23 March 2012

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 26 March 2012 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours faithfully

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM - 19 March 2012 to 7 April 2012 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 5 March 2012.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.           ADDRESSING COUNCIL

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Access Committee Meeting - 8 February 2012.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 5 March 2012.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 19 March 2012.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 26 March 2012

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

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

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

COUNCIL CHAMBER seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross

We’ll toil with hearts and hands;

To make this Commonwealth of ours

Renowned of all the lands;

For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 



Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


For members of the public addressing the meeting

 
Council Chambers

Text Box: Lectern

Group Managers                          

                
          

 
Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

Director
Craig Butler

 

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

 

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Greg Davies
East Ward

 

Senior Governance Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                           

                
          

 
   


B&WHORIZ2012 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2012 - December 2012

(adopted by Council on 21 November 2011)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

6

5

 

 

 

9

20#@

3ü

15∞

5

10

(7.00pm)

 

20#@

26

23v

21#

25*

23

 

24^\

(7.00pm)

 

19#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

 

 

 

7

4

2

13

 

 

 

3

 

13

19

16

 

 

30

 

 

8

12

 

Operational Plan Public Forum

 

6.00pm

 

 

 

 

Wed

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 v

Meeting at which the Draft Operational Plan for 2012-2013 is endorsed for exhibition

 *

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2012-2013 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 2011-2012 Annual Statements are presented

 

Meeting at which any comments on the 2011-2012 Annual Statements are presented

\

The opportunity may be taken to move this meeting to the 17 September 2012, should the election result be declared early.

 

The Ordinary Council Election will be held on 8 September 2012

-            Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 5 MARCH 2012 AT 7:34PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by Rev. Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jackie Greenow.

APOLOGIES

43  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that apologies be received for Councillors Mark Davies and Tanya Davies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 20 February 2012

44  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 20 February 2012 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Awarding of the Louise Petchell 'Learning for Sustainability' Scholarship 2012

Councillor Karen McKeown spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.                                       

45  RESOLVED on the MOTION of the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the Mayoral Minute on Awarding of the Louise Petchell 'Learning for Sustainability' Scholarship 2012 be received.

 

 DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Procedural Motion

 

46  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that Item 6 be dealt with after Committee of the Whole.

 

A Leading City

 

1        Determination by the Chief Executive, Division of Local Government regarding the conduct of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM                                                                   

47  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the information contained in the report on Determination by the Chief Executive, Division of Local Government regarding the conduct of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM be received.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        No Boundaries - Grant Applications Arts NSW and Australia Council for the Arts 

48  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the information contained in the report on No Boundaries - Grant Applications Arts NSW and Australia Council for the Arts be received.

 

 A Green City

 

3        Domestic Waste Service Collection Contract                                                                  

49  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.        The information contained in the report on the Domestic Waste Service   Collection Contract be received.

2.        Council staff enter discussions with developers and other interested stakeholders concerning waste service collections for medium to high density developments.

 

4        Waste 2012 Conference                                                                                                     

50  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.         The information contained in the report on Waste 2012 Conference be received.

 

2.     Any interested Councillor who wishes to attend the Waste 2012 Conference contact the Council’s General Manager to indicate their availability and Leave of Absence be granted appropriately.

 

5        Hawkesbury River County Council request for support regarding NSW State funding     

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Hawkesbury River County Council request for support regarding NSW State funding be received.

2.     Council write to the Sydney Weeds Committee requesting that HRCC funding levels are restored to previous levels in line with CPI and any NSW State Budget increases.

3.     Council write to the Minister for Primary Industries appealing to preserve all Local Government funding devolved via the NSW Weed Action Program to meet the obligations of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993, and not permit regional level committees to re-allocate this to other State Government entities.

4.     Council write to local state members of Parliament seeking support for the restoration of funding to the HRCC as part of the development of the State budget.

5.     A further report be provided to Council in relation to a request from HRCC to increase Council’s financial contribution for the 2012/13 financial year.

6.     Council write to the Minister for Sport advising of the significance and importance of preserving funding in maintaining the World Class Penrith Rowing Course.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Pre-School Information  - Daily Report                                                                 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM provided a sample of daily reports that pre-schools in other areas are producing for parents which highlight the daily activities of the children through pictures and commentary. Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested the introduction of a similar program be investigated for use at Council facilities through the Children’s Services Co-Operative with a further report to be brought back to Council.

 

RR 2          Greater Western Sydney Community Services Sector ZEST Awards 2012       

Councillor Marko Malkoc tabled an award won by Council’s Children’s Services for ‘Paint Penrith REaD’ in the ‘Exceptional Partnership Project’ category. Councillor Malkoc further requested that a letter be written to all nominees, finalists and winners from the Penrith Local Government Area for the 2012 Greater Western Sydney Community Services Sector ZEST Awards that was held on 29 February 2012.

 

RR 3          Unsolicited Faxes                                                                                                      

Councillor John Thain requested Council staff investigate options to assist Councillors in reducing the number of unsolicited faxes they receive. Councillor John Thain requested a memo reply with options and that Council make representations to the Local Government Association and write to the Minister for Communications.

 

URGENT BUSINESS

 

UB 1          Red Cross Calling 2012                                                                                           

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies requested that Council consider a donation of $3000 to be allocated equally from each Ward’s voted works to the Red Cross Calling appeal.

52  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

53  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that Council donate $3000 to be allocated equally from each Ward’s voted works to the Red Cross Calling appeal.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

54  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:12pm.

 

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

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

 

 

A Liveable City

 

2        Tender Reference 11/12-10 Upgrading Works on Mamre Road and Erskine Park Road, Erskine Park                                                                                                                      

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 

The meeting resumed at 8:20pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:12pm on Monday 5 March 2012, the following being present

 

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Greg Davies, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, 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        Tender Reference 11/12-10 Upgrading Works on Mamre Road and Erskine Park Road, Erskine Park                                                                                                                      

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

CW2 That the information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11/12-10 Upgrading Works on Mamre Road and Erskine Park Road, Erskine Park be received.

 

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

55  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1 and CW2 be adopted.

 

 A Liveable City

 

6        Tender Reference 11/12-10, Upgrading Works on Mamre Road and Erskine Park Road, Erskine Park                                                                                                                      

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11/12-10, Upgrading Works on Mamre Road and Erskine Park Road, Erskine Park be received

2.     Council exercise its discretion under Section 55 (3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 and engage NACE Civil Engineering Pty Ltd as the contractor for the intersection upgrade works of Mamre Road & Erskine Park Road for the revised amount of $4,933,503.14 ex GST and not recall tenders because of the extenuating circumstances as detailed within this report.

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

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:25pm.

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                     


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations the Access Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2012

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 5 March 2012

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 19 March 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A City of Opportunities

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 8 February, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Prue Guillaume (Chair), Michael Morris, Councillor Robert Ardill, Farah Madon, David Currie, John Farragher, Denise Heath.

 

 IN ATTENDANCE

Robyn Brookes – Disability Services Officer, Joe Ibbitson - Community Programs Coordinator, Terry Agar – Acting Centres Coordinator, Colin Wood -  Building Approvals Coordinator, Karin Schicht – Landscape Architectural Services Supervisor, Hans Meijer - City Works Manager, John Gordon – Parks Manager, Ben Felten - Disability Access Officer, Vanessa Muscat – Building Team Leader, Rosemarie Canales - Architectural Supervisor, Erich Weller - Community and Cultural Development Manager, Teresa Luk-Leung – Social Planning Coordinator, Jeni Pollard - Place Manager, Mike Williams – Senior Development Manager Landcom, Paul Kohn – Consultant Landscape Architect Place Design, Matthew White -  Landcom, Graham Howe – Acting Building Projects and Maintenance Coordinator, Robert Craig - Senior Environmental Planner.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from Councillor Jackie Greenow and Ronda Hopkins.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 7 December 2011

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 7 December 2011 were confirmed with the addition of apologies from Michael Morris.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

3        North Penrith All Abilities Playgrounds                                                                          

John Gordon introduced the report and presentation from Landcom for development of the North Penrith precinct all abilities playgrounds.

 

Matthew White advised that he would come back to the Access Committee later in the year to gain feedback on the construction of an interchange on the northern side of Penrith station.

 

Mike Williams gave an overview of the North Penrith precinct including the concept plan for 1,000 dwellings at higher density, some of which will be affordable and aged care housing.  There is a commercial precinct around the station which is proposed to provide 700 jobs on the site.  Some of the key features of the site include:

 

·      Smiths Paddock in the centre of the site

·      station plaza upgrade

·      the site is flat

·      bus route

·      provision for future underpass under the railway line

·      key cycleways through the site.

 

Paul Kohn advised that the design incorporates Smiths Paddock, which is an existing heritage oval, and retains the existing eucalypts.  The younger children’s all abilities playground will be located near the community building.  Other features include:

 

·    a cascade water feature

·    large plaza with an artwork

·    moving circulation throughout the site

·    a rain garden

·    subterranean water

·    a natural border to the older children’s playground

·    family friendly barbecue facilities

·    90o parking

·    permeable space

·    accessibility to community facilities building

·    clear access through dividing paths

·    1:20 grade is the highest grade going into the facility building

·    compliance with the code for access

·    set down for community services buses near younger children’s playground space

·    bus parking provided close by.

 

Mike Williams advised that in the near future a specialist playground supplier will be engaged.  There is a brief for the playground at this stage.  Feedback received from the Committee will be integrated into the playground design.  Consultation and research was undertaken into the all abilities playgrounds for the design brief.  Both the playgrounds are all abilities playgrounds and target different age groups.  It is planned to provide a diverse range of play experiences. 

 

The tender closes on 15 February, the contractor will be appointed in early March, design March to April, final design May, installation August/September.

 

Erich Weller advised that the community facilities building will be used as a sales office for Landcom initially until the 400th dwelling is occupied.  The building has been designed as a community facility. There is access to accessible toilets from the outside of the building to support use of the adjacent all abilities playground.

 

Mike Williams advised that change tables and a ceiling hoist will be provided in the external amenities.

 

David Currie enquired about the timeframe for final completion of the project.  Mike Williams replied that the Smiths Paddock playgrounds would be completed by the end of this year.  It will be seven to eight years for completion of the entire project.

 

Councillor Guillaume thanked Mike Williams, Matthew White and Paul Kohn for their presentation on the North Penrith all abilities playgrounds. 

 

Councillor Guillaume also thanked the presenters for the opportunity to have input into the project.  Councillor Guillaume said it was positive that Penrith is leading Sydney with this playground development and is looking forward to further progress with this proposal.

 

RECOMMENDED that:

1.       The information contained in the report on North Penrith All Abilities Playgrounds be received.

2.       The Access Committee thank Landcom for their presentation and opportunity to contribute to the playground design brief.

Mike Williams, Matthew White, Paul Kohn and John Gordon left the meeting at 5.35pm.

 

Joe Ibbitson and Erich Weller left the meeting at 5.36pm.

 

2        Penrith City Centre Public Domain Technical Manual                                                 

Terry Agar introduced his report and presentation on Penrith City Centre Public Domain Technical Manual.

 

Terry Agar explained the background to the preparation of the manual and spoke about why the manual is needed.

 

Joe Ibbitson returned to the meeting at 5.38pm.

 

Terry Agar advised that the Manual will set the “look and feel”, define the design standards, standardise design and construction methods and reflect Council’s principles and policies. It was explained that public domain is publically owned sites, footpaths, rights of way, parks, squares and plazas.

 

Erich Weller returned to the meeting at 5.39pm.

 

A draft of the Manual has been prepared after extensive research and an independent access assessment.

 

The next steps are to finalise the draft manual, incorporate feedback from the Access Committee, hold the public exhibition, aim to get Council endorsement as policy and put a reference into the Penrith City Centre Development Control Plan.

 

Karin Schicht advised that the structure of the Manual is extensive and detailed.  A slide was shown of a sample page of the draft Manual which gave an example of the look and feel of this 70 page document. Each detail is a guideline for a common situation which may be encountered in the city.

 

 

Issues raised by the access consultant who was engaged by Council to review the draft manual:

 

·    kerb ramps (alignment, atypical situations)

·    steps (geometry and luminance contrast nosings)

·    TGSI (atypical application, luminance contrast)

·    street furniture (seats, luminance contrast).

 

The Manual is intended to be used by the general public, developers, contractors, service authorities and Council in preparing developments that affect the public domain, and consent authorities assessing and approving developments that affect the public domain. There will be periodic reviews of the Manual.

 

Farah Madon expressed concern that the correct terminology should be used in the Manual.  Concern was also expressed regarding using ivory TGSIs because the luminance contrast depends on the background colour. Karin Schicht replied that the background would be specified in the Manual as black granite, dark charcoal reconstituted paver, or dark grey concrete.

 

Further discussion was held regarding the colour of the TGSIs and their use in wet and dry conditions.  It was also suggested that ivory tiles would need cleaning.

 

It was requested that the Access Committee be advised when the Technical Manual is placed on public exhibition.

 

Vanessa Muscat suggested not including the year of publication of the standards in the Manual but to mark “as current”. 

 

RECOMMENDED that:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Public Domain Technical Manual be received.

2.     The Access Committee support the preparation and finalisation of the draft Penrith City Centre Public Domain Technical Manual.

3.     The Access Committee be advised when the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Technical Manual is to be placed on public exhibition.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

1        Development Applications referred to Access Committee                                             

Robert Craig spoke to the report which details Development Application referrals.

 

Karin Schicht left the meeting at 6.05pm.

 

 

 

 

DA11/1432                   Proposed Dementia Day Care Facility, Fulton Street, Penrith

 

Robert Craig advised that the development application is for construction of a new purpose built single storey building which will cater for 30 clients on a daily basis.  Seven staff members will manage the facility.  The proposal includes related carparking, a bus drop off and parking bays.

 

The care facility will operate from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday with occasional use up to 10.00pm.

 

An access report was received with some recommendations from this report including:

 

·    improving internal and external paths of travel

·    provision of accessible car space in the carpark

·    provision of accessible sanitary facilities in accordance with the standard.

 

Issues discussed and highlighted by the Committee include:

 

·    some passageways finish with dead ends – there should be at least 1.8m clear or at least 2m from the end of the corridor

·    the toilet that the faces the garden is not an accessible toilet

·    the laundry doors should swing outwards instead of swinging inside

·    connectivity at the rear carpark area of the facility – possible obstruction from trees, some paved areas and some garden areas – levels unclear on the plan

·    lack of non-staff parking, e.g. carers’ parking

·    ensuring entry to the building without stepping up

·    use of fold down grab rail – does not comply with Australian Standard for a commercial facility.

 

DA11/1348                   Shopping Centre - Jordan Springs Estate Village Centre

 

Robert Craig presented the site plan of the development application for the proposed shopping centre at Jordan Springs Estate.

 

The proposal includes a supermarket of 4,000 square metres including a liquor store and 21 speciality shops.  The shops would be open from 7.00am to 10.00pm seven days a week. The proposal includes related parking and landscape works. An access report has been prepared for this proposal with a range of detailed recommendations made by the consultant which are included in the memo. Robert Craig asked for comments or further recommendations to those made by the access consultant.

 

Issues highlighted by Committee members include:

 

·    one spot has been nominated for accessible parking

·    internal serving areas according to best practice require a lower level counter, not more than 850mm in height

·    pedestrian connectivity into the shopping centre and paths of travel

·    a proposed bus stop for the shopping centre

·    connectivity to the carpark without a ramp

·    the size of the accessible carparking spaces

·    carpark share zone.

 

Farah Madon asked if it was possible to receive the plans electronically.  Vanessa Muscat replied that plans can be accessed electronically using the development application tracker section of Council’s website.

 

Councillor Guillaume asked if information could be sent out to Committee members on how to access the DA tracker.  Erich Weller agreed that an email would be sent out to members.

 

DA11/1444                   Indoor Skydiving Centre on the Penrith Panthers site

 

Robert Craig advised that the development application is for the construction of a new building for an indoor skydiving centre.  The proposed building has a maximum height of 22m and an actual footprint of 657 square metres. The building contains a basement level which houses plant and equipment. The proposed trading hours of the facility are 9.00am to midnight seven days a week. The facility will use 20 existing carparking spaces adjacent in the Penrith Panthers site. An accessibility report was provided and makes recommendations about accessible parking, reconfiguring of entry stairs, modification of internal doorways and provision of accessible toilet facilities at level one. Levels one and two are the two main working levels of the building.

 

The Committee also discussed the following:

 

·    50% of all entries should be accessible

·    an additional ramp to be installed – there should not be four non accessible entries and only one accessible entry

·    there is no egress if there is a fire and the lift is shut down

·    on the ground floor the passage routes are not wide enough to take a “U” turn

·    the entry area to the male and female toilets is not sufficient to be accessible

·    there is no ramp leading to the waiting lounge

·    the access report is not considered adequate

·    an accessible toilet should be provided next to the bank of toilets

·    if there is a shower facility for staff an accessible shower should also be provided

·    there is no accessible changeroom.

 

Robert Craig advised that more information would be obtained from the developers as to how people with disabilities could use the facility.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Development Applications referred to Access Committee be received.

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Penrith Interchange                                                                                                 

Joe Ibbitson advised of a letter sent on 6 January 2012 to the Transport Projects Division of Transport NSW requesting further information about planned works for the Penrith interchange particularly the taxi rank.  To date there has been no reply to this correspondence. If no satisfaction is received this matter will be pursued through the Council meeting with State Members.

 

Robert Craig left the meeting at 6.45pm.

 

GB 2          Timing Sequence of Traffic Lights                                                                         

Hans Meijer advised that the issue of the timing sequence of traffic lights (GB8 - 3 August 2011 Access Committee meeting) had been referred to Council’s Traffic Section.  The Road Network Services Engineer has written a letter to Roads and Maritime Services requesting extension of the timing sequence of the pedestrian phase of the traffic lights at a number of locations in Penrith, including Mulgoa and Jamison Roads.

 

Councillor Guillaume requested that further information on this matter be brought to a future Access Committee meeting when Council receives a response to the letter.

 

GB 3          All Welcome Project update                                                                                    

Robyn Brookes gave an update on the All Welcome Project. Discussions and meetings have been held including with Council’s Communications Team to gain feedback on promotional material and Council branding. Joe Ibbitson handed out draft information cards on the Project.

 

Discussion was held regarding the promotional material, the branding and the mock-up of the information card.  It is planned to distribute materials in April if the new Council branding is available. An information package will also be developed.  After the card is distributed businesses can ring Council or go to the website to obtain more detailed information. A meeting with Access Committee members will be held in March to go through the information package before it is finalised.

 

Suggestions of changes to the All Welcome information card include:

 

·    increase the size of the font on the front of the card

·    the artwork on the front of the card resembles that of an Aboriginal project

·    a tick box be included on the card to indicate if a package should be sent out

·    the card to be reply paid

·    the new Council branding is important as this is a high profile project

·    suggestion to put a name on the card as it legitimises the project.

 

Other suggestions for the All Welcome Project include:

 

·    acknowledgement of the early adopters of the project

·    an adhesive sign to stick on the window of businesses

·    something to encourage businesses to go to the next step and request an information package.

 

GB 4          Seating on the Western Side of River Road                                                           

In response to GB2  - 7 December 2011 Access Committee meeting, Hans Meijer reported that a minimum of four seating locations would be provided on the Great River Walk along River Road.

 

GB 5          Fatality at corner of Old Bathurst Road and Great Western Highway         

Farah Madon enquired if after the death of Reece Walker at the crossing on the corner of Old Bathurst Road and the Great Western Highway this matter could be investigated.

 

It was suggested that the Local Traffic Committee be requested to make representations to Roads and Maritime Services regarding safety at this intersection. Erich Weller advised that Council officers will look into this matter and identify the best option to progress to the relevant agency. 

 

GB 6          Automatic Entry Gates at Penrith City Library                                                   

Farah Madon reported that the automatic entry doors at the library had hit her daughter in the head.  This is of concern because not only children could be affected but also people in a wheelchair when entering the library.

 

Councillor Guillaume advised that this matter would be investigated immediately.

 

GB 7          NADO Partnership with Penrith City Library                                                     

Denise Heath advised that a Disability Library Centre will be co-located at Emu Plains in partnership with NADO and Penrith City Library.

 

GB 8          Wheelchair Carparking Spaces                                                                              

Erich Weller reported that following on from GB1 - 7 December 2011 Access Committee meeting, Council’s Traffic Section had completed an audit of accessible parking spaces in the City including a carparking strategy. Further investigations are being undertaken regarding the disability parking scheme and the provision of relevant documentation for eligible individuals. 

 

David Currie pointed out that accessible parking is always located near the front door of a building.  He advised that people in wheelchairs are able to park further away and wheel to the entry as long as there is room to vacate and re-enter their car.

 

Erich Weller advised that the challenge is the number of carparking spaces and how to distribute them between locations close to a particular entrance point.  Preliminary investigations are underway taking into account a number of factors including people with different sorts of parking needs. 

 

John Farragher suggested providing covered carparking spaces outside the Civic Centre as it is quite often used by community groups. 

 

GB 9          Retirement of Steve Barratt                                                                                    

Colin Wood advised that Steve Barratt, a long term member of the Access Committee, would be retiring from Council on 10 February 2012.

 

Councillor Guillaume requested that it be RESOLVED that Steve Barratt be thanked for his contribution to the Access Committee and Penrith City and wish him well for his retirement.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7.05pm.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 8 February, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Liveable City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 5 March, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, Sergeant Matthew Shirvington – Penrith Police, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co-ordinator, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Noel Fuller – Co-ordinator Ranger Services, Phil Davies – Westbus.

 

 APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager City Infrastructure, James Suprain – Roads and Maritime Services, Jacob Strong – Trainee Engineer.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 6 February 2012

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 6 February 2012 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Bennett Road & Blacktown Road, Londonderry - Proposed Right-Turn Ban at Intersection                                                                                                                         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bennett Road & Blacktown Road, Londonderry - Proposed Right-Turn Ban at Intersection be received.

2.     A right-turn ban only be considered for Bennett Road onto Blacktown Road, Londonderry subsequent to an intersection upgrade by the Roads and Maritime Services.

3.     Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services requesting that the intersection of Bennett Road and Blacktown Road be prioritised for a Median Island Stop Treatment, including localised widening, to alleviate sight distance issues and reduce the current high accident rate.

 

 

2        Preston Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Refuge                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Preston Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Refuge  be received.

2.     Design Plan No. AM177R, dated 15/2/2012, for a pedestrian refuge on Preston Street at Mulgoa Road, Penrith, be endorsed for construction.

3.     Funding for the works be provided by Council and the Roads and Maritime Services in accordance with the funding agreement for the NSW Bike Plan (2011/2012) (DT05202).

4.     Council’s Public Domain Co-ordinator be requested to obtain a lighting assessment from Endeavour Energy to ensure compliance with minimum lighting standards is met.

5.     Affected property owners and residents be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

3        Denver Road, St Clair - Request for Provision of Double-Barrier Linemarking        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Denver Road, St Clair - Request for Provision of Double-Barrier Linemarking be received.

2.     Consultation be conducted with affected residents regarding the installation of double-barrier linemarking in Denver Road, St Clair, and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections from affected residents, double-barrier linemarking be installed for a distance of approximately 50m around the bend on Denver Road, St Clair.

 

 

4        Major Traffic Facilities Program - North St Marys & Oxley Park Local Area Traffic Management Projects                                                                                                        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Major Traffic Facilities Program - North St Marys & Oxley Park Local Area Traffic Management Projects be received.

2.     The nine projects as shown in Tables 3 and 4 of this report be removed from Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Program.

3.     Council’s City Works Department be requested to investigate the provision of a footpath in Elm Street, between Oleander Road and Glossop Street, North St Marys.

 

 

5        Peachtree Road, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Refuge                          

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Peachtree Road, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Refuge be received.

2.     Drawing No. MOD-C050, Issue F, for a pedestrian refuge on Peachtree Road, Penrith, approximately 60m west of Castlereagh Road, be endorsed for construction.

3.     All works be undertaken at no cost to Council.

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

5.     Street lighting to be upgraded by the developer at the proposed pedestrian refuge to meet Australian Standards and Endeavour Energy design requirements, with all upgrades at no cost to Council.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Derby Street, Penrith – Proposed Provision of Temporary “Bus Stops”  (Raised Council)    

Council officers are currently in the process of providing two bus shelters at existing “Bus Zones” located on Derby Street, Penrith.  Currently, the “Bus Zones” are located on both the northern and southern sides of Derby Street, approximately 70m and 90m east of its intersection with Parker Street, respectively.  The bus shelters are intended to be of double length to cater for the high patronage demand of the Nepean Hospital and Medical Precinct.  The provision of bus shelters at these locations is considered a high priority, as Council officers have received several requests for these facilities from the public and Councillors, and furthermore, elderly and non-ambulant passengers frequent these stops.

 

During the construction of the slab and shelter, the two “Bus Zones” in question will be required to be temporarily relocated.  This is to allow for access by construction vehicles to the site, without impacting on the existing bus service.

 

It is proposed that a temporary “Bus Zone” be installed on the northern side of Derby Street, approximately 110m east of its current location, for a length of 16m.  The temporary location of this “Bus Zone” will result in the loss of approximately three on-street parking spaces during this time.  It is also proposed that a temporary “Bus Zone” be installed on the southern side of Derby Street, approximately 15m east of its current location, for a length of 16m.  The location of this “Bus Zone” will not have any significant impact on existing on-street parking.

 

The provision of the temporary “Bus Zones” will be effective as of 1 March 2012, at which time construction works will begin and are anticipated to continue for approximately two to three weeks.  Upon the completion of all construction works, it is intended that these “Bus Zones” be returned to their current existing locations.  Bus shelters at these high demand locations are facilities that will be to the benefit of bus passengers and residents.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.   A temporary “Bus Zone” be installed on the northern side of Derby Street, Penrith, approximately 15m east of the roundabout entry to Nepean Hospital, which would be approximately 110m east of its current location, for a length of 16m.

2.   A temporary “Bus Zone” be installed on the southern side of Derby Street, Penrith, immediately adjacent to its current location, for a length of 16m eastward.

3.   Westbus and the Medical Clinic be advised of Council’s resolution.

4.   At the completion of the construction works, the temporary “Bus Zones” be removed.

 

GB 2          Old Castlereagh Road, Penrith – Pedestrian Safety  (Raised Penrith Police)     

The Penrith Police representative raised concerns about pedestrian safety on Old Castlereagh Road, Penrith, adjacent to the Sydney International Regatta Centre (SIRC), when events are held at the SIRC, and requested the provision of a footpath at this location.

RECOMMENDED

That Council investigate the matter and advise Police of the outcome.

 

GB 3          St Marys RSL Club Sub-Branch – ANZAC Day March on Sunday, 22 April 2012  (Raised St Marys Police)                                                                                                              

The St Marys Police representative advised of an application received from the St Marys RSL Club Sub-branch for approval to hold the ANZAC Day March on Sunday, 22 April 2012.  The application has been approved by NSW Police at the local level and has been forwarded to the Regional Office for approval.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 4 Event under the “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guide must be complied with prior to the event.

2.   The Event Applicant submits to Council a copy of Public Liability Insurance (usually a Certificate of Currency) of minimum $10 million, 30 days prior to the event.  In addition, the Event Applicant indemnify Council in writing against all claims for damage and injury which may result from the proposed event.

3.   The Event Applicant obtain separate approval from the NSW Police and submit a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police a minimum of eight weeks prior to the event.  A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

4.   The event be run under the direct supervision of NSW Police.

5.   The event organiser notify ambulance and fire brigades (NSW Fire Brigade and RFS) and SES of the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

 

 

GB 4          Fatal Incident Response Strategy Team (FIRST) Report  (Raised St Marys Police)    

The St Marys Police representative tabled a report regarding the recent fatal accident at the following location:

Park Road, Wallacia – 1km west of The Northern Road:  accident occurred on Saturday 3 December 2011.  The FIRST inspection was held in December 2011.

The FIRST Report further noted that the recommendations should be brought to the attention of the Roads and Maritime Services, with a view to:

·  reducing the speed limit of heavy vehicles over a certain weight from 80km/h to 70km/h on Park Road, Wallacia;

·  upgrading the pavement of Park Road, Wallacia, between The Northern Road and the Wallacia township, which would include pavement resurfacing to remove corrugations, potholes and dips in the road surface to allow heavy vehicles to travel along this road without bouncing and having their tyres leaving the road surface.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.       The information be noted.

2.      Council provide the Roads and Maritime Services with a copy of the FIRST Report, and request that a response be sent from the Roads and Maritime Services to both Penrith Council and Penrith Police regarding the outcomes listed in the Report.

 

GB 5          Monfarville Street & Carpenter Street, St Marys – Traffic Safety & Request for Provision of Pedestrian Facilities  (Raised Council)                                                                  

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer raised concerns on behalf of a resident, regarding traffic safety and a request for provision of pedestrian facilities in Monfarville Street, near Carpenter Street, St Marys.

 

The resident has advised of vehicles crashing into their front yard on more than one occasion, causing damage to their house, gates and garden.  The resident also advised that Police attended the scene on more than one occasion.  Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer requested the St Marys Police Local Area Command representative to provide accident data to validate the resident’s claim.  Council’s Traffic Section will also investigate the warrants for a pedestrian crossing at this location.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1. Council write to the NSW Police requesting they provide accident data for recent crashes at Monfarville Street and Carpenter Street, St Marys.

2. A further report be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee regarding the crash data received from Police.

3. The resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 10:30am.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 5 March, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 19 March, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Greg Davies, Deputy Mayor Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Prue Guillaume (arrived 7:46 pm), Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted for Councillor Tanya Davies and from Councillor Prue Guillaume for her late arrival at the meeting.

 

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

Leave of Absence was granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 19 March 2012 to 7 April 2012 inclusive.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 13 February 2012

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 13 February 2012 were confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

Mr Stacey Fishwick

 

Item 1 - Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

Mr Fishwick, representing Panthers Group, spoke in support of the proposal, outlining the benefits of the proposed development as providing employment in the local area; economic growth, helping to stimulate the local economy; capturing significant escape expenditure; and delivering much needed diverse products and services to Penrith and Western Sydney.  Mr Fishwick also stated that the proposal sets up an urban framework that allows development to occur in an orderly way.  Mr Fishwick emphasised the importance of working collaboratively on developing marketing, tourism and community programs to improve outcomes for the Penrith community.

 

 

Mr Neil Ingham

 

Item 1 - Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

Mr Ingham, consultant to Westfield Limited, spoke in opposition to the proposal.  Mr Ingham stated that the proposal was inconsistent with the adopted Riverlink Precinct Plan, as too much retail space was now included in the proposed development. Mr Ingham also raised concerns that the retail destination would compete with other retail centres in the area and adversely affect the future of shops in the CBD of Penrith.  Mr Ingham concluded by requesting that the retail element of this proposal be removed because of competition with the CBD and also because flooding issues had not yet been resolved.

 

 

Mr Simon Rumbold

 

Item 1 - Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

Mr Rumbold, consultant to Westfield Limited, spoke against the proposal.  Mr Rumbold stated that the proposed outlet centre would provide too much retail space, which would have an adverse impact on the Penrith CBD (High Street) causing major loss of trade, vacancy and reduction in property values.  Mr Rumbold also stated that the development would absorb demand for many years and would preclude any potential improvement or regeneration of retailing on High Street.

 

 

Mr Tim Blythe   

 

Item 1 - Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

Mr Blythe, representing Centro Properties, spoke in opposition to the proposal.  Mr Blythe stated that the proposal was inconsistent with the Penrith City Centre LEP and that the proposed outlet centre should be located in a commercial zone.  Mr Blythe stated that there was no operational difference between a brand outlet store and a retail store and that the proposal will undermine the development of the Penrith City Centre as the principal retail, commercial, cultural and social centre of Penrith.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:46 pm.

 

 

Ms Bilinda Errington

 

Item 1 - Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

Ms Errington, representing Centro Properties, spoke in opposition to the proposal, expressing concern that the proposed development would have an impact on vacancy rates in the Centro shopping centre and the ability to attract quality retailers to the centre. 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Owen Rogers

 

Item 1 - Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

Mr Rogers, the current Chairman of Penrith City Centre Association, spoke against the proposal.  Mr Rogers stated that he was representing local businesses and that the proposal does not support the future development of High Street and the CBD of Penrith. 

 

The Group Manager – Leadership, Ruth Goldsmith, then introduced Mr Martin Hill, from Hill PDA, who spoke briefly about the proposed development and answered questions about the brand outlet proposal from Councillors.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal                                                                                

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal be received.

 

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:32 pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 19 March, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Property Matter - Proposed Sale of the Former Scrap Metal Yard 141-151 High Street, Penrith

 

2        Panthers Planning Proposal

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

 

3        Funding Options to Provide Suitable Cover for Housing Council's Bennett Wagons

 

4        Audit Committee

 

5        2011-12 Borrowing Program

 

6        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 February to 29 February 2012

 

A City of Opportunities

 

7        Development Application DA11/1057 for a Secondary Dwelling at Lot 20 DP 258357 (No. 20) Thomas Street, St Marys Applicant: Willco Consulting;  Owner: Allen Greenwood

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

 

8        Development Application DA11/1095 for a Dan Murphy's Liquor Store at Centro Lennox Shopping Centre Lot 1 DP 610862 Pyramid Street, Emu Plains Applicant: McKenzie Group Consulting;  Owner: CPT Custodian Pty Ltd DA11/1095

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

  

A Liveable City

 

9        Coachmans Park Improvement Project

 

A Vibrant City

 

10      Progress on the Implementation of the Women's Services Sector Advocacy Strategy 2009 - 2012

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Property Matter - Proposed Sale of the Former Scrap Metal Yard 141-151 High Street, Penrith

 

2        Panthers Planning Proposal

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

 

3        Funding Options to Provide Suitable Cover for Housing Council's Bennett Wagons

 

4        Audit Committee

 

5        2011-12 Borrowing Program

 

6        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 February to 29 February 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1

Property Matter - Proposed Sale of the Former Scrap Metal Yard 141-151 High Street, Penrith   

 

Compiled by:               Brian Griffiths, Property Development Manager

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

        

 

Executive Summary

This report recommends the proposed sale of Council’s property asset being the former Scrap Metal Yard site along with 141 – 151 High Street Penrith.

 

There are three (3) separate parcels of land described as Lot 1 DP 804899 with an area of

1,672 square metres, Lot 91 DP 872900 with an area of 2,260 square metres and Lot 1 DP

770041 with an area of 891 square metres. The total site area is 4,823 square metres.

 

The report recommends that Council engage the services of a prominent Real Estate Agent that has the knowledge, experience and advertising expertise leading to the calling of an “Expression of Interest” for the sale of the subject property. 

 

A further report will be presented to Council following the lodgement of the “Expression of Interest” from interested parties.

 

Background

There are three separate parcels of land consisting of the following:

 

1.       Lot 1 DP 804899 with an area of 1,672 square metres was the former Scrap Metal Yard purchased by Council in November 2005.  The purpose of acquiring this property was to see the end of an existing industrial use of this site, with small improvements for metal storage, collection and recycling of glass bottles, sale of new motor vehicle batteries and from the fuel storage and dispensing activity.  It provided Council a site for future residential development.

 

2.       The second site, Lot 91 DP 872900, with an area of 2,560 square metres was purchased in April, 1981 as a large vacant residential site for the purposes of providing road widening.  An area of 300 square metres has since been dedicated from the land for the widening of High Street in 1986 and now has a present area of 2,260 square metres.

 

3.       The third site, Lot 1 DP 770041, with an area of 891 square metres was recently purchased by Council on 23 January 2012.  The site has a two bedroom weatherboard cottage with tile roofing and rear garage. The property has been sealed and secured as it is not viable to upgrade and lease the premises for residential purposes.

 

In March 2010 negotiations commenced with the former Integral Energy (Integral) for the proposed sale of the first two land parcels with an area of 3,932 square metres.  Integral had identified this site suitable for a new zone substation to ensure safe and reliable electricity supply to the Penrith Central Business District.

 

Integral provided a rough design of the substation building that would blend into the surrounding area with little impact on other residential properties in the immediate locality.

 

The Property Development Department engaged the services of an independent valuer to provide a valuation of the site in June 2011.  A copy of the report was presented to Integral as an information item for their consideration.

 

On 31 January 2012, Endeavour Energy (formally Integral Energy) advised that they have indefinitely suspended proceeding any further over the acquisition of this site due to a review of electrical load requirements for the Penrith business area.  It was verbally indicated that the Penrith Panthers area may better suit their requirements.  They did indicate that should the situation change before Council proceeds with the disposal of the site then they will be in touch.

 

It should be noted that Council only recently purchased the property located at 141 High

Street that consists of a 2 bedroom fibro dwelling with a tiled roof.  It is not practical to outlay considerable expense to bring the cottage up to a residential purpose in the short term.  It is planned that consolidating this property with the other two adjacent vacant parcels of land will provide a more marketable site.  A plan attached to this report shows the location of the subject site.

Sale Process

It is proposed that the sale proceed through the calling of “Expression of Interests” from applicants to put forward proposals for the site. As part of the “Expression of Interest” applicants will be required to submit a “Request for Proposal” which will provide details about their proposed vision for the site. This will provide Council with information which will assist in choosing the preferred proponent for this gateway site in the City.  Council will reserve the right not to accept any offer and is not obliged to accept the offer with the highest consideration.

Current Zoning

The land is zoned 2(F) Residential under the Local Environmental Plan 1997 (Penrith City Centre).  The objectives of the residential 2(F) zone allows:

 

·        to maintain land in this zone as a residential area, and

·        to exclude commercial, professional or other business uses, and

·   to provide specific land within this zone which makes provision for the location of civic or community facilities and services, and

·   to encourage a diverse range of civic or community facilities and services located conveniently to Penrith’s commercial centre.

 

The zoning can permit residential multi unit type development with Council consent.

The site in area containing 4,823 square metres is significant and would provide affordable housing in close proximity to the Penrith CBD area and Penrith hospital facilities.  It is estimated that the site could sell to a developer who can accommodate affordable housing appropriately designed to meet the modern standards.

Proposed Zoning

The proposed stage 2 LEP recommends the site as zoned R2 Low Density Residential that allows for the following:

 

·   To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

·   To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

·   To promote the community’s desired future character by ensuring that new development reflects features or qualifies of traditional detached houses that are surrounded by private gardens.

·   To encourage development that will ensure a variety of housing forms that addresses the street frontage and open spaces where possible.

·   To ensure a reasonably high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

·   To ensure new development reflects the desired future character described in the Penrith Development Control Plan.

Summary

The site is well located close to the Penrith CBD, railway station, Nepean Hospital and the University of Western Sydney (UWS).  Increasing levels of demand for residential dwellings in Sydney has occurred due to the demands of an expanding population not being met by sufficient levels of supply as a result of low levels of land release.  This has created affordability issues for most areas of Sydney which has positively impacted on Western Sydney due to the comparatively low price points in the area which has stimulated increased demand and therefore, upward capital value pressures.

 

It is proposed that approaches be made to three prominent Real Estate Agents who have the requisite experience in promoting and advertising the proposed sale of the subject site by way of “Expression of Interest”.  Following the outcome of the “Expression of Interest” a further report will be presented to Council considering the proposed sale of the three parcels of residential land.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Property Matter - Proposed Sale of the Former Scrap Metal Yard 141-151 High Street, Penrith) be received.

2.     Prominent Real Estate Agents be appointed in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy to call an “Expression of Interest” over the sale of the former Scrap Metal Site and adjoining site.

 

3.     A further report be presented to Council following the “Expression of Interest”.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

A plan showing the three parcels of land for sale

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 1 - A plan showing the three parcels of land for sale

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

2

Panthers Planning Proposal   

 

Compiled by:               Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager

Authorised by:            Ruth Goldsmith, Group Manager - Leadership  

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

      

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

 

Executive Summary

The Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal provides a framework for the development of an integrated ‘entertainment, leisure and lifestyle precinct’.  While many of the proposed uses are currently permitted on the site, this Planning Proposal would also allow outlet centres, general retail, campus style office premises, serviced apartments and high density residential dwellings.

 

The future development is worth an estimated $850 million and generates around 2,100 jobs post construction.  This contributes 76% of the jobs forecast for the Riverlink Precinct.  During construction and delivery, the proposed development will generate some 5,000 jobs.  The scale and nature of this development recognises and reinforces Penrith’s role as a Regional City.

 

The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the policy directions of the State Government, including the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and the draft Centres Policy for ‘out of centre’ development.  The Planning Proposal is also consistent with Council’s policy directions, including adopted planning strategies for the Riverlink Precinct and the Penrith City Centre.

 

However, any major development proposal of this scale carries with it elements of risk, some of which can be managed through the planning process while others (such as changes in market demand and consumer spending patterns, global financial trends and State Government policies) cannot.  In considering this Planning Proposal, Council needs to seek an appropriate balance between the risks that cannot be fully managed through our processes, and the potential benefits that the development can bring to the City.

 

A range of potential impacts identified by Council and in public submissions have been addressed to the extent possible with the available planning tools.  Three significant issues are the potential impact on retail in High Street; the management of the proposed outlet centre to ensure it does not evolve into general retail; and the funding and delivery of necessary road infrastructure.

 

Following considerable analysis, negotiation and a robust legal process, practical outcomes have been identified for each of the significant issues.  This has involved modifications to the Planning Proposal, introducing specific planning controls, and entering into binding planning agreements with the proponent for the delivery of road infrastructure and the management of outlet centre operations.

 

In this regard, Council has been able to successfully negotiate through the State Government's policy position, which currently does not require developers to contribute to necessary State infrastructure.  The planning agreement will ensure that the developer contributes appropriately to road upgrades.  However, Council will still need to advocate for the State Government’s commitment to deliver other essential road improvements as the City grows.

 

Council has also exceeded its statutory obligations in seeking to ensure appropriate outcomes for the City.  This has involved engaging experts to quantify and assess the extent of likely future economic impact on the City’s established retail sectors, and conducting a formal examination of the net community benefit to the City.  This work concludes that, on balance, the proposal provides a positive benefit to the City and its communities.

 

It is recommended that the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure after a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the provision of State road infrastructure and a separate VPA for the ongoing management of the Outlet Centre is signed by the proponent. Further that the Minister be requested to consider the changes made to the Planning Proposal in response to the public exhibition and make a determination as to whether the Planning Proposal is to be re-exhibited. It is also recommended that the Minister be requested to make the plan if re-exhibition is not required.

Abbreviations and explanations of terms

Following is a list of abbreviations and explanations of terms that have been frequently used in this report.

 

AEP

Annual Exceedance Probability (flooding)

BBC

BBC Consulting Planners

DA

Development Application

DCP

Development Control Plan

DECCW

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

DP&I

Department of Planning & Infrastructure

EP&A Act

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

ING

ING Real Estate

LEP

Local Environmental Plan

NCBT

Net Community Benefit Test

OEH

Office of Environment and Heritage (formerly DECCW)

RMS

Roads and Maritime Services (formerly RTA)

RTA

Roads and Traffic Authority (now RMS)

SES

State Emergency Services

SGS

SGS Economics and Planning

SIC

Special Infrastructure Contribution

TfNSW

Transport for NSW (formerly Transport NSW)

VPA

Voluntary Planning Agreement

 

The State Government, as a part of its restructure of the Transport portfolios, formed the RMS from the previous RTA and Transport NSW on 1 November 2011. All references in this report are to the RTA before this date and RMS thereafter.  DECCW became a part of the OEH on 4 April 2011 when the current State Government took office. All references in this report are to DECCW before this date and OEH thereafter.

The Proposal

The site:

63, 73, 83, 109 and 123-135 Mulgoa Road, Penrith

Lot 1 Retreat Road, Penrith (Penrith City Council- road)

Penrith City Council - open space

The applicant:

Panthers Group

 

The Planning Proposal covers approximately 50 hectares of land bounded by Mulgoa Road to the east, Jamison Road to the south, residential and rural residential development with River frontage to the west, and Council owned land (the ‘Carpenters Site’) to the north.

 

The Planning Proposal proposes zones and development controls for the site that enable the staged development of a range of land uses within an integrated ‘entertainment, leisure and lifestyle precinct’.

 

Under existing planning instruments, the following land uses envisaged under the Planning Proposal are already permissible:

§ Club

§ Hotel

§ Cinemas and bowling

§ Restaurants

§ Seniors living accommodation

§ Residential accommodation (restricted in type and location)

§ Aquatic, health and well-being facilities

§ Events and exhibition venues

§ Multi Use Arena, and

§ Recreation facilities.

 

The intention of the Planning Proposal is to make permissible the following additional uses:

§ Outlet Centre (limited to 25,000m2)

§ General Retail (limited to 12,500m2)

§ Campus Style Office Premises (limited to 25,000m2)

§ Serviced Apartments

§ High Density Residential Dwellings to a maximum height of 20 metres.

 

An aerial photo of the site and a copy of the illustrative master plan are provided as Appendices 1 and 2 (respectively) to this report.

 

The applicant for the Proposal was originally the Panthers Partnership (a partnership between the Panthers Group and ING Real Estate).  This Partnership has recently been dissolved following the withdrawal of ING from some of its business portfolios in Australia.  The Planning Proposal is now being pursued by the Panthers Group.

 

The Panthers Group has indicated that the proposal is worth an estimated $850 million and will generate in the order of 2,100 full-time equivalent jobs post construction.  This equates to 76% of the employment forecast for the Riverlink Precinct.  During construction, and over the period of delivery, the proposal will generate some 5,000 jobs.

 

The initial proposal put forward by Panthers/ING for the site included approximately 67,000m2 of retail in various formats.  This would have resulted in retail floorspace equating to around two thirds the size of Penrith Plaza.  This proposal was not supported as it was inconsistent with Council’s strategic position, as well as the NSW Government’s draft Centres Policy at that time.

 

The proposal was amended by the applicant to limit the provision of convenience (or general) retail to a maximum of 12,500m2 and an outlet centre with a maximum floorspace of 25,000m2 (on the basis that brand outlet retailing is considered a unique and different form of retail offer that draws from a broader, regional retail catchment).  The ability to distinguish between general retail and outlet centre trading is an important factor in managing the nature and extent of impacts on retailing within the Penrith City Centre.  Council was therefore keen to ensure that any future LEP would include a separate definition for the proposed outlet centre as well as appropriate provisions to limit the ability for that use to evolve into general retail.

 

At the time, the then NSW Department of Planning (now the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I)) was reluctant to support the inclusion of a separate definition for outlet centres in the Standard (LEP) Instrument.  On this basis Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 May 2010, resolved to proceed with the Planning Proposal to enable public feedback, including the following resolution:

“Should a specific Brand Outlet Centre definition not be permitted by the Department of Planning at any stage during the gateway process the planning proposal is to be amended to include only the 12,500 m2 maximum retail permissibility on the site”.

Background Studies

The Planning Proposal is underpinned by a range of independent background studies and analyses including:

·   Riverlink Precinct Studies

o   Riverlink Precinct Economic Impact and Land Use Analysis (Hill PDA, February 2010)

o   Riverlink Precinct Urban Design Study (HBO+EMTB, September 2009)

o   Penrith Riverlink Precinct - Traffic, Transport and Access Impact Assessment (GHD, June 2009)

·   Retail Impact Assessment of development proposals on Penrith Panthers site and the Parkview site (Hill PDA, January 2010)

·   Net Community Benefit Test (BBC Consulting Planners, April 2010)

·   Sequential Test and Site Suitability Criteria (DP&I advice, September 2010).

Following exhibition, a number of additional reviews and investigations have been undertaken, primarily in response to matters raised in submissions, including:

·   Peer Review of Retail Analyses (SGS Economics & Planning, December 2010)

·   Flooding and Civil Works including the Flood Emergency Response (JWP and Molino Steven, June 2011)

·   Supplementary Transport Assessment for Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal (GHD, May 2011)

·   Cost Benefit Analysis (Hill PDA, October 2011)

·   Independent Review of the Rezoning Process (O’Connor Marsden & Associates, October 2011).

 

Over recent months, Councillors have been provided with copies of all of the abovementioned studies and full copies of all submissions made to the public exhibition to assist in their consideration of this matter.

Gateway Determination

The ‘Gateway’ process is a statutory process established under the EP&A Act governing the preparation of new LEPs in NSW.  This process allows a planning proposal to be reviewed at an early stage to make a decision on whether to proceed further.  After reviewing a proposal, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure issues a ‘Gateway Determination’ which identifies:

·    Whether a planning proposal will proceed, with or without variation

·    The level of community consultation required

·    Which Commonwealth, State and other local government authorities need to be consulted

·    The necessity for a public hearing by the Planning Assessment Commission or other body

·    The appropriate timeframes for the remaining stages of the gateway process.

 

The Gateway Determination for the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal was received by Council on 18 August 2010.  In summary, it required that Council provide justification for the extent of retail proposed and how it would be controlled.  It also required justification for a separate definition of an outlet centre as well as the inclusion of mechanisms to ensure that the general retail component of the Planning Proposal accompanies and integrates with other elements of the proposal, rather than occurring as a stand alone retail development.

 

The Planning Proposal was subsequently amended to include additional information relating to retail controls, legal definitions and mechanisms for the staged delivery of retail, concurrently with other development on the site.

Public Consultation

In accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination, Council exhibited the Planning Proposal from 29 September 2010 to 26 October 2010.  Twenty seven (27) public submissions were received (including a petition with 87 signatories) together with submissions from four (4) government agencies (Transport NSW, RMS - formerly RTA, Office of Environment & Heritage and Integral Energy).  The matters raised in the submissions can be grouped under the following five categories:

1.    Retail and City Centre Impacts

2.    Traffic and Transport

3.    Flooding

4.    Zoning and Planning Policies, and

5.    Local Impacts.

 

The issues raised in submissions have been summarised in Attachment 1, and a detailed planning response in the form of a Discussion Paper is provided in Attachment 2.  The key matters arising from consideration of the submissions are discussed below.

 

1.         Retail and City Centre Impacts

One of the primary matters raised in the public submissions is the potential retail impact of the proposed outlet centre and general retail on the Penrith City Centre.  The general view expressed is that the Proposal is not consistent with the adopted Penrith City Centre Vision document, which identifies the Panthers precinct as the venue for recreation and entertainment, and the Penrith City Centre as the focus of retail development.

 

The following specific issues are raised in the submissions:

·   Vacancy rates on High Street and in the Plaza show that the supply of retail floorspace exceeds demand.  The brand outlet centre is not supported as there is enough retail in Penrith.  Supporting existing small business and filling vacant premises should be the priority.

·   The proposed retail and campus style office development will have adverse impacts upon the Penrith City Centre retailers and detrimental consequences in terms of sales turnover and job losses.

·   Concerns have been raised on shortfalls in the exhibited Retail Impact Assessment due to:

o Global Financial Crisis

o Expansion of the Supa Centre

o No justification for increase in expenditure

o No social impacts on property owners are considered.

·   No office impact assessment is offered.  The proposed B7 Business zone along the frontage of Mulgoa Road permits large multi-storey commercial buildings which are already permissible within the Penrith City Centre.

·   The proposed outlet centre definition as exhibited is not supported.  The proposed outlet centre does not accord with a tourist related land use in the proposed SP3 Tourist zone.

·   One of the submissions specifically requested an independent planning inquiry, on the basis of a perception that Penrith Council has a vested commercial interest in the project.

1.1     Assessment of the retail and City Centre impacts of the proposal, including matters raised in submissions

The assessment of the potential retail impacts of this proposal, the need to mitigate those impacts where possible, and balancing those impacts against the beneficial outcomes anticipated from the Planning Proposal is a complex matter.  It has required the use of intricate economic impact assessment tools and specialist advice.  In seeking to protect the public interest and minimise impacts on existing retail within the City, officers have gone beyond Council’s normal legal obligations to ensure that Council has the necessary advice before it to reach an informed decision.

 

It has been Council’s long term strategic position that development proposed at the edges of the Penrith City Centre should include land uses that complement, but do not compete with, the City Centre.

 

This strategic position has been consistently applied in Council’s deliberations on a number of proposals in recent times, including the proposed development of both the North Penrith Urban Area and Parkview sites.  The strategy is important in maintaining and fostering a strong, vibrant City Centre that optimises the concentration of appropriate urban activity around key transport nodes and the public investment in infrastructure supporting the City Centre.  It is also crucial in underpinning a strong City economy that will attract future investment and the forms of development that reflect Penrith’s position as a Regional City.

 

In recognition of this strategic position, the following five assessments have been undertaken to inform and/or test the retail proposition of the Panthers Penrith Proposal:

·   Riverlink Precinct Economic Impact and Land Use Analysis  (Hill PDA, February 2010)

·   Retail Impact Assessment of development proposals on Penrith Panthers site and the Parkview site  (Hill PDA, January 2010)

·   Net Community Benefit Test  (BBC Consulting Planners, April 2010)

·   Peer Review of Retail Analyses  (SGS Economics & Planning, December 2010)

·   Cost Benefit Analysis  (Hill PDA, October 2011).

 

With the exception of a number of issues identified in the SGS Peer Review, the independent assessments expressed broad support for the proposal, subject to certain controls and limitations being applied.  A consensus arising from these assessments was that a specific outlet centre definition is critical in ensuring economic impacts on the City Centre are minimised and managed appropriately.  Some of the outcomes of these assessments informed the drafting of the Planning Proposal prior to its public exhibition.  An overview of the key findings in these reports is provided below.

1.1.1  Riverlink Economic Impact and Land Use Analysis

This assessment identified preferred land uses for the Riverlink Precinct, including the Panthers site.  It generally supported a retail component on the site (between 12,000m2 -13,000m2) to service the Precinct.  DP&I also supported the 12,000-13,000m2 range of retail for local convenience on the Panthers site.  However, it identified that any additional retail above this amount (such as the proposed outlet centre) would need to be assessed against the Net Community Benefit Test (required under the Government’s draft Centres Policy) to determine if the site is appropriate for retail activity servicing a broader region.  The findings of the Net Community Benefit Test are discussed in more detail later in this report.

1.1.2  Retail Impact Assessment of development proposals on Penrith Panthers site and the Parkview site

The Parkview site is a planned residential and mixed use precinct bounded by Station Street, Jamison Road, Woodriff Street and the existing Nepean Centro development in close proximity to both the Panthers Penrith site and the Penrith City Centre.  The LEP that applies to the Parkview site restricts retail development on that land to a maximum of 3,000m2.  At around the same time as Council received the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal, the owners of the Parkview site lodged an application with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure under Part 3A of the EP&A Act seeking an increase in the retail component.

 

To understand the potential impacts of the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal and the Parkview application on retail within the City Centre and Nepean Centro, Council engaged Hill PDA to undertake an independent Retail Impact Assessment.

 

The assessment analysed eight (8) separate scenarios representing different combinations of retail provision on the Panthers and Parkview sites.  It concluded that Scenario Three is the preferred scenario, as the impacts across the retail components in the City Centre would generally be moderate.  Scenario Three modelled 12,500m2 of convenience retailing and a 25,000m2 outlet centre on the Panthers site, and no additional retail being provided on the Parkview site.  Specifically, the assessment drew the following conclusions:

a.     The type of retail (in particular the brand outlet centre) is different for Penrith and is a new type of retail offer [and therefore offers a point of difference to the existing retail offering].

b.     If a brand outlet centre did not proceed in Penrith there is the possible scenario that it could locate outside Penrith [LGA] still with some impacts on the CBD.

c.      The immediate impacts on the CBD components averaging 12.4% are considered to be moderate (or moderate to high) but not high (being below 15%).

d.     The loss in turnover from 2009 to 2014 on the CBD components (resulting from Scenario 3) will be less than 5% which is considered minor.

e.      High Street precinct, Westfield and Centro would take 5, 7 and 6 years respectively to absorb the impacts from their 2014 turnover levels – which is considered to be a moderate, but not significant level of time.

f.      The most significant impacts are on apparel stores, which on average would take around 11 years to recover – however it’s likely that some apparel stores will be relet to other store types.

g.     The impacts on the majors (department stores and supermarkets) is less severe – these store types taking around 4 to 5 years to absorb the impacts which are not considered threatening.

h.     The type of retail on Panthers has the potential to enlarge the Penrith trade area and arrest some escape expenditure.

 

Hill PDA also concluded that the Penrith City Centre is the preferred location for an outlet centre, but that if a suitable location could not ultimately be found in the City Centre it could be located elsewhere in the City, on a site such as Panthers, to arrest escape expenditure.  As described below, Council officers undertook a Sequential Test and Site Suitability Test which confirmed that a site of the required size and configuration to accommodate an outlet centre of the scale envisaged is not available within the existing City Centre.

1.1.3  Net Community Benefit Test

Council engaged BBC Consulting Planners to conduct an independent Net Community Benefit Test (NCBT) to assist in its assessment of the merits of the Planning Proposal prepared by Panthers Partnership.  The NCBT was carried out in accordance with the DP&I’s ‘Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals’ and ‘Draft Centres Policy’ (April 2009).

 

A NCBT should be used to assess the merits of a rezoning proposal to develop outside an existing centre where the current zoning does not permit the use.  For the Panthers site most of the land uses are currently permissible on the site with the exception of some forms of residential development, commercial floor space and retail.  The Planning Proposal seeks to integrate these new land uses with the current permissible land uses to create an entertainment, leisure and lifestyle precinct.

 

The NCBT concludes that the site has qualities that make it suitable for the development contemplated in the Planning Proposal including:

·   “Good road access via the existing arterial road network and relatively good access to public transport.  Importantly, the proximity of the site to the City Centre and its location within the regional city will mean that improvements to public transport accessibility can be provided efficiently and effectively.  The proximity to the arterial road network and the freeway system will facilitate freight access and road access from a wider trade area.  Improvements will be required to the road network consistent with its arterial road function including improvements to intersections and potential lane widening as envisaged in the investigations undertaken as part of the Riverlink Precinct Plan.

·   The site has potential for improvements to pedestrian access linking eventually with the river and the City Centre.

·   The site has characteristics of an urban infill site and is readily accessible to a wide labour market.

·   The site is large and capable of accommodating development that achieves high quality urban and architectural design and that integrates with the surrounding built form.

·   There is the capacity to improve the amenity of the area by making more effective use of an underutilised site.

·   Environmental constraints such as flooding can be managed.

·   There will be some impact on supply of residential zoned land although this impact is not considered significant in view of the residential elements of the Planning Proposal.

·   The proposal will provide additional employment opportunities and broaden the economic base of the region by providing uses that currently are not present in the area”

 

It also concludes that it is important to protect the public interest by developing planning policies, controls and funding mechanisms that:

a.   Facilitates the implementation of an integrated project – The successful implementation of the project requires the delivery of a range of synergistic uses and relies on the interaction between land uses, creating a diverse, attractive, day and night activity hub and a regional destination.  Consequently each component would not function as effectively as when considered as a whole.  Further the proponent submits that the retail offer is required to underpin the entertainment uses in order to help support the commercial viability of the development and deliver a successful precinct.  Elements of the development are complementary to each other and to the existing club and its functions.  Thus in its entirety, the development would complement the activities in the City Centre.  It is important to ensure that there is a balance in the provision of the retail uses that are said to underpin the proposal and the elements that are so supported.

b.   Funds the necessary infrastructure – The successful implementation of the proposal requires infrastructure investment in public domain works to provide the pedestrian and cycleway connections with the surrounding areas and to provide public open spaces.  It also requires investment in road and public transport infrastructure to provide adequate access, to integrate with the City Centre and the railway station and reduce car travel.

c.   Includes specific development controls and guidelines – the proposal seeks a change to planning controls to achieve a specific vision which includes developments of a particular kind.  It seeks a specific type of retailing in the form of an Outlet Centre and other retailing complementary to the entertainment and recreational vision.  General retailing is limited.  Bulky goods retailing, if it is to form part of the proposal, is of a restricted kind complementary to the entertainment leisure uses.  Council does not support bulky goods retailing on the Panthers Penrith site, with the Precinct Plan identifying other areas for such uses.

d.   The vision includes a particular urban design and building design with high quality, varied and attractive building facades consistent with the entertainment and leisure theme.  Consideration should also be given to the amount, location and design of car parking.”

 

It is considered that Item ‘a’ above is critical because overall the net community benefit derives from the development of all the entertainment, leisure and lifestyle land uses as put forward in the Planning Proposal being delivered in an integrated manner.

 

The NCBT is included as Appendix G to the attached Planning Proposal.

1.1.4  Peer Review of Retail Analyses

SGS was engaged to provide an independent review of the retail issues raised in the submissions to the public exhibition, and to provide Council with independent advice on the retail aspects of the proposal.  The SGS report concluded that the assumptions used for retail modelling by Hill PDA are sound, and that there are reasonable alignments of the aggregate impacts of the Planning Proposal calculated both in the Hill PDA Retail Impact Assessment, as well as in studies accompanying submissions received from two of the major stakeholders.

 

It concluded that the ability of Council to monitor individual stores’ ongoing compliance with the ‘outlet centre’ definition would be problematic.  In SGS’s view there is a lack of operational difference to other retail shops (i.e. individual Brand Outlet stores do not necessarily require a floor plate that is larger than a typical ‘high street’ store) and most ‘high street stores’ could sell “surplus, out of season, seconds, sample, or discontinued stock at below normal recommended prices”.  The issue of regulating the brand outlet so that it does not evolve into general retail is discussed in Section 1.2 below.

 

The SGS review also considered that the Planning Proposal should include a cost benefit analysis.  A copy of the Peer Review of Retail Analyses is included as Attachment 5.

1.1.5  Cost Benefit Analysis

The draft Centres Policy identifies that in undertaking a NCBT for more complex proposals, formal cost benefit analysis techniques should be employed.  In preparing the NCBT, BBC observed that a separate cost benefit analysis would provide further rigour to the testing of the proposal, but concluded that there was not enough detail in the Planning Proposal, related to both the nature of the individual elements and the staging of development, to undertake this form of analysis.

 

The SGS report (discussed above) also recommended that a cost benefit analysis should be undertaken to address the possible cumulative impacts resulting from the development of the Parkview site.  However, conversely to the view of BBC, SGS considered that there is sufficient information available to carry out a cost-benefit analysis in accordance with the draft Centres Policy.

 

Having reviewed the various assessments undertaken by Council in relation to the Planning Proposal, the Director General of Planning and Infrastructure formally advised that he is satisfied that Council has undertaken a thorough investigation of the outlet centre component of the proposal and that this investigation has been undertaken in accordance with the framework outlined in the Department's draft Centres Policy and the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036.

 

While the Director General advised that a cost benefit analysis for this proposal was not required, it was considered prudent to undertake such an analysis to ensure that Council has all relevant material before it in considering this matter.

 

Council engaged Hill PDA to undertake a cost benefit analysis to determine the nature and extent of all potential impacts, to assess the risks associated with any identified additional impacts and, if necessary, recommend modifications to the Planning Proposal to address such impacts.  To inform the assessment, Hill PDA identified and tested three development scenarios:

·   NCBT Scenario 1: The Base Case (the no rezone option) – this scenario assumes that the site is not rezoned but developed to its highest and best commercial use in accordance with current zoning and planning controls

·   NCBT Scenario 2: The Planning Proposal – this scenario assumes that the site is rezoned and developed in stages, over a 20 year period, in line with the current Planning Proposal, and

·   NCBT Scenario 3: The Planning Proposal with the exception of the Brand Outlet Centre – this scenario applies the same assumptions as Scenario 2 but does not include the development of an outlet centre.

 

Using the Cost Benefit Analysis and Intangible Impact Assessment methodology, the assessment finds that:

·   In cost benefit terms, the benefit cost ratio for the NCBT Scenario 3 is the highest at each nominated discount rate, and the internal rate of return for the NCBT Scenarios 2 and 3 are similar (and far exceed Scenario 1).  However the NCBT Scenario 2 provides the Strongest Net Present Value of $920m compared to $770m for the NCBT Scenario 3.  Therefore on balance, the NCBT Scenario 2 is considered the strongest (most beneficial) of the three scenarios; and

·   In light of local and state government criteria, whilst the NCBT Scenario 3 scored better than the NCBT Scenario 2 for some criteria, overall the NCBT Scenario 2 was the marginally stronger Scenario.

 

Despite the likely impact of the NCBT Scenario 2 on some existing businesses within Penrith City Centre, in cost benefit analysis terms and on the basis of the intangible criteria assessment, the NCBT Scenario 2 is considered the favoured outcome.  Furthermore, despite its stronger benefit cost ratio for the community, the NCBT Scenario 3 has a higher risk of realisation and implementation.  This is a result of the brand outlet centre acting as an anchor tenant in the retail and entertainment precinct, which underwrites the financial success of the broader mix of uses.

 

Hill PDA has therefore recommended that the NCBT Scenario 2 is supported as the preferred rezoning option for the subject site by Council.  However, to minimise the risk of adverse impacts to businesses within Penrith City Centre, Hill PDA supports Council’s proposed additional controls for the Planning Proposal as discussed later in this report.  A copy of the Cost Benefit Analysis is included as Appendix J to the Planning Proposal.

1.1.6  Sequential Test and Rezoning Site Suitability Criteria

The DP&I suggested that the Planning Proposal should, in addition to the Net Community Benefit Test, address the Sequential Test and Rezoning Site Suitability Criteria of the (yet to be released) draft Activity Centres Policy, on the basis that the draft Activity Centres Policy would potentially replace the draft Centres Policy.  The Sequential Test is used when examining rezoning proposals for commercial and or retail development on the edge of a centre or in out-of-centre locations.

 

Council officers undertook a Sequential Test and Site Suitability Test.  These tests indicated that the Panthers site is of a significant size that is required for the combination of land uses envisaged by the proposal.  There is not a site with sufficient area, suitable configuration and accessibility available within the existing City Centre.  Nor could a suitable site be assembled from the existing fragmented ownership patterns that would meet these requirements in the foreseeable future.  Furthermore, the site offers the potential for a regional entertainment precinct around the existing Panthers Club with complementary destination retail.  Such potential is not available in the City Centre.  The Sequential Test and Site Suitability Criteria also concluded that there is not suitable zoned land adjacent to the City Centre for this purpose.

 

1.2     Conclusions arising from the assessment of the retail and city centre impacts of the proposal

Considered together, the Hill PDA Retail Impact Assessment and NCBT indicate that developing an entertainment precinct that integrates with, and complements, the existing attractions will help capture the significant escape expenditure that currently leaves Penrith.  These uses will add to day-time levels of activity as well as contribute towards building a new night time economy for Penrith.

 

The successful delivery of the Panthers proposal would provide significant value to the City through the provision of a range of facilities and activities that are important for the evolution of Penrith as a mature Regional City.  This is in keeping with the outcomes sought through the various State Government and Council strategies, particularly the Riverlink Precinct Plan.  The Panthers site is specifically reflected in the:

·   North West Subregional Strategy

·   Penrith City Centre Vision, and

·   Riverlink Precinct Plan.

 

In the absence of any other proposal for an outlet centre in the City Centre, there is an opportunity to develop this retail form on the Panthers site, drawing synergies with the Panthers Club facilities to create a regional entertainment destination.  An outlet centre is considered to have a different offer to that of retail in the City Centre, so is considered to be a complementary form.

 

The outlet centre component of this Planning Proposal is also consistent with the State Government’s recently advertised draft changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy for Marsden Park Industrial Precinct, which allows discount outlet premises to be permissible within specific areas of that precinct, notably outside of the nearby centres.  In that particular situation, a Discount Outlet Premises was found to complement, rather than compete with, more traditional retail centres due to the nature of the products sold.

 

The Hill PDA Retail Impact Assessment, the NCBT and the SGS Peer Review, however, all identify that the retail components of the Planning Proposal will have impacts on existing retail sectors and establishments in and around the City Centre.  Hill PDA has indicated that the anticipated impacts will be moderate and that they can be absorbed in an acceptable timeframe by those existing sectors and establishments based on recorded turnover levels.  Notwithstanding, the assessments also identify that the impacts will be greater for some market segments, such as apparel stores, than others, such as department stores and supermarkets.  The assessments also indicate that, given the lower relative turnover and existing vacancies, the High Street area is likely to be most vulnerable to impacts of more than 5% loss of trade.

 

In reaching a decision regarding the desirability of supporting the outlet centre as part of the Planning Proposal, the following issues are worthy of consideration:

·   Panthers have identified that the outlet centre is critical to the viability of delivering all other key leisure, recreation and lifestyle elements of the proposal.  BBC, in undertaking the NCBT, acknowledges this view and identifies that the net community benefit of the proposal derives from the delivery of all elements of the proposal in an integrated manner, including the outlet centre.

·   It is clear that the outlet centre will have retail impacts on trade sectors within and around the City Centre.  This is a major concern raised in submissions.  There are some differing views between retail experts on the nature and extent of these impacts, and whether these impacts can be absorbed by existing traders in a reasonable period.  These impacts will be manifest in a loss of trade for some existing outlets and, in some cases job losses and associated social impacts.  Conversely, the outlet centre can provide a significant number of replacement and additional jobs within the City, with positive social outcomes.

·   It is also clear from a number of examples within Australia, that, if successful, the outlet centre can provide a significant stimulus to the local economy and an important destination attractor for the City.  Conversely, a number of outlet centres in Australia have failed in recent years, most likely as a result of the narrow trading margins associated with these establishments, location issues, competition from other retail outlets and the emergence of on-line shopping, or a combination of these factors.

·   Hill PDA and a number of public submissions identify that the preferred location for an outlet centre is in the City Centre.  However, the lack of appropriately dimensioned and zoned land, the very high cost of assembling a suitable site from the highly fragmented ownerships and the lack of other supporting attractor developments mitigate against the location of an outlet centre of the proposed scale in and around the City Centre.  Hill PDA has also indicated that if a suitable site in the City Centre is not available, the outlet centre could be located on a site such as Panthers to arrest escape expenditure.  Further, that if not provided in Penrith, an outlet centre could develop in another (Western Sydney) location, which would have similar impacts on Penrith (and St Mary’s) existing trade.

·   Whilst there are differing views on whether an outlet centre provides, or operates as, a different form of retail from general retail, there is no doubt from other examples of successful outlet centres in Australia, that a destination outlet centre draws trade from a much wider regional catchment than traditional convenience retail.  This has the benefit of attracting additional direct retail expenditure to Penrith, as well as the accompanying multiplier effects.

 

Should Council determine that, on balance, the retail components are integral to the overall proposal and should be supported, it is important that the retail components are properly managed to minimise the impacts.  It is particularly important to ensure that the proposed outlet centre cannot be used for, or evolve into, general retail.

 

In this regard, the issues identified in the SGS report have been considered and measures have been taken to manage these issues.  The State Government’s Standard LEP template definition for ‘retail’ does not distinguish between types of retail (i.e. an outlet centre and general retail are both interpreted as ‘retail’).  To include retail as a permissible land use on the site without a specific definition could open the site up to unspecified larger scale retail activity in the event of the outlet centre not being successful.

 

It is recommended that a specific definition for the outlet centre be retained in the Planning Proposal to limit the nature and maximum floor space of retail in the Precinct.  The exhibited definition of outlet centre has been refined and strengthened, in consultation with external legal advisors, to ensure that it can be legally implemented and deliver the intended outcome.  In addition, the following measures are recommended for inclusion in the Planning Proposal:

·   The general retail component (12,500m2) is to be controlled so that it accompanies, rather than precedes, other key components of the proposal in a staged manner (i.e. 1m2 of retail per 10m2 of other non-retail development).

·   The net lettable floorspace of the outlet centre is limited to 25,000m2.

·   Strata subdivision of the outlet centre will be prohibited.  This will facilitate redevelopment of the outlet centre for an alternative beneficial use should the outlet centre prove unviable in the future.

·   Development of the outlet centre is not to occur unless a minimum of 15,000m2 of other non-retail, non-commercial or non-residential development is provided in advance of, or concurrently with, the outlet centre.

·   A mechanism is applied that restricts the transfer of ownership to another party of any separate lot created by subdivision to contain the outlet centre until the outlet centre is approved, constructed and is operational.  (This restriction is not appropriate for inclusion in a LEP and will be included as an element of the Voluntary Planning Agreement with the proponents, as discussed below.)

 

In addition to these measures, Panthers has submitted a formal offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Council under s93F(1) of the EP&A Act to facilitate ongoing management of the outlet centre through some, or all, of the following measures:

·   Requiring that all leases in connection with the Outlet Centre contain, as a mandatory clause, a requirement that the lessee only sells those types of goods specified in the outlet centre definition.  Failure to comply with this clause will be a breach of the lease for which the landowner will be able to assert its contractual rights to ensure compliance; and

·   Requiring centre management to produce a Management Plan that:

i.     stipulates the terms of all leasing arrangements in accordance with the approved land use

ii.    specifies a system of self-monitoring with respect to the types of goods sold; and

iii.   identifies a procedure for dealing with occurrences of non-compliance.

·   Requiring annual reporting by the landowner to Council as to evidence of tenants operating in compliance with Outlet Centre

·   Requiring random and/or annual audits by an independent retail expert.

 

Beyond the Planning Proposal itself, it is anticipated that the proposed development of 1,000 new dwellings in the North Penrith Urban Area over the next four (4) years has the potential to provide additional stimulus for economic activity in High Street and may ameliorate some of the economic impacts associated with the Panthers Proposal.

1.3     Campus Style Office Development

It has been Council’s long term strategic position that development proposed at the edges of the Penrith City Centre should include land uses that complement, but do not compete with, the City Centre.

 

The Planning Proposal includes ‘campus style office development’.  This is a form of office development requiring larger floor plates than those typically located in city centres and which is not currently offered elsewhere in Penrith.  To accommodate the campus style office elements, the exhibited Planning Proposal proposed to zone a section of the site adjacent to Mulgoa Road as B7 – Business Park as the range of permissible uses and objectives of the zone best paralleled the intended outcome.  The Planning Proposal also sought to limit the maximum floorspace for campus style office development to 25,000m2 and require a minimum office floorplate size of 1,500m2.

 

However recent legal advice, obtained to assist in the review of submissions, has raised some concern relating to the permissibility of offices within the proposed B7 – Business Park zone.  Under the State Government’s Standard LEP template, office premises (a term used to describe all forms of office development, including the form of office development that can occur in the City Centre) is a mandatory permissible use in the B7- Business Park zone.

 

Council’s legal advisors have identified that, in seeking to restrict the permissibility of office development to that with only the above floorspace and floorplates, the Planning Proposal may be interpreted as being either in direct conflict with the Standard LEP template or be seen as introducing a ‘sub-zone’.  In either case, it is unlikely that Parliamentary Counsel would approve the proposed approach unless the floorspace and floorplate restrictions were repositioned as flexible development standards.  If these restrictions are subordinated to operate as development standards, there is the potential for offices to be developed on this site that do not meet the intended outcome and are more likely to compete with, and not complement, the City Centre.  The legal advice recommends that if Council seeks to only permit campus style office development on this site, it is preferable to change the proposed zoning of the land.

 

The Planning Proposal has, therefore, been amended to extend the SP3 Tourist zone over the previously proposed B7 zoned land.  Campus style office development has been scheduled as an additional permitted use and can be regulated by Council to ensure that the nature and extent of any future office development on the Panthers site can be delivered in a manner that is complementary to the City Centre as intended.  This matter will be highlighted in correspondence with the Minister regarding the need or otherwise for re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

 

2.         Traffic and Transport

Public Submissions:

The following is a summary of the key traffic and transport issues that were raised in the public submissions.

·   The development proposal will add to traffic congestion in an already overcrowded situation (i.e. Mulgoa Road and Jamison Road).  Mulgoa Road and Jamison Road will not be able to cater for the additional traffic from the proposal and will result in chaos and congestion, especially on weekends.

·   The proposal is car oriented.

·   Traffic, noise and the increase in population will have a detrimental effect on people living in the vicinity.

·   There will be increased parking problems.  The proposal will adversely affect Retreat Drive and the private parking of the retirement village.  There is only one entry/exit to the retirement complex along a narrow private road shared by a Nursing Home facility and a block of town houses.  Safety is an issue during major functions held at Panthers because emergency vehicles are unable to access any of these facilities due to patron parking.  There have been some altercations over the past few years and this development would only serve to worsen the problem.

·   Parking for the Jamison Road retirement village will be adversely affected.

Agency (RTA and Transport NSW) Submission:

A summary of the key traffic and transport issues that were raised by the RTA and Transport NSW is provided below:

·   A Traffic Assessment is to be undertaken for the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal site to properly predict the cumulative traffic impacts associated with the development.

·   Consideration is to be given to a third access point from Jamison Road and provision of a suitable road hierarchy.

·   Careful consideration needs to be given to the location of the Seniors Living and the need to clearly define land use demarcations and associated traffic and pedestrian activity.

·   Consideration is to be given to provision of a pedestrian overpass over Mulgoa Road.

·   A further Traffic Transport Assessment is required.

·   Information is required on how the 10% mode shift to public transport required by Government’s State Plan will be achieved.

Response

As stated above, TfNSW has required a response from Panthers to its policy seeking a 10% mode shift to public transport.  In the detailed design processes that will follow rezoning, Panthers will be required to provide facilities and/or promote the increased take up of public and alternative transport options such as the convenient connections to local bus networks, and the provision of cycleways through the development.  However, any fundamental achievement of this target will rely on broadly based, critical transport initiatives implemented by State Government.

 

Panthers/ING has submitted a supplementary traffic report and traffic modelling in response to the issues raised by the RTA and Transport NSW.  This additional work will be included as an appendix to the Planning Proposal and was referred to the RTA for its comments.  In response, the RTA identified the following road infrastructure works and upgrades to be carried out, in part or in full, to support the proposed development:

a)   New signalised intersections on:

·    Jamison Road at Harris Street and the southern Riverlink Access, and

·    High Street (Great Western Highway) and the northern Riverlink Access.

b)   Upgrading (including supplementary travel and turning lanes) the existing signalised intersections of:

·    Mulgoa Road and High Street (Great Western Highway)

·    Mulgoa Road and Jamison Road

·    Mulgoa Road and Panther Place, and

·    Mulgoa Road and Ransley Street.

c)   A pedestrian bridge across Mulgoa Road north of Jamison Road.

d)   Pedestrian fence on Mulgoa Road, along the full frontage of the development to improve pedestrian safety.

e)   The widening of Mulgoa Road to six lanes between High Street (Great Western Highway) and Jamison Road.

f)   The applicant is to dedicate any land required to facilitate the upgrade, widening or provision of infrastructure.

g)   The widening of Jamison Road (west) to 4 lanes between Mulgoa Road and Harris Street.

h)   The provision of a shared path on the northern side of Jamison Road for the full length of the property.

i)    The provision of the northern section of the Riverlink Access road and dedication as public road to Council’s requirements.

j)    Jane Street extension.

k)   Internal road network.

 

The RTA is responsible for works required on the State road network.  The RTA has advised that the works required on the State road network, to support the Planning Proposal, are unfunded and are not included in the RTA’s forward program.

 

The DP&I, in its letter dated 21 October 2011, has also advised that no State administered Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) arrangement would be applied to the Panthers site, as it is a ‘brown field’ site.  The DP&I has advised further that there is no mechanism in place that adopts the principle of mandating development contributions over and above existing mechanisms (such as s.94 or specific DA requirements) for the purpose of funding state infrastructure items relating to rezoning of ‘brownfield’ sites.  The letter advises that it is not appropriate to include a provision in a future LEP that would restrict development consent from being granted unless or until satisfactory arrangements are made with the RTA for the upgrading of the State road network to address the traffic impact of the development (hereinafter referred to as a ‘satisfactory arrangements’ provision).

 

In light of the above advice to Council, and particularly the refusal to include a ‘satisfactory arrangements’ provision in a future LEP, the preparation of a VPA ahead of rezoning the site is seen as the only viable way forward for the parties to ensure that the required works can be implemented in a coordinated way as development occurs.

 

The proponent has indicated a willingness to enter into a VPA to contribute toward the road upgrades attributable to their development.  Since October 2011, Council officers have been negotiating the basis of a VPA with Panthers, RMS and TfNSW.  The VPA will set out the mechanism for timing and delivery of the necessary road infrastructure.

 

Voluntary Planning Agreement Negotiation Process

 

The negotiations have involved a series of meetings since October last year.  To assist in these negotiations, Panthers commissioned GHD Pty Ltd to develop an Apportionment Plan for traffic management and road improvement measures needed to accommodate future development within the Panthers Penrith Precinct.  The primary purpose of this Plan is to assist RMS, TfNSW and Council to consider, debate and ultimately agree on Panthers’ contribution towards the provision of the necessary traffic management and road improvement measures.  The development of the Apportionment Plan has involved the following steps/information:

 

i.    Identifying road works required by 2031

 

The RTA identified road infrastructure works and upgrades, as listed above, to be carried out, in part or in full, to support the proposed development.

 

Council officers, RMS, TfNSW and Panthers Group again reviewed the modelling and carried out negotiations that have resulted in a refinement of the works that can be attributed, at any reasonable level (e.g. 5%, 30%, 100% etc), to the Panthers development.  The required works and the assumptions surrounding these works have been developed through traffic engineering and modelling.

 

Based on the intersection modelling undertaken for the ultimate 2031 scenario, the following refined list of upgrade works are required:

a)   New signalised intersection connecting the proposed Riverlink Access Road with Great Western Highway in the north and Jamison Road in the south

b)   Widening of Mulgoa Road to three lanes in each direction between Jamison Road and Great Western Highway/High Street.  The Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal considers only a subsection of this widening between Jamison Road and 100 metre north of Ransley Street, as agreed with RMS during the consultation stage.  Improvement of the performance at the Ransley Street intersection will occur in tandem with the widening of Mulgoa Road in this location

c)   Changes to the configuration and enhancement of the capacity of the intersection at Mulgoa Road and Great Western Highway

d)   Changes to the configuration and enhancement of the capacity of the intersection at Mulgoa Road and Panther Place

e)   Changes to the configuration and enhancement of the capacity of the intersection at Mulgoa Road and Jamison Road, and

f)   Changes to the configuration and enhancement of the capacity of Jamison Street between Harris Street and Mulgoa Road, including traffic signals.

 

The following elements of the proposed works have been agreed by RMS and Council officers to be necessary for access to and from the development and should be funded in full by the proponent:

a)   Left turn continuous slip lane from Mulgoa Road northbound into Panther Place

b)   Right turn bay from Jamison Road into the Southern Riverlink Access, and

c)   Northern approach of the intersection of Harris Street, Jamison Road and the Southern Riverlink.

 

It should be noted that as the demand for the Jane Street extension is already generated by existing traffic loads unrelated to the Panthers proposal, and given that the delivery of a discrete future arterial road extension of this scale and cost would need to be delivered by the State Government, it is not appropriate to seek works or a monetary contribution from the Panthers Group in relation to the current proposal.

 

Further, it was agreed that the necessity for, and approach to the delivery of, an overhead pedestrian bridge over Mulgoa Road would be the subject of a separate negotiation between RMS and Panthers at the appropriate time, and not included in this VPA.

 

ii.   Allocating appropriate traffic volumes at each intersection from various sources (Panthers, Riverlink, other)

 

It was then necessary to determine the amount of traffic load in the above elements that is attributable to the proposal.  For the purposes of allocating appropriate traffic volumes at each intersection from various sources, three major categories including Panthers Penrith Precinct, Riverlink Precinct (excluding Panthers) and ‘other’ traffic were used in the traffic modelling.  The ‘other’ traffic represents growth in background traffic that can be expected in the area, and traffic generated by all other likely future developments beyond development in the Panthers and broader Riverlink Precincts.

 

Where road works are required solely for access into, or out of, the Panthers development, it has been assumed that Panthers will contribute 100% of the cost required for these individual works.  In addition, where road works are required to accommodate background traffic growth, other Riverlink development and additional traffic from the Panthers Penrith development, it has been assumed that Panthers Penrith will contribute to these works in proportion to the amount of additional traffic attributable to the Panthers Penrith development.

 

Concept designs and cost estimates were developed for each element of the required works identified above.  The proportion of traffic volumes and costs attributable respectively to Panthers, Riverlink and background growth was calculated.

 

iii.  Identifying a discrete package of works (the Offer)

 

The RTA had advised that the works identified to support the development of the Panthers Penrith site on the State road network are not included in its forward programs, and consequently no funding has been allocated in the RMS’ forward budgets for these works.  It is therefore counter-productive to seek, from the Panthers Group, proportional monetary contributions towards the cost of those elements of the works (not solely required for access into or out of the proposed development) as there is no guarantee that the State government will deliver the work or provide the remaining funds required.

 

The most effective approach is to identify a discrete package of the identified works that can be delivered fully (100%) by Panthers.  This ensures that relevant upgrades of the State road network can be fully delivered in step with the proposed development.

 

By adding the cost of the works required solely for access into, or out of, the Panthers development to the cost of the apportioned works attributed to Panthers, a total, or lump sum contribution required from Panthers to meet their obligation for road infrastructure upgrades was calculated.

 

Through negotiations with the RMS, TfNSW and Council, Panthers has offered to enter into a VPA to deliver the full extent of following road infrastructure at its own cost.

 

 

Description

Detail of Works

a.

Jamison/Harris Street

Construction of new intersection at Jamison Road, Harris Street and new access road from Panthers development.

Construction of intersection at Harris Street and Jamison Road, with provision for sheltered right turn bays from Jamison Road into Harris Street and new Southern Riverlink Access (30m on eastern leg and 15m on western leg).  Installation of traffic signals at Harris Street.

b.

Jamison Road between Harris Street and Mulgoa Road

Widening of Jamison Road between Harris Street and Mulgoa Road to include two continuous eastbound lanes within the existing road reserve.

Retention of a 3m wide shared path along the northern side of Jamison Road between Harris Street and Mulgoa Road.

Extension of the existing median along Jamison Road between Mulgoa Road and Harris Street.  This will prevent a right turn from McNaughton Street into Jamison Road.  This includes any required adjustment to access arrangements and utility services fronting this section of Jamison Road.

c.

Jamison Road /Mulgoa Road

Construction of a second right turn bay from Jamison Road eastbound into Mulgoa Road (30m).  Existing right turn bay (45m) to be retained.

d.

Mulgoa Road/Panther Place

An additional northbound left slip lane off Mulgoa Road into Panther Place.

Construction of a continuous left slip lane of 50m into Panther Place from Mulgoa Road.

Widening of Mulgoa Road to three lanes north and south bound.

Construction of a signalised pedestrian crossing across Panther Place at the intersection with Mulgoa Road.

e.

Mulgoa Road / Ransley Street

Upgrade intersection resulting from the widening of Mulgoa Road to three lanes north and south bound.

f.

Mulgoa Road

Three lanes north and south from Jamison Road to 100m north of Ransley St

To be incorporated in the works outlined in items 2 and 3 above and to be achieved within the existing kerb-to-kerb alignment through reclamation of median and narrowing of lanes from 3.5m to 3.2m.

 

Based on additional modelling undertaken later in the negotiation process, RMS has requested Panthers to consider the inclusion of the following additional works.

i.    Construction of a continuous left slip lane of 100m on the northern approach of Jamison Rd/Mulgoa Rd intersection

ii.   Lengthening of existing right turn bays on Jamison Road between Station Street and Mulgoa Road to continuous and 130m respectively

iii.  Change line marking on the eastern leg of Jamison Rd/Mulgoa Rd intersection to show left, left-through, right, right arrangement

 

The Panthers Group has agreed to include these works for the purpose of negotiations of the VPA, and has now submitted a formal ‘Letter of Offer’ to enter into a VPA on the basis of the above works.  Should Council accept this offer, a VPA will be developed and signed by the Panthers Group in advance of the revised Planning Proposal being submitted to the Minister for the making of the proposed LEP.  A VPA would cover the following key commitments:

·    Delivery of each element of the discrete package of works to the satisfaction of RMS and Council.

·    Timing of delivery of each element of the discrete package of works in accordance with specified triggers.  The triggers will reflect the staging of the proposed development to ensure that the impact of development is mitigated.  They will be based on traffic generation and expressed in terms of gross floor area (GFA) to facilitate the monitoring of development and administration through progressive development applications.

·    The establishment of a ‘scheme of arrangement’ to coordinate the collection of funding and delivery of works in accordance with the requirements of the VPA over time with future project owners / lessees.

·    Provide appropriate security against the requirements of the VPA negotiated with Council, RMS and TfNSW in accordance with the legislation and legal precedent.

 

It is felt that full delivery of the above package of works through a VPA represents an appropriate and proportional response from the Panthers Group to address the traffic impacts of the proposed development.

 

However, it is important to recognise that, aside from this present proposal, Penrith’s arterial road network is coming under ever increasing strain as a result of the growth which we have experienced to date and will continue to experience as we grow as a Regional City.  The existing deficiencies in the road network and the future network upgrades, required to meet the demands generated by the future growth of the City, have been identified in Council’s Penrith Arterial Roads Study (PARS), the Penrith Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy (PITLUS) and the Penrith Regional City Infrastructure Strategy 2008.  The PARS, in particular, identified the need for significant improvements to the arterial road network on Mulgoa Road between the M4 Motorway and the Great Western Highway, including the Jane Street extension.

 

The endorsement of the proposed VPA with the Panthers Group does not relieve the State Government of its obligations for the appropriate management and upgrade of the arterial road network.  In fact, the timing of anticipated new development feeding into this important artery must result in the acceleration of those upgrades, and it is vital that Council continues its strong advocacy with TfNSW, the relevant Minister and through our local Members to achieve this outcome.

 

Parking concerns

 

The concerns raised in public submissions related to parking required to service the existing and proposed development of the site are acknowledged.  However, this is not a matter that can be dealt with in a future LEP.  Rather, this matter will be addressed in the preparation of a DCP for the site, in the next stage of planning.  It is the intention that adequate, convenient and well planned car parking will be provided on site to cater for both normal operations and peak demand.

 

3.         Flooding

Public Submissions:

The following is a summary of key flooding issues that were raised in the public submissions.

·   The Council report for the Riverlink Precinct Plan identified limited potential for certain areas due to flooding yet Council is supporting the current proposal in a similar area.

·   Both the Panthers Proposal and the land in the Tench Avenue Precinct are similarly affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood event.  It is not clear why the Council could, as part of the Panthers Proposal, potentially allow medium and high density residential uses on land that is not constrained by flooding, but is not willing to consider any residential uses (even low density rural uses) in the Tench Avenue Precinct, where about half of the land is not constrained by flooding.

·   There is a concern that the proposal is on flood liable land, inconsistent with the S.117 planning direction.

·   Residents bought into the retirement complex on the understanding that the subject land would not be developed as it is flood affected.

Response to Public Submissions

The extent of flooding likely to occur on the site was identified in modelling undertaken by Council in 2008 (2008 Nepean River Presentation RMA Model).  The primary implication of this flood affectation is that land below the 1:100 year flood extent presents significant constraints for residential purposes.  Development within the area affected by the 1:100 year event could potentially increase the velocity of flood flow.

 

State Emergency Services (SES) directions confirm that future development below the 1:100 year flood extent is limited to a narrow range of flood compatible ‘itinerant’ land uses (such as recreation and entertainment) where structures do not affect the extent or velocity of flood events.  This limitation applies mainly to the western side of Peachtree Creek, which is not part of this Planning Proposal.  Planning for those lands west of Peachtree Creek will be further considered in Stage 2 of the City-wide LEP process.

 

Providing that evacuation requirements can be met, there is sufficient flood free land on the Panthers site, east of Peachtree Creek, to allow residential development.  The Panthers Partnership is proposing approximately 900 dwellings, comprising a mix of seniors living, medium and high residential density developments.  Planning guidelines for the location and design of these dwellings will be included in a future DCP for the site.

 

The site, up to the flood planning event (1% AEP), is subject to backwater flooding from the Nepean River via Peachtree Creek plus minor flooding from local tributaries.  This is a different scenario from other flood liable land adjacent to the River, where lands are affected by direct mainstream flood impacts and flows when the River breaks its banks in times of flood.

 

Council’s current draft Nepean River Flood Modelling Study reveals that, while there are limitations to the extent of land which can be further developed and the nature of land uses that are suitable for development in those areas, a significant proportion of the site could be used for tourist uses and residential uses, providing development occurs in the areas of the site above the flood planning level.

 

Council will apply the DP&I’s Flood Planning model clause to the land below the 1% AEP flood extent, to address the requirements of the S117 Direction.  A small part of the site below the flood planning level, which is considered minor, permits tourist development.  This would only include those forms of tourist development which can be designed to minimise or avoid any detrimental impact on flood storage and conveyance and that can be readily evacuated in a controlled manner.  All development has flood free access, and specific matters of design and location would be addressed through development applications.

 

The Planning Proposal zones the land affected by the 1:100 year flood as RE1 Public Recreation and SP3 Tourist, to enable the areas to be used for tourist uses that ensure the occupants remain above flood levels.  The residential development is proposed as an additional permitted land use within the SP3 Tourist zone in the LEP, but only on land that is not constrained by flooding and where safe flood evacuation can be ensured.  The Flood Modelling was independently reviewed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (formerly DECCW) and State Emergency Services (SES).

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (formerly DECCW) Agency Submission:

The Gateway Determination required consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) under section 56(2)(d) of the EP&A Act.  The following is a summary of the key issues that were raised in OEH submission.

·   A further flood analysis was required to assess the floodplain risk management on a cumulative and strategic basis.  The cumulative impacts of development on the western side of Peachtree Creek will need to be included.

·   Flooding education for tourists, as well as the inclusion of non-residential uses on the ground floor, needs to be applied.

·   Public safety and property damage in relation to flooding is to be addressed through suitable controls.

Response to Agency Submission

Panthers/ING submitted a Consolidated Flooding Report in response to the above concerns raised by the OEH.  This report has been included as an appendix to the Planning Proposal and was referred to the OEH for its comments.

 

Council has now received advice from the OEH indicating that it is satisfied with the additional information provided by the proponent, subject to further detailed flood modelling and design work being undertaken in subsequent stages of the project.

 

Whilst the SES has not provided a formal submission, despite repeated requests, OEH follows the SES guidelines and there is a level of confidence that the matter can be forwarded to DP&I for its confirmation of any SES input during its review processes.

 

4.         Zoning and Planning Policies

The following is a summary of the key zoning and planning policy issues that were raised in the public submissions.

·   The SP3 zone as a tourism zone is too broad and allows all but a few types of development.  There is no explanation of why the DP&I’s B4 zone suggestion was rejected.  The proposed ‘Tourist Zone’ is inconsistent with the scale and nature of the proposed retail floor space to be permitted.

·   The Planning Proposal seeks to introduce a new definition for ‘Brand Outlet Centre’ which does not exist in the Standard LEP template and is considered unsatisfactory.

·   It is difficult to interpret the proposed B7 zone as having anything to do with 'campus style office accommodation'.

·   The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Penrith City Centre Plan.  The Panthers site is not identified as a retail or commercial area in the Riverlink Precinct Plan.  The documentation exhibited with the Panthers Proposal (including NCBT) is misleading and deceptive.  The Panthers Proposal is not consistent with the draft North-West Subregional Strategy or Council’s adopted Riverlink Precinct Plan.

·   The proposed planning controls are contrary to the draft NSW Centres Policy.  The proposed LEP will permit a retail centre that is inconsistent with the draft Policy.

·   It is unfair for the Panthers Proposal to proceed separately to the rest of the Riverlink Precinct.  The Tench Avenue Precinct should be similarly rezoned to allow a mixture of commercial and/or residential uses, where appropriate.  To avoid the outcomes for the whole precinct being undermined, Council is requested to make a clear commitment to the community and landholders that the Riverlink Precinct Plan will be implemented within the balance of the study area.

Response

Council has adopted a hierarchy for centres in Penrith to guide the strategic planning and growth for the City.  As part of that hierarchy, the Standard LEP template B4 Mixed Use zone is only applied to the Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre.  This recognises the key roles provided by these centres in the economic growth of the City.  Council’s approach in only applying the B4 Mixed Use zone to the City’s key centres has been recently validated by the DP&I, as it has determined that the B4 Mixed Use zone was not appropriate for the retail and commercial ‘village centre’ in the North Penrith Urban Area.

 

Selecting appropriate zones for the Panthers site required identification of the ‘best fit’ zone with the proposed range of land uses.  The SP3 Tourist zone, with a number of additional objectives and more scheduled land uses, provides that ‘best fit’ when compared to other available template zones.  The primary objective of the SP3 zone is to “provide for a variety of tourist-oriented development and related uses”.  These include entertainment and tourism activities as well as accommodating the supporting general retail and the destination outlet centre retailing.

 

The definition of ‘outlet centre’ has been refined and strengthened, in consultation with external legal advisors, to ensure that it can be reasonably implemented.  The proponents have also agreed to enter into a VPA with Council to reinforce the operation of the controls on an approved outlet centre.  This will assist in the management of any compliance issues.

 

To ensure that the proposed office development on the site is complementary to the City Centre, the exhibited, and subsequently refined, definition and provisions for campus style office development seek to control the maximum floorspace (25,000m2) and the minimum floorplate size (1,500m2).  Furthermore, the legal advice has recommended changing the zone of the land.  The Planning Proposal has been amended to extend the SP3 Tourist zone over the previously proposed B7 zoned land, and campus style office has been scheduled as an additional permitted use to ensure that the nature and extent of any future office development on the Panthers site can be delivered in a manner that is complementary to the City Centre as intended.

 

The Penrith City Centre Plan sets a clear direction for the development of the Panthers precinct as a venue for recreation and entertainment, and emphasises that the Penrith City Centre should be the focus of retail development.  SGS was engaged to undertake an independent review of retail related submissions.  In response to matters raised in the submissions, SGS was of the view that further justification should be provided as to how the retail offer, particularly the outlet centre, complements the entertainment/leisure uses.

 

Despite this view, the Panthers submission has made a case for an outlet centre as part of the broader recreational and tourist offer.  The site has also been referenced in the draft North West Subregional Strategy and the Penrith City Centre Vision, in its role in providing complementary and supportive land uses to the Penrith City Centre, and being an asset to Penrith as a Regional City.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the NSW draft Activity Centres Policy.  The site is located out of centre and has been subject to the Sequential Test and Site Suitability Criteria, which indicated that the site is of a significant size that would not be available within the existing City Centre.  The site provides potential for a regional entertainment precinct around the existing Panthers Club, with complementary destination retail.  Such potential is not available in the City Centre.  The Sequential Test and Site Suitability Criteria concluded that there is no suitably zoned land adjacent to the City Centre for this scale of activity.

 

The Panthers site is within the 2km walking catchment radius, identified as a criterion for a Regional City in the ‘Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036’.  The Panthers Precinct forms part of the broader Regional City and is referred to as a supporting precinct in the Penrith City Centre Vision Document and the draft North West Subregional Strategy.  The proposal therefore has the opportunity to create an activity centre, involving open space, recreation and residential zones that support and complement the City Centre.

 

The Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal is being considered separately to Council’s LEP Stage 2 process for a number of reasons.  A separate planning proposal for the Panthers site allows independent scrutiny of a major development proposal consistent with the Riverlink Probity Plan.  The Probity Plan was developed given that Council has multiple functions and interests in the Riverlink Precinct.  Council has not received any other proposals for major developments within the Riverlink Precinct except for a small number of dual occupancies.

 

5.         Local Impacts

The following is a summary of key local impacts that were raised in the submissions.

·   The development will impact on views to the Mountains and use some of the only remaining green space in Penrith.

·   Changing the range of zones will change Penrith from a quiet rural town to an overpopulated slum.  Quality of life within the area would be threatened.

·   There will be adverse impacts from proposed multi-storey buildings on the available sunlight and aspect of residents, especially to the west of the retirement village in the winter.

·   There are concerns about the impact this redevelopment will have on water quality in the area; the lack of renewable resources and green power for construction and operation of the redeveloped site; waste management; hours of construction and operation; and security of the site.

·   There will be adverse impacts on residents’ amenity by way of noise from the proposal, which would worsen the existing impacts from the exhibition venue.  There will also be adverse impacts of tall buildings, particularly on television reception.

·   The residents are already inconvenienced by excess noise when functions are held either outdoors or in the exhibition tent.  The proposal for the land currently on exhibition would add to these impacts.

Response

There is no doubt that the Planning Proposal represents a significant intensification of land uses on the Panthers’ site.  Careful planning will be required to ensure that the growth of, and change to, the range of land uses offered on the site is managed to minimise impacts on, and maintain the amenity of, local residents.

 

The current Planning Proposal represents one step in that planning.  For the proposal to progress there is still further detailed planning required in the form of a DCP, Infrastructure Master Plan, s94 Development Contributions Plan, and other delivery mechanisms that will ensure that potential local impacts such as those identified above are addressed.

 

Whilst the Planning Proposal will set a range of high level controls for development, details regarding the ultimate location and height of the buildings will be determined during the subsequent master planning and DCP processes, as well as through the assessment of individual development applications.

 

One of the intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal is to “encourage views of the Blue Mountains from public domain areas”.  Accordingly, it is intended that guidelines in the DCP will ensure protection of these views.  With regard to open space on the site, the draft LEP would zone open space links to the wider network of open space within the site and to the Nepean River.

 

Other concerns, raised in relation to emissions, noise, privacy and solar access, are subject to existing Council policies.  They will be addressed through preparation of the Infrastructure Master Plan and DCP, and also through the application of appropriate conditions on development applications.

 

Post exhibition changes to the Planning Proposal and need for re-exhibition

A fundamental consideration in any LEP (now Gateway) process is the nature and extent of any changes made to a Planning Proposal in response to, or following, public exhibition, and whether such changes are material to the operation and outcomes of the LEP.  Where potential changes are deemed to be material to the operation and outcomes of the LEP, it needs to be re-exhibited to ensure that communities are able to comment on the amended draft LEP / Planning Proposal.

 

The importance of this principle has been highlighted in a recent landmark finding of the Land and Environment Court (in Friends of Turramurra Inc v Minister for Planning) in which the Ku-ring-gai Town Centres LEP was overturned, as the draft LEP was not re-exhibited although post exhibition changes were deemed to have substantially changed the LEP.  The test is whether the intent of the LEP has changed, rather than the scale of any changes.

 

The new Gateway process has changed the way in which a decision about re-exhibition is made.  In accordance with s58(2) and (3) of the EP&A Act, further community consultation is now not required unless the Minister makes that direction in a revised (Gateway) determination.  However, following discussions with the Regional Office of the DP&I, Council should provide an initial view on any specific changes that it feels may warrant consideration for re-exhibition.

 

Changes to the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal (future LEP), in response to consideration of submissions, are identified in Attachment 3.  It is considered that, in the main, these changes would not alter the operation and outcome of the Planning Proposal / future LEP, and therefore do not warrant re-exhibition.  The only exception may be the replacement of the exhibited B7 zone with an SP3 zone to better manage future campus style office premises.  Whilst the intended outcome is the same, the change of zone may require consideration for re-exhibition.

 

In addition to the post exhibition changes to the Planning Proposal, Attachment 3 identifies a number of matters which have emerged from the agency submissions and requirements.  Whilst not requiring an amendment to the Planning Proposal itself, these matters may have implications for adjoining residents and communities in the vicinity.  As these requirements have evolved subsequent to the public exhibition, the affected parties will not be aware of the potential implications and have not had an opportunity to comment at this point.  These include:

·   The additional studies and modelling required by the RMS and the Transport for NSW related to traffic and transport, and by the OEH related to flooding, have generated considerable additional information that supports important aspects of the proposed development.  In the main, the additional studies and modelling address issues and impacts that have also been raised in public submissions.  This new information, which will present as additional appendices to the Planning Proposal, will play a key role in Council’s, and the Minister’s, decision making process.

·   The RTA’s requirements for:

o a fully signalised intersection at Harris Street

o the widening of Jamison Road to four lanes between Harris Street and Mulgoa Road, and

o the provision of an impenetrable median in Jamison Road between Harris Street and Mulgoa Road.

 

This will require that McNaughton Street, which connects residential areas to the south of Jamison Road be restricted to left in / left out only turning movements in the future.  This will have implications for residents’ access arrangements into and out of this area.  Access arrangements for the car park supporting the Jamison Gardens Aged Care Facility would likewise be affected.  Affected residents will not have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed future arrangements.

·   The RMS’ requirement for the widening of Mulgoa and Jamison Roads may require the identification of land to accommodate the widening.  Usually, this would require the zoning of land to accommodate the widened road reserve and the identification of the RMS as the ‘acquiring authority’ in the LEP.  However, the road widening is unlikely to be required for several years and the RMS is yet to determine the extent and configuration of any road widening required.  Therefore, it is considered that the zoning of land for road widening and identification of an acquisition authority, if ultimately required, should take place either as a separate Planning Proposal or be included as part of the Riverlink Precinct in the Planning Proposal for LEP Stage 2.

Of the above matters, it is considered that the potential change to access arrangements in the vicinity of McNaughton Street is the only issue that warrants consideration for re-exhibition.

 

The two matters that overall may warrant consideration for re-exhibition will be raised in correspondence with the Minister, should Council resolve to proceed with the Planning Proposal.

 

Request for an Independent Assessment

One submission requested an independent planning enquiry “given Penrith Council’s vested commercial interest in the project”.

 

In the Gateway process (as with the former LEP process), the concept of a ‘planning enquiry’ is not a mechanism referenced in, or available under, the EP&A Act.  The only construct available to Council following public exhibition of a Planning Proposal is the undertaking of a ‘public hearing’ in accordance with s.57(5) of the EP&A Act.  A public hearing is a forum that is conducted by or on behalf of Council, to allow submitters or members of the community to address their submissions in a public meeting.  It is principally to allow Council to clarify issues raised in submissions, or to obtain new information not previously included in submissions, to assist in its decision making in relation to a Planning Proposal.  It is clear from the context of Submission No 21 that the submitter is not requesting that Council undertake a public hearing.

 

The submitter has now clarified their request as follows:

“....we believe that in order to ensure public confidence in the planning process for this major project of significance in Penrith that an independent consultant should be engaged to assess the Penrith Panthers Planning Proposal.

 

We also request that the matter be referred to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) by the Minister of Planning (sic).  While the PAC has been set up specifically to deal with state significant Part 3A projects it can also be requested by the Minister to advise on “environmental planning instruments”.

 

In this regard, the submitter is referring to s23D(b)(i) of the EP&A Act which sets out the functions of the Planning and Assessment Commission.  That section provides that one of the functions of the Commission is, if requested by the Minister, to advise the Minister as to planning or development matters, environmental planning instruments or the administration or implementation of the provisions of this Act, or any related matter”.

 

Whilst this function is available to the Minister, there is no statutory requirement or delegation for Council to seek the exercise of the function by the Minister as part of the Gateway process.

 

Submission 21 states that the request for a planning enquiry arises from “Council’s vested commercial interest in the project”.  In this regard, Council’s interests are limited to:

(a)     Draft lease in relation to part of the land on which the Par 3 Golf Course sits (only relating to drainage).  The lease has never been granted by Council

(b)     Lease over Penrith Park

(c)     Licence in relation to the location of the Visitor Information Centre

(d)     Monetary contribution towards a public art project

(e)     Council owns a road within the site that is the subject of the Planning Proposal, and

(f)      Panthers will be required to develop a link road to the north of its land which will allegedly benefit the Carpenter site (land owned by Council).

 

None of the above interests are considered significant.  Nor are they likely to give rise to ‘bias’ in the exercise of Council’s functions or decision making under the Gateway process.

 

Furthermore, the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal is being considered separately to Council’s LEP Stage 2 process for the following reasons:

·   A separate planning proposal for the Panthers site is consistent with the Riverlink Probity Plan.  The Probity Plan was developed by independent consultant, Deloitte, on behalf of Council, in recognition of Council’s multiple functions and interests in the Riverlink Precinct and the potential for perceived conflict of interest that this could generate.  Council is the statutory planning authority, a major landowner (Woodriff Gardens and Carpenters sites) and has historical and contractual relationships with Panthers.  The Probity Plan provides clear guidance for Councillors and staff in the assessment of future planning and development options for the Precinct as a whole.

·   The Panthers site is specifically referenced in the draft North West Subregional Strategy and the Penrith City Centre Vision as having a future role for Penrith by providing complementary and supportive land uses to the Penrith City Centre, and as an asset to Penrith as the Regional City.  In light of this status, a separate planning proposal for this site allows a more transparent public process and greater depth of consideration than might be available if included in the larger and more complex Penrith City-wide Local Environmental Plan (Stage 2) work program.

 

Therefore, it is considered that the request is not justified.

 

Notwithstanding, it is important in maintaining public confidence in Council’s decision making processes, that this matter is raised for the Minister’s consideration.  Should Council decide to proceed with the Planning Proposal, this will be referenced in correspondence accompanying the amended Planning Proposal.

 

Independent Review of Council’s LEP (Gateway) Process

It is important in any LEP process to ensure that Council has complied with all relevant legislation in accordance with the Gateway determination.

 

This Planning Proposal is being considered separately to Council’s LEP Stage 2 process as it allows independent scrutiny of a major development proposal consistent with the Riverlink Probity Plan.  The Probity Plan was developed for the Riverlink Precinct as the Precinct included land owned by Council.  The Riverlink Probity Plan recommends that Council should give consideration to having any draft LEP in the Riverlink Precinct that involves Council’s significant (commercial) land holdings externally reviewed prior to formal submission to the Department of Planning.  This is not considered necessary at this stage as the only Council-owned land involved in the Panthers Planning Proposal is a portion of road and open space.

 

Council’s internal Legal and Governance Department has previously carried out a preliminary review of the LEP / Planning Proposal process and concluded that it complies with the requirements of the EP&A Act.

 

Further, Council’s Legal and Governance Department engaged O’Connor Marsden and Associates to carry out an independent review of the LEP / Planning Proposal process to determine if the process has been followed in accordance with the EP&A Act and the Gateway Determination.  O’Connor Marsden and Associates has concluded that the due process has been followed.  Their advice is provided in full at Attachment 6.

 

Conclusion and recommendations

The Panthers Penrith proposal, if fully delivered, is worth an estimated $850 million and will generate in the order of 2,100 full-time equivalent jobs post construction.  The proposal would also deliver a range of facilities that are important in supporting an emerging and mature Regional City.

 

Both Council’s and the State Government’s strategic planning for Penrith and the Riverlink Precinct has identified a strong ongoing role for the Panthers site as an asset to the City.  This can only be achieved through carefully planned growth of, and change to, the range of land uses offered on the site to support the viable delivery of higher order facilities in Penrith.

 

The current Planning Proposal represents one step in that planning.  For the proposal to progress there is still further detailed planning required and the development of other delivery mechanisms to ensure that the outcomes on the ground reflect the strategic intentions for the site.

 

There is no doubt that the Planning Proposal represents a significant intensification of land uses on the Panthers site and it will be important to address potential local impacts such as those identified above.  In particular, Council will need to balance the provision of additional retail on the Panthers site with the need to maintain a strong, well performing City Centre and will need to ensure that appropriate infrastructure required to support the development is provided in a timely manner.  In this regard, the measures identified in this report and amendments made to the Planning Proposal are critical.

 

On balance, it is considered that the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal is worthy of support.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Panthers Planning Proposal be received.

2.     Council endorse the changes made to the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal as shown in Attachment 3.

3.     The General Manager be granted delegation to make any necessary minor changes required to the Planning Proposal before submitting it to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

4.     The Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal, as amended and attached (Attachment 4 provided separately to Councillors on CD and available on Council’s website ), be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure after a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the provision of State road infrastructure and a separate VPA for the ongoing management of the outlet centre is signed by the proponent with a request that:

a)        the Minister consider the changes made to the Planning Proposal in response to the public exhibition, and

b)        make a determination as to whether the Planning Proposal is to be re-exhibited in accordance with s58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

5.     The Minister be requested to make the plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, should he determine that re-exhibition and/or independent review and referral of the Planning Proposal to the Planning and Assessment Commission is not required.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Summary of Public Submissions - Panthers Planning Proposal

24 Pages

Attachment

2. View

Public Submissions Discussion Paper - Panthers Planning Proposal

90 Pages

Attachment

3. View

Post Exhibition Changes to Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

8 Pages

Attachment

4. View

Panthers Planning Proposal  2011 - Post Exhibition (provided separately on CD to Councillors and available on Council's website)

369 Pages

Attachment

5. View

Peer Review of Retail Analyses - SGS Economics & Planning

23 Pages

Attachment


 

6. View

Probity Review of aspects of Penrith City Council’s Handling and Assessment of the Panthers
Penrith Planning Proposal

7 Pages

Attachment

7.  

Appendix 1 - Aerial Photo of Panthers Site

1 Page

Appendix

8.  

Appendix 2 - Panthers Planning Proposal Illustrative Master Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 1 - Aerial Photo of Panthers Site

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 2 - Panthers Planning Proposal Illustrative Master Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

3

Funding Options to Provide Suitable Cover for Housing Council's Bennett Wagons   

 

Compiled by:               Colin Dickson, Marketing & Events Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Barbara Magee, Manager - Corporate Communications & Marketing  

 

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

Share aspirations and work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City (1.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

At the Council meeting of 6 February 2012 a report was presented to Council on the housing options for the three Bennett Wagons in Council’s possession following the restoration works undertaken on the small Bennett Wagon. A further report was requested outlining potential funding options to provide suitable cover for housing the Bennett Wagons in a publicly accessible location.

 

The report recommends that the information on funding options for housing the Bennett Wagons be received.

Background

In October 2011, the small Bennett Wagon situated at the nursery depot on Castlereagh Road received $8,000 worth of restoration works (funded from voted works). This included coating with a specially formulated oil to preserve and protect the timber from exposure to the elements and repairs to the front near side wheel.

 

At the time the restorer indicated that the cover structure already in place at the nursery depot had assisted greatly in the preservation of the two wagons stored there.

 

A previous report to Council identified South Creek Park, which already houses a medium sized Bennett Wagon as a good location to house the other two Bennett Wagons in Council’s possession. The site already has the beginnings of an historical precinct with a Bennett Wagon and a Blacksmith’s shop already on site.

 

To undertake these works, Council’s Architectural Supervisor provided a preliminary cost estimate of $169,694. Other estimates were subsequently sought from some of Council’s building contractors and these were slightly less (approximately $140,000) to those provided by Council’s Architectural Supervisor.

 

 

 

 

Current Situation

As reported on 6 February, 2012, the NSW Government’s Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has a range of grants available to assist owners and managers of state significant heritage items and places. The Bennett Wagons current level of significance has been classified as local, meaning that Council does not meet the OEH’s application criteria.

 

Therefore, potential funding options remain:

 

1.   The request could be added to Council’s high priority unfunded list. A Project Resource bid has been submitted.

 

2.   Council’s Grants Support Officer will continue to remain alert for any future grant funding opportunities that arise. There are no grant funding opportunities available at the present time.

 

Grant funding opportunities

Council subscribes to the NSW edition of Easy Grants, a monthly publication from Our Community in Victoria. This publication is a comprehensive list of grants available to all applicants in NSW from a wide range of Federal, State and non-Government sources.

 

In addition, Council subscribes to Easy Grants Plus, a database of grants that NSW Local Governments are eligible to apply to for funding. This service has been established by Our Community at the request of the NSW Grants Network. Subscription to this service also provides alerts to subscribing councils to advise when grants programs open.

 

Both these subscription services are regularly analysed to determine if funding opportunities relevant to Council’s priorities are available, with particular reference to sources of funding for particular projects requested by Council or Managers.

 

Search engines on websites such as the Federal Government’s Grants Link and the State Government’s Community Builders are also regularly searched to determine whether any funding bodies are offering grant programs relevant to this Council’s needs.

 

The principal source of funding for heritage projects is through the NSW State Government’s Office of Environment and Heritage, Heritage Branch, programs of assistance.

 

One criterion for capital project funding through these programs is that items need to be of State Heritage Register or state significant heritage items. As the Bennett Wagons are not listed under any category on the State Heritage Register, Council is not able to apply for funding from any Heritage Branch programs.

 

Another potential source of funding would have been through the Federal Government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, but this program has been discontinued by the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

 

A third potential source of funding is through the Community Building Partnership Program, offered by the NSW Government.

 

This is the program that has provided $300,000 or $400,000 per state electoral district for new community infrastructure or refurbishments through a competitive process that community groups and councils could apply to for funding. Councils are required to match State funding for successful projects.

 

There has been no announcement from the State Government to indicate whether this funding stream will be made available again. If it is offered again, it is likely that applications will be called late in 2012, with announcement of successful applications in early 2013.

 

Of the four project proposals for Mulgoa brought forward for Council’s consideration at the ordinary Meeting held 10 October 2011 (which did not include a proposal to house the Bennett Wagons), the Member for Mulgoa’s preferred project, to install a shade structure and water slide at Ripples St Marys, with an estimated cost of $37,800, with matching funds of $18,900 to be resourced from Ripples Operational Budget, was endorsed to proceed to application.

 

This program last closed on 7 November 2011 and decisions on applications are scheduled to be announced in late March 2012.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Funding Options to Provide Suitable Cover for Housing Council's Bennett Wagons be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

4

Audit Committee   

 

Compiled by:               Peter Browne, Internal Auditor

Authorised by:            Stephen Britten, Group Manager - Legal & Governance  

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

Base our decisions on research, evidence, and our responsibility to anticipate harm before it occurs (5.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides information on the meeting of the Council’s Audit Committee held on
7 March 2012. 

 

The report also advises that Professor Robert Coombes has advised that, due to other commitments he now has, he wishes to resign from the Audit Committee as soon as a replacement can be found.

Background

The Audit Committee is comprised of the Mayor (or the Mayor’s representative), three other Councillors and three independent members appointed by Council, to advise on financial reporting, internal controls, corporate risks, business ethics, assurance and other matters as identified in its Charter.  The Audit Committee Charter was created by Council resolution on 13 November 2006 and has been amended by Council four times, the most recent being on 19 July 2010.

 

The NSW Local Government Internal Audit Guidelines (issued September 2010) provide that:

 

An audit committee plays a pivotal role in the governance framework.  It provides councils with independent oversight and monitoring of the council’s audit processes, including the council’s internal controls activities.

Current Situation

The Audit Committee met on 7 March 2012 and adopted the draft minutes of the prior meeting (as provided to Council on 7 November 2012) without alteration.  The Committee’s Charter requires the draft minutes of each Audit Committee meeting to be reported to Council and a copy of the draft minutes of the last meeting are attached to this report. 

Prof Rob Coombes

In February 2007 Council wrote to the University of Western Sydney seeking a nomination of a suitable person to be part of the Audit Committee Council had resolved to form.  The University put forward its soon to retire Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Robert Coombes.  Professor Robert John Coombes BA(Hon) MEc(Hon) FCA FCPA came with a distinguished academic career as well as having held positions such as Deputy State (NSW) President of CPA Australia. 

 

In July 2011 Professor Coombes was persuaded to return to full time employment and accepted a position at Charles Sturt University as Professor of Accounting and Head of School.  Since that time he has had difficulty meeting all his commitments and has now resigned from the Audit Committee.  The resignation from the Chair of the Audit Committee is effective immediately while he has agreed to remain as a member until a suitable replacement can be found.  Professor Coombes chaired Council’s Audit Committee from September 2007 to March 2012.  It is recommended that Council write to Professor Coombes thanking him for his contribution.

 

The Audit Committee Charter, as resolved by Council, recognises the relationship between Council and the University of Western Sydney by providing that Council would endeavour to maintain one member of the Audit Committee as a UWS nominee.  It is therefore intended to write to UWS, requesting it to again put forward the name of a suitable person for Council to consider for membership of the Audit Committee.  

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Audit Committee be received.

2.     A letter be sent to Professor Robert Coombes thanking him for his contribution as Chair of the Audit Committee.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Audit Committee Minutes 7 March 2012

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                   26 March 2012

Appendix 1 - Audit Committee Minutes 7 March 2012

 

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH 2012 AT 8:00 AM

PRESENT

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Frank Gelonesi , Jayant Gulwadi, and Councillor Kath Presdee.

 

Alan Stoneham (General Manager), Peter Browne (Internal Auditor), Barry Husking (Director),  Stephen Britten (Group Manager – Legal and Governance), Vicki O’Kelly (Group Manager – Finance), Chris Gardner (Information Management and Technology Manager), Ken Muir (Risk Management Coordinator) and Denis Banicevic (PricewaterhouseCoopers).

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from His Worship the Mayor Councillor Greg Davies, Robert Coombes, and Councillor Jim Aitken OAM.

 

 

Election of Audit Committee Chairman

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM called for nominations for the position of Chair of the Audit Committee. 

 

Councillor Kath Presdee nominated Frank Gelonesi, seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM.

 

There were no other nominations and Frank Gelonesi was elected Chair of the Audit Committee.

 

Frank Gelonesi assumed the chair.

 

Frank Gelonesi nominated Jayant Gulwadi for the position of Deputy Chairperson, seconded Councillor Kath Presdee.

 

There were no other nominations and Jayant Gulwadi was elected Deputy Chairperson.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Audit Committee Meeting - 5 October 2011

AUC 1 RESOLVED on the MOTION of  Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Jayant Gulwadi that that the minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting of 5 October 2011 be confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

 

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Volunteers                                                                                                                          

Peter Browne advised the Audit Committee of the audit of volunteers.  There was discussion on the risk level associated with the volunteers and the need to have some centralised policy to reduce risks.  It was noted that working out how much training a volunteer should have can be difficult given they might only stay a very short time.

 

AUC 2 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Jayant Gulwadi seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the information contained in the report on Volunteers be received.

 

 

2        Records Management Audit Progress Report                                                                

Chris Gardner advised the Audit Committee on progress made in Records Management.  Three additional staff members have been provided to Records since the November 2009 Internal Audit Report on Records Management.  We are now tracking how many documents each employee puts on the system and reviewing the statistics for signs of inadequate record keeping.  The descriptions of the documents (précis metadata) are being audited to check on the quality of the descriptions.  Training has increased and policy documents are very close to being completed.  They will have been communicated to staff by the time of the next Audit Committee meeting.  The time to action documents is also now being monitored.

 

AUC 3  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the information contained in the report on Records Management Audit Progress Report be received.

 

3        Risk Management Update                                                                                                

Ken Muir provided an update on risk management.  A number of measures have improved and a reduction in insurance premiums should flow from this.  Slips Trips and Falls have reduced significantly.

Denis Banicevic noted that Council has no high risks on its registers that have not been mitigated down to low residual risks.  Strategic risks are being reviewed and a further report will be presented to the Audit Committee.

 

AUC 4  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the information contained in the report on Risk Management Update be received.

 

 

 

 

4        Standing Items                                                                                                                   

Stephen Britten updated the Audit Committee on governance issues.   Peter Browne updated the Audit Committee on Internal Audit issues.

The Audit Committee discussed the resourcing of Internal Audit.  It was observed that the staffing of the Penrith Internal Audit function is significantly smaller than some other Councils.  Consideration needs to be given to whether the Internal Audit function is adequately resourced and this should be considered when the contracted review of Internal Audit is reported to the Audit Committee.

 

AUC 5  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Jayant Gulwadi seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the information contained in the report on Standing Items be received.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

The proposed dates for the next meetings were discussed. 

 

The next meeting will be held on 6 June 2012.  Possible election timing issues should be checked for the October meeting.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:57 am.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

5

2011-12 Borrowing Program   

 

Compiled by:               Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to discuss the 2011-12 borrowing program adopted in the 2011-12 Operational Plan. The program includes the annual borrowings of $3,200,000 to fund new infrastructure and a further $913,000 which represents the fifth year of the ten year program to fund the general revenue contribution to the Asset Renewal Established Areas Strategy (AREAS). 

 

In addition, as detailed to Council on 27 June 2011, borrowings will include $2,000,000 that will be funded by the Special Rate Variation (SRV) to forward fund the City Centres Renewal Program and Shared Pathways construction.

 

This year’s borrowing program also includes $2,150,000 for a property purchase by the property development reserve, approved by the Committee of the Whole on 20 February 2012. This loan will be funded by the Property Development Reserve.

 

This report recommends that Council borrow a total of $8,263,000 over a 10 or 15 year term.

 

Current Situation

Approval is now sought from Council to borrow the $8,263,000 on a 10 or 15 year repayment term.

 

The loans will be drawn down prior to 30 June 2012. As interest rates are expected to remain low and may fall further, it is considered prudent to monitor financial market movements over coming weeks to determine the optimum date to draw down the borrowings when the cost of the funds is lowest.

 

Loan Application Process

A number of banks and financial institutions will be contacted and asked to submit preliminary quotations for this year’s borrowing allocation. The responses will be reviewed and fixed quotations obtained.  The lenders traditionally quote an interest rate firm for 24 hours. Council needs to accept the most favourable quote within this time frame. This process does not allow sufficient time for these rates to be referred to Council for decision. Council has in the past approved the borrowings and provided delegation to the General Manager to negotiate and accept the final terms of the borrowings.

 

Details of the quotations received, the evaluation undertaken and the final rates and terms accepted are then reported to Council once the contracts are finalised. This report recommends following the same process for this year’s program.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2011-12 Borrowing Program be received.

2.     Council borrow the amount of $8,263,000 on a 10 or 15 year repayment schedule.

3.     Council’s General Manager be given delegated authority to negotiate the loans in accordance with this resolution.

4.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to those documents that are necessary to finalise these borrowings.

5.     The final terms and conditions of the borrowings be reported to Council upon completion of the contracts.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

6

Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 February to 29 February 2012   

 

Compiled by:               Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

Authorised by:            Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager  

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 February 2012 to 29 February 2012 and a reconciliation of invested funds at 29 February 2012.

The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Background

CERTIFICATE OF RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I hereby certify the following:

 

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

2.   Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled as at 29 February 2012.

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 February to 29 February 2012 be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 February 2012 to 29 February 2012 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 29 February 2012 be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

temp


temp


temp


temp

 


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

7        Development Application DA11/1057 for a Secondary Dwelling at Lot 20 DP 258357 (No. 20) Thomas Street, St Marys Applicant: Willco Consulting;  Owner: Allen Greenwood

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

 

8        Development Application DA11/1095 for a Dan Murphy's Liquor Store at Centro Lennox Shopping Centre Lot 1 DP 610862 Pyramid Street, Emu Plains Applicant: McKenzie Group Consulting;  Owner: CPT Custodian Pty Ltd DA11/1095

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A City of Opportunities

 

 

7

Development Application DA11/1057 for a Secondary Dwelling at Lot 20 DP 258357 (No. 20) Thomas Street, St Marys  Applicant:  Willco Consulting;  Owner:  Allen Greenwood    

 

Compiled by:               Kate Smith, Trainee Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

      

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a Development Application for a Secondary Dwelling at Lot 20 DP 258357 (No. 20) Thomas Street, St Marys. The proposal consists of a new 51 square metre dwelling with associated drainage works in addition to the existing dwelling.

The application seeks a 77.5% variation to Council’s development standard relating to the rear setback for a single-storey dwelling and the proposal is reported to Council for determination in accordance with Director General’s direction on State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 variations.

Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARH SEPP) 2009, the proposal is defined as a ‘secondary dwelling’ and is permissible on land that is zoned equivalent to an R2 Low Density Residential zone, but only if development for the purposes of a dwelling house is permissible on the land. A dwelling house is permissible on the subject site as it is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land) which is an equivalent zone to the R2 zone. The application is therefore assessed as a secondary dwelling under the ARH SEPP 2009.

The proposed development does not comply with two key development standards and is likely to have a negative impact on the surrounding character of the neighbourhood. The location of the proposed dwelling would set an undesirable precedent in its locality given the potential for a number of adjoining properties to also accommodate non-compliant dual occupancies. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

An assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and it is found to be unsatisfactory.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the southern side of Thomas Street approximately 250m north of the M4 Motorway. The subject property is 666m² in area, orientated in a north-south direction and is relatively flat.

The site is an irregular shape and has an easement for drainage which runs in a southeast to northwest direction through the southern portion of the property. The site is currently occupied by a dwelling house, detached garage, carport, two awnings and outbuildings.

The surrounding area is characterised by low density residential development. Along the southern side of Thomas Street the sites are typically battle-axe properties which are accessed from Thomas Street, although, present to Monfarville Reserve.

Although the site does not directly adjoin Monfarville Reserve, it receives filtered views from the reserve. See Locality Plan at Appendix No. 1.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

·        Construction of a new 51m² single storey secondary dwelling, situated in the south west corner of the site. Essentially rectangular in shape the building is sited in an east-west direction with the entrance facing the rear yard of the primary dwelling.

·        Setbacks:                  western boundary (side) – ranges from 950mm to 2400mm

eastern boundary (side) – 9000mm

southern boundary (rear) – 900mm

·        The secondary dwelling consists of one bedroom with study, combined bathroom and laundry, kitchen and lounge.

·        Construction:            floor - concrete slab on ground

walls - clad timber frame

roof - flat skillion metal roof.

·        The dwelling has a proposed 3 degree roof pitch which ranges in height from 2700mm to 3001mm at its highest point.

·        The development also incorporates associated stormwater drainage works and 20m² of low water usage landscaping.

 

Refer to Appendix No. 2 & 3 for copies of the site plan, floor plan and elevation details.

 

The Development Application has been accompanied by the following related documents:

·        Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Willco Consulting

·        Plans prepared by Willco Consulting, numbered 11-679-01 and 11-679-02 and dated 16.09.11

·        BASIX Certificate No. 396712S

·        Waste Management Plan, dated 19.09.2011

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

Planning Assessment

The proposed 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 (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH 2009)

SEPP ARH 2009 was introduced on 31 July 2009 and aims to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW.  It covers housing types including villas, townhouses and apartments which contain an affordable rental housing component, along with secondary dwellings (also known as granny flats), new generation boarding houses, group homes, social housing and supportive accommodation.

The SEPP ARH 2009 encourages the development of secondary dwellings, commonly known as granny flats, by:

·        Allowing granny flats to be approved as complying development in 10 days;

·        Allowing granny flats to be built in all residential zones;

·        Setting clear standards for the development of granny flats.

Under the SEPP there are two types of assessment:

·        Complying development: A secondary dwelling may be approved in 10 days by a council or accredited certifier, if it meets the complying development provisions in the SEPP ARH 2009.

·        Development application: You may lodge a development application with your local council where your proposal is not able to meet complying development provisions in the SEPP ARH 2009. In this case, council assesses and determines the proposal in accordance with the SEPP ARH 2009 and any relevant council policies.

In this instance the subject application was lodged as a development application and the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) continue to apply.

Where the SEPP ARH 2009 does not explicitly override a local council planning control, then the local council planning control continues to apply. If there is an inconsistency between the SEPP ARH 2009 and the relevant council’s LEP, the provisions of the SEPP ARH 2009 will override those in an LEP to the extent of the inconsistency.

The proposed development is consistent with the aims of the policy and is consistent with the definition of a Secondary Dwelling as it is to be used in conjunction with another dwelling on site. The site is not strata titled or community land and the dwelling is separate from the principal dwelling.

The relevant provisions of SEPP ARH 2009 are discussed in turn below:

Clause 20 - Land to which this Division applies

The site is zoned 2(b) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) which is equivalent to an R2 Low Density Residential zone under the SEPP ARH 2009.

Clause 22 - Development may be carried out with consent

Clause 22 of the SEPP ARH 2009 provides a number of circumstances where consent cannot be granted for the purposes of a secondary dwelling, including:

2)   A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies if there is on the land, or if the development would result in there being on the land, any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling.

 

3)   A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless:

 

(a)  the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling is no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument, and

 

(b)  the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

The current proposal will only result in there being a principal dwelling and a secondary dwelling on the land, which satisfies the provisions of Clause 22(2). In terms of Clause 22(3), Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) does not prescribe a maximum floor area for a dwelling house, which means Clause 22(3)(a) is not applicable. The total floor area of the secondary dwelling is 51 square metres, which satisfies Clause 22(3)(b).

Clause 22(4) provides that a Development Application for a secondary dwelling cannot be refused on the basis of site area nor parking. In this regard, the site area is greater than the requisite 450 square metres and a parking space is proposed as part of this application.

Clause 23 - Complying Development

The application was made to Council as a Development Application and in this regard Clause 23 and Schedule 1 are not applicable as the application was not lodged as a Complying Development Application.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) (LEP 1998)

The subject site is zoned 2(b) Low Density under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) and the proposed development is defined as a detached dual occupancy (as there is no definition in the LEP for secondary dwelling) which is permissible with the consent of Council in this zone. The proposed development is however, inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP, the zone itself and a number of development standards. The form, features and qualities of the proposal do not therefore promote the desired character of traditional detached housing. Further, the development is not consistent with the scale, design and amenity of neighbouring developments in the locality.  For the purposes of assessing the proposal in relation to the dual occupancy provisions the following comments are made.

Cl.11 (3) – Site controls for dual occupancy

This clause stipulates the minimum lot size for a detached dual occupancy on a standard lot as 750m². The site area of the development lot being 666m² does not comply with this requirement, however, under clause 22(4) of SEPP ARH 2009 a Development Application cannot be refused on the basis of site area. Further, under Clause 8 of SEPP ARH 2009, the SEPP ARH 2009 prevails to the extent of any inconsistency.

The development proposes a landscaped area of approximately 43% this does not comply with Councils minimum landscape area requirement of 50% in a 2(b) zone. The application was not supported by a SEPP No. 1 objection to the minimum landscaped area. Given that the application was recommended for refusal based on the non-compliance with the rear setback provisions, a separate SEPP 1 submission was not sought.

The table at Appendix No. 4 details the proposals compliance (or otherwise) with the LEP 1998 provisions.

Cl.14 - Design Principles

The proposal is inconsistent with the Clause 14 design principles. In terms of form, features and qualities the proposal does not reflect traditional residential development and is not consistent with the scale, design and amenity of neighbouring developments.

The proposed dual occupancy is located within the rear setback and has not provided sufficient landscaping along this portion of the site. Aerial photographs reveal that properties in the surrounding area are characterised by vegetation located along the rear boundary with some small scale outbuildings located in the rear yard.

While some outbuildings are located within the rear setback along this portion of Thomas Street due to a number of properties fronting Monfarville Reserve, there are no known dual occupancy developments located within this rear setback.

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

The development proposes a variation to the development standard relating to the minimum rear setback of 4 metres under Clause 12 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land). The application seeks a variation of 77.5% with a rear setback of 900 millimetres proposed.

Council’s requirement relating to the minimum rear setback is a development standard. Council is therefore able to consider an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 objection.

 

SEPP No. 1 aims to allow flexibility in the application of development standards where strict compliance with those standards would in any particular case be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects stated in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These objects relate to the proper management of resources to promote the welfare of the community and environment and the orderly economic use and development of land.

Although the SEPP No. 1 submission is inconsistent with the policy and the guideline issued by the former Department of Infrastructure and Planning titled ‘Varying development standards: A guide’, it is noted that the applicant provided the following justification for a variation:

·        There are other properties within the area with structures within the rear setback;

·        A ‘corridor’ for landscaping is provided between the two dwellings on the site;

·        There is no overshadowing created by the development; and

·        There is a drainage easement running through the property that restricts the location of the secondary dwelling.

The submission cannot be supported as it has failed to demonstrate that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Further, the submission is inconsistent with the policy for the following reasons:

·        Reference to the applicable development standard and the environmental planning instrument was not provided;

·        The submission did not demonstrate that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary; and

·        The submission did not demonstrate compliance with the objects stated under Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Specifically, Clause 12 (4)(a) of Penrith LEP 1998 states that:

“The Council must not grant consent to a development that involves the erection of a building unless: that building is set back at least 6 metres from the rear boundary of the site or, in the case of a single story building in Zone no. 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e), at least 4 metres from the rear boundary of the site”

The objectives of this requirement are to achieve site responsive development which is compatible with existing housing in the locality by:

·        controlling height and bulk;

·        minimise privacy impacts;

·        minimise overshadowing and loss of views and achieve appropriate separation between buildings and site boundaries.

 

The objectives of the standard also seek to preserve open space corridors along rear fence lines and 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.

Given the above objectives, the variation is not supported for the following reasons:

·        The development is not compatible with existing housing in the locality and although there are other structures and outbuildings located within the rear setback on adjoining properties, there are no known dual occupancy or secondary dwelling developments of a similar scale to this development type within the rear setback. In addition, the LEP has a dispensation provision for non-habitable structures to encroach the rear setback under Clause 12 (7).

·        The proposal does not provide appropriate separation between site boundaries for a habitable structure which greatly increases the potential for privacy impacts. While it is noted that the property is affected by a drainage easement running in a northwest to southeast direction, alternative locations for the building exist on the site.

 

While there are limitations on the site, these are mainly due to the location of various other outbuildings, which if removed or relocated, would provide for compliance with the rear setback requirements. It is noted that the site has a large number of ancillary sheds and outbuildings which contribute to a further non-compliance with the LEP in terms of achieving the minimum landscaped area requirement of 50% in the 2(b) zone. A SEPP No. 1 submission was not provided in relation to this aspect.

·        The development does not preserve the current open space corridor provided along the rear fence line and is inconsistent with the residential character of the area.

Further, the SEPP No. 1 submission fails to demonstrate compliance with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the zone itself, regardless of whether the development standard can be achieved. In particular, the proposal does not satisfy Clause 7(e), Residential Character, of the LEP.

The SEPP No. 1 objection also needs to be considered against the objects stated in Section 5(a) (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which is:

          “the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and           development of the land”.

The proposal does not ensure the attainment of the above objects as it does not represent the most logical configuration to achieve a site responsive secondary dwelling on the site.

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

This plan applies to the subject land. The proposed development is in accordance with the general planning considerations of the Plan, the relevant specific planning policies and related recommended strategies for water quality and quantity.

 

In particular, provision would be made for adequate erosion and sediment control measures to ensure sediment as a result of the development is not deposited in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River via the stormwater system.

 

Stormwater run-off from the proposed development would be directed to a 3,500 litre rainwater tank. Stormwater overflow from the rainwater tank would be directed to the existing stormwater drainage easement via connection to the primary dwellings stormwater system. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development with regard to stormwater drainage and is satisfied with this aspect of the proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

This Policy ensures the implementation of the BASIX scheme that encourages sustainable residential development. It requires certain kinds of residential development to be accompanied by a list of commitments to be carried out by applicants.

 

BASIX Certificate No. 396712S was submitted with the Development Application. A standard condition would ensure the commitments in the Certificate are maintained during the life of the proposed secondary dwelling.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

The proposal is inconsistent with the following overall objectives of the DCP and objectives of Part 4, Section 4.3 (Residential – Dual Occupancy):

·    Adopt the form and character of traditional established neighbourhoods to guide environmentally-appropriate design and development, and to stimulate a vibrant streetscape that preserves traces of Penrith’s past.

·    Ensure that development does not detract significantly from the quality of existing dwellings and private gardens

Part 2 Section 2.11 Car Parking

In accordance with the dual occupancy requirements of this section, a total of four parking spaces (two parking spaces per dwelling with two or more bedrooms) would be required for the existing dwelling and the proposed secondary dwelling.

 

However, clause 22(4) of the SEPP ARH 2009states that a consent authority must not refuse a Development Application for a secondary dwelling on the grounds of parking, if no additional parking is to be provided on the site. Further, Clause 22(5) of the SEPP ARH 2009 states that a consent authority may consent to a secondary dwelling whether or not the development complies with Clause 22(4). In this regard, the proposal has stacked parking available in the existing driveway and under an existing carport which is considered satisfactory given the scale of the proposed development.

Part 4 Section 4.3 Residential - Dual Occupancy

A summary of the proposal’s compliance with the dual occupancy criteria is held at Appendix No. 4. Non-compliances include:

 

·    the minimum 4 metre rear setback requirements is not achieved,

·    the prescribed minimum landscaped area has not been provided, and

·    there is no provision for a green-corridor landscaping along the rear setback.

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

Subject to the imposition of conditions of consent, Council’s Building Surveyor has raised no objection to the proposed development regarding fire safety considerations as prescribed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

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

·    The character of the place and it’s local and regional context

The proposed secondary dwelling is located within the rear setback and has not provided sufficient landscaping along this portion of the site. Reviews of aerial photographs reveal that properties in the surrounding area are characterised by vegetation located along the rear boundary with some small scale outbuildings located in the rear yard.

While there are some outbuildings located in the rear setback, there are no known dual occupancy developments located within the rear setback along this portion of Thomas Street or along adjoining properties fronting Monfarville Reserve.

·    Urban design matters such as visual impacts, workability, and connections to existing movement and infrastructure systems

The proposed building will have a negative visual impact due to its potential visibility from a public reserve and the amount of built form along the rear setback.

The building is proposed to be clad in a variety of materials, with a metal roof with minimal size windows. The elevations of the building provide appropriate articulation, however the roof form is inconsistent with other dwellings in the locality.

·    The proposal will unreasonably influence desired future character of the area

This proposal will influence the desired future character as the proposed setback will have a negative affect on the future development potential of adjoining properties. The development would set an undesirable precedent for secondary dwellings within the direct locality.

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

Although the site may be suitable for a secondary dwelling or an attached dual occupancy, the site is not suitable for the current proposal which is not in accordance with the LEP and DCP.

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

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

Referral Body

Comments Received

Building Surveyor

No objections subject to standard conditions.

Development Engineer

No objections subject to drainage connection to existing system and not directly to the rear drainage easement.

Community Consultation

In accordance with Section 2.7 Notification and Advertising of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposed development was notified to 15 nearby and adjoining residents and received no submissions in response. The application was available for public viewing between 30 September 2011 and 14 October 2011.

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

In assessing the application against the relevant environmental planning instruments the proposal is found to be unsatisfactory. The proposal would be detrimental to the character of the neighbourhood is likely to have a negative impact on the surrounding environment and would set an undesirable precedent for secondary dwellings in the locality. Therefore the proposal is not in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions

The following Section 94 Contribution Plans apply to the site and proposal:

·    Cultural Facilities Development Contributions Plan;

·    Library Facilities Development Contribution Plan

·    Open Space in existing Residential Areas Development Contributions Plan; and

·    Footpath Construction in Established Residential Areas of the City Development Contributions Plan

However, given that the recommendation is for refusal the current Section 94 contributions have not been calculated in this instance.

Conclusion

In assessing this application against the relevant environmental planning instruments, being State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands) and Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposal does not satisfy several key requirements.

In its current form, the proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding character of the area as the location of the proposed dwelling would set an undesirable precedent in its location of adjoining properties to achieve similar developments.

Further, the proposed design is not site responsive, does not comply with two key development standards and it is not in the public interest. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA11/1057 for a Secondary Dwelling at Lot 20 DP 258357 (No. 20) Thomas Street, St Marys be received.

2.     The SEPP 1 objection for the variation to the rear set back not be supported as the submission was not consistent with the policy.

 

3.     DA11/1057 for a Secondary Dwelling at 20 Thomas Street, St Marys be refused for the following reasons:

 

3.1     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not comply with the following provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land):

 

Clause 6 - The proposed development is inconsistent with the following objectives:

·    to promote the community’s desired character by ensuring that future development in all residential localities reflects features or qualities of traditional detached houses that are surrounded by private gardens

·    to enhance the essential character and identity of established residential areas

·    to promote development which safeguards the residential amenity of the area

·    to provide for high levels of residential amenity, particularly acoustic and visual privacy, accessibility to services, climatic comfort of the indoor environment and safety and security

Clause 9 - The proposed development is inconsistent with the following objectives of the 2b) Low Density:

·    to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation values

Clause 12 (3) - The proposal does not demonstrate a     minimum of 50% landscaped area on the site.

Clause 12 (3) - The proposal does not provide a 4 metre rear setback, cannot demonstrate that the rear setback is used for the purposes of landscaped areas and the submitted objection to this standard is not in the required form and is not well founded pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 Development Standards (SEPP 1).

 

Clause 14 - The proposal is inconsistent with the following design principles:

·    reflection of the forms, features or qualities of traditional residential neighbourhoods across Penrith local government area,

·    consistency or compatibility with the scale, design and amenity of neighbouring development,

·    provision for contemporary standards of amenity within each dwelling and the associated private open space.

3.2     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards.

 

3.3     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not comply with the following provisions of  Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 – Section 4.3 Residential – Dual Occupancy:

 

Clause 5.3 – the proposal does not comply with the 4m rear setback requirement, there are encroachments within the setback and extensive landscaping has not been incorporated into the design.

 

Clause 5.5 – the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the landscaping requirements.

 

Clause 6.7 – the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the garden design requirements.

 

3.4     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it has not been demonstrated through compliance with the relevant provisions that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

3.5     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal would have a negative impact on the surrounding character of the area and would set an undesirable precedent for non-compliant dual occupancy developments in the locality. Therefore the proposal is not in the public interest.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Floor Plan, Elevations and Section details

1 Page

Appendix

4.  

LEP Compliance Table

1 Page

Appendix

5.  

DCP Compliance Table

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 3 - Floor Plan, Elevations and Section details

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 4 - LEP Compliance Table

 

 

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED

COMPLIES

Cl.12 (3) - Building envelope

1.8 metres from property boundary and 45o height plane

The development is contained within the building envelope.

YES

Cl.12 (3) - External wall height

3.5m under

(Clause 12(5)(a))

3.1m

YES

Cl.12 (3) - Landscaped area

50%

The application does not clearly demonstrate the proposed landscaped areas. (Approximately 43%)

NO

 

The landscaped area is approximately 43%

 

(n.b. the site plan submitted with the application does not accurately show landscaped areas and existing built form).

Cl.12 (4) - Rear setback

·    4 metres for single storey

 

·    Land within the rear boundary setback is used for the purposes of landscaped areas only.

·    900 millimetres

 

·    Landscaping has not been provided to the rear setback. The secondary dwelling and garden sheds have been located within this area.

NO

 

(Refer to SEPP 1 discussion)

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 5 - DCP Compliance Table

 

 

PENRITH DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2006 Part 4 Section 4.3 Residential-Dual Occupancy

Part C

Major Constraints to Development

Are the following constraints relevant to the development?

 

Item

Yes/ No / Comments

3.1

Permissible uses

Yes, under LEP 1998 (Urban Land) – ‘Dual Occupancy’

3.2

Remnant Native vegetation

The site is not affected by remmant vegetation.

3.3

European Heritage

The Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) indicates that there is no heritage item at or in the vicinity of the site.

3.4.1

Flooding

The subject property is noted to not be subject to Council’s Interim Policy for Development of Flood Liable land.

3.4.2

Geo-technical stability

The subject property is unlikely to be affected by instability.

3.4.3

Contamination

The subject property is unlikely to be contaminated.

3.5

Soil Salinity

The subject property is unlikely to be impacted from soil salinity.

3.6

Noise

Noise impacts associated with the proposal development would not exceed those expected of a residential standard.

3.7.1

Drainage

Drainage details have been submitted with the development applications. Comments from the engineering department stating connection of stormwater is to be into the existing system and not directly to the drainage easement.

3.7.2

Roads

The subject property has access to a local road which is sufficient for the development type.

3.7.3

Water and Sewer

Existing- Satisfactory

Part D

Residential Character

What determines residential character?

4.4

Configuration

Non compliant:

The development incorporates a traditional configuration whereby the living areas and entrances face the street; however, the site does not maintain a ‘green corridor’ along the rear of the site.

PART E

How much floor space is appropriate to your site?

5.1

The Development Site

The proposal adopts a common type of dual occupancy being a detached single storey dual occupancy.

5.2

Urban Form

The primary dwelling fronts the street and displays a traditional orientation, with private gardens provided at the rear of the property. The new dwelling is considered to have appropriate articulation; however the skillion roof is not a traditional style within this locality. The dwellings are single storey.

5.3

Front and Rear Setbacks

Non- compliant:

The development achieves the required front setback, however, the proposed secondary dwelling encroaches the rear setback. No landscaping has been provided along this portion of the site and the application was not accompanied by a landscape plan.

Stacked parking spaces are provided onsite which is consistent with the policy.

5.4

Driveways and Parking

Each dwelling has not been provided with 2 parking spaces, however, this is consistent with the requirements of the SEPP (ARH) 2009 for reasons development cannot be refused. In this regard the development can be supported.

5.5

Landscaped Area

Non-compliant:

There is limited landscaping provided onsite which reduces the appropriate amount of separation between neighbouring dwellings. A manual assessment of the landscape areas show only 43% landscaping can be provided onsite, the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this provision and the plans are inaccurate in terms of hardstands areas.

In a meeting with the applicant it was discussed that the plans did not reflect the built form on the site, the applicant responded by saying that ‘we can just get rid of the sheds’ however, the plans submitted do not clearly make this representation.

The application was not accompanied by a concept landscape plan.

5.6

Building Envelope

The proposal is contained within the building envelope.

The proposal does not meet the required rear setback requirements.

The existing external wall height of the building is less than the required 6.5m

5.7

Solar Planning

The application has been accompanied by a BASIX certificate, which demonstrates compliance with minimum New South Wales government requirements for sustainability.

PART F

Urban Design Important Details

6.1

Significant Landscapes & Townscapes

The property is not located within any significant townscapes or landscape precincts.

6.2

Corner Sites and Park Frontages

Although the development does not directly adjoin a public park some filtered views of the site can be seen from Monfarville Reserve. It is therefore recommended that the proposed building achieve the rear setback requirements, to protect any vistas from the reserve and to reduce the bulk and scale along this portion of the site.

6.3

Building Design

The presentation to the street is that of a single dwelling, as the second building is located behind the existing building and provides appropriate articulation.

6.4

Energy Efficiency

Both dwellings of the development have their primary living areas facing in a northerly direction. The construction methods of the buildings in terms of energy efficiency have been considered in the BASIX certificate accompanied with this application.

6.5

Design of Dwellings and Private  Courtyards

The room sizes are suitable in terms of accommodation of furniture.

6.6

Garages

Car parking spaces have been provided as stacked parking on the existing driveway. One of the parking spaces is covered by a carport and garage.

6.7

Garden Design

The application was not accompanied by a landscape plan. It is considered that the application has not adequately addressed these provisions.

6.8

Paving Design

Satisfactory

6.9

Fences and Retaining Walls

The existing boundary fencing generally complies with the provisions of this section.

6.10

Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Outlook

Reasonable privacy has been achieved between the two dwellings.

Active living areas and passive sleeping areas of the secondary dwelling are separated by a hallway and utility areas.

6.11

Safety and Security

The existing principal dwelling incorporates a high level of passive security by providing living rooms which overlook the streetscape.

6.12

Accessibility and Adaptability

The design of the dwellings will facilitate should the need for disabled access be required.

6.13

Storage and Services

The proposal has not provided at least 10m³, however, this can be supported as the proposed dwelling is less than 60m² in size and has sufficient space to allow for freestanding cupboard space within the dwelling and space within the kitchen for storage.

The existing property has an active letterbox.

PART G

Construction and Site Management

7.1

Civic Improvements

A street tree is not required, as the existing street trees provided along Thomas Street satisfy this requirement.

7.2

Landscape Construction

Non-compliant:

A landscape plan was not provided. Limited consideration has been given to the development in this regard; the site plan inaccurately displayed the existing site conditions in relation to hardstand areas and outbuildings currently on the site.

7.3

Building Services

A BASIX certificate accompanied the development application, this document ensures the development incorporates energy saving and water conservation methods into the construction and future use of the development.

7.4

Construction Management

Can be conditioned accordingly through a consent.

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A City of Opportunities

 

 

8

Development Application DA11/1095 for a Dan Murphy's Liquor Store at Centro Lennox Shopping Centre Lot 1 DP 610862 Pyramid Street, Emu Plains  Applicant:  McKenzie Group Consulting;  Owner:  CPT Custodian Pty Ltd    

DA11/1095

Compiled by:               Steve Fryer, Contract 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 for a Dan Murphy's liquor store at Centro Lennox Shopping Centre Lot 1 DP 610862 Pyramid Street, Emu Plains. The proposal includes the use and fit-out of two existing shops for the sale of liquor and related signage.

 

The site is zoned 3(a) General Business under Penrith Interim Development Order No. 2. The proposal is defined as a “shop” which is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposal has been notified to nearby and adjoining property owners and occupiers in the surrounding area. Council notified 31 property owners and occupiers in the surrounding area and received a petition containing 257 signatures, 297 “pro-forma” letters and a further two separate letters raising concerns in relation to the proposal. The Application is being reported to Council due to the level of public interest as evidenced by the submissions.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory.

 

The following key issues have emerged as a result of this assessment process:

 

·    Community safety, security and crime prevention

·    Social impacts

 

These matters are discussed in detail in the report.

 

The proposal is unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. The site is suitable for the proposal and the proposal is not contrary to the public interest. The proposal is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

 

This report recommends that the application be approved subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the land containing the Centro Lennox Shopping Centre at Emu Plains which is surrounded by the Great Western Highway, Pyramid Street and Water Street. The site is surrounded by residential housing and a small neighbourhood park off Water Street. Refer to the Locality Plan at Appendix No. 1 for further details.

 

The shops proposed to be occupied presently contain a discount retail outlet (Go-Lo) and a take-away pizza shop (Pizza Hut). The overall shopping centre development comprises two supermarkets and various specialty and take-away food shops with associated at-grade car parking. The shopping centre has existed on this site with subsequent alterations and additions over the past 30 years. One of the supermarkets contains an associated liquor store and another liquor store is located in the near vicinity of the subject site on the corner of Russell Street and the Great Western Highway.

 

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

 

·    Use of two existing shops as a liquor store

·    Internal alterations and store fit-out

·    Associated signage

·    Hours of operation from 9am to 9pm, 7 days per week

·    Use of the existing loading dock on the western elevation of the building for stock deliveries. The other existing loading dock adjacent to the Water Street frontage is to be removed. Minor revision of the car parking layout to accommodate these arrangements is proposed

·    Use of the existing car parking for the overall shopping centre to serve the proposal

 

Refer to Appendix No. 2 for A4 copies of the site plan and floor plan details submitted with the application.

 

The Development Application has been accompanied by the following related documents:

 

·    Statements of Environmental Effects – McKenzie Group Consulting

·    Statement of Community Impact – Back Schwartz Vaughan (this document was required to accompany separate liquor licence application to the NSW Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority but has been also submitted to Council).

 

Planning Assessment

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to those matters, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

1.       Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

Interim Development Order No. 2

The subject site is zoned 3(a) General Business under Penrith Interim Development Order No. 2. The proposal is defined as a “shop” which is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

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

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997) (REP 20) integrates planning with catchment management to protect the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, requiring the impact of future land use to be considered in a regional context. The plan covers water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, riverine scenic quality, agriculture and urban and rural-residential development. The existing building connects to the overall established stormwater drainage system and no change is proposed. The proposal is therefore 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.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) aims to ensure that outdoor advertising is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, provides effective communication in suitable locations and is of high quality design and finish.

 

The proposed signage comprises six business identification signs attached to the fascia of the building and one business identification sign attached to the existing pylon sign. The proposed signage will replace signage to the two existing shops and will have a smaller total display area than the existing signage it will be replacing. The proposed signage is consistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 64 and pursuant to Clause 8(b) satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1 of the SEPP. Refer to Appendix No. 3 for a checklist of the proposal’s compliance with the Schedule 1 criteria.

 

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

Section 2.2 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

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

 

Council’s Community Safety Coordinator has reviewed the proposal with regard to community safety and CPTED principles. As part of these referral comments, conditions of consent have been recommended to improve safety and security for users of the development and to minimise the crime risk associated with the development. Each of these matters will be suitably conditioned (Conditions 2.2 and 2.3). Further, should any perceived safety or security concerns relating to the consumption of alcohol within adjacent public places or car parks transpire when the liquor store is operational, then as an added control measure the establishment of these spaces as alcohol-free locations could be considered.

 

The proposal was referred to the Crime Management Unit of Penrith Police for comment however no formal response has been received to date. A general comment was offered during a recent follow-up telephone conversation that the proposed additional liquor store in the area could result in liquor discounting and resultant social impacts. This issue of potential social impacts arising from the proposal is discussed later in this report.

 

Section 2.9 - Waste Planning

A waste management plan is recommended as a condition of consent (Special Condition 2.5) should approval of the proposal be forthcoming.

 

Section 3.1 – Advertising Signs

The proposal includes placement of fascia signs and a pylon sign on the existing building and pylon sign structure to replace existing signage for the previous tenants. The proposed signage will have a smaller total display area than the existing signage it will be replacing.

 

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

Subject to the imposition of conditions of consent, Council’s Building Surveyor has raised no objection to the proposal regarding fire safety considerations as prescribed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

Context and Setting

The proposal is consistent with the existing character of other development in the locality. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding and adjacent land uses and will have no major impact on the amenity of the area.

 

The proposal will have no adverse impacts on the natural environment.

 

Access, Parking and Traffic

The proposal will have no adverse traffic generation impacts on the local road system. The existing vehicle access arrangements and car parking on the site will be adequate for the proposal.

 

The existing loading dock on the western elevation of the building will be used for stock deliveries. The second existing loading dock adjacent to the Water Street frontage is to be removed. Minor revision of the car parking layout is proposed to accommodate these provisions which will result in provision of an additional four car spaces.

 

Social Impacts

The applicant has lodged with Council a copy of the Statement of Community Impact prepared to accompany the separate liquor licence application to the NSW Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority. The purpose of the document is to analyse any social change that may result from the granting of a packaged liquor licence and to consider the following risk factors:

 

 

·    Type of outlet

·    Outlet density

·    The location and presence of at-risk groups and sensitive facilities near the proposed premises

·    The incidence of alcohol related crime in the area

·    The incidence of alcohol related health problems in the area

 

The Community Impact Statement process included community consultation and notification of all premises within a 100m radius of the subject premises together with special interest groups and stakeholders. This process resulted in submissions from six residents objecting to the proposal on social impact grounds and various responses from special interest groups and stakeholders. The applicant for the liquor licence has commented on all submissions within the Community Impact Statement and accordingly Statement of Social Impact. These issues will form part of the liquor authority’s consideration of the liquor licence application should consent to the proposal be granted. The Conclusions of the applicants Statement are provided hereunder:

 

“12. CONCLUSION

 

12.1 As evident by this document, the LC (local community) of the Proposed Premises is considered a low risk community based on the potential for increased rates of alcohol related harm or adverse social impact from the operation of the Licence at the Proposed Premises. The Application cannot have any adverse impact on the BC (broader community) at all in circumstances where the BC is a large geographical area where large numbers of people reside within it or pockets within it who will not be customers of the Proposed Premises at all.

 

12.2 In summary, the LC is a stable population. The local population is relatively advantaged in terms of low numbers of aboriginal persons, low numbers of non-English speaking background (NESB) persons, employment, family structure and through the Socio-Economics Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) indices. There are no hot-spot locations for alcohol related crime near the Proposed Premises, despite liquor service at Emu Plains. The outlet density is also low when compared to NSW with the population having demonstrated an ability to consume alcohol responsibly at this location. Accordingly, the community is not identified as having a high vulnerability to alcohol related health problems associated with the proposed Licence. In addition, the conditions of Development Consent (when issued) will protect neighbourhood amenity.

 

12.3 Despite the number of repetitive submissions received, for the concerns of the submitters to hold weight in the assessment process of this Application there must be a direct link that clearly shows existing living conditions or circumstances could be diminished or adverse new ones created by operating the Licence at the Proposed Premises. This link cannot be found. Additionally, significant weight must be given to the Development Consent (when issued) as part of the assessment process of this Application. Upon the issue of Consent it will be accepted that the conditions of Development Consent are satisfactory to protect neighbourhood amenity.

 

12.4 The overall social impact of the Application will not be detrimental to the well-being of the LC or BC. As such the test to be satisfied by Section 48 of the 2007 Liquor Act has been satisfied and in these circumstances the Authority is in a position to approve this Application.”

 

Based on the Community Impact Statement, significant social impacts arising from the proposed development are unlikely.

 

The elements of this proposal which are of concern relating to public safety and security matters have been considered by Council’s Community Safety Coordinator and are deemed to be satisfactory subject to conditions. Use of the existing shops as a liquor store in a zoned shopping centre will not alter the character of the area.

 

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

The site is appropriately zoned and located for shop development and contains a substantial shopping centre. The car parking, servicing and access provisions for the shopping centre will be adequate for the proposal. The site is therefore suitable for the development subject to recommended conditions relating to hours of operation, safety, security and pedestrian movements (see Special Conditions 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 and 2.7).

 

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

In accordance with Section 2.7 (Notification and Advertising) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposal was notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties in the surrounding area.

 

The public exhibition period for the proposal was from 11 October to 25 October 2011, although this period was extended to 25 November 2011. Council notified 31 property owners and occupiers in the surrounding area and received a petition containing 257 signatures, 297 “pro-forma” letters and a further two separate letters raising concerns in relation to the proposal.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and considered below. It is noted that a number of the addresses of those signing the petition and the letters are not within the Emu Plains community. Further, a significant number of the signatures on the petition cannot be verified, however the issues raised still require consideration.

 

(a)  Additional night time traffic on a local road.

The hours of operation extending into night time hours will result in increased traffic movements however the adjacent road system can accommodate those movements. The site is zoned and approved for shop development and the type of customer traffic envisaged is not necessarily such as to cause noise nuisance.

 

(b)  Additional heavy vehicles on a local road.

The applicant advises that seven deliveries per week will occur via a 12.5m truck, with deliveries between 9am and 9pm (being the proposed opening hours). This is not considered excessive in terms of traffic capacity of the roads nor in terms of noise nuisance.

 

 

 

(c)  No need for another liquor outlet due to those existing. An excessive number of outlets will result.

The site is appropriately zoned for shop development and it is not Council’s role to assess applications within these zones based on commercial viability. The development assessment role is also not one which can be used to restrict competition.

 

(d)  Increased volume of liquor sales will produce unmanageable social outcomes.

As far as public safety issues are concerned, Council’s Community Safety Coordinator considers that these issues can be addressed through the imposition of conditions to enhance safety and security for users of the development and to minimise the crime risk associated with the development. Any negative impacts from the consumption and use of liquor arising from the proposal should not form part of Council’s assessment and will be considered and regulated by the liquor authority through the liquor licence application process.

 

(e)  A social impact report should be provided for consideration by the licensing authority.

The applicant has addressed this issue. A Community Impact Statement accompanied by a Statement of Social Impact, has been prepared with the application for a liquor licence and a copy supplied to Council with the Development Application. This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(f)   Increased violence and crime due to the increase in liquor outlets.

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

(g)  Use of the shop for wider family needs would be more appropriate.

The site is zoned for shop development and Council cannot dictate to the market as to the type of retail tenancy as suggested in the submission.

 

Internal Referral Comments

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

 

Referrals

Comments

Building Surveyor

No objection, subject to conditions.

Traffic Engineer

Parking, access and circulation arrangements are satisfactory.

Community Safety Coordinator

No objection, subject to conditions.

Social Planning Coordinator

Concerns raised with the potential for alcohol related crime or harm. This issue is addressed by the Community Safety Co-ordinator’s recommended conditions and through the Liquor Licensing process.

 

The concerns raised by Council’s Social Planning Co-ordinator are issues for the liquor licensing authority and will be referred to that authority for consideration.

 

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

The proposal will be in the public interest in that it will provide an additional retail opportunity to the public within a zoned shopping centre development. It will reinforce the sustainability of the overall shopping centre development which is in the interests of the local community. It will afford local employment opportunities.

 

While a significant number of objections have been received, these are based on concern with the increase in the number of liquor outlets in the area and the subsequent potential for overall negative impact from the consumption of alcohol. These issues are more appropriately addressed by the liquor licensing authority. Those areas of the objectors’ concerns which relate to community safety are adequately addressed in the application and proposed conditions of consent.

 

Section 94 Contributions

There are no Section 94 contributions applicable to the proposal.

Conclusion

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory. The proposal is unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. The site is suitable for the proposal and the proposal is not contrary to the public interest. The proposal is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA11/1095 for a Dan Murphy's Liquor Store at Centro Lennox Shopping Centre Lot 1 DP 610862 Pyramid Street, Emu Plains be received

2.     Development Application DA11/1095 for a Dan Murphy's Liquor Store at Centro Lennox Shopping Centre Lot 1 DP 610862 Pyramid Street, Emu Plains be approved subject to the following conditions:

          Standard Conditions

2.1     A001     Approved plans

A019     Occupation Certificate

A038     Lighting locations

A039     Graffiti

A046     Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

D009     Waste storage

E01A          BCA compliance

E002      Fire exits

E006      Access and sanitary facilities

Special Conditions

2.2     The development is to be carried out and operated in accordance with the documentation contained in the attachment to the Statement of Impact (see Appendix No. 4) lodged with Council addressing the following Strategies as referred to in the document:

1)       Surveillance and Lighting

2)       Territorial Reinforcement

3)       Space/Activity Management

4)       Access Control

2.3     Store management must be available at a mutually convenient time, at the invitation of Penrith City Council and/or the NSW Police, to discuss and take action on any agreed Community Safety, Security or other issues in conjunction with other local stakeholders in the areas should the need arise

2.4     In accordance with the requirements of Clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the following works are to be completed to upgrade the fire safety of the existing building:

(i)         A Fire Hydrant system is to be provided to serve the building in accordance with E1.3 of the BCA and AS 2419.1. A report from a Hydraulic Engineer is to be provided to confirm the suitability of the existing system or whether the street hydrant is sufficient

 

2.5     A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted and approved by Council prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, addressing the following matters:

a)       The types and volumes of wastes and recyclables likely to be generated as a result of the development;

b)      How wastes and recyclables will be stored and treated on site;

c)       How wastes and recyclables are to be disposed of;

d)      How ongoing waste management will operate once the development is complete

 

2.6     The operating hours and delivery and service activities associated with the development are to restricted to from 9 am to 9pm Mondays to Sundays

2.7     The applicant is to submit to Council plans and details for approval of the proposed pedestrian customer /trolley paths from the premises particularly addressing the issue of eliminating pedestrian/ vehicular conflict on the adjacent driveway. The plans are to be submitted and approved prior to issue of the Construction Certificate for the development and are to be implemented as part of the overall development

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Site Plan & Floor Plan

2 Pages

Appendix

3.  

SEPP 64 Compliance Checklist

2 Pages

Appendix

4.  

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 2 - Site Plan & Floor Plan

 

temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 3 - SEPP 64 Compliance Checklist

 

 

SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage Assessment Criteria Checklist

1

Character of the Area

 

How is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

The signage is considered compatible with the existing character of the area. The area is characterised by a neighbourhood shopping centre and the proposed signage, both illuminated and non-illuminated, is consistent with this area.

 

2

Special Areas

 

Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

No.

3

Views and Vistas

 

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

No.

 

Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

No. The proposed signage does not protrude into the skyline.

 

Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

Yes.

4

Streetscape, Setting or Landscape

 

How is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

The scale, proportion and form are similar to existing signage located within the overall shopping centre.

 

How does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

The signage will marginally contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape.

 

Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

No. The signage will not protrude. The proposed signage will be fixed to existing fascias and the existing pylon structure.

5

Site and Building

 

How is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

The proposal is compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the building on which the signage is to be located as it will be fixed to the existing fascia and pylon.

 

Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

The proposal incorporates the logo of the business name of the tenant. The signage will integrate well architecturally with the existing building.

6

Associated Devices & Logos with Advertisements & Advertising Structures

 

Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage on which it is displayed?

The signage will be illuminated.

7

Illumination

 

Will illumination of the signs result in unacceptable glare?

No.

 

Will illumination affect the safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

No.

 

Will illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

No.

 

Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

No.

 

Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

No.

8

Safety

 

Will the proposal reduce the safety of any public road?

No.

 

Will the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

No.

 

Will the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

No.

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 4 - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)

 

temp


temp


temp

 


 

 

A Green City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

9        Coachmans Park Improvement Project

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

9

Coachmans Park Improvement Project   

 

Compiled by:               Terry Agar, Acting Centres Co-ordinator

Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager

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

Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure

Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager   

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)

Strategic Response

Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

Council has adopted a St Marys Town Centre Strategy which identifies opportunities and specific actions related to the improvement of the Centre’s public domain and, in particular, the enhancement of major public spaces such as Coachmans Park. These aim to deliver a high quality public realm and vibrant public places which engender a strong sense of community pride and create a hub for community activity.

 

The adopted St Marys Town Centre Development Control Plan contains objectives to promote high quality design of public spaces and high levels of accessibility within the Town Centre connecting significant activity nodes, open spaces and surrounding areas.

 

With these aim in mind, the upgrade of Coachmans Park was supported as a major project in Council’s adopted Funding our Future (SRV) program. Consistent with Council’s adopted policies, the redevelopment of Coachmans Park aims to provide a contemporary, inviting and functional public space in the heart of St Marys. A focus has been given to improving the park’s amenity, general attractiveness and safety. The proposed enhancements follow an extensive design process and community consultation program which has ensured that many of the ideas of the community have been incorporated into the park’s design.

 

The upgrade will ensure that Coachmans Park will continue to be an important feature of the St Marys area and a focus of community activity.

 

This project will be the second City Centres Renewal project in the Funding our Future program to proceed.  The report recommends that Council endorse proceeding with the project to the tender stage so that it is ready to construct during the 2012-13 financial year.

Background

Coachmans Park is centrally located on Queen Street, St Marys and is an important local meeting place and well known landmark for the residents of St Marys. The park is frequently used by community groups and other organisations as a place to connect with the local residents and to raise the profile of services to the community.

 

The adopted St Marys Town Centre Strategy identifies opportunities and specific actions related to the improvement of the Centre’s public domain and, in particular, the enhancement of major public spaces such as Coachman’s Park. These aim to create a high quality public realm and vibrant public places which engender a strong sense of community pride and create a hub for community activity. The St Marys Town Centre Development Control Plan also contains objectives to promote high quality urban design and high levels of accessibility within the town centre connecting significant activity nodes, public open spaces and surrounding areas.

 

The Funding our Future - Centres Renewal (SRV) program was developed to enable a program of civic improvements to be implemented for both the Penrith and St Marys centres to support their growth and development thus supporting local employment opportunities.  The principal aim is to stimulate visitor and business activity, enliven the centres and provide a catalyst to encourage economic growth and support new investment.  The program delivers a range of outcomes identified in the St Marys Town Centre Strategy endorsed by Council in 2006. The improvements to Coachmans Park were identified in the consultation on the SRV as a project for completion in 2012-13.

 

The project to revitalise Coachmans Park with the construction of new contemporary infrastructure is planned to build on the strengths of the community, assisting to bring more groups and events into the area for the purpose of activating and building connections.

 

The project is the first proposed project to be funded for St Marys under the Funding our Future program and the outcomes will be important to the local community including landowners and business operators.  The Coachmans Park project, since inception in early 2011, has been the subject of numerous stakeholder group discussions with ongoing design development to respond to community issues.

 

The Centres Renewal Program identified Coachmans Park as the second project to be funded in the first 3 years of the Program.  The construction of Coachmans Park is programmed to commence in February 2013. This commencement date has emerged in consultation with the St Marys Town Centre association and is aimed to avoid the St Marys Spring Fair and the Christmas trade period.

Coachmans Park Design

Coachmans Park will be upgraded to meet contemporary standards as an important public place, consistent with the objectives of Council’s adopted St Marys Town Centre Strategy and Development Control Plan.  The new design of the park will continue to provide multi-use spaces for relaxation and special events whilst improving accessibility, safety and amenity. 

 

The Coachmans Park Masterplan, photomontage and perspective (which are included in the Appendix) show the key features of the design.  The masterplan study area included the two park allotments divided by West Lane. The eastern lot containing the established park between Queen Street and West Lane is the area proposed for upgrading as a first stage, and is the subject of this report.  The western portion will be developed in the future as a more informal area with soft landscaping and a new toilet block. This toilet block will replace the current facility located to the north on the corner of West Lane and Charles Hackett Drive. 

 

The key elements in the park design include:

·    An elevated lawn area with retained trees

·    A low paved terrace

·    Improved stage access

·    A park identity sign

·    A pergola shade structure

·    New paving

·    New lighting

·    A public artwork on the Queen Street corner which will interpret aspects of St Marys past and reflect aspirations for its future

·    Screening of the adjoining building

·    New shade trees

 

Integral to the park design has been the stated desire of the community for it to be a multifunctional space.  Central to this desire has been the retention of the stage and the improved viewing of it by audiences. This has been achieved through the creation of an elevated lawn and paved terrace. The retention of the large internal paved area allows for large gatherings or space for temporary seating for stage performances. The pergola area provides shade and informal seating with some tables for people to meet at and for workers to eat their lunch.  The raised lawn bed and the steps fronting it provide informal places for people to sit and meet. The lawn bed in combination with the trees and colourful plantings in raised beds will soften the presentation of the park to Queen Street.

 

In combination, the artwork, the level changes, stage, pergola, lighting, pavement changes, plantings and screening create a more functional, interesting, inviting and safer place in the heart of St Marys.

 

In parallel with the project, a drainage upgrade will be installed under the park to ‘future-proof’ it as part of the required Queen Street precinct stormwater enhancements.  Funding for the drainage upgrade component would be from the new Stormwater Management Charge, if approved by Council for implementation next financial year.

Community Consultation

A community engagement process was undertaken to assist in preparing a masterplan for the Coachmans Park site, and a related communications strategy developed.

 

The first round of consultation for the new Coachmans Park masterplan commenced on Saturday, 2 April with the consultant interviewing park users in the park about their aspirations for the site.  Local businesses in Queen Street and nearby residences were notified of the consultation by letter box drop and notices in the local newspapers.

 

A more formal stakeholder meeting was convened on 7 April 2011 with the following interest groups attending:

 

·    St Marys Town Centre Association

·    St Marys Development Committee

·    St Marys Historical Society

·    Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce

·    Department of Housing

 

The stakeholder responses identified a number of key matters which we have addressed in the formulation of the design. Those included:

 

·    Retention of the stage and viewing area

·    Retain shade trees, flower beds and greenery in the Park

·    Provision of accessible seating and lunch facilities

·    Recognising the pedestrian access linkages through the Park

·    Increase perceptions of safety and visibility into the Park

·    Retain asphalt surfaces

·    Include new Park furniture and pergola

·    Incorporate interpretive information depicting heritage information about the place

 

Following discussions with East Ward Councillors, the community was notified a second time about the evolution of the new park design.  Public notification was undertaken in accordance with a comprehensive communications strategy, from 2 September 2011 up to 30 September 2011.  The notification was supplemented with letters to the stakeholders that attended the previous stakeholder’s workshop. Further briefings of the St Marys Town Centre Association and the St Marys Development Committee were also undertaken. One submission was received from the St Marys Town Centre Association during the notification period expressing their support for the project.

Councillor Briefings

East Ward Councillors were briefed on the progress of the new masterplan for Coachmans Park on 21 July 2011, 14 November 2011and 12 March 2012. 

 

At the 14 November 2011 briefing the East Ward Councillors considered the latest masterplan drawings and requested further information on particular aspects of the design.  In particular a new photomontage and perspective drawing were requested to assist in understanding the vision for the place. At this time further information on the background to the public art, bitumen pavement detailing and tree replacement species was also requested.  This information was presented at the 12 March 2012 East Ward Councillors briefing.

Project Timeframe and Cost

The project is scheduled to commence in February 2013, after the St Marys Spring Fair, and be completed by June 2013.  Feedback from the community and local groups has clearly indicated that the St Marys Spring Fair is the key date to avoid any construction on site or disruption to the area. Also, the construction period will avoid the Christmas period and related promotional activities that the St Marys Town Centre Association undertake in the Park.

 

It is important that the new design for Coachmans Park is endorsed this year to enable the process to advance to finalise the necessary construction documentation and the calling of tenders. This will allow for an orderly commencement of the landscape and drainage construction early in 2013.

 

The total estimated cost of the project is $1.1m including design components and contingencies. 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

The approved Special Rate Variation (SRV) will be incorporated into the 2012-13 Operational Plan.  As reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 27 June 2011, the approval from IPART was for a SRV slightly lower than requested by Council and as a result adjustments have been made to the programs included.  An allocation of $1.6m annually has been provided from the City Centres Upgrade and Renewal program.

 

The improvements to Coachmans Park were identified in the consultation on the SRV as a project for completion in 2012-13.  This report confirms the scope of works and the estimated cost of $1.1M is within the provisional budget for inclusion in the 2012-13 Operational Plan.

Conclusion

An upgrade of Coachmans Park was identified as a major project in Council’s adopted Funding our Future program. Coachmans Park plays an important role in the local community as a meeting place and increasingly is being used for community and other events.  The redevelopment of Coachmans Park will provide a contemporary, inviting and functional public space in the heart of St Marys. This project will be the second City Centres Renewal project in the Funding our Future program to proceed.

 

The proposed enhancements follow an extensive design process including wide community consultation ensuring that many of the ideas of the community have been incorporated into the Park’s design. The upgrade will ensure that Coachmans Park will continue to be an important feature of the St Marys area and a focus of community activity.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Coachmans Park Improvement Project be received.

2.     The Coachmans Park Improvement Project design documentation be finalised and proceed to tender to enable construction to commence in February 2013 with funding being allocated from the City Centre Upgrade and Renewal Program.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Coachmans Park Masterplan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Coachmans Park Photomontage

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Coachmans Park Perspective

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 1 - Coachmans Park Masterplan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 2 - Coachmans Park Photomontage

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Appendix 3 - Coachmans Park Perspective

 

temp

 


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

10      Progress on the Implementation of the Women's Services Sector Advocacy Strategy 2009 - 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Vibrant City

 

 

10

Progress on the Implementation of the Women's Services Sector Advocacy Strategy 2009 - 2012   

 

Compiled by:               Vesna Kapetanovic, Community Projects Officer 

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager   

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

A City with opportunities to engage, participate and connect (23)

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides an annual progress update on the implementation of the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy 2009-2012.

 

The objective of Council’s Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy is to promote a more inclusive community by identifying and advocating responses by Council and other agencies and services to the needs and diversity of local women in a women’s rights framework and in accordance with social justice principles.

 

The Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy was endorsed by Council in February 2009 and was launched by Councillor Karen McKeown in March 2009 at the Penrith’s International Women’s Day Event held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.

 

When Council endorsed the Strategy a commitment was made to provide annual status reports to Council on the implementation of the Strategy.

 

The role of Council is to lead and co-ordinate the implementation of the Strategy by supporting partnerships with organisations that provide services to women.  This includes the convening of the Penrith Services for Women Network, the coordination of the Domestic Violence Training and Resource Development Project and advocacy to State and Federal Governments regarding more positive outcomes for women and the services that work with women. In many cases, the advocacy undertaken on issues and challenges has occurred through an integrated approach with some of Council’s community partners.

 

Council last received a progress report on the implementation of the Strategy at its Ordinary meeting of 11 October 2010.

 

The report also summarises some of the actions in the Strategy that will be a focus during 2012.

 

This report recommends that the information on progress of the implementation of the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy to date be received.

Background

The Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy was initiated by Council to enhance community wellbeing by contributing to the quality of life for women, especially those who are experiencing disadvantage. The Advocacy Strategy promotes fairness in the distribution of resources and aims to contribute to women having equal access to services and opportunities that are important to meet women’s social, economic and health needs.

 

The Strategy was endorsed by Council in February 2009 and was launched in March 2009 at the City’s International Women’s Day Event held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre. The innovative nature of this Strategy has attracted significant interest and Council received a National Local Government Award in 2009 for the Strategy in the category of Building Capacity – Women in Local Government.

Councillor Karen McKeown, an Ambassador for the Year of Women in Local Government in 2010, gave a presentation on the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy at the National LGMA Conference in May 2010 in Adelaide.

In preparing and implementing the Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy Council has built a dynamic partnership with local women’s services and organisations.  Council recognises the strength of the local women’s services sector and is committed to supporting these services in working together towards social justice outcomes.

 

Implementation of the Strategy

The Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy provides the framework and scope to improve women’s access to services and supports the organisations that provide services to women in Penrith.

 

The role of Council is to lead and co-ordinate the implementation of the Action Plan included in this Strategy by supporting partnerships with the organisations that provide services to women.

 

Council’s Community and Cultural Development Department has overall responsibility to progress this Strategy.  However, it is also important to note the contributions that other Council Departments have made to the Strategy through agreed commitment to items in the Action Plan. The respective Managers in these Departments have all been consulted and agreed to the actions in the Plan that are relevant to their responsibilities. These Departments or services include Executive Services, Public Domain Amenity and Safety, Environmental Health and Workforce and Workplace.

 

The community service sector has also made significant contributions to the development of this Strategy and is supportive of the implementation of the Action Plan. It is important to note the contributions of The Richmond Fellowship of NSW and Penrith Women’s Health Centre to specific actions within the Plan.

 

Summary of Key Achievements in 2011

This summary is based on the six key themes in the Action Plan.

 

 

 

A Viable and Effective Women’s Services Sector

The Penrith Services for Women Network provides a forum for participants to advocate on specific issues facing women to effect change at various levels including lobbying government to address these issues. This Network is convened and supported by Council and includes representatives from government and community agencies and the business sector.

 

The Network has supported opportunities for coordinated advocacy as is demonstrated through the action undertaken to ensure ongoing funding of the Bridges Project. The Bridges Project is auspiced by the Penrith Women’s Health Centre and its aim is to provide emotional support to women immediately after a domestic violence crisis through the referral of women to the Project by the local Police stations. The Bridges Project was due to cease operation in June 2010. This Network developed a position statement on domestic violence and the need for ongoing funding for the Bridges Project and forwarded this position statement to the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon Pru Goward and Local State MPs. The Nepean Domestic Violence Network also advocated and lobbied for the ongoing funding for this Project. Council also actively supported this advocacy by the Network. As a result of this strong advocacy campaign, the Bridges Project has been funded for an additional 4 years.

 

Other key achievements of this Network included, in November 2010, a submission to the consultation process for the NSW Plan for Women. This submission outlined issues for consideration in the Plan for Women. These included financial abuse, financial literacy, public transport, and support for community and domestic violence services. 

 

Vulnerable Groups of Women

The Penrith Services for Women Network has also developed position statements on the support needs of young women with dual diagnosis issues (dual diagnosis refers to women experiencing drug and/or alcohol addiction as well as mental health challenges) and on pay equity for community sector workers. These position statements enabled the Network to advocate to local politicians on these issues affecting vulnerable groups of women.

 

Wentworth Community Housing participates in the Network and is the lead agency of the Project 40 Supportive Housing Service, which targets chronically homeless and highly vulnerable people in the Blacktown, Penrith, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury Local Government Areas. A number of single women and women with families have been housed through the work of Project 40.

 

In addition, a couple of projects have been implemented to support highly vulnerable women that are homeless or have survived homelessness and who may be experiencing trauma. Wentworth Community Housing secured $10,000 funding through the 2010-2011 Penrith Visy Social Sustainability Fund (coordinated by Council) for the ‘Ways of Seeing’ program, a series of creative writing and art therapy workshops. These workshops assisted the female participants to reconnect with the positive aspects of their lives. Representatives of the Penrith Services for Women network have also participated in the Outreach Service Hubs specifically for chronically homeless people.

 

Violence against Women

Council’s Domestic Violence Training and Resource Project aims to strengthen the capacity of the local community sector to respond to domestic and family violence through a training program for local community workers. Council secured $60,000 funding through the NSW Government Area Assistance Program for this Project. This Project is coordinated by Council’s Public Domain Amenity and Safety Department with support from the Community and Cultural Development Department.

 

This Project has delivered 16 training sessions to community sector workers with very positive feedback received. Many community sector participants as well as trainers have indicated their appreciation of Council providing leadership in this area through the coordination of this project. Topics covered have included Aboriginal families and domestic violence; Issues for culturally and linguistically diverse women experiencing domestic violence; Understanding domestic violence for child care workers; Older women living with violence; Young people and domestic violence; and Understanding vicarious trauma.

A great success of the Project was a bus tour and service visit to 10 local community support services. This provided an opportunity for workers to gain a firsthand insight into each service’s role in supporting victims of domestic and family violence.  

 

The final component of the project involved the development of a resource kit to provide workers with a consistent referral process for clients dealing with domestic and family violence. This resource kit was launched at Council by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greenow on 30 November 2011.

 

The Nepean Domestic Violence Network acted as a key reference group throughout the project.

 

Health and Wellness

The Richmond Fellowship of NSW Young Women’s Dual Diagnosis Project developed a report on issues facing young women with dual diagnosis. Dual diagnosis refers to individuals experiencing mental health as well drug and alcohol challenges. This report was launched by the Richmond Fellowship of NSW in early 2011 and will support the Penrith Services for Women Network to continue to advocate for young women with dual diagnosis.

 

The Young Women’s Dual Diagnosis Project also developed a number of practical resources and delivered training for local community and youth sector workers to enhance service delivery to young women with dual diagnosis.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Department has also progressed on actions within the Health and Wellness theme. During October 2010, cooking classes were conducted in partnership with Nepean Community Neighbourhood Services at Cranebrook. Four workshops were held with a number of residents to develop skills in cooking healthy low cost snacks and dinners.

 

Cooking workshops were also conducted in partnership with Mission Australia with the community at Oxley Park. These workshops were funded through Council’s Community Assistance Program. Six classes were held in May and June 2011 with residents to develop skills in preparing healthy low cost snacks, dinners and desserts with focus on education activities such as label reading.

 

The key outcomes of these workshops have been increased confidence in cooking, improved social skills and friendships and a greater ability to cook a range of healthier food.

 

 

 

Representation and Equity

Council’s Workforce and Workplace Department has provided information on progress regarding opportunities for women employed within Council to develop leadership and decision making skills.

 

Training and development programs for women employed at Council include a variety of training courses, seminars, conferences, workshops and opportunities to act in higher positions. As at June 2011, 6 women completed the Springboard program and a further 56 women attended a conference, seminar or workshop specifically aimed at women. In addition, 124 women accessed career development opportunities by relieving in a higher position.

 

Council has also 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.

 

Council has six Councillors who are members of the ALGWA (Councillors Kaylene Allison, Tanya Davies, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Karen McKeown and Kath Presdee), two of whom are currently serving on the ALGWA NSW Branch Executive, being:

 

Councillor Karen McKeown            Immediate Past President

Councillor Jackie Greenow              Executive Member

 

In addition, two of Council’s staff serve as members on the ALGWA NSW Executive, being Helen Cooper, Council’s Corporate Planning Officer and Bev Spearpoint, Council’s S149 Officer.

 

Councillors and staff are supported in their attendance at the Annual General Meeting and Executive Committee meetings throughout the year. These meetings present opportunities for attendees to hear from inspiring speakers and network with other women in local government at all levels.

 

Gender Equity in the Workforce Forum

In 2010 – 2011, Council focused attention on the issue of gender equity in the workplace. Recognising that a proactive approach was required to address Gender Equity in Council’s workforce, a Gender Equity Steering Committee was formed and an engagement process was initiated with staff to identify barriers to equity and invite suggestions to address these barriers.  A Gender Equity survey was completed by 194 staff members.  After the survey 57 staff members drawn from different departments across Council attended a Gender Equity Forum on 9 December 2010.

 

Staff identified a number of Gender Equity challenges facing Council.  The common themes were identified as a lack of consistency across the organisation, change management within the organisation, and the low number of women in senior management roles.  From the survey and Forum feedback an Action Plan was drafted.  It was recently reviewed and revised by approximately 20 staff, including the General Manager, in a workshop on 12 December 2011.

 

The Gender Equity Action Plan identifies a range of actions to progress gender equity at Council in four (4) key areas:

 

·      leadership

·      nomination and recruitment

·      remuneration, recognition and training

·      work and family balance.

 

The Gender Equity Steering Group will oversee implementation of the actions, to ensure the organisation continues to progress and respond to gender equity issues faced by staff.

 

In part, the forum came about through the 50:50 Vision for Gender Equity Program, in which Council was successful in achieving a Bronze Award.  Implementation of the Action Plan will enable Council, in time, to seek recognition through the Silver Award.

 

Priorities for 2012

A summary of some of the key priorities for 2012 is provided in the next sections.

 

Vulnerable Groups of Women

The Australian Human Rights Commission suggests that as much as 42% of the homeless population in Australia is female. Homeless women are often less visible than men and the extent to which homelessness affects women is often underestimated.

Women experiencing homelessness require specialised support services to address particular needs. Such services include sexual assault and domestic violence counselling, health services, protection of physical safety, income support, and assistance with legal issues, such as parental rights.

The Nepean Blacktown Regional Taskforce on Homelessness launched the Vulnerability Index Survey Project at Council in February 2012. This new project will identify and prioritise the homeless population for housing according to the fragility of their health. It is a practical application of research into the causes of death of homeless individuals living on the street and it will assist services to identify the specific health conditions that cause homeless people to be most at risk of death. The Vulnerability Index Survey will also develop an evidence base for advocacy to State and Commonwealth Governments for programs and services to meet the needs of chronically homeless people. Wentworth Community Housing is the lead agency to advance this initiative.

 

The Vulnerability Index Survey Project has already established strong linkages with the Penrith Services for Women Network to ensure that homeless women are prioritised in this research.

 

Economic Participation

Council’s Community and Cultural Development Department is planning to coordinate a Forum to highlight issues impacting upon women’s economic participation. This Forum will be held in 2012 and guest speakers are currently being investigated.

 

Health and Wellness

The Penrith Services for Women Network will continue to facilitate linkages to identified referral pathways, information and resources to specialised services that support women. Key priority areas include the Aftercare Personal Helpers and Mentors Program (PHAMS) that supports people with mental health issues and the ACON (AIDS Council of NSW) Women and Families affected by HIV/AIDS Project.

 

Gender Equity in the Workforce

As indicated earlier in this report the Gender Equity Steering Group will progress the implementation of the Gender Equity Action Plan in 2012.

 

Conclusion

Council’s Women’s Services Sector Advocacy Strategy promotes a more inclusive and fairer society by addressing the special and diverse needs of women living in Penrith City. The Strategy features an agreed action plan that in some cases involves advocacy on issues and challenges through an integrated response by Council and its community partners. In other cases, Council plays a proactive role in progressing outcomes that enhance the wellbeing of women in Penrith City.

 

The Strategy and Action Plan has received wide support both from the community sector and a number of Council departments have also contributed to implementing actions which fall within their areas of responsibility as outlined in this report.

 

The Community and Cultural Development Department will continue to play a coordinating role in monitoring the implementation of the Strategy and will report to Council on progress with implementation.

 

A number of priorities for further work in 2012 have also been summarised in the report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Progress on the Implementation of the Women's Services Sector Advocacy Strategy 2009 - 2012 be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday March 26 2012

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                        1

 

2        Legal Matter - Land and Environment Court ruling, North Western Surveys Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council

 

3        Legal Matter - Development Application DA10/0402 - Proposed Rural Industry at Lot 18 DP 30265 (No. 1247-1253) Mamre Road, Kemps Creek - Land and Environment Court Proceedings 10943 of 2011

          Applicant: Innovation Planning Australia Pty Ltd;  Owner: Eagle Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd DA10/0402                                                                                                                         2

 

4        Commercial Matter - Penrith Brand Strategy                                                                     3

 

 

                                                                                                                                                       

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                 26 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

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

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

 

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

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

The matters and information are the following:

 

(a)                personnel matters concerning particular individuals;

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

·                          reveal a trade secret.

 

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

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

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

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

The grounds must specify the following:

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

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

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

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

The process which should be followed is:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:

 

A Leading City

 

2        Legal Matter - Land and Environment Court ruling, North Western Surveys Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

A Vibrant City

 

3        Legal Matter - Development Application DA10/0402 - Proposed Rural Industry at Lot 18 DP 30265 (No. 1247-1253) Mamre Road, Kemps Creek - Land and Environment Court Proceedings 10943 of 2011

Applicant: Innovation Planning Australia Pty Ltd;  Owner: Eagle Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd DA10/0402

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

4        Commercial Matter - Penrith Brand Strategy

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

  

 

 


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 26 March 2012

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

Issue:                            Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

Report Title:                Panthers Planning Proposal

Attachments:               Summary of Public Submissions - Panthers Planning Proposal

                                      Public Submissions Discussion Paper - Panthers Planning Proposal

                                      Post Exhibition Changes to Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

                                      Panthers Planning Proposal  2011 - Post Exhibition (provided separately on CD to Councillors and available on Council's website)

                                      Peer Review of Retail Analyses - SGS Economics & Planning

                                      Probity Review of aspects of Penrith City Council’s Handling and Assessment of the Panthers
Penrith Planning Proposal



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Attachment 1 - Summary of Public Submissions - Panthers Planning Proposal

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Attachment 2 - Public Submissions Discussion Paper - Panthers Planning Proposal

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Attachment 3 - Post Exhibition Changes to Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Attachment 4 - Panthers Planning Proposal  2011 - Post Exhibition (provided separately on CD to Councillors and available on Council's website)

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

 

 

 

Panthers Planning Proposal

 

 

 

Panthers Planning Proposal  2011 - Post Exhibition (provided separately on CD to Councillors and available on Council's website)

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Attachment 5 - Peer Review of Retail Analyses - SGS Economics & Planning

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                26 March 2012

Attachment 6 - Probity Review of aspects of Penrith City Council’s Handling and Assessment of the Panthers / Penrith Planning Proposal /

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp

 


 

ATTACHMENT       

 

 

 


Date of Meeting:          26 March 2012

 

Delivery Program:       A Leading City   

 

Program:                      Corporate Finance

 

Report Title:                 2011-2012 Voted Works