14 March 2012

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 19 March 2012 at 7:00PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 13 February 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 THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

9.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.         CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 19 March 2012

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


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

ON MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2012 AT 7:06PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow for a period of 22 days, as disclosed in her Councillor request.

APOLOGIES

PRC1  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that apologies be received for Councillors Robert Ardill, Tanya Davies, Ben Goldfinch and Kaylene Allison.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies provided the Councillors with information  on the effects of the storm event that occurred on Thursday 9 February 2012 and gave an update on the relief actions currently being carried out by Council Officers and other local authorities to assist the community affected by the event.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 5 December 2011

PRC2  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 5 December 2011 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

2        Information Communication and Technology (ICT) Productivity Project

Group Manager Finance, Vicki O’Kelly introduced the report and together with Services Development Officer, Michael Rudd gave a presentation on the Productivity Project.

PRC3  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That the information contained in the report on Information Communication and Technology (ICT) Productivity Project be received.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

3        Fire Safety in Nursing Homes

Development Services Manager, Paul Lemm introduced the report and invited Building Approvals Co-ordinator, Colin Wood and Fire Safety Team Leader, Craig Squires to give a presentation.                       

PRC4  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That the information contained in the report on Fire Safety in Nursing Homes be received.

 

A Liveable City

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM  left the meeting, the time being 8:13pm and did not return.

 

6        Billington Place Car Park, Emu Plains - Request for Provision of 2-Hour Parking Restrictions

Engineering Services Manager, Adam Wilkinson introduced the report and gave a presentation.        

PRC5  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Billington Place Car Park, Emu Plains - Request for Provision of 4-Hour Parking Restrictions be received.

2.    Council prepare a detailed submission to Transport for NSW seeking their urgent review and reconsideration of our request for the allocation of not less than 61 (4P) parking spaces in Billington Place, Emu Plains.

3.     Council further write to Transport for NSW, the minister for Transport, the Minister for Roads and the local Members of Parliament to seek engagement in the review process of parking requirements around Railway Stations including Emu Plains Railway Station.

4.     A detailed audit be conducted to determine the current usage and demand within the Billington Place car park and other surrounding car parks in the vicinity.

5.     Council investigates the implementation of a park in marked bay scheme along the length of Railway Row.

6.     The shop owners and shop keepers who signed the petition be advised of the response from the Roads and Maritime Services and Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        NSW Planning System Review - Discussion Paper Submission

Group Manager People and Places, Roger Nethercote introduced the report.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM  left the meeting, the time being 8:52pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM  returned to the meeting, the time being 8:55pm.

 

PRC6  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on NSW Planning System Review - Discussion Paper Submission be received

2.     The attached submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration in the review process.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

4        Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport & Infrastructure Inquiry into the Utilisation of Rail Corridors - Invitation for Submission                                                                 

PRC7  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport & Infrastructure Inquiry into the Utilisation of Rail Corridors - Invitation for Submission be received.

2.     A detailed submission, based on the content of this report, be made to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport & Infrastructure Inquiry into the Utilisation of Rail Corridors.

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

5        Release of Swimming Pools Act 1992 Review and Discussion Paper

Development Services Manager, Paul Lemm introduced the report.

Councillor Karen McKeown  left the meeting, the time being 9:17pm.

Councillor Karen McKeown  returned to the meeting, the time being 9:20pm.

PRC8  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Release of Swimming Pools Act 1992 Review and Discussion Paper be received.

2.   Council respond to the discussion paper with the recommendations outlined in this report, and continue to lobby for improved changes in swimming pool safety legislation to ensure drownings of young children are prevented.

3.   A copy of the Council’s submission to the Discussion Paper be forwarded to the Samuel Morris Foundation.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:29pm.

    


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

     

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                       19 March 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1

Panthers Penrith 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)

       

 

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 information contained in tonight’s report on Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal be received.  Subject to Council’s consideration, it is intended to present this report, with the recommendations outlined at the end of this report, to Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 26 March 2012.

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 and it is intended to recommend the following to Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 26 March 2012:

1.       The information contained in the report on Panthers Penrith 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 for the provision of State road infrastructure 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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Public Submissions - Panthers Planning Proposal

24 Pages

Attachment

2.  

 Public Submissions Discussion Paper - Panthers Planning Proposal

90 Pages

Attachment

3.  

Post Exhibition Changes to Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

8 Pages

Attachment

4.  

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

 

Attachment

5.  

 Peer Review of Retail Analyses - SGS Economics & Planning

23 Pages

Attachment

6.  

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

7 Pages

Attachment

7.  

Aerial Photo of Panthers Site

1 Page

Appendix

8.  

Panthers Planning Proposal Illustrative Master Plan

1 Page

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 March 2012

Appendix 1 - Aerial Photo of Panthers Site

 

temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 March 2012

 Appendix 2 - Panthers Planning Proposal Illustrative Master Plan

 

temp

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Green City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Liveable City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

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



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 19 March 2012

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

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

Report Title:                Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

Attachments:               Attachment 1 - Summary of Public Submissions - Panthers Planning Proposal

                                      Attachment 2 - Public Submissions Discussion Paper - Panthers Planning Proposal

                                      Attachment 3 - Post Exhibition Changes to Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

                                      Attachment 4 - Panthers Planning Proposal  2011 - Post Exhibition (provided separately on CD to Councillors and available on Council's website)

                                      Attachment 5 - Peer Review of Retail Analyses - SGS Economics & Planning

                                      Attachment 6 - Probity Review of aspects of Penrith City Council’s Handling and Assessment of the Panthers
Penrith Planning Proposal



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 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


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 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


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 March 2012

Attachment 3 - Post Exhibition Changes to Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 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 Penrith Planning Proposal

 

 

 

Attachment 4 - Panthers Planning Proposal  2011 - Post Exhibition (provided separately on CD to Councillors and available on Council's website)

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 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


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                       19 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