20 July 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 23 July 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 - 9 July 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

Request for Council to write to the Minister for Planning and Local MP's.

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 27 June 2012.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 2 July 2012.

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 23 July 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                          

                
          

 
   


Council_Mark_POS_RGB2012 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2012 - December 2012

(adopted by Council on 21 November 2011, amended by Council 9 July 2012)

 

 

 

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

6

(7.00pm)

3ü

(7.00pm)

15∞

5

10

(7.00pm)

 

20#@

26

23v

21#

25*

23

20#@

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 9 JULY 2012 AT 7:34PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM for the period 7 July 2012 to 15 July 2012 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 25 June 2012

155  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 25 June 2012 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 2 July, 2012 as she owns property that may be affected by the report. Councillor Greenow indicated that she would leave the room for consideration of the item.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee declared a Non Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 10 - State Black Spot Program 2012/13 - Funding Offer as one of the streets subject to the funding, adjoins a street where she owns property. Councillor Presdee indicated that she would not participate in any discussion on this item.

 

  Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 13 June 2012     

156  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 13 June, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

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

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest Councillor Jackie Greenow left the meeting, the time being 7:40pm.                                                                                                                                

157  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 2 July, 2012 be adopted with the exception of  Recommendation 5 in the recommitted Item 1 - Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan – Unresolved Matters which read:

5.    The planning approaches recommended in Attachments 9 and 10 (Penrith Health and Education Precinct, Kingswood and the North Penrith Residual Sites) be applied in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP for the purpose of public exhibition.

To now be deferred for further discussion at the next Councillor Briefing and to be brought back to the next Ordinary Meeting on 23 July 2012.

 

 Councillor Jackie Greenow returned to the meeting, the time being 7:44pm.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

3        2012 Local Government Association Conference                                                           

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2012 Local Government Association Conference be received

2.     Council nominate its seven (7) voting delegates to attend the 2012 LGA Conference to be held in Dubbo from 28 - 30 October 2012, at the first meeting of the new Council, after the Elections are held on 8 September, 2012.

3.     Council give consideration to the nomination of observers to attend the 2012 LGA Conference, at the first meeting of the new Council, after the Elections are held on 8 September, 2012.

4.     Council sponsor up to three (3) Aboriginal observers, nominated by the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, to attend the 2012 LGA Conference.

 

 

1        Sydney International Rowing Regatta 2013-14                                                              

159  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sydney International Rowing Regatta 2013-14 be received

2.     Further reports on Council’s role in the Sydney International Rowing Regatta be provided as the Sydney International Rowing Regatta approaches. 

 

 

2        Amendments to the Council's 2012 Meeting Calendar                                                  

160  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Amendments to the Council's 2012 Meeting Calendar be received.

2.     The 2012 Meeting Calendar be amended to provide for an Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 6 August 2012 and commence at 7.00pm.

 

 

4        Tender Reference 11/12-13, Provision of Catering Services                                          

161  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11/12-13, Provision of Catering Services be received

2.     King Henry’s Court Pty Ltd be appointed as the preferred contractor for the provision of Catering Services for Evening Meals and Internal Staff Catering for an initial period of two (2) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods (with provision for rise & fall) subject to satisfactory performance.

3.     Red Bean Café Pty Ltd be appointed as the preferred contractor for the provision of Catering Services for the Coffee Cart for an initial period of two (2) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods (with provision for rise & fall) subject to satisfactory performance.

 

 

5        New Residents Nights                                                                                                        

162  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

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

2.     The new residents nights commence in November 2012 as a stand alone event as part of Council’s comprehensive community and civic events program.

 

 

6        Loan Borrowings Report                                                                                                  

163  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the information contained in the report on Loan Borrowings Report be received.

 

 

12      Loan Borrowings - supplementary report                                                                       

164  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the information contained in the report on Loan Borrowings - supplementary report be received.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

7        No Boundaries - Additional Funds for Light Rhythm Plays                                         

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on No Boundaries - Additional Funds for Light Rhythm Plays be received.

2.     Council endorse the receipt of $40,000 from the NSW Government Arts and Disability Partnership program for the No Boundaries project.

 

 

13      Appointment of Joint Regional Planning Panel representatives                                   

166  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Appointment of Joint Regional Planning Panel representatives be received.

2.     Council appoint The Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies and Councillors John Thain and Mark Davies as alternate representatives to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for an interim period up to the Council election on 8 September 2012.

3.     Council consider and appoint Council’s representatives to the Joint Regional Planning Panel at the first Council meeting following the Council election for the next three year period.

 

 

A Green City

 

8        Follow Up on the Domestic Waste Bin Roll-Out                                                             

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Follow Up on the Domestic Waste Bin Roll-Out be received.

2.     The Waste & Community Protection Manager and the Legal & Governance Group Manager be authorised to negotiate with SITA the supply and distribution of new organics bins.

3.     The Council’s General Manager be authorised to negotiate and secure a loan in the amount of $1,395,520 over a five year repayment period.

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

 

 

A Liveable City

 

9        Participation in the NSW Litter Prevention Initiative                                                    

168  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Participation in the NSW Litter Prevention Initiative be received.

2.     Council endorse the participation in Stage 1 of the NSW Litter Prevention Initiative and acceptance of the funding from the OEH/ EPA in the amount of $5,000.

 

 

10      State Black Spot Program 2012/13 - Funding Offer                                                      

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on State Black Spot Program 2012/13 - Funding Offer be received.

2.     Council accept grant funding of $150,000 offered for successful projects 2, 3 and 4 shown in Table 1, under the 50/50 State Funded Black Spot Program for the 2012/2013 financial year.

3.     Council match the grant funding of $150,000 from its 2012/13 Traffic & Transport Facilities Program.

4.     Council write to the Minister for Roads and our Local Members thanking them for their continued support and assistance towards improving road safety.

5.     Council write to the Local State and Federal Members thanking them for the funding.

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

11      Funding Application - Community Builders Program 2012                                          

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Funding Application - Community Builders Program 2012 be received.

2.     Council endorse the grant application for the Penrith New Urban Areas Community Development Project for funding under the State Government Community Builders Program 2012.

 

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Backyard Pool Fencing                                                                                            

Councillor Robert Ardill requested a report to Council, concerning Council’s potential liability over non-compliant pool fencing.

 

RR 2          Parking Issues, Glossop and Brisbane Streets                                                       

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested a report to the Local Traffic Committee concerning parking issues as a result of newly constructed town houses which make it hard to manoeuvrer vehicles in the afternoons.

 

RR 3          Access Ramps                                                                                                           

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested a report to the next Policy Review Committee meeting concerning the potential purchase of Access ramps for residents/shops and any implications, including ongoing maintenance.

 

RR 4          St Marys Combined Pensioners 79th Birthday                                                     

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested that Mayoral letters of congratulations be sent to recipients of certificates at this function attended by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

 

RR 5          Blue Hills - Wetlands                                                                                                

Councillor Prue Car requested a memo reply concerning the maintenance schedule of Blue Hills, Wetlands.

 

RR 6          Webcasting of Council Meetings                                                                             

Councillor Prue Car requested a report to a Policy Review Committee meeting concerning the feasibility of webcasting Ordinary Council meetings.

 

RR 7          Judges Place Car Park                                                                                            

Councillor Kath Presdee requested that a report be brought to the Local Traffic Committee investigating the approaches in relation to Judges Place Car Park – particularly regarding the one way traffic in and out. Residents have provided feedback about the lack of signage and speeding which have put pedestrians at risk.

 

RR 8          Cranebrook Park - Toilets                                                                                      

Councillor John Thain requested a memo reply concerning the opening of the toilets at Cranebrook Park. Councillor Thain requested that Council staff ensure the toilets are opened and that discussion take place with nearby residents who may be able to assist with locking the toilets.

 

RR 9          Road Repairs - Kingswood and Caddens Road, Orchard Hills                           

Councillor Karen McKeown requested a memo reply to East and South Ward Councillors concerning investigating the need for repairs on Kingswood and Caddens Road, Orchard Hills and whether or not these roads are on the resurfacing or resealing program.

 

RR 10        Petition Concerning Oakland Parade Park                                                           

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM tabled a petition from residents who reside in the vicinity of Oakland Parade Park which requested better maintenance of the long grass in the park, removal of trees around the edge of the park and consideration of the installation of play equipment. Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested a memo reply to all North Ward Councillors and a report to the next Council Meeting be prepared addressing the matters raised.

 

RR 11        Ploughman Crescent - Drainage Issues                                                                  

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested Council investigate and prepare a letter to the resident and memo to all North Ward Councillors on the condition of drainage pipes or other issues which may be causing flooding in this area.

 

RR 12        Trinity Drive - Trees                                                                                                

Councillor John Thain requested a memo reply concerning the affect of trees which block the line of sight of vehicles turning from Northern Road into Trinity Drive.

 

RR 13        Factory Road                                                                                                            

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memo reply concerning other potential solutions to ensure safety of residents who utilise Factory Road to access the Nepean River. Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a costing be provided on whether an extra section of tar or a maintained nature strip may be feasible.

 

RR 14        South Creek Park                                                                                                    

Councillor Greg Davies requested a memo reply investigating options that can be undertaken to lift the appearance of the park, and  possibly a landscaping plan which may incorporate housing the Bennett Wagons.

 

URGENT BUSINESS

 

UB 1          Cambridge Park Naidoc Week - Funding                                                             

Councillor John Thain requested that $200 be allocated from North Ward Voted Works for the Cambridge Park Naidoc Week.

171  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

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

172  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that $200 be allocated from North Ward Voted Works for the Cambridge Park Naidoc Week.

 

UB 2          Nepean Legacy Annual Badge Day                                                                        

Councillor Karen McKeown requested that $125 be allocated from both South and North Ward Voted Wards towards the Nepean Legacy Badge Day to assist with transportation.

173  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor John Thain that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

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

174  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor John Thain that $125 be allocated from both South and North Ward Voted Wards towards the Nepean Legacy Badge Day to assist with transportation

 

UB 3          Bus Seat - Stafford Street and Castlereagh Street, Penrith                                 

Councillor Karen McKeown requested that $6,500 be allocated from South Ward Voted Works to provide a bus seat at the corner of Stafford Street and Castlereagh Street, Penrith.

175  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

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

176  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Mark Davies requested that $6,500 be allocated from South Ward Voted Works to provide a bus seat at the corner of Stafford Street and Castlereagh Street, Penrith.

 

UB 4          Replacement Mower for Life Education                                                               

Councillor Greg Davies requested that Council donate a ‘second hand’ Toro Zero Turn out front mower that is scheduled to be auctioned, to the Colyton Life Education Unit to support the services that they provide to the community and that Council allocate $2000 from East Ward Voted Works to compensate Council’s Plant Replacement Fund for funds that would have been secured at auction for this piece of plant.

177  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

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

178  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow that Council donate a ‘second hand’ Toro Zero Turn out front mower that is scheduled to be auctioned, to the Colyton Life Education Unit to support the services that they provide to the community and that Council allocate $2000 from East Ward Voted Works to compensate Council’s Plant Replacement Fund for funds that would have been secured at auction for this piece of plant.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:22pm.

 



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 and farewell to Brother Stan Rossato

 

2        Council wins Bronze at the Australasian Reporting Awards

 

3        Passing of Mona Pizarro

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Leading City

Mayoral Minute

Thank you and farewell to Brother Stan Rossato

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

           

 

I would like to give a heartfelt thank you on behalf of our City to a community stalwart, Brother Stan Rossato.

 

With Brother Stan having been farewelled from St Marys, I would like to recognise his many contributions, notably his work at the Don Bosco Youth and Recreation Centre in St Marys.

 

Since its inception in the early 1990s, Penrith City Council and our community have been long standing supporters of the Centre, which Brother Stan played a major role in establishing.

 

Brother Stan’s passion for providing a safe place for young people to feel connected and valued has made him a household name. From running sports games to helping local families organise birthday parties and celebrations, Brother Stan was always available for the 2,000 young people welcomed to the Centre each week as well as the diverse community and school groups who used it. He was a key driver of many successful outcomes for Don Bosco, expanding the Centre and its services.

 

It should be noted that Don Bosco has become a model for other facilities around the world seeking to mirror its success. In this way and in many others, Brother Stan has inspired our Penrith community and made it a better place, earning him a Wall of Achievement award in 2001.

 

Brother Stan also participated in the Penrith Youth Interagency and networked with a range of organisations to help young people.

 

I wish Brother Stan well in Melbourne and salute his incredible career. He has made lifelong friendships and will be missed.

 

   

Councillor Greg Davies

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Thank you and farewell to Brother Stan Rossato be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Leading City

Mayoral Minute

Council wins Bronze at the Australasian Reporting Awards

Strategic Objective: A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

           

 

Penrith City Council’s 2010-11 Annual Report received a Bronze Award at the recent Australasian Reporting Awards. To receive the award, Council’s report was required to be of a high standard and meet demanding criteria set by the ARA. The Awards were announced at the ARA Awards Presentation Dinner on 7 June.

 

Penrith City Council is strongly committed to open and transparent reporting about its extensive services and programs and emphasis was placed on both Council’s achievements and challenges during the 2010-11 financial year.

 

The theme for the report was “48 services” recognising that from babies to bitumen, Council provides an incredible 48 services to its community. The report gave an excellent insight into the role of Council working for ratepayers and residents.

 

The annual report was produced as a hard copy document with a handy interactive CD comprising all Council’s key current strategic documents, delivery program, operational plan and full financial statements. The document was also posted on Council’s website. The document was compiled, designed and printed entirely in house to reduce production costs.

 

 

 

Councillor Greg Davies

Mayor

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Council wins Bronze at the Australasian Reporting Awards be received.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Vibrant City

Mayoral Minute

Passing of Mona Pizarro

Strategic Objective: A City with people and places that are inclusive, foster creativity, and celebrate diversity (20)

           

 

Mona Pizarro, a long term Penrith resident who dedicated much of her life to helping senior citizens, passed away on 16 July at the age of 80.

 

Mona volunteered with the Penrith Senior Citizens Centre for more than 28 years and during this time served as volunteer coordinator, canteen supervisor and as a member of their Management Committee.

 

Mona received a number of awards for her community service including Penrith City Councils Wall of Achievement for Community Service in 2001 along with the Premier’s Award and the Commonwealth Recognition Award for Seniors.

 

On behalf of Council I offer our deepest sympathies to her family and friends. I know Mona will be sadly missed by them, and by the community she served.

 

 

Councillor Greg Davies

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Passing of Mona Pizarro be received.

 

 

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Notices Of Motion

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Request for Council to write to the Minister for Planning and Local MP's

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

 

1          Request for Council to write to the Minister for Planning and Local MP's            

 

 

Councillor John Thain TO MOVE:

 

“That Council urgently write to the Minister for Planning and Local MP’s seeking clarification on whether the new green paper concerning Planning Proposals will override the current LEP’s in the gateway process or the LEP being undertaken by Council, and where it leaves Section 94 Plans in the current planning process and cap”.

 

 

  


 

 

 

 

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 27 June 2012

 

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Liveable City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership MEETING

HELD ON 27 June, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Julie-Anne Downie, Needle and Syringe Program; Ken Innes, Glenmore Park Action Group; Glenn Cooper, University of Western Sydney; Brad Element, St Marys Local Area Command; Ray Filewood, St Marys Local Area Command; Ben Feszczuk, Penrith Local Area Command; Katerina Tahija, Penrith City Council; Judy Cobb, Penrith City Council; Olivia Kidon, Penrith City Council; Allison Kyriakakis, Penrith City Council; Erin Davidson, Penrith City Council; Gina Field, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce; Owen Rogers, Penrith City Centre Association; Tracy Leahy, Penrith City Council; Christine Donzow, Department of Juvenile Justice; James Brown, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Area Health District – Drug and Alcohol; Julie Graham, Penrith Local Area Command; Grant Healey, Penrith Local Area Command.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Kaylene Allison for the period 28 May 2012 to 8 July 2012 inclusive.

 

APOLOGIES

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Greg Davies; Councillor Kaylene Allison; Councillor Karen McKeown; Kylie Chang, St Marys Local Area Command; Murray Halls, Penrith City Council; Yvonne Perkins, Penrith City Council; David Burns, Penrith City Council; Julie Page, Needle and Syringe Program; Gai Hawthorn, Penrith City Centre Association; Karen Quinn, Penrith Youth Interagency; Kylie Druett, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Area Health District – Drug and Alcohol; Darryl Jobson, St Marys Local Area Command; William Pass, Penrith Youth Interagency; Kristy Williams, St Marys Local Area Command.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 28 March 2012

The minutes of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting of 28 March 2012 were confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Review of Key Strategy Development and Project Development                                  

1.    Additional Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas

Allison Kyriakakis reported that a 30 day consultation period has commenced for the establishment of a number of newly proposed Alcohol Free Public Spaces within the Local Government Area, inviting comments until 7 July 2012.

 

In addition to these newly proposed zones, an additional request was received from St Marys Police to consider the establishment of an Alcohol Free Zone along the southern end of Forrester Road. The location received repeated reports to St Marys Police regarding alcohol related antisocial behaviour and loitering.

 

Consultation for the proposal of an Alcohol Free Zone at this location has already commenced and this location will be also included in an upcoming report to Council along with the other proposed Alcohol Free Public Spaces.

 

2.    The Mondo Community Safety Project

Olivia Kidon provided an update on the Mondo Community Safety Project and informed the Partnership of the additional strategies that had been put in place by key stakeholders following an assault in the Mondo area on 7 June 2012.

 

Stakeholders including Council, Police and Westfield have made a commitment to provide increased supervision in the space and will continue to focus on positive youth engagement. Olivia advised the group that approximately 200 – 300 young people continue to attend the green space each week with no reported incidents prior to the recent assault. 

 

Olivia also advised that Council has committed to assessing the current levels of lighting and upgrading to a more adequate level.

 

Katerina Tahija further advised that a branding strategy has been developed to promote awareness about the Mondo Community Safety Project so that other members of the community and passers-by are aware that the activities are structured and supervised. Katerina showed T-shirts, wristbands and hats with the ‘M’ brand that have been developed for workers and volunteers to wear so they can be identified as staff or volunteers. Banners will also be displayed on Thursday nights.

 

Katerina also advised that Council is meeting with a group of peer leaders and stakeholders in the coming week to discuss a code of behaviour for the space and other peer engagement strategies and opportunities.

 

Olivia asked the Partnership what they perceive the impact on safety would be if the Civic Space was to be upgraded. The group agreed that physical upgrades would have a positive impact on safety by generating activity and increased use of the space, however this would depend on the design. The group also agreed that lighting was an issue and would need addressing in any future upgrade of the space.

 

Ben Feszczuk advised that in his experience people do feel safe in the space due to Police presence. Ben also advised that he felt that engaging a local peer group to establish some rules around acceptable behaviour in the space would be of value.

 

Ray Filewood raised the importance of communication about the Mondo Project to local retailers and agreed that a branding strategy would assist with this. In addition to the branding strategy, flyers for customers and retailers would lift the profile of the project and increase awareness.

 

Ben advised that there is a retailers Facebook group however it has been difficult to encourage retailer involvement. Ben advised that there would be benefits to providing some information about the project and other activities on the Facebook group page to encourage membership.

Katerina advised that retailers are increasingly becoming more involved and aware of young people in and around the shopping centre, as they are willing to organise a retail careers evening.

 

Julie Graham advised that some retailers in the Plaza had raised the issue of people feeling unsafe due to the gathering of young people on walkways.  Katerina further advised that this is often attributed to the muddy conditions of the grassed area, meaning that the footpaths are often the most comfortable spaces for people to gather. Measures are being put in place to ease congestion on pathways to allow easy passage for other users.

 

Grant Healey spoke about the importance of activating the space to link services and get the most benefit out of the space as the current design does not encourage community use.

 

3.    Additional Green Screening works

Allison advised that additional ‘green screening’ was being carried out by Council in identified parks and reserves in the Penrith Local Government Area based on data from Council’s graffiti database. This aims to minimise graffiti to fences backing onto public space, and is in addition to the recent planting under the NSW Government’s CPTED Graffiti Hotspot Program. Planting will be carried out in the winter months.

 

Allison further advised that the State Government has allocated funding to continue the Graffiti Hotspot Program in its latest budget announcement, although it is unclear at this stage whether Council will be eligible to apply for additional funding due to Council being a previous recipient of this funding in 2011.

 

4.    Red Cross Anniversary Park

Olivia advised that new bollard lighting was installed in Red Cross Anniversary Park following irreparable vandalism to previous lights.

 

 

5.    Relocation of portable CCTV cameras

Allison advised that the trial of the portable CCTV cameras at Cambridge Park Hall and Leonay Oval is now complete.  Allison advised that the cameras have now been relocated and installed at Mt Vernon public space in response to repeated incidents of vandalism and antisocial behaviour reported by nearby residents As the location is isolated a gate will be installed to restrict vehicle access to the car park at night which may assist in minimising these issues.

 

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

 

2        Update on the Development of a new Community Safety Plan                                    

Olivia provided the Partnership with an update on consultation for the new Community Safety Plan. Olivia advised that an online survey was posted ‘live’ on Council’s website on Thursday 19 June. To date, 184 surveys have been completed online and 14 printed surveys have been completed and returned to Council.

 

Olivia advised that the survey is open to people who live and work in or visit the Penrith Local Government Area and is being promoted widely to encourage participation. Olivia encouraged the Partnership to promote the survey to their colleagues and networks.

 

Allison provided the Partnership with a short summary of data collected from surveys submitted to-date. Some key themes were identified in relation to perceptions of crime and safety.

 

Allison advised that the majority of the responses were coming from people living or working in Penrith and suburbs located at the western end of the LGA, and that more efforts would be concentrated on encouraging more participation from other areas.

 

Allison advised the majority of respondents to date were in the 35-49 age bracket and efforts are being made to direct consultation efforts towards local young people.

 

Grant suggested that it would be useful to cross-reference the data with the latest census data for demographic purposes, given that Penrith has a large youth population.

 

Allison advised that a more detailed overview of results would be provided at the September meeting of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Update on the Development of a new Community Safety Plan be received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regular Items

 

A)  Police Statistics

 

 

Penrith Local Area Command Crime Statistics - March 2012 to May 2012

 

Ben Feszczuk provided a brief overview on the trend of crime statistics for Penrith Local Area Command as no statistics were available due to technical difficulties.

 

Ben mentioned that two significant alcohol outlets in the Penrith City Centre are now closed and this has seen a significant decrease in after hours crime.

 

 

St Marys Local Area Command Crime Statistics - March 2012 to May 2012

 

Crime Category

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

Assault

96

95

81

Robbery

13

15

18

Break & Enter

77

60

58

Stealing

147

118

159

Steal Motor Vehicle

30

18

35

Malicious Damage

108

90

77

Drug Detection

26

14

21

Traffic Offences

446

442

437

Motor Vehicle Accident

94

58

80

 

Brad Element provided the crime statistics for St Marys Local Area Command.

 

 


B)  What’s in the Media?

 

April to June 2012

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

 

GB 1          Penrith Police Facebook Page                                                                                 

Julie Graham advised that Penrith Police has 4792 ‘likes’ to their Facebook page. Julie advised that she will post the community safety survey with a link to the online survey and encourage followers to complete it. If anyone else would like an activity advertised please contact Julie as she updates the crime prevention pages.

 

 

GB 2          Cyber Safety                                                                                                             

Grant Healey advised that cyber safety and cyber bullying are increasingly becoming an issue and is seeking ideas on how to advocate for online safety. Two (2) forums were held at schools recently and it was identified that more education is required for parents to assist them with monitoring online use and behaviours.

 

 

GB 3          NAIDOC                                                                                                                    

NAIDOC will be held next Friday, 6 July. Council is hosting a free event at Jamison Park. Police and community organisations are involved. For further information please contact Tracy Leahy.

 

 

GB 4          Penrith Community Health Centre Syringe Vending Machine                           

Julie-Anne Downie advised that Penrith Community Health Centre is closed for renovations for the next three months. The needle and syringe disposal bin and needle vending machine will not be available. Julie is trying to make arrangements with on site workers to grant access but this is unconfirmed at present. An alternative needle and syringe disposal bin is available in East Lane, St Marys.

 

GB 5          Department of Attorney General and Justice - Proceeds of Crime Act Funding         

Olivia Kidon advised that Council was unsuccessful it its application for funding under the Department of Attorney General and Justice Proceeds of Crime Act grants program. The application was submitted for the installation of a security fence around the perimeter of the Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre.

 

GB 6          NRMA Community Grant                                                                                      

Olivia Kidon advised that the Nepean Domestic Violence Network had submitted a funding application to the NRMA Community Grants scheme for a Reclaim the Night march. The submission sought funding to support this event with the Nepean Domestic Violence Network for a march/rally in Queen Street, St Marys during October.

 

Unfortunately, this funding was unsuccessful and the Network has postponed the event until 2013 when they will again seek funding. This year they will support the Hawkesbury Network and assist in organising a Reclaim the Night event in the Hawkesbury.

 

The Network is also working on a ‘toilet door campaign’ to raise awareness around domestic violence. Olivia advised that the Network has also applied for funding under the ClubGRANTS program. If this funding is unsuccessful then the project can be adapted without funding and can still be delivered.

 

GB 7          Graffiti                                                                                                                      

Owen Rodgers raised the issue of graffiti and the NSW State Government legislation in addressing graffiti vandalism. A general discussion followed regarding opportunities to lobby State Government concerning graffiti legislation. An overview of Council’s current graffiti minimisation strategies was also provided.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7.55pm.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 27 June, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Liveable City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 2 July, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager – City Infrastructure, Emma Lawton – Trainee Engineer, Ruth Byrnes – Senior Traffic Officer, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Constable Bill Pearson – Penrith Police, Patrick Conolly – Representative for Member of Mulgoa, Councillor Karen McKeown, Ross Grove – Representative for Member for Penrith,

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Paul Maynard – Ranger.

 

APOLOGIES

Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager. Deputy Mayor – Councillor Jackie Greenow, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co-ordinator, Matthew Sherrington – Penrith Police, James Suprain – Roads and Maritime Services, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 4 June 2012

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 4 June 2012 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Station Street, Penrith - Proposed Implementation of ‘No Parking’ Restrictions       

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Station Street, Penrith - Proposed Implementation of ‘No Parking’ Restrictions be received.

2.     ‘No Parking’ restrictions be implemented for a distance of 25 metres on the northbound kerb side of Station Street, directly opposite the southern entrance and exit of the Centro Shopping Centre and the adjacent tyre centre; approximately 95 north of Ransley Street.

 

 

 

2        Forrester Road, North St Marys – Implementation of 'No Stopping' Restrictions     

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Forrester Road, North St Marys – Implementation of 'No Stopping' Restrictions be received.

2.     ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be implemented on Forrester Road, 10 metres south of Griffiths Street to 10 metres north of Commonwealth Crescent (south), being a distance of approximately 65 metres.

3.     Council’s Rangers be requested to enforce parking around the existing bus stop on Forrester Road, between Commonwealth Crescent (north and south).

 

4.     Councillor Marko Malkoc and the resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

5.     The property owner and/or resident of number 1 Griffiths Street and any other affected residents be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

3        Second Avenue, Kingswood - Proposed Extension of Restricted Parking Area Scheme outside UWS Kingswood Campus                                                                                   

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Second Avenue, Kingswood - Proposed Extension of Restricted Parking Area Scheme outside UWS Kingswood Campus be received.

2.     Restricted Parking Area Scheme ‘Park in Marked Bays Only’ concept be developed and community consultation be conducted with affected residents and businesses in streets where inclusion in the scheme is deemed warranted. The concept for extending the scheme and results of the consultation to be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

3.     The existing ‘No Parking’ zones in Anthony Crescent and Morphett Street, Kingswood be reviewed in conjunction with the Restricted Parking Area Scheme ‘Park in Marked Bays Only’ concept.

4.     Affected property owners and the residents who made the submissions be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

4        Oxley Park - Implementation of 5 Tonne Load Limit                                                    

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Oxley Park - Implementation of 5
 Tonne Load Limit be received.

2.   Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services requesting approval for the
  implementation of a ‘No Trucks’ with 5 Tonne Load Limit for Oxley Park.

3.   When approval is received from the Roads and Maritime Services, the
proposal be advertised in the local papers and Government Gazette for a
 period of 2 weeks.

4.  Following the notification period, a ‘No Trucks’ sign with 5 Tonne load limit be implemented, under Rule 104 of the Australian Road Rules, on the roads within, but not including, the area bounded by Hobart Street, Melbourne Street, Glossop Street and the Great Western Highway, Oxley Park.

 

5        Oxford Street, Cambridge Park - Proposed Relocation of 'Bus Stop'                          

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Oxford Street, Cambridge Park - Proposed Relocation of 'Bus Stop' be received.

2.     Subject to consultation with St. Paul’s Anglican Church, the ‘Bus Stop’ currently located on the boundary of property numbers 175 and 177 Oxford Street be relocated approximately 65m east, outside the Church.

3.     The Minister and Church wardens at St Paul’s Anglican Church be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

6        Nariel Street, St Marys - Proposed Installation of 'No Stopping' Signage at Intersection with Carinya Avenue                                                                                                                 

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Nariel Street, St Marys - Proposed Installation of 'No Stopping' Signage at Intersection with Carinya Avenue be received.

2.     ‘No Stopping’ signage be installed for 10m at kerb returns at the intersection of Nariel Street and Carinya Avenue, St Marys.

3.     The resident be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

7        High Street, Penrith - Penrith Police Station, Extension of Police Parking Area        

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on High Street, Penrith - Penrith Police Station, Extension of Police Parking Area be received.

2.     ‘No Parking – Police Vehicles Excepted’ outside of the Penrith Police Station be extended approximately 20m west.

3.     ‘No Parking – Penrith Police First Response Vehicles Excepted’ signage and markings be provided at the eastern end of the existing Police parking (approximately 11m) to replace the existing ‘No Parking – Police Vehicles Excepted’ restrictions.

4.     The Penrith Police Commander and Area Manager be advised of Council’s Resolution.

 

 

8        Laycock Street Extension, Cranebrook - Associated Road Extension, Roundabout and Traffic Facilities Plans                                                                                                       

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Laycock Street Extension, Cranebrook - Associated Road Extension, Roundabout and Traffic Facilities Plans be received.

2.     Plan numbers 9043/CC22, 9043/CC21-E and 9043/CC23-E by J. Wyndham Prince be endorsed.

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

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

 

 

9        Coonawarra Drive and Bennett Road, St Clair - Proposed Median Island Stop Treatment incorporating Pedestrian Refuge                                                                                     

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Coonawarra Drive and Bennett Road, St Clair - Proposed Median Island Stop Treatment incorporating Pedestrian Refuge be received.

2.     Community consultation be conducted with affected residents regarding the design, in particular the loss of parking associated with the facility and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections, Design Plan AC 261 for installation of a Median Island Stop Treatment (MIST) incorporating a pedestrian refuge on Coonawarra Drive at Bennett Road, St Clair be finalised and endorsed for construction.

4.     A street lighting assessment be undertaken and lighting upgrades provided as required.

 

 

 

 

 

10      Swanston Street and Monfarville Street, St Marys – Proposed Median Island Stop Treatment incorporating Pedestrian Refuge                                                                  

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer informed the Committee that advice had been received from the Roads and Maritime Services, that additional funding is available for this project under the State Blackspot Program.

 

As such, Council’s Design Section will be requested to review the plans to meet the conditions of the funding offer. Once the plans have been reviewed, the plans will be referred back to the Committee.

 

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Swanston Street and Monfarville Street, St Marys - Proposed Median Island Stop Treatment incorporating Pedestrian Refuge be received.

2.     The matter be deferred and referred back to the Committee following further review of the plans.

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Railway Road, Emu Plains – ‘Park in Marked Bays’ Scheme (Raised Council)

The Local Traffic Committee at its meeting on 7 May 2012 considered a report on “Billington Car Park, Emu Plains – Provision of 4P Parking Restrictions”. The report considered, amongst other things, the provision of a ‘Park in Marked Bays’ Scheme in Railway Row, Emu Plains.

 

The request for a ‘Park in Marked Bays’ scheme originated from a resident (via Councillors McKeown and Fowler) who has difficulty entering and leaving their driveway, as a result of commuters who park all day to catch the train from Emu Plains Station, park up to or partially across the resident’s driveway.

 

Investigations were undertaken into providing the scheme for the on-street parking on Railway Row and Station Street South. This determined that there is currently potential for 31 vehicles to park on the street. The provision of a ‘Park in Marked Bays’ scheme would allow for 29 vehicles to park on the street due to the numerical standards set for bay sizes and driveway off sets in the associated Australian Standards. This would be a reduction of two spaces over all.

 

Whilst the provision of a ‘Park in Marked Bays’ scheme is one way to guide drivers to park clear of driveways, another option is to provide ‘No Stopping’ or ‘No Parking’ restrictions. This is not always the preferred option where parking restrictions would be in isolation to other parking restrictions or where these restrictions are only provided to keep driveway access clear. However, in this case the driveway of concern currently has a ‘No Stopping’ (left arrow) sign to the left (eastern side) of their driveway to stop vehicles from parking on an adjacent sweeping bend.

 

The existing ‘No Stopping’ sign could be relocated 1.5m to the right (western) side of the driveway which would not only provide a regulatory ‘No Stopping’ restriction to the driveway and keep it clear of parked vehicles, but will also provide an additional cleared area to the sweeping bend. It is acknowledged that the initial (minimalist) approach would address the prevailing concerns of cars blocking this particular driveways and sight distance issues.

 

Council Officers discussed this matter with the resident who advised that they had no objections to the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions being relocated. It is considered that the provision of signage will provide a better level of protection to the subject driveway from parking vehicles. It was considered that a simple relocation of the ‘No Stopping’ sign was to be more preferred than a ‘Park in Marked Bays’ scheme and at a substantially lesser initial budget outlay and with lesser ongoing maintenance. Whilst the provision of a ‘Park in Marked Bays’ scheme can be reserved for on-street parking around schools, universities and hospitals.

 

In addition, the resident raised a matter on behalf of their neighbour who has a layback with no formed driveway to their property, where vehicles regularly park. Council Officers investigated this matter and confirmed there is no evidence of cars accessing this layback and the resident uses an adjacent formed driveway beside their property. Council Officers were unable to contact this particular resident, however their neighbour who raised this matter, advised that it was of minor concern and it was originally raised some time ago, however does not appear to be an ongoing issue given the alternative access arrangements via the adjoining driveway.

 

RECOMMENDED

 That:

 

1.      The existing ‘No Stopping’ (left arrow) sign located in front of property number 4 Railway Row, Emu Plains be relocated to 1.5m west of the driveway of property number 4.

2.      The provision of a ‘Park in Marked Bays’ scheme in Railway Row be deferred.

3.      The two residents be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GB 2          Kerrs Road/Mt Vernon Road, Mt Vernon – Intersection
                   Improvements (Council Raised)                                                                              

Council has been provided funding under the Mt Vernon S94 Plan for intersection improvements to Kerrs Road/Mt Vernon Road, Mt Vernon. Council’s Design Section has now provided a design plan for intersection improvements. The report recommends that the Design Plans (AK53 sheets 1-4)  be endorsed for construction. Council’s Design Section has advised that the device is designed in compliance with relevant standards including Roads and Maritime Services Technical Directions and supplements.

This report therefore seeks to endorse the signs and lines plan and proposed device as per Design Plan (AK53 sheets 1-4). The proposal, together with the subject signs and line marking plan is submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for endorsement.


As with all new facilities on public roads, a lighting assessment will need to be undertaken.


RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.   Design plans (AK53 sheets 1-4) be approved for construction.

2.   Key stakeholders in the area be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

GB 3          Queen Street, St Marys – Endorsement of Blackspot Design Plans                    

Council has been provided funding under the 2012/13 Nation Building Blackspot Program for safety improvements to Queen Street, St Marys. Council’s Design Section has now provided a design plan for two raised thresholds at existing pedestrian crossings and fencing on Queen Street, St Marys. The report recommends that the Design Plans (AQ 13 sheets 1-3) be endorsed for construction. Council’s Design Section has advised that the device is designed in compliance with relevant standards including Roads and Maritime Services Technical Directions and supplements.

This report therefore seeks to endorse the signs and lines plan and proposed device as per Design Plan (AQ 13 sheets 1-3). The proposal, together with the subject signs and line marking plan is submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for endorsement.


As with all new facilities on public roads, a lighting assessment will need to be undertaken.

Council’s Parks and Gardens department have confirmed removal of a tree is approved if the tree is replaced with a new tree of a similar species.

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.   Design plans (AQ 13 sheets 1-3) including fencing be approved for
construction.

2.   Key stakeholders in the St Marys area be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

GB 4          Barber Avenue/Parker Street, Kingswood – Roads and Maritime
                   Services Fencing Proposal (Council Raised)                                                           

The Local Traffic Committee previously raised pedestrian safety concerns at its meeting on 2 April 2012 due to a fatal accident involving a pedestrian at Parker Street and Barber Avenue, Kingswood, and at its Ordinary Meeting on 23 April 2012, Council resolved on the recommendation of the Committee, in part, that:

 

2.“Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services and provide “in principle” support for the provision of central median pedestrian fencing along Parker Street, between Great Western Highway and Derby Street, Penrith, and request that funding be allocated to these works by the Roads and Maritime Services as a priority.”

 

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer advised the Committee of a proposal by the Roads and Maritime Services to provide 105m of fencing along Parker Street near Barber Avenue, Penrith and changes to Traffic Signals at the Parker Street and Great Western Highway intersection, Penrith. The Committee unanimously rejected the proposed works due to inadequate assessment information contained in the Roads and Maritime Services letter and concern that the proposal would create secondary road safety issues.

The Committee felt only part of the safety issues along Parker Street would be addressed by the fencing proposal and that a dangerous desire line would be inadvertently created where the fencing ended, south of Barber Avenue. Council originally provided, in principle, approval for the fencing for the full length between the Great Western Highway and Derby Street, Penrith.


RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services not supporting the implementation of 105m fencing along Parker Street at Barber Avenue, Penrith and the change to Traffic Signals at the Parker / GWH intersection, Penrith including a request for further information regarding the assessment undertaken at these sites and request further works.

2.   Council write to the Member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, MP regarding the matter and advise the history and current status of the site.

3.   A further report be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 10.10 am.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 2 July, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan – Penrith Health & Education Precinct and North Penrith

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

 

2        Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

3        Tender - Legal Services

 

4        Urban Activation Precinct Program

 

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

 

A City of Opportunities

 

6        Release of a Positive Covenant applying Lot 59 DP 1157436 (No. 46 - 48) Bringelly Road, Kingswood Applicant: Mission Australia;  Owner: Mission Australia

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

  

A Liveable City

 

7        Tender Reference 11/12-16, Provision of Security Services

 

8        Nepean River Green Bridge - Public Exhibition of Transport Study

 

9        Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)  2012/13 Road Funding Grants

 

URGENT

 

10      Penrith Commuter Car Park Update

  

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan – Penrith Health & Education Precinct and North Penrith

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

 

2        Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

3        Tender - Legal Services

 

4        Urban Activation Precinct Program

 

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1

Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan – Penrith Health & Education Precinct and North Penrith   

 

Compiled by:               Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager   

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

      

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

 

Executive Summary

Over the past few years Council has been working towards implementing a comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Penrith in 2 stages.  Stage 1 (Penrith LEP 2010) generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas, heritage items and the St Marys Town Centre.  Stage 1 was published on 22 September 2010.

 

The Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan (Stage 2 LEP) generally covers all residential areas (except St Marys Release Area) and local retail/commercial centres. 

 

The Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP was presented at the Policy Review Committee meeting of 22 November 2010. Council endorsed the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the Gateway to initiate the LEP process. This Planning Proposal, however, had a number of unresolved sites that required further investigation. Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 9 July 2012, endorsed policy directions for most of these sites. At that meeting Council also resolved to defer the Penrith Health and Education Precinct (PHEP) and North Penrith to allow further consideration of the zoning specifically in relation the Penrith Health and Education Precinct. The report recommends that Council receive the information contained in this report and endorse the policy directions recommended in the Attachments.

Background

Council has been undertaking a major planning exercise to prepare a new Citywide Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) in accordance with the planning reform agenda set by the State Government.  Given the scope of works required to deliver a comprehensive and integrated plan for the City, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) agreed that Council could prepare the LEP in two stages.

 

Stage 1 of the Citywide LEP, Penrith LEP 2010, includes the rural and industrial areas of the City and the St Marys Town Centre.  Penrith LEP 2010 was published on 22 September 2010. A Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP is currently being prepared.  It includes the City’s existing residential and new release areas, as well as its retail, commercial and local centres. 

 

The Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP was presented at the Policy Review Committee meeting of 22 November 2010.  Council endorsed the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the Gateway to initiate the LEP process.  However, there were a number of sites identified in the Planning Proposal for further investigation which require a policy decision by Council to enable zoning solutions to be included in the Planning Proposal before it can progress further through the Gateway process.  A number of these sites include sites or matters deferred by Council from Penrith LEP 2010. Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 9 July 2012, endorsed policy directions for most of these sites. At that meeting Council also resolved to defer the Penrith Health and Education Precinct (PHEP) and North Penrith to allow further consideration of the zoning specifically in relation the Penrith Health and Education Precinct.

 

Council further resolved to recommit that matter to a Councillor Briefing on Monday 16 July for further discussion and a further report to the Ordinary Meeting of 23 July 2012. 

 

Sites with unresolved matters

Attachments 1 (Penrith Health and Education Precinct) and Attachment 2 (North Penrith Residual Sites) to this report presents the following information to assist Councillors in their deliberations:

 

a.       Descriptor of the site/matter,

b.       Resolution of Council requiring further investigation of the matter where relevant,

c.       Officer’s planning commentary on the site/matter,

d.      Recommendation, and

e.       Relevant maps and supporting material.

 

Penrith Health and Education Precinct (PHEP)

A query has been raised regarding the permissible land uses within the B7 – Business Park zone, particularly on land at the corner of French Street and Great Western Highway Werrington (731-769 Great Western Highway, Werrington).

In this regard, it should be noted that:

·    The zonings proposed for the PHEP reflect the detailed planning and adopted LEP, DCP and Concept Plans for the WELL Precinct and the Masterplan prepared by the PBA (and adopted by government) for the PHEP.

·    Planning for the WELL Precinct took place over many years involving key partners and was underpinned by a wide range of specialist studies.

·    The suite of planning instruments remain strongly supported, and are now being implemented by the key partners.

·    Planning related to the size and location of the WELL Precinct Centre in O’Connell Street was underpinned by an extensive strategic planning exercise and the strong evidence also provided by two retail analyses & impact assessments and detailed examinations of traffic and transport.

·    The retail analyses identified that a maximum of 10,000m2 of retail was required to service the whole of the WELL Precinct, including the planned development north and south of the Great Western Highway. There is no demonstrable need for additional retail in the WELL Precinct beyond this level.

·    Those studies and the other planning and traffic and transport examinations identified the current zoned site as the preferred location for the Centre.

·    The retail analyses also identified that any provision of retail beyond 12,000m2 would adversely affect trade strength in the Kingswood, Claremont Meadows and St Marys centres, particularly if it were located on the Great Western Highway.

·    Planning for the development of the WELL Precinct Centre is well advanced by UWS and detailed concept plans are scheduled for completion by April 2013. Development applications for the Centre are expected to be submitted by UWS shortly thereafter.

·    The provision of a retail centre on the French Street site is not supported by the existing planning framework, the retail studies underpinning it or the RMS in terms of its Highway location.

·    In light of the known impacts of the provision of retail on the French Street site, any proposal to permit retail on this site would require a reduction in the size of the planned WELL Precinct Centre.  This would significantly undermine the critical mass required to produce a successful centre at the planned location and erode the outcomes and role intended for Centre within the Precinct.  It will also meet with significant opposition from UWS, Landcom and the PBA.

·    The permissible landuses in the proposed B7 – Business Park zone are extensive and provide for a wide range of support services and uses, as well as ample commercial opportunity.

 

On this basis, it is not recommended that retail development beyond that planned for the WELL Precinct Centre and Kingswood be supported. Further details on the Penrith Health and Education Precinct are provided in Attachment 1 to this report. Attachment 3 provides a full list of proposed permissible uses within the B7 zone. 

 

North Penrith Residual Sites

 

Councillors did not have any concerns regarding the zones that have been applied to the residual sites at North Penrith. It is therefore recommended the land use zonings identified at Figure 2 of Attachment 2 for the residual sites that were not included in the recent SEPP Amendment for North Penrith be applied in the Planning Proposal for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

Next Steps

The zoning recommendations in this report are to enable the public exhibition process. There will then be opportunity for landowners and the community to make submissions on these zones for Council’s consideration.

 

The next key steps are to complete the supporting planning controls for these sites/matters and make minor amendments to the draft Planning Proposal, particularly in response to consultations with relevant government agencies and directions or suggestions from the DP&I.  Mapping of detailed planning controls (e.g. building heights, floor space ratios, etc.) will also be completed.  It is anticipated that a final draft Planning Proposal will be reported to Council for its consideration in early 2013, prior to seeking approval from the DP&I for the Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited.

 

Conclusion

There is ample planned and existing retail in the Precinct to satisfy the need of the Penrith Health and Education Precinct. There is no demonstrable need for additional retail in the WELL Precinct beyond this level. The extensive range of permissible landuses in the proposed B7 – Business Park zone provide ample commercial opportunity in the Business Park.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan – Penrith Health & Education Precinct and North Penrith be received.

2.       The planning approach recommended in Attachment 1 (Penrith Health and Education Precinct) be applied in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP for the purpose of public exhibition.

3.     The planning approach recommended in Attachment 2 (North Penrith - Residual Sites) be applied in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Penrith Health and Education Precinct

7 Pages

Attachment

2. View

North Penrith - Residual Sites

4 Pages

Attachment

3. View

Proposed Permissible Landuses in the B7 – Business Park Zone

1 Page

Attachment

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Leading City

 

 

2

Pecuniary Interest Returns   

 

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

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

       

 

Executive Summary

Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) concerns “Honesty and Disclosure of Interests” and requires all elected members and designated persons to complete an initial Pecuniary Interest Return, and every year thereafter, an Annual return.

Designated persons include the General Manager, other senior staff and staff holding a position identified by the Council as a position of a designated person because it involves the exercise of certain functions such as regulatory or contractual functions.

First returns have to be completed within three months of becoming a Councillor or designated person.  The returns listed in this report have been lodged prior to the due date for the receipt of the returns.

Current Situation

Section 450A of the Act deals with the registration and tabling of returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons.

A register of all returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons in accordance with the Act is currently kept by Council as required by this part of the Act.

A list of the pecuniary interest returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons must be tabled at a Council Meeting.

With regard to Section 450A(2)(a) the following first pecuniary interest returns have been lodged:

Name

Position

Due Date

Date Lodged

Neil Bailey

Works Coordinator  - Road Maintenance

30 April 2012

15 March 2012

David Durie

Senior Environmental Health Officer

14 August 2012

19 June 2012

 

The returns have been lodged prior to the due date for the receipt of the returns, and are kept in a register held by the Senior Governance Officer. The documents are available for inspection in accordance with Chapter 4, Part 2 of the Local Government Act, 1993 and are tabled in accordance with the Act.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Pecuniary Interest Returns be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Leading City

 

 

3

Tender - Legal Services   

 

Compiled by:               Matthew Bullivant, Senior Legal Officer

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

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

       

 

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Meeting of 29 November 2010 Council received a report on the provision of external legal services. It was resolved among other things that expressions of interest would be called again for the provision of Council’s external legal services in the first half of 2012.

 

Accordingly, Council advertised for tenders for the provision of Council’s external legal services in the Western Weekender on 4 May 2012 and the Sydney Morning Herald on 8 May 2012. The tender was placed on the e-tendering website on 4 May 2012.  The tender closed on 31 May 2012.

 

The tender advertisement indicated that firms would be appointed to the Council’s external panel for a period of four (4) years.

 

Based on detailed evaluation, the firms that are recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) to be the most advantageous to Council are Gadens Lawyers, Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Adams Partners Lawyers. The TEP also recommends the appointment of Matthews Folbigg Lawyers to be used where Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore Lawyers have a conflict of interest or more independence is required.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of 5 November 2007 Council appointed three firms to its panel of external lawyers for a period of 4 years. Those three firms were Cutler, Hughes and Harris, Gadens Lawyers and DLA Phillips Fox Lawyers. Marsdens Lawyers were appointed as a fourth alternate firm in the event of a conflict or where more independence was required.

 

On 30 November 2009 it was reported to Council that there were changes to the composition of lawyers in DLA Phillips Fox and Cutler, Hughes and Harris. It was reported to Council that the key managing partner from DLA Phillips Fox had left that firm and that Cutler Hughes and Harris had merged with another firm. As a result, Council resolved to advertise for expressions of interest for up to two firms to be added to Council’s legal panel for a period of up to two years and that Council continue with the services of Gadens Lawyers in accordance with the terms of the contract already in place between the Council and Gadens Lawyers.

 

On 29 November 2010 Council resolved for Sparke Helmore Lawyers to be appointed to Council’s external panel in addition to Gadens Lawyers for a period of up to 2 years. Council also resolved for Marsdens Law Group and Adams and Partners Lawyers to be appointed where Sparke Helmore and Gadens Lawyers had a conflict or more independence was required.

 

Tenders were recently called for the provision of Council’s external legal services for a period of 4 years.

 

Legal Services

It is important to outline the Council’s legal services function as a whole so that the composition of external legal services that Council requires can be placed into context.

 

Council has the benefit of an in-house legal team, consisting of two Solicitors, a Legal Secretary and a Legal Trainee (currently vacant). Council’s in-house legal team provides services across a broad range of practice areas including property transactions, litigation, land and environment court work, prosecutions, contractual drafting and advice, legal education, investigative advice and ongoing general legal advice.

 

It is also important to note that there are occasions where Council’s in-house legal team directly brief Barristers to appear on behalf of Council before Courts or Tribunals, or to provide further advice where necessary. This occurs where more specialised advice is required and where it is more cost effective to do so.

 

The Council’s in-house legal team therefore provides wide ranging legal services that represents the more routine work. The legal needs of Council requires firms that bring specialised expertise and at least one firm that can provide local support to the Council’s internal legal team in terms of the proximity to the Council and the Penrith  Local and District Courts  frequented by Council.

 

It is essential that Council’s external legal panel provide high end expert advice across a range of practice areas with exceptional levels of customer service.

 

Given the nature of Council’s external legal services, Council tends to retain much of the routine legal work in-house, and therefore the amount of work that is offered to Council’s external panel is not extensive, but what is offered, is generally unique or specialised work.

 

The Council’s yearly expenditure on legal services is a reflection of the composition of the legal services that it requires. The Council’s expenditure on its legal services has been much lower than that of Councils of comparable size. In fact, the Council’s expenditure on external legal services is much less than Councils of a much lesser size. This is because of those reasons discussed above: that most of the routine work is retained by Council’s in-house legal team and only the specialised work is referred to the external legal panel.

 

The in-house legal team has always maintained control of expenditure on internal and external legal services so as to avoid unnecessary and avoidable legal costs to Council.

 

Tender Evaluation Panel

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of Stephen Britten (Group Manager ~ Legal and Governance), Matthew Bullivant (Senior Legal Officer) and Michael Doggett (Supply Coordinator).

Evaluation process

The process for the evaluation of tenders was as follows:

1.             Initial review of tenders to determine compliance with the evaluation    criteria, including the ability to provide the full range of services specified;

2.              Scoring of tenders against the assessment criteria including the weighting of the criteria;

3.              Determination of a short-list based on the best rankings from 1 and 2 above;

4.              Further evaluation, where appropriate, of the short-listed companies      through Independent Referee Check.

 

Tender Evaluation Criteria

The tenders submitted were initially assessed in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the tender documents.  The selection criteria and weighting given to each of the criteria were as follows:

 

·          quality of service offered as assessed by reference to experience, success rates before the Court and references (20%);

 

·          an ability to provide a high standard of legal advice on a variety of matters (20%);

 

·          an understanding of Council policy and direction (10%);

 

·          an ability to work with the Council and Officers to achieve a desired outcome (15%);

 

·          an ability to provide prompt advice and to prioritise Council needs (10%);

 

·          an ability to provide on-going legal guidance, advice and information on any changes which have the potential for impacting upon Local Government generally or the Council particularly (5%);

 

·          an ability to provide cost-effective provision of services (15%);

 

·          a commitment to Council’s strategic objectives (5%).

 

Nature of Legal Services Required

 

The tender documents indicated that Council requires external Solicitors to work in the followings areas:

 

a.         Work in the Land and Environment Court in regard to Building and Development Control;

 

b.         Industrial relations and employee related issues;

 

c.         Matters generally pertaining to the Local Government Act, Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and related Acts and Regulations;

 

d.         Debt recovery (including rates);

 

e.         Taxation matters pertaining to Local Government;

 

f.          Commercial Issues;

 

g.         General legal advice and support for the Legal and Governance Group Manager and Senior Legal Officer in regard to all aspects of Council’s operations;

 

h.         Representing Council in prosecutions.

Tenders

Twenty three (23) firms tendered for Council’s external legal services. The firms consisted of:

 

·    Adams & Partners Lawyers;

·    Bartier Perry;

·    Collaborative Layers Pty Ltd;

·    DIB Lawyers;

·    Frasers Legal;

·    Gadens Lawyers;

·    Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers;

·    Hones La Hood Lawyers;

·    Houston Dearn O’Connor Solicitors and Attorneys;

·    Hunter Councils Legal Services Ltd;

·    Kells The Lawyers;

·    Lander & Rogers Lawyers;

·    Maddocks;

·    Marsdens Law Group;

·    Matthews Folbigg Lawyers;

·    McAuley Hawach Lawyers;

·    Outstanding Collections (AUST) Pty Ltd;

·    Quinn Lawyers;

·    Richie Castellan Solicitors and Notaries;

·    Sage Solicitors;

·    Smythe Wozniak Legal;

·    Sparke Helmore Lawyers;

·    The People’s Solicitors.

 

In the previous tender, Council has appointed 2 law firms and 2 alternates (where there may be a conflict), to its external panel. It is considered that Council should limit the number of firms on the external panel to 3, with one of the firms comprising a local firm to provide more local support to the internal legal team. In addition it is recommended that a firm be appointed where the other firms have a conflict of interest or more independence is required.

 

Limiting the legal panel to 2 firms plus a local support firm allows for more effective management and control of Council’s legal panel. It is fair to say that Council’s legal costs have always been under control, particularly when compared with Councils of a similar size.

 

One of the main factors for Council’s legal costs being stable has been due to the size of the panel. It is thought that Councils with large panels lack the control necessary to ensure legal advice is provided in a cost effective manner.

 

In order to receive the level of service that Council requires, and to ensure that the Council remains a priority client, 2 firms and 1 local support firm are seen as an appropriate sized panel. Again, limiting the panel to 3 allows for better management of the panel in terms of service provided and legal costs expended.

 

Further, litigation tends to be the most resource dependant and costly of any legal service. Council’s legal team has been able to retain more litigated matters in recent years. This is in part because the most common litigated matters comprise Class 1 appeals in the Land and Environment Court, and the Land and Environment Court has favoured a conciliation approach to resolving these forms of appeals rather than listing matters for hearing on the first occasion.

 

For these reasons it is recommended that 3 firms be retained on Council’s external legal panel, one of which is locally based (plus the other firm in case of a conflict situation) to provide additional support to the in-house legal team for matters that require appearances in the Penrith Local and District Courts.

 

Work for the internal team is growing and local support is becoming more necessary. There is a range of increased locally based Court work (generally around Penalty Infringement Notices) which is more cost effectively handled locally.

 

Summary of Tenders Received

 

All tenders were assessed against the evaluation criteria and based on their written submissions demonstrated that they met the specified requirements, although not all firms indicated that they would service the Council in all areas of law.

 

The firms were given a score out of 5 against each criterion. A score of 5 out of 5 was the highest possible score and a score of 0 being the lowest. These scores were then measured against the pre-determined weightings for each of the criteria. A total score was then determined.

 

The following table shows the top 6 firms that achieved the highest scores. They are listed from highest to lowest:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firm

Score

Gadens Lawyers

90

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

88.5

Matthews Folbigg Lawyers

73

Bartier Perry

71

Maddocks

70

Marsdens

68

Adams & Partners Lawyers ( Local Firm)

57

 

The TEP were of the opinion that the firms not mentioned in the above table did not demonstrate that they could offer a standard of legal services above those referred to in the table above. The reasons for this included:

 

·        Many of the firms were not able to demonstrate high end expertise. As indicated above, the Council’s external solicitors are relied upon to provide advice on unique and highly specialised matters;

 

·        Many of the firms were not able to demonstrate a legal service that offered specialised expertise across a wide range of practice areas.

 

          Smythe Wozniak Legal offered legal services in relation to representing Council in prosecutions only. Likewise, Lander & Rogers Lawyers offered to provide legal services in relation to Industrial Relations and employee issues only.

 

          Despite the fact that the majority of Council’s debt recovery matters are carried out internally, Outstanding Collections (AUST) Pty Ltd offered to provide legal services in the area of debt recovery only. This firm indicated value added services beyond that which Council carries out internally. This firm is a member of the Local Government Procurement, which gives councils the ability to utilise its services without going to tender.

 

          Although these 3 firms demonstrated a level of expertise in the particular areas that they tendered for, it is considered that the 7 firms referred to in the table above offered a higher level of specialised service across a broad range of areas of law.

 

·        Some of the firms did not demonstrate strength in local government and/or planning law;

 

·        Some of the firms did not demonstrate the same levels of customer service as those firms that were short listed.

 

·        Some of the firms did not demonstrate that they had the capacity, level of infrastructure, or quality of service across all areas of law that the above firms demonstrated.

 

In terms of Adams & Partners Lawyers it is considered that they were the most advantageous local firm offering a high level of expertise across a broad range of areas of law. It is considered that Adams & Partners Lawyers were the best placed firm to provide local support to the Council’s in-house legal team.

 

The differences between the scores of Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore Lawyers compared to Matthews Folbigg Lawyers relate to the quality and ability to provide a high level of advice to Council. It is not that Matthews Folbigg Lawyers is not capable, it is because Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore Lawyers were able to better demonstrate that they had the ability to provide a higher quality service. Additionally, they were able to better demonstrate this through the number of experts available and also their references to where they had performed this in the past.

 

These reasons apply to a larger extent to the submission by Adams and Partners Layers. In addition, Adams and Partners Layers did not demonstrate to the same level of Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore Lawyers an understanding of the Council’s policy and direction, including a commitment to the Council’s strategic objectives.

 

Accordingly, there was no benefit to Council in further considering the submissions from the remaining 16 firms.

 

In relation to the recommended firms the following comments are made:

 

Gadens Lawyers

 

Gadens association with Council dates back to 1993.The tender claims that the long standing relationship means Gadens has grown to understand Council’s culture and needs. This is supported by Gadens’ comprehensive coverage of Council’s strategic direction and service delivery areas.

 

Gadens is ranked in the top 10 firms nationally. It employs in excess of 1200 staff and has 135 partners. The tender indicates that the firm’s client centric approach and commitment to excellence led to its recognition as “Best provider as rated by ASX100 companies” at the BRW Client Choice awards in 2011.

 

The firm is committed to providing a high quality legal service at a fair cost. The firm’s tender claims that its focus is on efficiency and ensuring that all matters are resourced appropriately. In recognition of the firm’s long standing relationship with Council, the firm offers a significant discount on its current standard hourly rates.

 

The firm’s tender refers to many of the matters where it has acted for Council which have supported the Council’s goals and strategic objectives.

 

The firm provides an exceptional service across all areas of law. Rob Riddell has been put forward again as the firm’s relationship partner. He has always ensured that the firm provides Council with equally high service across the firm.

 

The firm offers a range of ‘value added’ services at no cost. These include access to the firms’ library via the firm’s librarian, ad hoc telephone advice, training and seminars for staff, newsletters and legal updates and mentoring and coaching.

 

The firm’s office is located in Sydney.

 

 

Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Sparkes)

 

Sparkes consists of over 600 staff. The firm currently acts for 34 councils in New South Wales. The firm demonstrates specialised expertise in local government and planning law, in addition to the range of areas of the law required by Council.

 

The submission from Sparkes demonstrates that the firm has a proven track record of providing Council with quality service, an understanding of the Council’s policies and strategic direction and quality advice for exceptional value for money. The firm in its tender demonstrates the challenges faced by this Council in particular.

 

Chris Drury is the Council’s relationship partner. He is an accredited specialist in local government and planning law. He is a well respected practitioner in this field. The firm has put forward 16 lawyers that would be dealing with and be responsible for the Council’s affairs.

 

Sparkes offers a range of ‘value added’ services at no cost. These include access to the firms’ library, ad hoc telephone advice, training and seminars for staff, newsletters and legal updates and mentoring and coaching.

 

The firm’s office is located in Sydney.

 

Matthews Folbigg Lawyers

 

Matthews Folbigg Lawyers claims to be the biggest legal firm in Parramatta. It employs 69 staff including 16 Directors (partners). The firm is on the panel of 14 other councils, mostly the larger Councils, including Blacktown and the Hills Shire. The firm provides ad hoc advice to 10 other councils and WSROC and SHOROC.

 

The firm has put forward 10 lawyers that would be dealing with and be responsible for the Council’s affairs. The firm demonstrates that it understands the Council’s strategic objectives.

 

John Boland is put forward as the Council’s relationship partner. He is a well respected local government practitioner. This is confirmed by the firm’s referees.

 

The firm claims that in conjunction with its motto of ‘partnership,  excellence, integrity and commitment’, together with its strong knowledge of local government, the firm is able to ensure from day one that Council will benefit from the following:

 

·    Clear, concise and competent advice, always considering risk management;

·    Legal services delivered in a proactive and timely manner;

·    Experienced, practical and accessible practitioners;

·    Services delivered at a fair and competitive cost.

 

The firm’s referees support the view that the firm provides exceptional service across all areas of law at a cost effective rate.

 

The firm offers a range of ‘value added’ services free of cost including ad hoc telephone advice, training and seminars for staff and Councillors, newsletters and legal updates.

 

Adams and Partners Lawyers

 

In 1997, Peter Adams founded Adams & Partners Lawyers having worked as a Solicitor in Penrith for a period of 14 years. The firm has an office located in Penrith. The firm has been on Council’s legal panel since 2010 and was to be used where Gadens and Sparke Helmore had a conflict or where more independence was required. Since this time the Company have provided services relating to Local Court prosecution matters. The Company provided adequate service in this regard.

 

The firm consist of 7 solicitors, 4 of which are directors of the incorporated legal practice. The firm offers to provide Council with a well-rounded and informed legal service across all areas of law.

 

The relationship manager is Natalie Ballard who is a Senior Associate of the firm. The firm has particularly strong expertise in commercial litigation and debt recovery, as well as prosecution work.

 

The firm has some local government and planning expertise, although not necessarily to the same extent to that of the other shortlisted firms. It is intended that the firm will be able to assist Council with the local court and district court work, together with some of the debt recovery matters where appropriate.

 

It is not believed that this firm has the infrastructure or expertise to support Council’s more specialised work.

Cost effectiveness

A memorandum enclosing a table of the fees of each of the firms has already been provided to Councillors.

 

The range of legal fees charged by the 23 firms is broken down by reference to the type of lawyer and corresponding hourly rates in the following table:

 

Fee Breakdown (type of lawyer)

Fee (dollars per hour excl GST)

Partner (or equivalent)

$225 - $657

Senior Associate/Associate

$275 - $425

Lawyer

$210 - $350

 

 

The legal fees charged by the firms do not necessarily provide a complete guide of legal advice provided. It is important to consider that Council has two employed Solicitors who provide a certain level of legal service. Usually, the matters that Council requires external advice on are matters that are highly specialised.

 

Given the nature of this specialised advice, it is expected that Council will pay more specialised rates for this work, which acknowledges the higher cost charge for Partner time in the larger City firms.

 

Further, consideration should be given to the fact that the work can be completed more efficiently with the greater expertise. With more resources available at the bigger firms, they are able to allocate work in a more efficient manner and thereby create more cost effective legal work, despite their rates being higher.

 

It has been the experience of the legal officers that even if the hourly rate of a particular solicitor is higher, that the overall bill may be less if that Solicitor is more efficient with providing the solution or undertaking the work.

 

Comments

 

The above 7 firms all demonstrate that they meet the assessment criteria contained in the Request for Tender.

 

It is considered that the level of customer service and value for money is dependant on the Partner responsible for the provision of the legal service. The size of the firm is not necessarily determinative of high levels of customer service and value for money. That is, just because the firm is a large firm doesn’t necessarily mean that the firm provides quality of service and value for money.

 

In terms of assessing the quality of service provided by the firms, regard should be given to the relationship partners and the services that they provide.

 

The submissions from Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore both demonstrate proven track records, quality of advice, an understanding of Council’s policy and direction, value for money and offer a range of specialised legal advice in all areas of law required by Council. 

 

The relationship partner put forward by Sparke Helmore, Chris Drury has provided Council with strategic advice and direction in litigation and advice work which has proven to be invaluable in the past.  It is considered that the tender by Sparke Helmore provides Council with superior customer service and represents very good value for money.

 

Chris Drury has demonstrated his value to Council over a long period of time. His expertise in local government and planning matters is of the highest quality and is always reliable.

 

Similarly, the relationship partner put forward by Gadens Lawyers, Rob Riddell demonstrates that the firm is able to provide superior expert advice, customer service and value for money across all of the firm’s departments.

 

Gadens Lawyers has also demonstrated its value to Council. Gadens provides high end expertise across a wide range of practice areas, which is considered necessary to meet the demands of Council. The firms’ advice is considered reliable and of an extremely high standard.

 

The TEP’s view is that the level of expertise, customer service and importantly, practical legal advice provided by these two firms goes beyond that of the other competing firms. The standard of advice provided by the two firms is such that the Council and Council officers have faith in it, and it is always reliable.

 

The firm who had the next highest score after Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore was Matthews Folbigg Lawyers. The firm is located in Parramatta and is on the panel of 14 councils and has provided advice to WSROC. The firm offers legal services across all areas of law required by Council. A referee check from the Hills Shire Council suggested that the firm provides exceptional service across all areas of law at a cost effective rate.

 

The firm is based at Parramatta and is considered to understand and relate to the challenges faced by Western Sydney councils. The firm’s tender supports this view.

 

In terms of Adams and Partners Lawyers it is considered that they were the most advantageous local firm offering a high level of expertise across a broad range of areas of law. It is considered that Adams and Partners were the best placed firm to provide local support to the Council’s in-house legal team. Having said that, this firm does not have the infrastructure or expertise to support Council’s more specialised work when compared to Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Gadens Lawyers.

 

It is therefore recommended that Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Gadens Lawyers be appointed to Council’s external legal panel for the next 4 years. In addition, it is recommended that Adams and Partners Lawyers be appointed (for 4 years) to provide support to the internal legal team in relation to localised matters like prosecutions and locally based court matters.

 

Further, the TEP recommends that Matthews Folbigg Lawyers be appointed to the panel in case of a conflict. This means that the conflict firm would be appointed to provide advice where Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore have a conflict of interest or where more independence is required.

 

Comment by Tender Advisory Group (TAG)

 

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager ~ Finance, Vicki O’Kelly, the Group Manager ~ City Presentation, David Burns and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider a tender for the provision of legal services.

 

The TAG supports the methodology used for assessing the tenders and supports the recommendation made by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender - Legal Services be received.

2.     Sparke Helmore Lawyers and Gadens Lawyers be appointed to Council’s external legal panel for the next 4 years.

3.     Adams and Partners Lawyers be appointed to Council’s external legal panel to provide support to the internal legal team in relation to localised matters like prosecutions and locally based court matters or matters that can be handled locally.

4.     Matthews Folbigg Lawyers be appointed to Council’s external legal panel to provide advice where Gadens Lawyers and Sparke Helmore Lawyers have a conflict of interest or where more independence is required.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Leading City

 

 

4

Urban Activation Precinct Program   

 

Compiled by:               Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager  

 

Objective

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

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

Demonstrate our leadership, and encourage innovation (1.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The NSW State Government has announced the Urban Activation Precinct Program. The aim of the Program is to identify, plan and support the development of key urban precincts in infill areas across the State capable of supporting additional housing and employment opportunities.  The Government will lead the process through the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (the Department) and work collaboratively with councils to develop a planning framework and facilitate development.

 

The Program is intended to replace the current State Significant Sites (SSS) Program and will be supported by Growth Infrastructure Plans to ensure coordinated delivery of State infrastructure for the precinct and a $50 million Precinct Support Program to assist funding of local infrastructure.

 

The Government has called for precinct nominations by 31 July 2012.  This report considers opportunities for participating in the Program and recommends that Council join with the Penrith Business Alliance to nominate the Penrith City Centre as an Urban Activation Precinct and support the NSW Land and Housing Corporation should they nominate the Glossop Street, St Marys Precinct under this Program.

Background

The NSW Government announced the Urban Activation Precinct (UAP) Program in the 2012-13 State Budget and called for nominations by 31 July 2012.  Under this Program the NSW State Government will partner local councils across the State in the delivery of new housing in key urban renewal areas. The Program will be accompanied by a $50 million Precinct Support Scheme to provide infrastructure support payments linked to increased housing supply in key urban areas close to jobs and transport.

 

The Government intends that a planning framework, relevant zonings and built form controls will be developed for each precinct reflecting local characteristics and needs. It is intended to create a code-based assessment process to deliver streamlined approvals for proposals that meet the controls.  The program will be initially used in a pilot form across a number of precincts before potentially being rolled out more widely.

 

The Program is based on the following principles:

 

· A strategic precinct based approach, rather than a single site or development.

· Close involvement with local government at an early stage and throughout the process as an integral partner.

· Precincts located in close proximity to existing and planned transport and service infrastructure.

· Precincts, zones and development controls that are based on financial viability and affordability, and reflect market demand and investor feasibility.

 

The Department has developed draft guidelines outlining the process and establishing criteria for the selection of precincts.

Draft NSW Urban Activation Precincts Guideline

Overview

Nominations for potential precincts may come from government departments, state agencies, local councils and the private sector.  Precinct nominations will be assessed against the following criteria:

 

· Is the precinct consistent with State, regional and/or local strategies, particularly relating to housing and employment? or

· Does the precinct support or maximise the use of existing and planned infrastructure, especially transport? or

· Is the precinct important to more than one local government area and/or has support from the local council? and

· Is the precinct environmentally, socially and economically sustainable and viable? and

· Is the development of the precinct financially viable and consistent with market demand?

 

Process

The Department will review all nominations and chair a committee that will provide advice to Government on whether nominated precincts should be investigated.  The relevant local council will be consulted and their views will be an integral consideration in making a recommendation to Government.

 

Working Groups will be established to investigate successful nominations.  Representatives from the relevant local council, state government departments and state agencies will be invited to participate. Working groups will be responsible for input to the outcomes brief and planning study requirements to be undertaken by the Department.  The outcomes brief will establish overall objectives and targets for the precinct in terms of housing, employment, land use mix, economic, accessibility and infrastructure connections, urban design and public domain.  The planning study requirements will identify the relevant planning studies to be completed and the stakeholder engagement and public consultation to be undertaken.  The planning study will be exhibited for a minimum of 30 days.  Other community engagement techniques, such as establishing a community reference group, may also be used to assist the distribution of information and receipt of community feedback.

 

A flow chart detailing the precinct nomination process is appended to this report.

 

 

Determination

Upon conclusion of the public exhibition the Director-General of the Department will consider the planning study, the submissions and the implications of the proposal and provide recommendations to the Minister relating to:

 

· The state or regional planning significance of the precinct;

· The suitability of the site for any proposed land use, including the results of the environmental assessment;

· The implications of any change in land use; and

· Potential for streamlining of subsequent development within the precinct through the use of exempt and complying development controls.

 

The Minister will determine whether to proceed with the Urban Activation Precinct and may seek the advice of the Planning Assessment Commission in reaching the determination.

 

Precinct Support

An Urban Activation Precinct will be supported by:

 

· Growth Infrastructure Plans (GIP) – identifies capacity within the infrastructure network and outlines the infrastructure required to support the planned growth. The GIP would input into the State Government’s budget allocation process to ensure coordinated delivery of State infrastructure for the precinct.

· Precinct Support Scheme (PSS) – funding assistance for local government to provide the local infrastructure needed for the precinct.  Payments would be based on the estimated dwelling yield for the precinct and would be paid annually over a six year period.

Comment

The Urban Activation Program provides an opportunity to partner the State Government in renewing older areas and facilitating investment in key living and employment precincts adjacent to major public transport nodes.  An internal team of senior staff has examined the guideline criteria and identified the following opportunities in the City for potential nomination as Urban Activation Precincts:

 

· Glossop Street Precinct, St Marys

· Riverlink Precinct, Penrith

· Parkview Precinct, Penrith

· Penrith Health & Education Precinct

· Station Plaza, Penrith

· City Heart Precinct, Penrith

· Penrith City Centre

 

The Glossop Street Precinct, St Marys is the subject of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Council and the NSW Land and Housing Corporation (former Department of Housing) to facilitate redevelopment of the precinct.  The MoU aims to achieve greater housing choice and diversity, affordable, accessible and adaptable housing opportunities, and improved connectivity to key land uses, such as open space, St Marys Town Centre, and public transport services. The project is generally consistent with the draft guideline criteria, however a business case has not been developed or a mechanism identified to establish that development of the precinct is financially viable and consistent with market demand.  Nomination of the project would require the agreement and leadership of the Corporation as they are the principal landowner within the precinct.  Should the Corporation choose to nominate the project it would be worthy of Council’s support.

 

The Riverlink and Parkview Precincts are primarily private sector development proposals being progressed under current initiatives.

 

The Penrith Health & Education Precinct is identified as a ‘potential specialised centre’ in the Metropolitan Strategy and is already a focus of the NSW Government. The Department is currently considering the application of a Growth Infrastructure Plan (GIP) to ensure coordinated delivery of State infrastructure for the precinct. 

 

The Penrith Business Alliance has written to Council seeking to jointly nominate the Penrith City Centre as an Urban Activation Precinct. They are of the view that we should not pre-empt which precinct within the City Centre should be the initial focus of efforts.  They are embarking on a process which will sequence the order of precinct activation based on economic feasibility through involvement with investors and stakeholders. 

 

Penrith is identified in the Metropolitan Strategy and the draft North West Subregional Strategy as the Regional City for North-Western Sydney and requires Government support if it is to fulfil this role and deliver the services, facilities and amenities required to meet the needs of an emerging regional city.  In 2006 the Cities Taskforce, a partnership between Council and the State Government, developed a vision, strategy and local plan to support the development of Penrith as a regional city.  That suite of documents seeks to deliver 10,000 additional people and 10,000 additional jobs in the City centre by 2031.  Realisation of these targets requires Government assistance through initiatives such as the UAP Program. Revitalisation of the Penrith City Centre, which includes the station plaza and ‘city heart’ precincts, is therefore a nominated priority of Council’s adopted Advocacy Program.

Conclusion

The UAP Program provides the opportunity for a tangible enhancement (particularly through the injection of funding) to the suite of initiatives that are either in place or planned to revitalise the city centre including Council’s existing vision and strategy for the City Centre and the ‘Future of Penrith, Penrith of the Future’ and the PBA’s many initiatives.

 

Revitalising our city centres provides the best opportunity to take advantage of the UAP Program. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council join with the Penrith Business Alliance to nominate the Penrith City Centre as an Urban Activation Precinct and support the NSW Land and Housing Corporation should they nominate the Glossop Street, St Marys Precinct under this Program.

The timing available for the assembly of submissions to the UAP Program has not allowed for the finer detail about the manner in which the PBA and Council will collaborate in the process if the nominated project is approved.

 

It will be important for Council, in light of its significant role as the local planning authority, to be comfortable that its interests and perspectives are accommodated in the project.  Equally, resources will need to be adequately allocated to the project and this might require re-prioritisation or provision of additional resources.  These considerations will be the subject of a later report to Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Urban Activation Precinct Program be received.

2.     Council join with the Penrith Business Alliance to nominate the Penrith City Centre as an Urban Activation Precinct.

3.     Council support the NSW Land and Housing Corporation should they nominate the Glossop Street, St Marys Precinct as an Urban Activation Precinct.

4.     Council write to the local State Members of Parliament seeking their support for the nomination(s) to the Urban Activation Precinct Program.

5.     A further report be brought to Council should the nomination for the Penrith City Centre as an Urban Activation Precinct be successful.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Urban Activation Precinct Nomination Process

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    23 July 2012

Appendix 1 - Urban Activation Precinct Nomination Process

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Leading City

 

 

5

Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 June to 30 June 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 June 2012 to 30 June 2012, a reconciliation of invested funds at 30 June 2012 and the Agency Collection Methods at 30 June 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 June 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 June to 30 June 2012 be received.

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

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 30 June 2012 be noted.

4.     The Agency Collection Methods as at 30 June 2012 be noted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Investments - June 2012

4 Pages

Appendix

2.  

Agency Collection Methods

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    23 July 2012

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments - June 2012

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    23 July 2012

Appendix 2 - Agency Collection Methods

 

temp

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

6        Release of a Positive Covenant applying Lot 59 DP 1157436 (No. 46 - 48) Bringelly Road, Kingswood Applicant: Mission Australia;  Owner: Mission Australia

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A City of Opportunities

 

 

6

Release of a Positive Covenant applying Lot 59 DP 1157436 (No. 46 - 48) Bringelly Road, Kingswood  Applicant:  Mission Australia;  Owner:  Mission Australia    

 

Compiled by:               Belinda Borg, Casual Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

      

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a written request for the release of a Positive Covenant burdening Lot 59 DP 1157436 (No. 46 - 48) Bringelly Road, Kingswood. A positive covenant, pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act, was imposed on the above property relating to the maintenance of the onsite detention system. Subsequently, the land is to be subdivided and the positive covenant does not need to apply to both allotments.

 

Penrith City Council was nominated as the consent authority with the power to release, vary or modify the covenant. The report recommends that the covenant be removed, with the Common Seal of Penrith City Council being affixed to all the necessary documentation.

 

Background

The subject site was previously used as a community facility providing support services to children with disabilities and their families and carers. This facility was owned and administered by Northcott Disability Services (previously the NSW Society for Crippled Children) and Council approval for this facility was issued in April 1965. Mission Australia purchased the property in September 2007 and has subsequently submitted a number of applications since the purchase of the property. These include:

 

•        Development Application 09/0221 was approved at a Council Meeting on 3 August 2009 for the construction of a community facility consisting of a 2 storey community services centre (Family Support Services Centre) and 6 × 2 storey town houses (Family Accommodation Centre);

 

•        A subsequent Section 96 application to DA09/0221 was approved on 16 August 2010 by Council which sought to amend the following:

 

§  the creation of two (2) separate titles, one (1) containing the Family Support Services Centre and one (1) containing the Family Accommodation,

§  one (1) of the residents within the Family Accommodation was designed to be fully compliant with Australian Standard for Adaptable Housing AF4299 – 1995, and,

§  Minor cosmetic changes to the external appearance of the Family Support Services Centre;

 

•        Development Application (DA 10/0686) was approved on 28 September 2010 under delegated authority for the construction of 6 x 2 bedroom townhouses for use as accommodation associated with Mission Australia. This development application replaced the residential component approved as a part of DA 09/0221;

 

•        A further Section 96 application to DA 09/0221 was approved on 15 May 2012 under delegated authority deleting the residential component of the development. The community facility remained unchanged.

 

Condition 4 of DA09/0221 required Lots 7 to 9 in Deposited Plan 247158 and Lots 5 to 6 in Deposited Plan 250412 to be consolidated as one lot. The positive covenant was registered on the allotment at the time of consolidation in relation to the maintenance of an on-site detention system servicing the residential units only.

 

Proposal

The proposal includes the removal of the positive covenant of the land referred to as (a) in the subject deposited plan relating to the maintenance of the onsite detention system.

 

Mission Australia intends to proceed within the subdivision of the land into two allotments (approved under Section 96 application to DA 09/0221), being proposed Lot 591, containing the townhouse development for accommodation associated with Mission Australia and proposed Lot 592, containing the community facility. The on-site detention system relates to proposed Lot 591, therefore a request has been submitted for the release of the Positive Covenant as it applies to proposed Lot 592. The Subdivision Certificate has been issued and registration is imminent.

 

Conveyancing Act 1919

A positive covenant created by Section 88D of the Conveyancing Act 1919 may be released by way of an Order from the prescribed authority entitled to enforce the positive covenant or extinguished by an Order from the Supreme Court, see s89(8) Conveyancing Act 1919.

Penrith Council is the prescribed authority entitled to enforce or extinguish the positive covenant. Section 88D(11 – 15) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 provides the powers and outlines the process involved in removing the restrictive covenant.

Conclusion

 

Consideration of the written request to remove the restrictive covenant from proposed Lot 592 relating to the maintenance of the onsite detention system has been given and Council’s Senior Development Engineer has raised no objection to its removal. As the existing on-site detention system is wholly located on proposed Lot 591, the request is reasonable and is supported.

 

The document provided for the removal of the restrictive covenant requires the Common Seal of Penrith City Council to be affixed so that it can be executed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Release of a Positive Covenant applying Lot 59 DP 1157436 (No. 46 - 48) Bringelly Road, Kingswood be received.

2.     The Common Seal of Penrith City Council be affixed to all necessary documentation to remove the covenant.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Plan of subdivision

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    23 July 2012

Appendix 1 - Plan of subdivision

 

temp

 


 

 

A Green City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

7        Tender Reference 11/12-16, Provision of Security Services

 

8        Nepean River Green Bridge - Public Exhibition of Transport Study

 

9        Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)  2012/13 Road Funding Grants

 

URGENT

 

10      Penrith Commuter Car Park Update

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

7

Tender Reference 11/12-16, Provision of Security Services   

 

Compiled by:               Laura Schuil, Acting Supply Officer - Contracts

Olivia Kidon, Community Safety Co-ordinator

Alison Pearson, Systems & Administration Support Officer

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

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcome of the Tender for the Provision of Security Services. This service includes providing Security Services to Council’s buildings and other facilities. The scope of work involved in providing the security of Council property can be divided into two categories, (A) Security Guarding Services and (B) Monitoring of Alarms. 

 

A total of 24 tender responses were received.  Following a review of the tenders by the Tender Evaluation Panel a determination was made to short-list two (2) tenderers that represented the best value to Council.  The companies shortlisted were Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd and Sargent Security (Aus) Pty Ltd.

 

Independent referee checks indicated that the top two short-listed companies both had satisfactory to very good performance and customer satisfaction ratings.  The independent financial analysis checks on the two short-listed companies showed no adverse findings and all demonstrated satisfactory capacity to undertake the works required by the tender.

 

Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd were then subjected to a formal interview with members of the Tender Evaluation Panel to further determine their methodology and approach, staffing and wages to be allocated to the project.

 

Based on detailed evaluation interviews, independent risk analysis and best overall value, the Tender Evaluation Panel is recommending that the contract for the provision of Security Services be awarded to Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd, for an initial period of two (2) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods (with provision for rise and fall) subject to satisfactory performance.

 

Background

 

A new tender for the provision of Security Services for an initial two (2) year period with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods allowing for rise and fall provisions, was advertised in the Western Weekender on 6 April 2012 and the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 2012. The tender was placed on the e-tendering website on 6 April 2012 and closed on 3 May 2012.

 

The tender document stated that Council “will select one (1) company to perform the Services specified and the selection of this company will be based on the Evaluation Criteria”.

 

Additionally, in accordance with the tender documents a contractor may sub-contract the performance of any part of the required services with written approval of Council.

 

The scope of the works required in this tender included the following requirements:

 

·    Static Guard within the Civic Centre at 601 High Street, Penrith

·    Response to alarm activations (a total of 126 alarms are currently being monitored across Council buildings and facilities.)

·    Locking of nominated Council properties

·    Unlocking of nominated Council properties

·    Monitoring of alarms at nominated locations

·    General additional security services as required

 

All prospective tenderers were required to attend a mandatory pre-tender briefing on Friday 13 April 2012.

 

Tenderers were required to submit their tender on a standard pro-forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria.

 

Tender Evaluation Panel

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of Laura Schuil (Acting Supply Officer Contracts), Olivia Kidon (Community Safety Co-ordinator), Alison Pearson (Systems and Administration Support Officer) and David Burns (Group Manager - City Presentation).

 

Evaluation process

 

The process for the evaluation of tenders was as follows:

1.         Initial review of tenders to determine compliance with the evaluation criteria           including the ability to provide the full range of services specified;

2.          Assessment of costs based on the unit rates tendered and the allocated staff to       perform the services;

3.          Determination of a short-list based on the best rankings from 1 and 2 above;

4.          Further evaluation of the short-listed companies through:

-     Formal Interviews

-     Independent Financial Risk Analysis

-     Independent Referee Checks

 

Tender Evaluation Criteria

 

The tenders submitted were initially assessed in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the tender documents.  The selection criteria advertised and used in selecting the successful tenderers were as follows:

 

Company Information

·    Company Profile

 

Commercial Requirements

·    Critical Assumptions

·    Conforming Requirements

·    Conflict of Interest Declaration

·    Insurances

·    Instrument of Agreement

·    Required Declarations

·    Compliance Statement

·    Business References

 

Scope of Requirements

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Compliance to Specified Requirements

·    Establishment & Response Times

·    Conformance to Relevant Standards

 

Cost / Price Category

·    Unit Rates

·    Rise and Fall Provisions

·    Financial Viability

 

Management and Administration

·    Resources and Personnel

·    Quality Assurance

·    Environmental Management

·    Industrial Relations

·    Work Health & Safety

 

Summary of Tenders Received

 

A total of 23 companies lodged submissions in response to the advertised tender.  Of these, Nycon Security Group did not submit a price and therefore were non-compliant and were not considered further.

 

The tender received from Capricorn Alarms & Communications Pty Ltd did not answer all questions requested in the required format.  AFN Security and Downunder Security & Protection Pty Ltd did not submit their price schedule in the format requested, resulting in their total annualised cost being unable to be calculated.

 

Due to the lack of information it was not possible to properly assess these tenders as the conditions of tender required all documentation to be completed.  Accordingly they were considered to be non-compliant and were not considered further by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

 

Southern Cross Protection did not attend the mandatory pre-tender briefing and were also considered to be non-compliant, and were not considered further by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

 

The remaining nineteen (19) tenderers as listed in alphabetical order below were included in the initial evaluation:

 

ARG Security P/L

Business Security & Management Solutions Pty Ltd

Citiguard Protection Services Pty Ltd

Dalmore Security

ECS International Security & Investigations

Evolution Security NSW Pty Ltd

Fast Security Pty Ltd

H&H Security

Nepean Regional Security

Quad Services Pty Ltd

Sargent Security (Aus) Pty Ltd

Smith & Co Security

SNP Security

Southern Cross Group Services Pty Ltd

Synergy Protection Agency

Tricorp Security Services

Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd

Western District Night Patrol P/L

Wilson Parking Australia 1992 Pty Ltd (2 options)

 

Initial Evaluation of Tenders

 

Compliance

 

All remaining tenders were assessed against the evaluation criteria and based on their written submissions demonstrated that they met the specified requirements.

 

Prices

 

Prices were requested for each of the areas specified in the tender documents.  The table below indicates the total estimated annualised cost (lowest to highest) to perform the requested services.

 

Tenderer

Total annualised cost all services ($)

Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd

$308,100

Sargent Security (Aus) Pty Ltd

$327,723

Tricorp Security Services

$343,774

Fast Security Pty Ltd

$365,762

Citiguard Protection Services Pty Ltd

$402,766

Nepean Regional Security

$406,140

Wilson Parking Australia 1992 Pty Ltd
(static guards are subcontracted and supervised by Wilsons)

$413,392

Business Security & Management Solutions Pty Ltd

$417,176

*SNP Security

$423,667

Western District Night Patrol P/L

$440,753

Synergy Protection Agency

$453,076

Quad Services Pty Ltd

$458,877

Southern Cross Group Services Pty Ltd

$460,577

ECS International Security & Investigations

$464,116

Wilson Parking Australia 1992 Pty Ltd
(static guards are employees of Wilsons)

$475,872

H&H Security

$487,708

Smith & Co Security

$556,861

ARG Security P/L

$662,508

Dalmore Security

$684,083

Evolution Security NSW Pty Ltd

$782,407

 

* Based on the information provided by SNP Security, it was not possible to calculate the cost for monitoring.  However, SNP Security's annualised costs for Static Guard/Alarm Responses/Lock and Unlock properties was $423,667 which was in excess of tenders received from other companies for the total services required under the contract.

 

Comments

 

As stated above all remaining nineteen (19) tenderers submitted tenders in accordance with the conditions of tender and demonstrated compliance by responding to the selection criteria.  After the initial evaluation it was determined by the Tender Evaluation Panel that there was no benefit to Council in further considering the higher priced tenders from the following companies:

·    Tricorp Security Services

·    Fast Security Pty Ltd

·    Citiguard Protection Services Pty Ltd

·    Nepean Regional Security

·    Wilson Parking Australia 1992 Pty Ltd

·    Business Security & Management Solutions Pty Ltd

·    SNP Security

·    Western District Night Patrol P/L

·    Synergy Protection Agency

·    Quad Services Pty Ltd

·    Southern Cross Group Services Pty Ltd

·    ECS International Security & Investigations

·    H&H Security

·    Smith & Co Security

·    ARG Security P/L

·    Dalmore Security

·    Evolution Security NSW Pty Ltd

 

Short Listed Tenders

 

Following Phase 1 and 2 of the evaluation process, the Panel determined that the tenders received from Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd and Sargent Security (Aus) Pty Ltd be reviewed for further evaluation as to their capabilities to do the work, given the significant price difference from the rest of the tenders received.

 

Comments

 

Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd

 

Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd are based in Orchard Hills and were incorporated in 2006 to continue operations established in 1992.  Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd operates in providing complete security solutions, professional security guards, mobile patrols and all types of integrated alarm systems for small and large Government and non-Government organisations.

 

Triple O Security Pty Ltd have also successfully met the NSW criteria and tendering process to provide a full range of security services to this sector.

 

Triple O Security will supply the Static Guard Services and the overall contract management using its own staff.  They employ local staff as part of their local jobs first plan.

 

Triple O Security Pty Ltd propose to sub contract the alarm monitoring to BENS Wholesale Monitoring and the locking/unlocking of Council properties and alarm response to Private Protective Service Pty Ltd who are based in Mt Druitt. This company has been providing similar services to Triple O Security Pty Ltd for the past three (3) years and staff are issued with Triple O Security uniforms. Similarly patrol vehicles are badged with the Triple O logo.

 

All staff are paid under the Fair Work Australia Security Services Industry Award 2010.

 

Councillors have been provided with additional information by separate memorandum.

 

Sargent Security (Aus) Pty Ltd

 

Sargent Security (Aus) Pty Ltd are based in Smithfield and were incorporated in 2006 to continue original operations established in 1998.  Sargent Security (Aus) Pty Ltd provides services including Manpower (security guards, crowd control officers, event management, gatehouse guards, and reception desk offices); Patrols (foot, vehicle and dog patrols, lock and unlock duties); alarm monitoring and electronic security.

 

They provide security services for a local Council, the NSW Government Department and the private sector.

 

Sargent Security proposes to sub contract the alarm monitoring to BENS Wholesale Monitoring. All other services required will be undertaken by their own trained personnel.

 

All staff are paid under the Fair Work Australia Security Services Industry Award 2010.

 

 

Independent Financial Analysis

 

Third Party financial analysis checks were conducted by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd for both two short-listed tenderers.  There were no adverse findings and all tenderers demonstrated satisfactory financial capacity to undertake the works.

 

Independent Referee Checks

 

Third party referee checks were conducted by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd for both two short-listed tenderers.  The referee checks indicated a high level of customer satisfaction with no adverse comments for both companies.

 

Interviews

 

A formal interview was conducted with Triple O Security Services to further determine their understanding of the scope of works required, details of their relevant experience and to ascertain the level of resources, including resources they would allocate to this contract.  The interview process also sought further information on methodology, staffing and clarification of awards used for payment of wages.

 

Following the interview with Triple O Security Services it was determined that they demonstrated a high level of understanding of the requirements of the tender requirements and the resources and equipment required to deliver the level of service required.  The Tender Evaluation Panel determined that the company can adequately perform the work required

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the detailed evaluation, analysis of staffing, interviews, price submitted and independent financial analysis and referee checks, the tender that represents the best overall value to Council is Triple O Security Services at an annualised cost of $308,100.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comments

 

The assessment of tenders included the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on the shortlisted tenderers. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review, no concerns were raised as to the ability of Triple O Security Services Pty Ltd to perform the works required by the tender. The tendered price of Triple O Security Services can be accommodated within the existing operational budget for security services.

 

Comment by Tender Advisory Group (TAG)

 

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager ~ Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider a tender for the provision of security services.

 

The TAG supports the methodology used for assessing the tenders and supports the recommendation made by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11/12-16, Provision of Security Services be received.

2.     The contract for the provision Security Services be awarded to Triple O Security Service Pty Ltd for an initial period of two (2) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods, with provision for rise and fall subject to satisfactory performance.

3.     The Common Seal of the Council of Penrith be affixed to any necessary documentation.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

8

Nepean River Green Bridge - Public Exhibition of Transport Study   

 

Compiled by:               Ruth Byrnes, Senior Traffic Officer

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

Improve the City's footpath and cycleway network (16.3)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the progress of the Nepean River Green Bridge Project, in particular the findings of the Draft Nepean River Green Bridge Transport Study, prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd.  The report recommends that the findings of the Draft Nepean River Green Bridge Transport Study be endorsed. 

 

The report also seeks endorsement for Council to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), underpinned by an associated Terms of Reference (ToR), for the establishment of the “Nepean River Green Bridge Steering Group” to oversee the project. 

 

Background

For many years, the capacity of Victoria Bridge to carry growing numbers of pedestrians and cyclists has been a matter of concern for the community of Penrith and Emu Plains.  In November, 2010 the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) conducted a structural feasibility study to attach a pathway to the southern side of the Victoria Bridge.  The study indicated that a “clip-on” structure for a shared path is possible, however, the cost of this structure is estimated to be up to $35 million and it would require a long construction timeframe. 

 

RMS considered the findings of this Study and decided that a separate bridge would be more feasible, less expensive and faster to build, and would reduce impacts on the heritage significance of Victoria Bridge.

 

Subsequently, the NSW Government has committed $20 million for a new active transport crossing of the Nepean River.   In the interests of active transport, the name “Nepean River Green Bridge” has been attributed to the project.  The timeframe for the design and construction of a new shared path bridge for pedestrians and cyclists is to 2015. 

 

Current situation

Nepean River Green Bridge Steering Committee

To guide the project, a Steering Committee was established,  with representatives from Transport for NSW (Chair); Roads and Maritime Services;  the Local Member, Mr Stuart Ayres MP;  the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies; Councillor Ross Fowler OAM; a community representative (Mr Joe Grassi), Council staff and staff from both Transport for NSW and the Roads and Maritime Services.

 

The Steering Committee developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment No 1), which outlines the Committee’s agreement to its terms and obligations during the course of the project.   The Terms of Reference  (ToR) (Attachment No 2) defines the members, roles and functions of the Committee.

 

It is recommended that both the MOU and ToR be endorsed as the framework for Council’s continued support and involvement in the project. 

 

Transport Study

The initial decision in relation to the most appropriate location for the design/construction of the bridge is a critical milestone.  Accordingly, Transport for NSW commissioned AECOM Australia Pty Ltd to undertake a transport study to:

·        “Review relevant policy documents, planning guidelines and studies/reports;

·        Review current crossing locations and options;

·        Identify current and future pedestrian and cyclists desire lines between Penrith and Emu Plains;

·        Determine suitable bridge locations;

·        List the key impacts and opportunities for each bridge location;

·        Determine required supporting pedestrian and cycle infrastructure to link the existing path networks to the new crossing location;

·        Undertake community and stakeholder consultation to ensure all key impacts and opportunities have been identified; and

·        Recommend a preferred bridge location.”

 

The Study area is shown in the map following.

 

Study Area (AECOM)

 

As part of the investigations, AECOM conducted two stakeholders’ meetings on 4 and 25 May 2012, to seek information as to how the Victoria Bridge is currently used, understand stakeholder needs and gauge public opinion on six proposed options for the new bridge alignment.  The six options are:-

 

·    Option 1 - Emu Ford

Option 1 proposes a new crossing at Emu Ford.  Potential connections to the Option 1 crossing location from the wider network are via High Street, Bruce Neale Drive and Old Ferry Road to the east and Great Western Highway and Punt Road to the west.  Potential access strategies through use of existing network links and potential upgrades are listed in the study. 

 

The Study found this to be one of the least preferred options with concern over its function and safety. 

 

Option 1 - Emu Ford (AECOM)

 

·    Option 2 - North of Rowing Club

Option 2 crossing is located at a point north of the rowing Club.  Connections to the proposed crossing location would be similar to Option 1, with access via High Street, Bruce Neale Drive and Old Ferry Road to the east and Great Western Highway and Punt Road to the west. 

 

Again, the Study found this to be one of the least preferred options, with function and benefit ranking poorly.

Option 2 - North of Rowing Club (AECOM)

 

 

·    Option 3 - North of Victoria Bridge

Option 3 proposes a new crossing at a point north of Victoria Bridge, but south of the Rowing Club.  Connections to the proposed crossing location are via High Street, Bruce Neale Drive and Old Ferry Road to the east and Great Western Highway and Punt Road to the west.

 

Similar to Option 2, the Study found this to be one of the least preferred options.

 

Option 3 – North of Victoria Bridge (AECOM)

 

·    Option 4 - Victoria Bridge

Option 4 proposes a new crossing on or immediately adjacent to Victoria Bridge.  There are three possibilities for Option 4 as follows:

Option 4a- a shared pedestrian and cyclist facility on the northern side of the bridge;

Option 4b – located between the road and rail bridge, above the existing utility pipeline; and

Option 4c – a shared pedestrian and cyclist facility on the southern side of the bridge.

 

The Study found that Options 4a and 4b were not preferred as they did not necessarily address the functional aspects, nor meet community needs.

 

Option 4c was the more favoured of the three sub-options, and in fact, ranked second in the overall findings of the Study.

 

Option 4 – Victoria Bridge (AECOM)

 

·    Option 5 - Punt Road and Old Ferry Road

Option 5 proposes a new crossing between Punt Road and Old Ferry Road.  Connections to the proposed crossing location are via High Street, Memorial Avenue, Nepean Avenue and Old Ferry Road to the east and Great Western Highway, Old Bathurst Road, River Road and Punt Road to the west.

 

The Study found this to be the most preferred (highest ranked) option.  This option provided the most benefit in terms of functionality, safety and meeting the community’s expectations.

 

 

        Option 5 – Punt Road and Old Ferry Road (AECOM)

 

·    Option 6 - Regatta Park

Option 6 is located south of Regatta Park.  Connections to the proposed crossing location are via High Street, Memorial Avenue, Nepean Avenue and Fitch Avenue to the east and Great Western Highway and River Road to the west.

 

The Study found this option to be ranked third, however, it raised concerns over the location in terms of community expectations and overall function.

 

     

      Option 6 – Regatta Park (AECOM)

 

 

Each of the options considered constraints and opportunities to assist in determining the preferred location.  During the two stakeholders’ meetings, all of the options were ranked against key themes of safety, function, community and cost.   The ranking found that the community indicated a preference for the locations near or on the existing bridge, with Option 5 receiving the most positive feedback. 

 

The Draft Study notes that “it is clear from comments received that community expectation is for an upgraded crossing location that is safe, convenient and cost effective.  Community has also placed a high value on the study section of the river in terms of its aesthetic qualities, local identify, heritage, leisure and sporting activities.  The river is highly utilised both on the water and its environs, consequently it is important that the preferred location accommodates community activities and has the potential to enhance recreational, economic and social opportunities into the future.”

 

As a result, Option 5, being the historic punt crossing from Punt Road to Old Ferry Road, is identified in the Draft Transport Study as the preferred alignment. 

 

At its meeting of 21 May 2012, the Nepean River Green Bridge Steering Committee expressed support for the Study for the purposes of public exhibition.  There was a general view/consensus at the time that Option 5 appeared to present the alignment that provided the greatest community benefit.  

 

Public Exhibition

 

As announced by the Minister for Roads, Mr Duncan Gay MP, and the Local Member for Penrith, Mr Stuart Ayres MP, on 3 July 2012, the Draft Transport Study was available for public exhibition from 3 to 17 July 2012.   

 

At the time of drafting this report, the results of the consultation process are unknown.  Advice is being sought from Transport for NSW and all efforts will be made to provide Councillors with a summary of the results prior to the Ordinary Meeting.

 

Commentary

 

Option 5 provides an alignment which can closely relate to the current transport connections (Great Western Highway and High Street), and would be a preferred ‘desire line’ for all pedestrians and cyclists, particularly in consideration of the popular “bridge to bridge” circuit, and commuting links between Penrith and Emu Plains.  It neatly connects with existing and proposed shared-use paths in Memorial Avenue and Nepean Avenue, as well as along Great Western Highway through Emu Plains. It provides optimal opportunities for a new ‘place’ at the river, with views of Victoria Bridge, the river and the eastern escarpment of the Blue Mountains.  With careful treatment in the design phase, any adverse impacts on residents’ amenity can be reduced as much as possible. 

 

For these reasons, and as Option 5 was seen as the most positive alignment during the two stakeholders’ meetings and by the Steering Committee, it is recommended that Council supports this option as the preferred alignment for the development of the pedestrian and cycleway bridge. 

 

 

Next Steps

At the conclusion of the exhibition period, Transport for NSW will collate all feedback, (including Council’s feedback) and prepare a report for consideration at the next Steering Committee meeting.

 

Conclusion

The process has been a collaborative effort and the extent of the community engagement in the recommendation of the alignment is commendable.

 

The new pedestrian and cyclist crossing will:

 

·        enable safer walking and cycling opportunities for all users and may create leisure and tourism opportunities;

·        overcome the walking and cycling connectivity barrier created by the Nepean River,

·        improve active transport connections between Penrith and Emu Plains, and

·        provide a greater level of engagement with, and enjoyment of, the river.

 

The Draft Nepean River Green Bridge Transport Study has identified Option 5, between Punt Road to Old Ferry Road, as the preferred alignment for the new bridge, and the Steering Committee supports this option.    It is recommended that as part of the public exhibition process, Council resolves to support Option 5 as its preferred alignment for the new bridge.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Nepean River Green Bridge - Public Exhibition of Transport Study be received.

2.     Option 5: Punt Road to Old Ferry Road be endorsed as Council’s preferred option for the new bridge alignment.

3.     Council write to Transport for NSW and Roads and Maritime Services advising of Council’s preferred alignment. 

4.     The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and the Road and Maritime Services (RMS), and the Terms of Reference (ToR), for the establishment of the “Nepean River Green Bridge Steering Group” be endorsed. 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Memorandum of Understanding - Nepean River Green Bridge

12 Pages

Appendix

2.  

Terms of Reference - Nepean River Green Bridge

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    23 July 2012

Appendix 1 - Memorandum of Understanding - Nepean River Green Bridge

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                    23 July 2012

Appendix 2 - Terms of Reference - Nepean River Green Bridge

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

9

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)  2012/13 Road Funding Grants   

 

Compiled by:               Hans Meijer, City Works Manager

Authorised by:            Hans Meijer, City Works 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

Provide a safe, efficient local road network (16.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2012/13 Road Funding Grants. RMS provides various Road Funding Grants to councils each year, to assist with the maintenance of regional roads, road safety and traffic related issues. The report recommends that Council accepts the grants offered.

Background

RMS provides various Road Funding Grants to councils each year, to assist with the maintenance of regional roads, road safety and traffic related issues.

 

Advice has been received from RMS of the following grants for 2012/13:

 

1.   Regional Road

 

The Regional Road Block Grant is made up of the following components:

-     Road component: Allocated to maintenance work on Regional roads.

-     Supplementary Road Component: This is available for road works, as determined by Council, on regional roads. In 2012/13 this component is allocated to the Rural Roads Widening Program for the resurfacing of Llandilo Road, Llandilo (from Sunnymeade Road to Sixth Road)

-     Traffic Facilities Component:  For the installation and maintenance of regulatory signs and lines on local and regional roads.

 

Council can access a 50% contribution for specific works on Regional roads under the REPAIR Program. Penrith City Council’s allocation under this program in recent years has been as follows:

 

2011/12 :              $250,000

2010/11:               $250,000

 

In preparation for 2012/13, RMS advised Council that they have increased the maximum amount available under the REPAIR Program (rehabilitation) to $300,000.

 

RMS has advised that Council has been successful in achieving the maximum amount of $300,000 in the 2012/13 REPAIR Program. The allocation consists of $250,000 for the reconstruction of Old Bathurst Road (100m west of David Road to 300m west of Smith Street, Emu Plains) and $50,000 toward the reconstruction of Dunheved Road (John Batman Ave to John Oxley Ave).

 

RMS advises that the following 2012/13 Program Funding is available to Council:

 

Regional Roads

2012/13

Basis of Grant

Block Grant – Road Component

$468,000

100%

Block Grant – Supplementary Road Component

$156,000

100%

Block Grant – Traffic Facilities Component

$424,000

100%

Total Allocation to Penrith City Council

$1,048,000

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)  2012/13 Road Funding Grants be received.

2.     The RMS 2012/13 Program Funding Block Grant of $1,048,000 be accepted.

3.     Council accept the grant of $250,000, offered under the 2012/13 Roads and Maritime Services REPAIR Program, for the reconstruction of Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains, from 100m west of David Road to 300m west of Smith Street.

4.     Council accept the grant of $50,000, offered under the 2012/13 Roads and Maritime Services REPAIR Program, for the reconstruction of Dunheved Road, Werrington from John Batman Ave to John Oxley Ave.

5.     The Supplementary Road component be allocated to the resurfacing of Llandilo Road, Llandilo (between Sunnymeade Road and Sixth Road).

6.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to the ‘Agreement for Block Grant Assistance to Council for Regional Roads 2012/13”.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Urgent Reports

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

10      Penrith Commuter Car Park Update

 

 



Ordinary Meeting - Urgent Report                                                                          23 July 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

10

Penrith Commuter Car Park Update   

 

Compiled by:               Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager

Authorised by:            Hans Meijer, Acting 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

This report summarises the timeline of delivery of the commuter Car park north of Penrith Railway Station. This project has had a long gestation period and was delivered by Council on behalf of the State and Federal funding bodies.  The project has been delivered with a substantial $2.464m (15.8%) saving compared to the budget and on programme once rain related delays have been factored in. The North Penrith Commuter Car park opened to the public on Monday 16 July, with the official opening ceremony scheduled for Friday 3 August 2012.

Background

Council considered a report on 15 December 2008 and resolved to lodge an application for $5m towards the construction of a 1,000 space multi-deck commuter Car park (total cost $22.6m) on the defence land on the north side of Penrith Station under the Federal government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) economic stimulus package.  The application was prepared and submitted by 23 December 2008 and considered a matching State contribution of $5m and the balance of costs ($12.6m) being sourced from the development of the Defence site.

 

Council was successful in achieving the grant of $5m and the matching $5m from the State government.  The balance of the funding ($12.6m) required for the Car park was to be an offset to the sale price of the land.

 

Council engaged consultants to produce a concept design for the 1,000 space decked Car park and proposed a Design and Construct tender in July 2009 to meet the grant milestone of construction commencement by 15 December 2009.  The land sale had not been finalised by July 2009 so the project was changed with the consultant preparing full documentation for a Construction only tender.

 

In August 2009 expressions of interest were called as a first step of a selective tender process and Council received a report on the outcome of the expressions of interest in October 2009.  Cost estimates for the construction were in the order of $23.6m.  A resolution was made to call tenders from the open market when detailed design was completed.  This was following the amendment of guidelines initially requiring Federal OH&S accreditation of contractors, allowing an opportunity for smaller companies to tender.

 

In late 2009, the Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) of the Federal government requested lower cost options be considered.  The design of the Car park was amended to a 500 space decked, 500 space at grade configuration which significantly reduced the cost.  The grant agency was advised of the scope change and that probable cost would be $13-14m.  The quantum of the sale of land was locked in based on this configuration as it was the maximum extent of at grade parking.

 

Early in 2010 Landcom requested changes to the plans so as to ensure it did not constrain future development of adjoining lands.  The finished ground levels were raised to maximise future drainage potential.  A detailed quantity surveyors report for the final design was undertaken and the cost estimate of $15.62m included provision for consultancy fees, construction contingency and project management costs.

 

The NSW Department of Transport and Infrastructure conducted a Value Management Study on the Car park project which included representatives from Council, RailCorp and Landcom.  The study confirmed the design and value of the project.

 

In July 2010 the additional funding required was sourced with the ERC committing the Federal government to an additional $3.81m and the State government adding $1.81m from Landcom.  A total of $15.62m in funding had now been secured for the project.

 

Quantity Surveyor budget of $13.24m for construction component only, and a RailCorp scope addition of $0.6m for enhanced security including CCTV took the total budget estimate to $16.316m. The tender was structured with severable items including the covered walkway and façade elements so as to ensure the available budget could be met.  Council also had the option of waiving or reducing internal Project Management costs in order to meet the agreed budget.

 

In October 2010 Council received a report proposing 9 contractors to be invited for selective tender following the evaluation of 25 submissions.  Invitations were sent to the 9 contractors and the Selective Tender was placed on the e-Tendering web site with a closing date of 16 November 2010.

 

In December 2010 Council received a report advising that Denham Constructions Pty Ltd had offered the lowest overall price for the full scope of the project at $10,845,101 excluding GST.  The expected construction program was 9½ months.

 

Denham Constructions had successfully completed the Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct for Council and had also completed the Holsworthy Commuter Car park and received favourable reports from TNSW for the project.

 

Council resolved to award the tender to Denham Constructions once the three outstanding items at the time had been resolved:

(i) the Car park site has been transferred to Council;

(ii) the State and Federal funding agreements have been executed; and

(iii) the Car park construction plans have been approved by TNSW and RailCorp.

 

After more than two years of negotiations, the Defence Department and Landcom exchanged contracts of sale for the north Penrith army land including transferring the Car park site to Council ownership.  Construction began on the commuter Car park in June 2011 with the facility expected to be operational in April 2012.

 

The project entered construction phase with Unexploded Ordinance Insurance being in place by Council due to the site being former defence land.

 

After excavation and foundation works were completed, the total project budget was reviewed and a forecast saving of $2.464m was nominated to the funding bodies.

 

Extensive rain delays were experienced throughout the project with more than 2 months of rainy days and a further 1 month of associated delays caused by not being able to pour concrete where rain was expected within the initial curing period.

 

Accounts are still being finalised, however the forecast saving of $2.464m remains untouched.  The scope of the project was amended only through the deletion of the covered walkway ($190k) which was deleted in consultation with Landcom so that they could tie the covered walkway directly into their own development plans, however the security and CCTV items added to the scope were in excess of the saving realised by that non-budget driven scope change.  None of the other potential scope reduction severable options considered during the tender period were utilised.

 

The facility opened to the public on Monday 16 July 2012, which was 3 months after the initial forecast.  The official opening will be held on Friday 3 August 2012 with representatives from State and Federal government in attendance.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Penrith Commuter Car Park Update be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday 23 July 2012

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                        1

 

2        Commercial Matter - Tender reference 11/12-16, Provision of Security Services

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 July 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 Liveable City

 

2        Commercial Matter - Tender reference 11/12-16, Provision of Security Services

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.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 23 July 2012

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

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

Report Title:                Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan – Penrith Health & Education Precinct and North Penrith

Attachments:               Penrith Health and Education Precinct

                                      North Penrith - Residual Sites

                                      Proposed Permissible Landuses in the B7 – Business Park Zone



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           23 July 2012

Attachment 1 - Penrith Health and Education Precinct

 

 

 

Attachment 1

 

 

Site/Matter:   Penrith Health and Education Precinct

 

 

Council Resolution (where applicable):

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 9 July 2012, in considering the minutes of the Policy Review Committee meeting of 2 July, Council resolved to defer resolution number 5 regarding Item 1 “Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan – Unresolved Matters”, specifically in relation to proposed zonings in the Health and Education Precinct.

 

Officer’s Planning Commentary:

 

Background

 

In May 2010 the Penrith Business Alliance was nominated by the NSW Government as the lead agency to report back on the development of the 'Penrith Health and Education Precinct” (PHEP). The vision for the project is to attract life science companies to Penrith and demonstrate why Penrith is an appropriate place to locate.

 

The precinct has grown rapidly over the last decade in terms of jobs, student enrolments and residents living in the precinct. The aim is now to facilitate development in this area for health professionals, research and education services.

 

The “Implementation Next Steps” of the “Strategic Vision” of the PHEP at point 7 states:

 

“Work with Penrith City Council and NSW Department of Planning to align local and state planning instruments with themes and development initiatives identified in the vision”

 

The Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP proposes to zone the land in Kingswood and Werrington in accordance with the PHEP Structure Plan. The PHEP Structure Plan is shown in Figure 1.

 

Zones for the Precinct

 

Generally the zones applied are consistent with the PHEP Structure Plan. There are some minor variations in the eastern part of the precinct. These minor variations are because the zones reflect the recommendation of the Werrington Enterprise Living and Learning (WELL) Precinct Strategy and adopted Concept Plan.  The variations are discussed below:

 

Minor Variations

 

(a)  The PHEP proposes Lot 50 French Street, Werrington as part of the “Future Health Industry Park”. The WELL Precinct Strategy and adopted Concept Plan propose this area as residential. It is proposed to retain the residential zoning for this site as it will provide for accommodation needs of the people working in the adjacent “Future Health Industry Park”.

 

(b)  The PHEP proposes part of the TAFE as “Health Industry” and retains the South Werrington UWS Campus for Education purposes. The WELL Precinct Strategy and adopted Concept Plan proposes to retain education use on the TAFE site and zone the UWS South Werrington Campus as Business Park. In effect there is no change because the intention of the PHEP is retained and it is just a switch between sites.

 

(c)  The PHEP proposes a small part of the UWS Kingswood Campus adjacent to 50-52 Manning Street, Caddens as residential. The WELL Precinct Strategy and adopted Concept Plan propose to zone 50-52 Manning Street (ARV site) as residential but to retain the UWS Kingswood Campus for educational purposes. The ARV seniors living development has recently been completed and there is still land available for further expansion. It is therefore intended to apply the zones consistent with the WELL Precinct Strategy and adopted Concept Plan.

 

(d) The PHEP proposes “Commercial Centre” along Bringelly Road and the Great Western Highway at Kingswood. This is consistent with the Penrith Urban Study and draft Urban Strategy except for a small portion of Bringelly Road (eastern part near Derby Street) where High Density Residential was proposed. Given that High Density Residential is permitted within the proposed B4 – Mixed Use zone, it is intended to zone this whole area as B4-Mixed Use consistent with the PHEP Structure Plan.

 

(e)  Councillors have requested further consideration of retail uses (zoning) on land located at the corner of French Street and Great Western Highway Kingswood (731-769 Great Western Highway Kingswood) to serve the need of the workers in the proposed Business Park. This site is located 500 metres north of the proposed WELL Precinct Centre which is the preferred location for a local centre based on the WELL Precinct Strategy and adopted Concept Plan. This preferred location also has the support of the University of Western Sydney, TAFE and RMS (formerly RTA).

 

During the preparation of Council’s adopted WELL Precinct Strategy, Hill PDA was commissioned to research the location and viability of the WELL ‘Precinct Centre’. The study identified demand for approximately 10,000 m2 of retail floorspace that would underpin the sustainability of the WELL Precinct Centre. In November 2006, Hill PDA carried out another analysis of the location of the WELL Precinct Centre. That study concluded that the WELL Precinct Centre in O’Connell Street was properly located to serve its planned local trading area. If the WELL Precinct Centre was to expand beyond 12,000 m2 of retail area then centres like St Marys, would likely experience adverse economic impact. Expansion beyond 40,000 m2 would impact Penrith City Centre.

 

The Hill PDA 2006 report also concluded that if the WELL Precinct Centre was however, to be located straddling the Great Western Highway, there would be considerable pressure for the centre to change its identity from that of a Village Centre, anchored by a supermarket and special stores to that of a bulky goods centre anchored by homemaker centres or discount department stores. Hill PDA concluded that locating the Precinct Centre adjacent to the Great Western Highway would not be appropriate.

 

The benefits of the proposed centre location and provision of retail premises in O’Connell Street are:

 

•     It is centrally positioned to the existing UWS and TAFE campuses, emerging major residential area to the south (Caddens), proposed employment precinct and existing residential neighbourhoods.

•     The location will ensure there is a critical mass achieved with development in the Precinct Centre to support and maintain an active and vibrant community hub.

•     The site encourages UWS and TAFE campuses to grow towards each other, creating a more seamless education precinct and affording the opportunity for University and TAFE activities to integrate with those of the community.

•     The site affords the opportunity for reasonable amenity to be achieved for higher density housing in and around the edges of the Precinct Centre, including student housing, which will ensure that the Centre will be an active place outside normal business hours.

•     The site provides a vehicle for enhancing the connectivity between the current disparate campuses of UWS and also linking the TAFE campus activities.

•     A local bus route is proposed along O’Connell Street which would link the University and TAFE campuses, Caddens Road residential area, the Precinct Centre, and strategic bus corridor along the Great Western Highway.

•     The Centre is strategically positioned to utilise passing trade from the 15,000 existing students and staff members which enhances the viability of the Precinct Centre.

•     The Centre will provide a new front door for the UWS and TAFE, and thereby enhance their presence.

•     The site is located on a principal collector road, enhancing access and close to the principal new residential community which it needs to serve.

•     The site adjoins Werrington Creek environmental conservation zone, which affords a high amenity feature to “edge” the Centre and generate a special character for the place.

 

It is noted that the proposed B7 Business Park zone provides for neighbourhood shops, office premises, food and drink premises and other supporting uses. Attachment 3 provides a full list of proposed permissible uses within the B7 zone.  These activities can occur throughout the Business Park, and be located to service new development as it emerges.

 

In summary, locating additional retail zoned land at the Great Western Highway site is not recommended as this would fragment the delivery of retail services in the Precinct and weaken the planned Precinct Centre viability for which the UWS are currently developing plans for its establishment.  It also has the potential to adversely affect existing retail centres at St Marys, Claremont Meadows and Kingswood. Retail development at this site is likely to have adverse impacts upon traffic, parking and access on the Great Western Highway, and is not supported by RMS.

 

The remaining proposed zones applied to this area are consistent with the PHEP Structure Plan. The proposed zones have been considered and applied in consultation with the Penrith Business Alliance (PBA).

 

Zones adjacent to the Nepean Hospital

 

The PHEP Structure Plan proposes “Health Uses” adjacent to the Nepean Hospital. “Health Uses” are defined as “Health Services Facility” in the Department of Planning & Infrastructure’s (DP&I) LEP template. The LEP template has a suite of zones available but none specifically cater for “Health Services Facilities”. Any zone that is applied to this area will also permit a number of other uses. The market will then determine which use is taken up in the short term. This may compromise the long term intentions for this area. Therefore Council officers have considered a number of options to zone the land adjacent to the Nepean Hospital.

 

The preferred option is to apply a B4 – Mixed Use zone similar to the zone that has been applied to the Nepean Private Hospital site through the Part 3A application process. The B4 – Mixed Use zone has previously been applied to Penrith City Centre and the St Marys Town Centre to maintain the adopted Hierarchy of Centres. The B4 – Mixed Use zone may also be applied to Kingswood given that it is now recognised as a Specialised Centre under the Metropolitan Strategy. This zone permits a range of uses such as retail, offices, health services facilities, business premises, residential flat buildings, car parks, seniors housing etc. The advantage of this option is that the zone permits all possible uses that are suitable for a Centre and that are needed for Kingswood to grow as a Specialised Centre.

 

The (B4 – Mixed Use) zone responds to the needs of Kingswood as a Specialised Centre by permitting a diverse range of land uses needed to support the “Health Services Facilities”. The intention of this area will be made clear by introducing a precinct chapter within the Development Control Plan (DCP). This Chapter will have a set of objectives for this precinct. The amount of retail and general office uses will be restricted with floor space controls in the future LEP.

 

A preliminary review of other hospitals in a similar situation has revealed the application of the B4- Mixed Use zone. The Westmead Public Hospital is zoned as Special Use (Health Services Facility) while the Westmead private and other land in the vicinity is zoned as B4 – Mixed Use and supports the health related focus of the major hospital. Similarly the Macquarie University Hospital and Macquarie University are zoned as Special Use (Health Services Facility) zone and the areas adjacent to the Hospital and Macquarie shopping centre are zoned as B4 – Mixed Use.

 

This zone has also been applied to the Nepean Private Hospital site through the Part 3A major project application process.

 

Councillors have requested consideration of the application of the SP2 Infrastructure zone to the properties immediately adjacent to the Nepean Hospital. 

 

To guide councils on the use of the Standard Instrument Template (the Template) infrastructure zones, the Department has issued a LEP Practice Note.  This note states the circumstances in which a specific infrastructure zone or one of the suite of Template zones should be applied to land.  Specifically, it states that where certain types of infrastructure are permitted by State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (the Infrastructure SEPP 2007) in ‘prescribed zones’, these zones should be applied in place of the specific infrastructure zones.

 

Currently, the Infrastructure SEPP allows Heath services facilities in a range of prescribed zones, including the R3 Medium Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use zones.  We are advised that the DP&I is unlikely to support the use of a specific infrastructure zone over the private lands adjoining the Hospital.

 

The B4 Mixed Use zone is therefore considered an appropriate proposal for this area because it:

·    Is a prescribed zone in Infrastructure SEPP and its selection is in accordance with the Department’s Practice Note.

·    Complements the B4 Mixed Use zone proposed for the nearby Kingswood centre; and already in place on site subject to an approval under Part 3A.

·    It will permit other health related and supporting businesses such as pharmacies and other retail premises, such as those specialising in mobility aids, Medicare and health insurance office premises, and respite day care and child care centres.

·    Is in accordance with recommendations of the draft Penrith Urban Strategy and the Penrith Health and Education Precinct Structure Plan.

 

Although the intention of this area will be made clear by the introduction of a precinct chapter in the DCP, it is necessary that sophisticated detailed planning controls are developed for the LEP to minimise the likelihood of undesired development in the area. This is a complex process as some health related facilities could be classified as retail (e.g. pharmacies), business premises (e.g. medicare office), etc. Council officers will further review the zone boundaries in light of the new detailed planning controls and report back to Council in the new year.

 

The proposed zones for this Precinct are Shown in Figure 2.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that:

·    The land use zonings identified at Figure 2 for the PHEP be applied in the Planning Proposal for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

 


Figure 1: Penrith Health and Education Precinct Structure Plan

 


 

Figure 2: Preferred zoning option for the Penrith Health and Education Precinct

ZoningKingswood2.jpg,Legend 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           23 July 2012

Attachment 2 - North Penrith - Residual Sites

 

 

 

Attachment 2

 

 

Site/Matter:   North Penrith – Residual Sites

 

 

Council Resolution (where applicable):

 

No specific Resolution.

 

The North Penrith Army Land was declared as a State Significant Site by the NSW Government and zoned by the State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (North Penrith) 2011. Two sites (Council’s commuter car park and the Defence Multi User Depot) were not included in the SEPP and are now required to be zoned as a part of Stage 2.

 

 

Officer’s Planning Commentary:

 

Background

 

The North Penrith Army Land site appeared as a blank site in the original Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP because the site was still being planned at the time as a Part 3A State Significant Site by the NSW Government.

 

On 25 November 2011, the North Penrith Army Land was rezoned and brought under Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 by State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (North Penrith) 2011. Stage 2 of the City-wide Plan incorporates Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 and will retain the current zones with minor changes.

 

The North Penrith SEPP did not include the following two sites:

 

(i)   Council’s commuter car park

(ii)  The Defence Multi User Depot

 

It is now intended to include zones for both of the above sites in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP.

 

The Commuter Car Park

 

The commuter car park is currently zoned as:

 

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land)

·    Part 5(a) Special Uses

·    Part 2(d) Residential (Medium Density)

·    Part 2(e) Residential (Medium-High Density)

 

Penrith LEP 2010

Part IN1 – General Industrial

 

The above zones are the residual zones from the previously adopted plan for North Penrith.

 

The multi deck car park is currently under construction on part of this site. The remaining part of the site is being used for at-grade car parking facilities. There are no intentions to use this site for any other purposes in the short term. It is therefore proposed to zone this land as "SP2 – Infrastructure” consistent with the use existing on the site. However, in the medium term, part of this site could be considered for Community Facilities. Therefore it is proposed to schedule “Community Facilities” as an additional permitted use on this site to maintain flexibility into the future. Figure 1 shows an Aerial Photo of the Site. The proposed zones are shown in Figure 2.

 

Defence Multi User Depot

 

The Defence Multi User Depot is currently zoned as:

 

Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land)

·    Part 5(a) Special Uses

·    Part 2(a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection)

·    Part 2(d) Residential (Medium Density)

 

The above zones are also residual zones from the previously adopted plan for North Penrith. Council officers have contacted the Department of Defence to determine their future intention for this site. The Department of Defence has indicated that it does not intend to use this site for any other purpose in the near future and it is happy for the zoning of the site to reflect its current use. It is therefore proposed to zone this land as "SP1 – Defence” consistent with the uses existing on the site.

 

Figure 1 shows an Aerial Photo of the Site. The proposed zones are shown in Figure 2.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that:

·    The land use zonings identified at Figure 2 for the residual sites that were not included in the recent SEPP Amendment for North Penrith be applied in the Planning Proposal for the purpose of public exhibition.

·    “Community Facilities” be included as an additional permitted use on the Council’s commuter car park site.

 

 


Figure 1: Aerial Photo of the North Penrith Area

Penrith

Station

 
 

Figure 2: Proposed zones

 

NorthPenrith SP2 andSP1 ver 2.jpg
 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      23 July 2012

Attachment 3 - Proposed Permissible Landuses in the B7 – Business Park Zone

 

Attachment 3:

B7 – Business Park Zone – Proposed Permissible Landuses

 

 

1.   Shop top housing

2.   Tourist and visitor accommodation

3.  Backpacker's accommodation

4.  Bed & breakfast accommodation

5.  Farm stay accommodation

6.  Hotel or motel accommodation

7.  Serviced apartments

8.   Business premises (banks, post offices, hairdressers, dry cleaners, travel agencies, internet access facilities, betting agencies and the like)

9.  Funeral homes

10. Office premises

11. Food and drink premises

12.         Pubs

13.         Restaurants or cafes

14.         Take away food and drink premises

15. Kiosks

16. Markets

17. Neighbourhood shops (up to a maximum of 200m2)

18. Function centres

19. Child care centres

20. Community facilities

21. Educational establishments

22.         Schools

23.         Tertiary institution

24. Emergency services facilities

25. Health services facilities

26.         Health consulting rooms

27.         Hospitals

28.         Medical centres

29. Industrial training facilities

30. Information & education facilities

31. Public administration buildings

32. Respite day care centres

33. Light industries

34.         Home industries

35.         High technology industries

36.         Industrial retail outlets

37. Warehouse or distribution centres

38. Car parks

39. Flood mitigation works

40. Passenger transport facilities

41. Roads

42. Water treatment facilities

43. Recreation facilities (indoor)

44. Recreation facilities (outdoor)

45. Building identification sign

46. Business identification sign

 

Note:          1. The indented and italicised uses are subgroup terms of the bold term above them.

2. The list is limited by the terms defined in the LEP Standard Template.


 

ATTACHMENT       

 

 

 


Date of Meeting:          23 July 2012

 

Delivery Program:       A Leading City   

 

Program:                      Corporate Finance

 

Report Title:                 2011-2012 Voted Works