17 May 2012

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 21 May 2012 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 23 April 2012.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.           ADDRESSING COUNCIL

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

 

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 28 March 2012.

Access Committee Meeting - 11 April 2012.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 May 2012.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 7 May 2012.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 21 May 2012

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

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

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

COUNCIL CHAMBER seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross

We’ll toil with hearts and hands;

To make this Commonwealth of ours

Renowned of all the lands;

For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 



Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


For members of the public addressing the meeting

 
Council Chambers

Text Box: Lectern

Group Managers                          

                
          

 
Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

Director
Craig Butler

 

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

 

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Greg Davies
East Ward

 

Senior Governance Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                          

                
          

 
   


2012 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

 

 

 v

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

 *

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2012-2013 is adopted

 #

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

 @

Delivery Program progress reports

 ^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

 ü

Meeting at which the 2011-2012 Annual Statements are presented

 

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

\

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

 

The Ordinary Council Election will be held on 8 September 2012

-            Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

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

 



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 23 APRIL 2012 AT 7:35PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkly.

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown and John Thain.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 16 April 2012 to 11 May 2012 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Kath Presdee for the period 22 April 2012 to 27 April 2012 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Extraordinary Council Meeting - 11 April 2012

85  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting of 11 April 2012 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        2012 Australian Small Business Champion Awards                                                      

86  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the Mayoral Minute on 2012 Australian Small Business Champion Awards be received.

The Mayor presented the award winners with a framed copy of the Mayoral Minute.

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillors John Thain and Tanya Davies spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 April 2012                                                                                                                                     

87  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 2 April, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 16 April 2012                                                                                                                                     

88  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 16 April, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

3        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 March to 31 March 2012     

89  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 March to 31 March 2012 be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 March 2012 to 31 March 2012 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 31 March 2012 be noted.

4.     The Agency Collection Methods as at 31 March 2012 be noted.

 

 

1        Exhibition of Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan                                                                

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Exhibition of Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan be received.

2.     In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council endorse the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan  including any amendments made at tonight’s meeting, for public exhibition

3.     In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan be placed on public exhibition for 28 days, commencing on Tuesday 8 May 2012 and closing on Monday 4 June 2012

4.     The public exhibition arrangements as detailed in this report for the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan be implemented and submissions from the public be invited.

5.     An urgent report be brought back to a future Policy Review Committee meeting concerning the  cemetery fees proposed in the Draft Fees and Charges document and in particular focusing on allowing internment without a digging fee.

 

2        2012 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions and Outcome of 2011 Motions                                          

91  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2012 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions and Outcome of 2011 Motions be received

2.     The motions detailed in the report on ‘Local Infrastructure equity and delivery, Skills and employment and Development of a national community indicator framework for local government be submitted for inclusion in the 2012 Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly Business Paper with the inclusion of the amended motion for ‘Development of a national community indicator framework for local government’ to now read:

        “That the National General Assembly support investigation into a national community indicator framework which suits the needs of local government and links with relevant state and federal frameworks.”

 

3.     An additional motion as detailed in the memo provided to Councillors and submitted to the 2011 National General Assembly concerning ‘Accessibility information for tourist accommodation’ be submitted for inclusion in the 2012 Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly Business Paper.

4.     The Motions to be submitted to the ALGA Conference be first presented to a Policy Review Committee for consideration and discussion.

 

A Green City

 

4        Domestic Waste                                                                                                                  

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

That:

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

2.     Due to extenuating circumstances and an unavailability of competitive tenders (for the reasons detailed in this recommendation) Council not invite tenders for the supply and delivery of up to 50,000 organics bins as it is unlikely to give rise to  a satisfactory  result for Council and the community. The grounds for extenuating circumstances and an unavailability of competitive tenders include:

i.    no other supplier can establish a price that accounts for the considerable savings that would accrue to SITA were it to be awarded the Contract to supply the bins (possibly by way of variation);

ii.   no other supplier could amortise the cost of the replacement bins in the manner available to SITA due to the present waste contract;

iii.  SITA would receive a substantial windfall should the contract be awarded to another supplier;

iv.  the complicated nature of what SITA may do if a tender was called;

v.   should potential tenderers learn of SITA’s competitive advantage, other tenderers may then be disinterested in incurring the cost of formulating a tender proposal; and

vi.  the price offered by SITA is approximately 33% less than that available through Local Government Procurement and there seems little doubt that it is very competitive and in the circumstances seems unlikely to be beaten through a public or selective tender.

3.      The present waste contract with SITA be varied to accommodate the arrangements detailed within this report and that the Waste & Community Protection Manager, together with the Group Manager – Legal & Governance negotiate the variation in accordance with this report.

 

 

A Liveable City

 

7        Tender Reference 11/12-14, Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner                                             

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11/12-14, Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner be received.

2.     A new tender be called for the supply of a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner.

 

 

5        RFQ 11/12-04, Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan                                   

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on RFQ 11/12-04, Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan be received

2.     Council engage Place Partners to undertake the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan.

 

 

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 8.20 pm.

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8.22 pm.

 

6        Coachmans Park Improvement Project                                                                          

95  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Coachmans Park Improvement Project be received.

2.     The Coachmans Park Improvement Project design documentation be finalised and proceed to tender to enable construction to commence in February 2013 with funding being allocated from the City Centre Upgrade and Renewal Program.

3.     The officers involved in progressing the project be thanked for their perseverance in achieving a favourable result.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8        Grant Funding - Erksine Park High School                                                                    

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Grant Funding - Erksine Park High School be received.

2.     Council support the reallocation of RLCIP grant funding to a new site at Shepherd Street Park for the upgrade of playground facilities and that a formal approach be made to the Federal Government to amend the grant location.

3.     Council allocate $50,000 from the TAF Reserve as matching funds to Erskine Park High School project subject to the satisfactory finalisation of a Deed of Agreement for Refurbishment and Joint Oval Use of Oval between The Department of Education and Communities and Penrith City Council.

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

9        Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review Implementation - Governance Arrangements                                                                                                                    

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review Implementation - Governance Arrangements be received.

2.     Council make an application to the Division of Local Government seeking the Minister for Local Government’s consent to establish corporations for the management of the Penrith and St Marys centres.

3.     Council appoint the Mayor to the Independent Review Panel.

4.     Council establish the Independent Review Panel as a section 377 committee under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

5.     A Councillor Briefing be held to consider the make up of the board members of each entity.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Second Avenue and Llandilo Road, Llandilo – Pipe Culverts                             

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested an urgent memo reply to all North Ward Councillors regarding the possibility of lowering the pipe culverts by 400mm and to change the culverts to box to allow them to be used at full capacity. 

 

RR 2          Flooding - Second Road, Berkshire Park                                                              

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested an urgent memo reply to all North Ward Councillors concerning what is planned to solve the problem of the flood evacuation route that is continually being flooded. The drain on the Western side of Llandilo Road is blocked by vegetation stopping water flow. The pipped crossovers are undersize and should be changed to box type crossovers. The culverts which lead to Government land are too high, and there may be a need for extra culverts across Llandilo Road.

 

RR 3          Second Road, Berkshire Park - Gutters and Culverts                                          

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested an urgent memo reply to all North Ward Councillors concerning the lowering of gutters and upgrading of culverts at the Eastern end of Second Road, Berkshire Park.

 

RR 4          Rural Fencing                                                                                                           

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo reply seeking advice as to when a report he requested on Rural Fencing would be presented to Council.

 

RR 5          Fibre Reinforced Pipes                                                                                            

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo reply seeking advice as to when a report he requested on Fibre Reinforced Pipes would be presented to Council.

 

RR6           Rotary Clock - Coachman's Park, St Marys                                                         

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested an urgent memo reply to East Ward Councillors concerning the cost of replacing the workings of the Rotary Clock at Coachman’s Park, St Marys.

 

RR 7          LEP - Boarding Houses                                                                                           

Councillor John Thain requested a memo to all Councillors detailing the procedures for dealing with boarding houses under the new LEP, including the number of boarding houses and their locations in the Penrith LGA.

 

RR 8          Garbage Areas in 'Mondo' area adjoining Joan Sutherland Centre                   

Councillor Karen McKeown requested a memo to all Councillors providing the cost to replace the garbage bins in and around the ‘Mondo’ area, adjoining the Joan Sutherland Centre, to ensure there are a sufficient number of bins and of a design that prevents wildlife access.

 

RR 9          Hunters Hill - Radioactive Waste Update                                                              

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a report to Council detailing the timeline of assessment and disposal of radioactive waste from the former uranium smelter site at Hunters Hill.

 

RR 10        Firearm Store Fit out - Batt Street, South Penrith                                                

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply to all Councillors concerning the fit out of a firearm store, in Batt Street, Penrith and whether a Development Application has been made or is required.

 

RR 11        Walkers Lane, St Clair - Termite Infestation                                                        

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested a memo reply concerning an urgent investigation into 7 trees in Walkers Lane, St Clair which have been affected by termites and have become dangerous to the community who use the nearby Blackwell Public School.

 

RR 12        Rotunda - Victoria Park, St Marys                                                                        

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report to Council providing an update on the costing of refurbishing the rotunda at Victoria Park, St Marys.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the meeting be closed to the press and public to discuss Confidential Business as recommended in Item 1 of the report to Committee of the Whole, the time being 8:47 pm.

 

A Leading City

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Easement for Underground Gas Main for Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd over part of Ched Towns Reserve, William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park                                                                                                                   

 

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

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Shop 3, 134-138 Henry Street, Penrith                                                                                                                                             

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

4        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Assignment of Licence over Part of Tench Reserve for a Mobile Food Unit (Kiosk)                                                                                        

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

The meeting resumed at 8:56 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:47 pm on 23 April 2012, the following being present

 

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

 

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

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Easement for Underground Gas Main for Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd over part of Ched Towns Reserve, William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park                                                                                                                   

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Mark Davies

CW2 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Council Property - Easement for Underground Gas Main for Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd over part of Ched Towns Reserve, William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park be received.

2.     Council grant Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd an Easement for Underground Gas Main 3 metres wide over Lot 1 DP 833308 William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park.

3.     Council accept the compensation amount for the effect of the easement as outlined in the summary of the report.

4.     Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd bear all reasonable costs associated with the granting of the easements.

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

 

 

 

 

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Shop 3, 134-138 Henry Street, Penrith                                                                                                                                             

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Mark Davies

CW3 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Shop 3, 134-138 Henry Street, Penrith be received.

2.     Council grant a new 5 year Lease with a 5 year option to Austingly Industrial Pty Limited in accordance with the terms and conditions as outlined in the report.

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

 

4        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Assignment of Licence over Part of Tench Reserve for a Mobile Food Unit (Kiosk)                                                                          

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

CW4 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Commercial Matter - Council Property - Assignment of Licence over Part of Tench Reserve for a Mobile Food Unit (Kiosk) be received.

2.     Council grant an Assignment of the Licence Agreement from Mr Colin Maples and Mrs Keri Maples to Mr Adrian Harrison and Ms Susan Huntington over part of Tench Reserve to operate a Mobile Food Unit (Kiosk).

3.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on any documentation if required.

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

98 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillors Marko Malkoc and Mark Davies that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 be adopted.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:58 pm.

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                     


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Thank you to Leigh Hartog for sponsorship

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Vibrant City

Mayoral Minute

Thank you to Leigh Hartog for sponsorship

Strategic Objective: A City with opportunities to engage, participate and connect (23)

           

 

I would like to thank long-time Penrith local and owner of the JK Williams civil engineering group, Leigh Hartog for his generous sponsorship of our celebrations marking the bicentenary of the first crossing of the Blue Mountains.

Council is planning an exciting program of community events in May 2013 to commemorate this significant event in Australia’s history. Iconic Australian actor Jack Thompson has joined us as the face of our celebrations.

Leigh’s can-do attitude and inventiveness is reminiscent of the adventurous early explorers - Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson, who these events will honour next year.

Recognised on Council’s Wall of Achievement in 2008, Leigh is well known for being community minded and has always generously given his time and money to worthy causes.

On behalf of Council and our community I thank him sincerely for this latest example of his community spirit.

 

 Cr Greg Davies

Mayor

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Thank you to Leigh Hartog for sponsorship be received.

 

 

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 28 March 2012

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 11 April 2012

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 May 2012

 

4        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 7 May 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Liveable City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership MEETING

HELD ON 28 March, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Kaylene Allison; Councillor Karen McKeown; William Pass, Penrith Youth Interagency; Ken Innes, Glenmore Park Action Group; David Burns, Penrith City Council; Yvonne Perkins, Penrith City Council; Grant Healey, Penrith Local Area Command; Karen Quinn, Penrith Youth Interagency; Katerina Tahija, Penrith City Council; Julie Passau, Penrith Local Area Command; Lee Mansfield, Juvenile Justice; Julie Page, Needle and Syringe Program; Kylie Druett, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Area Health District – Drug and Alcohol; Olivia Kidon, Penrith City Council; Allison Kyriakakis, Penrith City Council; Jake Dunn, Penrith City Council; Erin Davidson, Penrith City Council.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from His Worship the Mayor Councillor Greg Davies; Kylie Chang, St Marys Local Area Command; Ben Feszczuk, Penrith Local Area Command; Glenn Cooper, University of Western Sydney; Gai Hawthorn, Penrith City Centre Association; Gina Field, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce; Ray Filewood, St Marys Local Area Command; Murray Halls, Penrith City Council; Darryl Jobson, St Marys Local Area Command; Kristy Williams, St Marys Local Area Command; Tracy Leahy, Penrith City Council.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 30 November 2011

The minutes of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting of 30 November 2011 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

Prior to the meeting commencing David  Burns advised that this will be Councillor Kaylene Allison’s last Partnership meeting, as she will not be standing at the next Council election. David thanked Kaylene for her continuous support and contribution over the years and wished her well on behalf of the members of the partnership.

1        Review of Key Strategy Development and Project Development                                  

1.    The Mondo Community Safety Project

Katerina Tahija provided a PowerPoint presentation and update on the Mondo Community Safety Project.

 

The Mondo Community Safety Project is a two (2) year funded program and is being delivered in partnership with a number of stakeholders - Westfield Penrith, Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, Council and local Youth Services.

 

Two (2) youth engagement officers have been appointed and are responsible for the development and implementation of youth activities and programs within the ‘Mondo’.

 

A number of events have already taken place in the ‘Mondo’ since the commencement of the project. Recently, young people were engaged to support the Cancer Council and raise funds for ‘The Worlds Greatest Shave’. Other programs that have been successfully run in the ‘Mondo’ with young people include weekly art programs where young people develop messages from the ‘Mondo’, a dance workshop by a local shuffle group, HIS, Youth Off The Streets conducting sporting activities, and Penrith Local Area Command worked with young people with high range drug and alcohol goggles, that when worn gave young people the perspective of someone ‘under the influence’.

 

Katerina advised that there have been up to 300 young people in the ‘Mondo’ on a Thursday night and feedback received from them has been highly positive.

 

Julie Passau advised that she is advertising weekly Thursday night activities and events at the ‘Mondo’ on the NSW Police – Penrith Facebook page.

 

2.    Citywide Graffiti Minimisation Strategy

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Graffiti Hotspot Project

The planting component of the CPTED Graffiti Hotspot project is now complete. Six (6) locations were selected for the planting/green screening of Photinias along fence lines in open spaces exposed to vandalism and graffiti.

 

The program initially experienced theft of some Photinias which have since been replanted and are now established. Council is looking at potentially marking trees in the future as a security measure to deter theft and as a way of tracking stolen plants.

 

The program is now in its 12 month maintenance period and will be reviewed and monitored to assess its effectiveness in preventing graffiti and vandalism.

 

Warner Group Education Program

Delivery of the Warner Group Graffiti Awareness Education Program to local primary and secondary schools has continued into 2012, and is now in its fifth year. Fifty programs were scheduled for delivery in the first half of the year.

 

 

A number of students will this year receive the program for a second time (received once in Year 5 and again in Year 8).

 

The post session questionnaires for Year 8 students have been amended this year to better assess the effectiveness and changes in attitudes towards graffiti. The new questionnaires identified that sixty six percent (66%) of Year 8 students remembered receiving the program in primary school. Sixty five percent (65%) of the students continued to believe that graffiti was ‘very uncool’, 28% considered it ‘not so cool’ and only 7% thought that graffiti was ‘cool’.

 

3.    Additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas

Council has been collecting data from a number of locations within the City to investigate reported incidents of alcohol related antisocial behaviour and to determine the establishment of Alcohol Free Public spaces.

 

After a review of the data, the following sights have been determined for the establishment of an Alcohol Free Zone (AFZ) or an Alcohol Prohibited Area (APA).

 

1.   Victoria Park, St Marys – The existing APA to be extended from 10.00pm – 8.00am to 24 hours.

2.   Park located on Illawong Avenue, North Penrith – A 24 hour APA is recommended.

3.   Jack Jewry Reserve, Waratah Street, St Marys - A 24 hour APA is recommended.

4.   Werrington Creek Park, Werrington – The existing APA to be extended from 10pm – 8am to 24 hour.

5.   Allsopp Oval, Oxford Street, Cambridge Park – The existing APA to be extended from 10pm – 8.00am to 24 hours.

6.   Car park and footpath that incorporates a bus stop (adjacent to progress way) located on Pendock Road, Cranebrook - AFZ is recommended.

7.   Carson’s Lane Car Park, St Marys - AFZ is recommended.

 

Allison Kyriakakis advised that Bowlers Place Car Park (adjacent to Carson’s Lane) will be included in the AFZ with Carson’s Lane.

 

In addition to the abovementioned Alcohol Free Public Spaces, an Alcohol Prohibited Area was proposed for the public reserve adjacent to Melville Road Shopping Centre, St Clair, 24 hours, seven (7) days a week.

 

This was proposed in response to community concerns following the approval of the development application for a liquor outlet within the Melville Road Shopping Centre. The proposal for the establishment of an APA has since been delivered to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 12 December and approved for further consultation.

 

NSW Police have requested that, in addition to the APA adjacent to Melville Road Shopping Centre, the surrounding streets also be established as AFZs.

 

 

 

 

4.    Park Watch Initiative

Allison advised that a new initiative has been developed in conjunction with Council’s Parks department called ‘Park Watch’. Signage will be installed in identified parks and reserves which will encourage residents to report incidents of malicious damage and graffiti.

 

An additional fact sheet has also been developed with further information which is available on Council’s website.

 

5.    Community Safety Plan Update

Allison advised that a communication strategy has now been developed as a guide for undertaking community consultation for the new Community Safety Plan.

 

Community consultations are planned to commence in April and the following strategies are being considered to gather information from the community:

 

·    Facebook

·    Bang the Table

·    Reply Paid Postcards

·    Surveys

·    Focus Groups

·    Mayoral Column/ Council Newsletter

·    Media Releases

 

Grant Healey added that he could add survey questions to the NSW Police – Penrith Facebook page.

 

6.    Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Conference

Allison Kyriakakis and Olivia Kidon were invited to deliver a presentation on recent CPTED projects that have been implemented in the Penrith Local Government Area at the Comparative CPTED conference in January. The conference was hosted by the Sydney Institute of Criminology (University of Sydney).

 

The presentation examined considerations for local government when implementing CPTED based projects. Examples of important lessons learned were provided in relation to the Jane Street Car Park CPTED project, the recent Graffiti Hotspot ‘green screening’ project and solar lighting trials.

 

7.    Operation Bounce Back

The Operation Bounce Back program was successfully delivered in 2011, with 115 vouchers distributed. Seventy-three vouchers were redeemed at Carbon Car Systems and Strathfield both located in Blacktown, indicating a redemption rate of 63%.

 

Council has been offered the opportunity to also participate in this year’s program. Prior to any commitment to run the program, the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council is trying to source and negotiate a local installer through the Motor Trades Association for the Penrith area.

 

8.    Binge Drinking Grant – Unsuccessful

Advice was received from the Department of Health and Ageing that Council was unsuccessful in receiving funding under the National Binge Drinking Strategy for a portable information booth with promotional resources. Allison further advised that a local organisation, Curious Works, were however successful in receiving funding to develop an alcohol awareness video.

 

9.    Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) Graffiti  Prevention or Reduction and/or Removal Program

Allison advised that an application has been submitted to the Federal Attorney General’s Department for $106,420 under the Proceeds of Crime Act – Graffiti Prevention and/or Removal program for the installation of security fencing around the Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre (PVRSC).

 

The funding guidelines required Council to coordinate and deliver the project in partnership with a local community organisation that was incorporated and not for profit.

 

Olivia advised that the PVRSC has been identified for the installation of security fencing around its perimeter to reduce the impact of malicious damage and graffiti incidents as it has been subject to ongoing incidents of graffiti and malicious damage over recent years.                                                                                      

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Review of Key Strategy Development and Project Development be received.

 

 

2        Review of E-Nose, Solar Lighting and Portable CCTV Trials                                     

 

The E-Nose graffiti sensor, solar lighting and portable CCTV trials commenced in 2011 as actions from the Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan 2007-2011. These trials aimed to identify and determine capabilities and review the performance of the technologies in reducing incidents of graffiti, malicious damage and antisocial behaviour as well as improve perceptions of safety.

 

E-Nose Graffiti Sensor Trial

The E-Nose graffiti sensor is designed to detect aerosol fumes associated with paint and markers. When the device detects the fumes an SMS text message is sent to selected mobile phones alerting the recipient that a graffiti attack is in progress.

 

Council trialled the E-Nose graffiti sensor over two separate periods. The first trial took place over a three (3) month period at two (2) graffiti hotspot locations and the second trial took place at one (1) of the selected graffiti hotspot locations with an updated version of the E-Nose software. The trial was extended to include the trial of portable CCTV.

Olivia advised that the two (2) trials delivered mixed results with only four (4) positive graffiti hits recorded from a total of 34 alarms.

 

 

There were issues regarding the accuracy of the device as false alarms were activated when graffiti removal crews removed the graffiti and at other times false alarms activated with no graffiti being detected on the building.

 

The size and layout of the premises was a further limitation and it is anticipated that some of the graffiti incidents may have occurred a reasonable distance from the E-Nose. Lengthy response times to alarm activations were also a limitation, with potential offenders vacating the site before police/security arrived. During the second trial, portable CCTV cameras did not detect any activity with corresponding E-Nose alarms.

 

Solar Lighting Trial

During 2011, different types of solar lighting were installed in three (3) locations within the City to trial the effectiveness of each in providing the lighting levels required to enhance personal safety for the users of these spaces at night. These three locations were Todd Lane, St Clair; Daphne Lane, Kingswood and Ched Towns Reserve, Glenmore Park.

 

Solar lighting installed at Todd Lane, St Clair and Daphne Lane, Kingswood utilises traditional solar technology and LED lighting. Allison further explained that this type of lighting is ideal for laneways as it has minimal light spillage into neighbouring properties.

 

Solar lighting installed at Ched Towns Reserve, Glenmore Park uses sensors whereby the lighting dims down and returns to full brightness when pedestrian activity is detected within a 10 metres radius.

 

Allison further explained that this lighting does not use a traditional solar panel that protrudes from the top of the pole; rather the solar panel/s is wrapped around the length of the pole.

 

Following six months of operation, a review of the lighting projects has taken place with the following conclusions identified:

 

·    Timing

·    Lighting Standard

·    Portability

·    Aesthetics

·    Impact

 

Refer to Item 2 from the March Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting for a detailed overview.

 

Portable CCTV Camera Trial

Olivia advised that portable CCTV camera trials also commenced in 2011. Two (2) different types of cameras are being trialled at three (3) selected hotspot locations. The trials aimed to assess the capabilities of the portable cameras in detecting and/or deterring incidents of vandalism and malicious damage at each location.

 

 

The first type of camera trial at Cambridge Park Hall and Leonay Oval both have motion activated cameras installed. These cameras record a number of still images per second when motion\activity is detected.

 

The Regional Illegal Dumping Squad (RID Squad) has also been trialling these cameras however, using a different method. Olivia explained that as they are moving cameras more often (in and out of various bush settings) they are more easily accessible, and access to the camera and battery duration seems to be less of a problem.

 

The second type of camera trialled and installed at the amenities building within Ched Towns Reserve, Glenmore Park captures and records live footage which can be viewed online via the 3G network.

 

For a full summary of Pros and Cons of camera technologies refer to Item 2 from the March Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting.

 

Community Safety staff inspected portable CCTV cameras at Harris Park, to compare their installation with Council’s trials. Parramatta Council’s set up at Harris Park was similar to that which has been installed at Ched Towns Reserve, however their cameras have been installed lower, and dome cameras were also utilised.

 

RECOMMENDED  that the information contained in the report on Review of E-Nose, Solar Lighting and Portable CCTV Trials be received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regular Items

 

A)  Police Statistics

 

 

Penrith Local Area Command Crime Statistics

 

November 2011 to February 2012

 

Crime Category

Nov 2011

Dec 2011

Jan 2012

Feb 2012

Assault

84

93

84

78

Robbery

6

4

4

3

Break & Enter

46

48

37

40

Stealing

115

143

150

138

Steal Motor Vehicle

28

24

25

20

Malicious Damage

95

95

115

100

Drug Detection

13

29

18

15

Traffic Offences

211

517

448

363

Motor Vehicle Accident

70

69

48

59

 

Grant Healy provided a brief overview of the Penrith Local Area Command crime statistics.

 

 

St Marys Local Area Command Crime Statistics

 

November 2011 to February 2012

 

Crime Category

Nov 2011

Dec 2011

Jan 2012

Feb 2012

Assault

108

77

97

99

Robbery

7

3

5

11

Break & Enter

56

68

62

69

Stealing

114

88

116

139

Steal Motor Vehicle

24

28

35

25

Malicious Damage

122

128

142

111

Drug Detection

17

24

19

31

Traffic Offences

235

566

571

471

Motor Vehicle Accident

61

51

57

67

 

As there was no representative from St Marys Police, crime statistics were provided via email.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B)  What’s in the Media?

 

January to March 2012

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Needle and Syringe Program                                                                                  

Julie Page advised that there has been an increase in the number of needles and syringes purchased from the needle and syringe vending machine at Penrith Community Health Centre. There have been no reported incidents or problems regarding the vending machine, and Julie advised that there has only been one instance were the machine stopped functioning and needed to be repaired.

 

Julie also reported that steroid use continues to be high in the Penrith Area.

 

GB 2          Sexual Safety in Pubs and Clubs Project                                                               

 Kylie Druett advised that she has almost finalised reducing the size of the survey for the Sexual Safety in Clubs and Pubs project and is looking at re-engaging with the stakeholders, volunteers and pubs and clubs (being Penrith Panthers, Phriction Nightclub and St Marys Band Club) in the near future that have volunteered to be involved with the project.

 

 

GB 3          Youth off the Streets                                                                                                

William Pass advised that Youth Week will be held between 13 and 22 April 2012. The Mondo will be hosting ‘M Factor’ on Thursday 19 April 2012 as part of the Mondo Youth Project.

 

GB 4          Jane Street Car Park                                                                                               

David Burns advised that Council has written to the CEO of RailCorp regarding the Western section upgrades to Jane Street Car Park.

 

Advice has since been received from RailCorp that a pool of funds has been set aside for projects like the Jane Street West upgrades. RailCorp is conducting a scope of works to determine the allocation of funding.

 

Council will be sending a letter to the Local Members for Londonderry and Mulgoa to seek support for this project.

 

GB 5          Youth Event Updates                                                                                               

Katerina Tahija promoted a few youth events that are happening during the month of April. The Penrith Valley Youth Festival will be held on 20 April at Jamison Skate Park as part of Youth Week celebrations.

 

From 13 to 22 April young people with a disability can voice their opinions on Fusion radio, 87.8 and Vintage FM Radio, 87.6. This activity will also be run in conjunction with Youth Week events.

 

GB 6          Facebook and Website                                                                                             

Julie Passau advised that she will be posting crime prevention issues and upcoming youth events on the Penrith Police Facebook page. In addition to this information the Youth Liaison Officer will posting information about cyber bullying.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8.30pm.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 28 March, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A City of Opportunities

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 11 April, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

John Farragher, Ronda Hopkins, Farah Madon and Denise Heath.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Ben Felten – Disability Access Officer; Robyn Brookes – Disability Services Officer; Tracy Leahy – Acting Community and Cultural Development Manager; Joe Ibbitson – Community Programs Coordinator (Chair); Graham Howe – Building Projects and Maintenance Coordinator; Colin Wood – Building Approvals Coordinator; Vanessa Muscat –Team Leader, Building Approvals; Tanya Jackson – Strategic Planning Coordinator; Cindi Drennan – Multimedia Artist/Director from Illuminart Productions Pty Ltd; Robert Craig – Senior Environmental Planner (arrived 5.45pm).

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that there would be no Councillor present to Chair tonight’s meeting as required by the Terms of Reference of the Committee.  Joe Ibbitson advised that he had a discussion with the Group Manager - Legal and Governance, and that the meeting could proceed on the basis that Council would confirm the recommendations. All present agreed that Joe Ibbitson should act as Chairperson of the meeting on the basis that Council will confirm the actions of the Committee.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from Councillor Robert Ardill, Councillor Prue Guillaume, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow, David Currie, Michael Morris, Erich Weller and Hans Meijer.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 8 February 2012

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 8 February 2012 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

1      No Boundaries Project                                                                                                      

Robyn Brookes introduced the No Boundaries Project report and advised of the exciting proposal to project high quality multimedia artworks onto the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre building.

 

Robyn Brookes introduced Cindi Drennan from Illuminart Productions Pty Ltd.  Committee members introduced themselves to Cindi Drennan.

 

Cindi Drennan gave a presentation put together for Illuminart partners titled Site Specific Event.  This presentation also included a video on the Lipson Street project in Port Adelaide, South Australia.

 

Cindi Drennan explained that she would like to work with people with disabilities on this project and connect with different groups.

 

Joe Ibbitson thanked Cindi Drennan for her presentation and asked the Committee for comments and questions.

 

Ronda Hopkins enquired what would happen if the weather was not good on the night.  Cindi Drennan replied that the event would still go ahead in these circumstances with some alternative arrangements.  There are also spaces within the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre for projection.  All the equipment is in weatherproof housing as well as there being some undercover areas for viewing.  It is anticipated that the event will happen over a few nights.  The actual spectacular dates are Friday 21 and Saturday 22 September but there are a number of mini events planned as part of the larger project.

 

Robert Craig arrived at the meeting at 5.45pm.

 

Other issues raised included:

 

·    an opportunity to promote the event at the Disability Expo

·    strategies for getting people with disabilities involved

·    promotion through the Disability Forum

·    seating and movement through the area

·    access for people in wheelchairs

·    looking for collaborators for the event

·    talking to Nordoff-Robbins about running a series of drama workshops

·    publicity via word of mouth, advertisements in the press, school newsletters

·    the event to commence 20 minutes after sunset, approximately 6.15pm

·    possible closure of ends of carpark levels near the event.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on No Boundaries Project be received.

2.     Cindi Drennan from Illuminart Productions be thanked for her presentation.

  

4        Community Engagement Program for the new Community Strategic Plan                

Tanya Jackson spoke to her report and gave a brief overview of the Community Engagement Program relating to Council’s Community Strategic Plan.  This is a big picture plan covering the next 20 years in Penrith.

 

The engagement program runs between March and June 2012.  Tanya Jackson encouraged Access Committee members to fill in a survey to have their say in planning for the future of Penrith. A consultation is being planned specifically for people with disability.  Details will be available shortly.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Community Engagement Program for the new Community Strategic Plan be received.

 

Tanya Jackson left the meeting at 6.03pm.

 

2      All Welcome - Access to Business                                                                                     

Robyn Brookes spoke to the All Welcome – Access to Business report. This initiative is to work with businesses to enhance access to existing retail and other premises in the Penrith City Centre.

 

Joe Ibbitson handed out the promotional postcard which incorporated additions from the last meeting. Joe Ibbitson also referred to the information package in the appendix to the report and advised it was hoped to sign off on the documentation at tonight’s meeting.

 

It was suggested to make the catch words on the two documents uniform with “Better access, more customers, more business” as the suggested wording.

 

Ronda Hopkins stated it is important to navigate inside the shops.  She also advised she would be happy to do a story for the press release.

 

It was suggested that white size 8 font on an orange background was difficult to see on the postcard and the printing would be easier to see if it was black.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised the Committee feedback would be considered and changes made where appropriate.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on All Welcome - Access to Business be received.

2.     The implementation of the All Welcome initiative proceed in accordance with the project plan and timetable presented in the report.

 

3      2012 Nepean Disability Expo                                                                                            

Ben Felten gave a summary of the report which provided information on the 2012 Nepean Disability Expo to be held on 14 and 15 September 2012.

 

The Expo Organising Committee has met a number of times, developed a budget and made significant progress in planning for the event.  The look and feel of the venue will be quite different with more seating, the exhibition stalls will be increased and catering will be improved. 

 

A new Disability Expo logo has been created which featured on the front cover of tonight’s business paper. There has been an increase in the marketing budget and this year posters and banners will be located on the M4, High Street, Penrith and a billboard on the corner of the Great Western Highway and Parker Street.  The Expo will be advertised in local papers and postcards and large posters will be produced.  All Access Committee members will be invited to the opening ceremony at 9.30am on Friday 14 September. An Expo website will be developed and a Facebook page is being considered.

 

Denise Heath advised that the website is almost completed and should be ready next week.  Registration will be available online.

  

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2012 Nepean Disability Expo be received.

2.     An invitation be extended to Access Committee members to attend the official welcome and opening of the 2012 Nepean Disability Expo on Friday 14 September 2012.

 

5        Development Applications referred to Access Committee                                             

DA12/0175            Nepean Hospital, 35-65 Derby Street, Kingswood - Proposed Multi Deck                    Carpark

 

Robert Craig introduced the development application from Wentworth Area Health Services for a multi storey carpark at Nepean Hospital on the corner of Derby and Somerset Streets.  A new roundabout is proposed with Wentworth Road entry. There are 662 parking spaces proposed with related works including two accessible car spaces.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    greater detail is required regarding pedestrian links to and from the car park from within the site and outside the site

·    one accessible car space shall be provided for every 50 car spaces

·    the floor to ceiling height clearance requirements for accessible car spaces shall be satisfied

·    the height clearances shall make provision for service conduits and stormwater lines which may be strapped to the underside of ceilings

·    the floor to ceiling heights shown on the cross-section plan should not include the slab depth

·    one lift shall be accessible with minimum dimensions of 1.4m x 1.6m

·    push button entries and pay booths/machines should be accessible for wheelchair users (i.e. operational buttons should be 1.2m)

·    if the proposed stairways are not fire escape stairs, one set of stairs must be accessible

·    stair nosing strips and handrails shall be provided to the stairways

·    a wheelchair circulation space shall be provided for the doorway to the ground floor office (i.e. 500mm from latch side).

 

 

 

DA11/1445     Lawn Cemetery and Crematorium at 2207-2223 Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham

 

Robert Craig advised that the site for the proposed lawn cemetery is along Elizabeth Drive, west of Luddenham Road, Luddenham.  It is a rural property of 36.62 hectares.  The development application includes a consent for a lawn cemetery, a memorial garden, a crematorium, three chapels, a maintenance building, below and above ground burial areas and carparking.

 

Robert Craig advised that a large amount of information is outstanding for this DA including an accessibility report.  A DA received in 2010 was previously refused by Council.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    there is large amount of cut and fill on the site so these level differences should be addressed

·    lack of accessible parking

·    no floor plan was provided

·    the slope of the site appears to be significant – the Access Report should address this consideration

·    concern was raised regarding the lack of public transport links available

·    there appear to be steps at each entry

·    the proposal should be re-reported to the Access Committee when an Accessibility Report has been submitted by the applicant

·    floor plans and a more detailed site plan should also be provided.

 

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

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1     Penrith Residents with Disability – Have your Say

 

Tracy Leahy, Acting Community and Cultural Development Manager, advised of a consultation being run by the Neighbourhood Renewal Team on 18 April 2012 at Penrith RSL.  Tracy Leahy handed out flyers for the consultation which is for people with a disability, or their parents or carers, to listen to their views about living in Penrith suburb. 

 

Robert Craig left the meeting at 6.45pm.

 

GB 2     Local Young People with a Disability Voicing Their Opinions – Youth Week – 13-22 April 2012

Denise Heath advised that NADO has organised for young people with disability to have their say on radio.  The 20-30 second radio spots can be heard on Vintage FM and Fusion FM on 17 April.  Young people 12-24 will be talking about their concerns and passions, what it is like to grow up with a disability, to be at school, and their social lives.

 

GB 3     Pedestrian Access around Centro

Farah Madon advised that Barbara Bonfield had written to the Access Committee regarding lack of pedestrian accessible areas near Centro and had not received a reply.  Joe Ibbitson advised that the reply from Council was sent on 13 July 2011.

 

Farah Madon enquired if there were any proposed upgrades to the four boundary roads to Centro. 

 

It was suggested that if Barbara Bonfield did not receive the reply to her letter that she be sent another in her preferred format.

 

GB 4     Trees on Somerset Street, Kingswood

Ronda Hopkins asked for the trees in the middle of Somerset Street to be trimmed underneath as they block the vision of cars coming from the Great Western Highway.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 6.55pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 11 April, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Liveable City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 7 May, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, Constable Bill Pearson – Penrith Police, James Suprain – Roads and Maritime Services, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager – City Infrastructure, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co-ordinator, Emma Lawson – Trainee Engineer.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Steven Purvis – Co-ordinator Ranger Services, Phil Davies – Westbus.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow, Councillor Karen McKeown, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 2 April 2012

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 2 April 2012 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        St Marys Spring Festival & Street Parade - Traffic Management Plan                       

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on St Marys Spring Festival & Street Parade - Traffic Management Plan be received.

2.     The Traffic Management Plan for the Class 2 Special Event pursuant to Roads and Maritime Services Guidelines for Special Events Version 3.4 August 2006, for the St Marys Spring Festival and Street Parade on 1 September 2012 be endorsed, subject to the following conditions:

(a)  The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 2 Event under the Roads and Maritime Services “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guide must be complied with prior to the event.

(b)  Approval be given for the temporary closure of roads listed in the report, for the duration of the event.

(c)  A Traffic Management Plan including a Risk Management Plan be lodged by the event applicant with the Roads and Maritime Services for approval, prior to the event.  A copy of the Roads and Maritime Services approval must be submitted to Council prior to the event.

(d) The event applicant obtain separate approval from the NSW Police and submit a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police prior to the event.  A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council prior to the event.

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

(f)  A detailed Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police prior to the event.  The Traffic Control Plan shall detail how a minimum 4.0m emergency lane is maintained at all times during the event.

(g) The event applicant arrange to place barricades and provide Roads and Maritime Services accredited Traffic Controllers where required by the approved Traffic Management Plan.  Where the Traffic Management and Traffic Control Plan indicate Traffic Controllers are to be used, all Traffic Controllers must have current Roads and Maritime Services certification.

(h)  The event applicant must provide advice to Council prior to the event that the event addresses all requirements of the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001.

(i)   The event applicant advertise the proposed temporary road closures in local newspapers a minimum of two weeks prior to the event, and provide variable message signs in appropriate locations a minimum of one week prior to the event, with the locations of the VMS boards submitted to Council for endorsement prior to their erection.  VMS boards should be located in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Authority’s Technical Direction TDT2002/11c.

(j)   The event applicant delivers an information letterbox drop and personal communication to all business proprietors, property owners/tenants, residents and other occupants in the affected streets two weeks prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements must be resolved by the applicant or referred back to Council for consideration.  Satisfactory arrangements must be made to address such concerns to allow the event to proceed.

(k)  Signposting advising the date and time of all closures be provided and erected by the event organiser two weeks prior to the event (the applicant to liaise with the Roads and Maritime Services regarding size of sign and text height).  The organisers be requested to co‑ordinate advisory signs, as required, with Council’s City Works Manager:

·    for westbound traffic “Queen Street from Nariel Street to King Street will be temporarily closed to vehicular traffic on Saturday, 1 September 2012 (7.00am–5.00pm)”.

·    for eastbound traffic “Queen Street from Nariel Street to King Street will be temporarily closed to vehicular traffic on Saturday, 1 September 2012 (7.00am–5.00pm)”.

The signs are to be placed on the Great Western Highway (on the concrete median and prior to Glossop Street for westbound traffic, and on the northern kerbside for eastbound traffic), approximately 50m from both approaches to Queen Street, at least two weeks before the Festival.

An additional sign is to be placed on Mamre Road for northbound traffic, approximately 50m on the approach to the Great Western Highway indicating “Queen Street from Nariel Street to King Street will be temporarily closed to vehicular traffic on Saturday, 1 September 2012 (7.00am–5.00pm)”.

(l)   The event organiser notify ambulance and fire brigade (NSW Fire Brigade and RFS) and SES for the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council prior to the event.

(m) The event applicant notify private bus companies of the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council prior to the event.  Bus companies shall be requested to advertise the changed route for affected buses at least one week prior to, and during, the event.

(n)  Should the consultation process resolve to temporarily relocate bus stops or bus routes that were not indicated in the original Traffic Management Plan, a further report will be required to be submitted to the next available Local Traffic Committee meeting.

(o)  The event applicant shall ensure that noise control measures are in place as required by the protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000.

(p)  The event applicant is to ensure that participants obey road rules and Police directions during the event.

(q)  Council reserves the right to cancel this approval at any time.

 

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

 

 

2        Bus Shelter Prioritisation Program - Review of Projects                                               

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bus Shelter Prioritisation Program - Review of Projects be received.

2.     Council note the information.

3.     A program of works be developed and implemented in accordance with locations identified within Table 2 of this report.

 

 

3        Leonay Loop Fun Run on Saturday, 8 September 2012 - Traffic Management Plan

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Leonay Loop Fun Run on Saturday, 8 September 2012 - Traffic Management Plan be received.

2.     The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 3 Event under the “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guide must be complied with prior to the event.

3.     The Traffic Management Plan submitted by the event applicant be endorsed, subject to the following conditions:

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

(b)       The event applicant obtain separate approval from the NSW Police and submit a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act, including a copy of the Traffic Management Plan and Transport Control Plan, to the NSW Police a minimum of eight weeks prior to the event.  A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

(c)       A detailed Traffic Control Plan be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Maritime Services (formerly RTA) and NSW Police a minimum 30 days prior to the event.  The Traffic Control Plan shall detail how a minimum 4.0m emergency lane is maintained at all times during the event.

(d)       The event applicant arrange to place barricades and provide Roads and Maritime Services accredited Traffic Controllers where required by the endorsed Traffic Management Plan.  Where the Traffic Management and Traffic Control Plans indicate Traffic Controllers are to be used, all Traffic Controllers must have current Roads and Maritime Services certification.

(e)       The event applicant deliver an information letterbox drop and personal communication to all business proprietors, property owners/tenants, residents and other occupants in the affected streets two weeks prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements must be resolved by the applicant or referred back to Council for consideration.  Should a matter not be able to be resolved, the event may be postponed.

(f)       The event applicant notify private bus companies for the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.  Bus companies shall be requested to advertise the changed route for affected buses at least one week prior to, and during, the event.

(g)       Should the consultation process resolve to temporarily relocate bus stops or bus routes that were not indicated in the original Traffic Management Plan, a further report will be required to be submitted to the next available Local Traffic Committee meeting.

(h)       The event applicant shall ensure that noise control measures are in place as required by the protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000.

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

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

 

 

4        Coreen Avenue, Penrith – Proposed Provision of New Roundabout for North Penrith Development                                                                                                                       

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Coreen Avenue, Penrith – Proposed Provision of New Roundabout for North Penrith Development  be received.

2.     Plan 301015-02381-CA-RNDBT-SK2 Rev B dated 29/3/12 by Worley Parsons be endorsed, subject to:
(a)  the provision of a pedestrian refuge within the proposed median island to the west of the intersection;
(b)  the provision of Roads and Maritime Services fencing or landscaping to encourage pedestrians to use the proposed pedestrian refuges;
(c)  the provision of rumble bars within the linemarked chevron areas of both kerb returns to restrict vehicles in this area;
(d)  the removal of speed limit signs from the plans.

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Derby Street, Penrith – Proposed Relocation of Marked Parking Bays  (Raised Council)

Council has recently installed two new bus shelters at existing “Bus Stops” on Derby Street, Kingswood, outside Nepean Hospital.  Existing “Bus Zone” signs are provided for the length of these shelters.  The section of Derby Street where these shelters are located is in a Restricted Parking Area “Park in Marked Bays” Scheme, with vehicles restricted to parking in marked bays only.

 

Whilst assessing the suitability of the new shelters, Council officers raised concerns regarding the parking bays adjacent to the shelter on the southern side of Derby Street, outside Nos 64-68.  There are two marked parking bays immediately west of the existing shelter and “Bus Zone”, and the current location of the eastern parking bay leaves less than one metre of manoeuvring space for buses to pull away from the kerb.

 

In this regard, it is proposed to relocate the marked bays approximately 2.4m west, so the start of the western bay is located at an existing “No Stopping” sign, and to reduce the length of the bays to the minimum length of 5.4m as required by AS 2890.5 (1993).  It is further proposed that the current “Bus Zone” be extended west for approximately 4.8m, which would allow adequate room for manoeuvring.

 

This proposal will provide sufficient distance for buses to exit the “Bus Stop” whilst maintaining on-street parking without compromising safety.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That:

 

1.   Two existing marked parking bays located in front of 64-68 Derby Street, Kingswood be relocated approximately 2.4m west, to align with the existing “No Stopping” sign.  These bays are then to be shortened to the minimum required distance of 5.4 m each.

 

2.   The existing “Bus Zone” on Derby Street, Kingswood be extended west for approximately 4.8m.

 

3.   Westbus be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GB 2          Billington Place Car Park, Emu Plains – Provision of 4P Parking Restrictions  (Raised Council)    

The Local Traffic Committee, at its meeting on 5 December 2011 considered a report on “Billington Place Car Park, Emu Plains - Request for Provision of 2-Hour Parking Restrictions”.  The report considered a request from a local business located on the Great Western Highway, Emu Plains, in the form of a petition signed by eight shopkeepers, for the provision of timed parking restrictions in the car park in Billington Place, Emu Plains.

 

The report advised that Emu Plains Railway Station is on the Schedule of Nominated Train Stations which prohibits Council from exercising its function in respect of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) delegations without separate approval from the RMS and Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

 

The report was subsequently referred to Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 12 December 2011, and Council resolved:

 

LTC 123  That a further report be brought to a future Council Meeting on this item including an audit of current and future parking needs in the area including shops at the Great Western Highway.”

 

Subsequently, at its meeting on 13 February 2012, the Policy Review Committee considered a report on “Billington Place Car Park, Emu Plains - Request for Provision of 2-Hour Parking Restrictions”.

 

The report considered the information previously provided at the Local Traffic Committee, together with information on the results of recent site inspections and comments from the RMS advising that the necessary approvals for the provision of parking restrictions could not be granted at this time.

 

The resolution of the Policy Review Committee was subsequently referred to Council and, at its Ordinary Meeting on 20 February 2012, Council resolved 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 carpark and other surrounding carparks 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.”

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, a detailed submission was prepared and submitted to TfNSW seeking their review of the matter, together with undertaking a detailed parking audit of the area.

 

The audit studied all four car parks associated with Emu Plains Railway Station, being Billington Place, southern commuter car park, northern commuter car park and the recent northern commuter car park extension.

 

The audit determined that both commuter car parks immediately adjacent to the northern and southern sides of the station were at capacity, with no vacant spaces available to commuters by 7:00am, whilst at this time Billington Place car park had on average seven cars parked and 138 vacant spaces available at 7:00am.  Both the Billington Place car park and the northern commuter car park extension filled steadily with cars up to 11:00am, with the Billington Place car park having only seven vacant spaces at 11:00am on a Monday, 30 vacant spaces at 11:00am on a Thursday, and 56 vacant spaces at 11:00am on a Friday.

 

The results of the audit determined that the usage rates of the Billington Place car park varied at different days of the week, however the car park came within 5% of capacity during the audit.  The audit also determined that commuter car parks immediately adjacent to the northern and southern sides of the Station remained at capacity (as expected) all day, whilst the northern commuter car park extension came within 9% of capacity, with a minimum average of 27 spaces being available at the peak time of 11:00am.

 

A letter has recently been received from the RMS in response to Council’s detailed submission.  The letter states in part:

 

“I refer to Council’s letter dated 28 February 2012 addressed to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) requesting a review of Council’s application to alter the signposting regime at the abovementioned location with an intention to provide (61) 4 Hour Parking carparking spaces.

 

Firstly, please be advised that the Road and Maritime Services (RMS) does not approve applications concerning parking within the vicinity of those Railway Stations listed in the ‘Schedule of Nominated Train Stations’, the RMS facilities the process between Council’s and TfNSW, with TfNSW being the lead approval agency in this instance.

 

The Roads and Maritime Services have been advised by TfNSW, as follows:

 

‘TfNSW assess that the provision of 24 (4P) timed parking spaces at the Billington Place Car Park will be both proportionate encouragement to commuters to further utilise the recently constructed Commuter Car Park, and of community benefit to both local residents & businesses. A plan of the carpark showing the relevant car spaces is attached to this letter.’

 

A copy of the map referred to in the RMS letter is shown below in Figure 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 - Authorised 4(P) Spaces

billington RMS.bmp

 

 

Council officers subsequently contacted TfNSW, who advised that:

 

“You should take the letter from RMS and this email as confirmation that Council have authority from TfNSW to carry out the necessary re-designation of the relevant 24 spaces.”

 

Council officers requested further advice from TfNSW regarding the process of determining 24 spaces rather than the 61 requested by Council.  A TfNSW representative advised, in an e-mail, that:

 

“Essentially it is a balancing act. Looking at the map of the carpark and location of obvious one to change, and 24 spaces appeared a reasonable numeric compromise between my initial instincts to preserve the cost/benefit ratio behind building the 2010(?) Commuter Car Park (i.e. – no change) and the desires of council and other interested local parties (61 spaces).”

 

“the cost-benefit ratio that justifies TfNSW building commuter carparks at all is partly based on not losing any existing commuter parking.”

 

As such, the results of Council’s detailed audit indicated that there is capacity in the northern commuter car park extension to cater for the offset of spaces from Billington Place.  An increase in timed spaces above the 24 approved by TfNSW will likely result in all commuter car parking on both the northern and southern side of Emu Plains Station being at capacity, which will result in commuters possibly being forced to park on the street in the nearby commercial/industrial precinct of Smith Street, Emu Plains.

 

Once the 24 (4P) spaces are implemented, it is forecast that at certain times of the week commuter car parking will be at or near capacity, and an increase in commuters at Emu Plains Station in the future above current numbers will require the construction of an additional commuter car park in the area.

 

In accordance with Resolution 5 from Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 20 February 2012, investigations were conducted regarding the provision of a “Park in Marked Bays” scheme along Railway Row.  The investigation determined that there was no benefit with regard to increasing the number of on-street spaces by implementing the scheme, and that lane widths for buses would not be sufficient should the scheme be implemented on both sides of Railway Row.  In this regard, the provision of a “Park in Marked Bays” scheme along Railway Row is not supported at this time.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.   Council acknowledge approval given by the Roads and Maritime Services on behalf of Transport for NSW for time restricted 24 (4P) parking spaces in Billington Place, Emu Plains.

2.   24 unrestricted parking spaces within Billington Place Car Park, adjacent to the shops, be signposted 4(P).

3.   The businesses who signed the petitions be advised of Council’s resolution.

4.   The provision of a “Park in Marked Bays” scheme along Railway Row not be supported.

 

 

GB 3          Jane Street, Penrith – Penrith Railway Station Bus Interchange (Raised Council)      

The Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, raised a request to investigate concerns in relation to pedestrian behaviour and safety within the Penrith Railway Station Bus Interchange; specifically pedestrians emerging from between parked buses and using the raised threshold directly adjacent to the station entrance as a pedestrian crossing.

 

The Minister for Transport, The Hon Gladys Berejiklian, announced in April 2012 that the NSW Government would undertake a “blitz” worth more than $100 million to build key facilities and undertake much needed upgrade work to stations and interchanges.

 

The first round of the program includes refurbishment of the bus interchange at Penrith Railway Station, including painting of bus shelters and improving accessibility to the taxi rank.

 

Council officers have contacted RailCorp to ascertain the full scope of the works, however at this time RailCorp have not provided a response.

 

In late 2010 and early 2011, Council officers were liaising with RailCorp and their contractors with regard to the upgrade of the Penrith Interchange, which at that time included pavement replacement, footpath replacement, refurbishment of bus shelters and improved taxi facilities.  In September 2011 however, RailCorp advised that This project has been cancelled due to lack of funds.”  Since this time, Council officers have continued to advocate for the much needed improvements.

 

The recent announcement of funding for upgrades at the Penrith Interchange is welcomed and Council officers will continue to work with RailCorp to advocate for an outcome that addresses safety for all users of the Interchange, together with high level of aesthetics.  Importantly, through the recent round of funding, Council officers will seek to ensure that asset management, pedestrian safety, and disability access are all high on the agenda for the program of works at Penrith Station.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.   Council write to RailCorp and request that the works announced at the Penrith Railway Station Bus Interchange include a response to pedestrian safety, asset management and disability access.

 

2.   The Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

GB 4          Glossop Street, St Marys – Bus Accessibility  (Raised Westbus)                           

The Westbus representative advised that a resident has raised concerns with Westbus regarding accessing the bus at the “Bus Stop” at 164 Glossop Street, St Marys.  The resident uses a walking frame and has difficulty boarding the bus at this location, due to the slope of the grass verge near the “Bus Stop”.  The Westbus representative has advised the resident to contact Council regarding this matter.

RECOMMENDED  That the information be noted.

 

GB 5          Great Western Highway/Fleming Street, St Marys – Request to Relocate Existing “Bus Stop”  (Raised Westbus)                                                                                                     

The Westbus representative requested approval to relocate an existing “Bus Stop” from its current position at Great Western Highway/Fleming Street, St Marys to a position approximately 50m to the east of Fleming Street (on Great Western Highway) to enable bus drivers more time to move across three lanes of traffic to turn right into Glossop Street after leaving the “Bus Stop”.

RECOMMENDED  That Council request the Roads and Maritime Services to investigate this matter.

 

GB 6          Commuter Car Park North Side of Penrith Railway Station – Scheduled for Completion  (Raised Council)                                                                                                     

Council’s Group Manager - City Infrastructure advised that the commuter car park on the north side of Penrith Railway Station is due to be opened approximately mid-June this year, and the existing temporary car parking will close at that time.

RECOMMENDED  That Council note the information.

 

 

 

 

 

GB 7          ANZAC Day Events – Discussions about Future Events  (Raised Council)

Council’s Engineering Services Manager advised that Council will this week be meeting with RSL executives and Police in order to improve traffic management at next year’s ANZAC Day events.

RECOMMENDED  That Council note the information.

 

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 10:15am.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 May, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 7 May, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

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

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 16 April 2012 to 11 May 2012 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

An apology was received for Councillor Tanya Davies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 16 April 2012

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 16 April 2012 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Proposed Changes to the Local Environmental Plan Making Process

Sustainability and Planning Manager, Paul Grimson introduced the report and gave a presentation.   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed Changes to the Local Environmental Plan Making Process be received

2.     Council endorse the submission appearing at Appendix 2 to this report.

3.     Council write to the local State Members seeking their support for Council’s submission through representations to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

 

2        Funding to investigate the feasibility of an Environmental Upgrade Agreement Policy for Penrith City                                                                                                                        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Funding to investigate the feasibility of an Environmental Upgrade Agreement Policy for Penrith City be received

2.     The offer of funding be accepted from the Office of Environment and Heritage for Council to undertake a detailed feasibility study on the implementation of Environmental Upgrade Agreements.

3.     Upon completion of the first stage the outcomes are to be the subject of a report to Council regarding its ongoing involvement in the project.

 

A City of Opportunities

 

3        Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Digital Hubs Program

Group Manager – Information and Customer Relations, Brian Steffen introduced the report and gave a presentation.                                                                                                                               

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Digital Hubs Program be received

2.     Council endorse the submission of an application requesting up to $350,000 to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy for the Digital Hubs Program in partnership with the Nepean Community College.

 

A Vibrant City

 

4        Smoking at School Entrances                                                                                           

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Smoking at School Entrances be received.

2.     Council support an educational campaign described in this report including the installation of signs for interested schools with funding from Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District as part of the World No Tobacco Day.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:59pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 7 May, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

  



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

A Leading City

 

1        2011-12 Operational Plan - March Quarter Review

 

2        One Association - Nomination of Council's Voting Delegates

 

3        Audit Committee

 

4        New Residents Nights

 

5        Council Property - Easement for Underground Cables for Endeavour Energy over Lot 700 DP 859470 being part of Surveyors Creek drainage system, Surveyors Creek Road, Glenmore Park

 

6        Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys

 

7        Insurance Renewals 2012-13 and Flood Protection of Council Building Assets

 

8        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012

 

A City of Opportunities

 

9        Development Application DA11/1342 for proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and swimming pool and erection of a detached dual occupancy at Lot 75 DP 703021 (No. 49) Glenbrook Street, Jamisontown Applicant: Margaret J Onus;  Owner: Margaret J Onus

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

 

A Green City

 

10      Investigation into opportunities for energy generation for Council and the City

 

A Liveable City

 

11      Western Sydney Carpool Project - Service Agreement

 

12      Proposal for Additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas

 

13      Council's delegation to manage parking within 1km of designated train stations

  


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        2011-12 Operational Plan - March Quarter Review

 

2        One Association - Nomination of Council's Voting Delegates

 

3        Audit Committee

 

4        New Residents Nights

 

5        Council Property - Easement for Underground Cables for Endeavour Energy over Lot 700 DP 859470 being part of Surveyors Creek drainage system, Surveyors Creek Road, Glenmore Park

 

6        Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys

 

7        Insurance Renewals 2012-13 and Flood Protection of Council Building Assets

 

8        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1

2011-12 Operational Plan - March Quarter Review   

 

Compiled by:               Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

Graham Pares, Acting Operational Plan Coordinator

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting guidelines, Council must prepare a report on the progress of the service activities and tasks in the Operational Plan every 3 months. This review reports on the performance of external and internal services (with the exception of the three controlled entities which have separate reporting requirements) outlined in the 2011-12 Operational Plan.

 

The March Quarter review covers the first 9 months progress of the 2011-12 Operational Plan. It also forms part of the third instalment of Year 3 of the Council’s (4 Year) Delivery Program 2009-13.

 

The report is divided into two sections:

 

Section 1:   March Quarter Review of the 2011-12 Operational Plan covering the performance summary of Council’s 44 services, completed tasks and projects and exception reporting.

Section 2:   A review of Council’s Financial Position as at 31 March 2012 including revised estimates and revotes identified in the recommended budget.

 

March Quarter Review Services Performance Summary

 

The overall summary of performance indicates that for the nine month period ending 31 March 2012 all of Council’s 44 services (100%) are assessed as being on target to deliver on the tasks and projects committed to in the adopted 2011-12 Operational Plan. This is a particularly satisfactory result given the impact of the unseasonably wet weather during this period on capital works and scheduled maintenance programs.

 

Council’s Performance Planning System indicates that of Council’s 777 Tasks, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Capital and Operating Projects, 752 were either ‘on target’ or ‘completed’ by 31 March 2011.  Details of the remaining 20 items and the challenges they are facing have been included in Attachment 12011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary.

 

Financial Position Summary

 

The March quarter has continued to show that Council’s short term financial position remains sound, and a strong focus on controlling costs now sees a surplus of $623,117 projected for the year.  This has most notably been achieved in the March quarter through additional investment income ($300,000) and reduced printing and postage costs ($90,595). This result has accommodated the provisioning of funds for the development of the new Community Strategic Plan ($145,000), a transfer to the Insurance Reserve ($100,000) to ensure that future flood mitigation works on key buildings can be completed and reduced income for the Penrith Pool ($54,600) and Library Services ($34,000).  Net salary savings of $403,873 have been identified and it is considered prudent that these salary savings be retained within the employee costs budget at this stage and not reallocated.   Council confirmed its commitment to ensuring that sufficient provision is made for Employee Leave Entitlements (ELE) during the 2010-11 June Quarter and Year End Review when it endorsed the transfer of net salary savings to the ELE Reserve for 2011-12.  Therefore it is proposed that any remaining salary savings, once provision for current year payments is made, will be transferred to the ELE Reserve as part of the June Review. 

 

The 2011-12 Operational Plan identified budget adjustments that were retained in the Asset Reserve to ensure that any movement in assumptions or emerging priorities could be accommodated. This review proposes the allocation of funding from the Asset Reserve to provide an increase to the Ripples subsidy ($93,589).  This increase has been requested by Ripples and reflects the impact, in the current year, of the partial closure of the facility during the Roof Replacement and Asset Renewal works being undertaken.  It is however considered prudent that the allocation of the reported surplus ($623,117) and the remainder of the Asset Reserve ($169,083) be delayed until a further reassessment of Council’s priorities has been completed, including consultation with the Community currently being undertaken as part of the 2012-13 Operational Plan exhibition.

 

A total of $1.9m of revotes is proposed as a result of the March Quarter Review.  Further details on proposed major variations are provided later in this report and in Attachment 1 – 2011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary.

 

This report recommends that the revised budget estimates identified in the report and detailed in Attachment 1 – 2011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary be adopted.

 

Section 1: March Quarter Review - 2011-12 Operational Plan

The March Quarter review covers the first 9 months progress of the 2011-12 Operational Plan. It also forms part of the third instalment of Year 3 of the Council’s (4 Year) Delivery Program 2009-13.

 

Attachment 12011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary   provides the complete performance review for the March reporting period. Preparation of the report requires all Managers to report progress on each of their services, based on service activities, service budgets, tasks, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), capital and operating projects as set out in the adopted 2011-12 Operational Plan. 

 

How is Progress Measured?

 

Progress for both the Delivery Program and Operational Plan is expressed through the use of actual results versus target expressed as percentages and ‘traffic light’ indicators.  The rating scales and parameters for each ‘traffic light’ are explained in Table 1.

 

 

Table 1: Guidelines for ‘Traffic Light’ Status Indicators

*

[Green]

On Target

90% +

A service activity, task, project, budget, program indicator or KPI is within 10% of targeted performance for that YTD period.

*

[Amber]

Attention Required

75% - 89%

A service activity, task, project, budget, program indicator or KPI is within 10% - 25% of targeted performance.  It is at risk of non-completion, and may be the subject of a proposed carry over or partial revote of works.  A comment is required about the issue, the focus required, and what will be done to address it.

[Red]

At Risk

< 75%

A service activity, task, project, budget, program indicator or KPI is more than 25% off its targeted performance and/or is the subject of a proposed revote of works.  A comment is required about the issue, the focus required, and what will be done to address it.

 C

100%

Completed (usually applies to Capital & Operating Projects and Tasks with defined target dates).  Represents 100% completion.

 

The overall summary of performance indicates that for the nine month period ending 31 March 2011 all of Council’s 44 services (100%) are assessed as being on target to deliver on the tasks and projects committed to in the adopted 2011-12 Operational Plan. Within that overall performance, 14 services were identified as having components that were assessed as either “Attention required” or “At Risk”.  The number of components in each of those services was not significant enough across the scope of task, projects and KPI’s to impact upon the services overall assessment as ‘On Target’.

 

Council’s Performance Planning System indicates that of Council’s 777 Tasks, Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) and Capital and Operating Projects, 752 were either ‘on target’ or ‘completed’ by 31 March 2012.  Details on the proposed actions to address the remaining 20 projects, task and KPI’s is included within Attachment 1, and confirms that effective planned responses are being undertaken to ensure that they are capable of meeting targets within the overall life of the Operational Plan.

 

This is considered to be a particularly satisfactory result given the unseasonably wet weather experienced during this period.  The impact of these natural events upon the planned construction and maintenance projects for the City is significant, however the services were able to respond and prioritise resource allocation to respond effectively to that impact where projects and tasks have had to be delayed. 

Attachment 12011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary   also includes information on some of the significant tasks and projects completed and the highlights of Councils performance during the period.

 

Section 2: Financial Position for the March Quarter

The financial position of Council for the quarter is expressed by providing information, in compliance with Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) requirements, on:

·        Budget Position (whether balanced/surplus/deficit)

·        Significant Variations

·        Identified Revotes

·        Funding Summary

·        Reserve Movements for the quarter, and

·        Capital and Operating Budget Projects list for the quarter

·        Key Performance Indicators

·        Income & Expenses

·        Income & Expenses by Program

·        Capital Budget

·        Cash & Investments

·        Contracts and Other Expenses

·        Consultancy and Legal Expenses

 

Budget Position

 

 

$000s

Original Budget Position

0

 

 

September Quarter Variations        

27.6

December Quarter Variations

579.1

March Quarter Variations

3.0

March Review Variations

13.4

Revised Surplus/(Deficit)

   623.1

 

 

 

The predicted cumulative result for the year as at March 2012 is a surplus of $623,117 after the recommended variations for the quarter. Commentary is provided below on some of the more significant issues in the review with further details together with all proposed minor variations, revotes and reserve movements detailed in Attachment 12011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary.

 


Salary Savings - $403,873 F (5%)

During the third quarter of 2011-12 salary savings have been realised primarily due to vacancies across a number of departments.  The majority of these vacant positions are in the process of being filled.  It is recommended that some of the identified salary savings are retained in the individual departments to enable the engagement of consultants or temporary staff to ensure the delivery of key Operational Plan tasks and projects. The salary savings, net of those being retained by departments, total $403,873.

 

It is proposed that as part of the March Review that the net salary savings of $403,873 identified are retained within the employee costs area to assist with year-end employee cost balancing and to supplement the budget for retirement and resignations. Council is committed to ensuring sufficient provision is made for Employee Leave Entitlements (ELE) and in keeping with that commitment any remaining savings, once current year payments have been provided for, will be transferred to the ELE Reserve as part of the June Review.

 

Interest on Investments - $300,000 F (20%)

Council’s portfolio has continued to exceed expectations.  The recent reduction of the cash rate by the RBA had been widely expected earlier in this financial year, this delayed reduction has contributed to income being greater than budget.  The recent reduction has been factored into the remaining budget.

 

Transfer to Reserve- Community Strategic Plan - $145,000 U

As part of the review of High Priority unfunded projects during the 2012-13 budget development process, it was determined that funding would be allocated from the 2011-12 surplus to enable the completion of the Community Strategic Plan in 2012-13. This allocation will ensure that this key City Planning process is adequately resourced.

 

Transfer to Reserve – Flood Mitigation works - $100,000 U

This allocation to the Insurance Reserve enables essential Flood Mitigation works on key Council Buildings and Facilities, currently being assessed, to be undertaken in future years reducing risk exposure and addressing business continuity issues.

 

Pool Revenue - $54,600 U (9%)

Pool revenue is lower than originally budgeted due to the summer season being one of the coldest and wettest for a considerable number of years.  At one stage this unseasonal weather resulted in a 4 day closure of the pool during a peak period due to flooding.  This budget adjustment reflects the expected income for the remainder of the year.

 

Purchasing Rebates - $22,188 U (39%)

This variation reflects a change in WSROC policy, that was agreed by the General Managers, that the volume rebates from WSROC arranged contracts would be used to fund the supply functions of WSROC and the remainder to be placed in reserve to fund agreed WSROC supply projects as they arise.

 


Other variations with no impact on Available Funds and Proposed Revotes

A number of other variations are proposed as part of this Review that do not have an impact on the available funds.  Details of these adjustments are provided in Attachment 12011-12 Operational Plan, Service Performance and Financial Review Summary.   In addition to these adjustments a total of $1.9m of planned capital works and operating projects are proposed for revote this quarter and a full listing can be found in Attachment 1.

 

Conclusion

The 2011-12 Operational Plan March Quarter review indicates that the performance of Council’s Services is ‘on track’ to meet Council’s challenging annual program. Strong Financial Management and healthy investment returns have contributed to a surplus of $623,117 being projected to June 2012.

 

The review documents will be placed on Council’s website, and will also be available to the public in hard copy and CD versions on request.  The opportunity is available for Council tonight to seek clarification or elaboration on particular matters in the attached 2011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2011-12 Operational Plan - March Quarter Review be received.

2.     The 2011-12 Operational Plan Review as at 31 March 2012, including the revised estimates and revotes identified in the recommended budget outlined in this report and detailed in Attachment 1 – 2011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

2011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary

67 Pages

Attachment

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

2

One Association - Nomination of Council's Voting Delegates   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The Local Government Association of NSW and the Shires Association of NSW have both recently taken important formal steps in progressing the formation of “One Association” for Local Government in NSW.

 

In April 2012 the Executive Committee of both Associations adopted a number of formal resolutions authorising the joint application to Fair Work Australia for its approval for the submission of the proposed amalgamation to be taken to ballot.

 

It is expected that Fair Work Australia will grant this approval in the near future, at which point the conduct of the vote will be handed to the Australian Electoral Commission.

 

Member Councils are now required to supply an up to date list of their voting delegates for this ballot as a matter of priority.

 

The report recommends that Council nominates seven (7) Councillors to be Council’s voting delegates to take part in the forthcoming secret postal ballot to deal with the matter of One Association, and that their names and contact postal addresses be forwarded to the Association to form the roll of Voters.

Background

The notion of One Association was first raised at the 2003 Local Government Association Conference, and progressed further in 2004 when Emeritus Mayor, Peter Woods OAM and Councillor John Wearne AM were commissioned by the NSW Local Government Association and the Shires Association of NSW to develop a draft model for one representative body.

 

As a result of this, Council at its meeting of 15 August 2005 considered a report on One Local Government Association in NSW and resolved it’s in principle support for the establishment of one association for local government in NSW.

 

At the 28 June 2010, Policy Review Committee meeting Council resolved to nominate and send Councillors to the One Association Convention held in Sydney on 16 & 17 August 2010, and at the 9 August 2010 Policy Review Committee meeting a Positions Paper with suggested responses was endorsed for the use of Council’s delegates who voted on preferred positions at the Convention.  Since this time a number of draft constitutions have been prepared with the last draft version released for comment in late 2011.

 

Current Situation

Council has recently received a letter from the Local Government Association of NSW which advised that in April 2012 the Executive Committees of both the Shires Association and the Local Government Association adopted formal resolutions authorising the joint application to Fair Work Australia for its approval for the submission of the proposed amalgamation to ballot.

 

It is expected that Fair Work Australia will give approval within the near future, at which point the conduct of the vote will be handed to the Australian Electoral Commission.

 

Provided with the letter was a “One Association – Update & Status Report” which has been appended to this report. This document provides the outcomes of recent activities as at the end of April 2012, and in addition provides responses to Frequently Asked Questions which details timing, consultation and voting issues.

 

While the progression of One Association is a positive step for local government and the critical time lines to be met, it must be noted that Council has previously raised issues with some parts of the draft constitution that have been presented for consultation.

 

Primarily these related to proportional voting rights among other minor issues. A large portion of the issues raised were addressed through the consultation process, however it is disappointing that in the final document that has been presented to Fair Work Australian for approval, Council’s overall proportional vote has been reduced. This is despite our actual delegate voting entitlement being increased from seven (7) to eleven (11). The increase in delegate numbers is attributed to a calculation aimed at achieving an equal distribution of votes between Metropolitan/Urban Councils and Rural/Regional Councils. However, in the process of equalisation of votes between both memberships, Council’s proportional vote is marginally reduced as we move from 7 out of a possible 251 votes to 11 out of a possible 502 votes (the figures used did not take into account NSW Aboriginal Land Council). Although this may be a matter that the Council may agree to in the interest of establishing a One Association and supporting the Executive it is a matter Council needs to be mindful of.

 

In addition to this, the amalgamation rules presented to Fair Work Australia make provision for members to nominate particular Councillors to have an extra vote, in the case that they have less Councillors holding office than their total entitlement to make up the difference. However, there is no provision for member Councils who are unable to fulfil their voting entitlement for other reasons. This is a concern to Council, as securing 11 available voting delegates to attend the Conference each year could be challenging and will come at an extra expense to Council.

 

Next Steps

Council now needs to nominate its voting delegates to take part in the forthcoming secret postal ballot and forward the following information to the Local Government Association by 31 May 2012:

 

·    full name of our voting delegates; and

·    the private mailing address of each delegate.

 

This information will allow the formation of the Roll of Voters. The number of voting delegates Council is entitled to is calculated using the existing rules of each Association.

 

For Local Government Association Members this depends on the member’s population and is calculated as per the scale below:

 

GROUP

POPULATION

DELEGATES

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

Group 7

Group 8

Less than 10,000

10,000 – 20,000

20,000 – 50,000

50,000 – 100,000

100,000 – 150,000

Over 150,000

County councils & Associate Members

Aboriginal Land Councils

1

2

3

4

5

7

2

27

 

Penrith City Council is considered a Group 6 Council, and as such is entitled to nominate 7 voting delegates for participation in the secret postal ballot.

 

The Association will be providing regular communications as this matter progresses which will be provided to all Councillors as they are received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on One Association - Nomination of Council's Voting Delegates be received.

2.     Council nominate seven (7) voting delegates to take part in the forthcoming secret postal ballot to deal with the matter of One Association, and that their names and contact postal addresses be forwarded to the Associations to form the Roll of Voters.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

One Association - Update & Status Report

6 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 1 - One Association - Update & Status Report

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

3

Audit Committee   

 

Compiled by:               Peter Browne, Internal Auditor

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Audit Committee is comprised of the Mayor, three Councillors and three other members.  As recently reported to Council, Professor Robert Coombes resigned as Chairperson and advised he wished to resign from the Committee following his acceptance of a demanding role at Charles Sturt University. 

 

This report recommends that Mr Darren Greentree, Director of Financial Operations at the University of Western Sydney (UWS) be appointed as an independent member of the Audit Committee.

Background

The Audit Committee was created by Council resolution in November 2006 and following preparation and selection of members, the first meeting of the Audit Committee was held in September 2007.  The Audit Committee Charter, as resolved by Council, provides:

 

The Audit Committee shall be comprised of the Mayor of the day (or a Councillor being the Mayor’s representative), three other Councillors broadly representative of the composition of the Council, and up to three Independent external members. All appointments shall be made by the Council.

 

Independent members shall be appointed for a period of two years or such other term as the Council may resolve. Members will be encouraged to serve multiple terms and to plan for an orderly rotation of members so that experienced members will always be serving. The Audit Committee should make recommendations to Council on membership.

 

In considering new independent members for the Audit Committee, advice will be sought and regard will be given to:

·    Recommendations from an accounting industry body, either CPA Australia or the Institute of Chartered Accountants;

·    Recommendations from the University of Western Sydney (endeavouring to maintain one member of the committee as a UWS nominee); and

·    The existence of a nexus between the candidate and the Penrith LGA or the Western Sydney region.

 

The non-Councillor  members of the Audit Committee membership has been constant (Robert Coombes, Frank Gelonesi and Jayant Gulwadi) from the initial appointment until this year. 

 

The Business Paper to the Ordinary Meeting of 26 March 2012 advised Council that Prof Coombes had accepted a position at Charles Sturt University and had been having difficulty meeting all his commitments.  As a consequence he had reluctantly resigned as Chair of the Audit Committee and wished to remain as a member only as long as was needed to find a suitable replacement. 

 

The report also advised that in accordance with Council’s Charter, officers intended to write to UWS, offering it the opportunity to again put forward the name of a suitable person for Council to consider for membership of the Audit Committee to replace Prof. Coombes. 

 

After considering the report, Council resolved that:

 

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

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

 3.    Council acknowledge and welcome the appointment of Frank Gelonesi as the new Chairperson of the Audit Committee and Jayant Gulwadi as the new Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee.”

 

Current Situation

Council has received a response from Prof Janice Reid, Vice Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, nominating Mr Darren Greentree for Council’s consideration for appointment to the Audit Committee.  Mr Greentree is the Director of Financial Operations at the University of Western Sydney.  He holds a Bachelor of Business Degree from Charles Sturt University, an MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management, is a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and has over twenty years management experience in both public and private sector organisations. 

 

Following receipt of the University’s letter, Council Officers met Mr Greentree to discuss the operation of the Audit Committee and confirm he understood the role he had been nominated for.

 

The term of the current non-Councillor members ends on 18 September 2013.  It is recommended that Mr Greentree be appointed to Council’s Audit Committee for an initial term ending at the same time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2.     Mr Darren Greentree be appointed to Council’s Audit Committee as detailed in the report.

3.     Council write to Professor Reid, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, thanking her for the nomination of Mr Greentree and advising of the appointment.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

4

New Residents Nights   

 

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

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate leadership, foster resilience and tenacity, and encourage innovation

Community Outcome

A Regional City that provides our jobs, education, services and entertainment (1)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides information on the feasibility of holding New Residents Nights in Penrith. The report indicates that there is capacity to introduce this event into the existing civic and community events program.

The report recommends that the information in the report on New Residents Nights be received and that the New Residents Nights commence in November 2012.

Background

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 26 March 2012, Councillor Prue Guillaume requested that a report be presented to Council regarding the feasibility of holding New Residents Nights in Penrith.

 

Over the last 22 years Council has been involved in several programs that welcome new residents to the City of Penrith.

 

In 1990, Council sponsored the “Welcome Program” which, as the name suggests involved the personal greeting of new residents to the City. This program ceased operation in early 1992 and was replaced with a similar program called Penrith Good Neighbours. This program was run by a local resident and ran until 2001 when it also ceased operation. Over the duration of this program more than 10,000 new residents were personally welcomed to the City.

 

With the recent launch of the new Penrith brand that focuses on profiling our people and places it is timely to look at how we can once again welcome residents into the City and make them feel at home and a part of our community. We want them to become active, vibrant and colourful residents who draw attention to our ever growing City of Penrith.

 

Current Situation

The idea of conducting New Residents Nights has significant merit. Obviously as new residents move in to the City they are looking to become familiar with their new surroundings.

 

When they arrive, the City and its facilities are largely unknown, they lack local area friendships and therefore find it both difficult and time consuming to become accustomed to their new surroundings. It is at this early stage of their new residency that impressions are greatest and bonds are developed.

 

A formal welcome by the Council that will help people find their way around, investigate Council facilities, schools, shops, social activities, medical services, clubs and local services in general has the capacity to create a most favourable impression that will make these new residents future advocates for Council’s services and its actions and strategies.

 

Through its own records Council can identify new residents as they come to the City and it would be feasible to conduct up to two New Residents Nights per calendar year in June and November as part of our comprehensive civic and community events program.

 

As part of the overall orientation and experience for these new residents it would be beneficial to hold these New Residents Nights on a rotating basis at various tourist venues throughout the City. Alternatively these nights could also be held at the Penrith Civic Centre.

 

Community, sporting and other relevant groups such as educational organisations/departments would be invited to attend along with various Council service providers to show new residents what it is that makes our City “tick” and how they can access the many services that are on offer.

 

The Mayor would provide a short welcome speech but other than his welcome and a brief audio visual presentation, the event would be kept informal so that new residents get the opportunity to mix and mingle with other new residents and the various service providers that are present.

 

These events could be kept to a relatively low cost by engaging local service clubs to cater by way of a sausage sizzle and their presence would also give them the opportunity to recruit new members.

 

The New Residents Nights can be built into Council’s civic and community events program and funded from within the existing marketing budgets.

 

Conclusion

New Residents Nights provide Council with an ideal opportunity to connect with its community and make a strong impression with the City’s newest residents. It is timely to introduce this “feel good” event with the introduction of the new brand and it is proposed that these nights be held twice per calendar year commencing with the first New Residents Night in November 2012.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on New Residents Nights be received.

 

2.     The New Residents Nights be incorporated into Council’s civic and community events program with the first event taking place in November 2012.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

5

Council Property - Easement for Underground Cables for Endeavour Energy over Lot 700 DP 859470 being part of Surveyors Creek drainage system, Surveyors Creek Road, Glenmore Park   

 

Compiled by:               Bob Anderson, Acting Property Development Manager

Authorised by:            Brian Griffiths, Property Development Manager

Vicki O’Kelly, Group Manager - Finance   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

Council approval is recommended for the granting of an easement for underground cables to Endeavour Energy in conjunction with upgrading services and balancing supply loads within Glenmore Park.

 

Council owns Lot 700 DP 859470 containing a total of 20.47 hectares that forms the Surveyors Creek sporting fields/community precinct and drainage system south to the Glenmore Parkway.

 

Endeavour Energy has two existing padmount substations on Lot 700 adjacent to Sunningdale Drive and Troon Court as indicated on the attached plan.  The proposed underground cable is to connect these two existing substations.  The cable would normally be laid within the road reserve, however the dedicated road reserve adjacent to Lot 700 only has a 0.5 metre wide footpath which makes it impractical.  An easement 1 metre wide is required to protect the proposed underground cable within Lot 700 DP 859470.

 

Disturbance to the Council land will be minimal as the majority of land is low lying subject to the Glenmore Park drainage system and Endeavour Energy intends to underbore rather than excavate and residents will not be affected.

 

The report recommends Council grant Endeavour Energy an easement for underground cables together with the acceptance of compensation in the amount of $12,100 plus GST.

 

Current Situation

Endeavour Energy proposes to install an underground cable to connect the two existing padmount substations on the southern parcels of Lot 700 DP 859470 in order to balance supply demand within the area.

 

The cable would normally be installed within their allocation in the road reserve, however the existing dedicated road reserve has only a 0.5 metre footpath and it is impractical to utilise.

 

Environmental considerations have been addressed in determining the location of the underground cable in conjunction with Council’s City Parks Department especially in relation to existing trees.  Endeavour proposes to install the cable by underboring rather than excavation which will minimise any impact on Council’s land and residents.

 

Whilst residences will not be directly affected, Endeavour is to letter-drop all residences opposite the proposed works to advise residents of the proposed works.  They should also be advised when the works are to be carried out.

 

An Easement for Underground Cable 1 metre wide is required to protect the works within Council’s open space as indicated on the attached plan.

 

Council’s land is classified as “community” land under the Local Government Act 1993 and the easement will have little detrimental effect on the use as open space/drainage.

 

Compensation in the amount of $12,100 (excluding GST) has been offered in line with previous cable easements granted by Council.  The amount is considered to be fair and reasonable.

 

Endeavour Energy will be responsible for all reasonable costs associated with the creation of the easement such as survey and legal expenses.

 

Summary

Endeavour Energy has agreed to pay compensation in the amount of $12,100 (exclusive of GST) for the grant of a 1 metre wide easement for underground cables within Council’s Lot 700 DP 859470.  The location within Council’s land is necessary because it is impractical to utilise the narrow footpath of the dedicated road reserve.

 

Endeavour Energy will be responsible for all reasonable costs associated with the creation of the easement such as survey and legal expenses.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council Property - Easement for Underground Cables for Endeavour Energy over Lot 700 DP 859470 being part of Surveyors Creek drainage system, Surveyors Creek Road, Glenmore Park be received.

2.     Council grant Endeavour Energy an Easement for Underground Cables 1 metre wide over Lot 700 DP 859470 Surveyors Creek Road, Glenmore Park, and Council accept compensation in the amount of $12,100 plus GST.

3.     Endeavour Energy bear all reasonable costs associated with the granting of the easements.

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Council Property - Easement for Underground Cables for Endeavour Energy over Lot  700 DP 859470 being part of Surveyors Creek drainage system, Surveyors Creek Road, Glenmore Park

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 1 - Council Property - Easement for Underground Cables for Endeavour Energy over Lot  700 DP 859470 being part of Surveyors Creek drainage system, Surveyors Creek Road, Glenmore Park

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

6

Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys   

 

Compiled by:               Bob Anderson, Acting Property Development Manager

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

Council’s approval is recommended for the granting of an Easement to Drain Water of approximately 2 metres wide over Council’s Open Space land in favour of Lot 105 DP 28389 at No. 26 Schultz Street, St Marys together with the payment of compensation.

 

The owner proposes to locate a “granny flat” at the rear of the existing dwelling and as the land slopes to the rear, a drainage easement is requested.

 

The report recommends that Council grant the easement to drain water over its land in favour of Lot 105 DP 28389 at No. 26 Schultz Street, St Marys together with the payment of compensation in the amount of $7,500 plus GST.

 

Background

Council is the owner of Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys which is dedicated Open Space that contains trunk drainage pipes, shown through the centre of the site as indicated on the attached plan.

 

Current Situation

The owner of Lot 105 DP 28389, 26 Schultz Street, St Marys, proposes to locate a “granny flat” at the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

As part of the development, there is a need to drain water to the existing Council drainage pipe within Council’s land at Lot 55 DP 28389.  The proposed easement traverses along the northern boundary of Council’s land.

 

The owner will also need to create an easement within Lot 105 to service the adjoining property to the north, to facilitate the extension of a “common drainage line” in the future.  Council will retain the right to vary or modify the easement once created to include any additional properties in the future, subject to compensation.

 

All costs of the drainage works are to be the responsibility of the developer.  Compensation payable to Council in the amount of $7,500 plus GST has been assessed which represents the benefit of the right to drain into Council’s drainage system and grant of an easement upon the title of Council’s land.  The applicant is also responsible for all survey, legal and registration costs.

 

Summary

The effect of the easement for drainage purposes will not reduce the value of the existing parcel in Council’s ownership nor adversely affect the future use of the land as Public Reserve.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys be received.

2.     Council grant an easement to drain water over Open Space land on Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys to benefit Lot 105 DP 28389, No. 26 Schultz Street, St Marys.

3.     Payment of compensation by the applicant to Council in the amount of $7,500 be required for the granting of the easement over Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys.

4.     The applicant be responsible for all drainage costs, survey, legal and registration costs associated with the creation of the easement.

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 1 - Council Property - Easement to Drain Water over Lot 55 DP 28389, No. 26 Maranie Avenue, St Marys

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

7

Insurance Renewals 2012-13 and Flood Protection of Council Building Assets   

 

Compiled by:               Ken Muir, Risk Management Co-ordinator

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

 

Executive Summary

This report provides Council with an update on the renewal of liability, property and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance with Westpool and UIP for 2012-13 and recommends the continuation of existing excesses.

 

The report also provides information on the implementation of the flood mitigation program to protect Council’s building assets that will minimise uninsured exposure (claims excesses), help contain property insurance premiums and improve our resilience to a major flood event.

 

The report recommends that the information be received, existing excesses be retained, premium contributions be paid to Westpool and UIP and the flood protection program be continued.

 

 

Background

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

 

Westpool comprises the following Local Government bodies:

§ Blacktown City Council

·    Parramatta City Council

§ Blue Mountains City Council

·    Penrith City Council

§ Fairfield City Council

·    Shellharbour City Council (July 2011)

§ Hawkesbury City Council

·    Wollongong City Council

§ Liverpool City Council

 

 

Liability cover, assessed as suitable to our exposures, is provided through Westpool. Councillor Ross Fowler OAM has been Chairperson of Westpool for the last 17 years and Chairperson of UIP for the last 3 years.

 

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

 

·    Westpool Councils

·    Lane Cove Council

·    Auburn City Council

·    Marrickville Council

·    Botany Bay City Council

·    Rockdale City Council

·    Holroyd City Council

·    Kiama City Council (July 2012)

·    Hunters Hill Council

 

 

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

 

Current Situation

Liability Insurance

Westpool’s liability program provides pooled insurance cover for public liability, and professional indemnity. The contribution to Westpool liability cover for 2011-12 for Council and its controlled entities was $898,000 with a $100,000 claims excess layer.

 

For 2012-13, Westpool has offered the following claims excess layers for liability cover:

 

Liability Claim Excess

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

Contribution 12-13

$915,000

$871,000

$829,000

 

 

The 2012-13 premium is a reduction of almost 8% on the 2011-12 premium and recognises the impact of the implementation of the Civil Liability Act and Council’s claims management processes with a $100,000 excess. The following graph illustrates the frequency and costs of claims since 2000-01. The cost of claims have significantly decreased due to the introduction of the Civil Liability Act and Council’s improved capacity to resolve claims. The frequency of claims is beyond Council’s control and the upsurge of claims in 2011-12 is predominantly due to the effect of weather on the road system.

 

 

Industrial Special Risk and General Property Insurance

Council’s Industrial Special Risk and General Property Insurance cover is due to expire on 30 June 2012. Cover is provided for insurance categories of Industrial Special Risk (ISR), fire & all risk (property only), machinery breakdown and computer breakdown.

 

In 2005, Council joined the UIP ISR self insurance program. The ISR program is underwritten by Affiliated FM Global and its parent entity FM Global. FM Global is an international mutual insurer and as such any profits are channelled back to members for risk mitigation.

 

The contribution to UIP for ISR cover for 2011-12 for Council and its controlled entities was $592,000 with a $20,000 claims excess layer. Special separate cover to address flood exposure from January to October 2012 for the Civic Centre for $81,028 was obtained through UIP’s Brokers.

 

UIP has provided variable ISR excesses for 2012-13 for Council properties excluding the Civic Centre. These are:

 

ISR Claims Excess

$10,000

$20,000

Premium Contribution 12-13

$533,000

$507,000

 

Negotiations for the Civic Centre building to rejoin the program will occur in early 2012-13 and it is anticipated that contribution credits from 2011-12 will result in no additional cost to Council for 2012-13. Nonetheless budget provisions have been made for any increases adjustments.

 

The ISR Premium for Council and the controlled entities is relatively stable. The premium calculation fluctuates as a result of market forces as well as the value of Council’s assets as a proportion the assets of all United Independent Pool (UIP) members and the claims made by Council. The effect of recent global catastrophes, including major natural disasters in Queensland, Victoria and New Zealand, to mention a few, continue to impact on the insurance market. It is expected that the impact on the general market will result in increases in the forthcoming years and it is expected that the 2013-14 premium will increase by a minimum of 10%.  It is noted that some insurers are limiting insurance cover because of flood exposures and attempts to minimise limitations are being addressed through a flood mitigation program. Further information on the flood mitigation program is provided in this report.

 

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

 

 

FY

Location

 Claim Cost

Cause

2005-06

Hickeys Lane Amenities

 $             111,319

Fire

2005-06

Andrews Road Baseball amenities

 $               65,898

Fire

2006-07

Penrith City Council

 $             202,471

Storm

2007-08

Multiple sites - Lewers, 1 Recreation Centre and 3 Child Care Centres

 $               46,579

Storm

2007-08

Penrith Pool

 $             307,667

Fire

2007-08

Harold Corr Amenities Block

 $             122,867

Fire

2008-09

Penrith City Council - loss of Depot Master Keys

 $               23,217

Theft

2008-09

Lambridge Estate Drain Security Fence

 $               15,978

Theft

2009-10

Fire Control Centre Regentville

 $               20,190

Storm

2009-10

Ched Towns Reserve Sporting Field Amenities Block

 $               25,000

Fire

2009-10

Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre (Special $10,000 excess)

$               11,000

Vandalism

2010-11

Multiple council buildings (December 2010)

 $             150,000

Storm

2010-11

Ripples Leisure Centre

 $               53,922

Storm

2010-11

Penrith City Council - Kingswood Depot

 $               47,850

Theft

2011-12

Multiple council buildings (February 2012)

$             150,000

Storm

 

Building Asset exposure to Flooding.

Council’s ISR provides cover for damage to Council buildings from flood and overland flows. In 2010-11, the flood deductible was $200,000 for each affected site and this was assessed as significant exposure to Council and UIP. In 2011-12 the policy was amended to a $500,000 excess (all sites) and cover was limited to $2 million for major sites, including the Civic Centre and Penrith White Water Stadium. For 2011-12 Council paid an additional $55,000 for unlimited flood insurance cover for the Civic Centre and risked the limited cover policy for the Penrith White Water Stadium.

 

After conducting a limited on site measurement of levels, the number of sites requiring detailed assessment was reduced from 31 to 12. The estimated costs of damages to the twelve “at risk sites” are listed in the following table. It is noted that while the Lewers Regional Gallery, included in the following list, is above expected flood levels it will be affected by a 1:100 flood event when electricity is cut to Emu Plains as part of the enactment of the local DISPLAN.

 

LOCATION

Estimate of Damage[1]

 Est Cost of protection

 Comment

Civic Centre & Library

$       6,065,960

 $      200,000

Phase 1 Underway, Phase 2 advice June 2012

PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

 $       3,838,400

 $      200,000

Consultant Advice June2012

White Water Stadium Complex

 $       3,632,800

 TBA

Consultant Advice June 2012,Cover limited to $2m

Harold Corr Oval Amenities

 $          168,000

 TBA

 

Old Council Chambers

 $       3,600,000

 TBA

Consultant Assessment 2012-13

Community Connection Building

 $       2,142,900

 TBA

Consultant Assessment 2012-13

Allen Arcade Shops & Offices

 $       1,892,000

 TBA

Consultant Assessment 2012-13

Penrith Aquatic Centre

 $          135,600

 $        10,000

Plant room only, additional assessment required

Ripples Hydrotherapy

$          300,000

 $        40,000

Regentville Hall

$          163,600

 

Marginal Affect

Penrith Senior Citizens Centre

$          180,000

 

 Marginal Affect

Lewers Regional Gallery Art Works

 $      1,147,380

 $        60,000

Damage to artworks caused by loss of power only

Total

$23,266,640.00

 

Specific preliminary risk assessments need to be conducted for each site listed above to determine what protection is viable and what specific site protection needs to be implemented. Risk mitigation for Civic Centre and recommendations for flood mitigation for Penrith White Water Stadium and JPAC are expected to be completed by 30 June 2012. Funding of $160,000 has been allocated from the insurance reserve and further funding will be required to continue implementing a protection program. Protection to the Civic Centre includes:

 

·      Purchase of 200 Floodsax for interim protection while constructing permanent barriers.

·      FM Global approved waterproof doors to protect:

Basement archives (likely not restorable through insurance)

Library

Print room

·      Basement drainage pump upgraded

·      Flood barriers for basement driveway – phase 1 constructed

·      Reflux drainage to prevent backflow of sewerage & stormwater to basement

·      Consultant engaged to identify further protection initiatives

·      Confirming “warning trigger” with power supplier.

 

It is noted that:

 

·   There are a limited number of specialised flood mitigation consultants who are endorsed by insurers

·   The product market for materiel recommended for flood mitigation is limited as materiel is predominantly manufactured overseas and is subject to sole distribution rights in Australia

·   It may not be cost effective to protect some sites, therefore sufficient funds will be maintained to cover the necessary insurance deductibles and subsequent insurance premium increases.

 

The risk management team, in conjunction with City Works, is implementing initial protection for the Civic Centre in order to gather first hand information on the risks associated with the practical issues of flood mitigation. Subsequent implementation will be managed by City Infrastructure.

 

The report on the March Quarter to tonight’s meeting recommends allocating funding of $100,000 for the next stage of the mitigation works. A further report to Council will be made on the ongoing flood mitigation works for key sites when the program is available. Further protection of locations not listed in this report will be incorporated in asset renewal programs.

 

Adopting a proactive flood mitigation strategy will improve our resilience to a major flood event over time by:

 

·    Minimising the cost of reconstruction

·    Minimising recovery time

·   Minimising an adverse impact on its reputation by planning to protect community   assets

·    Demonstrating commitment to insurers to minimise risks.

 

Motor Vehicle Insurance

UIP provided bulk comprehensive insurance motor vehicle cover for its members. This cover evolved to a self insurance pool in 2009-10 and has resulted in savings for members. The annual fleet insurance premium for 2012-13 is $209,000, a $12,000 decrease on the 2011-12 contribution. This reflects a reduced number of claims made in the last 2 years and the transfer of Rural Fire Services Vehicles to the Treasury Managed Fund.

 

Controlled Entities

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

 

Summary

Renewing insurance cover with Westpool and UIP provides appropriate levels of insurance cover and the retention of existing excesses is a cost benefit to Council.

 

The implementation of the flood mitigation program to protect Council’s building assets will minimise uninsured exposure (excesses), help contain ISR premiums and improve our resilience to a major flood event.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Insurance Renewals 2012-13 and Flood Protection of Council Building Assets be received.

2.     Council retain its $100,000 claims excess for Public Liability cover and agree to pay a contribution of $829,000 to Westpool for liability cover.

3.     Council retain its $20,000 claims excess for Industrial Special Risk and General Property cover and agree to pay a contribution of $507,000 to United Independent Pools.

4.     Council agree to pay UIP a contribution of $209,000 to the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance pool.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

8

Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012   

 

Compiled by:               Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012 and a reconciliation of invested funds at 30 April 2012.  The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Background

CERTIFICATE OF RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I hereby certify the following:

 

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

2.   Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled as at 30 April 2012.

 

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012 be received.

1.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012 be noted and accepted.

2.     The graphical investment analysis as at 30 April 2012 be noted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

temp


temp


temp


temp

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

9        Development Application DA11/1342 for proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and swimming pool and erection of a detached dual occupancy at Lot 75 DP 703021 (No. 49) Glenbrook Street, Jamisontown Applicant: Margaret J Onus;  Owner: Margaret J Onus

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A City of Opportunities

 

 

9

Development Application DA11/1342 for proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and swimming pool and erection of a detached dual occupancy at Lot 75 DP 703021 (No. 49) Glenbrook Street, Jamisontown  Applicant:  Margaret J Onus;  Owner:  Margaret J Onus    

 

Compiled by:               Steve Fryer, Contract Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

      

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for demolition of an existing dwelling and swimming pool and the erection of a detached dual occupancy development. Under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 - Urban Land (LEP), the proposal is defined as a dual occupancy. The subject is site zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) and the proposal is permissible in the zoning with Council consent. An assessment under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken and the key issues with the application are:

 

1)      The height of buildings

2)      The rear boundary setbacks as contained in the LEP

 

These issues are dealt with in more detail in the Report.

 

The application is reported to Council as it incorporates an Objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No1-Development Standards to the minimum rear setback required under the LEP. The Report recommends that the Objection be supported and that the application be approved.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the north western corner of the intersection of Glenbrook Street and Romsley Road (refer to Appendix No.1 for the Locality Plan). The site is 800 m² in area, and orientated in an east west direction, and falls to the rear corner. The site is currently occupied by a dwelling which is proposed to be demolished. The surrounding area is characterised by single dwelling residential development.

 

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

 

·    Demolition of existing dwelling and pool

·    Construction of two (2) detached x two (2) storey dwellings

·    Dwelling 1 is oriented to Glenbrook Street and Dwelling 2 is oriented to Romsley Road with vehicle access off each respective road

·    Existing tree adjacent to Glenbrook Street to be retained.

 

Please refer to Appendix No. 2 (Site Plan) and Appendix No. 3 (Elevations Plan) for detail.

 

Planning Assessment

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

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Land

The subject site is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) under the above LEP. The proposed development is defined as a dual occupancy, which is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of both the LEP and the zone itself.

 

The following table outlines the proposal’s compliance with development standards applicable under the LEP:

 

Item

Required

Provided

Complies

Cl. 11(3)-Lot size

750m2

800m2

Yes

Cl. 12 (3) & (5)- External wall height

6.5 metres (general maximum in the zone)

6.2 metres

Yes. See comments below

3.5 metres (maximum for dwelling furthest from the street where two detached dwellings are proposed)

6.2 metres

No. LEP Clause 12(6) gives discretion to approve. See comments below

Cl. 12(3)- Building envelope

Buildings are to be contained within required envelope measured from a height of 1.8 metres at the side property boundaries at an angle of 45 degrees

Minor encroachment

No. A condition is proposed to rectify this encroachment. See below.

Cl. 12(4)-Rear boundary setback

Buildings to be sited 6.0 from rear boundary

2.0 metres

No. See comments below regarding corner lot issues and SEPP No 1 Objection.

Landscaped area

Minimum 50%  of site area required

65 %

Yes

 

Comments

1)      External wall height

The LEP contains a provision in Clause 12 (5) (b) which limits the external wall height of a second dwelling which is furthest from the street to 3.5 m. The LEP does allow up to 6.5m maximum height for dwelling fronting a street. This 3.5 m maximum provision has applicability where a second dwelling is erected in a “rear yard” environment and whilst not stated in the LEP, would have the objective of minimising any intrusive visual or privacy impact of a dwelling in a rear yard. 

 

However, in this case, each dwelling is located at the same setback distance from each street frontage with separate frontage presentation to each street.  Clause 12(6) of the LEP does permit contravention of the wall height control where the application demonstrates that a variation will improve the design of the building, which is considered to be the case in this application. Because of the corner location, strict compliance with this clause is considered unreasonable where the development does not introduce any significant impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

Building envelope

The buildings are located within the required envelope with the exception of a minor encroachment by a section of the first floor wall as well as the eaves and gutter of Unit 2 adjacent to the western boundary.

 

Clause 12(6) of the LEP does permit variation of building envelope requirement where the application demonstrates that a variation will improve the design of the building. In this case compliance with the envelope would reduce the articulation of the elevation and the utility of the bathrooms proposed in this area of the building, to the overall detriment of the design building.

 

Accordingly, the minor variation proposed is considered to be justified. 

 

2)      Rear boundary setback (minimum 6.00 metres)

The lot is a corner allotment and the LEP does not define nor specify what the rear boundary is in this case. The northern and western boundaries which are not street boundaries constitute side boundaries particularly when related to the adjoining lots.

 

Whilst the LEP does not define what constitutes the rear boundary, the relevant Development Control Plan does provide for corner lots that “the rear setback………may be measured relative to the shortest residential boundary”. This provision of a DCP is not mandatory but if adopted would require Unit 2 to observe a minimum set back of 6.00 m from the western boundary of the land. However, in this proposal Unit 2 effectively has a side boundary relationship with the adjoining premises to the west and a rear boundary relationship with the premises to the north to which boundary it observes the required 6.00 m minimum set back distance (see site plan Appendix No. 2).  To address this issue the applicant has lodged an Objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No 1-Development Standards (SEPP No. 1).

 

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

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

 

The SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the provisions of Clause 12 of LEP 1998, and in particular the provisions of Clause 12(4)(a).  The relevant clause states:

 

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

 

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval for the construction of a dwelling which proposes a setback of 2.00m from the western boundary of the land (which is deemed to be the rear boundary of the land because it is the shortest boundary). 

 

In this case each dwelling has a different frontage to a street which provides for a different relationship to the property boundaries and the location of rear yards than that contemplated by the DCP.  Strict compliance with the rear setback requirement means that there is a non compliance as Unit 2 is only set back 2.00 m from the western boundary.  Unit 2 addresses Romsley Road and therefore the actual rear boundary for this unit is the northern boundary.  The dwelling is set back 6.00m from this boundary which complies with the minimum setback for a two storey dwelling.  

 

The submitted SEPP 1 objection provides the following justification to the proposed variation to the minimum rear setback. 

 

Justification for supporting a SEPP 1 objection

In presenting this SEPP 1 objection, the following comments are provided by the applicant in relation to the proposed development:

 

·    “Due to the orientation of the site and the location of the proposed buildings, no significant overshadowing to neighbouring properties will occur. The impact of a reduced setback for Unit 2 to the western boundary and on the property at 18 Romsley Road is considered to be minimal. No. 18 Romsley Road does not present any principal private open space areas or connections to living areas in the common boundary area and this side of the dwelling is only a service area with a reduced side setback. Unit 2 therefore does not impact upon No. 18 Romsley Road in relation to overshadowing and access to sunlight. No. 51 Glenbrook Street is also due north of the site and is therefore not impacted upon by the development.

 

·    The orientation of the detached dual occupancy development is considered to be correct for a comer allotment. Unit 2 can be seen to be a regular residential development on a regular shaped allotment, the correctly faces the frontage to Romsley Road, while having sufficient separation to its rear northern boundary fence line. The boundary with No. 18 Romsley Road is a service area for the lot, and should not form the private open space area for Unit 2 (by increasing this setback area). The setback of Unit 2 to the boundary with No. 51 Glenbrook Street is at a 6m setback that provides for very good solar access and limits privacy impacts on all neighbours. Moving Unit 2 closer to the northern boundary and further away from the western boundary is not seen as a logical design outcome for the site.

 

·    The layout and orientation of the detached dual occupancy development is considered to be correct for a comer allotment in relation to separation between buildings. Unit 1 & 2 are separated by a distance of 6.3m (at the closest point) which is considered a very satisfactory outcome for separation between two new buildings. By increasing the setback of Unit 2 to the western boundary, a closer separation distance between both new dwellings would occur. Unit 1 therefore presents a principal private open space area that bounds the new development and does not impact neighbouring development.

 

·    The proposed western boundary setback will not impact on any adjoining properties in relation to loss of privacy or views. No. 18 Romsley Road does not rely on any views across this western boundary setback area and there would be no difference or benefit to neighbouring development if the setback along this boundary was increased.

 

·    The development, would however, impact on the privacy of No. 51 Glenbrook Street if Unit 2 was moved away from the western boundary and closer to the northern boundary. As seen in the aerial photograph, No. 51 Glenbrook Street has a swimming pool adjacent to the northern boundary. By moving Unit 2 closer to this boundary, the perceived privacy impact of this closer setback would be significant for the occupiers at No. 51 Glenbrook Street. No such privacy impacts occur with No. 18 Romsley Road.

 

·    There are no significant trees or vegetation within the western boundary area of the site. Trees that currently exist are mainly exotic plantings (palm trees and similar) which do not provide for any suitable native flora and fauna corridor. No site environmental features are therefore affected by the development or as a result of the reduction in the setback to the western boundary.

 

·    The proposed development is considered to be a site responsive development that is compatible with existing housing development in the locality. The scale of the proposed development is not unreasonable and matches the existing housing development in the area. The height and bulk of Unit 2 is considered to be visually minimised by stepping the upper floor design (the upper floor setback to the western boundary is at approximately 3.5m compared to the ground floor 2m). Increasing the setback to the western boundary would not, as already explained, improve the privacy or amenity to the neighbours.

 

·    The reduction in the western boundary setback will still allow for appropriate private open space corridors along the rear fence line for the Unit 2 development. A total area of more than 100m2 of private open space will be available to the future residents of Unit 2 for private open space. This private open space is also well connected to internal living areas of Unit 2 (for example, the Family room) and has minimal impact on neighbouring property private open spaces.

 

·    The Jamisontown locale was not subject to the controls of PLEP1998 when the suburb was established. Therefore, development in the rear yard locations is common in the surrounding locale. Development on lots adjoining the site have structures in the rear setback areas. The impact of the development on the rear setback is therefore considered to be in keeping with neighbouring setbacks. The development is also considered to be in keeping with the scale of neighbouring development.

 

·    The reduction in the western boundary setback will not result in any impacts on stormwater disposal from the site. The objective that requires sufficient space for on-site stormwater detention is therefore not affected by the proposed development, as on-site detention is not requited.

 

·    The impact of the development and setback encroachment on landscaping provisions is considered to be not be significant. The rear setback will still allow for the appropriate establishment of landscaping on the site. Effective landscaping can therefore still occur and is not compromised by the setback encroachments.

 

The proposed development and the location of the development is therefore considered to not contravene the objectives of applying the rear setback development standard.

 

As can be seen in the above comments, the impact of the encroachment on the rear boundary setback is considered minimal. Although Unit 2 does encroach into the western setback area, the main objectives of the standard are considered to still be achieved with the intended development.”

 

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

 

The objectives for zone 2(b) Residential (Low Density) are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed dual occupancy has achieved these objectives by providing a site responsive development that compliments other dwellings in the surrounding area.  The proposal ensures that the front setback and streetscape character along both street frontages is enhanced by addressing each street frontage. 

 

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

 

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

 

Despite variation to the rear setback, the proposal will ensure attainment of the objects of the EP&A Act as it represents the most logical configuration to achieve a site responsive detached dual occupancy development.

 

In the circumstance of this corner site, and for the reasons outlined in the applicant’s submission, the SEPP 1 objection is supported.

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

An assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006-4.3 Dual Occupancy is included in Appendix 5.

 

The objectives and relevant provisions of the DCP have been satisfied.

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

The development generally complies with the objectives of the planning controls and the impacts of the development are expected to be minimal.  The likely impacts of the proposed development upon the surrounding area are discussed as follows:

Context and setting

Developments in the area are predominantly residential single and two storey dwellings of different styles and construction. The existing dwelling onsite proposed to be demolished is a two storey building and will be replaced with two storey buildings. To ensure the proposal is sympathetic to the established characteristics of the locality the applicant proposes two (2) detached dwellings with individual street frontages and has designed the proposal to comply with the majority of the design and numerical requirements and incorporated features of the existing built environment. 

 

Site design and internal design

The development represents a form of infill development and it has responded to the site constraints in a manner that results in residential development that is consistent with the existing built form.  The internal layout of the proposed dwellings would also maximise residential amenity.  Issues related to encroachment into the building envelope and variations to the rear setback and external wall length have been addressed earlier. 

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

In view of the assessment, Council can be satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed development for the following reasons:

 

·        the proposal is a permissible land use in the zone and is compatible with the surrounding residential developments;

·        the total site area is adequate for the provision of an additional dwelling to meet the housing demand in the locality;

·        the site is readily serviced by shops, schools and public transport, water, sewerage and drainage;

·        the site is not subject to flooding, contamination and bushfire;

·        the site enables design for high levels of residential amenity including solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, climatic comfort and safety and security and would not compromise that of the adjoining properties;

·        the site would promote diversity in housing type;

·        the site being a corner block enables positioning of the dwellings to address both street frontages and maintain the streetscape.

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

Referrals

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

 

Referral Body

Comments Received

Building Surveyor

No objections subject to conditions.

Development Engineer

No objections subject to conditions

 

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan for the City of Penrith 2006 – Notification and Advertising, the proposed development was notified to nearby and adjoining residents. Council notified eleven (11) residences in the area and has received one (1) submission in response.

 

The application was advertised between 9 December 2011 and 23 December 2011.

 

The following issue was raised in the submissions received and has formed part of the assessment.

 

Issue Raised

Comments

Privacy concern with windows to first floor of Unit 2.

The window to a bedroom is not considered to be of major concern however the applicant has relocated it to another wall without any overlooking concerns resulting. The other window of concern to the objector is a highlight window serving the first floor landing which has little potential for overlooking.

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

The proposal does not give rise to any significant issues of public interest. One submission was received which has been adequately addressed. It is in the general public interest to provide additional housing stock.

 

Section 94 Contributions

The following Section 94 Contribution Plans apply to the proposal and the calculations are below:

 

·       Penrith City Council Development Contributions Plan Cultural Facilities

·       Penrith City District Open Space Facilities Development Contributions Plan

·       Penrith City Council Section 94 Plan Footpath Construction in the Established Residential Areas of the City

·       Penrith City Local Open Space Development Contributions Plan

 

S.94 Contribution Plan

Contribution Rate x Calculation rate

Total

Cultural facilities

3 x $118

$354

District Open Space

3.1 x $1,686

$5,227

Footpaths

3 x $79

$237

Local open Space

3.1 x $610

$1,891

 

Net Total

$7,709

 

Conclusion

The proposal is permissible in this zone and generally meets Council’s requirements with the exception of a minor building envelope encroachment which will be resolved by condition and the rear boundary setback which will be resolved by allowance of the Objection under SEPP 1-Development Standards. Only one submission from an adjoining owner was received which has been addressed. A recommendation of approval is warranted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA11/1342 for proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and swimming pool and erection of a detached dual occupancy at Lot 75 DP 703021 (No. 49) Glenbrook Street, Jamisontown be received.

2.     The objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary the rear boundary set back distance be supported.

3.     The Development Application DA11/1342 for proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and swimming pool and erection of a detached dual occupancy at Lot 75 DP 703021 (No. 49) Glenbrook Street, Jamisontown be approved subject to the following standard and special conditions:

3.1       Standard conditions

A001 – Stamped-approved plans (including landscape plan)

A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A009 – Residential works DCP

A019 – Occupation Certificate

B002 – AS for demolition and disposal to approved landfill site

B003 – Asbestos

B004 – Dust

B005 – Mud/soil

B006 – Hours of work

D001 – Implement approved sediment and erosion control measures

D009 – Covering of waste storage areas

E001 – BCA compliance

G003 – Section 73 Certificate

G004 – Integral Energy

H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H041 – Hours of work

L003 – Report requirements

N001 – Section 94 contribution (4 separate conditions required for each applicable plan)

Q010 – BASIX Certificate

3.2      A Construction Certificate shall be obtained prior to commencement of any building works

3.3      The stormwater drainage system shall be provided generally in accordance with the concept plan/s lodged for development approval, prepared by Kneebone Beretta and Hall Pty Ltd, revision A, dated 13.2.12

The proposed development and stormwater drainage system shall be designed to ensure that stormwater runoff from upstream properties is conveyed through the site without adverse impact on the development or adjoining properties

Engineering plans and supporting calculations for the stormwater drainage system are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall accompany the application for a Construction Certificate

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the stormwater drainage system has been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works

 

3.4      Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall ensure that an additional stormwater surface pit (minimum 450 mm sq.) is located in the northern corner of the lawn area for Unit 2 and on the southern side of the landscaped garden. The stormwater surface pit is to capture and discharge any water that has accumulated by the installation of the garden edge system. The additional stormwater pit shall be connected to the proposed stormwater system

3.5      Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Roads Act application, including payment of application and inspection fees shall be lodged with  Penrith City Council, as the Roads Authority, for the following works:

a)       Provision of a vehicular crossing/s

b)      Removal of redundant vehicular crossings and reinstatement of kerb and gutter

 

All works within the road reserve shall be carried out in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works

Penrith City Council (being the Roads Authority under the Roads Act) shall approve the works completed on or over the road reserve.  Contact Council’s City Works Department on (02) 4732 7777 to arrange an inspection of the works (and payment of inspection fees, if required)

4.     Persons who have made a submission be notified of the decision.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Elevations

1 Page

Appendix

4.  

Compliance checklist: Chapter 4.3 (Dual Occupancy) of DCP 2006

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 3 - Elevations

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 4 - Compliance checklist: Chapter 4.3 (Dual Occupancy) of DCP 2006

 

 

 

3

Major Constraints to Development

What are the constraints relevant to the development?

 

There are no major constraints relevant to the development          

4

Residential Character

 

 

Item

Complies? / Comments

4.4

Does the development adopt elements of the preferred configuration for dual occupancy developments?

Yes. Both dwellings address the street and comprise 2 separate dwellings.

 

 

5

How much floor space is appropriate to your site?

 

 

Item

Required

Complies ?

5.2

Urban Form

Dwellings to be oriented to the street, individual architectural appearance, gardens to the rear, well articulated.

Yes.

5.3

Front and rear setbacks

Minimum 5.5m front and 6.0m rear setbacks required.

Yes. See comment in Development Standards re SEPP1 for rear boundary setback

5.4

Driveways and Parking

Minimum  2 spaces per dwelling

Yes. Garage and stacked space per dwelling provided

5.5

Landscaped Area

50% of site area required for landscaping.

Yes.

5.6

Building Envelope and side setbacks

As per LEP 1998.

Yes. Minor encroachment as referred to in Development Standards

5.7

Solar planning

Specified hours of sunlight to be provided to the dwellings and open spaces, including adjoining.

Yes

6

Urban Design

 

Item

Required

Complies ?

6.1

Significant townscapes and landscapes

Not applicable

6.2

Corner Sites and park Frontages

Various standards are applicable regarding setbacks, appearance and garden design.

Yes

6.3

Building design

Various architectural features are required to be incorporated

Yes

6.4

Energy Efficiency

BASIX Certificate required.

Yes

6.5

Design of dwellings and private courtyards

Minimum area and dimensions required.

Yes

6.6

Garage design

Design and locational standards are required 

Yes

6.7

Garden Design

Design standards are required

Yes. Satisfactory landscape plan has been submitted.

6.8

Paving design

Design standards are required

Yes.

6.9

Fences and retaining walls

Compatibility and height controls required

Yes.

6.10

Visual and acoustic privacy

Various privacy and noise controls required.

Yes..

 

6.11

Safety and security

A high level of passive security to be incorporated in the design.

Yes

6.12

Accessibility and Adaptability

Design to enable access by persons with impaired sight or partial mobility.

Yes

6.13

Storage and Services

Design to provide for waste and private storage space

Yes.

 

 


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

10      Investigation into opportunities for energy generation for Council and the City

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Green City

 

 

10

Investigation into opportunities for energy generation for Council and the City   

 

Compiled by:               Bernadette Riad, Sustainability Coordinator

Jennifer Moses, Sustainability Research Planner

Carmel Hamilton, Sustainability Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Ruth Goldsmith, Group Manager - Leadership  

Requested By:             Councillor John Thain

 

Objective

We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Community Outcome

A City with a smaller ecological footprint (12)

Strategic Response

Respond to the impacts of climate change, by mitigating and adapting what we do (12.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

Electricity supply in NSW has historically been dominated by the centralised generation and distribution of coal fired power through a complex electricity transmission system.  More recently however, changes in the Australian policy environment and technological developments have led to significant growth in the renewable energy sector at both the domestic and utility scale.

 

At the same time, there has been growing interest in the development of decentralised or distributed power systems to power individual facilities or small precincts.  These systems offer improved energy efficiency, and provide additional benefits in terms of providing a constant power supply that is removed from the larger distribution system.

 

With consideration of increasing energy costs and the need to manage our energy and resource use, Council continues to seek solutions to improve the sustainability of our power supply.  This report provides an overview of the options available and identifies potential opportunities for further exploration in the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA).

Background

This report responds to a request by Councillor John Thain at Council’s Ordinary meeting of 12 December 2011 for a report detailing how Council can generate its own electricity and other electricity generation alternatives.

 

Electricity supply in NSW is dominated by the centralised generation and distribution of coal fired power.  This process is highly inefficient, with only 22-30% of the energy stored in the fuel actually converted into electricity, and 5-8% of the generated electricity then lost in the transmission and distribution networks.

 


Figure 1. – Efficiency of coal fired energy generation (Source: www.hillssolar.com.au)

 

Decentralised (or distributed / local) energy generation involves establishing energy generating systems close to where the energy is used.  This can range from domestic scale photovoltaic (solar) systems of one or two kilowatts, to cogeneration of a hundred megawatts or more servicing large developments or precincts.

 

Decentralised energy systems have the potential to offer significant benefits through the avoidance of transmission losses, and the avoidance of network augmentation costs.  In some instances, there is also the potential to utilise the by-products of energy generation, particularly heat, which can significantly increase the efficiency of the system.

 

It is important to note that there are issues associated with local energy systems that need to be carefully considered.  This report details the opportunities and considerations for Council in pursuing the application of these systems for our own energy supply, and for use in our communities.

Overview of Council’s Energy Management Strategy and Energy Use

Penrith City Council has long been committed to improving the efficiency of our resource use and the sustainability of our operations.  To this end, Council has implemented a significant program of works to reduce energy use across our operations over recent years.  These initiatives have ranged from upgrades to energy efficient equipment and lighting, through to improvements to heating and cooling systems, and improvements to the thermal efficiency of our buildings.

 

During the 2010-11 financial year Council consumed a total of 83,497 GJ of energy (electricity and gas) with associated greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 23,743 tonnes of CO2-e.  The majority of this energy was sourced from traditional coal fired electricity (96%), with the remaining energy sourced through gas (3%), and accredited GreenPower (1%).

 

The costs associated with this consumption were almost $2 million, excluding the costs of street lighting which accounts for another $2.8 million (comprising both electricity consumption and maintenance charges).

 

Information provided by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal NSW (IPART) indicate that average regulated retail electricity prices will increase by around 16% across NSW from 1 July 2012 – or by between an average of 10.3% and 19.2% across different electricity supply areas.  These changes follow average increases of 10% and 17% across NSW in 2010/11 and 2011/12 respectively.

 

Further, while Council as an entity will not be directly liable for the carbon price, Council’s Financial Services Department has reported that Council is expected to be faced with flow-through cost impacts, particularly in the price of electricity.

 

While Council continues to seek improvements to its energy efficiency, research is also being conducted to explore opportunities to improve the sustainability of its energy supplies.  In particular, Council has trialled, and subsequently installed, solar technologies at a number of Council facilities and has installed a 300W micro wind turbine at Glenmore Park Family Precinct.

 

Further to this, Council engaged consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) in 2010 to assess the feasibility of the various energy options currently available and their suitability for application in Council facilities.  In general, this study found that:

·    Solar hot water heating (a form of solar thermal technology) is a highly cost effective option for a number of Council facilities and is a technology that is highly transferrable amongst the broader community.

·    Photovoltaic Solar is well suited to a large range of Council facilities, is cost effective, provides good visual demonstration and is also a technology that is highly transferrable amongst the broader community.

·    Wind speeds recorded at the Bureau of Meteorology Automatic Weather Station at Penrith Lakes indicate that Penrith has the wind resources available to support micro wind turbines, however site-specific wind and feasibility studies would be required before pursuing this further.

·    While there may be some potential in future for co-generation or tri-generation, the viability of applying these technologies requires careful consideration.  Site-specific analysis and pre-feasibility studies would also be required.

Overview of Alternate Technologies and their Associated Opportunities for Council

The range and applicability of sustainable or ‘low emission’ energy alternatives available in NSW is increasing as government and industry respond to the need for more sustainable energy supplies.  An overview of some of these technologies and their potential for Council is provided in the table below with further discussion following.

 


Table 1 - Overview of Alternate Technologies

Technology

Existing Applications in Penrith

Potential Applications for Council

Comments

Solar Photovoltaic (PV)

Childcare centres and community buildings

Additional childcare centres and other Council facilities

A relatively proven technology, solar PV is already routinely considered for new and existing Council facilities as a means of improving energy efficiency.

Large Scale Solar Thermal

None

Very limited

Although highly efficient, the required number of mirrors to reflect the sunlight to a single point makes the potential for application of this technology very limited in Penrith, due to the land required and visual amenity issues.

Small – Medium Scale Solar Thermal

Solar hot water systems have been installed at a number of childcare centres and community buildings

Additional childcare centres, community buildings, and aquatic centres

A relatively proven technology, small scale solar thermal is already routinely considered for new and existing Council facilities as a means of improving energy efficiency.

Small Wind Turbine

One micro wind generator has been installed at Glenmore Park precinct.  It is still too early to determine how successful it has been

Limited

Micro wind turbines require consistent wind speeds to make them viable.  While data from Penrith Lakes indicates there may be sufficient wind in the local area, localised feasibility studies should be undertaken on a site by site basis to confirm wind levels.  Given the uncertainty of localised wind conditions and costs involved with undertaking a wind audit, solar PV is typically a much more attractive option.

Co-generation and Tri-generation

None

Limited, but potentially at the aquatic centres

Co-generation and tri-generation show great promise as an emerging technology in Australia.  In a small scale application they are suited where there are large energy and heating requirements.  Significant research is required to ensure the system specifications are correct.

Bio-Energy

None

Very limited

There is limited opportunity for the use of bio-energy for Council, primarily due to a lack of facilities with suitable fuel at present.

Micro Hydro

None

Very limited

There is limited opportunity for the application of micro hydro for Council, as there are no Council owned properties with regular water flows.


1.       Solar Power - Photovoltaic (PV)

A relatively mature technology, the use of PV technology in NSW has grown significantly in recent years to include stand alone home power generation, and grid-connected electricity generation at both the residential and commercial scale.

 

Despite this, PV is still considered a costly alternative to traditional coal based power.  Recent assessments indicate average payback periods of around 12-14 years once current financial incentives have been factored in, although there are opportunities available to reduce these paybacks by procuring PV as a large scale project or by a framework agreement contract.

 

Solar PV is well suited for application at Council owned facilities, and has the potential for both small and large scale applications.  In recent years, Council has installed ten solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.  These installations range in size from 3-5kW, and have provided benefit in terms of both the energy generated, and in demonstrating leadership to our communities.  In 2010-11 these systems generated 106GJ of energy.

 

This technology is being installed at an additional nine facilities across the City in the current year.  Six of those systems have been funded through the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment (WaSIP) program, and three through Council’s operational budgets.

 

2.       Solar Power – Solar Thermal

Solar thermal systems harness thermal energy (heat) for either direct use or power generation and can vary from small scale water heating systems, through to large scale high temperature systems that concentrate sunlight using mirrors or lenses for electricity generation.

 

Council is currently utilising small scale solar thermal technology for solar hot water heating at a number of our facilities.  More recently, the WaSIP program has funded installation of a solar thermal water heating system at Ripples Hydrotherapy Centre, thereby significantly reducing energy consumption at this facility.  Council is also investigating the feasibility of solar thermal (and co-generation) for use within the Ripples Leisure Centre.

 

Figure 2- A solar thermal energy plant in Nevada (Source: www.german-renewable-energy.com)


 

Figure 3 - Solar thermal panels (Source: http://urbanenergy.com.au)

 

3.       Wind Power

Wind power is one of the most mature and affordable forms of renewable energy.  While the installation of large turbines is capital intensive and presents considerable planning issues in terms of amenity and aesthetics, small and micro wind turbines (1- 100 kW in capacity) are suitable for urban environments where the surrounding development is low-scale and does not present a physical barrier.

 

The wind speeds required for small and micro wind turbines vary, with some turbines operating efficiently at low wind speeds of 2.5 metres per second (m/s), although wind conditions of more than 4 m/s are generally considered optimal.

 

Data from the Bureau of Meteorology Penrith Lakes Automatic Weather Station from 1995 to 2010 indicates an average wind speed in the area of 3.3 m/s.  This information suggests that Penrith has the local wind resources available to support micro wind turbines, however site-specific wind and feasibility studies would be required before pursuing this further.

 

At this stage, Council has a small wind turbine (capacity of 300 watts) installed at the Glenmore Park Family Precinct that is used exclusively to run the pumps associated with onsite rainwater tanks.  While data from this site will be used to assist in informing further investment in wind technology within the LGA, at this stage it is too early to gauge its true financial viability.

 

4.       Co-generation and Tri-generation

Co-generation, sometimes known as Combined Heat and Power (CHP), is the simultaneous production of two forms of energy: electricity and heat from a single fuel source.  Tri-generation goes a step further and turns this heat into usable cooling by the addition of a chiller to the system to provide cooled water for air conditioning purposes.

 

These technologies can be located in close proximity to areas of demand, and can achieve an energy efficiency rating of around 70%, making them an attractive option for increasing the sustainability of electricity production.  Furthermore, in cases where excess energy is produced, this can be fed into the retail electricity network (the grid), which can help to augment the financial viability of a plant.

Figure 4 – Outline of the tri-generation process (www.cogenerationplant.com)

 

Council is currently examining the potential application of co-generation at Ripples Leisure Centre.  This process has involved researching applications in similar centres in NSW and inter-state.  While there have been a number of organisations who have pursued co-generation and tri-generation as an alternate means of energy generation, each of these organisations have taken a different approach suited to their own situation, with varying success.  An overview of some of the organisations researched and the outcome of their project is included in the table below.  Further information on these case studies can be found as an appendix to this report.

 

Table 2 – Application of Co-generation and Tri-generation

Organisation

Technology / Application

Outcome

Willoughby City Council

Installed a 165kW co-generation system at the Willoughby Aquatic Centre at a cost of $800,000.

The unit was commissioned in May 2011 and has shown significant cost savings in regards to electricity.

Maribyrnong City Council

Entered into a build-own-operate (BOOT) scheme to have a 265kW co-generation system installed at the Maribyrnong Aquatic Centre.

Commissioned in 2010, the plant provides approximately 79% of the site’s electrical needs (approximately 1,770Mh/annum) and heat delivery to the pools.

Rooty Hill RSL

Installed a 1,000kW tri-generation system at a cost of $4.5million.

Commissioned in September 2010, the system has a calculated payback period of seven years based on current electricity prices, or four years based on projected electricity increases.

Hawkesbury City Council

Installed a 360 kW tri-generation system at the Deerubbin Centre at a cost of $3.4million.

Commissioned in 2004, the system has not delivered the financial returns originally expected, with Hawkesbury City Council resolving in 2011 that the generator be switched off, and that the economic viability be reviewed in future years.

 

It is worth noting that discussions with the staff involved in these projects have served to highlight the need for careful consideration and planning prior to embarking on such significant projects.

 

Preliminary investigations to supply and install a co-generation plant at Ripples Leisure Centre propose a 142kW system which includes a natural gas powered cogeneration unit and associated heat recovery systems.  The estimate for the supply and installation of the unit is approximately $315,000, with additional maintenance costs of $20,000 per annum.  The proposed system would be utilised during peak and shoulder periods, supplying around 65% of electricity demand.

 

It should be noted that this is a preliminary assessment only, and that further investigations are being conducted to ensure Council has a solid basis of information, including a detailed feasibility study by specialist consultants, to ensure that the best available option is pursued.

 

5.       Bioenergy

Bioenergy technology extracts the chemical energy derived from recently living organisms or their metabolic by-products using conventional power generation technology, such as combustion, to produce low emission energy.  Sources of bioenergy can include agricultural crop wastes, food wastes, the organic component of municipal wastes, sewage and animal manure.

 

While Council does not currently own or operate facilities to manage biomass, discussions with waste management firm SITA indicate that it is investigating the potential installation of an electricity generation plant at the Kemps Creek site.

 

Without ownership of suitable facilities, the establishment of a bioenergy plant is beyond the normal scope of Council’s current operations.  However, this may be something that Council chooses to support with our regional partners in the coming years, should the opportunity present itself.

 

6.       Hydro Energy

·                Hydroelectricity is the generation of electricity using water.  The most common process to produce hydroelectricity is using turbines connected to generators (or turbines) at the base of dam walls, and in areas of constant running water.

·                 

In terms of the application of hydro energy technology within the Sydney Metro area, Sydney Water is using hydro-energy to generate electricity for their North Head Wastewater Treatment Plant, Woronora Water Filtration Plant, and the Prospect Reservoir Pipeline.  Eraring Energy also owns and operates a 50 megawatt hydro-electric power station at Warragamba which generates green power when there is a high level of water in Lake Burragorang.

 

Based on initial investigations, it would appear that there is limited opportunity for Council to utilise hydro energy due to a lack of Council-owned sites that have sufficient water flow and where there is also the potential to utilise the energy that is produced.

Local Government and Decentralised Energy Generation and Distribution

In recent years there has been significant interest in decentralised energy generation and distribution, particularly by local governments.  In a decentralised energy generation model, electricity is produced in close proximity to the local network to which it supplies energy.  Due to the reduction in transportation and distribution required, this achieves considerable increases in efficiencies.

One of the most well publicised examples is the UK council of Woking, which has established a decentralised energy system.  This has taken it off the grid, cut their energy use by nearly half, and reduced their CO2 emissions by 77%.  Following Woking’s success there has been a significant amount of interest regarding the establishment of localised energy generation and distribution.  The most significant project in this regard is the plan put forward by the City of Sydney in 2009 to establish a network of local tri-generation systems to supply the City of Sydney local government area with low-carbon electricity and zero-carbon heating and cooling.

Last year, the City of Sydney invited energy companies to tender for the build and operation of a network of tri-generation systems to supply electricity, heating and cooling to the City’s five aquatic centres, the Town Hall precinct and Customs House, and the remainder of its 200-plus buildings.  The request for tender also included an option to supply tri-generation to privately owned buildings in the City, with the aim of eventually providing 360 megawatts or more of tri-generation to buildings throughout the City.

However, due to the complexities surrounding the building of Australia’s first ever network of tri-generation systems, and the rigidity of local government tender processes, no bids conformed to all tender specifications.  Council has since signed a ‘heads of agreement’ with Cogent Energy for the construction and operation of the tri-generation network, including public and private buildings within four precincts of the City.

A number of regulatory barriers have been encountered by City of Sydney in taking this project forward.  In addition to the requirement for a retail licence, its report to the Corporate, Finance, Properties and Tenders Committee of 28 November 2011 states that participation in Australia’s National Energy Market presents a significant economic barrier to the deployment of decentralised energy in Australia.  The agreement with Cogent Energy works around this issue by partnering with an existing licensed electricity retailer to trade surplus energy on the distribution network.

While this project is of a significant scale, it acts to highlight both the potential, and the significant challenges, of establishing decentralised energy systems to supply multiple users.  Council will monitor closely the progress of this project as it moves to the construction and operational phases.  The process is sure to provide valuable information to other local governments that are interested in pursuing decentralised power sources for their communities.

Policy and Legislative Considerations

There is a wide range of planning legislation and supporting government policy relating to the implementation of energy producing technology.  The applicability of this legislation however, depends largely on factors such as the type of technology being employed, the size of the plant or system, and commercial arrangements relating to the sale of generated power.

 

The Electricity Supply Act 1995 encompasses the licensing requirements for the electricity market in NSW.  The regulatory bodies which enforce the Act are the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and the Department of Industry and Investment.

 

Should Council wish to supply external customers with electricity generated from a Council owned co-generation plant, Council would be required to obtain an electricity retail supplier’s license which is a complex process that currently comes at significant expense.

 

A co-generation owner is required to obtain an electricity retailer supplier’s licence if they wish to supply external customers with electricity themselves.  As part of this they are required to pay an application fee, and submit an application that is assessed in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW).  IPART will undertake a public consultation process about the proposed application, with the final decision to be made by the Minister for Energy.  When this has been approved, the supplier will have to meet the required obligations, such as compliance reporting and potential audits.  Annual licensing fees are also payable.

 

An alternative approach which does not require a retail licence is to export energy to the grid through arrangements with an energy retailer and the network utility.  Under such an arrangement, Council would negotiate to meet certain standards for connection to the network with the network service provider.  However, it should be noted that such agreements have historically proven to be problematic and costly.

 

A recent report commissioned by the Property Council of Australia (2011) has identified the inefficient connection process as a significant barrier to the deployment of cogeneration systems within Australia.  This includes uncertainty around timelines, the lack of a standard application procedure and requirements, as well as uncertain and high costs of connection.

 

Further to this, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 establishes that for electricity works that exceed set criteria, organisations must obtain a licence from the EPA.  For a cogeneration system in the Sydney Metropolitan area (which includes Penrith) a licence is required for a gas turbine of more than 20 megawatts, or an internal combustion piston engine (such as a reciprocating gas powered engine) which is 3 megawatts or larger.  The likelihood of this being applicable for a system installed by Council is low, but worth noting.

Other Options for Assisting our Communities

In addition to investigating energy generating systems, Council has been actively pursuing a number of other opportunities to assist our communities to reduce their energy use and make use of small scale energy generation technologies to reduce their energy costs.

 

Council recently provided information to support an application for Federal Government funding by a new start-up company looking to trial domestic scale micro-cogeneration technologies.  This project, if successful, will act to improve the energy efficiency of low income households within the Penrith LGA while also providing significant financial benefits.  An announcement on the grants program is expected in June 2012.

 

Discussions have also been held with local developers interested in establishing local energy generation as part of new greenfield developments within the City.

 

More recently, Council has been approached by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) with an offer of funding to investigate the feasibility of establishing an Environmental Upgrade Agreement (EUA) program (Policy Review Committee Meeting of 7 May 2012).  This program would support the owners of commercial and industrial properties in installing sustainable energy solutions in their buildings by providing an alternate funding scheme with financial benefits for building owners and their tenants.

 

Opportunities for the inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in new commercial and industrial developments are also being actively promoted.  The potential to trial an online tool which provides additional assistance to developers interested in improving the sustainability performance (including energy management) of their buildings, is currently being investigated.

Conclusion

Penrith City Council has invested considerable effort in recent years in improving the energy efficiency of our assets and operations.

 

Despite these efforts, the continued growth of our asset base and services means that Council is still a significant consumer of energy.  Looking forward, it is crucial that Council, and our communities in general, continue to seek opportunities to improve energy efficiency and pursue more efficient technologies for energy generation and supply.

 

Moving forward, Council will continue with the implementation of a research-based energy program.  This will include the ongoing installation of proven renewable energy technologies such as solar PV and solar thermal hot water heating as resources permit, combined with a consolidated program of research into the feasibility of more specialised or emerging technologies.

 

At present, these investigations will largely focus on the application of specialised solar thermal technology and co-generation at the Ripples Leisure Centre, as preliminary assessments into the feasibility of these technologies have been positive.  Additional investigation into the application of other forms of renewable energy is still required, and will be conducted as opportunities and resources become available.

 

Establishing local energy generation projects to benefit the City’s communities will require the development of strong partnerships, and is seen as the next phase of Council’s energy program.  This approach recognises that, as an emerging area, significant regulatory and other barriers still need to be addressed.  These projects will also involve a higher level of investment and associated risks and will therefore require considerable research, planning and resources.

 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Investigation into opportunities for energy generation for Council and the City be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Co-generation and Tri-generation Case Studies

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 1 - Co-generation and Tri-generation Case Studies

 

temp


temp


temp

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

11      Western Sydney Carpool Project - Service Agreement

 

12      Proposal for Additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas

 

13      Council's delegation to manage parking within 1km of designated train stations

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

11

Western Sydney Carpool Project - Service Agreement   

 

Compiled by:               Walter Sinnadurai, Transportation Planner

Lauren Cowell, Engineering Services Secretary

Authorised by:            Adam Wilkinson, Engineering Services Manager   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

A City with an integrated local road and pathways network (16)

Strategic Response

Implement effective traffic and parking responses (16.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the proposal by Western Sydney Community Forum (WSCF) to enter into a Service Agreement for the continuation of the Western Sydney Carpool Project. The aim of the agreement is to ensure operation of a robust Western Sydney Carpool (WSC) project with a fully supported service managed by the WSCF. It is proposed that Council enter into a three year ongoing agreement to continue to support the WSC project with other organisations entering into similar arrangements. The report recommends that the project continue to be supported through the allocation of funding over a three year period.

Background

Council, at its Ordinary Meeting on 11 October 2010, considered a report relating to the process of introducing the WSC project for Western Sydney by Transport for NSW with the project management undertaken by WSCF. The report recommended that the project be supported through the allocation of funding over a two year period (2010-11 and 2011-12). The report highlighted that this project aims to:

 

·   Reduce single car occupancy in Western Sydney

·   Reduce demand for parking

·   Reduce road congestion

·   Reduce environmental impacts

·   Save money for motorists.

 

Council approved funding for participation in the WSC project and has continued to support the project through available resources.

 

Council, at its Ordinary Meeting on 7 February 2011, considered a report requesting the implementation of carpool parking signage for members of the proposed WSC. The report recommendations were adopted at the meeting and the approved parking signage was implemented within the Civic Centre Carpark.

 

 

 

 

Current Situation

WSC has been in the project pilot phase working with the employees of the ‘initiating partners’ from Western Sydney. This pilot phase included the development and testing of the matching database (WSC website) and introduction of branded priority car parking spaces in partner managed car parks across Western Sydney, including in the Wentworth Street car park in Parramatta and Council’s Civic Centre car park in Penrith. The database has over 500 participants from which to develop the carpooling network.

 

A co-ordinated launch took place on 15/16 March 2012. The launch was promoted via media coverage on television, radio, local newspapers and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) banners on State Road Bridge overpasses. On 15 March 2012, the State Parliamentary Secretary for Western Sydney and the Lord Mayor of Parramatta initiated the launch.

 

The local community launch by Penrith Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, was held on 16 March 2012. The local media and representatives from Western Sydney Community Forum and the University of Western Sydney were in attendance.

 

Service Agreement

WSCF has formally requested Penrith City Council to enter into a Sydney Carpool Service Agreement to provide $5,000 per year, for three years (2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15), to administer the Western Sydney Carpool project. The Parramatta City Council, NSW Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Office of State Revenue, Rouse Hill Town Centre and Western Sydney Community Forum have committed to enter similar agreements. The UWS Kingswood Campus, TAFE and Dept of Aged Care and Disability are presently considering the proposal.

 

WSCF Responsibilities under the Agreement

This joint support ensures a robust project which will provide a fully supported service managed by the WSCF.  The WSCF will provide the following services under this agreement:

 

·        Provide an internet-based, carpool matching service for staff

·        There will be no direct cost to Council staff for the matching service

·        Council staff will be able to access the service via a special drop-down           menu on wscarpool.org which identifies them with their organisation

·        Council staff who become registered service users will receive a   membership card and car sticker

·        Provide customer and technical support for registered service users and          stakeholders

·        Provide all the branding products required for use as part of the WSC   project including branded promotional materials

·        Provide templates for branded parking signs and road markings.

 

Council Responsibilities under the Agreement

The Transportation Planner will actively participate in the project to promote it amongst Council’s staff. Council will be responsible to:

 

 

·        Provide signage and promotional materials within their organisation and to promote the WSC project

·        Ensure staff understand the nature, scope and limit of liabilities of the WSC project as described in the terms and conditions on the wscarpool.org website

·        Ensure all payments set out in the agreement are paid according to the  agreed
          schedule.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

WSCF is seeking a financial contribution of $5,000 per year from Council for three years to provide a fully supported service to ensure the project is managed and delivered effectively to the community.

 

Funding could be made available through the Car Parking/Traffic Facilities Reserve for this project.  Although not directly aligned with the purpose of this reserve, the intent and desired strategic outcomes of this project would suggest that this could be a source of funding for this project, as it would impact the overall parking needs of the City. 

 

If Council is of a mind to support this proposal, an allocation of $5,000 will be included in the 2012-13 Operational Plan scheduled for adoption at Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 25 June 2012.

 

Conclusion

The need to identify, promote and implement sustainable transport initiatives is paramount as we develop as a Regional City. Given Council’s planned population and employment growth, the introduction of a Regional-based carpooling framework is a positive move and one which should be supported at all levels.

 

Through the introduction of the WSC project, Council has the opportunity to respond to and address several sustainable transport outcomes for the City and the Region.

 

There are a variety of community benefits, which will significantly help individuals and the environment. Council would also benefit from positive promotion as a result of the implementation of this sustainable transport initiative.

 

It is recommended that Council continue to support the Western Sydney Carpooling project, as promoted by WSCF, through the allocation of $5,000 per year, for three years, from the Car Parking/Traffic Facilities Reserve, and support be provided through the project’s development and implementation phase.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Western Sydney Carpool Project - Service Agreement be received.

2.     Council enter into a Service Agreement with Western Sydney Community Forum for the management of the Western Sydney Carpool Project.

3.     An allocation of $5,000 per year, for three years, (2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15) be approved to continue to support this initiative with funding being made available through the Car Parking/Traffic Facilities Reserve.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

12

Proposal for Additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas   

 

Compiled by:               Allison Kyriakakis, Community Safety Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager  

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)

Strategic Response

Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

Council currently has a total of sixty-one (61) alcohol-free public space locations across the Penrith Local Government Area. This includes thirty-seven (37) Alcohol Free Zones (suitable for public roads, footpaths and car parks) and twenty-four (24) Alcohol Prohibited Areas (suitable for parks, reserves and public open spaces). These areas have been established to promote responsible social behaviour in public spaces where there are identified issues of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

 

The Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership, at its meeting of 28 March 2012, agreed to submit seven (7) additional alcohol free public space locations for Council’s consideration and these are detailed further in this report.  This includes two (2) Alcohol Free Zones and five (5) Alcohol Prohibited Areas.

 

The locations were identified through consultations with Penrith and St Marys Police and key community stakeholders through the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership.  Council’s Public Domain and Parks staff have also completed monitoring at these sites to ascertain levels of alcohol bottles and other litter that may warrant their establishment as alcohol free public spaces. 

 

The report recommends that Council support the progression of a consultation period for the newly proposed Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas to be further outlined in this report.

Background

Legislation

Alcohol Prohibited Areas

Following the introduction of the Local Government Amendment (Confiscation of Alcohol) Act 2010 in December 2010, Alcohol Prohibited Areas can be established and are enforced under Section 632A of the Local Government Act 1993 - Confiscation of alcohol in certain public and other places.

 

Council may declare any public place or any part of a public place (such as a park or reserve), to be an Alcohol Prohibited Area, apart from spaces which are a public road (or part of a public road) or car park as these are enforced as Alcohol Free Zones under section 644 of the Local Government Act.

 

Under Section 632A a police officer may seize any alcohol (and the bottle, can, receptacle or package in which it is contained) that is in the immediate possession of a person in an Alcohol Prohibited Area if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person is drinking, or is about to drink, or has recently been drinking alcohol in the Alcohol Prohibited Area.

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas may be declared alcohol prohibited at all times (24 hours), or only for specific days, times or events. The Alcohol Prohibited Areas proposed in this report are recommended to be 24 hours.

 

Alcohol Free Zones

Alcohol Free Zones can be established and are enforceable under section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993. Alcohol Free Zones can be established on public roads, car parks and footpaths.

 

Alcohol Free Zones shall be enforced as per Sections 642, 644, 645 and 648 of the Local Government Act 1993. The Police are responsible for enforcing Alcohol Free Zones.

 

Alcohol Free Zones are in operation 24 hours per day seven (7) days per week and can be installed for a period of one (1) to four (4) years.

 

Procedures for establishing Alcohol Prohibited Areas and Alcohol Free Zones

Under current legislation, Alcohol Prohibited Areas are to be established in accordance with the same guidelines set out in Section 646 of the Local Government Act 1993, which relate to the establishment of Alcohol Free Zones. 

 

In the interests of consistency, Council’s Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy also includes that the same process will be followed for the establishment of both Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

The procedures for establishing Alcohol Prohibited Areas and Alcohol Free Zones are outlined as follows:

 

1.   Advertising of the proposed locations and requesting community comment

2.   Advising holders of liquor licences adjacent to intended Alcohol Prohibited Areas

3.   Advising and obtaining approval of the Local Police Commander

4.   Consultation with community groups

5.   Advising the Anti-Discrimination Board of the intention to establish the zones/areas

6.   Consideration of any representations made in respect of the establishment of the zones/areas.

 

Following Council’s approval to progress with the abovementioned procedure, advertisements will be placed in local media inviting community comment on the newly proposed Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas. Correspondence will also be sent to local licensed venues adjacent to the proposed Alcohol Prohibited Area/s or Alcohol Free Zone/s, community groups and the Anti-Discrimination Board seeking comment.

Proposed location/s for the establishment of Alcohol Free Zones

1.   Car Park and footpath that incorporates a bus stop (adjacent to Progress Way) located on Pendock Road, Cranebrook.

 

2.   Carson’s Lane Car Park, Carson’s Lane, St Marys, incorporating the section referred to as ‘Bowler’s Place Car Park’. 

 

3.   The area of Melville Road, St Clair, from Moore Street to Onslow Street.

 

4.   The area of Moore Street, St Clair, from Melville Road to Macarthur Street.

 

5.   The area of Macarthur Street, St Clair, from Moore Street to Onslow Street.

 

The abovementioned proposed locations 3, 4 and 5 have been included following the proposed Alcohol Prohibited Area on the public reserve located on Melville Road, St Clair.

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 12 December 2011, it was approved by Council that a consultation process be commenced for the establishment of an Alcohol Prohibited Area at this location following approval for a liquor outlet in the adjacent Melville Road shopping centre. The consultation period for this Alcohol Prohibited Area has been carried out, with no objections received.

 

Representations were however received from St Marys Local Area Command requesting that the streets surrounding the reserve (Moore Street, Macarthur Street and Melville Road) also be established as Alcohol Free Zones. 

 

This area will be included in a future report to Council following the consultation period for all new Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas.

 

Proposed location/s for the establishment of 24 hour Alcohol Prohibited Areas

1.   Victoria Park, Great Western Highway, St Marys (This location is currently an Alcohol Prohibited Area from 10.00pm-8.00am. It is recommended to extend this to 24 hours).

 

2.   Park located on Illawong Avenue, North Penrith.

 

3.   Jack Jewry Reserve, Waratah Street, St Marys.

 

4.   Werrington Creek Park, Werrington. (This location is currently an Alcohol Prohibited Area from 10.00pm-8.00am. It is recommended to extend this to 24 hours).

 

5.   Allsopp Oval, Oxford Street, Cambridge Park. (This location is currently an Alcohol Prohibited Area from 10.00pm-8.00am. It is recommended to extend this to 24 hours).

 

The proposal to establish the abovementioned Alcohol Prohibited Areas and Alcohol Free Zones has been identified following consultation with local Police and other stakeholders through the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership. Monitoring has also been conducted at each location by Council staff to determine levels of alcohol bottles and/or other forms of litter that may indicate trends of alcohol consumption or alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

 

The establishment of these spaces as alcohol-free would assist in addressing any potential for alcohol related antisocial behaviour by enabling police to seize and confiscate alcohol from persons in the designated area/s. 

 

Signage will clearly denote the areas which are identified as alcohol-free, and will clearly state the hours and dates that the alcohol prohibition will be in place. 

 

In accordance with other Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas in the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA) the proposed Alcohol Prohibited Areas are proposed to expire in June 2013, to enable a review of these locations in conjunction with other areas.

 

Community Consultation

As outlined earlier in this report, Council’s Alcohol Free Public Spaces Policy outlines the steps required for the establishment of Alcohol Prohibited Areas and Alcohol Free Zones in accordance with New South Wales Ministerial Guidelines and legislation under Sections 632A, 644 and 646 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Following approval to progress with the consultation process to establish an Alcohol Prohibited Area at the proposed location, advertisements will be placed in local media inviting community comment on the proposal. Correspondence will also be sent to local licensed venues adjacent to the proposed locations seeking comments. A further report will be submitted to Council at the end of the consultation period.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposal for Additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas be received.

2.     Council support the progression of a consultation period for the newly proposed Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas outlined in this report. 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

13

Council's delegation to manage parking within 1km of designated train stations   

 

Compiled by:               Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure

Authorised by:            Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

A City with an integrated local road and pathways network (16)

Strategic Response

Implement effective traffic and parking responses (16.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

The report highlights the implications of the delegations to Council’s Local Traffic Committee which prevents the implementation of parking restrictions on current all day parking spaces within 1km of designated railway stations, without the approval of the Roads and Maritime Services.  This came to light as a result of the difficulties being experienced in establishing timed parking in Billington Place, Emu Plains.

 

The NSW Government has the primary responsibility for providing parking for rail commuters.  Unrestricted public parking provided by Council is now being controlled by Transport for NSW and preserved for commuters, potentially at the expense of local workers and businesses.

Background

Council received a petition from local businesses in Emu Plains last year requesting the implementation of parking restrictions in Billington Place, Emu Plains.  This was on the basis of commuters using Emu Plains station now taking up most of the available parking in the public carpark at the rear of the shops.  The limited parking availability is starting to affect the viability of the businesses as their customers have nowhere to park.

 

The Billington Place carpark has a total of 145 spaces on land that was acquired by Council for the purpose of car parking approximately 40 years ago.  Some of the parking has been funded through development contributions by the surrounding businesses. This carpark is somewhat remote from the station and there are 449 dedicated commuter parking spaces on the northern side of the station and 207 on the southern side.

 

The Local Traffic Committee considered this request and supported the proposal by the business owners for 61 spaces to be restricted.  Approval was recommended, subject to approval being received from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) as the carpark is within 1km of a designated train station.  The Local Traffic Committee’s delegation of functions by the RMS is restricted in this regard.

 

In January 2012, Council receive correspondence from RMS refusing the request for parking restriction at Billington Place carpark.  This refusal was on the basis of a current review of carparking requirements around Railway Stations by Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

 

In February 2012, Council resolved to prepare a further detailed submission to Transport for NSW seeking their urgent review and reconsideration of the request for 61 parking spaces at Billington Place, Emu Plains.  Council further resolved to write to the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Roads and the Local Members of Parliament to seek a review of the parking requests around railway station including Emu Plains.

Current Situation

On 30 April 2012, Council received the following advice from the RMS:

 

“The Roads and Maritime Services have been advised by TfNSW, as follows:

 

TfNSW assess that the provision of 24 (4P) timed parking spaces at Billington Place carpark will be both proportionate encouragement to commuters to further utilise the recently constructed Commuter Carpark, and of community benefit to both the local residents and businesses.  A plan of the carpark showing the relevant spaces is attached to this letter.”

 

Council officers requested further advice from TfNSW regarding the process of determining 24 spaces rather than the 61 requested by Council.  A TfNSW representative advised by email that:

 

“Essentially it is a balancing act.  Looking at the map of the carpark and location of obvious one to one change, and 24 spaces appeared to be a reasonable numeric compromise between my initial instincts to preserve the cost/benefit ratio behind building the 2010 Commuter Carpark and the desires of Council and other interested local parties.”

 

“the cost/benefit ratio that justifies TfNSW building commuter carparks at all is partly based on not losing any existing parking”.

 

The precedent established by the approval process for the establishment of parking restrictions at Billington Place represents a significant challenge to Council.  This parking area is owned by Council and has been developed over time primarily to meet the needs of residents and businesses in the surrounding precinct.  It is somewhat remote from the station and was never intended to support parking for rail commuters which is primarily the responsibility of the NSW Government.  The restriction on the delegation of the Local Traffic Committee in relation to a 1km radius around designated stations, now means that Council has little say in the management of this carpark.

 

The restriction primarily applies to current all day parking.  Council can modify current parking zones but not impose restrictions that might limit parking for commuters.

 

Other scheduled railway stations that the 1km restrictions applies to include Penrith, St Marys and Werrington.  The impact of this, for example, means that all currently unrestricted public parking areas within the Penrith CBD are captured in this zone.  The 1km radius extends as far as the intersection with Henry and North Street and the Centro Shopping Centre on Station Street.  A map of this zone is attached.

 

A detailed audit of parking in the Penrith CBD is currently underway in accordance with Council’s adopted Parking Strategy.  The expectation is that parking restrictions will need to be established in some of the all day parking areas, in particular to try and limit the impact of commuters progressively taking up more of these areas.

 

Meetings have been requested with TfNSW to better understand its process of planning for and managing commuter carparking.  Advice has been conflicting to date.  For example the initial refusal for Billington Place was based on a current review by TfNSW.  On further enquiry, there did not appear to be a specific review, just an ongoing process of managing commuter carparking.

 

It is of concern that the current restrictions on Council’s Local Traffic Committee’s delegation means that TfNSW are now micro managing all parking within 1km of designated stations.  In the Billington Place example, they not only appear to consider all unrestricted parking, as primarily for rail commuter, they also want to dictate where we can place parking restrictions when they are approved.

 

It may be appropriate for this restriction on Council’s ability to manage its public parking within 1km of railway stations to be clarified with the NSW Transport Minister.

Conclusion

The experience in attempting to establish appropriate parking restrictions at Billington Place, Emu Plains has raised significant concern about the process.  Council has lost significant control of all currently unrestricted parking both in carparks and on-road within 1km of Emu Plains, Penrith, Werrington and St Marys Stations by way of the restriction on the delegations given to the Local Traffic Committee.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Council's delegation to manage parking within 1km of designated train stations be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Penrith Station 1km Radius

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Penrith St Marys Carparks

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 1 - Penrith Station 1km Radius

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Appendix 2 - Penrith St Marys Carparks

 

temp

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

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



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday May 21 2012

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                        1

 

2        Personnel Matter - Senior Staff Matters

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lot 414 DP 862828 at Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook

 

4        Commercial Matter - The Temporary Carpark at Rodgers Street, Kingswood

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     21 May 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

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

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

 

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

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

The matters and information are the following:

 

(a)                personnel matters concerning particular individuals;

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

·                          reveal a trade secret.

 

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

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

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

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

The grounds must specify the following:

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

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

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

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

The process which should be followed is:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:

 

A Leading City

 

2        Personnel Matter - Senior Staff Matters

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

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Lot 414 DP 862828 at Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Liveable City

 

4        Commercial Matter - The Temporary Carpark at Rodgers Street, Kingswood

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

 

 

 


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 21 May 2012

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

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

Report Title:                2011-12 Operational Plan - March Quarter Review

Attachments:               2011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    21 May 2012

Attachment 1 - 2011-12 Operational Plan, Services Performance and Financial Review Summary

 

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

 


 

ATTACHMENT       

 

 

 


Date of Meeting:          21 May 2012

 

Delivery Program:       A Leading City   

 

Program:                      Corporate Finance

 

Report Title:                 2011-2012 Voted Works

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Generally 40% building damage & 80% content damage as estimated by FM Global.