27 June 2012

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 2 July 2012 at 7:00PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.?????????? LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Kaylene Allison - 28 May 2012 to 8 July 2012 inclusive.

 

2.?????????? APOLOGIES

 

3.?????????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 4 June 2012.

 

4.?????????? DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.?????????? ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.?????????? MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION

?

9.?????????? DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.???????? REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.???????? URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.???????? CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 2 July 2012

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


2012 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2012 - December 2012

(adopted by Council on 21 November 2011)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

6

5

 

 

 

9

20#@

3?

15∞

5

10

(7.00pm)

 

20#@

26

23v

21#

25*

23

 

24^\

(7.00pm)

 

19#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

 

 

 

7

4

2

13

 

 

 

3

 

13

19

16

 

 

30

 

 

8

12

 

 

?v

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

?*

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

?#

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

?@

Delivery Program progress reports

?^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

??

Meeting at which the 2011-2012 Annual Statements are presented

?

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

\

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

 

The Ordinary Council Election will be held on 8 September 2012

-            Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

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

?


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON MONDAY 4 JUNE 2012 AT 7:05PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM , Robert Ardill, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies (arrived 7:11pm), Ross Fowler OAM (arrived 7:11pm), Ben Goldfinch, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Prue Guillaume for the period 4 June 2012 to 15 June 2012 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

PRC 24? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that an apology be received for Councillor Tanya Davies.

?

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 7 May 2012

PRC 25? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 7 May 2012 be confirmed.

?

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

?

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 2 -? Rezoning Application - Land at 17-53 Caddens Road, Kingswood (The Knoll) as he owns property in the area the subject of the report.

?

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? Proposed Adjustment of Glenmore Park Suburb Boundary to include Glenmore Park Stage 2?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 26? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Proposed Adjustment of Glenmore Park Suburb Boundary to include Glenmore Park Stage 2 be received.

2.???? Council conduct a community consultation process to ascertain support for the proposed suburb boundary re-alignment between Glenmore Park and Mulgoa, through advertisements and consultation with affected residents and local groups.

3.???? A further report be brought back to Council on the outcome of the community consultation process in view of submitting a proposal to the Geographical Names Board.

 

 

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 2, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the room, the time being 7:09pm.

 

2??????? Rezoning Application - Land at 17-53 Caddens Road, Kingswood (The Knoll)?????????

PRC 27? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Rezoning Application - Land at 17-53 Caddens Road, Kingswood (The Knoll) be received.

2.???? In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000, Council endorse the Planning Proposal ? Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 ? Caddens Knoll (attached separately) and forward it to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure seeking the issue of a Gateway Determination to commence the local environmental plan making process and the exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

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

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

 

 

Councillor Mark Davies and Councillor Ross Fowler OAM arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:11pm.

 

3??????? Digital Local Government Program and Digital Economy Strategy?????????????????????????????

PRC 28? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Digital Local Government Program and Digital Economy Strategy be received.

2.???? Council endorse the development of a Digital Economy Strategy, which will be incorporated into the Community Strategic Plan 2035.

 

?

A City of Opportunities

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:14pm.

 

4??????? Rural Fencing????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 29? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the information contained in the report on Rural Fencing be received.

 

5??????? Sydney over the next 20 years: A Discussion Paper

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

PRC 30? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Sydney over the next 20 years: A Discussion Paper be received.

2.???? A submission on the Discussion Paper Sydney over the next 20 years be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure based on the comments outlined in the report and any additional matters raised by Council.

3.???? A copy of Council?s submission be provided to all Councillors, local State Members, the Penrith Business Alliance and the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils upon its completion.

 

?

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1????????? Castlereagh Road and High Street, Penrith??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report to the Local Traffic Committee concerning the design of a left turn lane, south bound on Castlereagh Road and High Street, Penrith.

 

 

confidential business

 

1??????? Presence of the Public

 

PRC 31? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Robert Ardill that that the press and public be excluded from the meeting to deal with the following matter the time being 7:37pm:

 

 

 

 

A Liveable City

 

2??????? Grave Digging Services and Internment Fees?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

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

 

?

The meeting moved out of confidential session at 8:04pm and the General Manager reported that after excluding the press and public from the meeting, the Policy Review Committee met in confidential session from 7:37pm to 8:04pm to consider a commercial matter.

 

The General Manager reported that while in confidential session, the Committee resolved the confidential business as follows:

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2??????? Grave Digging Services and Internment Fees?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 32? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

CW2 That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Grave Digging Services and Internment Fees be received.

2.??? Council?s Cemeteries Policy be amended to include a clause that states all grave digging services in Council?s cemeteries be carried out by Council?s preferred contractor selected through a competitive tendering process.

 

3.??? A further report be presented to Council on the future of Council grave digging services, following the expiry of Council?s current contract.

 

?

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:06pm.

????


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan - Unresolved Matters

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

?

A City of Opportunities

 

2??????? Developer Contributions relating to secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

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

????

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan - Unresolved Matters

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

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1

Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan - Unresolved Matters???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Environmental Planner

Matthew Rose, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:??????????? Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager ??

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

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 Stage 2 LEP will, in most cases, be based on a direct translation of existing planning controls (land use zones, building heights, floor space ratios, etc.) into the State Government?s Standard Instrument, especially for the established residential areas and local/neighbourhood centres which are not identified for growth in the next 5 years.

 

The Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP includes a number of site specific ?rezoning? proposals, deferred matters from Penrith LEP 2010 and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a change in zone is proposed.

 

The Planning Proposal also includes a number of adopted or gazetted LEPs.? These include the release area LEPs (Glenmore Park Stage 2, South Werrington Urban Village and Caddens), the Penrith City Centre LEP, Penrith LEP 2010 and the imminent draft Heritage LEP.? As these plans have already been subject to extensive agency and community consultation and have been endorsed by Council, further consultation on these elements of the draft Stage 2 LEP is not proposed.

 

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.? This investigation has now been undertaken for most of the sites.? The report recommends that Council receive the information contained in this report and endorse the policy directions recommended in the Attachments for those sites where further investigation has been undertaken.

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.

 

Under the NSW Government?s planning reforms, the preparation of a LEP now starts with a Planning Proposal.? A Planning Proposal is a document that explains the objectives, intended effect of and justification for a rezoning proposal and is progressed under the State Government?s new ?gateway? process for preparing LEPs.? 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.? It also incorporates the gazetted ?stand alone? Penrith City Centre LEP and Penrith LEP 2010 (Stage 1), and the imminent draft Heritage LEP.? The Planning Proposal also includes a number of deferred matters from Penrith LEP 2010.

 

Generally, the approach taken in preparing the proposed zones and provisions in the Planning Proposal and accompanying draft Stage 2 LEP has been to implement major policy directions of the Urban Study and draft Urban Strategy, and translate existing planning controls where appropriate.? The Stage 2 LEP will, in most cases, be based on a direct translation of existing planning controls (land use zones, building heights, floor space ratios, etc.) into the State Government?s Standard Instrument.

 

However, the Planning Proposal also reflects the next five (5) years of growth identified in the draft Urban Strategy for the key centres of Penrith, St Marys and Kingswood.? Any centres recommended in the draft Urban Strategy for medium to long term growth (generally beyond 5 years) will retain their current zones (translated into the State Government?s template zones).? Future reviews and amendments to the Stage 2 LEP will then bring forward zones to reflect anticipated medium to long term growth for these centres.

 

Provisions relating to sustainable development, salinity, flooding, biodiversity corridors and scenic character, which were applied in Penrith LEP 2010, have been extended to apply to the urban areas of Penrith where they are relevant.

 

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.? It is important that the current Council has the opportunity to provide policy decisions on these remaining sites to complete the policy platform on which the future LEP will be based.

 

An initial Gateway Determination for the Stage 2 LEP was received by Council on 8 August 2011.? In summary, it required that Council:

 

???? Consult with about 67 agencies

???? Remove references to all sites listed as 'under investigation' (sites with unresolved matters) and determine an appropriate planning approach for these sites

???? Ensure all new local provisions are consistent with the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment Order 2011, accompanying policies and the operation of SEPPs

???? Provide clear advice and information on all sites proposed to be reclassified or nominated for acquisition.

 

It should be noted that, in the course of undertaking the consultation with the 67 agencies, there may be the need for some changes to some of the proposed zones or provisions in the Planning Proposal.

 

Sites with unresolved matters

Sites that were listed for further investigation either in the Planning Proposal endorsed by Council to be forwarded to the DP&I?s Gateway, or through Councillor requests, where a proposed planning approach has been identified, are listed below:

 

1.???????? Cherrywood Village, Llandilo

2.???????? Child Care Centres in Rural Areas, particularly Llandilo

3.???????? Coreen Avenue, Penrith

4.???????? Riverlink Precinct, Penrith

5.???????? E4 Lands, Castlereagh and Cranebrook

6.???????? 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown

7.???????? 40 River Road, Emu Plains

8.???????? 12 Vista Street, Penrith

9.???????? Penrith Health & Education Precinct, Kingswood

10.?????? North Penrith ? Residual Sites

 

Attachments 1 to 10 to this report present the following information for each of the above sites 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.

 

It should be noted that since the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP was endorsed by Council on 22 November 2010, a number of the sites/matters listed for further investigation have been either resolved through other Council processes or are currently the subject of separate Planning Proposals or related processes.? These are summarised below:

 

 

?

No.

Site

Process

Status

1

28-30 Grays Lane, Cranebrook

Development Application

Resolved (Consent granted)

2

1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains

Review by Joint Regional Planning Panel

In Progress

3

17-53 Caddens Road, Kingswood (The Knoll)

Separate Planning Proposal

In Progress

4

The Fernhill Estate, Mulgoa

Separate Planning Proposal

Resolved (Planning Proposal Withdrawn)

5

North Penrith Urban Area

Planning framework set by NSW Government in SEPP

Resolved (SEPP published November 2011)

6

E2 Lands, Castlereagh

 

Discussions with the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Office of Environment and Heritage

In Progress

7

Martin Street, Regentville

 

Awaiting further information from State Emergency Service and landowners

Not being progressed as part of Stage 2 LEP

 

Next Steps

If Council endorses the planning approaches recommended in this report, 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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan - Unresolved Matters be received.

2.???? The planning approaches recommended in Attachments 1-4 (Cherrywood Village, Llandilo; Child Care Centres in Rural Areas, particularly Llandilo; Coreen Avenue, Penrith; and the Riverlink Precinct, Penrith) be applied in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP for the purpose of public exhibition.

3.???? The revised zoning shown in Figure 2 of Attachment 5 be endorsed as the basis for further community consultation with the landowners in the deferred area of Castlereagh and Cranebrook, at a time closer to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP.

4.???? The planning approaches recommended in Attachments 6-10 (34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown; 40 River Road, Emu Plains; 12 Vista Street, Penrith; the Penrith Health & 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.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Cherrywood Village, Llandilo

8 Pages

Attachment

2. View

Child Care Centres in Rural Areas, particularly Llandilo

6 Pages

Attachment

3. View

Coreen Avenue, Penrith

6 Pages

Attachment

4. View

Riverlink Precinct, Penrith

6 Pages

Attachment

5. View

E4 Lands, Castlereagh and Cranebrook

4 Pages

Attachment

6. View

34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown

3 Pages

Attachment

7. View

40 River Road, Emu Plains

3 Pages

Attachment

8. View

12 Vista Street, Penrith

3 Pages

Attachment

9. View

Penrith Health & Education Precinct, Kingswood

7 Pages

Attachment

10. View

North Penrith ? Residual Sites

4 Pages

Attachment

11. View

Heritage Report

63 Pages

Attachment

???


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

2??????? Developer Contributions relating to secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

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

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

A City of Opportunities

 

 

2

Developer Contributions relating to secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Julie Condon, Development Enquiry Unit Coordinator

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

Councillors recently received a briefing on the implementation of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (ARH SEPP) which has introduced some uncertainty in relation to the method and amount of Section 94 contributions being levied on secondary dwelling developments.

 

This report outlines how Section 94 contributions apply and recommends that a practice for the application of Section 94 be implemented for an interim period until such time as Council can formally review and amend its current Section 94 plans.

Background

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, (ARH SEPP), introduced on 31 July 2009 aims to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW by encouraging a range of different residential forms, one of which is secondary dwellings.

 

A secondary dwelling is defined by the Standard Instrument as:

?secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that:

(a)   is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b)  is on the same lot of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme) as the principal dwelling, and

(c)  is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling.?

 

The SEPP provides the capacity for secondary dwellings to be determined as complying development by either Council or a private certifier. In undertaking this consent role a private certifier must incorporate a condition within the approval notice that requires Section 94 contributions to be paid.

 

Council?s Section 94 Contributions Plans for Local Open Space and District Open Space Facilities include a reference requiring Certifiers to levy the applicable Section 94 Contributions. As such, contributions are payable on secondary dwellings under these plans if the Complying Development Certificate (CDC) is being issued by a Private Certifier.

 

Where a secondary dwelling is proposed which does not meet the predetermined requirements of the ARH SEPP, a Development Application may be lodged with the Council for Local Development. In this circumstance the normal Section 94 contributions process applies with a condition of consent requiring payment of the relevant contribution/s prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Implementation of the ARH SEPP

At the time the ARH SEPP was implemented, ?secondary dwelling? was a newly defined development term not included or referred to in any of Council?s local environmental plans or contributions plans.

 

In October 2011 an audit of privately certified CDCs was conducted. It was found that there were varying approaches being taken by Certifiers in regard to the imposition of Section 94 contributions, including in some cases, that no Section 94 requirement had been applied.

 

Council?s Contributions Plans were also reviewed. It was determined that the method of levying Section 94 contributions both within Council and by Private Certifiers has varied on similar proposals, demonstrating the uncertainty created by the implementation of the SEPP.? The methods of levying contributions on secondary dwellings have included:

 

(i)??????? Applying the plans at the rate prescribed for Dual Occupancy, being 3.1 persons per dwelling

(ii)?????? Applying the plans at the rate prescribed for seniors housing, being 1.5 persons per dwelling

(iii)????? Applying a condition advising Section 94 contributions were payable only in the event that the secondary dwelling was not occupied by an immediate relative of the property owner

(iv)????? Private Certifiers obtaining statutory declarations from the land owners stating a relative would be occupying the premises and then not levying Section 94 contributions.

Methods (ii) and (iii) to levying the Section 94 contributions occurred in response to the need to find a solution within the intent of the ARH SEPP that would not disadvantage home owners seeking to provide affordable housing for elderly relatives on their properties.

 

The approach of levying Section 94 only where the secondary dwelling was not occupied by a relative gives rise to significant compliance issues. These include providing evidence as to who is actually occupying the building as well as the unreliability of receiving statutory declarations attesting to the occupancy of the dwelling for the purpose of development approval.

 

The role of Secondary Dwellings as Social Housing

The ARH SEPP defines social housing as:

 

?Subsidised housing, providing a secure affordable rental option for people on low and very low incomes?.?

 

Social housing is provided by public authorities, community housing providers and other not for profit organisations and includes property owned and managed by Housing NSW and the Aboriginal Housing Office.

 

A secondary dwelling allowed under the AHSEPP aims to help mums and dads to create a place for those who need a space of their own, like elderly relatives or younger people who have not left home.? The secondary dwelling can be rented out or occupied by a friend or relative. Information collected to date about secondary dwellings has indicated that the majority of secondary dwellings established in the city are offered up for rent.

 

The development of secondary dwellings can be seen as a valuable means of increasing the supply of affordable rental housing.?? Secondary dwellings and social housing serve different purposes as they serve different housing needs of the community.? Secondary dwellings are not considered to be ?social housing? as defined in the policy.

 

Statutory Position

There is a view that some ambiguity exists between the State legislation and Council?s Section 94 Contributions Plans (S94 Plans).? This is because the S94 Plans do not include a specific reference to secondary dwellings or provide information or definitions which ensure the obligation to impose the Section 94 contributions.

 

The most appropriate solution would be provided by amending Council?s S94 Plans to provide definitions and a precise method by which the obligation to impose a condition regarding the contribution is determined.

 

However, at this time it is not possible to exhibit amendments to S94 Plans without first achieving the endorsement of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI). Referral to DoPI raises the prospect of not only potential variation of the Plan, but also possible referral to IPART or rescission of the Plan by the Minister. Until this situation changes it would seem that the S94 Plans are unable to be amended without substantial risk.

 

Until such time as the relevant S94 Plans can be amended, an interim policy position on the application of S94 contributions to secondary dwelling developments is needed.

 

Options for Contributions

The three principles underpinning Section 94 Contributions Plans are reasonableness, apportionment and nexus. Applying these principles, there are four Section 94 plans that should apply to new secondary dwellings, as they do to all new residential development in Penrith. The relevant s94 plans are:

 

???? The Cultural Facilities Plan

???? The District Open Space Plan

???? The Local Open Space Plan

???? The Footpaths in Established Areas Plan

 

Current industry practice regarding imposition of developer contributions to secondary dwellings is substantiated by the position taken by the Local Government and Shires Association (LGSA) and Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) in their submissions to a review of the ARH SEPP in March 2011.

 

Commentary from these industry groups was to the effect, that the cumulative impact of such dwellings may result in additional demand for local services and; it is not appropriate that residents and rate payers should bear the cost of individual property development.?

 

Analysis of 2006 ABS statistics confirms that small dwellings such as granny flats had an average occupancy of only 1.5 persons per dwelling. Recent secondary dwelling proposals show a trend to two to three bedroom developments. Evidence is also being received that many new secondary dwellings are being tenanted out to people unrelated to the occupants of the principal dwelling.

 

The following table demonstrates the trends in Complying Development approvals for secondary dwellings.

 

YEAR

NUMBER OF CDCS ISSUED BY COUNCIL

NUMBER OF CDC?S ISSUED BY PRIVATE CERTIFIERS

TOTAL

2009

1

0

1

2010

12

31

42

2011

5

72

77

2012YTD

2

36

38

?

Of the 115 CDCs issued for secondary dwellings during 2011/2012 (77 + 38), ninety one (91) do not have the primary dwelling on the site occupied by the owner of the property which suggests they are for rental accommodation.

 

Section 94 contributions can only be levied in accordance with the occupancy rates specified in the existing plans. The options available to Council are the same as the recent practices which have been implemented. These include:

 

1.?? Applying the plans at the rate prescribed for seniors housing being 1.5 persons per dwelling ($3469)

 

2.?? Applying the plans at the rate prescribed for Dual Occupancy, being 3.1 persons per dwelling ($7168)

 

3.?? Applying a condition advising Section 94 contributions were payable only in the event that the secondary dwelling was not occupied by an immediate relative of the property owner.

 

Given the small scale of these developments (maximum 60m2 floor area) and the inability for them to be subdivided, there is a distinction to be made between this form of housing type and dual occupancies. Charging the dual occupancy rate of 3.1 persons per dwelling is therefore not considered appropriate.

 

If a Section 94 contribution is to be applied, then to maintain the balance between the likelihood of a secondary dwelling being constructed for use by a relative or for commercial gain, it is recommended that Section 94 contributions are levied at the rate of 1.5 persons per dwelling.

 

This solution will generate some revenue to offset the growth in demands for infrastructure without introducing a disincentive to homeowners wishing to provide onsite accommodation for elderly relatives.

 

The other options available to Council include not applying any Section 94 contributions for secondary dwellings, or not applying them until such time as the relevant Section 94 Plans can be formally amended. These options would not yield any revenue to offset the demand for additional infrastructure from an increased population base, and could be perceived to introduce an inconsistency in the way Council applies Section 94 contributions to residential development across the board.

 

Conclusion

Recent approaches to levying of contributions for secondary dwellings have varied, as a result of the lack of certainty around the process created by the structure of the State legislation. The future direction taken in the implementation of the legislation should be consistent across all approval bodies, both Council and Private.

 

To ensure consistency of Council?s Section 94 Plans, it is important that any Section 94 contributions applying to this type of development do so in the same way they apply to any other residential development in the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

Although the option of not applying a Section 94 contribution to secondary dwellings is clearly available to Council, recognising the potential of a secondary dwelling being constructed for use for commercial gain, it is recommended that Section 94 contributions be levied at the rate of 1.5 persons per secondary dwelling.

 

In this way, some generation of revenue to offset the growth in demand for infrastructure from an increase in population will be available without introducing too great a disincentive to homeowners wishing to provide onsite accommodation for their relatives.

 

Council will remain in contact with the DoPI concerning opportunities to simplify the Section 94 Plan amendment process and will continue to make submissions to the DoPI regarding development outcomes of secondary dwellings and the ambiguity of the current legislative framework for this development type.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.?? The information contained in the report on Developer Contributions relating to secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 be received

2.?? Council adopt an interim policy position to levy Section 94 Contributions on secondary dwelling developments at the seniors housing rate of 1.5 persons per dwelling.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

A Green City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Liveable City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

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



 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:???????? Monday 2 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 - Unresolved Matters

Attachments:?????????????? Cherrywood Village, Llandilo

????????????????????????????????????? Child Care Centres in Rural Areas, particularly Llandilo

????????????????????????????????????? Coreen Avenue, Penrith

????????????????????????????????????? Riverlink Precinct, Penrith

????????????????????????????????????? E4 Lands, Castlereagh and Cranebrook

????????????????????????????????????? 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown

????????????????????????????????????? 40 River Road, Emu Plains

????????????????????????????????????? 12 Vista Street, Penrith

????????????????????????????????????? Penrith Health & Education Precinct, Kingswood

????????????????????????????????????? North Penrith ? Residual Sites

????????????????????????????????????? Heritage Report



Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 1 - Cherrywood Village, Llandilo

 

 

 

Attachment 1

 

 

Site/Matter:?? Cherrywood Village, Llandilo

 

 

Council Resolution (where applicable):

?That Lots 1 and 2, DP 1091086, Cherrywood Village, Llandilo, be included in draft LEP 2008 (Penrith LEP 2010) as exhibited, but that amended provisions be exhibited as part of draft LEP 2010 (Stage 2 LEP)?.

 

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

Cherrywood Village is managed by AFFORD (Australian Foundation for Disability) and provides accommodation and support services for disabled people and their families.? It is located on Lot 2 DP 1091086, 856-900 The Northern Road, Llandilo.

During the exhibition of Stage 1 of the LEP, AFFORD made a submission seeking to increase the level and range of development on Lot 2 and on part of the adjoining land being Lot 1 DP 1091086.? Lot 1 is currently owned by the State Government, but managed by The Cherrywood Reserve Trust.? Specifically, AFFORD is seeking a rezoning to allow seniors housing, health service facilities, a child care centre, food and drink premises, a neighbourhood shop and motel accommodation on the site (i.e. Lots 1 and 2).? Council indicated support in principle to these uses during consideration of Stage 1, subject to the child care centre, food and drink premises, neighbourhood shop and motel accommodation being ancillary uses only.? However, in order to resolve a number of site specific issues and allow the community an opportunity to comment, Council resolved to zone the site RU4 Primary Production Small Lots in Stage 1, consistent with adjoining land, and exhibit amended provisions in Stage 2 of the LEP.

Initial assessment of the submission identified a number of issues. The key issue affecting the proposed planning approach to the site is the existence of high value biodiversity areas on the site.

High value biodiversity areas

 

AFFORD?s consultant, GHD, has submitted an Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Analysis and a Flora and Fauna Report.? The types of vegetation identified on the site are listed in the table below, together with their status under relevant State and Commonwealth legislation.

 

Vegetation type

Status under NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

Status under Commonwealth Environment Protection and? Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Vegetation communities

Broad-leaved Ironbark ? Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest

Endangered ecological community - Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and Castlereagh Swamp Woodland

-

Broad-leaved Ironbark ? Grey Box - Melaleuca decora grassy open forest

Endangered ecological community - Shale Gravel Transition Forest

Critically endangered ecological community ? Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale Gravel Transition Forest

Grey Box ? Forest Red Gum Grassy Woodland

Critically endangered ecological community - Cumberland Plain Woodland

Critically endangered ecological community ? Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale Gravel Transition Forest

Scribbly-Gum Parramatta Red Gum Heathy Woodland

Vulnerable ecological community ? Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland

-

Sedgeland

-

-

Threatened species

Dillwynia tenuifolia

Vulnerable

-

Grevillea juniperina

Vulnerable

Vulnerable

Pultenaea parviflora

Endangered

Vulnerable

Micromyrtus minutiflora

Endangered

Vulnerable

 

The significance of the vegetation is reflected in part of the site being identified as Priority Conservation Land (PCL) in the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan, published by the then Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) in 2011.? Figure 1 indicates the extent of PCL over the site.? PCLs are those lands that represent the best remaining opportunities in the region to secure long term biodiversity benefits for the lowest possible cost.? Under the Recovery Plan, councils are required to ?have regard to priority conservation lands in identifying areas for inclusion in environmental protection and regional open space zones?.

The Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Analysis was initially referred to the DECCW, now the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).? The OEH indicated that, in addition to the endangered ecological communities and threatened flora species listed above, the analysis identified that at least 34 other species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) may also be present on the site, of which 23 are considered to be ?likely? or ?possibly? present.? The OEH also advised that, based on the analysis, future development should be located in the existing cleared, disturbed area in the centre of the site.

 

In response, GHD prepared a Biodiversity Offset Strategy (BOS).? The BOS proposes a ?development impact area? or development footprint for the site and a strategy for conserving, managing and rehabilitating vegetation to offset the impact of clearing or modifying vegetation for the development.? Specifically, the BOS proposes:

????? Removing 5.43 ha of vegetation, 3.71 ha of which is threatened ecological communities;

????? Modifying 5.86 ha of vegetation for asset protection zones necessary to manage the risk of bushfires to the development, 3.82 ha of which is threatened ecological communities. The BOS states that these zones ?will be managed to ensure threatened species populations are maintained and enhanced?;

????? Conserving/rehabilitating 15.02 ha of vegetation in two distinct areas to the north and south of the development footprint, 10.32 ha of which is threatened ecological communities; and

????? Undertaking a number of land management and revegetation actions to offset the impacts on individual threatened flora species.

 

The BOS requires acquiring Lot 1 DP 1091086 from the State Government to ensure long term security of the whole of the site (36.38 ha) and conservation of the vegetation in perpetuity.

 

While the BOS is yet to be reviewed by the OEH, its most recent advice on the site, received as part of broader agency consultation on the Stage 2 Planning Proposal, is that the PCL should be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation.? However, if this is not possible for all of the PCL, then the Natural Resources Sensitive Land hatching should be applied.

 

Discussions between AFFORD?s consultant, Mullane Planning Consultants, and Council officers have resulted in some agreement on the proposed planning approach.? This includes:

????? Zoning as E2 Environmental Conservation that part of the site outside the ?development impact area? or development footprint.? This would cover part of the PCL. AFFORD has also offered to enter into a voluntary conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 for the land zoned E2;

????? Retaining the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone over the remainder of the site; i.e. over the development footprint;

????? Inserting a clause in the Penrith Citywide LEP that permits seniors housing and health service facilities, with an ancillary child care centre, food and drink premises, neighbourhood shop and motel accommodation on that part of the site zoned RU4; and

????? Applying a Natural Resources Sensitive Land (NRSL) hatching to that part of the RU4 zoned land within the identified asset protection zones.? This would cover additional PCL but not all of the PCL.

 

Figure 2 illustrates the areas of agreement.? The area of remnant vegetation on which agreement is yet to be reached is the remaining PCL that is not zoned E2 or hatched as NRSL (also shown in Figure 2).?

 

In this regard, AFFORD?s consultant, GHD, has submitted a supplementary assessment of the remnant vegetation in question.? GHD has confirmed that the majority of the vegetation is Broad-leaved Ironbark ? Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest, which comprises local occurrences of two endangered ecological communities - Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and Castlereagh Swamp Woodland.? The condition of the vegetation is moderate to good, which means that it is intact native vegetation with only minor weed infestation.? There are also local populations of four threatened flora species: Grevillea juniperina, Dillwynia tenuifolia, Pultenaea parviflora and Micromyrtus minutifolia. ?In previous ecological assessments of the whole site, GHD has recorded four species of threatened fauna: Cumberland Land Snail (endangered), Grey-headed Flying-fox (vulnerable), Eastern Free-tail Bat (vulnerable) and Varied Sittella (vulnerable).? An additional species, the Black-chinned Honeyeater (vulnerable) was recorded in the supplementary assessment.? GHD has indicated that the vegetation would provide habitat resources for these threatened fauna species.? GHD has also classed the remnant vegetation in question as having high conservation significance because of the presence and condition of the two endangered ecological communities and the abundance of threatened plants in this area.

 

Given this assessment, it is considered that the remnant vegetation in question should be hatched as NRSL as part of the planning approach for this site.? The extent of the hatching within the Priority Conservation Land, however, should be amended slightly to correspond with the extent of vegetation identified as having high conservation significance in the supplementary assessment.? The effect of the NRSL hatching is that it will trigger the provisions of clause 6.4 of Penrith LEP 2010, which require Council, when considering an application, to take into account the impact of the development on the vegetation and wildlife habitat and to be satisfied that the proposed development has been located and designed to minimise its impact.? It is at this time, when details of the proposed development are known, that a comprehensive assessment can be undertaken which takes into account economic and social considerations as well as the conservation significance of the vegetation and the proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy.?

 

Other issues

 

Backwater flooding from Rickabys Creek

The site is currently affected by floodwaters that back up from Rickabys Creek.? A number of options are available to address this, including upgrading the culverts under The Northern Road, relocating drainage channels and constructing detention basins on site. ?These options, however, involve removal of vegetation.? AFFORD?s consultant, GHD, has submitted a Water Cycle Management Assessment.? Engineering Services has advised that, while the concept of seniors living on the site is acceptable, there are a number of concerns with the specific development presented including:

????? Filling on part of the site, which is not supported;

????? The level of water across The Northern Road; and

????? The need for detailed information on the design of the detention basin and drainage channels, particularly to ensure safe evacuation from the site.

 

Additional information on these concerns has not been sought, at this stage, as this information will depend on the extent and scale of development on the site.

 

Sewage management

Sewage generated by the existing development is currently managed by an on-site sewage management system.? AFFORD?s consultant, Mullane Planning Consultants, has advised that the site can been serviced, although it will be expensive.? Sydney Water has indicated that the site can connect to the sewerage system, but this will require construction of a seven kilometre sewer main and a pumping station.

 

Traffic and access

The site is on the corner of The Northern Road and Fifth Avenue.? AFFORD?s consultant, GHD, has submitted a Traffic Overview Report which was provided to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS, formerly the RTA).? RMS raised no objection to increased development on the site, provided that:

????? Access to the site is moved from The Northern Road to Fifth Avenue, and any redundant access points on The Northern Road are closed to the RMS?s satisfaction;

????? The development footprint does not encroach on the area of the site reserved for road widening; and

????? The intersection of The Northern Road and Fifth Avenue is upgraded to the RMS?s satisfaction.

 

RMS also noted that bus services would be very useful for residents of the village, and that suitable infrastructure and services should be investigated as part of the development assessment process.? Engineering Services has also raised the need for improvements to Fifth Avenue to be investigated, as well as the need for pedestrian facilities from the site to bus stops on The Northern Road.?

 

While the most appropriate location for access to the site is still to be resolved having regard to the extent and significance of vegetation on the site, traffic and access issues are not considered to be an impediment to the rezoning.

 

Scale of development

The development proposal presented involves constructing 506 seniors living units, a 180 bed nursing home, a 15 bed high dependency facility, a recreation centre and various ancillary uses.? Around 60% of the seniors living units are proposed to be provided as apartments, with some buildings up to five storeys in height.? Council officers have advised AFFORD?s consultant, Mullane Planning Consultants, that the scale of development proposed is not considered appropriate given the site?s constraints and the impact on the area?s rural character.? While the need to reconsider the scale of development has been acknowledged by AFFORD?s consultant, no further details have been provided in this regard.? The focus of work has been on determining an appropriate development footprint for the site, based on the site?s constraints, to inform the proposed planning approach for the Stage 2 LEP.? While this will have some effect on the scale and density of development, any proposal will still need to be considered under the development assessment process.

 

Conclusion

 

The key issue affecting the proposed planning approach to the site is the existence of high value biodiversity areas on the site.? While agreement on the planning approach has been reached for most of the site, AFFORD?s consultant, GHD, has undertaken a more detailed supplementary assessment of the remnant vegetation on that part of the PCL that is not zoned E2 or hatched as NRSL in Figure 2 (i.e. the ?Area where agreement is yet to be reached?).? That assessment confirms that the remnant vegetation has high conservation significance because of the presence and condition of two endangered ecological communities and the abundance of four threatened plants.? Accordingly, the remnant vegetation should be hatched as NRSL, with the extent of the hatching amended slightly to correspond with the extent of vegetation identified as having high conservation significance in GHD?s supplementary assessment.? This approach would be consistent with OEH?s advice.?

 

 

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the following planning approach be taken to the Cherrywood Village site in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP:

????? Zoning as E2 Environmental Conservation that part of the site outside the development footprint, as shown in Figure 2;

????? Retaining the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone over the remainder of the site, as shown in Figure 2;

????? Inserting a clause in the Penrith Citywide LEP that permits seniors housing and health service facilities, with an ancillary child care centre, food and drink premises, neighbourhood shop and motel accommodation on that part of the site zoned RU4;

????? Applying a Natural Resources Sensitive Land hatching to that part of the RU4 zoned land within the identified asset protection zones, as shown in Figure 2; and

????? Applying a Natural Resources Sensitive Land hatching to that land identified in Figure 2 as ?Area where agreement is yet to be reached", amended slightly to correspond with the extent of vegetation identified as having high conservation significance in the supplementary assessment prepared by GHD.

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 1 - Cherrywood Village, Llandilo

 

7272915

Area where agreement is yet to be reached

 

Figure 2: Planning Approach

 

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 2 - Child Care Centres in Rural Areas, particularly Llandilo

 

 

 

Attachment 2

 

 

Site/Matter:?? Child care centres in rural areas, particularly Llandilo

 

 

Council Resolution (where applicable):

No relevant resolution.

 

Matter has been raised through Councillor requests.

 

 

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

 

Concerns have been raised about the lack of opportunity for child care centres in rural areas, particularly in Llandilo.? It has been requested that their permissibility be investigated as part of the preparation of the Stage 2 LEP.

 

The permissibility of child care centres in rural areas was the subject of a submission received from the Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of NSW during the exhibition of the draft Stage 1 LEP.? The submission requested that schools, places of public worship and child care centres not be permitted in rural or environmental zones because of a number of concerns including increased traffic, the costs associated with transporting students out of their local communities and environmental impacts such as the loss of vegetation.

 

In terms of child care centres, Council resolved not to change the draft LEP.? Consequently, Penrith LEP 2010 only permits child care centres, with consent, in the RU5 Village and E4 Environmental Living zones.? Home-based child care, however, which allows for up to seven children to be cared for in a dwelling, is permissible with consent in all of the LEP?s rural zones (RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, RU4 Primary Production Small Lots and RU5 Village) and two of the environmental zones (E3 Environmental Management and E4 Environmental Living), providing rural residents with a local child care option.? Llandilo is generally zoned RU4 and does not have a zoned village centre that would permit child care centres.? Only home-based child care is permitted with consent in Llandilo.

 

Unlike home-based child care, child care centres in rural areas can have significant impacts depending on their size and scale.? These impacts can arise, for example, from traffic, access and parking, or from the lack of adequate services, such as reticulated sewer.? Child care centres also need to be appropriately located to ensure that surrounding uses do not produce unacceptable levels of noise, fumes or emissions, or pose potential hazards that may be harmful to children and staff; for example, electricity transmission lines or mobile phone towers.? In addition, it is desirable that child care centres be located in close proximity to other community activities and facilities such as local shopping centres, community centres and parks with children?s play equipment.? For these reasons, child care centres are generally not permitted in rural areas under Penrith LEP 2010.

 

Council officers have considered a number of options to potentially increase the opportunity for child care centres in rural areas, particularly in Llandilo.? These options are discussed below.

 

Option 1:? Permit child care centres with consent in the same rural and environmental zones as those which permit schools under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; i.e. the RU2, RU4, RU5 and E4 zones.? (The Infrastructure SEPP prevails over Penrith LEP 2010 in relation to schools).

 

Child care centres are already permitted in the RU5 and E4 zones.? The key objectives of the RU2 and RU4 zones are to encourage sustainable primary industries, maintain the rural landscape character of the land and minimise conflicts between land uses.? Despite the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP, it is considered that permitting child care centres in the RU2 and RU4 zones is inconsistent with these objectives.? It would also mean that child care centres would be isolated from other community facilities and services.

 

Option 2:? Permit child care centres with consent in the same rural and environmental zones as those which permit schools under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007; i.e. the RU2, RU4, RU5 and E4 zones, subject to certain location criteria (for example, land within 300 metres of a school).

 

As indicated above, child care centres are already permitted in the RU5 and E4 zones.? If child care centres were permitted in the RU2 and RU4 zones, they would also be subject to the location criteria currently specified in Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2010.? While these criteria do not specify a particular distance from schools, they do include the following:

????? The centre is to be in close proximity to other community activities and facilities;

????? Access is not to be from a major road or in close proximity to a major intersection where there may be safety concerns;

????? Access is not to be from a local street (e.g. cul-de-sac) where there may be impacts on amenity due to traffic and parking;

????? Current or likely uses of adjoining land are not to produce unacceptable levels of noise, fumes or emissions, or pose potential hazards because of activities or materials stored on site;

????? Noise produced by roads, railways and aircraft is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the site;

????? The site is not subject to contamination, within close proximity to high-voltage electricity transmission lines, mobile phone towers or subject to external impacts that may be harmful to the children and staff; and

????? The site is above the flood planning level (at least 0.5m above the 1:100 Average Recurrence Interval flood) and can be safely and effectively evacuated during a 1:100 ARI flood event.

 

A major concern with this approach is that, based on previous advice from the DP&I and the requirements of the Standard Template, the inclusion of these location criteria in the Stage 2 LEP is unlikely to be supported.? Generally, the DP&I has required that such criteria should be in the DCP where they would have less statutory force and more potential for variation.? Further, even with the addition of location criteria, this approach would still mean that child care centres could be established in the RU2 and RU4 zones, which is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of these zones.

 

Option 3: List child care centres and a number of other appropriate uses as additional permitted uses in Schedule 1 of Penrith LEP 2010 on land containing or in close proximity to existing community activities and facilities in Llandilo ? to establish a ?Llandilo Rural Centre?.

 

A similar approach has been adopted for the Kemps Creek Rural Centre in Penrith LEP 2010, in response to a submission received during the exhibition of the draft LEP.? Kemps Creek and Llandilo are identified as ?Rural Centres? in Council?s adopted Rural Lands Strategy (2003).? The additional permitted uses in Kemps Creek include ?child care centres?, ?kiosks?, ?markets?, ?neighbourhood shops?, ?recreational facilities (indoor)? and ?restaurants or cafes?.? The land included in Schedule 1 is centred on the existing shops, post office and service stations at Kemps Creek.

 

To assist in determining what land should be included in the Llandilo Rural Centre, a land use survey was conducted in October 2011 of those properties fronting Seventh Avenue between Third Avenue (west) and Second Avenue (east).? Although this area is predominantly used for rural residential living, with some agricultural uses, it contains a number of local community activities and facilities, including Wilson Park, the Llandilo Public School, Community Hall and Rural Fire Station.? The area also includes a church, post office, supermarket, take away food outlet and produce store.? Figure 1 shows the location of these uses.

 

Information in the Penrith Heritage Study has also been considered.? The Study indicates that a ?village centre? was identified in Llandilo, in the late 1800s, between Seventh Avenue and Eighth Avenue in the vicinity of the rural fire station, church and community hall.

 

Figure 2 suggests a boundary for the Llandilo Rural Centre.? The boundary seeks to reinforce the existing ?hub? of community activities and facilities by limiting any new uses to locations within close proximity.? However, to the north of the survey area is a poultry farm with twelve large sheds.? Penrith DCP 2010 requires that setbacks from poultry buildings to dwellings be a minimum of 100 metres.? This setback should also apply to other sensitive land uses, like child care centres, where people will be present for extended periods of time.? The boundary, therefore, excludes Wilson Park and the market gardens on the northern side of Seventh Avenue to ensure future land uses, including sensitive uses, can satisfy required setbacks from the poultry farm.

 

While this approach provides some further opportunity for child care centres in Llandilo, it does not respond to the broader issue of child care centres in rural areas.

 

Option 4:? Retain the existing planning controls in Penrith LEP 2010, which permit child care centres with consent only in the RU5 and E4 zones.

 

The basis for this approach has been discussed above.? Home-based child care would continue to be permissible with consent in the RU1, RU2, RU4, RU5, E3 and E4 zones.

 

Conclusion

 

The preferred option is option 3 as it responds to Council?s specific concern about the lack of opportunity for child care centres in Llandilo.? Option 1 is not favoured as permitting child care centres in the RU2 and RU4 zones is inconsistent with the zone objectives, will result in centres being isolated from community facilities and services, and may have significant impacts, depending on their size and scale.? Similarly, Option 2 is not favoured as permitting centres in the RU2 and RU4 zones is inconsistent with the zone objectives.? Further, Option 2 is likely to require the location criteria to be in the DCP rather than the LEP, where they would have less statutory force and more potential for variation.? Option 4 is also not favoured as it does not respond to Council?s concern.

 

 

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Option 3 be reflected in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP by listing child care centres, kiosks, markets, neighbourhood shops, recreational facilities (indoor) and restaurants or cafes as additional permitted uses on those lots bounded by the dashed line in Figure 2, in Schedule 1 of the LEP.

 

 


? Figure 1

Results of Land Use Survey


Figure 2

Proposed Rural Centre, Llandilo


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 3 - Coreen Avenue, Penrith

 

 

Attachment 3

Site/Matter: Coreen Avenue , Penrith

Council Resolution (where applicable):

There is no specific Council resolution.? This matter has arisen from consideration of recent development applications in this area and the State Government?s approval for the development of the North Penrith Site.

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

The Coreen Avenue Precinct (the Precinct) is the land bounded to the west by Castlereagh Road, to the south by Coreen Avenue, to the east by Coombes Drive and to the north by the Penrith sewage treatment plant. It is currently zoned as IN1 General Industrial by Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010).? In consideration of LEP 2010 and in response to recent development applications, this area is being reviewed to consider the appropriate zone for the smaller industrial lots along Coreen Avenue , particularly those that interface with the existing and future urban areas.

The Precinct is surrounded by land with the following zones (indicated in Figure 1):

????? East: 2 (b) Residential (Low Density) and 6 (a) Public Recreation and Community Uses in Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

????? South: 2 (a) Residential (Urban and Landscape Protection) and 6 (b) Proposed Public Recreation and Community Uses in LEP 1998, R1 General Residential in Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 (North Penrith), and IN1 General Industrial in LEP 2010;

????? North: SP2 Infrastructure and IN1 General Industrial under LEP2010; and

????? West: IN1 General Industrial under LEP 2010.

In April 2011, a land use survey of the Precinct was undertaken.? Each parcel of land within the precinct was inspected and the type of business operating on each lot, eighty-five in all, was recorded.? The types of business were then compared with the zone objectives and the uses permitted and prohibited within the IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial zones.

The results of the land use survey indicate that the subject area, in its entirety, is appropriately zoned as IN1 General Industrial ? the zone currently applied by LEP 2010.? However, in addition to the findings of the survey other matters need consideration, namely:

1.??? The current zones surrounding the Precinct and the development they allow;

2.??? The type of businesses attracted to and permissible in the IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial zones; and

3.??? The amount of land within Penrith zoned IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial

These matters are discussed in more detail below.

 

1.??? Adjacent Development

A review of the development surrounding and adjacent to the Precinct, and the potential impacts, including their extent, from the uses permitted within both the IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial zones reveal that:

???? The IN1 General Industrial zone allows uses that would interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, or otherwise.? These uses include General industries; Sawmill or log processing works; Truck depots; and Vehicle body repair workshops.

???? The urban area to the east of the Precinct is predominantly occupied with low density residential development.? This area is currently separated from the Precinct by Coombes Drive (approximately 21 metres wide) and a strip of land zoned for public recreation and community purposes (approximately 35 metres wide).

???? The urban area to the south east of the Precinct is occupied with medium density residential development.? It is currently separated from the Precinct by Coreen Avenue and its associated road reserves (approximately 35 metres wide).

???? The area to the south of the precinct is colloquially known as North Penrith.? This area was recently zoned to provide a mix of residential development and a new local commercial centre.

???? If a buffer zone of 250 metres is applied to the precinct ? a standard set by the NSW Government?s State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009 ? it would capture approximately 540 homes (90 to the east, 50 to the south east and 400 in North Penrith.

A change in the current zone will benefit the adjacent residential areas by providing a buffer between them and the general industrial development further to the north.? Only ?low impact? industrial activities would be permitted in this buffer.

2.??? Types of Businesses

The Precinct is predominantly made up of small lot sizes that are occupied by a variety of light industrial uses, some retail premises (selling auto parts and the like), and take away food and drink premises of a scale that service the daily convenience needs of the local workers.?

The application of the IN2 Light Industrial zone to the Precinct, which allows a wider range of land uses than the IN1 General Industrial zone, not only reflects its current character but will facilitate its development into a more dynamic industrial area.? It complements the size of the current lots (predominantly smaller than those found in areas zoned IN1 General Industrial) and should attract and encourage smaller industrial and start up enterprises, generally generating more jobs per hectare than conventional industrial areas.? The IN2 Light Industrial zone also allows industrial retail outlets and training facilities.

The Precinct?s location - close to Penrith City Centre, Penrith Railway Station and ?North Penrith? ? will also assist its progression towards an area of light and high-technology industries and supporting land uses.

A change in the current zone will not adversely impact on the permissibility of the current businesses operating within the Precinct.? The IN2 Light Industrial zone still permits light industrial uses, warehouse and distribution uses, and vehicle repair stations (not vehicle body repair work).?

However, the results of the April 2011 land use survey suggests that six currently operating businesses would become prohibited if a change in the zone applied to the Precinct was progressed.? These businesses include four general industrial uses (all manufacturing and fabrication), a truck depot and a vehicle body repair workshop.? These six businesses would have to rely on existing use rights.? Apart from nine businesses that are prohibited in both the IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial zones, all remaining businesses (seventy) will continue to be permissible in the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

Further investigation into the six businesses reveals that four of them would have existing use rights.? Of the remaining two businesses, one (a truck/storage depot located at 10 Coombes Drive) appears to have been established without consent, although it may have commenced at a time when consent was not required.? The other business (sheet metal fabrication located at 12 Coombes Drive) has consent for the manufacture and storage of aluminium and glass curtain walls; however, the land use survey indicates that the business has diversified, without consent, to include sheet metal fabrication and air-conditioning ductwork.? Although more investigation is required, it appears that these 2 businesses may not benefit from existing use rights.

 

The information in Figure 2 provides answers to some of the most commonly asked questions regarding existing use rights.

 

3.? Industrial Land

Penrith has approximately 1500 hectares of land zoned IN1 General Industrial and approximately 130 hectares of land zoned IN2 Light Industrial.? These differing industrial zones provide for a diverse range of industrial and supporting land uses.? A change in the current zoning would increase the ratio of IN2 Light Industrial land to IN1 General Industrial land, helping to cater for the types of businesses that are emerging in the Precinct.

Conclusion

The rezoning of the Precinct to an IN2 Light Industrial zone, as shown in Figure 3, is considered an appropriate proposal for the following reasons:

??? It will benefit residential areas by providing a ?buffer? of low impact industrial activities between them and the more conventional industrial uses to the North.

??? It will better reflect the prevailing industrial lot size in the area, encouraging smaller, more dynamic enterprises, generating more jobs per hectare than conventional industrial land.

??? It will increase the ratio of IN2 Light Industrial land to IN1 General Industrial land within Penrith, providing for a more diverse range of industrial and supporting land uses.

??? Only a small number of existing businesses will have to rely on existing use rights.

Recommendation:

For the reasons set out in the above conclusion, it is recommended that the Precinct, as shown in Figure 3, be rezoned from IN1 General Industrial to IN2 Light Industrial.

 


Figure 1: Existing zones ? Areas adjacent to Coreen Avenue Precinct

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 3 - Coreen Avenue, Penrith

 

 

Figure 2: Existing Use Rights - Frequently Asked Questions

1.?? What is an existing use?

The use of a building, work or land for a lawful purpose immediately before the coming into force of a environmental planning instrument (EPI) that has the effect of prohibiting that use.

The use of a building, work or land is considered to be lawful if it is being carried out in accordance with the terms of a development consent, or, in the case of development not requiring development consent, a use which was carried out immediately before the coming into force of an LEP that prohibits that use.

2.?? What are ?existing use rights??

An existing use right allows the continuance of an existing use even if a new EPI prohibits it, for example, through a change in land use zone or the land use table, or the introduction of a provision that prohibits that particular use.

3.?? Do existing use rights apply to uses which have been unlawfully commenced?

No.? The use of a building, work or land which was unlawfully commenced can only be made lawful through either the granting of development consent for that use, or the publication of an EPI which permits the use without requiring development consent.

4.?? Can an existing use right expire?

No.? However, an existing use is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, to be abandoned if it ceases to be actually so used for a continuous period of 12 months.

5.?? Is there a need to formalise an existing use right by lodging a development application?

No.? Nothing in an environmental planning instrument operates so as to require a development application for a use previously permitted without consent or a further development application for a use that already has consent, to authorise the continuance of that use.

6.?? Can an existing use be enlarged, expanded, intensified, altered, extended or rebuilt?

Yes.? However, the enlargement, expansion, intensification, alteration, extension, rebuilding of an existing use requires development consent and must be for the existing use and carried out only on the land on which the existing use is carried out on.? Therefore the land on which the existing use is carried out on may not apply to a whole lot. The existing use may only apply to part of a lot. The extent of the land to which the existing use applies will be dependant upon the facts of each case.

7.?? Are there limits set for the enlargement, expansion, intensification, alteration, extension or rebuilding of an existing use?

Generally, no.? The matters of size, intensification, operating hours etc. of an existing use would all be considered as part of the assessment of the required development application.? Having said that, there are limits set on the enlargement, expansion, intensification, alteration, extension or rebuilding where the circumstances described in the answer to question 9 below apply. In all other circumstances there are no limits.

8.?? Can an existing use be changed to another permitted use?

Yes.? An existing use can be changed to another use if that use is a use that may be carried out with or without development consent in the current EPI applying to the land.? However, this process requires development consent.

9.?? Can an existing use be changed to another prohibited use?

In the following situations an existing use can be changed to another use:

???? If the existing use is a commercial use it can be changed to another commercial use in the same building, even if that use is prohibited by the current EPI applying to the land.

???? If the existing use is a light industrial use it can be changed to another light industrial use or a commercial use in the same building, even if that use is prohibited by the current EPI applying to the land.

However, any change of an existing use to another use in these situations must be carried out only on the land on which the existing use is carried out on. Further the use must not involve:

???? alterations or additions that are more than minor in nature;

???? an increase of more than 10% in the floor space of the premises associated with the existing use, and

???? does not involve the rebuilding of the premises associated with the existing use, and

???? does not involve a significant intensification of that existing use.

This process also requires development consent.


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 3 - Coreen Avenue, Penrith

 

Figure 3: Proposed zones for Coreen Avenue Precinct

 

?

Copy of Zoning Recommendation for Coreen Av IN2 Land.jpg


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 4 - Riverlink Precinct, Penrith

 

 

 

Attachment 4

 

 

Site/Matter:?? Riverlink Precinct, Penrith

 

 

Council Resolution (where applicable):

 

?Land within the Riverlink Precinct be deferred from draft Penrith LEP 2008 (Stage 1) and the Riverlink Precinct be considered as a whole in Stage 2 (draft Penrith LEP 2010).?

 

 

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

 

The Riverlink Precinct is generally bounded by the Main Western Railway in the north, the Nepean River to the west, the M4 to the south, and Mulgoa Road to the east. In April 2008, Council adopted a Riverlink Precinct Plan as a broad set of principles to guide future planning for this area. That plan identified areas that could potentially support a range of future leisure, entertainment and tourism activities in the Precinct.

 

In addition to the analysis of the Riverlink Precinct by Council, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure?s (DP&I) Penrith City Centres Taskforce also examined the future of the Riverlink Precinct and its relationship to the Penrith City Centre. The taskforce determined that:

 

?the Riverlink Precinct will become a recreational, leisure and entertainment destination for locals and visitors and that the river frontage will become the focus of local restaurants, clubs and recreation uses?.?

 

The impact of the scale and range of land uses within the Precinct upon the City Centre and the need for these to be complementary rather than competitive are considered critical in examining future scenarios.

 

The Riverlink Precinct, including Penrith Panthers Club, Council?s Carpenter and Woodriff Gardens lands, and a number of smaller landholdings, acts as a gateway to the Penrith City Centre.

 

The planning controls that will apply to land in the Riverlink Precinct will be incorporated in the Stage 2 LEP.? More detailed development controls for the Precinct will also be incorporated in the Penrith Citywide Development Control Plan. The Precinct is based on a mix of activity nodes, whereby a diverse range of land uses and services will be permitted throughout the Precinct. A substantial entertainment and leisure-based focus will be prevalent in the Precinct. These will attract visitors from an extensive catchment in addition to servicing the local community. The zones for the Riverlink Precinct are provided in Figure 1.

 

Review of Sites within the Riverlink Precinct

 

Two sites within the Riverlink Precinct have been reviewed since the Planning Proposal was endorsed by Council to be sent to the initial Gateway to start the LEP process. These sites have been reviewed in light of the recently endorsed Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal and the Campement Urbain project. Following is a brief discussion on the proposed changes to these sites:

 

Carpenter and Woodriff Gardens lands

 

The Carpenter and Woodriff Gardens sites are adjacent to the Penrith CBD within a 10 minute walking catchment of the train station, and are significant redevelopment opportunity sites including offering potential as a recreation resource. Both sites act as a gateway to the Penrith City Centre. The impact of the scale and range of land uses within these lands upon the City Centre and the need for these to be complementary rather than competitive are considered critical in applying zones to these lands.

 

The Riverlink Precinct Plan identifies these lands for mixed use and Entertainment, Tourism, Leisure & Lifestyle uses. The Riverlink Precinct Urban Design Study has also identified these lands as the principal precincts having the greatest potential for change in character due to location, land ownership, neglect, or suitability for development.

?

The Future Character Strategies identified in the Riverlink Precinct Urban Design Study for this area are the provision of architecturally distinctive, high quality, unique and well designed buildings, which reflects the history of the region and establishes this site as a special place. Future character could consist of civic community uses, complementary to the Council facilities to the east (such as an educational or Council related use). The built form is to provide a transition to the river and hotel precinct.

 

Council officers have considered all possible Standard Template LEP zones for this site in light of the physical constraints on the site including flooding. Most of the site is flood affected except for part of the Carpenter site facing Mulgoa road. The officers have concluded that SP3 ? Tourist zone will be the most appropriate zone for part of these sites considering the desired future character of this area and in making sure that the proposed uses are complementary rather than competitive with the zones in the Penrith City Centre. This approach will create a continuation of SP3 ? Tourist zone from Tench Avenue all the way to the Carpenter Site and Woodriff Gardens including the Panthers Club and the Log Cabin area. The SP3 ? Tourist zone permits uses that are flood compatible and are in accordance with the vision of this area. Some of the permitted uses include community facilities, educational establishments, entertainment facilities; food and drink premises (restaurants), function centres, medical centres, neighbourhood shops, recreation facilities and tourist and visitor accommodation (hotels, motels etc.). Figure 2 provides a full list of permissible uses within the SP3 ? Tourist zone.?

 

The remaining part of these sites is proposed to be zoned as RE1 ? Public Recreation. Figure 1 shows the zones for this area.

?

Finally these sites have been reviewed in light of the Campement Urbain project. All uses proposed by the Campement Urbain project can be accommodated within the SP3 ? Tourist zone and the RE1 ? Public Recreation zone.?

 

One aspect of considering this zone is that there are broad and expansive panoramic views from Carpenter?s Site to the Blue Mountains which are unique to the western edge of Penrith CBD. The application of the SP3 and RE1 zones will assist in retaining and capitalising on these views. In addition the SP3 zone has only been applied to land in the vicinity of the Nepean River and therefore includes a specific clause to protect the views of the escarpment. The objective reads ?To create an appropriate scale that maintains important views to and from the Nepean River as well as to the Blue Mountains escarpment, whilst also improving important connections to Penrith City Centre and the Nepean River?. Therefore, the view corridors offering vantage to the Blue Mountains will be reinforced with the application of this zone.

 

Golf Driving Range and Blaikie Road Precinct

 

The Golf Driving Range is currently not operating on site. Council officers have received various enquiries regarding the future zoning of the site from potential purchasers. In response, this site has been reviewed in the context of whole of the Blaikie Road Precinct. Council officers have considered all possible Standard Template LEP zones for this site in light of the physical constraints on the site including flooding. The site is entirely flood affected. Officers have concluded that the current zone will be translated in this LEP and this site will be reviewed in the next review of the LEP. Therefore a RU4 zone will be proposed for this site.

 

Other considerations

 

Submissions received from the Tench Avenue and Blaikie Road residents during the public exhibition of Penrith LEP 2010 expressed concerns that the draft LEP, as exhibited, did not reflect the outcomes of the Riverlink Precinct Plan and as such undermines the work undertaken to promote development in this area. The submissions requested that Council show commitment to the Riverlink Precinct Planning process and defer all land within the Riverlink Precinct from Stage 1. Therefore this whole area was deferred from LEP 2010.

 

It is proposed to zone this area consistent with the Riverlink Precinct Plan and where development for tourism purposes is expected in the next 5 years. The remaining area will be revisited in the next review of the LEP. This area is affected by the 1 in 100 year flood.? Broadly the types of land uses selected for this area are those that are flood compatible.

 

While the permissible uses are focussed on community, cultural, leisure and tourism facilities, the economic use of land has also been considered. The SP3 zone includes uses such as serviced apartments, medical centres, restaurants, educational establishments, function centres, pubs, registered clubs etc. which provide sufficient economic use for the land.?

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

The land use zonings identified at Figure 1 for the Riverlink Precinct be applied in the Planning Proposal for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

 


Figure 1: Proposed zones for the Riverlink Precinct

 

?Riverlink -02-05-12.jpg

Figure 2:?????? Proposed Land use Table - SP3 ? Tourist zone AND RE1 - Public Recreation

 

ZONE SP3 ??????? TOURIST

 

1??????? Objectives of zone

????????? To provide for a variety of tourist-oriented development and related uses.

???? To provide for a diversity of visitor accommodation and activities compatible with the promotion of tourism within Penrith and the region.

???? To create an appropriate scale that maintains important views to and from the Nepean River as well as to the Blue Mountains escarpment, whilst also improving important connections to Penrith City Centre and the Nepean River.

2??????? Permitted without consent

 

3??????? Permitted with consent

?????????????????? Advertising structures; Amusement centre; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Car parks; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Community facilities;? Drainage; Earthworks; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Environmental facilities;? Environmental protection works; Flood mitigation works; Food and drink premises; Function centres;? Helipads; Health services facilities; Information and education facilities; Jetties; Kiosks; Markets; Medical centres; Neighbourhood shops; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Public utility undertakings; Pubs; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Recreation Facility (major); Registered clubs; Roads; Service stations; Telecommunications facilities; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water recreation structures

4??????? Prohibited

?????????????????? Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

 


 

Zone RE1 Public Recreation

1??????? Objectives of zone

???????? To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

???????? To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

???????? To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

???????? To ensure development is secondary and complementary to the use of the land as public open space, and enhances public use, and access to, the open space.

???????? To ensure development is consistent with a plan of management applying to the land.

2??????? Permitted without consent

?????????????????? Nil

3??????? Permitted with consent

?????????????????? Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Caravan parks; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Child care centres; Community facilities; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Function centres; Information and education facilities; Jetties; Kiosks; Markets; Moorings; Public administration buildings; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Water recreation structures

4??????? Prohibited

?????????????????? Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 5 - E4 Lands, Castlereagh and Cranebrook

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

 

 

Site/Matter:?? E4 lands, Castlereagh and Cranebrook

 

 

Council Resolution (where applicable):

?That the area of Castlereagh and Cranebrook proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living be deferred from draft LEP 2008 (Penrith LEP 2010) to determine the most appropriate location for the zone boundary?.

 

 

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

The area of Castlereagh and Cranebrook that was proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living in the draft LEP 2010, but was subsequently deferred, is shown in Figure 1. This area covers about 350 properties and is generally bounded by Castlereagh Road in the west, properties north of Hinxman Road in the north, Taylor Road in the east and Cranebrook Road and Penrith Lakes in the south.

 

Although the proposed E4 zone reflected the outcomes of Council?s adopted Rural Lands Strategy (2003), Council received feedback objecting to the proposed zone, particularly because it would have prohibited new agriculture and animal boarding or training establishments in the area and, it was argued, resulted in a drop in land value and a reduced purchaser market.? The feedback objecting to the proposed zone included sixty seven (67) submissions and a petition signed by local residents.? Sixteen (16) submissions supported the proposed zone, largely because it would have helped to reduce land use conflicts and adverse impacts which can arise from agriculture, including dust, noise and traffic.

 

In response to the feedback and to better understand the current land uses and character of the area, a more up-to-date land use survey was undertaken.? While the survey indicated that overall about 80% of properties in the area were predominantly used for rural residential living, most of the properties being used for agricultural or commercial activities were in two distinct locations.? This difference suggested that a revised zoning approach that zoned these two distinct locations as RU4 Rural Small Holdings (now called RU4 Primary Production Small Lots) and retained the E4 Environmental Living zone over the remainder of the area could be considered.? The exact position of the boundary between the two zones, however, would still require some additional investigation.

 

At the time, Council was also receiving contradictory messages from the local community about the level of objection to the E4 zone.? Accordingly, Council resolved ?that the area of Castlereagh and Cranebrook proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living be deferred from draft LEP 2008 to determine the most appropriate location for the zone boundary?. Council also acknowledged that this would ?allow a more detailed and specific community consultation program to occur?.

 

Council officers have identified a boundary between the RU4 and E4 zones, which takes into account the results of the land use survey, the physical characteristics of the area and the views expressed by certain residents during further consultations required by Council in July and August 2009.? The extent of the RU4 and E4 zones is shown in Figure 2.

 

To ensure all members of the local community have the opportunity to express their views on the revised zoning, it is proposed to write to all landowners, with a reply paid feedback form, seeking comments.? The letter will be accompanied by an information sheet which provides further details on the reasons for the revised zoning, and the objectives, permissible uses and prohibited uses of each zone.? The information sheet also advises that agriculture and animal boarding or training establishments relate to commercial uses only and not to activities that are carried out for the personal enjoyment or consumption of the landowner.? It further advises that existing, lawfully established uses would be able to continue in the area under the revised zoning.

 

The letter will indicate that Council is seeking comments to inform what zone(s) will be included in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP and that the Planning Proposal will then be exhibited to allow further comments from the local community.?

 

To ensure the community has some confidence in this process, it is important that the timeframe between consultation and exhibition is not protracted.? Formal exhibition of the Planning Proposal is not anticipated to occur until 2013.? It would therefore be prudent to write to landowners closer to the time of exhibition.

 

The timeframe for writing to landowners would also allow a review of the ?environmentally sensitive land? hatching proposed in the draft Stage 1 LEP to be completed in the context of the revised zoning.? Ninety three (93) submissions (including most of the 67 submissions referred to above) objected to the proposed hatching in this area.

 

 

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the revised zoning shown in Figure 2 be endorsed as the basis for further community consultation with the landowners in the deferred area of Castlereagh and Cranebrook, at a time closer to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP.

 

 


 

Figure 1: E4 Zone under Draft Stage 1 LEP ? Deferred

 

 

 

 
E4 map.jpg

 

 

Figure 2: Revised Zoning

 

 

 
E4 map.jpg

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 6 - 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown

 

 

Attachment 6

Site/Matter: 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown

Council Resolution (where applicable):

The proposed listing of 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown (the former Holy Trinity Church) as a heritage item is deferred to Stage 2 of the Local Plan process to allow for the review of its heritage significance.

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

Stage 1 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan (now published as Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010)) proposed to list this property as a local heritage item.? This proposal reflected the findings of the Penrith Heritage Study (2007) undertaken by Paul Davies Pty Ltd Architects and Heritage Consultants.? This Study identified the property as a potential heritage item.?

A supplementary assessment of the property?s heritage significance, undertaken by Hubert Architects Pty Ltd in 2008 and in accordance with the NSW Government?s Heritage Branch?s Local Government Heritage Guidelines (2002) (the Guidelines), provided the following Statement of Significance:

The former Holy Trinity Church is of historic importance as it was the place of worship for the Anglican community in Jamisontown from 1908 until its closure.? Church buildings of this size were usually built in rural areas to serve farming communities.? With the gradual spread of the city, most small churches have been lost through redevelopment, being replaced with larger church buildings or other development.? The former church in Jamisontown is a rare surviving example of a small rural church building in what is now an urban context.

Council received a submission from the property owner (Ms Phyllis Jones) in response to the public exhibition of LEP 2010.? Ms Jones questioned the suitability of her property for inclusion in the heritage schedule of LEP 2010, highlighting that the building had been used as a dwelling since the 1940s and had subsequently been extended and modified on a number of occasions to make it suitable for use as a home.? Ms Jones also raised concerns with the perceived loss in value of the property and how the listing might influence the decision of potential purchasers.

In considering this submission, Council resolved to defer the proposed listing to allow a further independent review of the heritage significance of the property to take place.

To enact Council?s resolution, responses to a Consultant?s Brief were sought from a number of heritage consultants.? The consultant?s approached did not include Paul Davies Pty Ltd Architects and Heritage Consultants, Hubert Architects Pty Ltd, or Council?s current Heritage Advisor.? The Brief required a fresh assessment of the property?s heritage significance to be carried out in accordance with the Guidelines.? As the Guidelines are set by the NSW Government?s Heritage Branch and not a Council document, the results of the assessment should be considered independent.???

After a competitive selection process, Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants (the Consultant) were engaged to undertake the assessment.? To ensure a comprehensive assessment as possible is undertaken, the Consultant has:

????? ?? Undertaken in-depth research into the history of the property;

????? ?? Inspected the property (on 6 June 2012) from the public domain and from within its grounds.? The owner did not agree to an internal inspection; and

????? ?? Been provided with a copy of Ms Jones? submissions.

A full copy of Godden Mackay Logan?s report is provided as Attachment 11.? A copy has also been provided to the owner of the property to allow their review prior to the 2 July 2012 Policy review Committee Meeting.

Godden Mackay Logan have prepared the following Statement of Significance for the property:

Statement of Significance

The former Holy Trinity Church is of historic importance as the place of worship for the Anglican community in Jamisontown from 1908 until its closure.? The small size of the church is evidence of the rural character of the locality in the early twentieth century.

Although now partly surrounded by additions, the former Holy Trinity Church is an interesting example of the Federation Gothic style applied to a small rural church.? It is also of aesthetic interest for its terracotta shingled roof, a material used in the Federation period but rare in the western Sydney region.

Church buildings of this size were usually built in rural areas to serve farming communities. With the gradual spread of the city, most small churches have been lost with redevelopment or were replaced by larger church buildings.? The former Holy Trinity Church in Jamisontown is a rare surviving example of a small rural church building in what is now an urban context.

Whilst it is ultimately Council?s decision on whether or not list a property as a local heritage item in a local environmental plan, Godden Mackay Logan have provided the following recommendation for the ongoing management of this property and its identified heritage significance:

Recommendation

Without having viewed the interior of the property, Godden Mackay Logan cannot make an assessment of the impact of the changes on the authenticity of the interior fabric.? However, the exterior envelope of the building retains enough original fabrics and features to allow its use to be discerned.? The historical association with Penrith?s early settlement and community development confirms that the property has significance at the Local level, as described by the citation.? The eastern portion of the property contains gardens established by the current owner?s family.? The property should be listed on the LEP as an item of local heritage significance.

Recommendation:

That:

1.? The former Holy Trinity Church, located at 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown, be listed as a local heritage item in Stage 2 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan; and

2.? The curtilage of the former Holy Trinity Church, located at 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown is amended to reflect the original extent of the church grounds along Preston Street and exclude the gardens to the east.

3.? The owner(s) of the property should be invited to make use of Council?s Heritage Assistance Fund for the stabilisation, maintenance or reconstruction of the property.

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 7 - 40 River Road, Emu Plains

 

 

Attachment 7

Site/Matter: 40 River Road, Emu Plains

Council Resolution (where applicable):

Remove the property from Schedule 1 of draft LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) to allow an independent review of the heritage significance of the property to take place.

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

Stage 1 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan included Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation).? This Plan was endorsed by Council and sent to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for publication in December 2009.? We understand that the publication of this Plan is imminent and, that when published, it will be known as Penrith Local Environmental Plan (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2012.

The exhibited draft of Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) listed this property as a local heritage item.? The draft listing reflected the findings of the Penrith Heritage Study (2007) undertaken by Paul Davies Pty Ltd Architects and Heritage Consultants. This Study identified the property as a potential heritage item noting that it had also been nominated as a potential heritage item in the previous Penrith Heritage Study (1987).

?

The 1987 Study provided the following description for this property:

The garden contains mature specimens of trees and shrubs, dating from the establishment of the house.? These trees and shrubs are landmark elements along the River Road streetscape.? Specimens include Poplars, Celtis Australia, Murraya, Magnolia grandiflora, Michelia Figs.

The 2007 Study highlighted that the property still presented a garden of mature trees and shrubs which are landmark elements along River Road.? The 2007 Study also identified the house as having heritage significance for being a large and early example of riverside housing which developed in Emu Plains from around 1930.? An updated description was also provided:

An excellent and locally rare example of an inter-war Old English style house set within a mature suburban garden that demonstrates a phase in the development of Emu Plains with the coming of middle class residences and contributes to the scenic backdrop of the Nepean River.? The house is one of a small number of historic houses on the banks fringing the river at Emu Plains and Penrith that demonstrates a rare riverscape within a suburban setting in greater metropolitan Sydney.

In response to the public exhibition of Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation), Pikes Lawyers made a submission on behalf of the property owner - Mr R Cammack.? This submission was accompanied by a document prepared by Ruth Daniell Cultural Heritage Management (2008).

The submission stated that the property is not historically significant because:

????? ?? Of the lack of supporting information provided in Council?s Heritage Study on the history of settlement along River Road;

????? ?? A large number of additions (approximately 50% of the current building) have been made since the initial construction of the property; and

????? ?? 1980 landscaping, although based around existing mature trees, does not provide a heritage setting.

In considering this submission, Council resolved to defer the proposed listing to allow a further independent review of the heritage significance of the property to take place.

To enact Council?s resolution, responses to a Consultant?s Brief were sought from a number of heritage consultants.? The consultant?s approached did not include Paul Davies Pty Ltd Architects and Heritage Consultants, Hubert Architects Pty Ltd, Ruth Daniell Cultural Heritage Management, or Council?s current Heritage Advisor.? The Brief required a fresh assessment of the property?s heritage significance to be carried out in accordance with the Guidelines.? As the Guidelines are set by the NSW Government?s Heritage Branch and not a Council document, the results of the assessment should be considered independent.???

After a competitive selection process, Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants (the Consultant) were engaged to undertake the assessment.? To ensure a comprehensive assessment as possible is undertaken, the Consultant has:

????? ?? Undertaken in-depth research into the history of the property;

????? ?? Inspected the property on 15 June 2012. and

????? ?? Been provided with a copy of the submissions.

A full copy of Godden Mackay Logan?s report is provided as Attachment 11.? A copy has also been provided to the owner of the property to allow their review prior to the 2 July 2012 Policy review Committee Meeting.

Godden Mackay Logan have prepared the following Statement of Significance for the property:

Statement of Significance

The original portion of the house at 40 River Road is a fine and locally rare example of an inter-war Old English style residence.? 40 River Road is representative of the first wave of more intense residential subdivision along the Nepean riverbank as the pattern of orcharding in the Penrith area gave way to opportunities for closer rural subdivision and residential development just prior to World War II.? The original portion of the house demonstrates particular aesthetic attributes in its form and composition.? It is distinctive in its character, style and fabric, and prominent in its riverside location.?

Whilst it is ultimately Council?s decision on whether or not list a property as a local heritage item in a local environmental plan, Godden Mackay Logan have provided the following recommendation for the ongoing management of this property and its identified heritage significance:

Recommendation

It is recommended that the property be listed on the local environmental plan as an item of local heritage significance, and that the criterion (on the associated heritage inventory form) be amended to refer specifically to the original house, noting that with the exception of several mature trees, its garden setting is recent, as are the extensions to the house.

Recommendation:

???? That:

1.?? The property, located at 40 River Road, Emu Plains, be listed as a local heritage item in Stage 2 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan;

2.?? The description of the property in Council?s heritage inventory database be amended to refer specifically to the original house and exclude the more recent gardens and extensions.

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 8 - 12 Vista Street, Penrith

 

 

Attachment 8

Site/Matter: 12 Vista Street, Penrith

Council Resolution (where applicable):

Remove the property from Schedule 1 of draft LEP 1991 (Environmental heritage Conservation) to allow an independent review of the heritage significance of the property to take place.

Officer?s Planning Commentary:

Stage 1 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan included Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation).? This Plan was endorsed by Council and sent to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for publication in December 2009.? We understand that the publication of this Plan is imminent and, that when published, it will be known as Penrith Local Environmental Plan (Environmental Heritage Conservation) 2012.

The exhibited draft of Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) listed this property as a local heritage item.? The draft listing reflected the findings of the Penrith Heritage Study (2007) undertaken by Paul Davies Pty Ltd Architects and Heritage Consultants. This Study identified the property as a potential heritage item noting that it had also been nominated as a potential heritage item in the previous Penrith Heritage Study (1987).

The 1987 Study provided the following description for this property:

Approximately 400ha at Penrith was granted to Captain Daniel Woodriff in 1804.? The property remained in the ownership of the family, but the first to live there were two of Daniel?s great grandsons, Frederick Daniel and Francis Henry, who settled at Penrith in the early 1880s.? The original part of the property was built by Frederick at this time and he remained in Penrith until his death in 1916, becoming deeply involved in local matters and serving as both Alderman and Mayor.? Set within a more recent and large mature garden, the house retains evidence of its establishment as a secluded gentleman?s villa.? Although it has been extended and extensively altered on a number of occasions, it remains significant for its association with this important family.? Since 1947, when the property was purchased by the Cammack family, it has been known as ?Mountain Mists?.

The 2007 Study recognised that the subdivision of the property over recent years has seen the original frontage to Mulgoa Road excised with new townhouse development set among the remains of the landscape.? Notwithstanding, the Study recommended that the property be listed as a local heritage item.

In response to the public exhibition of Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation), Pikes Lawyers made a submission on behalf of the property owner - Mr William Cammack.? This submission was accompanied by a document prepared by Ruth Daniell Cultural Heritage Management (2008).

The submission stated that the property is not historically significant because:

????? ?? It?s curtilage has reduced in size and quality presenting the loss of the visual setting, original garden and mature trees and important views and vistas to the Blue Mountains;

????? ?? A significant number of additions since 1950 have reduced the percentage of the original building to 30% of the total built fabric on the property; and

????? ?? Of the limited amount of time that Frederick Daniel Woodriff spent at the property in comparison to the Woodriff family?s construction and occupation of Combewood.

In considering this submission, Council resolved to defer the proposed listing to allow a further independent review of the heritage significance of the property to take place.

To enact Council?s resolution, responses to a Consultant?s Brief were sought from a number of heritage consultants.? The consultant?s approached did not include Paul Davies Pty Ltd Architects and Heritage Consultants, Hubert Architects Pty Ltd, Ruth Daniell Cultural Heritage Management, or Council?s current Heritage Advisor.? The Brief required a fresh assessment of the property?s heritage significance to be carried out in accordance with the Guidelines.? As the Guidelines are set by the NSW Government?s Heritage Branch and not a Council document, the results of the assessment should be considered independent.???

After a competitive selection process, Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants (the Consultant) were engaged to undertake the assessment.? To ensure a comprehensive assessment as possible is undertaken, the Consultant has:

????? ?? Undertaken in-depth research into the history of the property;

????? ?? Inspected the property (on 6 June 2012) from the public domain.? The owner did not agree to an inspection of the grounds or an internal inspection; and

????? ?? Been provided with a copy of the submissions.

A full copy of Godden Mackay Logan?s report is provided as Attachment 11.? A copy has also been provided to the owner of the property to allow their review prior to the 2 July 2012 Policy review Committee Meeting.

Godden Mackay Logan have prepared the following Statement of Significance for the property:

Statement of Significance

Rodley was in the ownership of the family of Frederick Daniel Woodriff for approximately 38 years (from its construction in 1882 until its sale in 1920/1921), and it was built on land that had been in the ownership of the Woodriff family since 1804.? Its establishment, subdivision and change demonstrate the course of Penrith?s history.? Now on a reduced curtilage and without its outbuildings with some remnant plantings now on adjacent allotments, it is representative of the settlement of Penrith in the later part of the nineteenth century.

Both Rodley and the nearby, slightly later Combewood, are closely associated with the original grantees, the Woodriff family, and are rare, early historic properties of the Penrith area, albeit now on reduced curtilages.? Rodley is evidence of the class of wealthy families in the area in the late nineteenth century who were developing and re-subdividing land which had been granted to their forebears at the outset of European settlement in the region.

The property has strong historical associations with the development of Penrith, its governance and civic development.? Specifically, the property is historically associated with three former mayors of Penrith ? Frederick Daniel Woodriff, David Fitch and Eileen Cammack OBE.

Whilst it is ultimately Council?s decision on whether or not list a property as a local heritage item in a local environmental plan, Godden Mackay Logan have provided the following recommendation for the ongoing management of this property and its identified heritage significance:

Recommendation

Without having viewed the property, Godden Mackay Logan cannot make an assessment of the impact of the changes on the authenticity of the physical fabric, or of the subdivision of its curtilage.? This also means that Godden Mackay Logan cannot make a recommendation on whether or not the property should be listed as a heritage item.? However, the strong historical association with Penrith?s early settlement and governance confirms that the property may have significance at the local level.

Although Godden Mackay Logan has indicated that an inspection of the property is required before it can provide a recommendation on the ongoing management of this property and any heritage significance it may have, the owner is not willing to allow an inspection of the property, either internally or from within the grounds, to take place.? In addition, the property cannot be viewed from the public domain.

In light of the historical association of the property with Penrith?s early settlement and governance (one of the criterion set by the NSW Government Heritage Branch?s Guidelines), and the lack of contemporary evidence to suggest that this significance has been eroded through changes to the physical fabric of the property, it is recommended that a precautionary approach be adopted and the property be listed as a local heritage item in Stage 2 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan.

Recommendation:

That the property, located at 12 Vista Street, Penrith be listed as a local heritage item in Stage 2 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan.

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 9 - Penrith Health & Education Precinct, Kingswood

 

 

 

Attachment 9

 

 

Site/Matter:?? Penrith Health and Education Precinct

 

 

Council Resolution (where applicable):

 

No specific Resolution.

Implementation of the Structure Plan prepared by the Penrith Health and Education Precinct Task Force

 

 

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.? 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.

???? A further report be brought to Council outlining the detailed LEP and DCP planning controls to be applied to this precinct to ensure the intended land use pattern is achieved.

 

 


Figure 1: Penrith Health and Education Precinct Structure Plan

 


?

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

ZoningKingswood2.jpg,Legend 



Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 10 - North Penrith ? Residual Sites

 

 

 

Attachment 10

 

 

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
 



Policy Review Committee Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 July 2012

Attachment 11 - Heritage Report

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp

?