benefit to the local community for the provision of aged care facilities;

· The development does not undermine the underlying objectives of the standard; and

· The non-compliance does not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The concurrence of the Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning is required because the proposal involves new allotments with greater than 10% departure from the Development Standard and this requirement is a recommendation of this report.

2. Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008

The application was lodged prior to the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (PLEP 2010) on 23 September 2010. Savings provisions included under Clause 1.8A of the PLEP 2010 provide that the application is to be assessed with regard to the planning instruments that were applicable on the day the application was submitted. In this regard, the provisions of PLEP 201 are predominant and those contained in the PLEP 2010 are to be accorded weight as for a draft plan. Therefore, the PLEP 2010 will be referred to throughout this section as draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008 (draft PLEP 2008).

The subject site is to be zoned RU2 Rural Landscape. Pursuant to Clause 2.6, the proposed subdivision is permitted with consent.

The objectives of the of the RU2 zone are generally consistent with the 1(a) zone under the PLEP 201. As discussed previously, the proposed development is considered to meet the objectives of the zone and continues to do so under the RU2 zone.

Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size is applicable to the proposed subdivision and the subject site has a (proposed) minimum subdivision lot size of 40 hectares. The proposed subdivision involves the creation of lots which do not meet the minimum subdivision requirement and therefore would be inconsistent with Clause 4.1 of draft LEP 2008.

Despite the lease lot being inconsistent with the minimum lot size for subdivision, the variation is considered worthy of support as outlined in the following points: -

· The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing context of the site and would have a minimal impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

· The proposal would not generate additional demands on public services and facilities.

· The subdivision would be conducted in a leasehold arrangement that enables the existing educational establishments and the aged care facility to be administered by the Catholic Education Office and Catholic Healthcare respectively, both of which are associated entities under the Catholic Church.

· The proposal does not compromise the application of development provisions and the underlying objectives under the draft PLEP 2008.

Clause 4.6(3) of draft PLEP 2008 provides that Council may grant consent to development that would contravene a Development Standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument provided the consent authority has considered a written justification from the applicant demonstrating that:

“(a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case;

(b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard;”

Clause 4.6(4) further advises that Council must not grant consent for development that contravenes a development standard unless: -

“(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.”

Clause 4.6(6) states that consent must not be granted for a subdivision of land in Zone RU2 if:

(a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

(b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

Despite the non-compliance of the proposed lot size with the minimum requirement of draft PLEP 2008, the following comments are made: -

· A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted and compliance with the minimum allotment size for subdivision is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

· PLEP 201 prevails over draft PLEP 2008, which does not restrict the level of compliance as prescribed in Clause 4.6(6) above.

· The Director-General’s concurrence is to be obtained for the variation.

· The above assessment concludes that proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Development Standard and the zone.

With respect to the above, the proposed subdivision is supported and is recommended to be referred to the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for concurrence.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

Section 4.9 – Rural Development

The relevant provisions relating to the proposal have been assessed as follows:

DEVELOPMENT PROVISION	REQUIRED	PROPOSED	COMPLIES
Part B
Section 2 - Services	Development will not place unreasonable demand on essential services.	The approved concept masterplan involved consultation with Sydney Water in which conditions included the need to obtain a Section 73 certificate. This would be condition as well consultation with electricity and telecommunication providers.	Yes
Section 3 - Flooding	Compliance with Council’s Flood Policy.	Site is not identified as flood affected	Yes
Section 4 - Access	New driveways shall be designed, located and constructed having regard to scale, use and contours of the site.	New roads including the new access road along the eastern boundary of the site and the eastern side of the new loop road have been designed to accord with relevant standards.	Yes
Section 6 – Aboriginal Archaeological Survey	Archaeological survey maybe required	An aboriginal heritage assessment accompanied the masterplan application. A Section 90 permit has been obtained for the site.	Yes
Section 13 – Soil Erosion and Sedimentation	The applicant should demonstrate the consideration which has been given to the potential for soil erosion to occur during the construction and operation phases of development.	Erosion and Sediment controls measures for the proposed development to be implemented.	Yes

The proposed subdivision satisfies Penrith Development Control Plan 2006.

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

The purpose of the subdivision is to enable the applicant to manage the existing and construct the approved aged care facility within separate land tenure to the existing educational uses on the site. The subdivision would be conducted in a leasehold arrangement that enables the existing educational establishments and the aged care facility to be administered by the Catholic Education Office and Catholic Healthcare respectively, both of which are associated entities under the Catholic Church.

The proposal is consistent with the various components outlined in the approved masterplan for an aged care facility and would not have an adverse impact on the present character of the area. The site is located adjacent to the Western Sydney Employment Area, where the built environment would inevitably change in the future having regard to the surrounding area being identified for future employment lands.

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

The proposed subdivision is permissible and is considered to accord with the zone objectives and the aims of the PLEP 201 and draft PLEP 2008. There are no significant environmental constraints or impacts that would hinder the proposed development, and accordingly the site is suitable for the proposed development.

The site is a unique parcel of land which is characterised with a number of institutional uses for the purposes of educational establishments and aged care facilities. The proposed subdivision of the site would be carried out in a leasehold arrangement which provides for an internal delineation of uses for administrative purposes of the Catholic Church. The subdivision would not alter the existing character of the area or increase the need for additional services or amenities.

In this regard, the proposed subdivision is suitable for the site.

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

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

(a) External Referrals

Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The application is defined as Integrated Development under Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the site is identified as bush fire prone land and approval from the NSW Rural Fire Service is required pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

The NSW Rural Fire Service provided their conditions for the proposed subdivision on 8 April 2011. These conditions would form part of the conditions of consent on receipt of the concurrence from the Director-General of the Department of Planning.

(b) Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

No objections were raised, subject to conditions warranting the creation of a Right of Carriageway and approval of a Subdivision Certificate.

(c) Community Consultation

The application was advertised, notified to adjoining property owners/occupants and placed on public exhibition from 8 October 2010 to 9 November 2010. No submissions were received in response to the proposal.

7. Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in so far as it promotes the co-ordinated and orderly, and economic use and development of the land. Furthermore, it complies with the objectives of the relevant legislation and Council’s policies. As a result Council can be satisfied that the proposal subject to conditions will be in the public interest.

Conclusion

The proposed development is permissible in the zone under the relevant plan and is unlikely to have any adverse impacts upon the environment or character of the area. The site is located adjacent to the Western Sydney Employment Area and it is anticipated that the built environment within the immediate surrounding area would inevitably change.

The proposed variation to the Development Standard is justified in this instance given the nature of the subdivision, the compatibility of the existing uses at the site and the minimal impacts of the proposal.

The proposal seeks to subdivide the existing lot under a leasehold arrangement. The proposed lots would be operated under separate entities of the Catholic Church and provides internal delineation of uses at the site for administrative purposes only.

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that the application be approved by Council, subject to receiving concurrence from the NSW Department of Planning.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0951 Two (2) Lot Subdivision and Construction of a Private Access Road at Lot 2 DP 556036 (No. 61 - 109) Bakers Lane, Kemps Creek be received

2. The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection to the Development Standard be supported

3. The application be referred to the Department of Planning for concurrence in accordance with the requirements of the guidelines for concurrence provisions

4. Upon receipt of concurrence from the Department of Planning, Development Application DA10/0951 Two (2) Lot Subdivision and Construction of a Private Access Road at Lot 2 DP 556036 (No. 61 - 109) Bakers Lane, Kemps Creek be determined under delegated authority.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Locality Plan	1 Page	Appendix
2.	Plan of Subdivision	1 Page	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A City of Opportunities

2010/2011 Community Initiatives Grants Scheme Glenmore Park

Compiled by: Sonia Dalitz, Social Planner

Authorised by: Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager

Objective	We have access to what we need
Community Outcome	A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)
Strategic Response	Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

Executive Summary

This report is to inform Council of the applications received in the 2010/2011 Glenmore Park Community Initiatives Grants Scheme.

Council established the Community Initiatives Grants Scheme (CIGS) to assist groups and organisations providing community services in Glenmore Park with seeding grants to establish new social and related programs in Glenmore Park. Funds for CIGS come from the Glenmore Park Section 94 Contributions Plan. The available budget is $20,000. The 2010/2011 CIGS will be the final funding round.

The 2010/2011 CIGS was advertised by means of direct promotion to eligible organisations. A total of 12 applications were received from a diverse range of organisations which provide services to residents in Glenmore Park. A total of 10 of the applications have been recommended for either full or part funding. Two applications are ineligible. The total recommended amount for funding is $20,000.

The report recommends that Council receive the report and approve funding the applications and amounts totalling $20,000 from the Community Initiatives Grants Scheme component of the Glenmore Park Section 94 Contributions Plan.

Background

Council established the Community Initiatives Grants Scheme (CIGS) to provide a mechanism for the allocation of one-off, non-recurrent grants to local resident groups and community organisations for the purpose of establishing new social and related programs that take place in Council community facilities in Glenmore Park.

The CIGS forms part of the 1997 Glenmore Park Community Facilities Fitout and Establishment Program which is funded through the Section 94 Contributions Plan for Glenmore Park. Establishment costs that could be applied for under the CIGS can be related to the type of facility such as specific equipment for a youth facility or to the special needs of a group such as a playgroup. The 2010/2011 funding round will be the last funding round of CIGS.

Objectives and Eligibility Criteria

There are three eligibility criteria for applications under the Community Initiatives Grants Scheme. All projects must satisfy these criteria to be eligible for funding.

1. Not-for-profit community groups or organisations

2. Community groups or organisations located in Glenmore Park, or community groups or organisations located outside of Glenmore Park intending to use CIGS funding to provide activities or services in Glenmore Park

3. Incorporated or auspiced by an incorporated body.

All Community Initiatives Grants Scheme applications are assessed for priority against the objectives of the Glenmore Park Community Facilities Fitout and Establishment Program. Recommendations for funding are made according to the four objectives listed below:

1. To assist in the resourcing of existing groups or newly establishing groups using Penrith City Council’s community facilities in Glenmore Park

2. To resource and develop local initiatives in response to community needs

3. To enhance resident participation in the provision of community services and activities

4. To complement, not duplicate, funding from other sources which may be available to the community.

Council’s Community and Cultural Development Manager, Social Planning Coordinator and Social Planner assess the applications against the eligibility criteria and the four objectives of the program to determine which projects will be recommended to Council for funding.

Budget Allocation

The last funding round of CIGS was held in 2004/2005. The budget available for the 2010/2011 CIGS program is $20,000.

Council received 12 applications from community groups or organisations seeking funding totalling an amount of $26,805. This is the final year that the Glenmore Park CIGS will receive funding from Section 94 contributions.

2010/2011 Glenmore Park Community Initiatives Grants Scheme

The funding round for the 2010/2011 Community Initiatives Grants Scheme opened on 14 March 2011 and closed on 8 April 2011. The maximum grant available under the scheme for each application was set at $3,000.

The funding round was targeted at groups currently operating out of Council owned Glenmore Park community facilities. Letters were sent to 31 existing groups currently operating out of Council community facilities in Glenmore Park. The Council community facilities in Glenmore Park are the Floribunda Community Centre, Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre, Surveyors Creek Community Centre and the Glenmore Park Child and Family Centre. A memo notifying Councillors of the funding round was included in the 4 March 2011 Councillor Bulletin.

A total of 12 applications were received from 8 organisations. Two separate for profit, business, or private organisations also submitted one application each. These are ineligible for funding given the criterion that only not for profit community organisations are eligible to apply. Of the remaining 10 eligible applications received, all have been recommended for funding for either all of the requested amount, or an adjusted amount in light of the merit of the project. Appendix 1 to this report provides a list of the 12 applications including details of each project and the rationale for funding.

Applicants were required to complete an application form identifying their project objectives, population target group, budget and benefits to the local community. Table 1 below is a summary of the 10 projects recommended for funding

Table 1- Recommended for funding List

No.	Organisation and Project Description	Glenmore Park Community Facility	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
1	Australian Breastfeeding Association- Hawkesbury/Nepean Group To fund the training and recruitment of 4 new volunteer Breastfeeding Counsellors to increase service to Glenmore Park	Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre	$ 2,995.84	$ 2,995.00
2	Bridging the Gap Sydney West Inc To fund two “PlayToGrow” Group Therapy Programs for children who have suffered trauma	Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct	$ 3,000.00	$ 3,000.00
3	Bridging the Gap Sydney West Inc To fund subsidised session fees for “Play Therapy Counselling” for children who have suffered trauma	Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct	$ 2,700.00	$ 2,000.00
4	Community Access Care Pair Inc To fund afterschool activities for children aged 5-12	Floribunda Community Centre	$ 700.00	$ 700.00
5	Community Access Care Pair Inc To fund an upgrade of play equipment for infants and toddlers	Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre	$ 200.00	$ 200.00
6	Glenmore Park Probus Club Inc. To fund costs associated with meetings that create companionship and activities of interest for over 55’s in Glenmore Park	Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre	$ 2,118.00	$ 1,718.00
7	Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services To fund a 16 week “Taste of Everything (TOE)” Women's Group	Floribunda Community Centre	$ 2,787.00	$ 2,787.00
8	Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services To purchase electronic equipment resources to provide “Golden Movie Afternoons” and school holiday movie days	Floribunda Community Centre	$ 1,650.00	$ 1,650.00
9	Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services To contribute towards the cost of activities for “Floribunda Family Fun Day”	Floribunda Community Centre	$ 3,000.00	$ 1,950.00
10	Wesley Mission- Nepean Adolescent and Family Services To fund a drop in and group work program for young people	Glenmore Park Youth and Community Centre	$ 3,000.00	$ 3,000.00
			$ 26,805.84	$ 20,000.00

Summary

Council has received 12 applications requesting a total of $26,805.84 for the Glenmore Park Community Initiatives Grants Scheme funding in the 2010/2011 financial year. The available budget for the CIGS is $20,000. Of the applications received 2 are ineligible because the applicant in each case is a for-profit organisation. After careful consideration against the program objectives, all 10 of the eligible applications totalling $20,000 have been recommended for funding for either all of the requested amount, or an adjusted amount in the light of the merit of the project.

Recommended projects cover a range of target groups across Glenmore Park and address many different social and related needs. The 2010/2011 CIGS will be the final year of funding available for this purpose.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2010/2011 Community Initiatives Grants Scheme Glenmore Park be received.

2. Council approve funding the applications and amounts totalling $20,000 from the Community Initiatives Grants Scheme component of the Glenmore Park Section 94 Contributions Plan as outlined in Table 1 of this report.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

2010/2011 Community Initiatives Grants Scheme - Recommendations for Funding

2 Pages

Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2011

A City of Opportunities

Bestowing the Civic Recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Dr. Malcolm Borland, AM

Compiled by: Colin Dickson, Marketing & Events Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Barbara Magee, Manager - Corporate Communications & Marketing

Requested By: Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

Objective	We have a say in our future
Community Outcome	A Council that involves, informs and responds (10)
Strategic Response	Engage our communities by creating opportunities for participation, listening, provide information and responding (10.1)

Executive Summary

Dr Malcolm Borland has made an outstanding contribution to the City of Penrith over many years. He represented the community with distinction as an alderman/councillor on Penrith City Council for 25 years and presided over many major milestone achievements for the City. In particular, he was the driving force behind the efforts to bring the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre to fruition, a facility that has enhanced Penrith’s reputation as a cultural centre in Western Sydney since its official opening in 1990. He has also served the people of Penrith in his capacity as a long standing medical practitioner in the City. In addition to this he has chaired the board of volunteer directors at the Australian Foundation for Disability since 1974, becoming the longest serving president of any charity in Australia.

This report seeks Council’s approval to grant a certificate as an Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith to Dr Malcolm Borland AM and the report recommends that the civic recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith be conferred and a civic reception be held to commemorate the award.

Background

The spirit of a City comes from the contributions of its people to the life of the community.

Mostly, these are small contributions that collectively add to the overall tone of the community. In a few instances, however, individuals make a significant contribution to the community that is worthy of special recognition. This recognition can take several forms and may also comprise a combination of one or more of the following:

· Australian Honours

· The Granting of the Key to the City

· The bestowing of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith

· The bestowing of Honorary Citizen of the City of Penrith

· Penrith City Australia Day Awards

· Letters of Congratulation

· Wall of Achievement (awarded by Council)

· Mayoral Minute (at a Council meeting)

· Civic Receptions (arranged by Council)

· The granting of Freedom of the City

Council, at its Meeting on 7 February 2000, adopted a Protocol and criteria for granting the Key to the City of Penrith, Honorary Citizen of the City, and Honoured Citizen of the City. In adopting the criteria that follows, Council took into consideration the various forms of Civic recognition currently available, to ensure that the granting of these significant civic honours is kept only for individuals of the highest calibre.

Key to the City of Penrith

· As acknowledgement, by the City, of an individual’s contribution to the City of Penrith

· As an acknowledgement of a high level of achievement in the individual’s chosen field

· As an acknowledgement of the individual’s contribution to world affairs or the achievement was or has been of significance to the world.

Keys to the City have been provided to Dame Joan Sutherland, Richard Bonynge and Isamu Okamura, former Chairman of the Fujieda International Friendship Society.

Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith

· Acknowledgement, by the City, of an individual who resides in the City and their contribution to the City of Penrith

· Acknowledgement of a high level of achievement in the individual’s chosen field

· Acknowledgement of the individual’s significant contribution to Australia.

The status of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith was bestowed upon the Hon Faye Lo Po’ AM on 6 June 2003, the Hon Ron Mulock AO on 7 November 2003, the Hon. Peter Anderson AM on 18 August 2007 and Freda Whitlam, AM on 24 September 2009.

Honorary Citizen of the City of Penrith

· As acknowledgement, by the City, of an individual who does not reside in the City and their contribution to the City of Penrith

· As an acknowledgement of a high level of achievement in the individual’s chosen field

· As an acknowledgement of the individual’s significant contribution to Australia.

The status of Honorary Citizen of the City of Penrith was bestowed upon Sir Ian Turbott AO, CMG, CVO on 5 April 2008.

Current Situation

At the Council meeting of 2 May 2011, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested a report be brought to Council considering the bestowing on former Councillor Malcolm Borland the title of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith. Dr Borland fulfils all the criteria adopted by Council to receive this civic recognition.

Malcolm Borland is a doctor who graduated from Sydney University in 1969 with an MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery). He has spent much of his life in the City of Penrith, both living and conducting his medical practice in the area for many years. He currently divides his time between Penrith and Parramatta and still practices in Penrith today.

Dr Borland is married to Robyn and has three children - Philippa, Simon and Adrian all of whom were raised in Penrith.

Malcolm Borland was appointed as an alderman on Penrith City Council in September 1974 and held this office for 25 years until September 1999.

To become a Councillor and represent your local community is a task that requires significant commitment, but to do it with distinction for such a long period of time is a truly outstanding achievement.

During his time at Council Dr Borland presided over many major achievements of the Council and the City, a few of which included:

· The construction of the new civic precinct and central library

· Construction of Ripples Leisure Centre

· Construction of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium

· Construction of the new St Marys library

· The introduction of the first recycling service for the City of Penrith

· Development of the Penrith and St Marys Rail Interchanges

· Planning and development for Penrith City’s Olympic experience

Dr Borland was also active on Council and external committees, working parties and represented Council on numerous occasions at local government association conferences.

On reflection, one just needs to look at the enormous strides that Penrith City made during Dr Borland’s time as an Alderman/ Councillor to realise the great contribution he made to the City. His unflagging enthusiasm and willingness to contribute to the civic life of our community has made Penrith a better place for everyone.

However, without a doubt Dr Borland’s major passion during his time at Council was the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre - a facility that has well and truly enhanced Penrith City’s reputation as a cultural hub of Western Sydney.

The Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre was a vision for our community and region, providing a facility that gave people the opportunity to pursue and develop their creative and expressive potential and to participate in performing arts without having to leave the local area to do so. The fact that this centre has come to fruition and is the enormous success that it is was as a result of a group of hard working and committed “cultural pioneers” who shared the vision for our community and region.

Dr Borland was one of those “cultural pioneers”. He was the main driving force behind efforts to get the centre built, which was no small achievement in itself. Without his tenacity and enthusiasm, the Centre would in all likelihood have never eventuated. While the State Government contributed a grant towards the centre it was the Council that contributed the majority of the funding.

Dr Borland’s great passion for music and the piano (he is an accomplished pianist in his own right) were obviously matched by his persuasive powers, his tenacity and his ability to get others excited by the same vision he had for the arts in Western Sydney.

The centre was officially opened with great fanfare on 14 August 1990 in the presence of Dame Joan Sutherland herself and in 2005 the centre was expanded to include a new home for the Penrith Conservatorium as well as a new 380 seat drama theatre. Throughout all of this the development of the centre was led by the guidance and leadership of Dr Borland as the Chairman of the Board. All up, Dr Borland was Chairman of the Board for 17 years, some of that time even before the centre was built. In all of that time, such was his commitment and dedication that he never missed a single board meeting.

Under his leadership the centre proved itself as a thriving and dynamic success and many of its students have gone on to establish careers in the arts and thousands of young people have enjoyed the opportunity to perform on stage in a top class auditorium, and thousands more people have had the pleasure of attending world class performances by local, national and international artists and performers.

In 2006, Dr Borland’s contribution to the development of the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre was recognised with the official naming of the Malcolm Borland Foyer in his honour.

Dr Borland is also the Chairman of the Australian Foundation for Disability (AFFORD). AFFORD started life as the Poliomyelitis Society in 1952 but once the polio vaccine was introduced, they virtually stopped getting new clients by the mid 1960’s and so diversified their operations to provide services to people with disabilities that led to several name changes. Now known as AFFORD it is now one of Australia’s leading disability service organisations.

Today AFFORD provides employment, accommodation and training for over 1,100 people with a disability. In collaboration with business, governments, the private sector and public donors, AFFORD operates on worlds best practice in providing opportunities, support and monitored procedures to encourage disability clients to achieve consistent and significant results.

Dr Borland continues to chair the board of volunteer directors (having been appointed in September 1974) who oversee and guide the long term direction and goals of the Australian Foundation for Disability. As president of the company he acts as Chairman of all board meetings and offers appropriate advice as a medical practitioner, and in another outstanding feat, his tenure in this position has seen Dr Borland become the longest serving president of any charity in Australia.

In 2009, Dr Borland became a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in the Australia Day Honours list for service to the community, particularly through the Australian Foundation for Disability, and to local government in the Penrith area.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Bestowing the Civic Recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Dr. Malcolm Borland, AM be received

2. Council bestow the civic recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Dr Malcolm Borland AM, at a civic reception to be held at a mutually convenient time.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

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

Objective	We demonstrate leadership, foster resilience and tenacity, and encourage innovation
Community Outcome	A Regional City that provides our jobs, education, services and entertainment (1)
Strategic Response	Demonstrate our leadership, and encourage innovation (1.1)

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)