Agenda of Policy Review Committee Meeting

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON MONDAY 2 JULY 2012 AT 7:07PM

PRESENT

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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

APOLOGIES

PRC 33? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that apologies be received for the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillor Robert Ardill.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 4 June 2012

PRC 34? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 4 June 2012 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest ? Less Than Significant in Item 1 ? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters (Site 2 ? Childcare Centres in Rural Areas, particularly Llandilo), as he lives in Llandilo.? Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM stated that he would remain in the meeting during consideration of the matter.

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 ? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters (Site 1 - Cherrywood Village, Llandilo), as he is a Director of the company that owns the property.? Councillor Ross Fowler OAM stated that he would leave the meeting during consideration of this matter.

ADDRESSING THE MEETING

Mr Ben Artup/Mr Greg Allchin

Item 1 ? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters (Penrith Health and Education Precinct)

Mr Ben Artup, representing Penrith Business Alliance, addressed Council, expressing support for the report and in particular the Penrith Health and Education Precinct.? Mr Artup stated that specific support for the zoning around the Nepean Hospital precinct would provide employment in the local area and support current investments around the hospital.

Mr Artup then introduced Mr Greg Allchin, also representing Penrith Business Alliance, who also spoke in support of the recommendation.? Mr Allchin expressed general support for Council progressing the implementation of the Penrith Health and Education Precinct (PHEP) structure plan.? Mr Allchin noted that the development of this precinct would encourage potential economic growth and create employment in Penrith for local people.? Mr Allchin also stated that the expansion of mixed use zoning around the hospital would attract visiting medical officers to the Penrith area.

PRC 35? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that Mr Allchin be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 7:17 pm.

Mr Allchin concluded by stating that the implementation of? the PHEP would provide the Penrith area with world class facilities in health, research and employment.

Mr William Cammack

Item 1 ? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters (12 Vista Street, Penrith)

Mr Cammack, representing an affected owner, spoke in opposition to the recommendation regarding this property.? Mr Cammack objected to the Heritage listing, citing a lack of heritage value of the house itself, and the removal of any outbuildings which could have been considered to be of heritage value.? Mr Cammack detailed various reasons why the property should not be heritage listed and stated that there was insufficient evidence to justify a heritage listing.

PRC 36? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that Mr Cammack be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 7:25 pm.

Mr Cammack also stated that his view was that the property was like any other land development? in the Penrith area and was not particularly significant.

Mr Cammack concluded by suggesting that an alternative way of acknowledging any heritage significance of the property could be by way of a photographic record.

Mr Stephen Griffiths

Item 1 ? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters (12 Vista Street, Penrith)

Mr Griffiths,? Solicitor representing the owner, spoke in opposition to the recommendation regarding this property, stating that there was sufficient evidence before Council to reject the heritage listing of the property.?? Mr Griffiths went on to detail the extensive alterations that has been carried out to the house, rendering it not worth heritage listing, as most of the existing building was constructed from 1950 onwards.?

PRC 37? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor John Thain that Mr Griffiths be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 7:34 pm.

Councillor Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 7:34 pm.

Mr Griffiths stated that economic issues need to be considered when listing properties as having heritage significance.??

Councillor Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 7:36 pm.

Mr Griffiths concluded by stating that multiple housing would be the best use for the land and that a heritage listing would depreciate the building value of the property.

Mr Reg Cammack

Item 1 ? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters (40 River Road, Emu Plains)

Mr Cammack, an affected owner, spoke in opposition to the recommendation regarding this property.? Mr Cammack stated that heritage listing should not apply to privately owned properties as this would result in devaluation of the property.? Mr Cammack cited various historical inaccuracies in the report, most notably referring to when the house was built.?? Mr Cammack also stated that the previous report by a Heritage Consultant advised that the property should not be listed.

PRC 38? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that Mr Cammack be granted an extension of time to complete his address, the time being 7:43 pm.

Mr Cammack concluded by reiterating that the property should not be heritage listed because of an inaccurate identification of the property, the gardens already having been rejected for heritage listing, and that the vast majority of the premises consists of recent additions and alterations.? Mr Cammack also stated that heritage listing would result in significant financial loss as the property would be unable to be subdivided.

???

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

A Leading City

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

PRC 39? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

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 2-4 (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.

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

6. A report be presented to Council that:

a. Provides advice on the consequences of heritage listing of privately owned properties particularly in relation to impacts on the reasonable economic use of properties and financial consequences to land owners, and

b. Presents the items listed in the previous heritage Local Environmental Plan where owners objected to heritage listing.

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

For	Against
Councillor Pru Car
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Mark Davies????????
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tanya Davies
Councillor Greg Davies

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 ? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters (Site 1 - Cherrywood Village, Llandilo), Councillor Ross Fowler OAM left the meeting during consideration of this matter, the time being 8:19 pm.

1??????? Stage 2 of the Penrith Citywide Local Environmental Plan ? Unresolved Matters? -?? Site 1 ? Cherrywood Village Llandilo

PRC 40? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

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 approach recommended in Attachment 1 (Cherrywood Village, Llandilo) be applied in the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 LEP for the purpose of public exhibition.

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

For	Against
Councillor Pru Car
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Mark Davies????????
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tanya Davies
Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:24 pm.

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

PRC? 41? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

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

4. Council not proceed with the planning approaches outlined in Attachments 6-8 (34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown, 40 River Road, Emu Plains; 12 Vista Street Penrith) and that these items be placed on exhibition in Stage 2 with their current zoning, as translated into the State Government?s templated zones, given the concerns that the Council has with the inconsistencies of the technical information contained within the heritage reports.

5. The planning approaches recommended in Attachments 9 and 10 (Penrith Health and Education Precinct, Kingswood and the North Penrith Residual Sites) be deferred for further consideration at Council?s Ordinary Meeting of 23 July 2012.

6. A report be presented to Council that:

b. Presents the items listed in the previous heritage Local Environmental Plan where owners objected to heritage listing.

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

For	Against
Councillor Pru Car
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Mark Davies????????
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tanya Davies
Councillor Greg Davies

A City of Opportunities

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

PRC 42? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

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.

3.?? A further report be submitted to Council on the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

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

For	Against
Councillor Pru Car
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Marko Malkoc
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Mark Davies????????
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tanya Davies
Councillor Greg Davies

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

Councillor Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:37 pm.

RR 1????????? Sponsorship of Jess Gardiner?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested consideration of sponsorship of Londonderry resident, Jess Gardiner, who is competing overseas in the World Enduro Championship event.

RR 2????????? Condition of Major Roads in Penrith Local Government Area??????????????????????????

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report to Council detailing all major road failures in the Penrith Local Government Area, the general condition of the road network, funding and resourcing of local road infrastructure, as well as outlining Council?s strategic plan for road maintenance.

Councillor Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:42 pm.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:43 pm.

Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

A Leading City

Draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan where owners objected to the heritage listing???

Compiled by:?????????????? 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)

???????

Executive Summary

This report presents the details of the heritage items and places that Council resolved, in December 2009, to include in an amended Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation), where submissions had been received from, or on behalf of, the property owners objecting to the listing of their properties.

This report also provides advice on the status of Draft Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) and the statutory processes relating to its publication.

Background

At its 2 July 2012 Policy Review Committee Meeting, Council was presented with a report on a number of unresolved matters within Stage 2 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan (the City-wide Plan).? These unresolved matters required, amongst other things, Council?s decision on the listing of the following three properties as local heritage items in the City-wide Plan:

1.? 40 River Road, Emu Plains

2.? 34-36 Preston Street, Jamisontown

3.? 12 Vista Street, Penrith

Council resolved that the properties should not be listed as local heritage items.?

Council also requested further reports that:

a.? Provide advice on the consequences of heritage listing of privately owned properties, particularly in relation to impacts on the reasonable economic use of properties and financial consequences to landowners, and

b.? Present the items listed in the previous heritage local environmental plan where owners objected to heritage listing.

This report addresses the second part of this request, presenting the properties and details of Council?s related considerations in adopting the heritage items and places in Draft Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) (the Draft Amendment).? It also advises on the status of the Draft Amendment and the statutory processes relating to its publication.

The first part of this request will be addressed in a later report as it requires additional time to compile given that it requires specialist input in relation to, amongst other things, land economics, relevant legal advice, statutory practice and opportunities etc.

Council?s Previous Considerations ? Draft Amendments to the Heritage LEP

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) (the Heritage LEP), published in December 1991, requires amendments so that it:

??? Remains consistent with present day local environmental plans through the adoption of Standard Instrument Template Model Provisions;

??? Provides a contemporary record of the local heritage items and places in Penrith in accordance with the recommendations made by Council?s Heritage Study (2007); and

??? Does not duplicate the heritage items and places, both existing and newly identified, that were adopted in Stage 1 of the City-wide Plan, now published as Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010).? LEP 2010 lists the heritage items and places that are located in Penrith?s rural and industrial areas and St Mary?s Town Centre.

The Draft Amendment ? Draft Amendment No. 1 to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation) ? was publicly exhibited between 27 October 2008 and 30 January 2009.? A number of submissions were received in response.? These submissions objected to, supported, or requested clarification on, the effect of various aspects of the Draft Amendment.

A comprehensive review of the submissions was presented for Council?s consideration at a series of Briefings, Policy Review Committee Meetings and Ordinary Meetings in 2009.? A number of persons also presented directly to Council during these meetings and were subsequently engaged in a further consultation exercise.?????

Council?s considerations of the proposed listing of the properties identified to have local heritage significance culminated in its December 2009 resolution to forward the Draft Amendment to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure with a request for it to be published.?

In the form adopted by Council, the Draft Amendment, when made, would:

??? Retain 87 of the 168 heritage items and places currently listed in the Heritage LEP.? The remainder of the 168 items and places have either been transferred to LEP 2010 or no longer have sufficient local heritage significance to be listed.

??? List 58 of the newly identified local heritage items and places recommended for listing by the Heritage Study.

When made the amended Heritage LEP will provide Council with an effective framework to manage Penrith?s heritage items and places.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure (the Department) has recently indicated that the publication of the currently adopted Draft Amendment will not occur before the end of August 2012.? This means that there is still the opportunity, prior to its publication, to make further alterations to the properties proposed to be listed as heritage items or included in heritage conservation areas if Council so determines.

Objections to the Listing of Properties as Local Heritage Items and Places

The following list presents the properties that Council resolved to list as local heritage items in the Draft Amendment where those properties had been the subject of submissions by, or on behalf of, the owner objecting to the proposed listing:

1.?????????? 38 Park Avenue, Kingswood

2.?????????? 163 Derby Street, Penrith

3.?????????? 229 High Street, Penrith

4.?????????? 14 Pages Road, St Marys

5.?????????? 16 Pages Road, St Marys

6.???? ?????? 18 Pages Road, St Marys

7.?????????? 14-278 Old Castlereagh Road, Castlereagh (Slab Cottage)

8.?????????? 14-278 Old Castlereagh Road, Castlereagh (Pise House Ruins)

9.?????????? Castlereagh Road Alignment, Castlereagh

10.?? 115-119 Henry Street, Penrith

11.?? 253 High Street, Penrith

12.?? 449-451 High Street, Penrith

13.?? 10-12 North Street, Penrith

14.?? St Mary Magdalene Anglican Church, St Marys

The first six of these properties are privately owned, whilst the remainder are owned by companies, government or other entities.? Please note that the concerns raised by the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (No?s 7, 8 & 9) and the Anglican Church Property Trust (No. 14) were resolved ? there is no desire by the owners of these properties for the proposed listings to be deleted.

The following list presents the properties that Council resolved to include in a Heritage Conservation Area where those properties had been the subject of submissions by, or on behalf the owner objecting to the proposed listing:

1.?????????? 12 Higgins Street, Penrith

2.?????????? 16 Higgins Street, Penrith

3.?????????? 1 Brown Street, Penrith

The first two of these properties are privately owned, whilst the remaining property is owned by a company.

The four tables in Attachment 1 provide a summary of relevant information for each of the above properties ? the information is presented as follows:

??? Table A ? Privately owned properties proposed to be listed as heritage items;

??? Table B ? Properties owned by companies, government or other entities that are proposed to be listed as heritage items;

??? Table C ? Privately owned properties proposed to be listed as part of a heritage conservation area; and

??? Table D ? Properties owned by companies, government or other entities that are proposed to be listed as part of a heritage conservation area.

The references provided for each of the properties corresponds with the information provided in Attachment 2 ? an extract of the document (addressing each of the submissions) that was presented to Council for its consideration in 2009.

In addition to the items discussed above, the property located at 304 High Street, owned by Dr W H Moss is also presented for Council?s consideration.? This property was also included as an item of local heritage significance in the Draft Amendment adopted by Council. Whilst Dr Moss did not make a submission to the formal public exhibition of the Draft Amendment, between April 2011 and April 2012 Council has received a number of verbal representations from Dr W H Moss objecting to the listing of his property.? These representations have sought the reversal of Council?s 2009 decision to list this property as a heritage item in the Heritage LEP.?

To date, Dr Moss has been advised the following:

??? That Council?s Heritage Study (2007) identified his property as having local heritage significance and recommended that it should be listed as a local heritage item.

??? That Council has resolved to include his property as a local heritage item in the Heritage LEP (awaiting publication).

??? The listing, when made, does not preclude the redevelopment of the property.

Dr Moss has subsequently been invited to use Council?s Pre-Development Application Lodgement Services, including its Heritage Advisory Services, to seek further advice on the redevelopment of the property.? These services will outline all of the planning controls and constraints affecting the property, including the information required to assist Council?s considerations of the effect of any proposal on the (currently draft) heritage item.? To date, this invitation has not been acted upon.

In response to the proposed listing of his property, Dr Moss has engaged the services of a heritage consultant (Rappoport Pty Ltd) to review and respond to the draft listing ? this exercise has culminated in the provision of a Heritage Assessment (Attachment 3).? For Council?s assistance, Attachment 4 provides a copy of the Heritage Inventory Form that draws from the independent assessment prepared in respect of Dr Moss? property for Council in 2007 as part of its Heritage Study.

Conclusion

The list of properties proposed for heritage listing in the adopted amendment to Council?s Heritage LEP where submissions were received by, or on behalf of, the owners objecting to heritage listing are presented for Council?s consideration in accordance with the resolution of the Policy Review Committee of 2 July 2012.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan where owners objected to the heritage listing be received.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	List of Subject Properties	7 Pages	Attachment
2. View	Details of Submissions	83 Pages	Attachment
3. View	Rappoport Pty Ltd Heritage Assessment for 304 High Street, Penrith	25 Pages	Attachment
4. View	Council's Heritage Inventory Form for 304 High Street, Penrith	5 Pages	Attachment

Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

A Leading City

2012 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference???

Compiled by:?????????????? Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by:??????????? Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer??

Objective	We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct
Community Outcome	A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)
Strategic Response	Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

???????

Executive Summary

This report advises Council of proposed motions for the Local Government Association Annual Conference to be held in Dubbo from 29 - 31 October 2012 and seeks endorsement from Council to submit the motions, as detailed, to the Conference.

The proposed motions cover the following matters:

1.?? Leadership for Sustainable Street Lighting

2.?? A Long Term Strategy for Sydney?s Waste Disposal Needs

The report recommends that:

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

2.?? The motions detailed in the report be submitted for inclusion in the 2012 Local Government Association NSW Conference Business Paper.

Background

The Local Government Association of NSW (LGA) will hold its annual policy-making Conference in Dubbo from 29 - 31 October 2012.

Current Situation

Council?s voting delegates were determined at the Ordinary Meeting on 9 July 2012 to be nominated after the Council Elections on 8 September 2012. At this meeting it was determined that up to three (3) Aboriginal observers, nominated by the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, will also attend as observers.

Motions to Conference

Council is entitled to submit motions for consideration at the 2012 LGA Conference.

As was outlined to member Councils in a letter from the Local Government Association in December 2011, the LGA Executive advised that they would prefer to see motions focused on strategic issues and matters of significant policy. Motions should be written to address strategic Local Government issues rather than specific angle local issues. Motions will be determined to be either Category 1 or Category 2.

Category 1 motions must seek to establish a new policy or position or amend existing policy and must be of regional, state or national significance.

Category 2 motions are motions which are already covered by existing policy or subject to ongoing lobbying and/or representation. Category 2 motions will be dealt with by the Executive and not by the Conference.

Motions must also be consistent with one of the four subject categories listed below:

1)?? Services (human services, environmental services, library services, cultural programs, recreation programs, health protection and promotion, development approvals, environmental regulatory activity etc)

2)?? Infrastructure (issues relating to transport, roads, bridges, footpaths, open space, water & sewerage? facilities,? waste? facilities &? services, recreation? facilities,? arts? facilities, civic buildings etc)

3)?? Finance (revenue raising, government funding, cost shifting, emergency services levy, waste levy, carbon tax, economic development etc)

4)?? General (land use planning, development approvals, environmental regulatory activity, workforce planning & development, industrial issues, etc)

Where Councils submit similar motions on related topics, these motions may be grouped and the strategic issue debated at Conference to arrive at a ?Local Government Industry? position.

Motions must be received by close of business, Wednesday 15 August 2012. Late motions will not be accepted unless the matter is both urgent and emergent.

The following issues have been identified as motions which can be framed for debate at the Conference:

1.?? Leadership for Sustainable Street Lighting

2.?? A Long Term Strategy for Sydney?s Waste Disposal Needs

The details of the Motions proposed to be submitted to the LGA Annual Conference are provided below:

MOTION 1

From:

Penrith City Council

Subject:

Infrastructure

Title:
Leadership for Sustainable Street Lighting

Motion:

That the Local Government Association call on the Minister for Resources and Energy to establish a Steering Committee on Sustainable Street Lighting. This Committee would work cooperatively with key stakeholders, including local government, to review and standardise processes to facilitate the bulk roll out of energy efficient street lighting, and develop a sustainable energy policy for street lighting.

Note from Council:

Street lighting is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions for local government, typically accounting for between 30 and 60% of total greenhouse emissions, with an annual energy cost across Australia exceeding $125 million, and more than $250 million when maintenance costs are included (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). Numbers of street lights are expected to continue to grow as the existing network expands and in response to enhanced lighting and safety standards. Street lighting is the single largest group of energy consuming assets within local government.

Significant progress is yet to be made in the bulk replacement of existing street lighting with more energy and maintenance efficient technologies, despite the efforts of many individual councils and regional groups of Councils in New South Wales.

A number of significant barriers have been encountered that hinder progress in this area including:

???? High costs to local government to enable a bulk replacement of existing lighting. Replacements can be undertaken either through local government funding the upfront capital costs and ?gifting? the new infrastructure to the electricity distribution business (EDB) at considerable expense, or through higher network costs if the upfront costs are shouldered by the EDB. In most cases these higher network costs can exceed any electricity cost savings achieved, impacting negatively on the business case.

???? Existing financial disincentives to undertake bulk lighting changeovers, particularly costs associated with the early retirement of existing lighting infrastructure. These costs, known as the written down value, are significant, and particularly substantial in New South Wales.

???? A perceived lack of priority on the part of electricity distribution businesses to upgrade to more sustainable lighting technologies, primarily due to a lack of a financial or legislative driver.

???? Inconsistency amongst the three EDBs in their approach to and offer of efficient lighting types to date.

???? Street lighting is a highly complex area that requires significant resourcing to engage with the electricity distribution businesses and negotiate changes to existing infrastructure. While local governments are facing increases in the number of services delivered along with higher community expectations it is difficult for most councils to justify resources in this area, given the lack of progress to date. This problem is likely to be exacerbated for smaller councils.

???? Lack of an established process between the local energy distributors and councils for negotiations around a bulk lighting replacement program.

This motion responds to an existing need within local government to work towards aligning stakeholders and supporting a transition to increased energy efficiency of the existing street lighting network. A Street Lighting Steering Committee would act as a key driver in identifying barriers and developing strategies and processes to overcome them.

MOTION 2

From:

Penrith City Council

Subject:

General ? Environmental Regulatory Activity

Title:

A Long Term Strategy for Sydney?s Waste Disposal Needs

Motion:

That the Local Government Association request the State Government to develop an equitable, long-term strategy for Sydney?s waste disposal needs that will not impact on a single community. The Strategy should also provide clear guidelines for industry and local government on the regulatory management processes and options available for the disposal of hazardous and restricted solid waste in NSW, including addressing the issue of only a single waste facility licensed to accept Restricted Solid Waste in NSW.

Note from Council:

Concerns are raised over the effectiveness of the statutory compliance processes in respect to the waste disposal industry. In some instances, landfill activities have commenced without any Council or State Government approval. Where quarries and landfill sites have been operating for many years under old development consents and licensing provisions, the nature of the regulatory system has proven difficult to establish clear ownership for effective compliance responses. This is particularly the case when these sites receive waste such as asbestos or other hazardous materials that typically fall outside of development approval conditions.

The self-regulatory nature of the waste industry and the ambiguity of the roles of Local and State Government agencies have resulted in inappropriate land filling operations being undertaken and difficulties in clarifying adequate compliance procedures and ownership for their advancement.

An equitable, long-term strategy is required for Sydney?s waste disposal that will not impact on a single community.? At present there is only one waste facility licensed to accept Restricted Solid Waste in NSW and the question needs to be asked is this appropriate or sustainable into the future. A far more workable approach to distributing Sydney?s waste generation, along with crucial regulatory reform is needed.

A new Waste Management Strategy for Metropolitan Sydney that affectively deals with these issues is sought.

Conclusion

In addition it is important to recognise the significant contribution that Council has made to framing policy and advocating for the community through the motions it has raised at Local Government Association Conferences through its term. A detailed list of the Motions that have been submitted can be found at Appendix 1.? A large number of Motions have been adopted by the Conference over the years with the remainder being referred to the Executive with many now being a part of ongoing policy. For the 2010 Conference, the Actions of the Council?s Motions are available in the list at Appendix 1. It is recognised that a number of these Motions have had further more recent positive outcomes, particularly in relation to advocating for changes to City Wide Local Environment Plans with proposed changes made to the Model Code of Conduct and the Local Government Act being imminent. The Actions of the Motions taken to the Conference in 2011 will be published after the 2012 Conference.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2.???? The motions detailed in the report be submitted for inclusion in the 2012 Local Government Association NSW Conference Business Paper

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ?

Council Motions to LGA Conference 2009-2011

10 Pages

Appendix

Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

Appendix 1 - Council Motions to LGA Conference 2009-2011

2009 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference

1.?? Paid Adoption Leave

Motion: (Adopted)

That as part of negotiations for the next Local Government (State) Award, the Local Government Association support the introduction of three (3) weeks paid ?short adoption leave? for an employee who is the primary care-giver of the adopted child, at the time of placement of the child with the employee.

Executive Note:

The Local Government (State) Award 2007 already contains a provision for 1 week?s paid supporting parent leave which can be taken at the time the employee adopts a child, provided the employee has had 12 months continuous service the Council immediately prior to the commencement of such leave. The Award has provided access to this benefit since 2001.

2.?? Penalties for the illegal dumping of waste

Motion: (Adopted)

That the Local Government Association approach the NSW Government with the view to increasing on the spot penalties for the dumping of waste, particularly for that waste that has been collected by a contractor under payment for removal, and the waste is then illegally disposed of.

3.?? Local Government consultation in the review, development and implementation of the new Public Health Act

Motion: (Referred to the Executive with Recommendation to Adopt)

That the Local Government Association request NSW Health to conduct its review of the Public Health Act 1991 in full consultative partnership with local government during both the review, development and implementation phases.

4.?? Local Government Association Constitution ? Proposed Amendments

This Motion was withdrawn.

5.?? The need for a new Environmental Planning & Assessment Act in NSW

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association request the Minister for Planning to delay the further roll out of any new planning reforms until such time as further consultation has been undertaken with Local Government and key stakeholders about the growing complexity of the planning reforms and the need for a new Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

Executive Note:

The Associations presented a detailed submission and appeared at a hearing before the Inquiry into the New South Wales Planning Framework by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on State Development. The submission called for a comprehensive review and revision of the NSW planning system and planning legislation to reflect the challenges and opportunities presented by the 21st century. The Associations support an overhaul of the NSW land use planning system.

6.?? Proposed amendment to the fire safety provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EPAA) 1979

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association request that the Department of Planning amend Section 121ZD of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EPAA) 1979 to require that the referral of reports from the Commissioner of the New South Wales Fire Brigades (NSWFB) under Section 118L of the Act only be tabled at and reported to Council for determination where the timeframes outlined in the EPAA to issue a notice have not been satisfied by Council Officers.

7.?? Reimbursement of loss of income due to Councillors attendance at training and conferences

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association seek provision in the Director-General?s Guidelines issued in relation to the ?Payment of expenses and provision of facilities to councillors? under section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993, to allow Councils to make a daily payment to Councillors attending conferences and training related to their civic duty to compensate them for loss of income due to their absence from work, with the daily payment being capped in terms of both amount and days per year.

2010 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference

1.?? Funding to Local Government through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program

Motion: (Adopted)

???? That the Local Government Association support the actions of the Australian Local Government Association and the National Growth Areas Alliance in their efforts to secure a continuation of the Federal Government?s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program at a cost of a minimum of $300 million per annum for at least the next four years.

???? That the Local Government Association make its own representations directly to the Federal Government on behalf of its members to secure the continuance of Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program funding, extending the use of these grants to renew existing infrastructure in addition to building new infrastructure.

Action:

The resolution was sent to the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Simon Crean, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Anthony Albanese, the Treasurer, the Hon Wayne Swan and the Australian Local Government Association for consideration.

Response from the Hon Anthony Albanese, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport ? 4 February 2011

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP)

The $100 million allocation is the third and final round of the RLCIP. Investment from the RLCIP is intended to support local jobs and provide long term benefits to communities by assisting councils to build and modernise local infrastructure.

Future Funding

As part of the Government?s commitment to regional Australia, $1.4 billion has been allocated to a Regional Australia Development Fund (RADF). The RADF will provide financial grants to support the infrastructure needs and economic growth of regional Australia.

The RADF has two components, the $800 million Priority Regional Infrastructure Fund (PRIP) and the $573 million Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF). The PRIP is primarily focussed on providing or upgrading community infrastructure at the local and regional level. The RIF is focussed on larger scale projects critical to economic growth and development in the region.

Response from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer ? 24 February 2011

The Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program was announced by the Prime Minister at the Australian Council of Local Government inaugural meeting on 18 November 2008 as part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. Since its inception, the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program has made more than $1 billion available to local government authorities to build and modernise community infrastructure.

Going forward, the Australian Government has committed to provide $165 million over four years for community cultural and infrastructure projects via the Community Infrastructure Grants program. The Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program will be replaced by the Priority Regional Infrastructure Program, with the Australian Government to provide $800 million over five years to support transport infrastructure such as roads and bridges, community infrastructure such as town halls and sporting facilities. Of this amount, $350 million has now been set aside to assist Queensland to recover from the recent floods.

The Australian Government will also set aside $573 million across the forward estimates from the Regional Infrastructure Fund for investment exclusively in projects identified by Regional Development Australia Committees.

In addition, the National Partnership Agreement to support Local Government and Regional Development continues to support community infrastructure projects that address specific local priorities and needs.

This agreement is comprised of two programs. The first, the Infrastructure Employment Projects program, will provide $25 million in 2010-11 and $30 million in 2011-12 direct to local governments to improve the resilience and employment opportunities in regions affected by the economic downturn. The second program, the Local Government Reform Fund, will provide $21.2 million in 2010-11 and 2011-12 to facilitate improved asset and financial management processes and build capacity and resilience in local governments.

2.?? Illegally advertised signs/bill posters

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association call on the State Government to review the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 so as to provide for prosecution of the promoters of an event/business that advertises illegally on public land including roadside power poles.

Executive Note:

This is a reaffirmation of longstanding policy where this is almost continuous work.

3.?? Illegal advertising on trailers or similar structures

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association call on the NSW State Government to prohibit all forms of mobile advertising on trailers or similar structures parked on road related areas and public land.

Executive Note:

This is a reaffirmation of our existing position where representations have been made.

4.?? Expanded Polystyrene packaging

Motion: (Adopted)

That the Local Government Association call on the State and Federal Governments to implement a ban on the use of expanded polystyrene as a form of packaging.

Action:

The resolution has been sent to the Minister for Climate Change, the Hon Greg Combet and the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon Frank Sartor for consideration. It was subsequently referred to the present Minister for the Environment, the Hon Robyn Parker.

5.?? Development Contributions ? Planning changes announced by the NSW Government

Motion: (Adopted)

That the Local Government Association call on the NSW Premier to recognise the serious adverse financial and community equity implications for growth area councils of the State Government?s decision to place a $20,000 cap on developer contributions, and commit to working with councils to look at more sustainable long term financial approaches to delivering infrastructure and services.

Action:

The resolution was sent to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Anthony Albanese and the then Minister for Planning, the Hon Tony Kelly for consideration. It was subsequently sent to Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Hon Brad Hazzard.

Response from the Hon Anthony Albanese, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport ? 4 February 2011.

The Australian Government has no legislative basis to intervene in land use planning matters such as development contributions; these are the responsibility of the relevant state/ territory and local governments. In NSW developer contributions are determined under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This act is administered by the Hon Tony Kelly MLC, NSW.

Response from the Hon Brad Hazzard, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure 12 August 2011

Policy settings dating back to September 2010 currently remain in place but are currently the subject of a review by IPART. The NSW Government is however committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of the development contributions system as part of the wider planning system recently commenced.

6.?? Planning Reforms

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association call on the NSW Premier and the Minister for Planning to impose a 2 year moratorium on any further changes to the NSW Planning system to enable local councils and their communities to resource, absorb, explain and implement the changes that have been introduced in the past 3 years.

Executive Note:

This is a reaffirmation of our existing position where representations have been made.

7.?? Timeframe for publishing of Local Environmental Plans

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association call on the NSW Government to better resource the NSW Department of Planning in order to expedite progress of councils? planning proposals and associated local environmental plan reviews.

Executive Note:

This is a reaffirmation of our existing position where representations have been made.

8.?? Councillor exemptions for the preparation of Citywide Local Environmental Plans

Motion: (Adopted)

That the Local Government Association call on the NSW Government to provide specific exemptions to every Council, including all Councillors, to streamline the process of preparing the required new Citywide Local Environmental Plans.

Action:

The resolution was sent to the then Minister for Planning, for Infrastructure and for Lands the Hon Tony Kelly for consideration. It was subsequently referred to the present Minister for Planning and Infrastructure the Hon Brad Hazzard.

Response from the Hon Brad Hazzard Minister for Planning and Infrastructure 12 August 2011

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Division of Local Government within the Department of Premier and Cabinet are collaboratively reviewing relevant pecuniary interest disclosure provisions for councillors when considering comprehensive local environmental plans. It is expected that options for reform in this area will be brought forward for the Cabinet to consider in the near future.

9.?? Regulation of the Waste Disposal Industry

Motion: (Adopted)

That the Local Government Association write to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment to undertake a review of the existing regulatory and legal regime that governs the waste industry in order to provide stricter regulations and achieve waste avoidance and best environmental outcomes.

Action:

The resolution has been sent to the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon Frank Sartor for consideration. It was subsequently referred to the present Minister for the Environment, the Hon Robyn Parker.

Note: NSW Government undertook a major review of waste management in late 2010

(Richmond Review) and as a result an Implementation Strategy has been embarked on in 2011, seeking to address many of the shortcomings of the current waste management system. LGSA are involved in all relevant aspects of that Implementation Strategy

10. Efficient and timely determination of Development Applications

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association write to the Director General of the Department of Planning seeking a revised direction on the determination and reporting of SEPP 1 Objections, removing the need to report SEPP 1 variations for minor developments in the circumstances where the variation is minor or the application is recommended for refusal.

Executive Note:

This is a reaffirmation of our existing position where representations have been made.

11. Swimming Pool Safety

Motion: (Adopted)

That the Local Government Association call on the State Government to institute legislation amendments aimed at implementing mandatory swimming pool fencing inspections and related cost recovery based inspection fees for councils.

Action:

The resolution has been sent to the then Minister for Local Government, the Hon Barbara Perry for consideration.

Response from the Hon. Barbara Perry, Minister for Local Government ? 8 February 2011

The Swimming pools Act 1992 was amended in December 2009 to strengthen swimming pool barrier requirements and compliance following comprehensive consultation with stakeholders and a cost-benefit analysis of amendment options, including in relation to inspections.

In 2010, the NSW Deputy Coroner issued a report on an inquest into the deaths of eight children in NSW backyard swimming pools between 2006 and 2009. The NSW Government has established a cross-agency working party that is currently considering the coronial recommendations, including the issue of mandatory swimming pool barrier inspections and whether and how the costs of such inspections could be met.

12. Privatisation of electricity providers

Motion: (Referred to the Executive)

That the Local Government Association re-affirms its policy position opposing the privatisation of electricity providers in New South Wales and that this be endorsed as the LGA policy statement.

Executive Note:

This is a matter of existing policy.

13. Tendering with respect to elected local government organisations

Motion: (Lost)

That section 377 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 ? General power of the council to delegate ? be amended to allow councils to delegate to Regional Organisation of Councils (ROC?s), strategic alliances or groupings of councils, the power and authority to allow them to accept tenders on behalf of member councils.

This can be simply achieved by the following amendment to the clause:

377 (1)??????? A council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following:

The acceptance of tenders which are required under this Act to be invited by the council, INSERT THE WORDS

?.. except where by individual resolution, a Council may delegate to a Regional Organisation of Councils (ROC?s), strategic alliances or grouping of Councils, the authority to undertake and accept or reject tenders on behalf of member councils.

Such an action may not take place unless the majority of members have passed such a motion and is binding only to those councils which elect to be part of the tender process.

Executive Note:

Covered by Motion 53 on ?Improving Regional Organisation of Councils (ROC?s), Strategic Alliances or Groupings of Councils, Capacity to drive the modernisation process, through appropriate powers and delegation? submitted by Hunter?s Hill Council.

2011 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference

1.??? Establishment of national independent access accreditation system for tourist accommodation in Australia

(Adopted)

2.??? Increased support to councils and pensioners

(Referred to the Executive)

3.??? Compliance with accessibility requirements for bus stops

(Referred to the Executive)

4.??? Service delivery by local government to people experiencing homelessness

(Adopted)

5.??? COAG Early Childhood agreement

(Adopted)

6.??? Development Contributions Cap imposed on local government

(Referred to the Executive)

7.??? Regional Structure Plans

(Referred to the Executive)

Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

A Liveable City

Tennis Development Plan???

Compiled by:?????????????? Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager

Authorised by:??????????? David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation ??

Objective	Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities
Community Outcome	A City with active and healthy communities (19)
Strategic Response	Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

???????

Presenter:?????????? Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager

Executive Summary

At Council?s Ordinary Meeting on 10 October 2011 it was resolved that InsidEDGE consultants were to be appointed to complete a Tennis Development Plan for the City. A draft Tennis Development Plan has now been completed and it identifies the health of; tennis participation, tennis management and operational delivery, tennis facility condition and supply of courts across the Penrith Local Government Area, and the potential for a Regional Tennis Centre to be provided at Woodriff Gardens. The draft Tennis Development Plan is included as an attachment to this report.

To enable the draft Plan?s development a project methodology has been implemented which included reviews of Council and peak body tennis strategies as well as sport and recreation participation statistics, community and tennis user surveys, consultation with all tennis operators in the City as well as Tennis Australia and Tennis NSW, and site inspections by tennis facility technical experts.

As a result of this program of research the draft Plan indicates that significant partnership development is required between tennis stakeholders, different levels of government, and the community, as well as financial and human resource investment at all levels of the sport in order to support and facilitate change and improvement locally in tennis. Consequently, it confirms that the development of a Regional Tennis Facility in Penrith, while identified as a potential opportunity by Tennis NSW and the Nepean District Tennis Association (NDTA), is premature given the range and scale of issues identified. The draft Plan therefore recommends that a process is implemented which addresses change management, facility improvement, coordinated tennis program delivery, and increased promotion and marketing of tennis opportunities in the City.

The draft Plan identifies that Woodriff Gardens is not the most appropriate location for a Regional Tennis Facility due to site constraints, most notably, the unknown impact of any future Jane Street extension and also land size availability. It identifies several alternative sites, for consideration and ongoing assessment, as a potential Regional Tennis Facility location including: St Marys Tennis Courts (and the South Creek Park area), Gipps Street, Riverlink Precinct and the Carpenter Site, Penrith Lakes, and the University of Western Sydney.? However, the draft Plan clearly outlines that while site assessments should be investigated, consideration of a future feasibility study and business planning into the provision of a Regional Tennis Facility should only be commissioned once; coordinated tennis participation development strategies and tennis court maintenance has stimulated demand, and operational structures are in place, to support a Regional Tennis Facility.

Current Situation

The City currently provides 43 tennis courts across 8 venues. 10 courts are acrylic and 33 are synthetic grass.

In recent years, a number of issues have surfaced indicating that the sport is beginning to struggle locally, including; poor participation and financial returns from existing facilities, limited local and regional exposure of the sport compared to competing activities, and the return of two tennis facility leases back to Council by commercial operators (Cook Parade in 2008 and St Marys Tennis Courts in 2011). In addition there are increasing levels of maintenance and repair required to ageing infrastructure, and difficulties in administering bookings and key allocations at venues such as Mulgoa, Arthur Neave, Londonderry and Mount Vernon.

The City also has a variety of operators and management models providing tennis facilities and services. These include the Nepean District Tennis Association (NDTA) at Woodriff Gardens (currently on a month by month extension to their existing lease), a 355 Committee of Council operating Emu Plains, and Council operating the other facilities with the predominant users being commercial coaches who hire the courts.

Over the past few years, the NDTA has worked hard to build the local profile and participation in tennis through the improvement of the Woodriff Gardens Tennis Complex and through the restructuring of the Association?s management coaching and activity delivery structures. In addition, the NDTA have a vision for tennis that would see the Association and potentially the Woodriff Gardens Tennis Complex act as a regional provider for tennis in the Greater Western Sydney Area. Representations from NDTA regarding its vision for the future direction for tennis facility provision, including provision of a regional clay court centre in the City, were received by Councillors and Council Officers in the middle of last year.

In response to the representations from NDTA and the current status of tennis participation and facility provision in the City, Council endorsed that insideEDGE consultants be engaged to develop a Tennis Development Plan, for facilities across the City, at its Ordinary Meeting of 10 October 2011.

Tennis Development Plan Study

Project Brief

InsideEDGE were provided with a brief to:

-??????? Inform stakeholders on the health of tennis in the City of Penrith and the future opportunities to support growth.

-??????? Review existing tennis facilities, their condition and their capacity.

-??????? Review the effectiveness of facility management structures and practices and identify future options to maximise use.

-??????? Identify the current and projected demand for tennis facilities in the City to 2025 based on population and tennis specific participation forecasts.

-??????? Demonstrate national, state, regional and local tennis body strategic directions regarding facility provision and management.

-??????? Consult and engage with the Penrith community regarding tennis.

-??????? Indicate a planning framework for the development of new tennis facilities, particularly a regional tennis facility.

Project Methodology

To fulfil the brief the consultants implemented a project methodology program which involved consultation with a range of stakeholders, including; the national, state and local tennis community, neighbouring local government representatives and a range of internal Council Officers. Consultation was also initiated at key stages within the development of the plan, including document review meetings and presentation of the draft Tennis Development Plan to the NDTA and other local tennis community stakeholders. The CEO of the NDTA was also part of the Tennis Development Plan project management group and Tennis NSW has been engaged throughout the process including provision of comment on the final draft report. More specifically consultation was undertaken with:

Tennis Stakeholders -???????????? Tennis Australia, Tennis NSW, NDTA, Emu Plains Tennis

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Courts Management Committee, 5 commercial coaches, and the

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Western? Sydney Academy of Sport.

116 residents completed surveys. This was advertised through

the media, on Council?s website, direct mail outs to users,

posters in libraries and at recreation facilities, and notices

placed at tennis courts.

??????????????????????????????????????????????? 56 surveys were completed by NDTA participants.

External Stakeholders ????????? Feedback from 5 Local Government Areas was obtained ? Blue ????????????????????????????? ????????? Mountains, Hawkesbury, Blacktown, Fairfield and Parramatta.

In addition the University of Western Sydney was also consulted.

Internal Stakeholders ? ???????? Council officer representatives from the following departments

??????????????????????????????????????????????? were consulted: Recreation, Finance, Marketing and

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Communications, Building Projects and Maintenance, Strategic

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Planning.

Consultation was also supplemented by desk based research of participation statistics, catchment area mapping, and peak body tennis strategies as well as Council strategies and programs.? Site inspections by tennis facility technical experts were also completed.

Key Project Findings

The key findings of the consultants in the study were divided into 5 key themes.

i)?????? Planning and strategic context

Tennis Australia

Tennis Australia planning supports the development of facility hierarchies and provision of regional tennis facilities, grand slam surfaces and professional facility management practices. Tennis Australia?s direction on community participation and player development pathways is outlined in their Facility Development and Management Framework and its T-16 Strategy.

As the sports? governing body, Tennis Australia, sets the national direction for the planning and development of tennis and tennis facilities.? The vision for T-16 focuses on two key initiatives; ?4 million tennis participants per annum, and one (more) grand slam champion.?? This vision is underpinned by five key objectives; MLC Tennis Hot Shots, Cardio Tennis, Talent Development, Places to Play and the Asian market.?

Key focus areas of the Places to Play objective will continue to influence the provision, development and management of facilities at the national, state, regional and local levels.? They include the National Tennis Facility Hierarchy, Regional Partners Program and National Court Surface Policy.?

Tennis Australia provides a national emphasis towards the development of a suite of regional tennis facilities across Australia.? An estimated 74 regional facilities nationally is the projected target by 2020 for the Regional Partners Program.? In addition to regional facility development, Tennis Australia also provides a national policy for court surfaces, with support for provision targeted towards the Grand Slam surfaces of hard court (specifically Plexicushion and Plexipave surfaces), natural grass and natural clay.

The Tennis Australia Facility Development and Management Framework (Tennis 2020) identifies a preferred hierarchy of tennis facilities which has been developed to assist in providing a planned approach to tennis facility infrastructure development across Australia.?

The core purpose of the hierarchy is to provide a guide to decision making for infrastructure providers, to develop more operationally sustainable tennis facilities and to link player development objectives and pathways to facility provision.? This hierarchy has been used by Tennis NSW to develop the State Master Plan for Facilities. The table on the next page outlines the hierarchy:

Hierarchy

Number of Courts

Outcomes

National Tennis Centre

(Aim to provide 5 across Australia)

International Tournaments and Events.

High performance and training.

Sustainable tennis development.

Sustainable economic benefits.

Showcase for tennis.

Regional Tennis Centre

(Aim to provide 74 across Australia)

National/state based tournaments.

High performance and talent feeder focus.

Resource for smaller centres, clubs, assoc.

Economic driver.

Grass roots development.

Sustainable tennis development objectives.

Community health and well being.

Sub Regional Centres

Penrith

-? Woodriff Gardens (14 courts)

-???? St Marys (13)

(Aim to provide 300+? across Australia)

Intra/Inter club tournaments.

High performance training feeder focus.

Resource for smaller centres, clubs, assoc.

Grass roots development.

Sustainable tennis development objectives.

Community health and well being.

District Tennis Centre

(Aim to provide 600+ across Australia)

Interclub tournaments.

High performance training feeder.

Grass roots development.

Sustainable tennis development objectives.

Sustainable community health and development objectives.

Local Tennis Centre

Penrith

-? Werrington (4)

-???? St Clair (6)

(Aim to provide 1,200+? across Australia)

Interclub tournaments.

High performance training feeder.

Grass roots development.

Sustainable tennis development objectives.

Sustainable community health and development objectives.

Public Access

Penrith

-???? Emu Plains (2)

-???? Mount Vernon (1)

-???? Londonderry (1)

Mulgoa (2)

(Aim to provide 2,400+? across Australia)

Tennis engagement opportunities

Health and social objectives.

Public accessible venues.

Community development objectives.

Tennis NSW

The State Master Plan for Facilities is underpinned by the Tennis Australia National Facility Development Framework and analyses and discusses the future demand for tennis, facility mix and provision, court surface choice and facility investment from stakeholders and the tennis community.?

The State Master Plan also identifies a number of issues around facility development within NSW. These included the aging nature of tennis facilities, limited stakeholder investment in facility development (e.g. local and state government and Tennis NSW), the mix of court surface types within the state and its effect on the development of players, and the combined issues of demand for new facilities in growth areas versus the demand for improved facilities in other areas.?

In addressing the issues and challenges raised throughout the State Master Plan for Facilities, four key organisational development initiatives were devised for implementation by Tennis NSW and their partners. Key initiatives are:

1. Providing targeted development support for current and future facility provision.

2. Guiding planning, delivery and management of tennis facilities.

3. Building stronger partnerships with government and community stakeholders.

4. Collecting and sharing industry information to support better decision making.

Tennis NSW State Master Plan for Facilities forecasts a 10% participation increase in the market for tennis by 2020 and identifies that there is likely to be an under supply of ?appropriate facilities? and tennis courts between 2015-2020, particularly in the Western Sydney growth corridor, should the existing supply conditions remain unchanged.?

Penrith LGA

Penrith is a valuable regional hub and sport/event centre for Western Sydney and as a designated Regional City is expected to provide a full range of business, government, retail, cultural, entertainment and recreation activities for a catchment of over 500,000 people.

Demographically, the projected increases in 5 to 14 year olds across Penrith presents tennis with opportunities to grow at grass roots level while growth in the 25 to 35, as well as the 35 to 44 years age brackets provides opportunities to attract families and young couples/singles into the sport. The significant growth projected for the 65 plus age group indicates that planning of facilities and delivery of programs will need to be flexible to cater for a wide range of service offerings including social, day-time and low impact activities. Surface choice may also be influenced by this demographic.

Council?s recently endorsed Sportsground Management Strategy identifies a likely under supply of tennis courts in the future based on population forecasts and state and national tennis participation benchmarks. New release areas are likely to drive future participation and planning needs to occur for the provision of suitable tennis facilities to serve the new population.

ii)????? Participation in tennis

The strategies of both Tennis Australia and Tennis NSW indicate that there should be potentially more demand for tennis with population growth.? However, the current participation rate in tennis activity in Penrith, and particularly the east of the City, presents clear evidence of the under utilisation of the existing facility network. Current trends identify that tennis is not reaching its full potential and is not effectively capturing the potential market for the sport.???

The Sportsground Management Strategy (2010) identified that there was a significant opportunity to increase participation in many sports in Penrith as many of them fell under the national participation rates identified in the annual Participation in Exercise Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS). In the case of tennis, a combined assessment of ERASS and data available from Tennis Australia, Tennis NSW and NDTA, indicates that the local tennis participation rate is an estimated 3.7% of the population, well below NSW average (6.8%) and National average (6.0%).

Most of the tennis activity and participation is in the west of the City. The surveys undertaken as part of the study indicated that participants are prepared to travel an average of 15 minutes to play. The NDTA are capturing larger numbers from the Blue Mountains than from the east of the LGA, and currently only penetrate 28% of the potential market for tennis in the LGA.

In relation to the type of participation, the study shows strongest demand for casual/social hit, weekend competition, night tennis and coaching programs which is representative of national trends.

Key barriers to tennis participation that were identified through the consultation and research process included involvement in other sports, no-one to play with, limited time, not interested in tennis and cost of court hire. Opportunities to stimulate participation were identified as greater promotion, consistency in fees and charges, and provision of better facilities.

iii)???? Tennis facilities in Penrith

Tennis facilities were reviewed from both an asset maintenance and renewal, and hierarchy of provision perspective.

An independent audit undertaken by a tennis facility specialist outlined that the quality and condition of existing facilities is varied, and significant additional maintenance is required across all venues. The audit identified improvement works is required to; court surfaces, floodlighting, court fencing, clubhouse and spectator facilities, and equipment provided (e.g. umpires chairs, nets and the like).

In relation to the hierarchy of provision, using state-wide average court to population ratio figures against the existing supply of facilities, the City of Penrith is under-supplied with tennis courts in key population centres. When assessed against Tennis Australia?s Facility Development and Management Framework, tennis court provision in the LGA indicates a lack of balance and alignment with this framework.

The draft Plan outlines that, given the set of circumstances outlined in this section, focus will be required on improving existing facilities across Penrith in order to re-stimulate demand. The draft Plan also outlines that future provision should consider current design guidelines and surface choices that will promote participation at all levels of the sport with consideration given to the provision of medium size facilities to serve population growth areas and the possible development of a Regional Tennis Centre in-line with proposed provision in neighbouring LGA?s.

iv)???? Tennis services and delivery

The draft Plan identifies that an ideal structure of tennis from the national level to a local level should include active involvement from the following key stakeholders.

-??????? Peak tennis bodies (Tennis Australia and Tennis NSW)

-??????? Tennis Association (NDTA)

-??????? Clubs and facility operators

-??????? Coaches

-??????? Council

-??????? Community (players, members, schools etc.)

Currently, while there may be various levels of engagement with and between these groups, existing management arrangements across the tennis facilities in the LGA are largely inconsistent and not coordinated.

At this stage, NDTA are the sole integrated provider of tennis in the LGA however their activity is limited to operating the venue at Woodriff Gardens. NDTA operated under a lease at the facility until February 2012 and this is currently holding over until the completion of the Tennis Development Plan. The Association, under the direction of a Management Committee which employs a CEO to operate the venue, currently delivers a range of coaching, competition and tournament programs from Woodriff Gardens Tennis Complex, although tournament growth is constrained by the existing synthetic grass surface type being non-grand slam recognised.

NDTA?s coaching program is particularly successful and includes MLC Tennis Hot Shots, promotion to and use by local schools, teen starter program, junior squad program, adult coaching and competition ladies coaching. From 2010 to 2011 there was an increase of 152 coaching pupils.

However, while there is structure provided by NDTA at Woodriff Gardens, there is a less integrated approach across the LGA?s other venues. Coaching is healthy at these facilities with many Tennis Australia qualified coaches providing lessons, while the Emu Plains Tennis Court Management Committee are proactive in delivering the MLC Hot Shots Program, but program, coaching and competition activity as a whole is not coordinated across all of the venues. Furthermore, competition pathways are limited outside of the Woodriff Gardens Tennis Complex.

The draft Plan recommends that the structure of tennis and tennis service delivery requires further coordination between all stakeholders. Financial and resource investment into tennis will be required from key stakeholders including Tennis Australia (planning, advice and funding), Tennis NSW (staff access, management expertise and event delivery) and Penrith City Council and tennis operators (promotion, funding and facility improvement).

The draft Plan further outlines that, in the absence of a regional tennis facility within Penrith, Woodriff Gardens should continue to be the facility that hosts tennis tournaments and events. In addition, a competition and program structure is required across the LGA to enable consistent player development pathways at all levels of participation, as well as a coordinated promotion of the sport to compete with others and raise the local profile. Furthermore, an aggressive strategy that uses MLC Hot Shots, Cardio-tennis, tennis in schools and structured Tennis Australia and Tennis NSW programs should be implemented.

v)????? Regional tennis facility provision.

Regional tennis centres are generally defined as venues that are capable of providing a full suite of tennis programs, from introductory level through to high performance squads, as well as venues that are capable of hosting premium events and tournaments. Regional tennis centres are also considered support venues for all other tennis facilities located within their catchment area and they should seek to provide a development pathway for players,? competitions and events.

Tennis Australia provides a national emphasis towards the development of a suite of regional facilities across Australia. An estimated 74 regional facilities nationally is the projected target by 2020 and as at March 2012, around 35 regional facility partnerships had been signed across the country.

Tennis Australia is also targeting funding via its National Court Rebate Scheme (NCRS), which provides funding to centres for the development of court and court related infrastructure (including lighting, fencing and other ancillary facilities). A maximum rebate of up to 40 per cent of the total project costs will be approved. The amount of court rebate provided is based on the size of facility, surface type, and the number of courts being constructed or resurfaced.

This funding program has acted as a catalyst for tennis and government stakeholders to form partnerships and better plan for the provision of strategically located networks of community tennis centres, addressing the challenges in finding the right mix between desirable court surfaces for community participation and athlete development requirements with available financial and, in many cases, water resources. Adequate availability of water resources are required for the preparation and maintenance of courts, particularly clay courts which require regular watering.

At a state level the Tennis NSW State Master Plan for Facilities identifies that future emphasis should be on providing medium and sub regional facilities. The regional analysis of the Sydney Metropolitan Area, in particular west of Homebush, indicated a lack of Regional Tennis Facilities to serve the growing population. Tennis NSW supports the provision of regional tennis facilities at Homebush, Blacktown and Penrith.

It has been identified that there appears to be a sufficient catchment area (200,000) residents to support a regional tennis facility in Penrith. For a facility to be a regional centre it needs to have a recognised grand slam surface installed (one of which is natural clay) and meet a range of other criteria such as number of courts, lux levels of floodlights, appropriate clubhouse facilities, adequate car parking and the like.

The draft Plan indicates that Woodriff Gardens does not currently meet facility criteria desired of regional facilities and has significant constraints to deliver a regional tennis centre/clay court facility at the existing site. The constraints include, as examples;

-??? In order to reach TA Regional Tennis Centre requirements, a minimum of 16-courts would be required, with a minimum of 12 courts of the same surface.? Reaching this level of court numbers at Woodriff Gardens would be a challenge if the proposed Jane Street extension proceeds and the use of additional public open space outside the NDTA?s current leased area were not permissible.

-??? Land size ? typically it is estimated that 3ha is required for a Regional Tennis Facility

???? including ancillary requirements such as car parking. The whole of the Woodriff Gardens site (including tennis complex, gardens, sewerage pumping station and car parking and roadways) is estimated to be 3.5ha.

-??? Floodlighting requires lux level testing to confirm performance and are unlikely to meet the 350 lux standard currently.

-??? There is no show court provided, although courts 5 and 6 offer prime viewing opportunities from surrounds and from clubhouse balcony.

-??? A significant refurbishment of the existing club house facility is required.

-??? The management and administration of the facility is required to assist other tennis facilities within an agreed sub-regional area (namely facilities across the City of Penrith).

The draft Plan identifies several alternative sites, for consideration and ongoing assessment, as a potential Regional Tennis Facility location including: St Marys Tennis Courts, Gipps Street, Riverlink Precinct and the Carpenter Site, Penrith Lakes, and the University of Western Sydney.?? However, the draft Plan clearly outlines that while site assessments should be considered on an ongoing basis, consideration of a future feasibility study and business planning into the provision of a Regional Tennis Facility should only be commissioned once; coordinated tennis participation development strategies and tennis court maintenance has stimulated demand, and operational structures are in place, to support a Regional Tennis Facility.

In relation to surface type, while Tennis NSW believes that a clay court regional tennis facility may provide a unique opportunity for tennis in Greater Western Sydney and in the State, this is not supported by the community tennis players and NDTA members, as demonstrated through the surveys undertaken as part of the study.

Surface preferences of the NDTA members returning a survey, in order, are; synthetic grass, cushioned hard court and natural clay. Surface preferences of the Penrith tennis community responding to the survey, in order, are; synthetic grass, cushioned hard court, non-cushioned hard court, natural grass, synthetic clay and natural clay.

A cost analysis of the provision of court surface types was conducted for synthetic grass, Plexicushion (a brand of cushioned hard court) and natural clay courts. The table on the next page outlines these costs and indicate that clay courts are four times more expensive to manage and maintain than synthetic grass courts. These costs do not include initial construction costs of a regional facility which, for conversion of an existing site such as Woodriff Gardens could cost $1.5m - $2.5m, while a newly developed facility could cost $3.5m - $5m depending on factors such as site location and conditions, type of court and ancillary facilities.

The NDTA?s Woodriff Gardens Tennis Development Plan indicates that the provision of a clay court facility at Woodriff Gardens, would require the following support from Council and the broader tennis community:

? Capital cost support from Council, in conjunction with alternative tennis and government investors

? A ?significant rent free period of 10 years?, and

? Regular maintenance contributions or subsidies from Council.

Under these conditions, Council would need to carefully evaluate the cost-benefit analysis and the overall benefits to the Penrith community that a regional clay court tennis centre could provide, as well as the ongoing operational viability of the facility, particularly if lease fees and maintenance costs could not initially met by the facility operators.

Court surface	Annual maintenance cost (per court)	Annual replacement cost (per court)	Average cost over 1 year (per court)	Average cost over 10 years (per court)
Synthetic grass	$600	$1,450	$2,050	$23,501
Plexicushion	$600	$2,500	$3,100	$34,538
Natural Clay	$7,000	$1,600	$8,600	$98,589

Note: Average maintenance and replacement costs are provided via industry rates and Tennis Australia research and development as costs are considered current as at February 2011.? Average 10-year costs assume an annual 3.0% inflation on maintenance and replacement costs.

Conclusion

The draft Tennis Development Plan provides a detailed investigation into the current health and status of tennis in the Penrith LGA. It identifies a number of issues regarding the participation, organisation, delivery and management of tennis, and facility conditions across the City. It also indicates that, while it has been identified that there are opportunities for a Regional Tennis Facility in the City, Woodriff Gardens is not the most appropriate site for it and assessment of other sites is required.

The draft Plan clearly outlines that while site assessments should be investigated, consideration of a future feasibility study and business planning into the provision of a Regional Tennis Facility should only be commissioned once; coordinated tennis participation development strategies and tennis court maintenance has stimulated demand, and operational structures are in place, to support a Regional Tennis Facility. In relation to court surface, a dedicated clay court facility may not be financially viable, or desired by the community, however further business planning as part of a future feasibility and business planning exercise may support a regional centre that includes a mix of both clay and other preferred grand slam surface type.

It is acknowledged that a number of positive influences and recent successes have been achieved within the tennis community, primarily driven by and initiated by NDTA at Woodriff Gardens and the Management Committee at Emu Plains Tennis Courts. There is, however, further coordinated work to be done and changes to be made to ensure that the local tennis community begins to work holistically.

The draft Tennis Development Plan highlights the main barriers that are currently constraining the local growth and delivery of tennis in Penrith and will require resolution before a future detailed feasibility and business planning study into the development of a Regional Tennis Facility is conducted:

-??? Quality of existing facilities requires improvement.

-??? Coordinated tennis activities and programs need to be delivered.

-??? Facility management models require restructuring.

-??? Tennis requires greater local promotion and profile building.

-??? Social, local and school markets require rebuilding.

-??? Long term planning for future facility provision is required.

A summary of the draft Tennis Development Plan and its recommendations have been presented to Tennis NSW, the Management Committee of NDTA and also the other tennis operators in the City and it has been agreed that the recommendations in the draft Plan should be implemented:

1.?????? In association with Tennis NSW and local stakeholders, develop an integrated participation program for the Penrith LGA, including coordinated delivery of MLC Hot Shots, Cardio Tennis, tennis in schools and local area competition tennis.

2.?????? Test the opportunity for the collective management of tennis courts across the City and establish a robust, unified and consistent management structure.

3.?????? A program of minor repair and maintenance needs to be delivered at tennis courts across the City with high priority accorded to compliance and risk management issues.

4.?????? Consideration will be given in the annual review of Council?s fees and charges for free public (not coach/commercial operator) access to the courts at Londonderry, Mount Vernon, and Mulgoa.

5.?????? In association with Tennis NSW, NDTA and local providers of tennis, a promotional campaign for tennis facilities, programs and activities must be implemented.

6.?????? An ongoing site assessment of potential Regional Tennis Facility locations to be undertaken and a preferred site identified in readiness for a more detailed feasibility study, including business planning.

7.?????? Consideration of a detailed future feasibility study and business planning into the provision of regional facility should only be commissioned once coordinated tennis participation development strategies and tennis court maintenance has stimulated demand, and operational structures are in place, to support a Regional Tennis Facility.

8.?????? All tennis operators and program providers, including Tennis NSW, should be included in a Tennis Development steering group, led by Penrith City Council?s Recreation Department, to achieve actions 1-7 above.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Tennis Development Plan be received.

2.???? The draft Tennis Development Plan is adopted as the Penrith Tennis Development Plan.

3.???? A Tennis Development Steering Group consisting of tennis facility operators, program providers and Council Officers is formed to progress the implementation of the Penrith Tennis Development Plan.

4.???? Progress on the implementation of the Penrith Tennis Development Plan is reported to the Recreation Working Party.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

A Liveable City

Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Grounds Committee - Future Operation???

Compiled by:?????????????? Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager

Authorised by:??????????? David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation ??

Objective	Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities
Community Outcome	A City with active and healthy communities (19)
Strategic Response	Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

???????

Executive Summary

A review of the operations of the Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Grounds Committee has been completed. The review process has involved:

-???? Meetings with the President and Secretary of the Nepean Pony Club and Riding for the Disabled Association (RDA) - Nepean.

-???? A meeting with Board Members of NSW RDA.

-???? Individual discussions with each existing member of the Grounds Committee.

-???? The completion of an asset audit at Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility undertaken by Council?s Building Maintenance and Projects section.

-???? Review of files relating to the history of Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility.

-???? Review of licences and a Memorandum of Understanding utilised by Ryde Pony Club and Ryde RDA both sharing a similar facility.

As a result of this process it has been identified that throughout the history of the Grounds Committee, since its establishment in 2006, there have been difficulties with its operation and many of these have been recurrent problems. Despite the best intentions of existing Committee Members and efforts of Council Officers during the course of the last eighteen months the Committee has not made any progress in being able to function effectively. Therefore, in agreement with all parties consulted, this report recommends that the Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Grounds Committee is wound up and is replaced by a Venue Management Advisory Group consisting of the President and Secretary of both the Riding for Disabled (Nepean) and the Nepean Pony Club.?

Background

A large area of land in Samuel Marsden Road, Orchard Hills has been occupied by The Riding for Disabled NSW ? Nepean and The Nepean & District Pony Club (the Pony Club) since the late 1980?s as a horse riding venue. The land is owned by the Department of Planning (DoP). Council held a lease over the land. The fixed term of the lease to Council expired meaning that the terms of the lease are held over on a ?month to month? basis.

At its Ordinary Meeting on 6 February 2006, Council resolved that to manage the facility:

?A Committee be formed under Section 355 of the Local Government Act 1993 to have delegated authority under Section 377 of the Act for the care, control and management of the property known as Lot 17-20, DP 238495 Samuel Marsden Road, Orchard Hills. The Committee shall consist of: 3 representatives of RDA, 3 representatives of Pony Club, and Council?s Facilities Operations Manager. The Committee was to be known as ?Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Committee.?

Within the property is a brick veneer residence which is occupied by a grounds caretaker. Initially the ?caretaker arrangements? existed between the caretakers themselves and the RDA. Since Council?s involvement with the venue those arrangements have transferred to Council. The caretaker is engaged as a Contractor to carry out specified duties at the facility in lieu of rental payments to occupy the residence. The responsibilities of the caretaker includes regular maintenance of the riding yards, mowing, general repairs of fences and other structures, cleaning of toilets and other duties as required.

?Current Situation

Towards the end of 2011, it became apparent that despite the best intentions of the Committee members and efforts of Council Officers, it was identified that the Grounds Committee had not acted effectively, or fulfilled its obligations, as a Committee of Council for some time. In addition, due to two resignations, it meant that the Pony Club were under represented at meetings of the Committee. Therefore, Council Officers determined that it was time to review the operations of the Committee. This review process has been completed and included:

-???? Meetings with the President and Secretary of the Nepean Pony Club and Riding for the Disabled Association (RDA) - Nepean.

-???? A meeting with Board Members of NSW RDA.

-???? Individual discussions with each existing member of the Grounds Committee.

-???? The completion of an asset audit at Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility undertaken by Council?s Building Maintenance and Projects section.

-???? Review of files relating to the history of Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility.

-???? Review of licences and a Memorandum of Understanding utilised by Ryde Pony Club and Ryde RDA both sharing a similar facility.

The review established that many of the current matters which are creating an ineffective Committee have been in evidence for some years and these have been outlined to Councillors in a memorandum provided in February 2012.

This ineffectiveness has led to Council Officers having to invest significant time supporting this Committee through the course of its history and, in particular, during the course of the last 12 months. In this period, Officers have:

-????? Undertaken the Treasurer?s function of the Committee, due to the resignation of

?????? ?the previous Treasurer and no other Committee member accepting the role.

-????? Coordinated and resourced a range of repairs and maintenance at the facility

?????? including; lopping trees to make them safe, repairing a bridge, termite spraying,

?????? servicing and maintaining tractors and slashers, as well as organising the slashing of

?????? paddocks.

-????? Investigated the best methodology and associated costs for repairing the stabling

?????? yard and resurfacing the main arena.

-????? Investigated the opportunity for, and written to the Department of Planning

?????? seeking permission to install a boom gate on Samuel Marsden Road in an attempt

?????? to reduce anti-social behaviour, and subsequently organised its installation.

-????? Invested significant time in compiling a Community Building Partnership grant

?????? application for the facility which was subsequently not submitted at the request of

?????? RDA Nepean.???

After consultation with RDA NSW and meeting with the President and Secretary of each club to outline the findings of the review, it has been determined by these parties that more effective and efficient management of the facility could be achieved by adopting the following process:?

-????? Each club operates at the facility under separate licence agreements with an overarching Memorandum of Understanding (including a Code of Conduct) between the two. These arrangements will be based on the model in place with Ryde RDA and Ryde Pony Club at the new equine facility at Marsfield Park. The licence agreements will be with the Associations rather than the clubs so that there is more accountability (governance and administration), and continuity of personnel. As part of these licence agreements consideration will be given to appropriate licence fees for use of the facility.?

-????? A Venue Management Advisory Group will be established under a Terms of Reference. This Forum will consist of the President and Secretary of each club (i.e. the decision makers and those responsible for club communication) as well as a Council Officer. The Forum will meet quarterly and review both use of the facility and grounds maintenance, as well as facility upgrade projects, potential grant applications, and the annual establishment of casual hire fees and charges.

-????? Council Officers will retain responsibility for organising contractors for the necessary asset repair and maintenance, as well as financial management of the facility with funds from ground hire being utilised for minor projects. As a result of Council?s recent asset audit, maintenance will be scheduled as part of Council?s asset management program.

-????? Terms and conditions of hire will be established for both the RDA Nepean and the Pony Club (as part of the individual licence agreements) as well as casual hirers of the facility.

-????? The caretaker will remain as a Contractor under current arrangements and a Memorandum of Understanding will be developed between the caretaker and the user groups, in particular focussing on communication protocol, as well as values and behaviours.

-????? All ground hire fees will be retained in a Council Reserve which will be utilised solely for the purpose of improvements to and maintenance of the grounds, as well as payments to the caretaker related to these matters.

-????? RDA Nepean and the Pony Club will retain the ability to fund raise for identified and agreed projects by the Advisory Forum, as well as for their own needs (e.g. equipment etc.) and carry out the normal operations of their clubs.

All of the existing Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Committee members have been consulted in relation to the proposed approach and have all agreed that it is a very positive step as refreshing the current management and operations is required.

Conclusion

Throughout its history there have been a number of management and operational challenges associated with the Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility. The intent of the agreed proposed operational model is to bring a level of operational stability to the site which will provide a framework within which both the user groups and facility can continue to develop.

It is recognised that there is still a considerable amount of work required to finalise licence agreements and Memorandums of Understanding, however given the positive approach of the current President and Secretary of both RDA Nepean and the Pony Club, as well as the confirmed support of RDA NSW, it is anticipated that implementation of the new model will be achieved in the near future should Council endorse that the Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Grounds Committee be wound up.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Grounds Committee - Future Operation be received.

2.???? The Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Grounds Committee be wound up and replaced by a Venue Management Advisory Group consisting of the President and Secretary of both RDA Nepean and the Nepean Pony Club, and a Council Officer from Penrith City Council?s Recreation Department.

3.???? A further report be submitted to Council regarding the outcomes of the development of the licence agreements for RDA Nepean and the Nepean Pony Club for use of the facility.

4.???? A letter of thank you be provided by the Mayor to the existing members of the Samuel Marsden Road Riding Facility Grounds Committee recognising their service to the Committee.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

A Liveable City

City Presentation Policies???

Compiled by:?????????????? John Gordon, Parks Manager

Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager

Authorised by:??????????? David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation??

Objective	Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities
Community Outcome	A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)
Strategic Response	Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

???????

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the outcome of the exhibition of the three draft policies for the Naming of Parks and Reserves; Memorial Seating and Planting in Council?s Parks and Reserves and Roadside Memorials.

The draft policies formalise existing practices and procedures that have been in place for many years.? The draft policies will provide clear guidelines that can be applied when addressing these matters.

No submissions were received as a result of the exhibition period.? The report recommends that the three draft policies be adopted.

Background

At the Councillor Briefing on 30^th April 2012 Council received a presentation on the development of three draft policies as outlined below.

Draft Policy 1 - Naming of Parks and Reserves

Responsible Department: City Parks

Penrith City Council has over many years adopted a practice of naming areas of Public Open Space after prominent members of the community, activities associated with sites or geographical features.

The purpose of this policy is to replace ?operational procedures? with a framework, adopted by Council that provides clear and concise guidelines which can be applied when Council considers future requests to name areas of public open space. The proposed policy essentially formalises a practice that Council has had in place for many years.

The policy (refer attachment 1) provides consistent Guidelines for Council and the community when considering the allocation of names to parks and reserves across the City; ensures that park and reserve names are appropriate and have local or historical significance and adopts the Geographical Names Board of NSW (GNB) guidelines for the determination of placenames and commemorative naming.

Draft Policy 2 - Memorial Seating and Planting in Council Parks and Reserves

Responsible Department: City Parks

From time to time Council receives requests from community members to remember loved ones through the planting of a tree or the installation of a seat in a park or reserve.? These requests generally relate to a location that the person enjoyed during their life.

In the past Council has supported the planting of trees and the installation of a small number of seats across the City. These requests have been managed sensitively by Council Officers on a ?case by case?, rather than through the application of a Council policy. The proposed policy on Memorial Seating and Planting in Council Parks and Reserves (refer attachment 2)

will replace current operational procedures with an adopted policy.

Council will consider the installation of park furniture and trees as a memorial, subject to Council?s direction and consideration in respect of appropriateness, location, standards of park furniture ? type and style or tree species selection.? The key objectives of the policy are to provide Council with a uniform approach to dealing with requests for the installation of park furniture and trees in public open space; establish criteria to assess and respond to requests for the use of public open space by individuals and community groups for the recognition of valued community members and define conditions under which Council will accept requests for the installation of park furniture and trees.

Draft Policy 3 - Roadside Memorials

Responsible Department: Public Domain Amenity & Safety

The intent of this policy is to ensure that a compassionate and consistent approach to the placement of roadside memorials is in place.

A key aim of the policy on Roadside Memorials (refer attachment 3) is to ensure that they do not create a risk to the public or those visiting the site or create unnecessary anguish for family members of the deceased or occupants of homes near the memorial site.

Requests for the removal of roadside memorials are historically made by residents living close to the memorial site and the policy will assist Council Officers in reaching a determination on the memorial?s future.?

Whilst the policy clearly supports the bereaved in its approach to roadside memorials, it also allows Council officers to address the issue of memorials that are in close proximity to houses where occupants may have experienced some trauma as a result of an accident.? Occupants may have witnessed the accident or have been the first on scene to alert emergency services. A memorial will provide a constant reminder of the event to them and their family and this may impact on their wellbeing.

Roads and Maritime Services data, provided by Council?s Road Safety Coordinator, informs us that between March 2006 and December 2010 (most recent data available) 32 fatal car crashes occurred within the Penrith Local Government Area.? Tragically, some crash sites resulted in multiple fatalities, for example, in 2010 nine (9) fatal crashes occurred, however 12 people died as a result of these crashes.

It is important to note that not all crash sites result in the erection of a roadside memorial. When they do, most start as spontaneous displays of grief, usually immediately following the traumatic event.?? Some memorials last only a few days while others last for several years with tributes renewed on the anniversary of the accident or other significant dates that would have occurred in the deceased person?s life.

The policy aims to ensure that roadside memorials on local roads are placed in a safe area on a road verge; do not obstruct the use of the road or road verge by pedestrians, cyclists or road users; not be a hazard to road users or fall into disrepair and become unsightly.

As the Penrith Local Government Area incorporates a number of roads managed by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), a link to the RMS website and a list of RMS roads has been referenced within the policy.

The RMS has produced a ?fact sheet? on Roadside tributes (December 2011 ? refer attachment 4) where they outline their requirements for the erection of a roadside tribute.?? They also acknowledge that the death of a family member due to road trauma is devastating and that a roadside tribute may help in the grieving process.?

Conclusion

The three draft policies were placed on public exhibition between 18 June and 16 July 2012. Advertisements were placed in the Western Weekender on 15 June and 22 June 2012. The draft policies were available on Council?s web site and were also on display at the Civic Centre and the Queen Street Centre.??

No submissions were received as a result of the exhibition of the three draft policies.? However an article on the draft Roadside Memorial Policy featured in the Western Weekender on 29 June 2012.

It is therefore recommended that the draft policies on the Naming of Parks and Reserves;

Memorial Seating and Planting in Council?s Parks and Reserves and Roadside Memorials be adopted.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on City Presentation Policies be received.

2.???? The draft policies on the Naming of Parks and Reserves; Memorial Seating and Planting in Council?s Parks and Reserves and Roadside Memorials be adopted.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ?	Naming of Parks and Reserves	6 Pages	Appendix
2. ?	Memorial Seating and Planting in Council?s Parks and Reserves	4 Pages	Appendix
3. ?	Roadside Memorials	3 Pages	Appendix
4. ?	Roadside Tribute Factsheet	2 Pages	Appendix

Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

Appendix 1 - Naming of Parks and Reserves

Large_Council_Brand ?????????? ?POLICY DOCUMENT

POLICY NAME:	Naming of Parks and Reserves	Policy No:? P002
Adopted by Council:	??	Minute No: ?
Review:	?? April 2013	File No:?
Relevant Legislation: (if applicable)??????	?? Geographical Names Act 1966	Responsible Department: City Parks

Policy Statement:? ?????

Objectives:

The purpose of this policy is to:

???? Provide consistent guidelines for Council and the community when considering the allocation of names to parks and reserves across the City.

???? To ensure that park and reserve names are appropriate and have local or historical significance

???? To adopt the Geographical Names Board of NSW (GNB) guidelines for the determination of placenames and commemorative naming.

Overview

The Geographical Names Board of NSW (GNB) has the role of assigning names to places and natural features. The GNB?s guidelines and procedures are aimed at ensuring community input, giving all interested parties a say in a naming decision and minimising duplication of names.

The end result is a clear identification of what name applies to which place or feature and to enable clear communication in times of emergency, for delivery of services and, in many cases, as a reminder of our history.

The GNB strongly recommends that local councils do not prepare proposals to name features to honour living persons. Alternatives are to use commemorative plaques or naming a particular feature of community facility such as a building, grandstand or oval after the person to be recognised.

In all naming proposals, the GNB encourages local councils to undertake consultation with the community prior to submitting a proposal to the GNB.

Land to which this policy applies

This Policy applies to all public open space under the ownership or care & control of Council. For the purposes of this Policy, public open space is defined as:

Land that is available to the public for recreation or sport or has a conservation of aesthetic purpose. Open space includes reserves, parks, trails, sports playing fields, play spaces and streetscapes.

Guidelines for Assigning Park Names

The key principles adopted by Council are:

???? Council will recognise and abide by the guidelines issued by the Geographical Names Board of NSW regarding the naming of open space. These guidelines form part of this policy

???? Council will consider applications for names associated with the history and character of Penrith City including, but not limited to, the themes outlined below ?

o Elected members from all levels of government who have served the City and have made a significant contribution to the community. The recognition could apply to Councillors, Mayors or Members of Parliament.

o Prominent Citizens - people who have demonstrated outstanding merit or people who have made an outstanding contribution to the City, particularly in the areas of service, preservation of the environment, community, sport, industry, leadership and personal bravery or who have achieved outstanding success in their chosen field of endeavour.

Applicants will need to provide written evidence of a person?s merit supported by independent authentication as required. In the case of exceptional bravery in the military service the concurrence of the Returned Service League would be required.

???? Council's first preference is for public open space to be named after the locality.

Policy Statement

The Geographical Names Act 1966, empowers the Geographical Names Board (GNB) to assign names to places, investigate and determine the form, spelling, meaning, pronunciation, origin and history of any geographical name to apply names with regard to position, extent or otherwise.

Place means any geographical or topographical feature or any district, division, locality, region, city, town, village or any other place within NSW but does not include any road, any local government area or urban area.

Individuals, private organisations and government authorities should submit any naming of an entire park or reserve to assign a geographical name using the GNB Placename Application Form.

The GNB welcomes suggestions for the naming of parks and reserves. However, proposals do need to have Council support.

Should a community group wish to have a park or reserve named, a report will be presented to Council for consideration. Following Council?s endorsement, Council officers will prepare the relevant documentation for the consideration of the GNB.

If approved by the GNB, any signage, plaque, structure or naming ceremony will generally be at the applicant?s expense, however this is at the discretion of Council and subject to final Council approval.

Naming of Portion of Parks or Reserves

???? Priority shall be given to the naming of all parks and reserves after an adjacent street or locality.

???? Council may give consideration to naming portions of a park or reserve with names of persons.

??? This may occur when the park already has a name and a request has been received for the naming an element or field within that park.

??? This approval can be determined by resolution of Council and does not need the approval of the GNB.

Guidelines for Assigning Portion of Park/Reserve Names:

??????? The person is to be considered worthy of such an honour

??????? The person should reside within the Penrith City Council Local Government Area

??? The person must be, or have been, a member of a local community, services or voluntary organisation

??? The person must have made a significant contribution to the local community through voluntary input, association with a local sporting club, education or through

business, and that contribution must be identified

?A significant contribution could include:

??? Ten or more years association with local community groups, including school, sporting or service groups;

??? Action by an individual to protect, enhance or maintain an area that produces substantial long term improvements for the community or area;

??????? Given names may be included as part of the naming proposal, and given and surname

combinations are acceptable

??????? Death and former ownership of land are not acceptable reasons for a name, unless the

above criteria can be supported

Process

Any approved application received to name a portion or segment(s) of a park or reserve, will be forwarded to the Geographical Names Board of NSW and relevant government

agency for information only.

All requests for advice forwarded to the Geographical Names Board of NSW and relevant government agency will include:

??????? A covering letter indicating Councils approval;

??? Copy of Council report including an outline of the person being honoured and justification statement for the name chosen

??????? The proposed name and location of the facility being named, including a location map.

Any signage, plaque, structure or naming ceremony will generally be at the applicant?s expense, however this is at the discretion of Council and subject to final Council approval.

?A register be kept and maintained by Council, recording the details of parks, reserves or facilities named in the City.

Policy Review Committee Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

Appendix 2 - Memorial Seating and Planting in Council?s Parks and Reserves

Large_Council_Brand ???????????? POLICY DOCUMENT

POLICY NAME:	The Placement of Memorial Trees and Park Furniture Policy	Policy No: Parks 003 ?
Adopted by Council:	??	Minute No: ?
Review:	?April 2013?	File No:?
Relevant Legislation: (if applicable)??????	??	Responsible Department: City Parks

?Policy Statement:? ?????

Introduction

From time to time Penrith City Council receives requests from individuals or organisations for the installation of park furniture or the planting of trees in memory of a deceased resident.

Objectives

The objectives of this policy are to:

???? Provide Council with a uniform approach to dealing with requests for the installation of park furniture and trees in public open space;

???? Establish criterion to assess and respond to requests for the use of public open space by individuals and community groups for the recognition of valued community members;

and

???? Define conditions under which Council will accept requests for the installation of park furniture and trees.

Land to which this policy applies

This Policy applies to all public open space under the ownership or care & control of Council. For the purposes of this Policy, public open space is defined as:

Policy

Council will consider the installation of park furniture and trees subject to Council?s direction

and consideration? in respect to appropriateness, location, standards of park furniture type and style, or tree species selection.

Consideration of Applications

A request will be considered where a person is deceased and:

???? Is widely known and respected within the local community; OR

???? Has a recognised historical link with the locality or is generally acknowledged as

having made a significant contribution to the social, economic, sporting and/or

cultural development of the community; AND

???? Is of good repute and not likely to be the subject of controversy

Under special circumstances, consideration may be given to a living person where the naming is deemed to be in accordance with the conditions above and the recognition is considered appropriate by the Council.

Applications for Installation of Park Furniture and Trees

The installed park furniture or tree may be placed as near as possible to the position

requested by the applicant. Consideration will need to be given to relevant plans of

management, master plans, capital works programs, maintaining access for park users, avoidance of any damage to the natural environment, and ensuring the donation meets with general community expectations for the area, including due consideration of any indigenous connection with the site.

The type of park furniture should be consistent with other park furniture or infrastructure in the locality. Alternate styles preferred by the applicant may be approved at the discretion of Council.

Plaques shall not be associated with tree planting undertaken as memorial plantings.

Costs

The applicant is required to meet all costs associated with the purchase, delivery and

installation of the approved park furniture and tree(s). A Memorials Application Form is to be completed and payment made at Council?s Customer Service Centres. The form details the applicable fees and charges.

Works

Works will only be undertaken once Council has approved the type and placement of the installation and receives the agreed amount. All works are to be carried out by Council employees or pre-selected contractors.

Council will coordinate the purchase and installation of the park furniture or tree(s) and will arrange for the installation of a memorial plaque in the furniture with approved wording that has been provided by the applicant.

Maintenance

The park furniture or tree(s) would be subject to the same level of maintenance as other infrastructure located in the park or reserve. The seating would remain in place as long as it remained in good working condition and complied with council standards.

Council shall accept no responsibility or obligation for repair or damage to, or the theft of the structure. Applicants may re-apply should the park furniture or tree(s) need to be removed

or replaced.

Trees planted as memorials must be of a species approved by Council and must be planted in locations identified by Council officers in consultation with the applicant. Council will try to accommodate the wishes of the applicant but it is under no obligation to accept the applicant?s preferred location or species.

Memorial tree planting will generally receive a six (6) month maintenance period.

Tree planting will be undertaken when growing conditions are favourable.

Potential tree planting locations cannot be reserved.

Group tree planting as a memorial grove will be approved when it accords with an adopted master plan, or where it supports an approved landscape plan.

If the tree fails to thrive a replacement tree will be substituted by Council at no cost to the applicant and additional maintenance will be provided.

Where a memorial tree is found to be posing a risk to the public due to ill health or damage or if other circumstances require its removal Council will endeavour to contact the donor of the tree and to offer a replacement and alternative location. However, Council is not obliged to notify the applicant prior to the removal of the memorial tree if its removal is considered to be a matter of urgency in the interests of public safety.

Memorial Plaque

Donated Park Furniture generally has a plaque attached that identifies the individual and their association with the location.

Plaque Specification

???? The size, design and wording of plaques should be small, discreet and consistent with the character of the site.

???? Plaques shall generally be anodised cast brass and the maximum size of plaques shall be ? 100mm x 40mm

???? Other plaque types must be in accordance with materials and treatments adopted for specific public open spaces.

Plaque Wording

Applicants may submit preferred wording, however wording should not exceed more than 5 lines to fit into the standard plaque size. Short positive messages and humour are encouraged

Policy Review Committee Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

Appendix 3 - Roadside Memorials

Large_Council_Brand ??????????? POLICY DOCUMENT

POLICY NAME:	Roadside Memorials	Policy No:? ?
Adopted by Council:	??	Minute No: ?
Review:	??	File No:?
Relevant Legislation: (if applicable)??????	??	Responsible Department: Public Domain Amenity & Safety

?Policy Statement:? ??

1.?? Introduction:

In the preparation of this policy for Roadside Memorials, Penrith City Council acknowledges that the death of a family member or loved one due to road trauma is very distressing and understands that a roadside tribute may assist in the grieving process.

With that in mind, the purpose of this policy is to provide information to the public on the conditions under which a roadside memorial can be erected on local roads.

For information regarding the erection of roadside memorials on Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) roads please refer to the RMS website at www.rms.nsw.gov.au. Please refer to appendix 1 for a full list of RMS roads.? For the purpose of this policy roads not listed in appendix 1 are Council managed roads and referred to in this policy as local roads.

NOTE: RMS roads may change from time to time.

2.?? Scope

The intent of this policy is to ensure that a compassionate and consistent approach to the placement of roadside memorials is in place. The policy also aims to ensure that roadside memorials on local roads are placed in a safe area on a road verge and do not obstruct the use of the road or road verge by pedestrians, cyclists or road users.

The views of the property owners adjacent to the memorial and the family of the deceased are also acknowledged and will be considered by Council and may result in the removal or relocation of the memorial.

Whilst Council does not discourage the establishment of memorials, it has an obligation to manage the road reserve to ensure such memorials do not cause a distraction to road users, be a hazard to road users or fall into disrepair and become unsightly.

3.?? Definition

A roadside memorial is any object placed within the road reserve to commemorate a death or indicate the site of a road fatality. Memorials may include religious items, flowers or other gestures.? Monuments (i.e. permanent commemorations) are nor permitted within the road reserve.

4.?? Policy

4.1 Location

4.1.2

?A memorial should be located in a position where it will not distract drivers? attention from the driver task or interfere with the role of any traffic control item.

4.1.3

Only 1 (one) memorial is to be erected in respect of each fatality.

4.1.4

A memorial can only be located within the immediate vicinity to the site of the accident.

4.1.5

Memorials should not be placed:

???? in close proximity to residential dwellings where they may cause concern to the occupants

???? on landscaped verges

???? on traffic islands, medians or roundabouts

???? within 30 metres of traffic signals

???? on any roadside structure (e.g. street signs, directional arrows, chevron boards, guard rails, advisory/warning signage)

???? within 1 (one) metre from the edge of any public access way of footpath

4.2 Memorial Construction

4.2.1

A memorial must be constructed of a material or installed in a way that will not cause injury if struck by a vehicle.????

4.2.2

Memorials must not be installed in a permanent manner, i.e., no concrete footings, no digging or excavation.?

4.2.3

Memorials must be secured to prevent dispersion by weather conditions, i.e., secured with tape, tent peg or similar non invasive method.

4.2.4

Roadside memorials may vary in size but should not be greater than 1 (one) metre high and should not pose any safety hazard to the public in the views of Penrith Council.

4.2.5

Construction of any structure within a road corridor for a private or personal purpose is not permitted, i.e., permanent memorial.

4.3 Maintenance

4.3.1

Council does not accept responsibility for the maintenance of any roadside memorial, or any damage to the memorial due to damage or vandalism.

4.4 Removal

4.4.1

Memorials that fall into disrepair, are damaged, vandalised or burned will be removed at the discretion of Council.

4.4.2

Council reserves the right to remove a memorial should it impede road maintenance or construction activities.?

4.4.3

Council reserves the right to remove, without notice, any memorial that does not comply with the guidelines of this policy.

4.4.4

Any objection of complaint from nearby residents or from road users regarding any aspects of memorials, including the activity of visitors to the memorial, will be carefully considered and if necessary may result in the memorial being relocated or removed.

4.4.5

Council reserves the right to remove any memorial that contravenes the NSW Roads Act.

4.5. Other

4.5.1

Council does not accept any liability that may arise out of the erection or maintenance of any roadside memorial.

4.5.2

Persons erecting or visiting a roadside memorial do so at their own risk.

?4.5.3

Provided that these policy guidelines are followed, no consent is required from Council for the erection of a roadside memorial.

Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 July 2012

A Liveable City

Compulsory Desexing of Dogs and Cats Sold or Re-Homed from Council's Contracted Animal Holding Facility???

Compiled by:?????????????? Noel Fuller, Co-ordinator Ranger and Animal Services

Authorised by:??????????? Tracy Chalk, Waste and Community Protection Manager ?

Requested By:???????????? Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Objective	Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities
Community Outcome	A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)
Strategic Response	Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

???????

Presentation:? Noel Fuller and Tracy Chalk

Executive Summary

At Council?s Ordinary Meeting of 25 June 2012 Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report on the compulsory desexing of dogs and cats sold or re-homed from Council's contracted animal holding facility.

This report supports the compulsory desexing of companion animals sold or released to rescue agencies by Council?s contracted animal holding facility to address the growing concern that by providing undesexed animals for sale, Council is contributing to the issues surrounding what are commonly called "puppy farms". It is felt that "puppy farm" breeders are gaining their breeding stock from facilities that do not have such a policy in place. These operations are known to breed excessive numbers of animals for financial gain, while creating unsatisfactory housing conditions for the breeding of cats and dogs which suffer as a result of these inhumane practices.

The report serves to inform of the adoption of a new desexing policy for all companion animals (dogs and cats) sold or released to rescue agencies on behalf of Penrith City Council by Council?s animal holding facility contractor-Hawkesbury City Council.

Background

Blacktown City Council recently introduced a policy of compulsory desexing for all animals sold from their animal shelter. This has resulted in an increase in the number of enquiries at Hawkesbury Companion Animal Shelter (Council?s contractor) for undesexed dogs from persons who may be involved in "puppy farming".

On 26 June 2012 Hawkesbury City Council resolved to gain public comment on the creation of a new policy for mandatory desexing of dogs and cats sold from the Hawkesbury Animal Shelter.

The proposed methodology of how the program would operate is as follows:

(a)???? A person wishing to purchase a cat or dog from the Shelter makes the full payment to Council?s contractor, which covers the veterinary costs that will be administered by one of their participating Veterinary Clinics

(b)???? The prospective animal owner selects, from a list of participating Veterinarians, which Veterinary Clinic they would like to use

(c)???? The animal is "fasted" that night and delivered to the Veterinary Clinic the next morning by Shelter staff or Shelter volunteers

(d)???? The desexing procedure is carried out by the Veterinary Clinic.? The animal would be ready for collection by the new owner that afternoon and given instructions by the Veterinary Clinic on how to care for the animal after surgery

(e)???? The Veterinary Clinic sends through, via email or fax, the desexing certificate so that Council?s contractor can process the animal's registration at the reduced statutory cost

(f)????? The Veterinary Clinic sends an invoice weekly for the cost of the veterinary work they have performed on behalf of the Shelter for payment

The above are the basic principles under which the program would operate. However, there are other situations, such as animals too young to be desexed, which will be administered by a voucher system, or animals in oestrus (?on heat?) that will require alternate methods of care and treatment.?? This is currently being discussed with participating Veterinary Clinics by Council?s contractor.

Whilst the cost to purchase a cat or dog from the Shelter will rise, evidence from other facilities that have introduced similar programs, shows that purchasers are happy to pay the additional costs, knowing that the animal has been checked by a veterinarian, immunised (on entry into the Shelter) and desexed for much less than it would have cost for these procedures to be undertaken independently of this proposed program.

It is hoped that the program will increase Council's current re-homing rate of companion animals from the Shelter, which is approximately 86% per annum for dogs.

It is proposed that Council?s contractor will review the program after 12 months from the time of commencement to determine:

???????? any positive or negative effects of the program on re-homing numbers of cats and dogs;

???????? if there is a reduction in the number of homeless animals being delivered to the Shelter

The proposed costs to run this program will be covered by new fees and charges associated with the purchase of an animal from the Hawkesbury City Companion Animal Shelter.

Current Total Cost Dog	Proposed Sale Fee for Dogs		Current Total Cost Cats	Proposed Sale Fee? for Cats
$93.00? to? $228.00	*Sale Fee	$295.00	$46.00? to? $181.00	*Sale Fee	$200.00
	Pensioner Concession Sale Fee	$270.00		Pensioner Concession Sale Fee	$175.00

* The sale fee includes registration costs of the animal and desexing charges

Penrith City Council residents registering Dogs and Cats directly with Penrith City Council pay the following fees.

???? $15.00 (pensioner - desexed animal)

???? $40.00 (non pensioner ? desexed animal)

???? $150.00 (non desexed animal)

This fee structure is intended to promote responsible dog ownership and desexing of companion animals.

In the event that Hawkesbury City Council adopts their proposed policy, a further report will be provided to Council detailing this Council?s current fees and charges and proposed changes.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Compulsory Desexing of Dogs and Cats Sold or Re-Homed from Council's Contracted Animal Holding Facility be received.

2.???? Subject to adoption by Hawkesbury City Council, Penrith City Council accept the new desexing policy for all companion animals (dogs and cats) sold or released to rescue agencies on behalf of Penrith City Council by Council?s animal holding facility contractor.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?

?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

Objective	We demonstrate leadership, foster resilience and tenacity, and encourage innovation
Community Outcome	A Regional City that provides our jobs, education, services and entertainment (1)
Strategic Response	Share aspirations and work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City (1.2)

1. ?	Draft Brand Policy	4 Pages	Appendix
2. ?	Brand Use Guidelines for External Partners	2 Pages	Appendix