Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 30 MAY 2011 AT 7:30PM

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 Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

PRESENT

Deputy Mayor, Councillor 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

There were no apologies.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 2 May 2011

111 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 2 May 2011 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Kaylene Allison declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 9 - 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 as she is employed by the the owner who is subject of the application. Councillor Allison indicated that she would leave the room and take no part in consideration of the item.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

112 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Standing Orders be suspended to allow a member of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:35pm.

Item 15 - Proposal to name the cricket/AFL oval at Cook Park

Mr Wayne Ball

Mr Ball, an interested citizen spoke in support of the recommendation and on behalf of the Ball family. Mr Ball wished to thank Council, Council officers and Penrith Cricket Club representatitves who had directly dealt with his father. Mr Ball indicated that his father never sought self recognition but he would be very proud to have received such an honour and wished to pass on the gratitude of the family for allowing his father to be recognised in this way by the community.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

113 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:39pm.

Reports of Committees

1 Report and Recommendation of the Access Committee meeting held on 6 April, 2011

114 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 6 April, 2011 be adopted.

2 Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 May 2011

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

That

1. The recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 2 May, 2011 be adopted.

2. The issue raised as General Business – Item 1 concerning traffic congestion in Glossop Street, St Marys be investigated as soon as possible.

3 Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting, held on 9 May, 2011

116 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 9 May, 2011 be adopted.

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM read a statement which acknowledged Councillor Karen McKeown’s significant achievement in being bestowed life membership of the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA). The Deputy Mayor passed on the Council’s congratulations to Councillor McKeown and also the staff representatives who represent Council on ALGWA.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

A Leading City

2 A Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 April to 30 April 2011.

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on A Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 April to 30 April 2011 be received

2. The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 April 2011 to 30 April 2011 be noted and accepted.

3. The graphical investment analysis as at 30 April 2011 be noted.

4 2010-11 Operational Plan March Quarter

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

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.

1 Glenmore Park Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan Review

119 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

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.

6. The issue of a library on the Southern part of the city be specifically referred to the Future Directions in Library Services Working Party

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 Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Kaylene Allison

3 Passing of Betty Hargreaves OAM

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM and Ross Fowler OAM both spoke in support of the report.

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM then asked that the meeting observe a minute’s silence in memory of Betty Hargreaves OAM.

120 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the information contained in the report on Passing of Betty Hargreaves OAM be received.

5 Adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan

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

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.

An AMENDMENT was MOVED by Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Robert Ardill

That:

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

2. The Operational Plan, not including the Special Rate Variation be adopted and the Operational Plan including the Special Rate Variation not be adopted.

The AMENDMENT was PUT.

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

The AMENDMENT was LOST.

The MOTION was PUT.

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 Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Kaylene Allison

The MOTION was CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was also CARRIED.

6 Draft Planning Proposal - Two Further Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

122 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Draft Planning Proposal - Two Further Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 be received.

2. In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation, 2000, Council endorse the inclusion of the Twin Creeks Amendment and the Smeeton Road Amendment, as discussed in the report, in the previously endorsed Draft Planning Proposal – Amendments to Penrith LEP 2010 and draft Penrith LEP (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2011.

3. Council forward the amended Draft Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure seeking the issue of a Gateway Determination, and upon receipt, commence a consultation program with public authorities and the community as required by the Gateway Determination.

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

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 Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Kaylene Allison

A City of Opportunities

10 2010/2011 Community Initiatives Grants Scheme Glenmore Park

123 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

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.

7 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

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

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 report be deferred and Council write to the Minister for Health and all Local Members outlining that Council will not support the application until the parking and accessibility issues are satisfactorily resolved.

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 Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Kaylene Allison

8 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

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

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.

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 Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Kaylene Allison

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest Councillor Kaylene Allison left the meeting, the time being 8:41pm.

9 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

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

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.

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 Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Kath Presdee

Councillor John Thain left the meeting the time being 8:41pm.

Councillor Kaylene Allison returned to the meeting, the time being 8:41pm.

Councillor John Thain returned to the the meeting the time being 8:41pm.

11 Bestowing the Civic Recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Dr. Malcolm Borland, AM

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

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.

A Liveable City

12 Tender Reference 16-10/11, Provision of Fire Services

128 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 16-10/11, Provision of Fire Services be received

2. Firetection be appointed as the preferred contractor for the provision of maintenance of Fire Services for a period of three (3) years with the option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance.

13 Tender Reference 17-10/11, Mechanical Services Upgrade at Queen Street, St Marys

129 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 17-10/11, Mechanical Services Upgrade at Queen Street, St Marys be received

2. New tenders be called for Mechanical Services Upgrade at Queen St, St Marys.

3. AG Coombs (NSW) Pty Ltd be notified that their tender was unsuccessful

14 Council Wins State Engineering Excellence Award

130 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the information contained in the report on Council Wins State Engineering Excellence Award be received.

15 Proposal to name the cricket/AFL oval at Cook Park

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Proposal to name the cricket/AFL oval at Cook Park be received

2. Council endorse the name of the oval as Bill Ball Oval, Cook Park.

3. A sign reflecting the name of the oval be installed.

4. A framed copy of the report be presented to the Ball Family.

16 Proposal to name the club room in the N.A. Hunter Pavilion

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Proposal to name the club room in the N.A. Hunter Pavilion be received

2. The club room in the N.A. Hunter cricket pavilion building at Howell Oval be named in recognition of Trevor Wholohan OAM.

3. An appropriate sign be displayed in the club room identifying it as the Trevor Wholohan Room as well as providing details of his achievements.

4. A framed copy of the report be sent to Mr Trevor Wholohan OAM.

Councillors Kath Presdee and John Thain left the meeting, the time being 9:01pm.

Councillors Kath Presdee and John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 9:02pm.

17 Request to surrender lease by St Marys Tennis Club Inc.

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Request to surrender lease by St Marys Tennis Club Inc. be received.

2. St Marys Tennis Club Inc. be notified that the lease can be surrendered with immediate effect on 30 June 2011.

3. The common seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all necessary documentation.

4. Council operates the facility as an interim arrangement until the most appropriate management model is adopted.

A Vibrant City

18 Local Government and Shires Association of NSW - Cultural Awards

134 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the information contained in the report on Local Government and Shires Association of NSW - Cultural Awards be received

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

RR 1 Jamison Dog Park

Councillor Marko Malkoc requested a report to Council concerning providing bubblers, solar lighting, benches and picnic benches for the comfort of pet owners and pets. The report should also detail costs and how this could be funded.

RR 2 Leave of Absence

Councillor Ben Goldfinch requested leave of absence for the period 17 July 2011 to 26 July 2011.

RR 3 Financial Assistance - Martial Arts Champion

Councillor Ben Goldfinch requested a memo reply and contact be made with the family of Katrina Stevens. Katrina is the Martial Arts champion for her age bracket and is travelling to England to compete. Can Council staff please advise how we may be of assistance to minimise the financial burden.

RR 4 Westpool Advice

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM advised that Shellharbour City Council have been admitted to Westpool (9^th member) and United Independent Pools (16^th member).

RR 5 Link Road, Erskine Park

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM advised that a significant announcement had been made concerning the Link Road, Erksine Park and that it would now been proceeding to completion. Councillor Fowler OAM requested that Council write to the Penrith Business Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, the Members for Smithfield, Mulgoa and Penrith, and the NSW State Premier thanking them for this initiative.

RR 6 Traffic Issues - Thurston Street, Penrith

Councillor Kath Presdee reqested a memo reply concerning Thurston Street, Penrith and the possibility of installing traffic calming devices and footpaving to assist with traffic issues in the area. Councillor Presdee presented a petition from local residents and asked that a progress report or results of traffic monitoring which was requested in March 2011 be provided.

RR 7 Yulefest - Blue Mountains

Councillor Greg Davies requested that Council’s City Marketing and Events team have dialogue with Blue Mountains Tourism concerning a number of initiatives they have introduced to help promote Yulefest, their Christmas in July event. Councillor Greg Davies requested a report to Council outlining methods which we can adopt to assist our City’s promotions.

Committee of the Whole

that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 9:11pm.

1 Presence of the Public

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

A Leading City

2 Personnel Matter - Communication Protocol

The meeting resumed at 9:15pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 9:11pm on 30 May 2011, the following being present

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

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

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

2 Personnel Matter - Communication Protocol

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

CW2 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Personnel Matter - Communication Protocol be received

2. The recommendations in the report be adopted.

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

136 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the recommendation contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1 and CW2 be adopted.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:17pm.

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

A Leading City

The WELL Precinct - Funding Essential Infrastructure

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

The purpose of this report is to recommend a policy approach that responds to Council’s commitment to ensuring the coordinated and efficient delivery of infrastructure for its new urban areas, whilst addressing the State Government’s directions in relation to development contributions.

Council is currently in receipt of two Development Applications for the Caddens release area, which is located in the WELL Precinct. The applications will be determined by external authorities – the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) and the Land and Environment Court (L&E Court). Reports on the two current development applications will be strengthened with a consistent policy approach, agreed by Council in its consideration of the broader implications of the State Government’s requirements for Development Contributions Plans. In this regard, the preferred approach should ideally deliver the same range and standard of facilities identified in the relevant s94 Plans, be achievable and meet the requirements of the State Government cap.

The report recommends an option that will enable development to proceed, new housing to be delivered and the WELL Precinct and broader Citywide objectives to be met. It requires developers to construct the necessary drainage and road works, and seeks contributions to fund recreation, community and selected roads facilities, together with the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans. The report also recommends that Council continue to pursue the Minister’s exemption (‘grandfathering’) for the three WELL Precinct-related s94 Plans from the $30,000 cap.

Background

1. Review of specific Development Contributions Plans

In 2009, the then Minister for Planning requested councils to review their s94 Development Contributions Plans. Based on the identified criteria, an independent consultant undertook a review of a number of Council’s Contribution Plans. Significant savings, of up to 50% in the District Open Space Plan and approximately 20% in the WELL Precinct Plan, were identified through this process.

The revised plans were adopted by Council on 24 May 2010, and forwarded to the Department of Planning with a request that the Minister make the amended plans so that Council could apply the reduced contribution rates. No written advice from the Department, regarding Council’s revised Plans, has been received over the past twelve months.

2. Council’s responses to the capped residential contribution rates

On 31 May 2009, the then Minister for Planning applied a $20,000 per lot cap to all new residential development. In response to the potential infrastructure shortfalls arising from imposition of the cap, Council on 21 June 2010 resolved to:

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

On 15 September 2010, the cap was increased by the Minister to $30,000 per dwelling for development contributions in release areas (including Glenmore Park Stage 2 and the WELL Precinct). The cap limits the combined total contribution that Council may apply to residential development under its relevant plans (including contributions in the District Open Space Plan and the Cultural Facilities Plan).

Since August 2009, Council officers have continued to negotiate with the Department to address the consequences of the cap and seek advice regarding the revised Contributions Plans. Actions during that time have included:

§ lobbied the Director General and the Minister regarding the cap

§ advocated for several Plans to be ‘grandfathered’ (exempted from the cap), which was successful for the Glenmore Park Stage 1 and Claremont Meadows s94 Plans

§ met with the Department’s Deputy Director General in February 2011 to explore the consequences of the cap on Council generally, and more specifically the WELL Precinct, which included discussions of the Department’s proposed alternative funding scenario (discussed later in this report)

§ pursued resolution of the adverse impacts of the cap with the Department’s Regional Office and our partners, including other National Growth Area Alliance councils

§ negotiating a Planning Agreement with the Glenmore Park Stage 2 landowners to ensure that works identified in the revised s94 Plan will be delivered.

Issues in the WELL Precinct

1. WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plans

Imposition of the $30,000 cap in the WELL Precinct generates a $46.5 million (indexed to March 2011) infrastructure funding shortfall, when assessed against Council’s currently adopted s94 Plan. This comprises $35.2 million from the WELL Precinct s94 Plan and $11.3 million from the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans.

The shortfall calculation ($46.5 million) is based on the current, ‘in force’ s94 Plans for the WELL Precinct, District Open Space and Cultural facilities. The current plans must be used for shortfall calculations since the revised plans have not been made, nor exempted from the cap by the Minister. The revised WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan was first submitted to the Department on 26 August 2009, and again with the revised Cultural Facilities and District Open Space Plans on 26 May 2010, for review and Ministerial approval.

If the revised plans were made by the Minister and applied, the infrastructure funding gap is reduced to $31.2 million (including roads and drainage works). This, however, still leaves an unmanageable shortfall in infrastructure provision, which can only be addressed by the Minister ‘grandfathering’ the revised plans.

2. Current Development Applications

There are two current Development Applications in the WELL Precinct that are affected by the $30,000 per lot cap:

§ Landcom’s application for subdivision to create 373 additional dwellings / lots, which will be assessed by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP). This application proposes a similar ‘works in kind’ offer to that earlier considered by Council on 21 February 2011. Given the financial and implementation issues that would transpire from Landcom’s offer, it was resolved at the meeting that “Council not enter into an ‘In Kind’ arrangement or a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Landcom in relation to its residential development applications for the Caddens Urban Release Area”.

§ An application for subdivision on land located between O’Connell Road and Caddens Road to create 71 additional residential lots. This proposal is currently the subject of legal action in the Land and Environment (L&E) Court. This matter is included as a separate agenda item in the business paper, which will be considered in Committee of the Whole. The applicant proposes to implement necessary drainage and road works on the land and seek an offset against the relevant s94 plans. The applicant does not seek to make contributions towards recreation or community facilities in the WELL Precinct s94 Plan, nor contributions towards the District Open Space Plan and the Cultural Facilities s94 Plan.

These two development applications propose a total of 444 additional lots/dwellings in the Caddens area of the WELL Precinct. Council officers have identified, to the respective applicants, the infrastructure delivery requirements outlined in the adopted and revised s94 Development Contributions Plans (WELL, District Open Space and Cultural Facilities s94 Plans).

Both the JRPP and L&E Court are obliged to consider the current statutory position and Ministerial directions in relation to these applications. It is possible that they may not be able to support Council’s policy position in relation to the infrastructure needed for the development of this topographically complex precinct, and its new communities. It is therefore prudent for Council to identify a policy approach which addresses the current cap restrictions but still ensures the delivery of essential infrastructure in the event that implementation of the revised s94 plans is not possible.

3. Options for infrastructure delivery in the WELL Precinct

The recommended policy approach for the WELL Precinct emerged from a detailed examination of twelve options (summarised below, and outlined in Appendix 1). It is based on ensuring that development can progress, Council requirements are satisfied and the $30,000 contribution cap is not exceeded.

Option	Description
1	Minister exempts the Plans from the cap
2	Apply the $30,000 cap, with funding directed to recreation and community facilities Apply conditions of consent that require delivery of all drainage, and selected roadworks (those 100% apportioned to the Caddens sub precinct)
3	Apply the $30,000 cap, with funding directed to recreation and community facilities Apply conditions of consent that require delivery of all roads and all drainage across the WELL Precinct
4	Apply the $30,000 cap, and seek alternatives to fund and deliver the infrastructure shortfall ($46.5 million)
5	Apply a flat rate levy (3%) instead of the Development Contributions Plans
6	Seek to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with all landowners
7	Reduce the standard of all facilities to meet the $30,000 limit imposed by the cap
8	Reduce the infrastructure and facilities in the Plans by applying the IPART ‘Essential Works’ list criteria, and revise the Plans to meet the $30,000 limit imposed by the cap
9	Remove contributions relating to the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans from the new residential development in the WELL Precinct
10	Apply a Special Rate (either Citywide, or only to residents in the WELL Precinct) to fund the cap related infrastructure funding shortfall
11	Finance the infrastructure funding shortfall through possible future Department of Planning and Infrastructure grants (potentially to be administered through the Sydney Region Development Fund)
12	Increase the minimum number of dwellings per hectare required within the Precinct and thereby reduce the contribution costs per dwelling

Option 2, which involves applying the $30,000 in contributions towards facilities and ‘conditioning’ development consents to require delivery of all drainage and selected roadworks, is recommended as it best addresses Council’s concerns for the future of this Precinct.

4. Implementing Option 2 in the WELL Precinct

New residential development in the WELL Precinct is levied under three s94 Plans – the WELL Precinct Plan, District Open Space Plan and Cultural Facilities Plan.

Under the revised s94 Plans adopted by Council on 24 May 2010, the contribution rate that would apply in the Caddens sub-precincts is approximately $50,000 per lot or dwelling. Given that even the revised s94 Plans generate a shortfall in the WELL Precinct, it is important that we continue to advocate for these Plans to be ‘grandfathered’.

It is recommended that, in the meantime, the policy position outlined in Option 2 is applied to current and future Development Applications (including negotiations with the JRRP or the L&E Court) until the issues relating to Development Contributions Plans are resolved with the State Government. Any conditions imposed in this regard are required at law to be for a planning purpose, to be reasonable and reasonably relate to the development for which consent is being sought.

Under this scenario, the maximum s94 contribution would not exceed $30,000 per lot (from $17,753 in North Werrington to $29,535 in Caddens). Council is able to apply contributions that are lower than those in its adopted (or revised) plans where those contributions meet the Minister’s requirements. The bar chart in Appendix 2 shows the total contribution rates that would apply to new residential development in the WELL Precinct under the three relevant s94 Plans if Council endorses Option 2 tonight.

One significant benefit of this approach is that the current Plans would not need amending, nor would they need referral to IPART or the Department. This means that Council retains its current authority over the content of the Plans and the range and standard of facilities it funds. Other benefits are that a broad range of high standard facilities, including active open space and community facilities will be delivered; funding for the District Open Space Plan and Cultural Facilities Plan is not compromised; traffic and transport facilities would be coordinated and delivered by Council; and the approach can be applied immediately.

Option 2 involves the following actions:

§ levy contributions up to the $30,000 cap (for residential development)

§ use these contributions to fund recreation, community and selected road facilities in the WELL s94 Plan, and the revised District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans

§ require all drainage across the WELL Precinct to be provided by proponents (through conditions of consent)

§ require roadwork (where costs are 100% apportioned to the Caddens sub-precincts) to be provided by proponents through conditions of consent

§ reduce the level of funding proposed to embellish a 2.06ha passive open space area (as it is substantially treed)

§ delete proposed contributions towards employment of a Community Place Manager (as this function is not considered essential)

§ delete funding for an intersection upgrade, as the necessary works have recently been completed under the Federal Government Black Spot program.

In the two Caddens sub precincts, this means that all drainage and those roads facilities which are 100% apportioned to the Caddens sub-precinct would be delivered by proponents (through development consent conditions). Where sites front, or gain access from, O’Connell Lane or Caddens Road the proponents must construct these roads in accordance with the Development Control Plan (DCP).

In other WELL sub-precincts, this would require proponents to deliver the drainage as a condition of consent, either through common detention basins, as identified in the Caddens DCP, or alternative methods acceptable to Council.

This approach does have some potential shortcomings, which serve to reinforce Council’s arguments about the essential ‘coordination’ role of s94. Water quality outcomes may not be achieved through dispersed and site-specific drainage solutions, although both current Development Applications propose drainage basins in accordance with the Caddens DCP. Council, however, may not have to provide for the ongoing maintenance costs.

There may also be a need to rezone land where it is no longer required for the coordinated drainage network. The zone may ‘trigger’ acquisition requirements under the existing s94 Plan. Six of the eight drainage sites, however, are owned by Crown authorities or major institutions (four by Landcom, one by State Records, one by UWS and one in past by the Anglican Retirement Village). It is less likely that a request for acquisition due to hardship would be advanced in the short term. Any required rezoning can be achieved through Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 (Stage 2) or subsequent amendments to that LEP.

A significant impact may also be experienced with the uncoordinated delivery of roads, as those roads that are 100% apportioned to the Caddens sub-precinct under the s94 Plan (O’Connell Lane and Caddens Road) would have to be constructed by developers and landowners. This may delay development in the precinct, and lead to fragmented road construction.

Conclusion

Council has previously expressed its strong commitment to ensuring the coordinated and efficient delivery of infrastructure for its new urban areas. To achieve that outcome, a continuing focus on advocating for funding solutions, to both State and Federal Government, will be required.

Reports on the two current development applications will be strengthened with a consistent policy approach, agreed by Council in its consideration of the broader implications of the State Government’s requirements for Development Contributions Plans. In this regard, the preferred approach should ideally deliver the same range and standard of facilities identified in the relevant s94 Plans, be achievable and meet the requirements of the State Government cap.

Option 2, as outlined in this report, is considered to offer the best prospect of achieving these objectives. It will enable development to proceed, new housing to be delivered and the WELL Precinct and broader Citywide objectives to be met. The recommended option also satisfies Council’s resolution of 21 June 2010, by achieving satisfactory delivery of infrastructure in accordance with the relevant Contributions Plans through ‘other means’. Moreover, it provides a framework to address future residential development applications in the WELL Precinct, if the new Minister for Planning and Infrastructure does not support Council’s request for exemption of the revised s94 Plans.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on The WELL Precinct - Funding Essential Infrastructure be received.

2. Council seek the Minister’s commitment to make and exempt (‘grandfather’) the revised WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan, the District Open Space Plan, and the Cultural Facilities Plan, as adopted by Council on 24 May 2010.

3. Council endorse Option 2, as outlined in this report, as a policy approach in dealing with current and future Development Applications, such that:

a. development contributions up to $30,000 will be applied, and directed to recreation, community, administration and selected road facilities in the WELL s94 Plan, and the revised District Open Space Plan and the current Cultural Facilities Plans;

b. conditions imposed on the development consent will require proponents to provide all required drainage works, to be delivered in accordance with DCP 2006;

c. conditions imposed on the development consent will require proponents to provide all roads which are 100% apportioned to the Caddens sub-precinct, to be delivered in accordance with DCP 2006.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Options for addressing the $30,000 contributions cap	3 Pages	Appendix
2.	Recommended response to the cap	1 Page	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

Appendix 1 - Options for addressing the $30,000 contributions cap

Appendix 1 – Options for addressing the $30,000 Contributions Cap

Option	Description	Details
1	Minister exempts the Plans from the cap	Under this scenario Council’s revised plans would be made by the Minister without the need for public exhibition of the plans or their referral to IPART for review. This scenario would not result in any infrastructure funding shortfall, and would achieve the range and standard of facilities sought by the Plans. Council resolved to seek this outcome at its meetings of 24 May 2010 and 21 February 2011. It is uncertain whether Ministerial exemption of the plans will occur, particularly with the new State Government’s proposed review of planning legislation.
2	Apply the $30,000 cap, with funding directed to recreation and community facilities Apply conditions of consent that require delivery of all drainage, and selected roadworks (those 100% apportioned to the Caddens sub precinct)	Levy the $30,000 residential cap, and use these contributions to fund recreation, community and selected road facilities in the WELL s94 Plan, along with contributions under the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans Require all drainage across the WELL Precinct to be provided by proponents (through conditions of consent) Require roadwork (where costs are 100% apportioned to Caddens) to be provided by proponents through conditions of consent Reduce the level of funding proposed to embellish a 2.06ha passive open space area Delete proposed contributions towards employment of a Community Place Manager Delete funding for an intersection upgrade, as the necessary works have recently been completed. This scenario means that the current Plans would not need amending, nor would they need referral to IPART or the Department. Funding for the District Open Space Plan and Cultural Facilities Plan would not be compromised, and the approach can be implemented immediately.
3	Apply the $30,000 cap, with funding directed to recreation and community facilities Apply conditions of consent that require delivery of all roads and all drainage across the WELL Precinct	As Option 2 above, varied by a requirement that all roads and all drainage costs are deleted from the contribution rate across all precincts. These works would be provided by the proponent through development consent conditions. In this scenario, the maximum S94 contribution rate would be approximately $18,000 - $28,000 per lot. However, there would be no coordinated management of drainage or road works, and there could be difficulties in ensuring the delivery of shared infrastructure outside individually developing properties.

4	Apply the $30,000 cap, and seek alternatives to fund and deliver the infrastructure shortfall ($47.9 million)	Applying the $30,000 cap results in a $47.9 million infrastructure funding shortfall across the WELL Precinct, District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans (measured against the adopted, in force S94 Plans). This scenario, whilst consistent with the Minister’s directions, does not provide a definite funding solution that would ensure the WELL Precinct communities are provided with the necessary infrastructure and facilities.
5	Apply a flat rate levy (3%) instead of the Development Contributions Plans	A 3% ‘flat rate’ levy raises approximately $13,500 per lot (less than 25% of funds required to deliver infrastructure identified in the S94 Plans). This scenario would result in an infrastructure funding shortfall of at least $100 million for works required across the WELL Precinct and in the Citywide Plans. Alongside the need to sustainably manage the City’s significant portfolio of assets, Council does not have the financial capacity to fund such major infrastructure shortfalls.
6	Seek to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with all landowners	This scenario is not achievable, due to the large numbers of landowners across Caddens (13 owners) and the WELL Precinct (31 owners), all of whom have different development timeframes, development intentions and land value expectations.
7	Reduce the standard of all facilities to meet the $30,000 limit imposed by the cap	This scenario would deliver a lower standard of community facilities and infrastructure than in other recent new urban areas, which is not consistent with the WELL Precinct vision. This approach is also likely to reduce the attraction of workers to the Penrith Health and Education Precinct, and increase demand on existing community and recreation facilities in the City.
8	Reduce the infrastructure and facilities in the Plans by applying the IPART ‘Essential Works’ list criteria, and revise the Plans to meet the $30,000 limit imposed by the cap	The IPART ‘Essential Works’ list does not permit contributions for District Open Space, Cultural Facilities or community facility buildings, and only allows a basic level of embellishment for active open space. This scenario would still result in contribution rates that exceed the $30,000 cap, however it would also reduce the range and standard of community facilities in the WELL Precinct and increase demand on existing community and recreation facilities in the City.
9	Remove contributions relating to the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans from the new residential development in the WELL Precinct	This scenario would still result in contribution rates that exceed the $30,000 cap, as they would be reduced by around 6% or approximately $3,000 per lot. This would also be an inequitable approach, as all new residential development across the City (infill and greenfields) contributes to these Citywide facilities.

10	Apply a Special Rate (either Citywide, or only to residents in the WELL Precinct) to fund the cap related infrastructure funding shortfall	This scenario is considered to be inequitable, as it requires existing residents across the City (who have often already contributed to the facilities and infrastructure in their own neighbourhoods) to pay for facilities and infrastructure located in the WELL Precinct. An area-specific (WELL Precinct) levy is also considered to be inequitable, as it imposes significantly higher rates on WELL Precinct residents. This approach is likely to reduce the attraction of developing (or buying into) the area.
11	Finance the infrastructure funding shortfall through possible future Department of Planning and Infrastructure grants (potentially to be administered through the Sydney Region Development Fund)	Informal discussions between senior officers of Council and the (then) Department of Planning in March 2011 explored the possibility of accessing ‘gap funding’ through a mechanism such as the Sydney Region Development Fund. At this stage there is insufficient detail to analyse the potential implications, however it is unlikely that the extent of infrastructure gaps being identified by Western Sydney growth councils could be adequately funded through this approach. It is not known whether this scenario will be further investigated under the new State Government.
12	Increase the minimum number of dwellings per hectare required within the Precinct and thereby reduce the contribution costs per dwelling	This scenario generates a lower average contribution rate by spreading the ‘per hectare’ cost of facilities across more dwellings. A minimum of 15 dwellings per hectare is required to be delivered through each new residential development proposal, with an average contribution rate of approximately $48,000 - $50,000 in the Caddens precincts. If the precinct densities were increased to 30 dwellings per hectare, the average contribution would reduce to approximately $24,000 - $25,000 per lot. The difficulty with this option if dwellings are to respond sympathetically to the site and its surrounds, no more than 15 dwellings per hectare is achievable, given the Precinct’s topography. Even if higher densities could be achieved, the additional residents would generate more demand for open space, community facilities, drainage networks, and traffic and transport infrastructure. This in turn increases the contributions cost, thus reducing the per lot savings.

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

A Leading City

Expansion of Membership - Westpool and United Independent Pools

Compiled by: Ken Muir, Risk Management Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Acting Group Manager - Finance

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

Executive Summary

This report is to inform Council of the pending inclusion of Shellharbour City Council as a new member of United Independent Pools (UIP) and Westpool effective 30 June 2011.

Background

Shellharbour City Council approached Westpool and United Independent Pools in January 2011. They had undertaken an independent review of the insurance portfolio and decided that the Pools offered the best solution to meet their needs. They sought membership in February 2011 and their application was considered by both United Independent Pools and Westpool Boards. Shellharbour City Council was offered Associate Membership status effective from 1 April 2011 and KPMG was engaged to undertake a due diligence review.

Whilst KPMG was undertaking the due diligence review, Claims Management Australasia (CMA) undertook a review of all Shellharbour City Council’s claims. In addition, the Pools’ actuary, David Minty, considered the impact of Shellharbour City Council’s membership on the Pools’ future contributions.

The Pools’ broker, Willis Australia, also carried out a comprehensive review of Shellharbour City Council’s insurance policy wording as compared to the Pools for all lines of insurance.

Results of the Due Diligence Review

KPMG was engaged to undertake a comprehensive review of Shellharbour City Council’s operations and response to risk. This involved interviewing staff at Shellharbour City Council and reviewing a range of documents which address the issues raised in the brief.

KPMG completed the due diligence review and submitted the report to a special meeting of Westpool and United Independent Pools on 25 May 2011. A copy of the KPMG report was provided to all members.

In addition a two-page Executive Summary that outlined the issues which were addressed by our brokers, claims management team, and actuary in an attempt to provide an overall health check.

KPMG has investigated each of the issues raised in the due diligence brief and is satisfied that Shellharbour City Council is managing their risks well and poses no material risk above that expected within a normal council operation.

The claims management firm used by Westpool and UIP, CMA, has undertaken a complete review of all files and they have no history of large claims and the claims appear to be managed effectively.

Shellharbour’s claims reserves have been reviewed and are now consistent with the Pool’s claims reserving protocols. Their claims experience is excellent and no new claims of any significance have arisen in the past 12 months. It is intended that Shellharbour City Council will record all claims in the Westpool and UIP claims management system (CMS) and comply with procedures and practices within the claims manual.

As mentioned previously, Willis Australia, undertook a major review of Shellharbour City Council’s policies and insurance wording. There are some differences and it is intended that the Pools incorporate the best of each policy wording into one single document for renewal in October.

Impact on Contributions

The actuary for the Pools, David Minty, has undertaken a review of contributions factoring in the relative size of Shellharbour City Council compared to other members and their claims experience.

David reported his findings to the special Board meetings of United Independent Pools and Westpool and it demonstrated that accepting Shellharbour City Council as a full member would not impact contributions.

The existing equity of members would not be affected and the addition of Shellharbour City Council does not have an impact on the minimal capital requirement (MCR).

Additional Issues

In considering the application for Shellharbour City Council it is worthwhile considering some of the additional benefits the members will receive by the inclusion of a new member.

§ The Pools grow through sharing knowledge, policies and procedures. Inclusion of Shellharbour City Council will bring fresh ideas which all can benefit from.

§ New membership brings new individuals who can share knowledge and skills to help manage our risks.

§ Inclusion of Shellharbour City Council increases our buying power in the insurance market which, if managed correctly, should help drive prices down.

§ Westpool and United Independent Pools are susceptible to competition and loss of members could compromise our future. Similarly, inclusion of a member should help to strengthen our position in the market and protect us from competition.

§ Inclusion of Shellharbour City Council will bring an additional $860,000 into both Westpool and United Independent Pools. While some of this money is used to pay insurance and running costs, up to 50% of it is retained as claims provisions and increases our investment portfolio.

Outcome

The due diligence review has resulted in a comprehensive analysis of Shellharbour City Council risks and their actions to manage these risks. The report has considered the impact on existing members and demonstrates that the introduction of Shellharbour City Council will add value to our organisations and not adversely impact on existing members.

In light of the review, Westpool and United Independent Pools have resolved to invite Shellharbour City Council as a full member commencing 4.00pm 30 June 2011.

A letter has been forwarded to Shellharbour City Council formally offering full membership to both Westpool and United Independent Pools effective 4.00pm 30 June 2011 once their existing insurance expires. Once Shellharbour City Council has accepted the Pools’ offer a new Deed of Agreement will need to be signed by each member general manager.

The members of Westpool and United Independent Pools consider that this recent development will strengthen the Pools and increase the Pools position in the insurance market.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Expansion of Membership - Westpool and United Independent Pools be received.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

A Leading City

Insurance Renewals 2011-12

Compiled by: Ken Muir, Risk Management Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Acting Group Manager - Finance

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

Executive Summary

To provide information of insurance cover renewals with Westpool and United Independent Pools (UIP). The report recommends that Council maintains the existing excess for liability and property insurance and authorise contributions for insurance cover provided by Westpool and UIP.

Background

Council is a founding member of two local government insurance pools - Westpool and United Independent Pools (UIP).

Westpool comprises the following Local Government bodies:

§ Blacktown City Council	· Parramatta City Council
§ Blue Mountains City Council	· Penrith City Council
§ Fairfield City Council	· Shellharbour City Council (July 2011)
§ Hawkesbury City Council	· Wollongong City Council
§ Liverpool City Council

Liability cover is provided through Westpool. Councillor Ross Fowler OAM has been Chairperson of Westpool for the last 16 years.

UIP was formed by members of Westpool and MetroPool to spread the risks, share resources and stabilise premiums. UIP comprises the following Local Government bodies:

· Westpool Councils	· Hunters Hill Council
· Auburn City Council	· Lane Cove Council
· Botany Bay City Council	· Marrickville Council
· Holroyd City Council	· Rockdale City Council

UIP facilitates insurance programs for Industrial Special Risk (Property), comprehensive motor vehicle and minor ancillary cover.

Current Situation

Liability Insurance

Westpool’s liability program provides pooled insurance cover for public liability, and professional indemnity.

The contribution to Westpool liability cover for 2010-11 for Council and its controlled entities was $923,000 with a $100,000 claims excess layer.

For 2011-12, Westpool has offered the following claims excess layers for liability cover:

Liability Claim Excess	$50,000	$75,000	$100,000
Contribution 11-12	$987,000	$934,000	$898,000

The 2011-12 premium is a reduction of almost 3% on the 2010-11 premium that recognises the impact of the implementation of the Civil Liability Act and Council’s claims management processes with a $100,000 excess. The following graph demonstrates that in the last 10 years, the number of claims and incidents have not significantly changed but claims costs have significantly decreased.

Industrial Special Risk and General Property Insurance

Council’s Industrial Special Risk and General Property Insurance cover is due to expire on 30 June 2011. Cover is provided for insurance categories of Industrial Special Risk (ISR), fire & all risk (property only), machinery breakdown and computer breakdown.

In 2005, Council joined the UIP ISR self insurance program.

The contribution to UIP for ISR cover for 2010-11 for Council and its controlled entities was $365,000 with a $20,000 claims excess layer.

UIP has provided variable ISR excesses for 2011-12. These are:

ISR Claims Excess	$10,000	$20,000
Premium Contribution 11-12	$620,000	$592,000

The ISR Premium for Council and the controlled entities has increased approximately 62% over 2010-11 budget. The premium calculation fluctuates as a result of market forces as well as the value of Council’s assets as a proportion the assets of all United Independent Pool (UIP) members and the claims made by Council. An increase of 9% is the result of claims made by Council and increased asset values. The effect of recent global catastrophes, including major natural disasters in Queensland, Victoria and New Zealand, to mention a few, have started to impact on the insurance market resulted in a 53% premium increase for the Pool. The increase in the 2011-12 premium has been included in the budget. It is expected that the impact on the general market will result in increases in the forthcoming years and it is expected that the 2012-13 premium will increase by a minimum of 10%.

Given the random number of claims and Council’s initiatives to improve fire and security protection, it is considered viable to continue with the excess to $20,000. The number of property claims are summarised in the following table.

FY	Location	Claim Cost	Cause
2005-06	Hickeys Lane Amenities	$ 111,319	Fire
2005-06	Andrews Road Baseball amenities	$ 65,898	Fire
2006-07	Penrith City Council	$ 202,471	Storm
2007-08	Multiple sites - Lewers, 1 Recreation Centre and 3 Child Care Centres	$ 46,579	Storm
2007-08	Penrith Pool	$ 307,667	Fire
2007-08	Harold Corr Amenities Block	$ 122,867	Fire
2008-09	Penrith City Council - loss of Depot Master Keys	$ 23,217	Theft
2008-09	Lambridge Estate Drain Security Fence	$ 15,978	Theft
2009-10	Fire Control Centre Regentville	$ 20,190	Storm
2009-10	Ched Towns Reserve Sporting Field Amenities Block	$ 25,000	Fire
2009-10	Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre* (Special $10,000 excess)	$ 11,000	Vandalism
2010-11	Multiple council buildings (December 2010)	$ 150,000	Storm
2010-11	Ripples Leisure Centre	$ 53,922	Storm
2010-11	Penrith City Council - Kingswood Depot	$ 47,850	Theft

Motor Vehicle Insurance

UIP provided bulk comprehensive insurance motor vehicle cover for its members. This cover evolved to a self insurance pool in 2009-10 and has resulted in savings for members. The annual fleet insurance premium for 2011-12 remains the same as 2010-11 at $221,000. This reflects a reduced number of claims made in the last 2 years.

Controlled Entities

Controlled entities have been offered a range of claims excesses for ISR and liability cover with appropriately varied contributions based on the Westpool and UIP contribution formulae.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Insurance Renewals 2011-12 be received.

2. Council retain its $100,000 claims excess for Public Liability cover and agree to pay a contribution of $898,000 to Westpool for liability cover.

3. Council retain its $20,000 claims excess for Industrial Special Risk and General Property cover and agree to pay a contribution of $592,000 to United Independent Pools.

4. Council agree to pay UIP a contribution of $221,000 to the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance pool.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

Appendix 1 - Making of the Rates 2011-12

Making of Rates and Charges for

1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012

The Council for period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 set the following charges for Domestic Waste Management Services and Waste Management Services.

Annual Domestic Waste Management Charge (S496 Local Government Act)

Vacant Land - Urban and Non-Urban Areas

In respect of Vacant Land within the Council area where a domestic waste management service is available, then a charge of $30.00 per annum.

Charge Name	Amount ($)
DomWaste Vacant Land Charge	30.00

Domestic Waste - Urban Residential Single Dwellings & Dual Occupancies (3 Bin Service - Sustainable Service)

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 140L residual bin fortnightly, 240L organic bin weekly and a recycling bin fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $279.00 per annum or $5.37 per week (called Domestic Waste Sustainable Service 1).

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling or organic waste service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12

No. of Residual Garbage Services Standard (140) Fortnightly	No. of Organic Services (240) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	1	Domestic Waste Sustainable Service 1	279.00
2	2	2	Domestic Waste Sustainable Service 2	558.00
1	2	1	Domestic Waste Sustainable Service 2 Org & 1 Rec	336.00
1	1	2	Domestic Waste Sustainable Service 1 Org & 2 Rec	307.00

Domestic Waste - Urban Residential Single Dwellings & Dual Occupancies (3 Bin Service - Weekly Residual Service)

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 140L residual bin weekly, 240L organic bin weekly and a recycling bin fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $364.00 per annum or $7.00 per week (called Domestic Waste Weekly 140L Red Service 1).

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling or organic waste service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12

No. of Residual Garbage Services Standard (140) Weekly	No. of Organic Services (240) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	1	Domestic Waste Weekly 140L Red Service 1	364.00
2	2	2	Domestic Waste Weekly 140L Red Service 2	728.00
1	1	2	Domestic Waste Weekly 140L Red Service 1 Org & 2 Rec	392.00
1	2	1	Domestic Waste Weekly 140L Red Service 2 Org & 1 Rec	421.00

Domestic Waste - Urban Residential Single Dwellings & Dual Occupancies (3 Bin Service - Reduced Organics Service)

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 140L residual bin fortnightly, 140L organic bin fortnightly and a recycling bin fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $255.00 per annum or $4.90 per week (called Domestic Waste Reduced Organics Service 1).

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling or organic waste service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12.

No. of Residual Garbage Services Standard (140) Fortnightly	No. of Organic Services (140) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	1	Domestic Waste Reduced Organics Service 1	255.00
2	2	2	Domestic Waste Reduced Organics Service 2	510.00
1	1	2	Domestic Waste Reduced Organics 2 Recycling	283.00

Domestic Waste - Urban Residential Single Dwellings & Dual Occupancies (3 Bin Service - 140L (Residual & Organic) Weekly)

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 140L residual bin weekly, 140L organic bin weekly and a recycling bin fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $340.00 per annum or $6.54 per week (called Domestic Waste Weekly Red Service (Sml) 1)

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling or organic waste service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for

2011 -12

No. of Residual Garbage Services Small (140) Weekly	No. of Organic Services (140) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	1	Domestic Waste Weekly Red Service (Sml) 1	340.00
2	2	2	Domestic Waste Weekly Red Service (Sml) 2	680.00
1	1	2	Domestic Waste Wkly Red Service(Sml) 1 Org & 2 Rec	368.00

Domestic Waste - Urban Residential Single Dwellings & Dual Occupancies

(3 Bin Service - Domestic Waste (Medium) Service)

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 240L residual bin fortnightly, 140L organic bin weekly and a recycling bin fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $309.00 per annum or $5.94 per week (called Domestic Waste (Medium) Service 1).

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling or organic waste service is provided, as per table for annual charges

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12

No. of Residual Garbage Services Large (240) Fortnightly	No. of Organic Services (140) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	1	Domestic Waste (Medium) Service 1	309.00
2	2	2	Domestic Waste (Medium) Service 2	618.00
1	1	2	Domestic Waste (Medium) Service 1 Org & 2 Rec	337.00

Domestic Waste - Urban Residential Single Dwellings & Dual Occupancies (3 Bin Service - Domestic Waste (Large) Service)

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 240L residual bin fortnightly, 240L organic bin weekly and a recycling bin fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $329.00 per annum or $6.33 per week (called Domestic Waste (Lge) Service 1).

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling or organic waste service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12.

No. of Residual Garbage Services Large (240) Fortnightly	No. of Organic Services (240) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	1	Domestic Waste (Lge) Service 1	329.00
2	2	2	Domestic Waste (Lge) Service 2	658.00
1	1	2	Domestic Waste (Lge) Service 1 Org & 2 Rec	357.00
1	2	1	Domestic Waste (Lge) Service 2 Org & 1 Rec	386.00
2	1	1	2 Domestic Waste (Lge) Service 1 Org & 1 Rec	400.00
2	1	2	2 Domestic Waste (Lge) Service 1 Org & 2 Rec	428.00

Domestic Waste - Urban Residential Single Dwellings & Dual Occupancies

(3 Bin Service - Domestic Waste (Large) Weekly Service)

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 240L residual bin weekly, 240L organic bin weekly and a recycling bin fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $475.00 per annum or $9.14 per week (called Domestic Waste Wkly Red Service (Lge)1).

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling or organic waste service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12

No. of Residual Garbage Services Large (240) Weekly	No. of Organic Services (240) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	1	Domestic Waste Wkly Red Service (Lge) 1	475.00
1	1	2	Domestic Waste Wkly Red Service(Lge) 1 Org & 2 Rec	503.00
1	2	1	Domestic Waste Wkly Red Service(Lge) 2 Org & 1 Rec	532.00

Domestic Waste (240L Bin) - Non Urban Residential and Multi-Unit Dwellings

In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

Where not more than one service (being 240L waste bin weekly and a recycling fortnightly collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $279.00 per annum or $5.37 per week (called Domestic Waste Service 1).

Where more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

Where more than one recycling service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12

No. of 240L Waste Services (Large)	No. of Recycling Services	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	Domestic Waste Service 1	279.00
1	2	1 Domestic Waste 2 Recycling	307.00
1	3	1 Domestic Waste 3 Recycling	335.00
2	2	2 Domestic Waste Service 2	558.00
2	3	2 Domestic Waste 3 Recycling	586.00
2	4	2 Domestic Waste 4 Recycling	614.00
3	3	Domestic Waste Service 3	837.00
4	4	Domestic Waste Service 4	1,116.00
5	5	Domestic Waste Service 5	1,395.00
6	6	Domestic Waste Service 6	1,674.00
7	7	Domestic Waste Service 7	1,953.00
8	8	Domestic Waste Service 8	2,232.00
9	9	Domestic Waste Service 9	2,511.00
10	10	Domestic Waste Service 10	2,790.00
11	11	Domestic Waste Service 11	3,069.00
12	12	Domestic Waste Service 12	3,348.00
13	13	Domestic Waste Service 13	3,627.00
14	14	Domestic Waste Service 14	3,906.00
15	15	Domestic Waste Service 15	4,185.00
16	16	Domestic Waste Service 16	4,464.00
17	17	Domestic Waste Service 17	4,743.00
18	18	Domestic Waste Service 18	5,022.00
19	19	Domestic Waste Service 19	5,301.00
20	20	Domestic Waste Service 20	5,580.00
21	21	Domestic Waste Service 21	5,859.00
22	22	Domestic Waste Service 22	6,138.00
23	23	Domestic Waste Service 23	6,417.00
24	24	Domestic Waste Service 24	6,696.00
25	25	Domestic Waste Service 25	6,975.00
26	26	Domestic Waste Service 26	7,254.00
27	27	Domestic Waste Service 27	7,533.00
28	28	Domestic Waste Service 28	7,812.00
29	29	Domestic Waste Service 29	8,091.00
30	30	Domestic Waste Service 30	8,370.00
31	31	Domestic Waste Service 31	8,649.00
32	32	Domestic Waste Service 32	8,928.00
33	33	Domestic Waste Service 33	9,207.00
34	34	Domestic Waste Service 34	9,486.00
35	35	Domestic Waste Service 35	9,765.00
36	36	Domestic Waste Service 36	10,044.00
37	37	Domestic Waste Service 37	10,323.00
38	38	Domestic Waste Service 38	10,602.00
39	39	Domestic Waste Service 39	10,881.00
40	40	Domestic Waste Service 40	11,160.00
41	41	Domestic Waste Service 41	11,439.00
42	42	Domestic Waste Service 42	11,718.00
43	43	Domestic Waste Service 43	11,997.00
44	44	Domestic Waste Service 44	12,276.00
45	45	Domestic Waste Service 45	12,555.00
46	46	Domestic Waste Service 46	12,834.00
47	47	Domestic Waste Service 47	13,113.00
48	48	Domestic Waste Service 48	13,392.00
49	49	Domestic Waste Service 49	13,671.00
50	50	Domestic Waste Service 50	13,950.00
51	51	Domestic Waste Service 51	14,229.00
52	52	Domestic Waste Service 52	14,508.00
53	53	Domestic Waste Service 53	14,787.00
54	54	Domestic Waste Service 54	15,066.00
55	55	Domestic Waste Service 55	15,345.00
56	56	Domestic Waste Service 56	15,624.00
57	57	Domestic Waste Service 57	15,903.00
58	58	Domestic Waste Service 58	16,182.00
59	59	Domestic Waste Service 59	16,461.00
60	60	Domestic Waste Service 60	16,740.00
61	61	Domestic Waste Service 61	17,019.00
62	62	Domestic Waste Service 62	17,298.00
63	63	Domestic Waste Service 63	17,577.00
73	73	Domestic Waste Service 73	20,367.00
74	74	Domestic Waste Service 74	20,646.00
75	75	Domestic Waste Service 75	20,925.00
76	76	Domestic Waste Service 76	21,204.00
77	77	Domestic Waste Service 77	21,483.00
78	78	Domestic Waste Service 78	21,762.00
79	79	Domestic Waste Service 79	22,041.00
80	80	Domestic Waste Service 80	22,320.00

Domestic Waste (140L Bin) – Non-Urban Residential and Multi-Unit Dwellings (2 Bin Service)

§In respect of land that is not vacant and is not levied any other domestic waste charge.

oWhere not more than one service (being 140L waste bin weekly, and a fortnightly recycling collection) is prepared on a property, a charge of $255.00 per annum or $4.90 per week (called 140L Dom Waste Service 1)

oWhere more than one service is provided, as per table for annual charges.

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011-2012.

No. of 140L Waste Services	No. of Recycling Services	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	1	140L Dom Waste Service 1	255.00
1	2	1 x140L Dom Waste 2 Recycling	283.00
2	2	140L Dom Waste Service 2	510.00
3	3	140L Dom Waste Service 3	765.00
4	4	140L Dom Waste Service 4	1,020.00
5	5	140L Dom Waste Service 5	1,275.00
6	6	140L Dom Waste Service 6	1,530.00
7	7	140L Dom Waste Service 7	1,785.00
18	18	140L Dom Waste Service 18	4,590.00

Domestic Waste Management Service Charge (S496 Local Government Act)

Domestic Waste Management Service Charges (including vacant land charges) apply to each parcel of rateable land at the rates specified in the above table and based on the number of residential dwellings or flats occupying each parcel of land.

Non Urban Residential and Multi Unit Dwellings (2 bin service)

Dwellings in non urban areas (as determined by Council) and multi unit dwellings will be provided with the 2 bin service (garbage and recycling service).

Urban Residential - Single Dwellings and Dual Occupancies (3 bin service)

Single dwellings and dual occupancies in urban areas (as determined by Council) will be provided with the 3 bin service (residual garbage, organics and recycling service)

Bin Change Over Fee

Where residents choose to upsize or downsize their service level more than once in any 12 month period then a $32.00 Bin Change Over Fee will apply.

Contamination Management Charge

Where it is found that an Organics bin has been contaminated with waste (other than organic ) on four occasions through Council’s contamination Management Program and the owner and occupier have been informed and advised on each occasion then a Dom Waste Wkly (Contamination) service shall apply.

No. of Residual Garbage Services Large (240) Weekly	No. of Organic Services (240) Weekly	No. of Recycling Services (240) Fortnightly	Charge Name	Amount ($)
1	0	1	Dom Waste Wkly (Contamination) Service1	475.00

Annual Charges for Waste Management Services

(S501 Local Government Act)

Where a Sewer Service is NOT Available

§In Respect of land that has a waste management weekly (sullage) service consisting of effluent collection well(s) and removal of effluent weekly

oWhere there is a single dwelling, a charge of $1,209.00 per annum or $23.25 per week.

oWhere there are multiple flats or dwellings on a property as per table for annual charges.

§In Respect of land that has a waste management fortnightly (sullage) service consisting of effluent collection well(s) and removal of effluent fortnightly.

oWhere there is a single dwelling, a charge of $604.50 per annum or $23.25 per fortnight.

oWhere there are multiple flats or dwelling on a property as per table for annual charges.

§Where an extra Sullage removal is provided by Council, there is a charge of $23.25.

§In respect of land that receives an on site waste management (sullage) inspection, a charge of $129.00 applies for a two or five year licence

Where a Sewer Service IS Available:

§In Respect of land that has a waste management weekly (sullage) service consisting of effluent collection well(s) and removal of effluent weekly.

oWhere there is a single dwelling, a charge of $3,364.40 per annum or $64.70 per week.

oWhere there are multiple flats or dwellings on a property as per table for annual charges.

§Where an extra Sullage removal is provided by Council, there is a charge of $64.70.

§In respect of land that receives an on site waste management (sullage) inspection, a charge of $129.00 applies for a two or five year licence.

Annual Residential Effluent Charges -Sewered Areas (Sydney Water financially assisted properties)

oWhere there is a single dwelling, a charge of $1,209.00 per annum or $23.25 per week.

oWhere there are multiple flats or dwelling on a property as per table for annual charges.

§Where an extra Sullage removal is provided by Council, there is a charge of $23.25

§In respect of land that receives an on site waste management (sullage) inspection, a charge of $129.00 applies for a two or five year licence.

§In respect of land that has a waste management fortnightly (sullage) service consisting of effluent collection well(s) and removal of effluent fortnightly.

oWhere there is a single dwelling, a charge of $604.50 per annum or $23.25 per fortnight.

oWhere there are multiple flats or dwelling on a property as per table for annual charges.

§Where an extra Sullage removal is provided by Council, there is a charge of $23.25.

§In respect of land that receives an on site waste management (sullage) inspection, a charge of $129.00 applies for a two or five year licence

The table below indicates the charge for each stated service or number of stated services for 2011 -12

No of Services	Charge Name (Unsewered Area)	Annual Charge ($)
1	Waste Management - Wkly Sullage 1	1209.00
1	Waste Management - Ftn Sullage 1	604.50
5	Waste Management - Wkly Sullage 5	6045.00

No of Services

Charge Name (Sewered Area)

Annual Charge

($)

Sewered Area Effluent (Sullage) Wk Collection

3364.40

No of Services	Charge Name (Sewered Area) Sydney Water Financial Assistance	Annual Charge ($)
1	Sewered Area Effluent (Subsidised) Wk 1	1209.00
1	Sewered Area Effluent (Subsidised) Ftn 1	604.50
5	Sewered Area Effluent (Subsidised) Wk 5	6045.00

Fee Name	Fee ($)
Registration & Inspection Fee	129.00
Registration & Inspection Pensioners Fee	35.00
Renewal of approval to operate an AWTS	35.00

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

A City of Opportunities

Development Application DA11/0107 Proposed first floor addition at Lot 2 DP 26767 (No. 4) Joseph Street, Kingswood Applicant: Tim Harrington; Owner: Peter Russell and Sharon Talbot

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 first floor dwelling addition. The application seeks to vary the maximum external wall height restriction 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 proposal comprises a first floor addition containing four bedrooms, rumpus and bathroom. The site has a northerly aspect with a slight cross fall from the western boundary.

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 maximum external wall height and building envelope requirement is unreasonable due to the proposed use remaining as residential low density, 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 Joseph Street, Kingswood. The site is approximately 505m² in area and has a Northerly orientation. The site is relatively level with a fall of 500mm from the western boundary to the Eastern boundary. The site is currently occupied by a single storey brick veneer dwelling (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 a first floor additions consisting of a rumpus room, four bedrooms and a bathroom (see Appendix No. 2 & 3 – 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)

An objection to the development standard contained within LEP 1998 (Urban Lands) has been lodged in accordance with the provisions of this State Environmental Planning Policy. The objection is to the external wall height requirement; as shown in the following table.

	Minimum required under LEP	Proposed	Extent of Variation
Maximum External Wall height	3.5m	5 m	42.5%

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 External Wall Height

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 wall height of 5m. This variation proposes a departure of 42.85% from the development standard.

Assessment of the proposal took into consideration other established housing in the street, particularly towards the western end, some of which are two storey dwellings. These dwellings together with the proposed dwelling benefit from the wide road (20m) which results in dwellings being separated by approximately 30m. This assists in reducing bulk/scale and adverse impacts on the streetscape.

The privacy to adjoining neighbours has been taken into account with the room layouts within the proposal being designed to minimise the potential for over looking. Windows to the first floor are to bedrooms and a rumpus. The application was notified but no submissions were received.

The orientation of the lot results in adequate solar access to the adjoining properties.

The existing landscape area is retained through construction over the existing dwelling.

Assessment of SEPP 1 Objections

1) Development Standard

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

The objectives for Zone 2(c) Residential (Low – Medium Density) are as follows:

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

The proposed dwelling does not require the removal of any vegetation for the construction of the new dwelling. A corridor at the rear of the site is provided for landscaping and private open space.

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

The proposed addition will not have any adverse affect on the character of the streetscape, and is consistent with the adjoining development, particularly existing two storey dwellings towards the western end of the street. The front façade is compatible with surrounding development and contributes to the compatibility of the addition.

“(iii) to consolidate population and housing densities,”

The proposed development will have no significant impacts on the population and housing density.

“(iv) to expand housing choices by allowing multi-unit housing with a single storey appearance”

Multi-unit housing is not proposed.

“(v) to promote a variety of housing types or forms upon the site of each proposed development, and”

The proposed development will enhance the variety of housing form within the street whilst maintaining the street’s existing character..

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

The proposed dwelling is for habitable purposes.

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 to height and bulk.”

The location of the garage in the rear yard with the driveway extending down the side of the dwelling gives the site an open feel. The proposed addition compliments other development in the street which also has wall height exceedances.

As such the proposed development will not have any significant additional visual impacts on the streetscape and is compatible with adjoining development and amenity of the area.

The Joseph Street road reservation is 20m wide. The presence of the two storey element will have little impact on the wide streetscape.

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

Potential impact on the privacy of adjacent properties has been considered in the design. Windows to the first floor will be to bedrooms, a bathroom and a rumpus room. The location of the window to the rumpus being partially over the stairs will reduce privacy impacts as occupants will be in transit when passing the stairs.

Due to the orientation of the allotment, there will be no significant overshadowing of the private open space adjacent properties.

The site and surrounds are relatively flat and the proposed development will not cause any loss of significant views for surrounding properties.

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

The proposed first floor development does not affect the separation between buildings and boundaries. By extending vertically, private open space is preserved. This could not be achieved with a ground-level addition. The proposal maintains the setbacks required by the planning controls.

“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.”

This objective is achieved by opting to extend vertically rather than encroaching on the rear yard. The existing landscaped area is retained and the hydrology of the site is maintained allowing infiltration of stormwater and no additional stormwater generation.

The dwelling allows for adequate side setbacks from the site boundaries and appropriate separation between the neighbouring dwellings. The rear yard will maintain a private open space corridor of 6m to the rear boundary which is consistent with the LEP requirements and the adjoining properties.

This SEPP 1 objection may be considered 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.

· A number of recently constructed two storey dwellings exist within the established residential area.

· The extent of the increased external wall height is consistent with the surrounding area.

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(c) Residential (Low to Medium Density). The proposed development is defined as a dwelling, which is permissible development 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 nominated building envelope and comply with maximum external wall height of 3.5m.

The maximum external wall height is 5 metres and is discussed above. A variation to the building envelope requirement has already been discussed.

Landscaped Area & Rear Boundary Setback

Proposal complies.

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. 4 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 residential dwelling addition. 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

The proposed development objectives of Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings, protect the character or development and streetscapes and to promote a variety of housing types and forms upon the site of each proposed development.

The subject development application seeks approval to construct a first floor addition over an existing residential dwelling and is supported by a SEPP 1 objection seeking a variation of the maximum external wall height requirement.

The SEPP 1 objection is supported as it has been demonstrated that the maximum external wall height requirement is unreasonable in this case with the development satisfying the zone objectives. The development is considered satisfactory under the heads of consideration of Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA11/0107 Proposed first floor addition at Lot 2 DP 26767 (No. 4) Joseph Street, Kingswood be received.

2. The SEEP 1 objection relating to maximum external wall height be supported.

3. Development Application DA11/0107 Proposed first floor addition at Lot 2 DP 26767 (No. 4) Joseph Street, Kingswood 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

D009 – Covering Waste Storage area

D010 – Waste disposal

E001 – BCA compliance

H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H017 – Loads on existing buildings

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 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

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

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

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

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

A City of Opportunities

Development Application No. 11/0504 for Children's Play Area, Awning, and Business Identification Sign above Rear Entrance at Lot 16 DP 583184 (No. 91) Great Western Highway, Emu Plains Applicant: Jim Aitken; Owner: Jim Aitken, James Aitken, Marlene Aitken, David Reeves

Compiled by: Jonathon Wood, Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Objective	We have access to what we need
Community Outcome	A City with 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 a development application seeking approval to construct a covered children’s play area and the provision of a business identification sign over an entry area. The development site currently accommodates a real estate office and restaurant and there has been a recent development consent issued for the establishment of an alfresco dining area and rear entry from the Billington Place carpark.

The key issue identified throughout the assessment of the application relates to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles. Detailed assessment has revealed that this issue can be addressed through the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the matters prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and found to be satisfactory, and as such the application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

The development application is referred to Council for determination as the applicant is a Councillor.

Background

The development site currently accommodates a real estate office (Jim Aitken & Partners Emu Plains) and a restaurant (Jimmy’s Steakhouse). Those land uses are authorised under development consents 05/1065 and 05/1320 respectively. Council has recently approved, under development consent 09/0609, an alfresco dining area with a dedicated entry point from Billington Place. That consent also authorised the provision of an awning over part of the alfresco area, wrought iron entry gates, shrub plantings, an enclosed bin storage area and chainwire fencing to enclose this area.

The current application seeks to further refine the final design of this outdoor dining area and also improve identification of the rear of the site as an entry point.

Site and Surrounds

The development site is located on the northern side of the Great Western Highway, approximately 100m east of the signalised intersection of Old Bathurst Road and the Great Western Highway. The site is a deep, narrow lot orientated in a southerly direction and is approximately 720m² in area. The site currently accommodates a single storey brick building that is occupied by a real estate office and restaurant. In addition to having frontage to the Great Western Highway the site is also accessible from the Billington Place carpark located at the rear of the site. This access point is currently being redeveloped to provide for an alfresco dining area and an enclosed bin storage facility.

The surrounding area has a mixed character, with the area located on the northern side of the Great Western Highway incorporating a variety of small scale commercial land uses, and the area to the south accommodating primarily residential land uses. There is also a small pocket of residential dwellings further to the north of the site which are located between the railway line and the strip of commercial premises.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

· Use of approximately 50m2 at the rear of the site for the installation of children’s play equipment and associated rubber softfall

· Construction of an awning structure to provide cover to the children’s play equipment

· Construction of a business identification sign, in the form of a 5m x 1m illuminated light box, above the wrought iron entry gates adjoining the Billington Place carpark

Planning Assessment

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

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

The development proposal has been assessed and found to be in accordance with the general planning considerations set out in Clause 5 of the REP and the relevant specific planning policies and related recommended strategies set out in Clause 6. In particular, stormwater will be directed to the existing stormwater system and conditions of consent reinforce this.

Interim Development Order No.2- City of Penrith (IDO No.2)

The subject site is zoned 3(a) General Business under the provisions of IDO No.2. The proposed development is defined as alterations and additions to a ‘commercial premises’, which is permissible with the consent of Council. There are no relevant standards prescribed within the IDO that apply to the current development proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.64- Advertising and Signage (SEPP)

Clause 8 is relevant and provides:

(a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Policy and an assessment against the criteria specified in Schedule 1 has also been carried out and found to be satisfactory. A compliance table can be found as an attachment to this report.

It is important to note that the proposal is defined as a ‘building identification sign’ under the SEPP and as such the additional provisions of Part 3 Advertisements and of Part 4 Miscellaneous are not relevant to the current proposal.

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

There are no draft environmental planning instruments applicable to the land.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

2.2 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

The current development application seeks consent for the placement of play equipment at the rear of the site with an awning over this area. The play area is within 5m of the rear entry gates and as such there is a potential safety issue for children using the equipment. This is in terms of both children leaving the play area and accessing the carpark of their own accord or the danger of persons unknown to the children taking them from the area. Access control and passive surveillance are key considerations in this circumstance and there are a number of measures required as part of development consent 09/0609 that partly address these issues. Relevant conditions of that consent provide:

1. The rear gate is to be opened for customer access to the restaurant during operating hours. The entrance is to be sign posted, lit and manned appropriately throughout business.

2. Details of lights, alarms and cameras to enable clear and direct movement through the building and monitor unauthorised access to non-public spaces are required to be submitted prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Ideally the rear access gate would be closed during the operation of the restaurant however this is unrealistic given that the rear entry is likely to be the primary entry point for patrons travelling by vehicle, as parking is at the rear of the site. Moreover fire safety considerations require that the entrance remain open at all times to facilitate egress in the event of fire and this was reinforced through conditions as part of development consent 09/0609.

Council’s Community Safety Coordinator has advised that in this circumstance it will be an ongoing management issue for the operator, as well as the parents of the children using the play equipment. As a result it is a recommended condition of consent (Special Condition No. 2.5) that the playground area be fenced and fixed with a self closing gate, and that a ‘rules of play’ sign be attached to the entry gate to play area. This sign should at minimum outline that ‘children are to be supervised at all times’. These measures will reduce the potential for children to leave the premises and enter the carpark area.

2.7 Notification and Advertising

In accordance with the provisions of this section the application was not notified to adjoining properties as they were not considered to be affected by the matters prescribed in section B3.

2.10 Flood Liable Land

The development site is identified as being located within the ‘low flood island’ in the event of the 1 in 100 year Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). Given the proposal is an ancillary element to the existing restaurant, it has been determined that compliance with this section of the DCP is unnecessary.

2.11 Carparking

The development proposal does not increase the floor area associated with the restaurant, nor does it facilitate additional seating opportunities. The playground area is targeted specifically at children attending the site with parents and as such the overall parking demands generated by the restaurant will remain generally in accordance with those assessed under development application No. 09/0609.

3.1 Advertising Signs

The relevant objectives of this section of the DCP are listed as:

§ To promote an integrated design approach to all signage in character with the locality and its architectural and landscape features.

§ To prevent the proliferation of advertising signs.

§ To permit the adequate display of information concerning the identification of the premises, the name of the occupier and the activity conducted on the land.

§ To encourage a coordinated approach to advertising signs where multiple occupancy of building/s occur.

§ To prevent distraction to motorists and road users, and minimise the potential for traffic conflicts.

§ To ensure signage does not create conflicts or safety problems for pedestrians.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives as the scale of signage is appropriate when giving consideration to the built form and character of the surrounding area. The signage does not constitute a proliferation of signage and only identified the premises and the activity conducted on the land. The signage will not result in distraction to motorists and road users and minimizes potential for traffic conflict in terms of both vehicles and pedestrians.

An assessment against the relevant controls is found below.

2. All advertising is to be -

(a) constructed of high quality, durable materials;

(b) considered in conjunction with design and construction of buildings;

(c) restricted to one sign identifying the name of the occupants and/or products manufactured or produced on the site; and

(d) contained wholly within the site.

3. Signs should generally be confined to the ground level of the building, awning or fascia.

4. The sign is to be contained fully within the confines of the wall or awning to which it is mounted.

6. In the case of multiple occupancy of building or sites -

(b) only one sign is to be placed on the face of each premises either located on or over the door of the shop, unit, office, suite etc.;

(c) one under awning sign shall be permitted for each shop, unit, office, suite etc. In the case where the shop, office, suite etc. has more than one street frontage, one under awning sign may be permitted to each street frontage; and

Comment: The proposal is considered to be consistent as the illuminated lightbox signage identifies operations on the site, is located below the entry arch and above the wrought iron entry gates. There is also sign located over rear entry and only one (1) sign is located at the rear entry point.

6.6 Emu Plains Commercial Area

This section of the DCP applies to land at Emu Plains bounded by Old Bathurst Road, the Great Western Highway, Lamrock Street and the Western Railway line. The development site falls within this area and as such the provisions of the instrument must be considered.

The aims of this section of the instrument are specified as:

(a) to provide urban design guidelines for commercial and residential

development within the area;

(b) to reflect current traffic management conditions and to guide future traffic

management and parking within the area;

(c) to ensure the enhancement of pedestrian access within the area and

between surrounding areas;

(d) to ensure the physical enhancement of the area through the provision of

landscaping, street tree planting and good quality urban design.

It must be noted that the majority of these aims have been addressed as part of previous development consents issued on the premises. Detailed assessment against the relevant development controls has found that the proposal is generally consistent with the controls. However an area that warrants further discussion relates to controls to preserve the amenity of nearby residents. An extract from the DCP is provided below:

3.2.1 Development proposals for the land shall be designed:

(1) to take account of the amenity of any adjacent residential development by providing:

· Attractive external design and site planning to maintain residential privacy and minimise noise generation;

The external design of the proposal is consistent with the roofing of the alfresco dining area, and the provision of the children’s play equipment is also satisfactory in terms of external design given the existing presentation of the commercial area as viewed from the Billington Place carpark and surrounds. It is anticipated that the children’s play area will generate noise, and given there are residential properties less than 50m from this area it is appropriate to regulate the hours during which the play area can be utilised. A recommended condition of consent (Special Condition No. 2.7) stipulates that the play equipment is to be utilised only when the restaurant is operating and is not to extend beyond 9pm.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

This section is not applicable for the subject application.

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

Design and External Appearance

The awning structure adopts a similar configuration to the roof covering the alfresco dining area and is open on all three (3) sides which provides for passive surveillance to the alfresco area and the children’s play area. The business identification signage spans the space below the entry arch and above the wrought iron entry gates and therefore is compatible with the design of the rear entry area. The use of an illuminated light box is appropriate when considering the operating hours of the restaurant and the fact that the rear entry will serve as the main entry point for patrons driving to the site. The dimensions of 5m x 1m are commensurate with the scale of the entry arch and the text on the sign is consistent with that used at the front of the site. Recommended condition of consent (Special Condition No. 2.8) requires that the signage is only permitted to be illuminated when the restaurant is open in order to minimise potential disturbance to nearby residential properties.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

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

The development site currently accommodates a real estate office and restaurant with approved alfresco dining area. The site attributes are conducive to the proposal and the installation of play equipment complements the use of the existing restaurant. Access to services will not be compromised by the proposal and the development site and surrounds are zoned for commercial purposes (including the nearby residences). Based on the foregoing the site is suitable for the development.

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*
Building Surveyor	No objections, subject to conditions
Community Safety	No objections, subject to conditions

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

The development proposal is consistent with the relevant planning instruments pertaining to the land and introduces a complementary use to the existing restaurant on the premises. The likely impacts of the proposal have been assessed as being able to be appropriately dealt with through recommended conditions of consent. As such the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

Conclusion

The development proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant environmental planning instruments and found to be satisfactory. The key issue identified throughout the assessment related to controlled access to the playground area to ensure safety for the children using the playground. This issue can be addressed through recommended conditions of consent.

The provision of a playground area in restaurants is an increasingly common occurrence and the design, location and use have been assessed as being appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application No. 11/0504 for Children's Play Area, Awning, and Business Identification Sign above Rear Entrance at Lot 16 DP 583184 (No. 91) Great Western Highway, Emu Plains be received.

2. Development Application No.11/0504 for a Children’s Play Area, Awning, and Business Identification Sign above Rear Entrance be approved subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

2.1 A02F Approved DA Plans

A019 Occupation Certificate

A039 Graffiti

A046 Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

E001 BCA Compliance

H001 Stamped plans & erection of site notice

H002 All forms of construction

H041 Hours of work (other devt)

L012 Retention of existing landscaping

Q01F Notice of Commencement and appointment of PCA2

Special Conditions

2.2 Stormwater from the awning structure is to be directed to the existing stormwater system on site

2.3 Access for persons with a disability is to be provided and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.1. Details of compliance are to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications accompanying the Construction Certificate

2.4 The wrought iron gates are to comply with the provisions of Part D of the Building Code of a Australia as a means of egress from the premises

2.5 The playground area is to be fenced and provided with a self-closing gate to ensure that young children are unable to leave the playground enclosure without the assistance of a parent or guardian. The fencing is not to obscure passive surveillance opportunities from the alfresco dining area

2.6 A sign is to be erected on the entry gate specifying the ‘conditions of play’ (or similar). These conditions must provide, at a minimum, that children using the play equipment must be supervised at all times by a parent or guardian

2.7 In order to reduce potential for noise impacts on nearby properties, the play equipment is not permitted to be used after 9pm

2.8 In order to reduce potential for lightspill or illumination to cause adverse impact on nearby properties the illuminated light box is only permitted to be illuminated when the premises is operating.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Locality Plan	1 Page	Appendix
2.	Site Plan and Elevations	1 Page	Appendix
3.	Signage Plan	1 Page	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2011

A Leading City

Outcome of Special Rate Variation Application and Amendment to 2011-12 Operational Plan

Compiled by: David McIllhatton, Acting Financial Services Manager

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Acting Group Manager - Finance

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

Executive Summary

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 and fund key priorities which had been previously identified by the community, including city centre upgrades 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 to 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 SRV proposal it was reported to that meeting that a conservative level of community support for the SRV proposal had been demonstrated. This support highlights that Council’s desire to maintain existing services was in line with the community’s expectations and that it was incumbent on Council to ensure that the community’s assets are maintained. It also highlighted the opportunity for a leadership role to be undertaken by the Council in ensuring the vision for the Penrith and St Marys City Centres are 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 to fruition from being a Regional City. Subsequently an application for a SRV was lodged with IPART on 25 March 2011 for their review and assessment.

During this period of assessment by IPART, Council consulted further through the 2011-12 Operational Plan process and at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 30 May 2011 Council resolved to adopt the 2011-12 Operational Plan, which included two budgets (one with and one without the SRV) pending IPART’s determination with the no longer relevant budget to be disregarded.

IPART announced their determination on Friday 10 June 2011 which resulted in Council being successful in its application however not at the level proposed by Council. IPART approved the application with a 0.5% reduction per annum to Council’s proposed SRV. The approved SRV, including the IPART rate peg, is 5.8%, 5.5%, 5.0% & 4.5% with the SRV component being 3.0%, 2.5%, 2.0% & 1.5%, a reduction in revenue for the proposed works included in the application of just under 20%. This reduction has resulted in a cumulative negative impact of almost $1.6m in 2014-15 with the funding available reduced from $9.1m to $7.5m.

The impact on 90% of ratepayers will be an increase of no more than $92 for the SRV component or $1.77 per week after 4 years.

As a result of the reduction in the SRV this report proposes a revised program to be funded by the approved SRV that has been developed in line with the following principles:

· The current predicted deficit be funded first ($1.3m average over next 5 years),

· The remaining programs, where practical, be reduced by 20%,

· Enhanced Public Domain be reduced from 2 additional crews to 1 additional crew,

· Shared Pathway Asset Renewal be reduced by 20%, however funding for this program has been brought forward to commence in 2011-12,

· Loan funding is maintained at $2m ($1.6m to forward fund city centre upgrades and $400,000 to forward fund shared pathway construction) and reduced to $1.6m in 2012-13 to fund city centre upgrades.

Further details on how these programs can be phased in over the 4 year period is provided later in this report. It is acknowledged that at this stage a balanced budget is provided for in 2011-12, however the reduction of $400,000 in loan funding to $1.6m in 2012-13 has resulted in a shortfall of approximately $240,000 over the four year program. A further report will be provided to Council on possible funding options to address this shortfall in the program.

In light of the reduced SRV and the existing other high priority unfunded programs this report proposes that some of the budget reductions that were included in the 2011-12 Operational Plan (without SRV) be maintained. Under the revised proposal being put forward these reductions are not required to supplement the SRV however it is considered prudent that some of these reductions are maintained which would allow for a small contingency fund to be established allowing for any movements in the assumptions used in producing the 2011-12 Original Budget. Further details on the proposed budget reductions are provided later in this report.

This report recommends that Council adopt the approved SRV, the revised program of works outlined in this report and amend the 2011-12 Operational Plan accordingly. A further report to tonight’s meeting, “Making of the Rate”, recommends that the 2011-12 Rates be made in line with the recommendations of this report.

Background

The financial challenges facing Council to continue to maintain the services and service levels being demanded by the community has been at the forefront of Council’s deliberations in the development of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 Operational Plans. These challenges have been compounded by a number of unfunded emerging priorities in the 2009-13 Delivery Program.

In recognition of these challenges Council developed a SRV proposal as part of the 2011-12 Operational Plan process. The community was extensively consulted on the proposed SRV and the impact that the proposal would have on rates and the outcomes of this consultation were reported back to Council at the Ordinary Meeting held 21 March 2011. Following that meeting a SRV application was lodged with IPART on 25 March 2011. The proposed increase and program of works, phased in over 4 years, included in the application are detailed below in Table 1.

Table 1 – Program of works proposed in SRV application

During this period of assessment by IPART Council has finalised the development of the 2011-12 Operational Plan, including two budgets and programs of works, one with and one without a SRV. The public exhibition of the draft plan provided a further opportunity to consult the community on services, service levels and the SRV. The adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan, including two budgets, at the Ordinary meeting held on 30 May 2011 was the final milestone in Council confirming its commitment to the SRV. Following that meeting Council Officers wrote to IPART advising of the adoption of the 2011-12 Operational Plan and Council’s continued commitment to the SRV application.

Current Situation

Throughout the assessment of Council’s application by IPART Council Officers had been receiving feedback and on occasions had been asked to provide additional information to support the application. The approved SRV announced by IPART resulted in a reduced version of Council’s SRV with a 0.50% reduction in each of the four years as detailed below:

Table 2 – Approved rate increases

Council’s proposed SRV was phased in over four years and was designed to build to a final program of $9.1m in 2014-15 while at the same time spreading the impact of the SRV. The reduction in the SRV will see this program reduce to $7.6m from 2014-15 or approximately 20% less than was proposed. The impact of the reductions in each year will see a total shortfall of $3.7m (down from $28m to $24.3m) over the four years compared to the program proposed in Council’s application.

A summary of IPART’s assessment against the 6 criteria in the Guidelines, is included in their determination. An extract from their initial report is provided as an addendum to this report.

To address the reduced SRV Council Officers have reviewed the proposed program of works. It was considered important that in developing a revised program that the proposal keeps faith with the elements of the SRV proposal that the community was heavily consulted with. This acknowledges that the support provided by the community for the SRV often conditioned that the “money be spent on the works proposed” and that the individual elements of the program were often the basis of the support provided. Therefore it is proposed that an element of each initiative be maintained and the revised program has been developed with consideration to the following principles:

· The current predicted deficit be funded first ($1.3m average over next 5 years),

· The following will build to programs reduced by 20% compared to the original proposal

o Building Asset Renewal

o Parks Asset Renewal

o Penrith Business Alliance

o Environmental Initiatives

o Neighbourhood Renewal

o Shared Pathways Construction

o City Centre Improvements

· Public Amenity Replacement program remain unchanged as a 20% reduction in this allocation would not be practical,

· Enhanced Public Domain be reduced from 2 additional crews to 1 additional crew,

· Shared Pathway Asset Renewal be reduced by 20%, however funding for this program has been brought forward to commence in 2011-12.

Table 3 below outlines the proposed program following IPART’s decision in line with the above principles. The amounts shown in brackets was the ongoing program proposed under Council’s SRV application.

Table 3 – Proposed program following IPART determination

It is acknowledged that at this stage a balanced budget is achieved in 2011-12, however the reduction of loan funding to $1.6m in 2012-13 has resulted in a shortfall of approximately $240,000 over the four year program. A further report detailing possible funding options to address the shortfall in years 2-4 will be provided to Council in the coming months.

The reduction in the SRV will reduce the impact of the rate increase on residents with 90% of all residential ratepayers (land values of $300,000 or less) now having an increase for the SRV component of no greater than $92 (compared to $118) phased in over 4 years. This equates to an increase of $0.65 per week in year 1 and $1.77 per week in year 4. Table 4 illustrates the impact of the IPART approval after four years on residential ratepayers compared to the impact of Council’s original proposal.

A draft communications plan has been developed to ensure the ongoing flow of information and consultation with sporting groups, business stakeholders and the general community.

The plan will inform the outcome of Council’s application for an SRV, the proposed program of works (and the impact of the reduced rate increase) and Council’s ongoing productivity gains. Information will be disseminated through media releases, the community newsletter, Council’s website, community radio, rates notices (insert), social media and print advertisements. A program of speaking opportunities is also being formulated for senior staff to address service clubs and community groups.

Letters from the General Manager have already been sent to all organisations and individuals who proactively supported Council’s application through submissions to IPART or by lodging letters of support during the community consultation. Council Officers will ensure that these organisations and individuals are advised of the revised program and engaged to ensure that the priorities of the program are achieved in a timely manner.

Table 4 – Impact on ratepayers

Budget Background

The financial challenges that Council has faced in recent years has foreshadowed that the continued provision of Council’s 48 services at the current service levels was not sustainable.

Council has through a regular program of continuous improvement, innovation and service improvements delivered a significant level of ongoing savings of approximately $3m per annum and these savings have been built into the base budget. Table 5 identifies some of the more significant recent efficiencies identified.

Table 5 – Recent Efficiencies included in base budget

	$
Changes to Light Vehicle Fleet Management	700,000
Workers Compensation Transition to Burning Cost Model	700,000
Group purchasing and tender arrangements	550,000
Changes to Relief Staffing Structure in Children’s Services	470,000
Investment in new combination mower technologies	350,000
Review of printing technologies	152,000

Even with these initiatives a number of one-off service adjustments have been required in recent years to ensure a balanced budget. These adjustments have included changes to a number of funding sources and the use of internal reserves, service reductions for asset areas, the removal of CPI indexation to a number of budgets including those for asset maintenance and the deferral, reduction or discontinuation of a number of programs. The inclusion of these measures in the 2009-10 budget (total savings of $2,156,000) and 2010-11 budget (total savings of $1,145,164) was seen as a short term option and were determined to be unsustainable into the future as they would lead to a deterioration of Council’s infrastructure assets and service levels.

In addition to the above efficiencies and one-off savings a review of Council’s Services and service levels was undertaken in late 2010 and Council resolved at the Ordinary Meeting held 29 November 2010 to include a range of cuts/amendments/variations to service levels and programs to be incorporated into the 2011-12 budget ($506,244). The initiatives have resulted in changes to policy, services reductions and the disengagement from a number of service areas as detailed in Table 6.

Table 6 – 2011-12 adopted Budget Reductions

Service	Initiative	Type of Initiative	Variation ($)
Children’s Services	Vacation Care co-ordination	Efficiency	78,403
City Planning	Resourcing opportunities (ED)	Service Reduction	25,441
Community & Cultural Development	Reduction of Subsidies to bands, orchestra and performance groups	Service Reduction	8,000
Community & Cultural Development	Resourcing Opportunities	Service Reduction	30,000
Development Applications	Building Design Awards	Efficiency	5,000
Environmental Health	Immunisation	Disengagement	1,000
Financial Services	Motor Vehicle Fleet	Efficiency	100,000
Marketing	Review of supply, design, printing and distribution of community newsletter	Efficiency	15,000
Marketing	Review of current events	Efficiency	63,400
Recreation & Facilities Management	Penrith Swimming Centre Squad coach	Disengagement	20,000
Recreation & Facilities Management	Reducing water temperature for Penrith Swimming Centre Pool by 1 degree	Efficiency	10,000
Recreation & Facilities Management	Reduction of travel assistance/sports donations	Service Reduction	10,000
Regional Planning & Advocacy	Penrith Business Alliance		90,000
Workforce Development	Employment Advertising	Efficiency	50,000
TOTAL			506,244

The development of the 2011-12 Operational Plan required that two budgets be included, one with the SRV and one without. An element of the SRV was to maintain existing service levels and address the projected future deficits (average of $1.3m over the next 5 years).

The budget developed without the SRV identified a series of further budget reductions, in addition to those outlined in Table 6 above, that would be required to be implemented if the SRV was unsuccessful. In light of the reduced SRV and the continued pressures on Council's financial capacity it is considered prudent that some of these further reductions, included in the budget without the SRV, are maintained and including the amended budget being adopted tonight.

This would allow for a small contingency fund to be established allowing for any movements in the assumptions used in producing the 2011-12 Original Budget to be accommodated. Table 7 identifies the budget reductions included in the alternative budget (without SRV), that are recommended to be adopted tonight. These reductions provide approximately $420,000 of additional savings in 2011-12 (total savings of $926,244 when combined with those in Table 6), and $195,000 for future years.

Table 7 – Proposed budget reductions

While it is not proposed to carry forward a reduction in voted works as highlighted above, it is recommended that consideration be given to increasing the general revenue funded footpath paving program which has a current budget allocation of $150,000. Any additional allocation would partly offset the reduction in proposed shared pathway asset renewal and construction programs in the approved SRV. Following discussions at the Councillor Briefing of 22 June 2011, it was suggested $150,000 ($50,000 from each ward) be allocated from voted works towards the footpath paving program, bringing the total allocation for 2011-12 to $300,000. Should Council accept the approach detailed above, allocating additional funds to supplement the footpath paving program from voted works, it is appropriate that a further recommendation be added to this report.

Conclusion

Consultation on the proposed SRV with both the Councillors and the community has been extensive with a range of options implemented to seek the views of the community on the proposed SRV. Although the initial consultation with the community concluded in March 2011 with the resultant lodgement with IPART of Council’s SRV, the consultation period was extended to the exhibition of the draft 2011-12 Operational Plan which was adopted by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 30 May 2011.

IPART have approved the Council’s SRV application, albeit that it reduced the proposed increase requested by 0.50% in each of the four years of the application. As a result of the reduced SRV the Council officers have had a number of meetings with the Councillors to agree on where the reduced service level increases should be reflected. These are reflected in the revised program outlined in this report and are presented tonight for Council’s approval.

In reviewing where the necessary adjustments were to be implemented following the reduced SRV it was at the forefront of the Council officer’s minds that the revised program of works reflected the original intent of the Council’s original SRV application, and that the ‘money be spent on the works proposed’. We have been able in framing the revised program to ensure that each element of the original program is at least part funded in the program of works going forward.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Outcome of Special Rate Variation Application and Amendment to 2011-12 Operational Plan be received.

2. The 2011-12 Operational Plan (including the SRV) be amended to reflect the approved SRV, revised program and budget reductions as outlined in this report.

3. A further report be provided to Council on the possible funding options to address the shortfall in the proposed program.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

IPART Determination and Executive Summary

1 Page

Appendix

Ordinary Meeting - Urgent Report 27 June 2011

A Leading City

Australian Local Government Women's Association (ALGWA) NSW Branch Annual Conference

Compiled by: Beverley Spearpoint, 149 Certificate Clerk

Authorised by: Glenn McCarthy, Executive Officer

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)

Executive Summary

Council has maintained a long term involvement with the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) as the peak body representing the interests of women in local government as elected members and also staff. This report provides information on the outcomes of the recent ALGWA Annual Conference. The report recommends that the information be received.

Current Situation

The Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) NSW Branch, 2011 State Conference was held in Blacktown from 26-28th May 2011. The Conference was extremely successful and was attended by approximately 120 delegates made up of elected Councillors and staff from various Councils in New South Wales representing their Councils. The theme of the Conference was Strong Women Influencing Future Trends (SWIFT).

As in previous years, Penrith City Council staff members also attended the Conference as a career and personal development opportunity. The following comments are from some of the staff who participated this year at the conference:

Alison Johns - Sundry Debtors Clerk/ Financial Services Department

“Attending the 2011 ALGWA Conference has given me a better insight of the role that ALGWA plays in local government. It also allowed me to network with women from other Councils as well as women from Penrith City Council.

I found the speakers very interesting and particularly enjoyed Deborah Wallace and Liz Ellis who shared the highs and lows of their professional lives. I think that I will be adopting Liz Ellis’s philosophy of “If it is to be, it’s up to me”.

Angela Portelli - IT Helpdesk /Information Management & Technology Department

“The conference has inspired me both professionally and personally. I felt very honoured to meet and be amongst so many professional women working in local government. It gave me the opportunity to meet and discuss various issues with Mayors, Councillors, staff and famous people like Robyn Moore who is the voice behind the Mr Sheen, Spray and Wipe ads, Liz Ellis, Deborah Wallace and Michelle Rowland MP – Member Greenway, Federal Minister.

The speakers were very informative and interesting. The atmosphere of the conference was very supportive, encouraging and a great place to share knowledge, skills and experience.

The conference also gave me the opportunity to get to know Penrith Councillors who attended the conference in a professional capacity and on a more personal level during the social events. I was also able to interact with present and past Penrith City Council officers from different departments on a social level and not a professional level.

Congratulations to Blacktown City Council team on a fantastic 4 days. They all did a wonderful job to make sure that we all enjoyed ourselves. Everything was perfect from the speakers, to the Mayoral Reception, informal dinner, formal dinner and the tours.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Penrith City Council for allowing me a second chance to attend the ALGWA Conference and felt proud to be a representative employee of Penrith City Council.”

Bev Spearpoint - 149 certificate clerk /Sustainability & Planning Department

“Ask me how many emotions I experienced at this fabulous conference; these come to mind:

Pride, Respect, Laughter, Sadness, Admiration, Trust, Amazement, Motivation and Wellbeing.

What did I learn?

That I can do anything I aspire too.

To Penrith City Council thank you, especially the Councillors on ALGWA NSW for their mentoring and leadership. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the General Manager Alan Stoneham for his support of me as a staff member filling the prestigious position of executive committee member of ALGWA NSW.

It was also a testament to the impact Penrith City Council’s encouragement in the development of staff that six previous employees were in attendance.”

Michelle Spice - Finance Officer Development Services/Environmental Health Department

“I have attended a few conferences while at Council but none have left me feeling so inspired and part of a group of women that started out as strangers and left as friends.

The MC, Robyn Moore is an exceptional woman that had the ability to make me laugh and cry all in 5 minutes. I couldn’t believe the affinity I had with speakers throughout the conference. Members of Parliament, Mayors, Councillors, members of the police force, sporting greats and co workers; all of us shared the same struggles and self doubt and the desire to make a difference.

I was personally touched by Mayor, Jenny Dowell from Lismore. Her talk on the struggles she faced not only on a personal level but also when she decided to enter local government made me believe I could also make a difference here at PCC. I contacted Mayor Dowell on the Monday after speaking with her at the conference. I was delighted to receive a positive response. We have a great group of woman here and I know with the added support from ALGWA we can achieve many positive results that will not only benefit the individual but Council as a workplace.

Hopefully the future will be positive with the added support of Council and senior management; I know our workplace will thrive.”

Helen Cooper - Corporate Planning Officer Financial Services Department

“As a delegate this event provided the opportunity for me to learn from women who are making a difference in their communities and workplaces. Some of them are succeeding against significant prejudices and setbacks encouraging others to achieve their best.

The conference also provided an opportunity for Councillors and staff to learn about best practice in the industry and increase personal learning and development.”

Monique Desmarchelier - Healthy People Partnership Officer/Environmental Health

“For a number of years I had read about the ALGWA conference thinking that it might be of interest to me. This year I applied to attend and was very pleased when I was one of the names drawn from the ‘ballot’.

While the speakers were engaging and shared great stories the highlight for me was interacting with Councillors from Penrith and other delegates. It was valuable to discuss a variety of subjects, both professional and personal with our Councillors in a casual environment. I also enjoyed sharing the unique attributes of Penrith and learning about other regions with delegates.

It was obvious that Penrith Council had the largest number of staff attending the conference and this commitment by management was mentioned to me several times over the two and half days. I would like to take the opportunity to thank both my Department (Environmental Health) and Council for supporting my attendance and demonstrating this commitment. Hopefully I get the opportunity to attend another one in the future as I found it a very motivating experience.”

Therrie Zadravic - Recreation Support Officer /Recreation Department/City Presentation

“I have found this conference particularly relevant to my work highlighting women in sport and the need for more recognition of women in elite sport. As well as taking into consideration the drop in female participation in sport once reaching their teens. This forum gave me the opportunity to network with staff members and Councillors from other Councils as well as gather information for the Recreation Department.

The ALGWA conference is an opportunity to be with fellow members from Council, some of which I have never had the opportunity to meet in my three years with Council. This is such a valuable opportunity outside of work hours to connect with other members of staff. ALGWA also highlights the strong members of Council such as Karen McKeown who represent our local government area and their accomplishments. It gives me great pride and satisfaction to see such a pro-active and motivating group of ladies that it inspires me to want to reach my full potential.

These conferences are an occasion to celebrate accomplishments and also looking at ways to strive harder to be the best we can be for ourselves and for our community. It highlights that anything is possible, that networking is essential and that as women we are an important part of local government. It recognises that our contribution is valued and that together we can make a difference.”

This year ALGWA celebrated their 60th Diamond Jubilee event. The theme of the conference was "Strong Women Influencing Future Trends" - SWIFT.

Topics of discussion included:

What is Networking

The Power of Networking for Business & Community

Hints and Tips for Networking

Cultivate your Cultural Awareness and Virtual Networking

Informal Strategic Alliances and Networking Anywhere in the World

The Power of the Word

50:50 Vision – Gender Pay Equity

Speakers included:

Robyn Moore, Voice Over Artist commonly known for her voices of the Mr Sheen jingle and Blinky Bill.

Liz Ellis, Australian Netballer now working with Network 10 & ONEHD as a Netball Commentator.

Deborah Wallace, Detective Superintendent with the South East Asian Crime Squad. Her career spanning 27 years and was the first woman appointed to the position of Commander of the Middle Eastern Crime Squad.

The AGM was held on Saturday, 28 May 2011 to elect office bearers for the ensuing year and consider motions for adoption as ALGWA policy. Blacktown Councillor Julie Griffiths was newly elected as President of the Australian Local Government Women’s Association’s New South Wales Branch. Councillor Karen McKeown was announced Immediate Past President, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Council staff members Bev Spearpoint and Helen Cooper were also re-elected to the Executive Committee.

The motions discussed included:

1. ALGWA write to IPART asking for a detailed and complete justification of the rate pegging level, 2.8%, for the next 12 months. And that ALGWA, when satisfied distributes that information to its members and to Councils.

2. Expressions of interest be received by ALGWA to host five Executive meetings (regional and city), including a commitment by the host Council that they organise, in partnership with ALGWA, a community women’s forum at the time of the Executive Meeting.

3. ALGWA NSW lobbies various bodies, ie, LGA, LGMA, all NSW Councils, the ASU and USU, and other groups as necessary, for insertion of a clause in the EBA/LG State Award to have up to 20 days special leave per year and flexible work practices for such appointments as doctors, family law court appearances etc, taking a proactive approach for those that are victims of domestic violence, a problem that affects working families and communities.

4. Executive Committee recommended that Councillor Karen McKeown and Broken Hill Councillor Darriea Turley be awarded Life Membership of ALGWA NSW for service to the organisation.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Australian Local Government Women's Association (ALGWA) NSW Branch Annual Conference be received.

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

Objective	Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs
Community Outcome	A City with an integrated local road and pathways network (16)
Strategic Response	Improve the City's footpath and cycleway network (16.3)

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